First preached in March 2003 at the beginning of the war with Iraq

Before we can make comments on the conflict between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza, or on the Iraq war, we must answer an even more basic question. Is war EVER right? Some Christians say no. The last Pope maintained that violence will never be the answer to the world’s problems. Can war EVER be right?

What does God think? Is God is for war or against war? If you think God is for war then think about Jesus’ words: “Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of God.” If, on the other hand, you think that God is against war, then what about all those parts of the Old Testament where God commanded war and went before his people in war.

In general God is against war. But God is also against sin. The problem is we cannot get rid of either of them. We must live in a fallen world where both are inevitable.

But what about the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Listen to these words of the Lord Jesus Christ. “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God.”
“You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
“You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

And how about ROMANS 12: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath.
Read what happened in Matthew 26:49-52, when the apostle Peter attacked those who came to arrest Jesus and Jesus commanded him to put his sword away. “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” In the Second Century Tertullian wrote, “In disarming Peter, Jesus disarmed all soldiers. … We cannot kill anybody for whom Christ died.” Our Baptist ancestors the Anabaptists, together with the Brethren and more recently the Mennonites and the Quakers, have strongly defended the cause of pacifism and non-violence. Pacifists would say, “We believe all retaliation does is escalate the violence. Someone has to have the courage to say that the violence stops here.” This is the basic pacifist argument against the use of force. In their understanding the use of force is the direct opposite to loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Love and war are never compatible.

But whilst some Christians of all traditions have been pacifists, the majority of Christians have not. The picture may be just a bit more complicated than at first sight.
In this sin-spoiled world, it is just possible that there could be some situations when violence, though undesirable, becomes necessary.

What about SELF DEFENCE – a “Kill or be killed” situation?

Jesus allowed his disciples to carry swords. At one point Jesus even said, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Lk 2:36). And those swords were for self-defence. Consider a situation where you are standing beside a steep drop and somebody is rushing towards you wanting to push you off. If you step to one side they will fall, if you don’t step aside and they push you will certainly fall. Are you morally obliged to let them push you to your death? Or are you allowed, with great regrets, to step to one side so they fall to their death. Self-defence is a legitimate defence in law courts throughout the world.

But Christians are obliged to “love their enemies” and commanded “Do not resist an evil person” and “turn the other cheek.” So some Christian pacifists believe that even in that extreme circumstance where an attacker could take your life, self-defence is not an option. They believe that Christian pacifism requires us to follow in Christ’s steps and endure suffering rather than ever cause suffering to others.

But what if the attack is not directed against me, but against somebody else, perhaps somebody I love but equally somebody I don’t even know. It is one thing to choose not to defend myself. It is another thing to refuse to help somebody else whose suffering I could prevent if I were to act.

What about defending the innocent and the powerless?

As an example of loving your neighbour, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan. But what if the Good Samaritan had come along while the robbers were beating up the man? Would he have been expected to stand back until the robbery had finished so he could then step in to pick up the pieces. Or would the Good Samaritan have waded in to stop the beating, even if that had involved violence? Which response would have been “loving your neighbour”? To stand by and watch innocent suffering, or get involved to prevent that suffering?

A Christian witnesses an innocent child being abused. Should the Christian who is committed to non-violence and to peacemaking stand by and watch the suffering? Or should the Christian take action, even if that has to be violent action, to rescue the child? Would I as a loving parent resort to violence if that was absolutely the only way to stop my children from coming to serious harm. Of course I would. With great sadness, but I would.

We live a world heading for judgement because of sin. In this fallen world, ethics can sometimes be very messy. It may not always be possible to avoid doing wrong. Sometimes it may come down to having to choose between two different kinds of evil. A man driving his seriously ill wife to hospital may choose to break the speed limits in order to get her to medical help as quickly as possible. The command to “love our neighbour” may often lead us to difficult choices about which neighbour to love and which to leave unloved in a world where resources to help are often dwarfed by the scale of human suffering. And just occasionally the command to love our neighbours must take priority over loving our enemy when that enemy is intent on murdering those neighbours.
Should this “loving my neighbour” have limits? In the Sixth of the Ten Commandments the Bible says, “Do not kill. Do not commit murder.” Could it ever be right to break that commandment? There many examples in the Old Testament where God actually did command his chosen people to kill others (think of David and Goliath, or of the many offences where God commanded the death penalty).

It is not difficult to conceive of situations where, undesirable as it would be, it could be judged to be morally the “right” action to kill another person. A maniac has his finger on the trigger of a weapon of mass destruction which would kill thousands. A suicide bomber is counting down to blowing himself and his hostages to pieces. If the only way to stop the inevitable death of innocent people is for a police marksman to execute the intending murderer, that could be the right action to take. In extreme circumstances like these, to “love the enemy” and “not resist an evil person” by refusing to act against that one evil enemy would be failing to show love for the many innocent people who would die.

Then there is also another reason why we need to think more deeply about Jesus’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Because the Sermon on the Mount was directed at individual disciples, but when it comes to world events, there is an important distinction between the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the rights and responsibilities of nations, communities, and states.

Even if individuals are obliged to follow a code of pacifism, this doesn’t necessarily mean that nations are not permitted to use violence to defend their people. In fact the reverse holds. Individuals should be free to take a stance of non-violence precisely because it is the right and duty of the community and the government and the state to protect them from evil. So many Christians argue that for the purpose of protecting the individuals, the state has the right to use reasonable force to resist evil. Police should have the right to force to restrain the evil of murder and violent robbery. Armies should be authorised to use force to resist invasion from outside the state or community.

So what about civil authorities using force to uphold justice and restrain evil?

This right and responsibility is very clear in ROMANS 13:1-6. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
The Bible clearly implies here that human sin is so serious that sometimes a violent response, even a lethal response is absolutely necessary and appropriate. “Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil, and the magistrate does not bare the sword in vain.”
There may be times when use of the sword becomes necessary. Firstly, in defending others. There comes a time when concern for the innocent and protection of those that cannot protect themselves demand the option of a violent response. Secondly, for deterrence. If an enemy knows that he is going to pay a very high price if he does something wrong, he will be more hesitant to do it. When good people do not have arms, you know that evil people will be armed every single time!

There’s a tension here between the ethics the Sermon on the Mount commands for individuals and the rights and responsibilities God gives to rulers and magistrates and the state protecting its people and punishing evil in Romans 13. New Testament ethics for individuals are different to the responsibilities of national leaders. Like I said, we live in a fallen world. Ethics can be a messy business.

We do find the same powers to use violence when necessary given to human authorities in 1 PETER 2:13
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

The Bible recognizes that if there were no enforcers of justice, chaos would prevail. But note that it is the community or the state which should be the vehicle of retributive justice, and never the individual. With all those offences in the Old Testament which are to carry the death penalty, it was the whole community who were commanded to carry out the punishment by stoning. All Israel stoned the guilty, all Israel bore part of the responsibility, so it was no individual’s responsibility as such.

Romans 12:18 commands, “as much as is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” We are instructed to seek peace in every situation, and we are to be sure that if peace is taken away, it is not because of an action for which we are responsible. But Paul recognizes that circumstances in life can arise when we cannot live in peace, for whatever reason. Romans 13 tells us that, at that point, a response of force by the ruling authorities may be allowed, and even required.

The classic Christian pacifists did not deny this was the duty of political authorities. For classic pacifists political authorities are not only permitted by God to wield the sword for the sake of justice, order and peace, but are required to do so by God Himself, whether or not they personally acknowledge God as the ultimate source of their authority to do so.
Our Baptist forefathers in the 16th century the Anabaptists believed it would be wrong for Christians to become governors or rulers or magistrates. This was precisely because Christian rulers or magistrates would sometimes be obliged to use or order violence in the course of their duties. The Anabaptists recognised very clearly that public authorities had a mandate from God to do what they felt they as Christians were prohibited from doing:
One of their confessions of faith declares this. “The sword punishes and kills people and protects and defends the good. In the law the sword is established to punish and to kill the wicked, and secular authorities are established to use it.”

Through history classic Christian pacifists never questioned whether or not public authorities were authorized to punish evildoers by death and by waging war if necessary. The issue for them was whether Christians may legitimately hold a political office. They fully accepted that political authority could legitimately employ even lethal force when necessary.

So whilst many Christians have been pacifists, the majority have not. They have recognised the right to self-defence, and the obligation to love our neighbour by protecting the innocent and the defenceless. They have recognised the duty of the state authorities to restrain evil and punish evildoers, both within the state and threatening the state from outside.

And how does all this apply to war? Is war always wrong? The majority of Christians have always believed, and I believe the Bible teaches, that WAR IS ALWAYS A TRAGEDY. But in this fallen world, where all it needs for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, we need to recognise that ON RARE OCCASIONS, THE ALTERNATIVES TO WAR CAN BE WORSE THAN WAR.

Somebody has said, “The failure to fight a just war may be a failure to love. “We … fight just wars because they’re acts of charity. Fighting just wars … is something Christians ought to do out of love for God and neighbor …” A just war is an act of love because it brings justice, it restrains evildoers, and promotes the peace and well-being of the community. Ridding the world of evil — by legitimate means — is a good and loving act.”

Thomas Aquinas regarded war as an expression of charity, the love of God and neighbor. He applauded those who wielded the sword in protection of the community. John Calvin called the soldier an “agent of God’s love,” and he called soldiering justly a “God-like act.” Because “restraining evil out of love for neighbor” is an imitation of God’s restraining evil out of love for His creatures.

A world where Christians refused to fight wars wouldn’t be more peaceful, and it wouldn’t be a more just world. It would be a world where evil would be unchecked by justice and where the strong would be free to prey on the weak. Fighting just wars when necessary takes sin seriously and so provides — strange as it may sound — a loving response.

C.S.Lewis encouraged soldiers to take pride in fighting the forces of evil. But he warned against a love of killing. “We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it,” “Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves — to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good.” Loving our enemies means “Wishing his good.” It does not mean “feeling fond of him or saying he is nice when he is not.”

So going to war MAY in some circumstances be justifiable. But what are those circumstances, and do they apply at this time? I have used the phrase, “a just war.” Many politicians have used that phrase recently – and many have abused it. To find out what Christians mean by a “just war”, a war fought for justifiable reasons and using fair and just methods, you’ll have to listen to the next sermon!