War – The Debate
Tonight we’re going to run a debate on war. Before we start, there are a few ground rules that have to be
followed.
 First is that you may not agree with the view that you’ve been given, but you must try and see what
that perspective is through the eyes of someone who does. So keeping your own biases out of the
equation might be a hard one, but do your best to present your view as best as you can.
 Second is that when we’re in the debate we’re not actually at war ourselves! That means that you’re
not to be hurtful in the way you rebut other people’s comments and this isn’t something that needs to
escalate outside of tonight’s disussion. We’re not having a debate to see who is best at firing back a
cutting comment or who can yell the loudest.
 Third is that the way we will run the debate is that we’ll start with a 20 minute preparation time where
each team will be given pens and paper and information to look at, they will have to pick their
spokesperson who will be delivering their information to the group. Then we’ll choose numbers out of
a hat to see who goes first and no other teams can talk or scoff or tut or anything while the other team
has their go. Each team will have 3 minutes in their first round to give their arguments (with a 30
second warning after 2 min 30 sec) then after the first round we’ll have a ten minute break for the
teams to get together their rebuttals, then each team will have the opportunity to rebut the other
teams in a further 3 minute round.
 Lastly, we won’t be having any winners or loosers from the debate, but instead at the end we’ll be
talking through how we thought it all went, then getting each of our honest opinions of what we really
think is the right answer to war, if there is one.
Should Christians support and/or fight in a war?
There are 3 main Christian views on war, so we’re going to have a 3 way debate? pacifism, just war and
Christian realism
Christians throughout history have recognized that the formulation of a doctrine of war or approach to war
is a theological and biblical deduction based upon the interpretation of numerous passages in the Bible (cf.
Eccles. 3:1, 8; Matt. 5:44; 24:6-7; Acts 10:1-23; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). How those passages
are interpreted determines the position that one holds. There is no "red letter" biblical doctrine of war.
Thus the issue is not "what is the Bible's view of war" but, "what view best interprets and reflects the
biblical passages regarding war?"
Pacifism
Definition: The Biblical impulse: the pacifist tradition sees Jesus’ commands to “love our enemies and pray
for those who persecute you” and “turn the other cheek.” Indeed, here we find the basic appeal is to the
Christian principle that love overcomes all evil.
Give me the money that has been spent in war, and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of
which kings and queens would be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I
will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to the gospel of peace. I will support in every
pulpit an able teacher of righteousness so that on every Sabbath morning the chime on one hill should
answer to the chime on another round the earth's wide circumference; and the voice of prayer and the
song of praise should ascend like an universal holocaust to heaven.
Charles Sumner (1811–1874)
If Christian nations were nations of Christians, there would be no wars.
Soame Jenyns (1704–1787)
Older men declare war. But it is youth who must fight and die. And it is youth who must inherit the
tribulation, the sorrow, and the triumphs that are the aftermath of war.
Herbert Hoover (1874–1964)
The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst.
Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878–1969)
Elements Of A Pacifist Viewpoint:
Violence is absolutely inconsistent with the Law of Love - as preached by Jesus. Myron Augsberger asks
“How can we kill another human being for whom Jesus died?” How can we adopt the attitude that “Jesus
loves you, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to kill you?”
It is better to suffer violence than to commit it - Christ Himself refused to sanction violence but rather
suffered on the cross, even unto death. He never told his disciples to kill but to submit.
Violence is a result of our idolatry - if we were not such materialists and capitalists we wouldn't feel the
need to protect ourselves and our property by means of violence. As Stanley Hauerwas observes it is our
sinful attachment to things that requires the use of violence in defense of them.
The use of violence shows a lack of faith - when we resort to the use of violence we are engaging in the
practices of the world and we show that we are not truly disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, who conquered
death not by violence but by submission to the will of God.
From Kenneth LaTourette's History of Christianity, Vol I: "For the first three centuries no Christian writing
which has survived to our time condoned Christian participation in war." (pp. 242-243) Hippolytus of Rome,
Tertullian, and Origen all argued the necessity of universal Christian pacifism, against criticism from the
dominant Roman culture.
Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of
views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute
opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances.
Pacifism may be based on principle or pragmatism. Principled (or Deontological) pacifism is based on beliefs
that either war, deliberate lethal force, violence or any force or coercion is morally wrong. Pragmatic (or
Consequential) pacifism does not hold to such an absolute principle but considers there to be better ways
of resolving a dispute than war or considers the benefits of a war to be outweighed by the costs.
Pacifism for today
We’ve all seen the pictures of desolation. Destroyed homes. Broken bodies. Freshly made orphans.
Communities in flames. The images of military conflict. And surely we’ve asked ourselves, “How could this
be the will of God?”
Pacifism is the belief that violence, war, and the taking of life are unacceptable and inadequate ways of
resolving conflict. A pacifist is not passive (doing nothing), but looks for peaceful solutions. The pacifist
seeks non-violent ways of bringing about needed change, addressing the root of the evil rather than the
expression of the evil. Once the norm in Churches of Christ, pacifism has become uncommon.
Living and ministering in a military community, I know many Christian soldiers and their families, and I’m
not condemning anyone. But honest examination of the place of violence in a Christian worldview includes
a look at pacifism. This is not a debate over how to best change the world. Christian ethics are based on
what is morally right, not on what is most effective. The life of Jesus and the road that led to the cross
followed the path of non-violence – and Christians are called to follow in his footsteps.
This overview will briefly mention the example of Jesus, the teaching of Jesus, and the teaching of Paul
regarding violence and retaliation. By the nature of this article, this is not an in-depth study. I pray that it
challenges you to think about these issues and provides an opening for dialogue.
The Example of Jesus
The consistent example of Christ is one of non-violence and non-retaliation. In the crucifixion story, for
example, one point is consistently emphasized: Jesus did not retaliate when he was arrested, insulted,
beaten, and, ultimately, executed. This point is also made in prophecy about Jesus (Isaiah 53), and by Peter
who encouraged Christians through the example of Christ to be faithful under persecution (1 Peter 2.2125). The example of Jesus is one of endurance in the face of injustice, physical attack, and personal insult.
And just in case we think this example of Jesus irrelevant to us today, Jesus made it clear that the path of
discipleship is the path of the cross: ‘If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up
his cross and follow me’ (Matthew 16.24, New American Standard Bible).
The Teachings of Jesus
Jesus’ teaching is consistently non-violent. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for example, Jesus
teaches that peace and forgiveness are hallmarks of Christian life. He says that peacemakers are children of
God (Matthew 5.9). He says emphatically that Christianity leaves no room for retaliation. When a Christian
is wronged, he does not resist the evildoer, but instead goes the extra mile, turns the other cheek, and
gives more than expected (Matthew 5.38-41). When a Christian is persecuted, she loves and prays for the
persecutor (Matthew 5.43-45). In fact, Jesus is specifically talking about love for enemies when he says
‘Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect’ (Matthew 5.48). Christian perfection
(or maturity) shows in how we treat our enemies. How can one who is following the teaching of Jesus say
that it is right to kill our enemies?
The Teachings of Paul
These teachings of Jesus echo in Paul’s writings, such as Romans 12.14-21. Paul commands us to bless
those who persecute us and says we are never to repay evil for evil to anyone. Instead, we are to meet the
needs of our enemies – provide food when they are hungry and water when they are thirsty. The clincher is
verse 21: ‘Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.’ Could anyone declare that war is truly
good? At best warfare is a lesser evil. But Paul commands us to overcome evil with good.
Conclusion
We have briefly sampled the example of Christ, the teachings of Christ, and the teachings of Paul regarding
non-violence and non-retaliation. But we have barely scratched the surface. Other issues include:

Christians killing Christians in war.

The sanctity of life.

Heavenly vs. earthly citizenship.

Making right what is fundamentally sinful (when is killing good?).

God-directed war (Old Testament).

The “Just War” Theories.
All of these issues require more examination and dialogue. There are no easy answers regarding Christ-like
living in a fallen world. I pray that our search for truth will spur each of us to greater prayer and study as we
seek to take up our crosses and follow Jesus.
Jesus was clearly a revolutionary thinker who challenged the seemingly natural idea of retribution. Rather
than vengeance, Jesus commanded forgiveness (Mt. 18:22). Instead of the pagan ideals of strength and
power, Jesus offered the Christian ideals of humility and meekness (Mt. 5:5). Jesus went so far as to
demand that His disciples love their enemies (Mt. 5:44).
The above is not in dispute. Even most atheists would agree that Jesus’s teachings were wise precepts
concerning the uselessness of hatred and revenge. But did Jesus literally require pacifism?
A straightforward reading would suggest that He did. He literally (given the translation) commanded
"whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mt. 5:39). But perhaps this was
just a specific rule? Well, immediately before this famous injunction, Jesus also gave the general rule,
forbidding resistance to evil. It is this passage that inspired Christian pacifists such as William Lloyd Garrison
and Leo Tolstoy, and I find their interpretation entirely plausible.
Just War Theory
Just war refers to the concept of warfare as being justified, typically in accordance with a particular
situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, politics, tradition, or historical
commentary. Distinctions include:

the Just War tradition - is a philosophical "method" for determining whether a war can be justified from
a moral standpoint and a tradition going back at least to Augustine of Hippo.
 Just War theory - on the recent political doctrines reinterpreting the concept of "Just war" as a
justification for military aggression and imperialism.
War is kinder than a godless peace.
Geoffrey Anketell Studdert-Kennedy (1883–1929)
Definition: The just war approach is based upon the moral theory known as “natural law morality.”
According to natural law morality, all people know that certain kinds of behavior are immoral, irrespective
of their own religious loyalties. Thus, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians all declare murder,
theft, and dishonesty as immoral. But this applies not only within a society but across all cultures. So, the
Nazis, following WW II were tried and convicted for their “crimes against humanity,” a result of natural law
morality employed by the international community.
The biblical impulse here is that justice must be our guiding principle. God always demands justice and
especially so when people are being oppressed. Greater evils will be prevented if we engage in war on
behalf of the innocent and those who have been victimized.
Not only justice, but Christian love for the victimized may also motivate the just war theorist. Does God
prefer that evil people who hate should triumph over those who practice love?
Elements Of The Just War Theory:
Declaration by a lawful government - war is not declared or waged by private citizens or by pirates or other
usurpers.
Just cause - such as self-defense or to redress some grievous injury to a nation-state.
Just intent- such as the restoration of a just peace.
Last resort- all other means for resolving the conflict must be thoroughly explored first.
Immunity of non-combatants - under no circumstances are non-combatants to engage in the conflict or be
targeted by the enemy.
The just war theorist appeals to the idea of retributive justice as seen particularly in civil punishment. Just
as the government of a state has the responsibility to punish those citizens that harm the common good, so
too, the government has the responsibility to punish those who are not citizens and harm the common
good. That is, any enemy of the state that threatens the well-being of the state can, and should, be
punished.
Of course there is one very real problem for this analogy. While an individual citizen may appeal to the
state as an arbiter and judge in matters of internal political quarrels, there is no such judge in international
affairs. And so matters of justice often simply become matters of political interest with the strongest
imposing its will on the weakest.
Just a war or just war?
The just war tradition developed over hundreds of years. It was heavily influenced by Christianity, but it has
also drawn some from Roman law and Greek philosophy. A list of just war criteria has emerged over the
centuries for judging the appropriateness of going to war and to govern the conduct of military forces in
war. Before looking at the criteria, it is worth noting the presuppositions of just war theory. There are four
presuppositions of just war(2):
The just war position recognizes that some evil cannot be avoided. In our actions and moral decisions in life
we strive for a biblical perspective. We strive to apply black and white in a world of gray, and sometimes
"we are trapped in moral dilemmas whose roots lie in the past as well as the present, such that whatever
we do involves us in evil of some sort."(3) We can never underestimate the ramifications of sin.
1. The just war position is normative for all people, both Christian and non-Christian. It doesn't describe
how people do act, but how they should act and it applies to all people.
2. The just war position does not try to justify war. Rather, it attempts to bring war within the limits of
justice so that if everyone were guided by these principles, many wars would be eliminated.
3. The just war position assumes that individuals or private citizens do not have the right to use military
force. Only governments have such a right. Thus, the key issue is not whether an individual can fight in war,
but whether a government has the right to engage in armed conflict, and whether a citizen, Christian or not
should participate as an agent of that government.
What then are the criteria for war? There are two categories known as jus ad bellum (literally, "on the way
to war"), in which the criteria determine when resort to war is justifiable or when to go to war, and jus in
bello (literally, "in the midst of war"), in which the criteria dictate how war is to be justly conducted. What
then are the criteria or principles? Is there a checklist for engaging in war?
Principles of War
Within the two categories above there are seven principles or criteria for the just war. The first five
principles apply as a nation is "on the way to war" (jus ad bellum) and the final two apply to military forces
"in the midst of war" (jus in bello). Briefly, they are as follows:
Just cause--All aggression is condemned in just war theory. Participation in the war in question must be
prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only
defensive war is legitimate.
Just intention (right intention)--The war in question must have a just intention, that is, its intent must be to
secure a fair peace for all parties involved. Therefore, revenge, conquest, economic gain, and ideological
supremacy are not legitimate motives for going to war. There must be a belief that ultimately greater good
than harm will result from the war.
Last resort--The war in question must be engaged in only as a last resort. Other means of resolution such as
diplomacy and economic pressure must have been exhausted.
Formal declaration--The war in question must be initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted
authorities. Only governments can declare war, not individuals, terrorist organizations, mercenaries, or
militias.
Limited objectives--The war in question must be characterized by limited objectives. This means that
securing peace is the goal and purpose of going to war. The war must be waged in such a way that once
peace is attainable, hostilities cease. Complete destruction of a nation's political institutions or economic
institutions is an improper objective.
Proportionate means--Combatant forces of the opposition forces may not be subjected to greater harm
than is necessary to secure victory and peace. The types of weapons and amount of force used must be
limited to only what is needed to repel the aggression, deter future attacks, and secure a just peace.
Therefore, total or unlimited warfare is inappropriate. ("You don't burn down the barn to roast the pig.")
Noncombatant immunity--Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the
conflict and must abstain from attacking them. Since only governments can declare war, only governmental
forces or agents are legitimate targets. This means that prisoners of war, civilians, and casualties are
immune from intentional attacks.
The interpretation and application of these seven rules is not easy in modern warfare. Nor is there any
assurance that they will always receive strict adherence. Warfare is not clean or nice. It is horrible. These
principles are used, not to promulgate war, but to contain it. They are principles of containment, not
principles of conflagration. They are moral and ethical guidelines for attempting to minimize the death and
devastation that always accompany war.
So what?
The just war theory has three important functions. First, it seeks to limit the devastation and outbreak of
war. Second, the just war theory offers a common moral framework and language with which to discuss
issues of war in the public arena. As Christians and as citizens it gives us a starting point for discussion and
cultural engagement. Third, just war theory gives moral guidance to individuals in developing their
conscience, responsibilities, and response. When the war drums sound, they are often loud and there is
frequently confusion, competition, and chaos rather than clear thinking about the moral and biblical
consequences of what is occurring. Just war theory is a tool for responsible Christian living and citizenship.
A Fully Developed Theory
Although St. Augustine introduced the idea of a just war and the Middle Ages furthered its cause, it was not
until the 16th and 17th centuries that a complete theory, which included the proper waging of a war, was
established. Two names of importance regarding this development are Vitoria and Suarez. Fr. Conway, S.J.,
has synthesized their teaching. Hostilities are divided into two classes: an armed attack against a peaceful
society and injurious actions taken against the same (generally defined as an infringement of a right). The
first class from which an armed response resulted would be considered as a defensive war. This type of war
was distinguished from the second class hostility. An armed response to an injurious action was considered
an offensive or aggressive war. According to Vitoria and Suarez a defensive war needed "no special moral
justification."(10) They saw an armed response as an involuntary act forced upon a nation. On the other
hand, the aggressive war needed to be justified. An injurious action done does not involve destruction and
death so how was it possible for the Christian willfully to choose war as a response? The problem for them
arose from the conflict between a Christian wanting love and peace but responding with death and
destruction. So they proposed conditions under which a Christian could respond to injurious action while
preserving Christian values. So for them the just war conditions only apply to aggressive wars. The three
conditions of St. Thomas are retained by them in their theory. But they added two more: the war must be
fought as a last resort and in a proper manner (without killing the innocent).
Following the conditions outlined above moral theologians have tried to define them more explicitly.
Regarding an injurious act it was taught that "only an injury so grave that it outweighs the risks and losses
of war is a justification for making war" following the principle of double effect.(11) If such a weighty injury
does not exist then in charity one would have to tolerate the injustice. What are sufficient causes for war?
"Grave injury to the honor of a nation. . .to the natural right of the nation. . .to the rights of the nation
under positive law."(12) Examples of injury to honor would be insulting a ruler or ambassador. Natural right
injuries would include a nation's existence, property or freedom within their own nation. Violations of
positive law would include breaking international agreements or treaties. Injury done to another nation can
be grounds for entering into a war especially if one is allied to them or out of charity to protect them from a
stronger aggressive nation.
The idea of war being fought in a proper manner means that not all is fair to do in war. Three main areas of
discussion here are violent acts done against things connected with religion, against people and against
property.
Sacred places such as churches are not to be harmed unless there is a real military necessity. A church
could be used for military purposes and thus becomes a target of attack. Also it may happen that a church
is next to some military target and unintentionally is harmed by attacking it. Apart from these
circumstances they cannot be attacked.
People during war can be divided into various categories. Combatants are "all those who are engaged in the
actual promotion of war."(13) Direct combatants are the fighters themselves. Indirect combatants are the
unarmed helpers of the soldiers in military ways such as transporters of supplies, weapons producers, etc.
Noncombatants are those people who are members of the enemy nation that are chaplains, medical
personnel and civilians. Also there are neutral people who are not part of either warring party and are not
involved in the hostilities. The killing or wounding of enemy combatants falls under the natural law idea of
self-defense. The indirect killing of non-combatants or neutrals is permissible according to the principle of
double effect. But such killing must be unintentional and unavoidable. Direct killing of such people is
murder, that is, when it is intentional and avoidable.
The military property of one's enemy can be confiscated or destroyed just as one can do so against an
unjust aggressor. Public, non-military property may be occupied or movable goods can be appropriated.
Private property both movable and immovable must be respected and only taken for some necessary
purpose of war.
These are the main amplifications and developments of the conditions outlined for a just war. There are
other considerations that moralists have made but it is not our purpose to give an exhaustive analysis of it.
Arguments For a Just War
As we have already seen St. Augustine argues from the natural order of peace to the right of rulers to
declare war to maintain it. St. Thomas also sees the justification for war in the natural order but stresses
more the common good of the people. Scriptural passages are used to defend the just war. St. Thomas cites
another's commentary on the centurion that states, "'If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those
who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and
to give up soldiering altogether. . .If he (St. John the Baptist) commanded them to be content with their
pay, he did not forbid soldiering.'"(14) St. Thomas argues that St. Paul, as already mentioned, gives those in
authority the right to punish by the sword disturbers of their commonwealth's internal peace. Therefore it
is also their duty to use arms against a commonwealth's external enemies.
St. Thomas puts forward some counter arguments to war and refutes them. The first argument says that
God only punishes the sinner. Therefore when Our Lord told St. Peter that he who takes the sword will
perish by it all wars would be unlawful. To counter this argument St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine who says
that taking the sword is to be understood as arming oneself to kill another without the permission of
authority. In war the sword is taken with permission. The second argument refers to the Divine precept not
to resist evil. St. Augustine is referred to as saying such a precept is to be always kept in mind and when
necessary put into practice. On the other hand, sometimes it is necessary, St. Thomas says, to act
differently for the sake of the common good or the good of those one is fighting. Quoting St. Augustine a
reference is made to sometimes having to punish people with a kindly severity even against their will to
strip them of their sins. Finally an argument is put forward that sin is contrary to virtue. Since peace is a
virtue and war is contrary to it therefore it must be a sin. St. Thomas answers this similar to St. Augustine's
thought that the purpose of war is to bring about peace. Therefore it is not contrary to it. (Click here for the
full text of St. Thomas' Arguments in the Summa)
A more modern author cites Melchisedech blessing Abraham when he returns from a victorious war against
four kings as an example that war is "under the law of nature".(15) (Gen. 15; 18-20) God in the Old
Testament "many times ordered or approved of war, as can be seen from Exodus and following books in
numerous places."(16) In the New Testament a centurion was praised by Our Lord. (Matt. 8,10) Our Lord
used physical force against those doing evil. (Jn. 2,15) Cornelius a centurion is called a devout and Godfearing man. (Acts 10,2) St. Paul praises warriors in the Old Testament such as Gideon, Barac, Samson, etc.
(Heb. 11; 32-34) All these passages are seen as examples of God condoning war.
Regarding the Church the same author says she has never condemned war. The Church has always
promoted peace and tried to lessen the evils of war. Official declarations, Fathers and Doctors of the
Church have recognized that war is not necessarily sinful. The Church from necessity has even promoted
wars such as the Crusades and approved of military orders. Even soldiers such as Martin of Tours have been
declared saints.
In discussing the natural law, this author argues from individual rights to those of the State. Since an
individual can defend himself against unjust aggression so can the State. An individual is allowed to seek
justice for an injury or loss therefore the State can use force to compel another nation to make reparation.
These are some, although I'm sure not all, of the arguments for a just war.
Christian Realism
Christian Realism is a philosophy advocated by Reinhold Niebuhr. Christian Realists believe that the
"kingdom of heaven" ideal is one's supreme concern. Unfortunately, according to Niebuhr, the kingdom of
heaven can not be realized on Earth because of the innately corrupt tendencies of society. Due to the
natural injustices that arise on Earth, a person is therefore forced to compromise the reality of the kingdom
of heaven on Earth.
Definition: Developed by Reinhold Niebuhr. The Biblical impulse recognizes BOTH the absolute character of
the “law of love” as well as the universal presence of sin. We find here a devout adherence to the absolute
claims Christ makes on our lives to love, amidst the present reality of sin. Accordingly Romans chapter 7
sets the agenda here, where Paul says that whatever I do, evil is always present with me.
This attitude can be seen historically in the views of Martin Luther, the 16th century protestant German
reformer, who when confronted with an uprising of the Peasants said that "they should be put to the sword
- as any anarchist should." While we should be rightly disgusted at this callousness, the view can be seen in
a more sophisticated form in the works of one of the 20th centuries greatest theologians, Reinhold
Niebuhr.
Niebuhr says that “The Christian faith ought to persuade us that political controversies are always conflicts
between sinners and not between righteous men and sinners. It ought to mitigate the self-righteousness
which is an inevitable concomitant of all human conflict.” (Why the Christian Church is not Pacifist, 309)
The wars of the Lord are prominent in the OT, Num. 21:14, when God helped His ancient people against
their enemies, 1 Sam. 17:47; 1 Chr. 5:22. “The captain of the Lord's hosts,” Josh. 5:15; 23:10, led the armies
of Israel. Even the stars in their courses fought for them, Judg. 5:20. Some wars were fought to destroy
nations of unspeakable wickedness, Deut. 7:1-10; Lev. 18:24, 25.
Elements Of Christian Realism:
Humans are sinful - there is no area of human life that remains untouched by the effects of sin. Even socalled “just wars” are sinful.
War is evil - it is always a result of human sinfulness. It is part of the human condition
Christian hope is in God's grace amidst sin - while we may never be free from the ubiquitous consequences
of sin, we must steadfastly hold to the hope of grace found in Jesus Christ.
War may be necessary – in order to prevent greater evils.
Niebuhr says that the pacifist is wrong, that we must occasionally use violence against our enemies.
Niebuhr writes “The pacifists draw the conclusion from the fact that justice is never free from
vindictiveness, that we ought not for this reason ever to contend against a foe. This argument leaves out of
account that capitulation to the foe might well subject us to a worse vindictiveness. It is as foolish to
imagine that the foe is free of the sin which we deplore in ourselves as it is to regard ourselves as free from
the sin that we deplore in the foe.” (ibid. 309)
Historically, we can view the Civil War as the result of human selfishness and violence. Was it necessary?
Yes. But was it evil. Likewise, we must say “yes.”
A Christian, by definition, must be active - with his or her sleeves rolled up, being willing to get his hands
dirty protecting the innocent, defending the defenceless and saving lives from unprovoked aggression.
Christian love is not mere words and sentiments. True love shows itself in action. (1 John 3:18). If all the
people with a conscience refuse to fight then it will leave the battle fields in the hands of men without a
conscience.
The creator of all life (John 1:1-3) 'determines whether you live or die' - Daniel 5:23.
God killed everyone on earth, except Noah, his family and the animals - in THE FLOOD (Genesis 6:57;13;7:4;23).
God killed every Egyptian first-born as a judgement on Egypt and in order to free the Israelites on the night
of THE PASSOVER (Exodus 12:12;29).
God destroyed the Egyptian army in the RED SEA (Exodus 14:13-31; 15:1-18).
The Lord caused the earth to open up and swallow the Jews who rebelled against Moses (Numbers
16:20,21;23-35).
God killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers who were attacking Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:32-35).
God killed Annias and Sapphira because of their lying (Acts 5-1-11); and Herod because of his pride (Acts
12:23), and God continues to use 'My four dreadful judgments - sword and <starvation> and wild beasts
and plague' (Ezekiel 14:21), in order to lead sinful people to repent.
'I and I alone, am God; no other God s real. I kill and I give life, I wound and I heal, and no one can oppose
what do.' (Deuteronomy 32:39)
Our Lord Jesus may have been meek but He was never mild! His teaching was powerful, dynamic, direct
and uncompromising. This tough carpenter from Nazareth was able to survive forty days fasting in the
desert and forty lashes from the brutal Roman whip. He could walk hundreds of kilometers in the blazing
heat of Palestine's inhospitable terrain and He could walk through a murderous mob with such a presence
that no-one dared stop Him (Luke 4:28-30).
When Jesus saw how corrupt men were desecrating the temple with their money-grabbing greed, He made
a whip, overturned their tables and drove them forcibly from God's House (Matthew 21:12-13).
When Jesus returns to this world it will be as the conquering King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Bible
teaches us that the first time Jesus came as a Saviour - and all who turn from their sin and trust in Christ,
following Him in obedience, are saved. But when Jesus comes again it will be as Judge - and all who have
not repented and obeyed will be condemned and eternally punished. The Scripture warns us that when
Jesus returns He will annihilate the forces of the false church and the Antichrist. We are told that rivers of
blood will flow from the carnage of mankind's rebellion against Christ (Revelation 14:19-20).
'With justice He... makes war... He will rule them with an iron sceptre. He treads the winepress of the fury
of the wrath of God Almighty... King of Kings and Lord of Lords.' (Revelation 19:11,15,16).
We (Christians in war) are called to the hardest of all tasks: to fight without hatred, to resist without
bitterness, and in the end if God grant it so, to triumph without vindictiveness.
WILLIAM TEMPLE (1881–1944)
Finish by doing a bit of a debrief over what has been said
How do you think the debate went? Did anyone feel as though they were victomised or had personal
comments thrown at them (might need to heal some wounds). Did this kind of thing make you want to do
debates again, or scar you for life against them?
Did you agree with the position that was given to you? Was it a hard position to defend? Has that position
changed your views on the Christian response to war?
Is there ever a good reason to go to war? What kind of wars should Christians fight in? What would Jesus
do if he was in this situation and how does that effect us?
If another country was planning on attacking Australia and your way of life was set to change dramatically,
do you think you would be happy to defend your country from invasion?
Why are we so protective of our borders, isn’t the whole world God’s and we were just randomly born into
this country? Is it then important to defend our borders against attack?
In Revelation it talks of a time of war that leads up to Jesus’ return, perhaps it would be better for
Christians to support war, maybe that would enable Jesus to return sooner, right?
Conclusion
So with all this stuff on war to concider, who would actually want to go to fight and even die in a war that
you knew wouldn’t be appreciated by the people you were out to save? That would be a pretty tough thing
to give your life for. Surely we’d want a really good cause if we were going to risk our future’s for right?
The bible gives a great example of a worthwhile cause that God was so concerned about, he let his son go
to fight it.
Romans 5:6-8 6When we were unable to help ourselves, at the moment of our need, Christ died for us,
although we were living against God. 7Very few people will die to save the life of someone else. Although
perhaps for a good person someone might possibly die. 8But God shows his great love for us in this way:
Christ died for us while we were still sinners.
While we were still in a state of not loving or even caring about God, God still cared and loved us. That says
a lot about God, that he still loves us, even if we don’t show any love for him. It also shows that the wars
he fights are very worthwhile ones.