Jesus taught love and peace. Soldiers kill.
How on Earth can you be a Christian and a soldier at the same time? Believe me, I spent all of my 36 years in the military wrestling with this. And that much reflection has produced volumes of notes. Here is a short synopsis:
The warrior God
You don’t have to read very much of the Book of Joshua to realize that our God has no real problems with armies, conquest, imperialism and even genocide. This does not seem to be the gospel preached by Jesus, but in fact it is one and the same God! If God detests war and soldiers, why did he command so much war and bless soldiers such as Joshua and David? If we perceive a conflict, we must misunderstand who God is.
Thou shalt not kill
Kill is a very inaccurate translation, unfortunately used in the King James Version. Almost all modern translations use the more accurate word murder. As C.S. Lewis said, “All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery.” The difference, of course, is hatred. Soldiers should kill because it is their duty and because they believe in a cause — not because they hate the enemies personally. Matthew 5:21-26 makes it clear that the sin in murder is hatred, not killing.
Pacifism
On the surface, many of Jesus’ sayings appear to be pacifist, but only if you make words uttered in a specific context universally applicable.
Matthew 26:52 records Jesus as saying, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Is Jesus saying i) anyone who tries to prevent his arrest will be killed; ii) anyone who participates in an uprising against Rome will be killed; or iii) anyone who is a soldier is damned? The last possibility makes no sense.
Matthew 5:39-44 has Jesus saying, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also… love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” But the context is the Beatitudes, directions for individual loving behavior, and these words prohibit hatred. It is an unreasonable stretch to apply this to society rather than individuals.
Defiance
Jesus did not spend his ministry submitting to power; he spent his ministry defying power. He had little but contempt for King Herod [Luke 23:8-12], church leaders [Matthew 3:7], and the Roman governor Pilate [Matthew 27:11-14]. And his disdain was not limited to non-violent resistance: in John 2:15 he made a whip out of cords, drove all from the temple courts, and overturned their tables. Not passive!
Roman soldiers
Jesus lived in a country under military occupation, and he often encountered Roman soldiers. And on every occasion he had nothing but kind words for them. In Luke 3:14 John did not tell the soldiers he was baptizing to quit, he only told them to be honest; in Luke 7:1-9 Jesus praised the centurion for his great faith; and in Luke 23:34 Jesus forgave the soldiers who were crucifying him! This does not sound like a man opposed to the profession of arms.
Just War
St Augustine started a fifteen-century-long debate among Christians about just war. I sincerely believe that there are just wars. But I won’t repeat his arguments here; I suggest you have a look at wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
I could go on at length on any of these and a number of other lines of reasoning. But I hope that this has served as a nice introduction to the topic for you.
And even more importantly, I hope you think long and hard about not whether Jesus wants you to bear arms, but how Jesus wants you to bear arms!
Hi there, I realize that this is an old post. There are a lot of valid points here. What I struggle with isn't that war is never justified. I think for sure it is at times, but my issue is that I think a lot of the wars that we see today do not qualify as just wars.
ReplyDeleteI respect and value everyone who has served or currently serves in the military; I would have trouble doing so myself however, partly because of this, because I'd have a really hard time simply going into war out of obedience to my superiors if I'm convinced it is unjust or unjustified. For example, a war can be unjust simply because it might be highly unrealistic to expect that it would accomplish the desired purpose, and yet based on level-headed analysis, it could be reasonably expected to lead to much destruction that's worse than what would ensue from leaving the issue alone - as problematic as the latter might be. In other words, the benefits must justify the costs, and I believe that when it comes to war, it should be a really high bar. Then there are even worse examples of unjust wars, like ones built on lies and that are based on a hidden agenda.