APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, August 21, 2014
War or peace?
Which
would you choose: war or peace? Peace, surely.
But
what about these options: war or a peace at home which permits a murderous
tyranny in other countries, a tyranny bent on world conquest?
In
such a scenario, if peaceful diplomatic efforts are ineffective and cost the lives
of large and growing numbers of innocents, I would choose war—just war.
I
would choose just war as a last resort, with reluctance, to protect innocents
from evil aggressors. Lethal force would be limited to what's needed, protecting
non-combatants, aiming for a just peace.
Bear
with me as I address three objections.
Objection
1. The Bible commands "Do not kill."
No,
the Bible commands "Do not murder." Killing and murder are different
morally. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
Think
of a police officer who must kill someone engaged in a deadly shooting spree in
a school. The police officer doesn't murder; the killer of the students murders.
The police officer kills the murderer to protect innocents; the murderer kills
innocents. The police officer kills justly; the murderer kills unjustly.
Objection
2. Jesus said: "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on
the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Yes,
Jesus said this, but this has to do with personal relationships, not matters of
government. It has to do with a backhand slap to the face, which in Jesus'
culture is an insult. It means that if someone insults you, suck it up.
Context
is important. Jesus is talking to individuals about how to relate to one
another within a society ruled by a foreign power. Jesus is not talking about
the affairs of state. (About the affairs of state, Paul in Romans 13 says the
state legitimately bears the sword and is God’s agent of wrath.)
C.
S. Lewis, in his essay "Why I am not a Pacifist," points out that
Jesus' audience consists of a "private people in a disarmed nation"
and "war was not what they would have been thinking of."
Also,
Lewis asks: "Does anyone suppose
that our Lord’s hearers understood him to mean that if a homicidal maniac,
attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must
stand aside and let him get his victim?" For Lewis, context renders such
an understanding impossible.
The
turn-the-other-cheek passage, then, doesn't mean we shouldn't use force to
protect others.
Interestingly,
Jesus even commends a centurion—a soldier—for his faith.
Objection
3. Aren't we supposed to love our neighbours? Doesn't love preclude war?
Yes,
we should love our neighbours. No, love doesn't preclude war.
Here
I side with Augustine (354-430 AD). According to Augustine, love of neighbour sometimes
requires that we use violence to protect our neighbour, as when our neighbour
is threatened by an assailant.
In
the name of love, according to Augustine, we may have to use military force—a lethal
force—to stop an army from murdering innocent neighbours.
Reminder:
Not all killing is murder. Think again of the good police officer who justly
kills a rampaging killer of innocents. Soldiers—just soldiers—are like that
good police officer.
Of
course, much more can (and should) be said.
I
am neither a warmonger nor a pacifist. I believe that sometimes violent force
is justified—as in police situations and on a larger scale when military force
is needed—to protect innocents from aggressive, murderous thugs.
Just
war is never completely just, to be sure, and it's terrible.
But
a so-called "peace" that permits large and growing numbers of innocent
men, women, and children to be raped, tortured, cut in half, beheaded, and slaughtered
is worse—much worse.
Further reading:
- Daniel M. Bell, Just War as Christian Discipleship: Recentering the Tradition in the Church rather than the State
- J. Daryl Charles, Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition
- C. S. Lewis, "Why I am not a Pacifist," in The Weight of Glory (etc.)
- J. Warner Wallace, "Is Jesus a pacifist?"