War and Bible

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, October 30, 2014

War and Bible

I am neither a pacifist nor a war-monger. I believe that sometimes (as a last resort) war is just, or at least more just than the alternatives. I believe, too, that my view is consistent with the Bible. Here are some relevant clarifications.

1. Genesis 9:6

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man.”

This biblical principle seems odd or even contradictory until we account for the biblical notions of guilt and shedding blood with/ without God’s approval.

Consider Genesis 9:6 plus my clarifications in brackets: “Whoever sheds the blood of man [whoever kills an innocent person, i.e., kills a human being without God’s permission], by man shall his blood be shed [the guilty person will be killed by others with God’s permission, i.e., God prescribes that other human agents kill the guilty person].”

So in the case of killing an innocent person (a capital crime), it’s possible to forfeit one’s life (via capital punishment). Innocent life is so important—because made in the image of God—that whoever destroys it unjustly is justly destroyed.

2. God’s vengeance

Yes, Scripture tells us that God says “vengeance is mine.” Significantly, however, Scripture ALSO tells us that (just) government is “God’s servant”—God’s “agent of wrath.”

Romans 13:4: “[The government] 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 sword is an instrument of death. The sword-bearer is God’s appointed agent.

Vengeance is God’s, yes, but God delegates.

3. Jesus and the sword

Doesn't Jesus tell his followers to reject the sword, as when Peter cuts off the ear of the man arresting Jesus?

It seems to me that Jesus tells Peter (who was carrying a sword even after following Jesus for a few years!) to put his sword away so that Jesus would complete His special mission, i.e., so that Jesus—an innocent man who is also God—would die on our behalf for our sins to satisfy the requirements of God’s justice.

The above sword passage is a special case, in other words.

Significantly, elsewhere Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords. Elsewhere, too, Jesus commends without reservation the faith of a Roman Centurion, a commanding officer of 100 soldiers, i.e., 100 professional warriors—who use swords! (Jesus’ having such high regard for a soldier strongly suggests that there is such a thing as morally good soldiering and thus the moral appropriateness of sometimes, under appropriate circumstances, taking human life.)

Also, John the Baptist, whom Jesus holds in high regard, advises soldiers—professional warriors/ killers/ sword-bearers—not to quit their jobs but be content with their pay.

Also, David—a man after God’s (Jesus’) heart—uses violent force to kill Goliath plus chops off Goliath’s head with a sword.

Moreover, God in the Old Testament often uses lethal force (e.g., the sword of war) to deal with evil aggressors.

Furthermore, Ecclesiastes tells us, apparently prescriptively, that there is “a time to kill” and “a time for war” (which often involved swords).

In addition (and again), the apostle Paul, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit (who is one with Jesus), says the state bears the sword—a lethal instrument—as an agent of God’s wrath (1 Peter 2:14 confirms the government’s role in punishing wrongdoers).

Therefore, when it comes to the question of whether the Bible tells us to use lethal police/ military force justly, it seems there are good biblical grounds for thinking so—especially to protect innocents from evil aggressors.

Love of neighbour sometimes requires just force to protect one's neighbour.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Additional Apologia columns relating to war, for further reading:

● "Just war and justly pro-life," September18, 2014.

● "War or peace?" August 21, 2014.

● "Islam," September 4, 2014.

Just war and justly pro-life

Heavily armed RCMP officers enter a residence during manhunt
 for shooting suspect in Moncton (New Brunswick),
 Thursday, June 5, 2014. (Andrew Vaughan/ THE CANADIAN PRESS)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, September 18, 2014

Just war and justly pro-life

A friend asked me the following question to challenge my non-pacifist, just war position: How can you be consistently pro-life without also being against the use of lethal force to resolve conflict?

Here's how: by simultaneously applying two distinctions: (1) absolute vs. prima facie; (2) innocent life vs. life that's forfeited the right to life.

Human life has great worth, but the prohibition against its destruction isn't absolute. Sometimes, say, when a murderer is engaged in a shooting spree in a school, a police officer may have to kill the murderer—and this killing is just.

Yes, the shooter has the right to life, but it's a prima facie right, not an absolute right.

“Prima facie” is Latin for first appearance. In ethics it means duty X is what apparently ought to be done, unless a more pressing duty Y outweighs it. For example, I have a duty to keep my promise to Morgan to meet him for lunch, unless I must save Patricia from drowning while on my way to meet Morgan.

Also, police officers have the duty to protect school shooters, but the duty to innocent students being shot outweighs the duty to the murderer. If lethal force—killing the shooter—is required to defend the lives of innocents, then the shooter forfeits his right to life.

Biblical history provides ample evidence of people who engaged in activities that forfeit their right to life. There are occasions when people are justly killed by God either by natural means (e.g., flood, pestilence) or by human agents of God's wrath (e.g., the sword of government).

In other words, humans are made in God's image and thus have great worth, but they aren't God and thus don't have absolute worth.

Sadly, if we allow evil aggressors (who require lethal force to be stopped) to murder innocents, that is, if we preclude all lethal police/ military interventions, then we sacrifice innocent lives—people who haven't forfeited their right to life—to evil forces. This is neither pro-life nor just.

But wait: what about abortionists who kill innocent children? Should I apply lethal force to the abortionists? My answer: No.

There is still some reasonable debate or doubt about whether the unborn in the early stages is an actual human being or person (though the reasonableness of this doubt is shrinking as more science and careful thinking are done), and there are still peaceful means that have promise of success to enable the protection of the unborn (e.g., education, law reform, crisis pregnancy centres).

But in the case of, say, ISIS, there is no reasonable doubt that innocent human persons are being murdered. And there is no reasonable doubt that there aren't any wholly peaceful means which will actually enable the urgent protection of the men, women, and children who are presently being murdered and targeted for murder. Also, ISIS is clear that the only "peace" it wants is a peace in which all opposition is destroyed.

Unlike the abortion situation, then, with ISIS we have a case in which killers are clearly on a murderous rampage—a rampage whose explicit murderous intent, brutal track record, and dangerous growth make it not at all amenable to being stopped by a non-lethal force.

But how does the just war view relate to the pro-life view on euthanasia? I think that here we have to keep in mind that whereas ISIS has engaged in acts which forfeit their right to life, the elderly and disabled and terminally ill haven't engaged in acts that forfeit their right to life.

Thus, by making two careful distinctions—absolute vs. prima facie, and innocent life vs. life that's forfeited the right to life—one can be consistently pro-life and pro-just-war.

Surely it's reasonable and good—and pro-life—to favour the judicious, wise use of lethal force to protect innocent lives—especially the weak and vulnerable—from murderous aggressors. That's why we arm police officers.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

War or peace?

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.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. After high school, Hendrik served for three years as an infantryman in the Canadian Armed Forces. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.) 

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?"