Love Your Neighbor

“When I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, and honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is.”
– Martin Luther

War causes conflict. While it is obviously true that war itself is conflict, it is ironically true that war, as a concept, causes incredible conflict. Few issues cause people in the church to get more agitated than questions of war and peace. For some, there are few ideas more reprehensible than the suggestion that anyone could knowingly seek another’s death regardless of the circumstances. For others, it is just as disgusting to propose that mortal injustice be allowed to progress unhindered. To the Pacifist a “Just War Theory” makes about as much sense as a “Just Rape Theory.” To his opponent Pacifism is nothing less than complicity with evil through neglect.

While it might be earnestly hoped by all that the subject of war would simply be a matter for historians, violent conflict has a nasty habit of intruding its way into the present. A few minutes in any bookstore will reveal that war has been a part of history as long as histories have been written. A few minutes in a newspaper will likewise inform anyone that battle does not seem to be a passing fad. War is far too common a human practice for the church to maintain some kind of respectful neutrality.

If the church is going to be the church then she must establish her positions based on what God’s word says about this issue. With such a central issues that cuts to the core of justice, humanity, and love we cannot simply rely on our fallen dispositions to tell us where to go. Whatever logical or pragmatic reasons can be marshaled by either side of this debate ultimately account for nothing if the Bible does not speak in accord with that position.

As nice and straight-forward as that might sound, finding what the Bible teaches in this matter is much more complicated. There are people who believe the Bible who are on either side of this issue. There are those for whom Pacifism is the fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible that the lion will lie down with the lamb and Christ's first coming has changed everything. On the opposite end are those who would argue that the Just War perspective takes the Bible seriously since it does not place a false dichotomy between Israel and the church or forget that Christ has not yet returned.

It would be helpful if somewhere in the book of Hezekiah or in III Peter we could find a list of circumstances under which war was allowed or perhaps where it stated in no uncertain terms that war is never allowed. Since there is no such verse we are left to infer from what is said what God would say to his church. While this can seem quite intimidating there is a potential short-cut to the truth. Since Pacifism is necessarily absolutist, any exception to a total prohibition on warfare in the Bible can be its Achilles' Heel. That is to say, one cannot be a half-Pacifist. If it can be shown that the Bible does not condemn war in all situations, then the debate has moved from Pacifism vs. Just War into an in-house debate within Just War Doctrine about whether this or that war is in fact just. Pacifism could fail by a simple process of elimination

Granted, this is a negative argument in that we’re looking for a passage where something does not happen, but the point still stands that if there is any place where the Bible does not prohibit war entirely then Pacifism cannot then be said to be biblical. Putting aside the Old Testament for a moment since many Pacifists would reasonably object that the wars of ancient Israel do not apply to Christianity, are there any places where the New Testament does not condemn war wholeheartedly? Or, are there any places where soldiers or a government’s use of lethal force is not treated as sinful?

In Luke 3 John the Baptist is asked by a series of people how they can properly repent as he is calling them to do. Some average Joe’s are told to practice generosity. Tax collectors are told to stop taking more than they are allowed to collect. Some soldiers also come to the prophet to ask his counsel. If the Pacifist position is correct, then this would be a perfect place for God to speak into the lives of these men (and to us as well) to turn them from their entirely wicked profession. Yet the man whom Jesus said was greater than any other born of women tells them only to stop oppressing people and be content with their pay. This is hardly a solid rebuke of their job choice.

Later on in Acts 10 we find the dramatic first inclusion of Westerners into the church with the conversion a Roman soldier named Cornelius. This man had already been follower of God, but in this passage the Apostle Peter brings the message of Christ. Once again, if the Pacifist position is the biblical view then here was a perfect moment to hear that the arrival of Christ had so transformed the situation that while soldiers were a part of the Old Covenant there was no longer any place for them. Yet Peter says none of these things.

None of these soldiers in the gospel or in Acts are shown as men like the Pharisees who needed to change their hearts or like the tax collectors who needed to change their jobs. Whatever sins they might have been guilty of there is no mention here that what they do for a living is incompatible in and of itself with the biblical message. Prostitutes, idolaters, fornicators and all sorts of other sinners are called upon to repent of their actions. Soldiers are never issued such an order.

Later on in the epistles we find both Peter and Paul addressing the place of the state in human society. In contrast to the Pacifist position, not only do the Apostles not condemn the government for using lethal force, they call such a state the minister of God. In I Peter 3 we are told that as Christians we are to be subject to the state as it is sent by God to punish evil. Peter offers no side-bar to tell us "except when they use force." Likewise in Romans 13 Paul specifically states that part of the government's role in being God’s minister is that it “bears the sword.” You don’t use swords to gently chide someone. Swords kill. If Pacifism is biblical then this passage makes no sense.

I have no illusions that this little essay will spell an end to this question. Christians have been debating Pacifism vs. Just War since the time of the early church so I’m quite sure there is a way of explaining away the lack of comments in the passages mentioned here. However, the question then must be asked as to why such a lack needs to be explained away in the first place. If Pacifism is biblical, then why, among the many times that biblical writers spoke to or about soldiers or a government’s use of lethal force did no one tell them to stop? If war is sinful at all times and there is no place for it in Christ’s kingdom, then why did none of the inspired writers feel it necessary to tell anyone about it?

War is dreadful. There is no question about that. But just as the Fall of Adam has brought in disease, and God has raised up doctors to keep it from running amuck, so has the Fall brought in chaos to human society and God has likewise raised up the state as his minister to prevent our more tragic impulses from running the tables. To stand for justice in the face of wickedness by taking up the sword is not contrary to loving my neighbor but its fulfillment.

Auto-Compassion

I’m sure you’ve been in this position. It's rush hour or some other heavy time on the road, and you need to cut into traffic. Maybe you’re trying to enter the main flow from a parking lot or it’s that you’re in the north bound lane and you need to cross the SUV infested south bound lane to get to your destination. All you want is for some kind soul to see your predicament and give you the space to get through. Particularly if you are running late already the anxiety of being stuck and the relief at being let through are palpable. When a sympathetic driver finally does slow up to let you through you are able to send a genuinely grateful wave and smile to your savior.

Now let’s spin things around a bit and say that you’re not the one trying to get across traffic but the one in the position to help. You can see the stricken face of your fellow commuter, and you fully understand his plight because it was just yesterday that you were trying to do the very same thing. With mercy on your mind you slow up and let the distraught soul cut through your lane full of the knowledge that a little sacrifice on your part has helped out with another’s day immensely. The wave and smile you get in return is more than enough to drown out the sounds of ungrateful honking from those behind you less interested in compassion. Despite their impatience, you know you’ve done the right thing.

One more time let’s change the perspective. This time you are not the driver in need of help, nor the gracious commuter who gives the help. This time you are the guy stuck in traffic behind this sweet affair who gets the short end of the generosity stick. Just like the person cutting across traffic, you have places to be. Perhaps like the first person you too are running late. While you sympathize with situation you’re not too certain how it is that the one person’s need outweighs your own. Maybe you are one of those who lets out a not so subtle honk of displeasure, and the smug smile on the face of the benefactor does not then raise in you thoughts of mercy or compassion. The plans of yourself and the dozens of others similarly trapped in line are being held up for the convenience of one and the self-satisfaction of another as two or even three lanes of traffic are held up long enough for the single car to make it across.

Like I said, there is not a one among us who hasn’t been in each of these places. Sometimes there is just no way to get where we need to be without doing some serious Frogger reenactments, and sometimes we are the one stuck with the consequences of the Good Samaritans among us. If we are one of these two then we can only play with the hand we are dealt. Our decisions at that point are dependent upon others. However, if we are the second sort of person, then we are deciding for the rest where the line between compassion and functionality should run.

While I applaud the desire to help the person in need, I have to wonder if when we reach out like that who it is that we are thinking of. If our desire is to help others get where they need to go, then how much are we paying attention to those who are impeded by our own good works? By what standard are we deciding that helping the person we can see is worth hurting those we can’t see? Sure, we all feel great when we are able to see that smile of gratitude on the face of those we help, but what about the frustration we cause to those now inconvenienced? Particularly when we feel righteous indignation when we hear the honks of those less merciful and understanding, are we motivated by the pleasure we get from “doing the right thing” or by actually working for the common good? In our driving habits, in our daily lives, and in our political choices, how often is our determination centered not so much upon the actual good accomplished, but upon the short-term feeling of enlightenment and superiority found in the easy good work of being nice rather than the hard choices that often come with doing the real right thing?