Grace
Theological Journal 6.2 (1985) 435-455
Copyright © 1985 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR:
A MATTER OF
PERSONAL CONSCIENCE
DAVID
R. PLASTER
The issue of whether a Christian should participate in
war and, if
so, to what extent is very complex. The Christian must balance
biblical revelation concerning the authority of the state with his
individual responsibility to love his enemies and to do good to all
men. A survey of three attempts to achieve this balance (the
activist,
the pacifist, and the selectivist)
reveals inadequacies in each. A position
that mediates between these positions appears to be a proper
Christian
response to the biblical norms. This position may be termed non-
combatant participation.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
THE
issue of whether the individual Christian should participate in
war has been discussed from the early days of the
Church.
Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin
Luther, and John
Calvin
are but a few of those who addressed the problem. The
central
issue has been and remains the ethical conflict
between a Christian's
responsibility to serve his government
and the command of Christ to
love his enemies. Godly men seeking to apply
biblical principles have
arrived at different answers to that conflict.
George Weigel points out
the lesson to be learned from the diverse answers
to this chronic
problem:
The very complexity of the Christian
tradition's teaching reminds us
that there
are no easy or simple answers to the dilemma of security and
peace. In a
public climate where the glib slogan or the bumper-sticker
phrase often
defines the policy debate, the richly textured tradition of
the Church
quietly tells us that there is no simple solution to the moral
problem of
war, and that an indignant self-righteousness is a warning
sign of
errors. Moreover, the fact that the Christian Churches have
sustained a
pluralistic dialogue on the ethics of war and peace reminds
436
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
us to
acknowledge the validity of another's moral concerns-especially
the
concerns of those with whom we disagree. We should search in
others'
perspectives for possible hints and traces of truth that might be
brought
into our own.1
The Brethren response to this concern
has not always been
unanimous. However, the doctrine of non-resistance
has long been
held in Brethren circles and is now held by many in
the Fellowship of
Grace Brethren Churches. The purpose of this
study is to survey the
Issue
and analyze non-resIstance m the face of the
potential of con-
flicting demands placed upon the
believer.
PRELIMINARY
MATTERS
The Authority of the
State
The subject of civil government pervades
both the OT and the
NT.
It is an aspect of God's providence, a fact of biblical history, and
is integral to biblical prophecy. One basic theme
of the Bible is that
civil government is ordained by God.
While the government of
OT
also mentions other civil governments. Joseph and Daniel were
Jews who served as leading officials in
non-theocratic governments.
Amos
2:1-3 points out that God held the government of
accountable for the use of its sword.
lesson (Isa 10:5-19). Daniel
records that God, after previous reminders
on the subject (Dan
account for not recognizing "that the Most
High is ruler over the
realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He
wishes" (Dan
25,
32; 5:21).
Thus, the OT consistently indicates
that God has ordained govern-
ment wherever it is found.
The nations with their variety of social
organizations and magistrates operate
as divinely established institu-
tions. These governments are
accountable to God. Since government
is given by God, it follows that to disobey
government is to disobey
God.
This theme of the OT is continued in
the NT. Government is
presented as a human institution reflecting
various forms but deserving
the believer's submission for the Lord's sake (1 Pet
able to God for its ministry of punishing evildoers
and supporting
those who do good (1 Pet
1 George Weigel,
Peace & Freedom: Christian Faith. Democracy and the Problem
of War (n.p.: The
Institute bn Religion and Democracy, 1983) 5. For a
helpful
annotated bibliography of writings on this complex
issue see David M. Scholer, "Early
Christian
Attitudes to War and Military Service: A Selective Bibliography," TSF
Bulletin
8: I (1984) 23-24.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 437
believer to have a clear testimony before the
world by obeying civil
authority (I Pet
Paul
consistently maintain this position.
Jesus lived in a conquered province in an empire
whose imperial-
istic ruler stood for
everything that was antagonistic to the revealed
faith of the Jews. Jesus was not a revolutionary but
instead conformed
to the laws of civil government.2
Nowhere did he denounce the legiti-
mate power of the state. Jesus paid his taxes (Matt
recognized the authority of Pontius Pilate, even
when Pilate unjustly
delivered him over to his enemies (John
however, that his authority was not autonomous
(John
that it was delegated from the One who was above.3
Thus, in practice
and precept Jesus recognized that the government
under which he
lived was ordained of God.
The most extensive teaching in the NT on the
subject of the
Christian
and civil government is found in Paul's letter to the church
located in the capital of the
some basic principles which are at the very heart of
the question
concerning the believer's participation in war.
First, this passage clearly establishes that the
Christian must obey
the de facto government of the region in which he
lives (13:1). The
fact that a civil government is organized and in
operation gives
evidence that it has been ordained by God. Paul
makes no distinc-
tion between good rulers and
bad ones or between pleasant laws
and unpleasant ones. The command is not
unconditional in light
of the fact that there are times that "we
must obey God rather than
men" (Acts
Christians
will obey authorities and their laws.4
Second, there are several reasons given for this
requirement.
These
reasons give insight into the proper God-given function of
government. The "powers that be," no
matter how pagan and impious,
are functioning under the authority of God (13:1).
It follows then that
to resist such authority is to resist that which
God has established and
2 Robert D. Culver,
Toward a Biblical View of Civil Government (
1974) 183-84.
3 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT;
1971)
797; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John
(2 vols.
4 C. E. B. Cranfield
(A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Epistle to the
Romans [ICC; 2 vols.;
verb used here "can denote the recognition that
the other person, as Christ's representa-
to one (cf. Mt. 25.40, 45), has an infinitely
greater claim upon one than one has
upon oneself and the conduct which flows naturally from
such a recognition." This
passage is not teaching uncritical and blind
obedience to authority's every command
since the final arbiter in a particular situation is
not civil authority but God.
438
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
to face his condemnation (13:2).5
Furthermore, on its part the govern-
ment is expected to inflict
punishment upon evildoers and approve
those who do good (13:3-4).6
Third, the obedience expected of every person
(13: 1) is specifically
applied as a moral issue to the believer (13:5).
The believer should not
submit simply for utilitarian reasons. He must obey
because he knows
that it is right. This includes paying taxes to
rulers, who are function-
ing as servants of God
(13:6).
Fourth, it is especially significant .that this
passage reiterates the
power of government to take a human life (13:4). The
sword represents
the God -given authority of civil government to
inflict God's temporal
punishment upon evildoers, including the death
penalty.7 While this
passage deals specifically which matters of criminal
justice and civil
order, It has also been applied to the military power
possessed by
government. The power of the sword is extrapolated
to deal with evil
on an international level.8
Therefore, the practice and teaching of both the
OT and NT
establishes that God .has ordained the human
institution of civil govern-
ment. He expects his people to, submit to its authority m every way
not inconsistent with his revelation.
The Christian's Relation
to All Men
The Christian also has specific biblical
direction regarding the
personal use of violence. This is the other side
of the issue. In both
OT
and NT there is taught a personal ethic of nonretaliation
and
nonviolence to neighbors.9 The positive and
active responsibility of
the samt has always been
to demonstrate kindness.
An OT passage which seems, to capture the
essence of what many
feel is the NT teaching on this subject (Rom
Prov 25:21-22. Jesus' teaching that the whole law
hung upon two
commandments, one of which was to
love your neighbor as yourself
(Matt
Thus, OT believers lived under an ethical system
which proscribed
any act of personal revenge. Self-defense was
permitted, but with
5 There is a twofold aspect of this
judgment: civil and divine. See Cranfield,
Romans, 2. 664; and John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT;
Eerdmans,
1968) 2.
149.
6 This praise of good works may be
conscious or unconscious, willing or unwilling,
as the idea of reward is not implicit in the terms
used. Even unjust acts of persecution
by civil government may ultimately bring praise
and glory to God. See Cranfield,
Romans, 2. 664-65;
and Murray, Romans, 2. 151.
7 Culver, Civil Government, 254.
8 Cranfield,
Romans, 2. 667.
9 Robert D. Culver, "Justice is
Something Worth Fighting For," Christianity Today
24 (
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 439
severe limitations.10 Thus, the believer is
not faced with the alternative
of a NT or an OT ethic. The OT lays the foundation
for the NT ethic
which renounces the use of violence against others.
The position of nonresistance derives its name
from NT teaching
in Matt
Matt
5:38-48 shows that there is at least some form of personal
nonresistance expected of the
believer. Even those who reject the
application of this passage to participation in war
agree that the
passage is dealing with personal offenses and
that "the believer must
have the spirit of nonresistance so much a part of
his life that he only
retaliates as a last resort, and then only in a
continued spirit of
love."11
The believer is commanded in the NT to act
positively toward
his fellow man. It is not a matter of merely having
a spirit of
nonresistance. He is commanded to
love his enemies (Matt
Luke
6:27; Rom 13:8-1011. This love for enemies is expressed in doing
good for them (Rom
Those
who persecute the believer should receive back a blessing
(Rom
(Rom
with all men (Rom
peace (Rom
the Galatians:
And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in
due time we shall reap if
we do not grow weary. So
then, while we have opportunity, let us do
good to all men, and
especially to those who are of the household of "
the faith [Gal 6:9-10,
NASB].
In the teachings of both Jesus and Paul the
active lifestyle of
doing good to all men and responding positively to
persecutors is
clearly commanded. The personal ethic of the
believer is based on an
attitude of nonresistance and nonviolence towards
others.
THE MAIN ALTERNATIVES
The Christian world falls into two broad camps
in response to
the question of the believer's participation in
war. One side responds
affirmatively but some limit the kind
of war in which a Christian
10 Ibid., 16-17.
11 Charles G. Stoner,
"The Teaching of Jesus in Relation to the Doctrine of
Nonresistance" (Master of Theology thesis,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1970) 31.
12 This passage cannot be restricted to love
within the fellowship of believers
(cf.
Murray, Romans, 2. 160; Hendriksen, Romans,
2.439; and Alva J. McClain,
Romans: The Gospel of
God's Grace
[
440
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
should participate. The other side responds negatively
but is divided on
the question of noncombatant participation. Each
position attempts
to practice biblical principles.
The Activist
In the post-Vietnam War era the position of the
activist became
less prominent. However, new movements closely
associating the
political New Right with some in the
Fundamentalist camp could
possibly lead to a grass roots acceptance of
activism. The activist
position is based on the principle that the
believer is bound to submit
himself to the divinely ordained government.
Thus he must participate
in any war his government enters.
Operating on the assumption that the government
of the
ris based on Christian
principles as well as self-evident truths which
make it the enemy of tyranny
and injustice, these advocates of patrio-
tism are convinced that
their loyalty to the state in time of war is
essential both politically and
spiritually.13
A modern advocate of this position, Harold O. J.
Brown, at-
tempts to justify both the preventative war and the
crusade. A pre-
ventative war is begun in
anticipation of an act of aggression rather
than in response to it. "A preventative war
intends to forestall an evil
that has not yet occurred."14 The
crusade, however, is "a war waged
to remedy a past atrocity, especially one
recognized as such for
spiritual or religious reasons.15
Brown views
[homeland as the prime example of a justified crusade. Wars
of
national liberation and revolutions motivated by
a concern for ethical
principle would also fit in the category of
crusade.16
Brown argues that the individual is not in the
position to make
any decision regarding the relative merits of the
opposing nations in a Ii!.
war.
It is impossible to require each citizen to know
the facts that will
enable him to judge the
justness of a particular war. In the period when
he might possibly
influence the decision whether to go to war, he has
too little information.
Later, when the war has broken out, the informa-
tion may not do him any
good-"military necessity" will override all
other considerations.17
13 William E. Nix, "The Evangelical
and War," JETS 13 (1970) 138.
14 Harold O. J. Brown, "The Crusade or
Preventative War" in War: Four Christian
Views, Robert G. Clouse, ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1981) 155.
15 Ibid., 156.
16 Ibid., 158.
17 Ibid., 165.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 441
Brown
puts full responsibility upon the leaders of the nation. Because
the individual is unable to make an informed
decision he is not
expected to attempt it. Since the leadership
bears full responsibility,
the individual is delivered from any moral
responsibility.
An individual is morally obliged to refuse to
participate in individual
acts that he knows to be
wrong, but he cannot be held responsible for
knowing that the war itself is
wrong. If he does know it and acts upon
that knowledge by refusing
to fight, he deserves praise. But if he obeys
his orders and fights, it
is very hard to condemn him. Individual respon-
sibility means not making the
decision to launch a wrong war, when
the citizen has the right
to participate in decision making, and not
performing wrong acts in war.
However, if a wrong decision has been
made by the government, it
is hard to hold the individual responsible
to resist it.18
This
is the essential argument of the activist position. However, this
approach is disputable.
First, to argue that a believer must always
submit to his govern-
ment implies that his nation
is a "chosen people." This is not the
case, since only
theocracy.19
Moreover, the Bible makes it clear that there
are higher spiritual
obligations which may require the believer to
disobey the government
in order to obey God. In the OT Daniel, his three
fellow exiles, and
the Hebrew midwives in
to higher spiritual obligations. In the NT the
apostles chose to obey
God
rather than men (Acts
It seems clear that the believer cannot escape
his responsibility to
make a decision regarding his participation in war.
To argue other-
wise could lead to moral bankruptcy. However, one
question raised
by Brown still remains. In this day of propaganda
controlled by sinful
men on all sides, how is the Christian to know that
he is not killing
others in the name of a cause that is ultimately
unjust?
The Pacifist
The pacifist takes the position that the
believer should avoid any
participation in any war. There are
many forms of pacifism founded
upon philosophical, political, or social agendas.
There is a new breed
of "peace" scholarship which converts
the gospel of Jesus as seen in
traditional "peace" churches into a
political program, including the
abolition of national defense and the complete
elimination of war in
18 Ibid., 165-66.
19 Nix, "The
Evangelical and War," 140.
442
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
the world. It has as its goal the remodeling of
society.20 However, the
present study is focusing on those who seek a
biblical base for their ,.
position. Myron Augsburger,
a Mennonite and a spokesman of the
rhistoric "peace
church" movement, states, "I want this stance to be
clearly interpreted as evangelical and
biblically based and different
from humanistic and moralistic pacifism.21
In contrast to the activist who has one basic
argument for his
with attached corollaries which form the foundation
of the pacifist
position.
First, many pacifists cite the pacifism of the
pre-Constantine
church. Christenson and Bainton
make this one of their primary
rsupports.22 Augsburger
himself is not adverse to including historical
data in his discussion,23 though it does
not have a primary role.
It
is indisputably clear that the pre-Constantine church did resist
rparticipation in war. Admitting that
opposition to war was almost
unanimous in the second and third
out,
Evangelicals today reject many views of the
second and third centuries:
the developing legalism,
dependence on rites called sacraments for sal-
vation (sacerdotalism),
transfer of all liturgical acts and church govern-
ment to a priestly class
(prelacy). So we are surely free to re-examine
early views on war.24
Accordingly,
in this study the use of church history to support pacifism
will be set aside. The focus will be biblical
arguments.
Second, Augsburger
points out that the Church as a voluntary
association of believers is "a minority in
society always separate from
the state (any state, recognizing that God has ordained
government
for the good of the people). The church is not
coterminous with the
state.25 Hoyt points to John 18:36 where
Christ declared to Pilate,
"My
kingdom is not of this world. If My Kingdom were of this
world, then My servants would be fighting, that I
might not be
delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom
is not of this
realm" (NASH). Believers are thus part of a
kingdom separate from
20 Robert Culver, "Between War and
Peace: Old Debate in a New Age," Christianity
Today 24 (
21 Myron S. Augsburger,
"Beating Swords Into Plowshares," Christianity Today 20
(
22 Reo M.
Christenson, "Christians and Nuclear Aggression," The Christian
Century
100 (
Peace (Nashville: Abingdon,
1960) 66-84.
23 Myron S. Augsburger,
"Christian Pacifism" in War: Four Christian Views, 92.
24 Culver, "Justice Is Something Worth
Fighting For," 14.
25 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 83.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 443
the state and have a responsibility to live as
pilgrims and strangers
upon the earth. Their conduct is to be conditioned
by their heavenly
citizenship.26
William Nix in response argues that this view
"assumes that
believers must be a minority group within society
and be without
political responsibility for the actions of the
state.27 Actually, when
Christianity
became the dominant religion, its role in society caused
many changes.
The pacifist position often leads to a "dropoutism" mentality,
including the refusal to pay taxes or to serve in
any political office.
There
is a disengagement from the whole body politic.28 However,
this mentality is not intrinsic to the pacifist
position. Augsburger, for
example, does not rule out all political
participation by Christians.
He
believes that Christians may serve in political positions so long as
they do not attempt to create a state church.
However, "they should
not consider holding positions where they could not
both fulfill the
obligations of the office and remain consistent with
their membership
in the
unfortunately all too often fallen
into isolationism or has led to a
refusal to pay taxes.
Separation of Church and State is an important
truth that needs
to be underscored. Obviously, the use of force or
political power to
further the ministry of the Church is forbidden.30
Though the Church
is separate from the state, the Christian
functions in both realms.
Since
government is ordained by God, serving the government is not
in itself immoral.
Neither Hoyt nor Augsburger
would disagree with what has just
been stated. What they are saying, however, is that
"since the church
and state belong to separate kingdoms or spheres of
operation, the
methods for defense and offense should also be
different.31 There is
a dual obligation recognized by most Christians.
Christians recognize
that some things which are expected from them by God
are not
properly matters for legislative action on the
part of the civil govern-
ment.
We operate under the myth that we are a
Christian nation, and we seek
to interpret for society
an ethic we can bless as Christians. We need a
26 Herman A. Hoyt,
"Nonresistance" in War: Four Christian Views, 32.
27 Nix, "The
Evangelical and War," 136.
28 Norman L. Geisler,
Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (
1971) 175.
29 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 89.
30 Stoner, "The
Teaching of Jesus Christ in Relation to the Doctrine of Non-
resistance," 36-37.
31 Hoyt, "Nonresistance," 32.
444
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
new awareness of the
pluralism of the New Testament. The crucial
issue is the difference
between the Church and the world; the Church
operates "within the
perfection of Christ," while the world operates
outside the perfection or will
of Christ. Only an understanding of this
can save us from a cultural
religion and from a civil religion.32
Simply appealing to separation of Church and
State does not
prove the pacifists' case. However, it does open the
possibility that
there may be things which individual Christians
should not do which
nevertheless are not forbidden for
the entire nation.
A third pacifist argument, related to what has
just been discussed
above, emphasizes the priority of the believer's
obligation to his
heavenly citizenship. "The church is an
interracial, supranational
transcultural body composed of all
who put their faith in Jesus Christ
as Savior and follow him as Lord.33
All those who name the name"
[of Christ are translated into his kingdom (John 3:3,5;
Coll:13) and
are no longer of this world, even as Christ is not
of this world
(John
tion in relation to nationalism
and allegience to any particular nation:
To affirm that one is a member of the
that loyalty to Christ and
his kingdom transcends every other loyalty.
This stance goes beyond nationalism and calls us
to identify first of all
with our fellow disciples,
of whatever nation, as we serve Christ to-
gether. This is not a position
which can be expected of the world nor
asked of the government as
such. ...The Christian can only encourage
the government to be the
government and to let the church be the
church.35
Augsburger believes that this
outlook on the primary loyalty of the
Christian
is even more basic to the NT than the principle of love.36
This
difference between the Church and the State points to a
distinction that must be recognized. What
what was commanded in the OT theocracy is not
necessarily binding
upon the NT believer.37
Up to this point in the argument, there may not
be much with
which most Christians would disagree. The priority
obligation to obey
32 Augsburger,
"Beating Swords Into Plowshares," 8. ,
33 John Drescher,
"Why Christians Shouldn't Carry Swords," Christianity Today
24
(
34 Hoyt, "Nonresistance," 32.
35 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 87.
36 Ibid., 94.
37 Tom Fitts,
"A Dispensational Approach to War" (Master of Theology thesis,
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 445
God
rather than men is widely recognized. This alone does not estab-
lish a basis upon which the
pacifist can refuse all participation in war.
However,
this priority does come into conflict with a believer's active
participation in war. Augsburger takes the reasoning forward another
step when he states, "Since our highest loyalty
is to the kingdom of
Christ,
and since that kingdom is global, a Christian in one nation
cannot honorably participate in war, which would mean
taking the
life of a Christian brother or sister in another
nation.38 Those allow-
mg participation m war to the point of taking
human life have not
provided an answer to this problem. Should
obedience to the govern-
ment include a Christian
taking up arms and harming a fellow
Christian simply because he is wearing the
uniform of another nation?
Fourth,
pacifists point to the Church's commission (Matt 28:19-
20)
and argue that the work of evangelism has priority
over military
service.
Biblical pacifism's objective is to lead others
to know Christ and follow
him, thus experiencing
reconciliation with God and others and becoming
ministers of the gospel of
reconciliation to everyone. To do this it is
impossible to participate in any
program of ill will, retaliation, or war
that conflicts with Christ.39
The argument is developed along two different
lines. Augsburger
and Drescher40 ask whether a Christian,
whose basic mission is evan-
gelism, should participate in
war to the point of taking the life of a
person for whom Christ died. Hoyt reasons that if
witnessing is the
supreme business of believers, then military
service would exhaust
their time and effort. He adds that noncombatant
service would
provide believers with opportunity to obey.41
Arthur Holmes, in response to Hoyt and Augsburger, effectively
counters these arguments. He points out that
Christians in the military
will have time and opportunity to reach people who
otherwise might
never hear the gospel. Moreover, there are many
occupations which
could become so engrossing as to interfere with the
Christian's respon-
sibility to witness.42
He adds,
As for the argument that killing prevents the
victim's accepting God's
mercy, the same plea could be
leveled against giving the sword to
governments, against the Old
Testament uses of divinely commissioned
38 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 60.
39 Drescher,
"Why Christians Shouldn't Carry Swords," 16.
40 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 90; and Drescher, "Why
Christians Shouldn't
Carry Swords," 21.
41 Hoyt, "Nonresistance," 41.
42 Arthur F. Holmes, "The Just
War" in War: Four Christian Views, 67.
446
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
force, and against God
himself for allowing human mortality at all.
Even more tragic is the fact that in any case
not all will be saved.43
The pacifist might reply that the Christian is separate
from the
government, and is in a dispensation different from
the OT saints. He
is not sovereign like God is. But the pacifist has
to face the issue of
taking a life in self-defense. To be consistent he
would have to argue
that killing a person in self-defense is also wrong
since it would result
in sending that person to judgment while the
believer would go to
heaven. To be consistent, the evangelism argument must
apply on the
level of self-defense as well as participation in
war.44
The
final argument presented by the pacifists involves the basic
principle of love for one's enemies taught by
Jesus both in his sermons
and by his example. Probably no other area of the
discussion seems
to evoke as much emotion on all sides as this
does. Every position
wants to view itself as consistent with the life and
teaching of Jesus.
Pacifists
especially make this an important tenet in their position. The
argument is developed in three steps.
First, pacifism is consistent with the lifestyle
of Jesus. He came
to save and not to destroy (Luke
good and healing (Acts
persecution, he did not revile or threaten in return
but instead offered
himself on the cross (1 Pet
cified him. Believers are thus
exhorted to follow in his footsteps
(1
Pet 2:21) and to walk as he walked (1 John 2:6).45
Second, Jesus made explicit that which was
implicit in the OT
He
gave OT revelation a qualitatively new dimension in the Sermon
on the Mount.46 According to that
teaching, the believer should now
respond to evil by imparting good, not evil. He
is to love his enemies.
The
believer is also warned that "those who take up the sword shall
perish by the sword" (Matt 26:52).
Third, the teaching of the apostles continues
this emphasis. Paul
emphasizes doing good and loving enemies (Romans
12-13; Gal
Peter
challenges his readers not to return evil for evil (1 Pet 3:9).
In response to such arguments one must examine
what is really
meant by the biblical statements. Jesus was using an
extreme example
in order to show that his disciples were to bend
over backwards in
matters of personal affronts. They were not to
misuse the right of
lawful retaliation. Jesus was merely stressing that in
the matter of
43 Arthur F. Holmes, "A Just War
Response" in War: Four Christian Views,
108.
44 Geisler,
Ethics, 166.
45 Hoyt, "Nonresistance," 40.
46 Fitts, "A
Dispensational Approach to War," 55-57.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 447
He
was not teaching unlimited nonresistance, but rather that the
believer must have the spirit of nonresistance so
that he retaliates
only as a last resort, and then in the continued
spirit of love.47 The
command does not mean that Christians may never
defend themselves.
The
point is that they should refrain from revengeful retaliation.48
Further, it appears that both Jesus and Paul did
not take the
command to turn the other cheek with wooden
literalness. Jesus chal-
lenged those who struck him
(John
the Sermon on the Mount must be taken as
emphasizing the heart
and the emotions and an intelligent, kind response
to the true needs
of people.49
The Selectivist
Those who view both the activist and the
pacifist positions as
extreme and problematic must modify one or the
other. Modifying
the activist position, the selectivist50
"maintains that the believer is
obligated to submit himself to authority until and
unless that authority
compels him to place that authority before God.51
While accepting
the individual's moral responsibility, this view
also believes that there
are times when morality demands a call to arms.
The selectivist
position has developed, since the time of Augustine,
a set of criteria which enable the believer to
judge the justness of a
war. If a war is seen to be just, the believer may
fully participate. Any
unjust war is to be resisted. The believer must accept
the consequences
of his decision.
James Childress provides an extended discussion
of the criteria
involved in determination of a just war.52
The basic criteria presented
there can be summarized as:
1.
The proper authority has determined that a war is just and justified.
2.
The requirement of a just cause demands that the reasons for
undertaking a
destructive war must be weighty and significant.
War should be the last resort after all
possible measures having
reasonable
expectation of success have been undertaken.
47 Stoner, "The
Teaching of Jesus Christ in Relation to the Doctrine of Non-
resistance," 31.
48 Ibid., 33.
49 Culver, "Justice Is Something Worth
Fighting For," 20; and George W. Knight
III,
"Can a Christian Go to War?" Christianity Today 20 (
50 This category is used by Geisler. Nix used the term "mediativist"
while others
refer to the "just war" position. These are
synonymous.
51 Nix, "The Evangelical
War," 141.
52 James F. Childress, "Just-War
Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities,
and Functions of Their Criteria," TS 39 (1978) 427-45.
448 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
3.
A formal declaration of war announcing the intention of and the
(reasons for
waging war is necessary. The use of military force is ),
the prerogative of
governments and not individuals.
4.
A reasonable hope of success which is defined as being broader
than simple
victory is also necessary. Success thus defined would
limit the
objectives of any war and rule out total destruction Of
another nation's
economic and political institutions.
5.
The principle of proportionality requires that the means employed ~,
take into account
the limited objectives with total, unlimited war
rexcluded.
6.
The principle of just intention stresses that the war is initiated with
the goal to secure
a genuine peace for all the parties involved.53
In response, pacifists point out that the
development of nuclear
weapons rules out the possibility of a just war.
"The arguments for a
'just war' in history appear to be quite irrelevant in an age
of mech-
anized and nuclear warfare.54
Even a selectivist such as Geisler
admits
that "tactical nuclear weapons are a conceivable
part of a limited war
but megaton nuclear power is so devastating as to
make such a war
automatically unjust.55
However, Culver, in defending the selectivist
position, points out,
It is equally difficult, however, to maintain
that even modern atomic
warfare introduces a difference
in principle from the destruction of
that the Christian ought no
longer to be willing to fight for the right
because human suffering will be
greater than in the past.56
Culver
consistently maintains the basic presuppositions and interpre-
tations of the selectivist position. However, the selectivist
cannot easily
escape the problem of nuclear war and justifiable Christian
participa-
tion in it.
After establishing a criteria for determining
the justness of any
war, the selectivist
develops several lines of reasoning. There are five
basic arguments held by most selectivists.
First, in response to some pacifists who appeal
to the sixth com-
mandment as forbidding any
killing, the selectivist agrees that murder
is forbidden but argues that not all life-taking
is murder.51 Hoyt even
admits that this is the case. The sixth commandment
concerns per-
rsonal hatred with intent to
murder and is hardly comparable with
53 Ibid.,435-39.
54 Augsburger,. "Beating Swords Into
Plowshares," 7.
55 Geisler,
Ethics, 176.
56 Culver, "Between
War and Peace," 51. ..
57 Knight,
"Can a Christian Go to War?" 4; and Geisler, Ethics,
170.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 449
personal responsibility in warfare which does not
involve personal
hatred.58 Clearly God delegated
the authority to take human life when
he instituted capital punishment (Gen 9:6) and later
incorporated it
into the Mosaic Law. Every government, not just the
theocratic govern-
ment of
The discussion goes further, however, to point
to the OT prece-
dents for just warfare. The story of Abraham's battle
against the
kings in Genesis 14 is cited as an example of unjust
aggressors being
resisted by the sword.60 The
destruction of the Canaanites along with
the commands regarding the conduct of war in Deut
20:10-17 are
used to support the view that God not only
sanctioned the extermina-
tion of the Canaanites but
also other peoples who would not accept a
just peace. While no nation can claim special
revelation from God
commanding war or a theocratic right to wage war,
it is clear that
war is not always contrary to God's will.61
Culver points out that the
OT
commands both a nonretaliatory personal ethic and
participation
in war. Thus, such would be consistent for the
Christian as well.62
Hoyt
agrees that force was entrusted to governments, not to
individuals in the OT. However, he points out that,
There are some who insist that the issues in
Testament
differ profoundly from the principles of the church in the
New Testament. And because this is
true, some Christians will insist
that there should be no involvement of the
individual Christian in
warfare, and where it is permitted, it must be
severely limited.63
Both
Augsburger and Hoyt point back to the basic
presuppositions
that there is a separation of Church and State and
that the obligation
to the Church takes precedence. At this point an
important fact
becomes clear; interpretation of individual
passages is not the crucial
issue. Rather, the basic presuppositions and
theological stance of the
interpreter will determine the conclusions reached.
Second, Jesus gave his highest words of praise
to a soldier,
the centurion of great faith (Matt
demand that soldiers leave the army, but that they not
misuse their
power for sinful goals in exacting by force what was
not rightfully
theirs (Luke
described as being a righteous and God-fearing man
(Acts
58 Hoyt,"A
Nonresistant Response"in War: Four Christian Views, 137.
59 Geisler,
Ethics, 170-71.
60 Ibid., 171.
61 Ibid., 173; and
Knight, "Can a Christian Go to War?" 4-5.
62 Culver, "Justice Is Something Worth
Fighting For," 17.
63
Hoyt, "A Nonresistant Response," 138.
450
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
none of these encounters are these soldiers told
that being a soldier
[was incompatible with their faith.64
Augsburger responds that this is
an argument from silence. By
the same logic one could argue for slavery, a
stance once taken by
some American theologians, since the NT did not tell
masters to free
their slaves.65 Further, no one knows how
these soldiers responded to
participation in pagan sacrifices and
emperor worship as part of the
Roman army. It is just as easy to argue that these
soldiers would have
had to leave military service in order to obey
Christ.
Third, at one point Jesus commanded his
disciples to buy a
sword in contrast with previous instructions (Luke
disciples already had two swords in their
possession and the Lord
declared them to be enough (
Peter
for using his sword on the high priest's servant (John
Luke
22:51, Matt 26:52). He admonished Peter that those who took
the sword would perish by the sword.
The selectivist points
to these passages and concludes "that al-
though there may be some symbolic meaning to the
instruction of
Christ
to buy a sword, He is primarily preparing His disciples to
assume the normal means of self-defense and provision
in a world in
which kingdom ideals are not yet realized.66
While swords are not
valid weapons to fight spiritual battles, they are
legitimate tools for
self-defense. Thus, Jesus is
sanctioning the use of an instrument of
death in defense against an unjust aggressor.67
Some pacifists respond that the purpose of the
disciples' swords
could not have been for self-defense since this would
contradict Jesus'
!teaching of submission to persecution. The limitation to only
two
swords is cited to show that the purpose of the swords
was not self-
defense. Luke 22:37, beginning with "for,"
gives the real purpose-to
fulfill prophecy. By carrying swords and meeting
in a large group
they would be open to the charge of being
transgressors.68 However,
this interpretation of the passage seems forced. The
two swords were
real swords. There is no evidence that Jesus
considered the disciples
to be the transgressors referred to in
Hoyt admits that this is a difficult passage to
interpret. However,
he has a problem extrapolating the two swords into
a just war
conducted by civil government:
64 Knight,
"Can a Christian Go to War?" 5. ,
65 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 84.
66 Stoner, "The
Teaching of Jesus Christ in Relation to the Doctrine of Non-
resistance," 43. "
67 Geisler, Ethics, 171; cf. also Lloyd A. Doerbaum, "A Biblical Critique of War,
Peace
and Nonresistance" (Master of Theology thesis, Dallas Theological
Seminary,
1969)
39-41.
68 Fitts, "A
Dispensational Approach to War," 29-30. "
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 451
Whatever our Lord meant by his statement about
buying a sword, it
certainly cannot be construed to
mean that he is sanctioning war in any
sense. If he meant
self-defense in some limited sense, then it is to be
explained in the light of other
Scriptures instructing Christians on the
use of physical force.69
This
appears to be a more reasonable approach to the data. It is also
the only place that Hoyt comes close to admitting
that self-defense is
a legitimate option for the believer. However,
based on his presup-
positions, he does not view self-defense as
including the Christian
bearing arms in a war initiated by the civil
government.
Third, pacifism is labeled as "ethical non-involvism." The citizen
who will not defend his country against an evil
aggressor is morally
remiss. The nation with adequate power which will not
defend the
rights of smaller weaker nations is also morally
remiss. By failing to
defend a good cause, the pacifist aids an evil one.
"Thus, complete
pacifism is at best morally naive and at worst
morally delinquent.70
This
charge is offered as further evidence that the believer must
participate in a just war.
However, the pacifist does not believe that
"non-involvism"
adequately describes his position. Augsburger believes that it is impor-
tant to see that the
doctrine of nonresistance has a positive, active
dimension. It is not a case of total
non-involvement as much as it
is a decision for selective involvement within
parameters defined by
Scripture. "This is a working philosophy of
life. This is not an escape
from responsible action, but is an alternative to
the patterns of the
world.71 The Christian carries an ethical
responsibility to his nation.
He
is to give himself to others in doing good. This is
not something
which is suddenly activated during a war as if it is
the way to avoid
military service.72
It is clear that the believer has a
responsibility to be a good
citizen. The question is not an unwillingness to
defend oneself. The
pacifist simply desires an active role of doing
good for his fellow
citizens. Yet he is unable to compromise his personal
conviction not
to kill an enemy soldier. The sincere biblical
pacifist is not morally
naive or morally delinquent. He is not abdicating his
involvement in
government policies or opting for a totally passive
role.
The heart of the selectivist
position is based on an extension of
the sword of Rom 13:4 to international conflict.
69 Hoyt, "Nonresistance," 54-55.
70 Geisler,
Ethics, 174.
71 Augsburger, "A Christian
Pacifist Response" in War: Four
Christian Views, 59.
72 Augsburger,
"Christian Pacifism," 94; and Herman A. Hoyt, Then Would My
Servants Fight (Winona Lake: Brethren
Missionary Herald, 1956) 16-17.
452
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
If it is right for rulers to use coercive force,
then most men of good will
and good conscience will
say that it is right for the Christian to be a
part of the force. Reality,
most will agree, provides no "division of
labor" whereby one
section of humanity, as a matter of necessity and
duty, does something for my
benefit in which it is too sinful for me to
help out.73
If
the Christian should support and participate in the functions of
fgovernment, then why should a
Christian not participate in legitimate
governmental use of force?
[This brings the whole question back to the
central issue. Hoyt
responds,
It is true that force was entrusted to governments,
not to individuals.
But it is not true that believers were necessarily
involved in the exercise
of force, even as agents
of the government, in the same way in the New
Testament as in the Old.74
Augsburger argues similarly that
the State operates on a different
level than does the Church. While Christians might
well have the
responsibility to call the State to participate
only in a just war, the
individual Christian is called by Christ to a higher
ethical function.
Augsburger goes on to deal with this ethical
duality by explaining
that "while there is one ethic for all people.
. . by which we shall all
be judged and to which we are held accountable,
the patterns and
levels of life commitment do not conform to this one
ethic.75
Both Hoyt and Augsburger
are arguing from their presupposi-
tions regarding the
separation of Church and State and the priority
commitment to the Body of Christ. Thus, the Christian
has responsi-
bility to the State (Rom 13:3,
6, 7) but that cannot include acts which
contradict the Christian's higher responsibility to
Christ.76
CONCLUSION:
NONCOMBATANT PARTICIPATION IN WAR
The noun "nonresistance" may be misleading.
It sounds a note of
non-involvement, an uncaring isolationism
when the nation is in the
throes of a desperate military struggle. It could be
interpreted as a
passive and lifeless response to a very emotional
issue. Perhaps non-
combatant participation" is a term which
reflects a proper Christian
response to the biblical norms.
73 Culver, "Justice Is Something Worth
Fighting For," 21.
74 Hoyt, A Nonresistant Response, 138.
75 Augsburger,"A Christian Pacifist
Response," 143.
76 Drescher,
"Why Christians Shouldn't Carry Swords," 23.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 453
Observations
Before drawing conclusions, two observations
need to be made.
At
the outset, there was a reminder that this issue is complex. It has
given rise to a dialogue among men who desire to
conform their
personal ethics to the norms of Scripture. There
are two reasons why
this diversity exists.
First, the Christian is faced with the fact that
the NT is silent on
the specific question, does Christian
responsibility to obey the God-
ordained government include taking the life of
others, possibly even
fellow believers, simply because those individuals are
soldiers of
another nation? There is no "proof
text" which settles that question.
There
is a necessary step that everyone must make beyond direct NT
statements.
Those who support participation in war lean
quite heavily on the
fact that God has given the sword to civil
government (Rom 13:4).
However,
Holmes, a 'just war" advocate, admits,
The passage pertains directly to matters of
criminal justice and the civil
order and only by
extrapolation to international conflict. But it does
make clear that for some
purposes, the precise scope of which is not
defined, government has the
right to use lethal force.77
Another passage that deals with this subject of
swords is found
in Jesus' statements to his disciples in Luke
manded his disciples to buy
literal swords. He did not rebuke them
for the two swords which they had brought with
them. Geisler moves
from viewing these swords as legitimate tools for
self-defense to the
conclusion that "herein seems to be the
sanction of Jesus to the
justifiable use of an instrument of death in defense
against an unjust
aggressor.78 The step to international
warfare may. be a logical one,
but it is only an inference.
Second, it is recognized by all sides that the
determining factor is
not the interpretation of particular passages of
Scripture. Presupposi-
tions, the theological
premises built out of biblical study which are
accepted at the beginning, determine the
conclusions that are reached.
In
their discussions both Holmes and Augsburger79 make that quite
clear.
In light of the silence of the Scriptures and
the recognition of
theological presuppositions, the following
conclusions are offered with
77 Holmes, "A Just
War Response," 122.
78 Geisler,
Ethics, 171.
79 Holmes, "The Just War," 65;
and Augsburger, "Christian Pacifism," 65.
454
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
the recognition that godly men of different persuasions
have the liberty
in Christ to disagree agreeably.
Conclusions
Does the requirement of obedience to the
government relieve the
believer of individual ethical responsibility?
The activist view is most
likely erroneous. The apostles recognized that they
had to heed God
first (Acts
expected to obey the government. However, Romans
13 is also clear
that the government's authority is derived from God
(13:1, 2, 4, 6).
Thus,
the believer should pay taxes (13:6). However his subjection is
not required when the government expects something
that is not
legitimately due (13:7). The higher
authority is God,
This does not mean that the Christian prevents
the state from
engaging in war or from defensive preparations
which might deter
aggressors. The separation of Church and State
allows the government
that privilege. However, Christians are still bound
personally by a
higher priority established by a higher authority. God
has made each
Christian a member of the Body of Christ. The responsibility to
fellow believers is abundantly clear in the NT.
Numerous commands
about love, forbearance, unity, and kindness fill the
pages of the NT,
How
can the Christian violate such commands in the name of patrio-
tism? In addition, even with
qualifications added, the spirit of the
Sermon
on the Mount and direct statements such as those found in
Romans
12 and 13 regarding the treatment of enemies are binding
upon Christians. Individual ethical responsibility
must enter in if a
believer is personally on one side of the gun
aiming at another person
who is there only because a war has been declared.
Thus, In my view,
this higher priority bars that kind of participation
in war.
Commonly the issue of self-defense is raised
against this position,
"What
would you do if a man was threatening to kill your family?"
To
move to this personal and emotional plane obscures the issue.
"Nonresitance in war and nonresistance in this situation are
not
necessarily parallel cases."80 There is a difference between defending
ones family in this type of situation and planning to
take lives in war.
It is wholly illogical to pose this problem as
the test for the non-
resistance position, In war the
situation is known and the movements
are all premeditated and
planned with precision. Surely the Christian
who feels that the Word of God
warns him against the show of
violence cannot deliberately
plan to do the very thing he knows is
un-Scriptural.81
80 Hoyt, Then
Would My Servants Fight, 85.
81 Ibid 86.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 455
To permit self-defense when one is personally
threatened with
violence does not necessarily permit one to join
in war and take the
lives of "enemies" because they are from
another nation. The separa-
tion of Church and State and
commitment to fellow Christians forbid
the latter practice but not the former.
Each Christian must ask, "What is my
responsibility? What
decision should I make in regard to participation
in war?" I can
summarize my own view of such responsibility in
three statements.
First,
it is my responsibility to trust God as my ultimate defense.
Some
may feel that the noncombatant believer leaves to others the
defense of the nation. While I would not deny
the responsibility to
participate in such defense as far as conscience
allows, my ultimate
trust differs from that of many of my fellow
citizens. My faith is in
the sovereign God as the ultimate Defender of me
and my family.
Even
those believers who in clear conscience fully participate in war
need to examine their priorities. Perhaps Christians
should be as
concerned to pray for the security of their nation
as they are to
guarantee its military defense.
Second, it is my responsibility to serve my
government as far as
conscience and my commitment to Scripture allows.
The separation
of Church and State and my citizenship in the
heavenly kingdom
does not mean that I am to be isolated from the
society in which I
live. Christians are not to go out of the world (1 Cor 5:9-10) though
they are "not of the world" (John
sent into the world (as Jesus' prayer in John 17
indicates). Non-
resistance then should not be passive but rather
active as Christ's
commandments are carried out.
Third, it is my responsibility to serve my
fellow man. Serving my
fellow citizens and my government may well involve
going into life-
threatening situations knowing that I will not be
bearing arms. How-
ever, my service may involve binding wounds or
serving as a chaplain.
Thus,
my refusal to take lives in the name of the government is a
biblically limited participation not a refusal to
participate. I prefer to
call this "noncombatant participation" in
war.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu