Volume 39 Number 19 November 7, 2001

The Problem with Good Wars

Dr. Terry G. Hiebert

GOOD WARS appeal to me. When airplanes with hundreds of passengers are hijacked and kils thousands of innocent people in America, something must be done. The terrorist networks and their leaders must face justice. It only makes sense that evil-doers should be punished. A war that punishes terrorists and those who protect them is not only a necessary war, but possibly a good war.

The challenge
Evangelical Mennonites face a tension. We are caughton between the majority Christian view of war supported by our evangelical friends and the minority Anabaptist peace position. The pressure to go with popular opinion is intense. If we disagree with the war on terrorism, we are called unpatriotic and cowardly. We do not seem to know that there is a difference between how we should live in church and society. More importantly, we lack the courage to call this war not only a Just War, but also a Good War.

Just war
The Christian Just War tradition says that Christians can and should support wars if certain conditions are met. The argument would go something like this.

Just Authority. Has not the president of the United States been elected by the people and urged to make war?

Just Cause. How could anyone say that killing thousands of innocent persons is not a just cause for war?

Right Intention. Is not the intention of war to restore world peace and security?

The Just War tradition also has World War II in their favour. Who in their right mind would not oppose Hitler? Recently, Slovadan Milosevic and Hussein were the evil opposition. And now when Osama bin Laden's terrorists in the al-Qaeda network attack the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Just War view becomes a sensible Christian way of responding to this new face of evil.

Good war
But some Christians are going one step further. Instead of saying that this war is a necessary evil to stop the evil-doers, they say that resisting the evil-doer is a necessary good. Darrell Cole in Good Wars says that fighting evil-doers shows love for our neighbours. Where does he get this idea? He finds support in two great theologians - Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.

In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas connected the Just War with charity or love. Is it lawful for Christians to kill sinners? Aquinas replies that it is praiseworthy that a sinner be killed in order to safeguard the common good. "A little leaven corrupts the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6). So killing a sinner supports the common good, and may be commanded for those who love their neighbours.

The reformer John Calvin relates the law of love to the magistrates. Commenting on Romans 13:3-4, he concludes, "Contend then do they with God who think it unlawful to shed the blood of wicked men." Since God is a holy and loving God, the killing of the wicked is the right thing for governments to do in expressing God's holy will. Just War is Good War.

Points well-taken
The reasons to support Good War are believable. It makes sense that Good Wars reveal the justice of God and a love for our neighbours. September 11 seems to have all the qualifications to justify a Good War.

Mennonites who disagree with the war are thought too unrealistic, inconsistent, and unbiblical. Is it realistic to believe that turning the other cheek is a serious option for threatening situations? If a hijacker boards my plane, the reasoning goes, I would do whatever is in my power to overtake and even kill the hijacker so that more innocent lives could be saved. It would be unrealistic to pray for God's help and not do something physical or lethal about the threat.

Is it inconsistent for Mennonite to expect the benefits of police and military protection when we are unwilling to take responsibilities within these organizations? They do the dirty work and we get the benefits.

And finally, have not Mennonites carefully chosen Scriptures to support their minority view against the majority view so abundantly supported by both Old and New Testaments? God's war commands to Israel required the killing of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:18). Jesus did not command the Roman soldiers to leave their vocations (Matt. 8:13). Paul taught that the government had the right to use the sword to punish evil (Rom. 13:4). And God is anything but a pacifist in the extermination of evil-doers during the end times and in hell (Luke 12:5).

The case for a Good War is powerful and becomes attractive for evangelical Mennonites. Both evangelicals and government leaders are basically unified that in this case the war on terrorism is not only just but good. But is there another way?

The response
The latest challenge to the peace church position is important and needs a response. The calls for a Good War are an opportunity to rethink what we believe and why. The peace church position is the minority. And our understanding of Jesus and the Bible is only a few hundred years old. But remember that the minority believer's churches in the 16th century were attacked by the Christians who were following government orders.

Another side
How are Just War principles applied? In the case of Afghanistan, the other side also feels justified in waging war.

Just Authority. "Allah has ordered us to make holy wars and to fight to see to it that his word is the highest and the uppermost and that of the unbelievers the lowermost."

Just Cause. "They rip us of our wealth, resources and oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill, murder our brothers. They compromise our honour an[d] dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest, we are called terrorists."

Right Intention. "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control."

These were the words of Osama bin Laden to PBS in a May 1998 interview, just two months before the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Do not think that this article supports bin Laden. Neither is it saying that bin Laden's Holy War is as legitimate as that of President Bush. Rather, our concern will focus on a different direction.

Types of people
Augustine and Calvin believed in the depravity of the human soul. Calvin remarked that it was disgraceful to be ignorant of one's own self. By not being self-critical, he believed "we miserably deceive ourselves in matters of the highest moment, and so walk blindfolded."

Menno Simons would have added that total depravity extends to the self-interest of governments. The Roman government of Romans 13 that rewards good and punishes evil, can become a beast in Revelation 13 that destroys the good saints and supports evil. In both chapters the challenge to saints is not armed combat, but is love and perseverance (Rom. 13:8; Rev. 13:10).

A case
Ten years ago, John Howard Yoder questioned the justice of the Iraq war. Yoder believed that it was very hard to decide if Just War principles were being upheld. Did the average person have enough true information to make an informed decision? Would political leaders actually reject war if the standards could not be met? And where is Jesus' command to "love your enemy" on the Just War checklist?

One might replay that going to war is an expression of love for the enemy. By making him pay the penalty of his actions, we are showing him God's holy love. During the Iraq war and the sanctions afterward, 500,000 children died. Where is the love for the enemy?

Different kingdom
Followers of Jesus Christ are members of a different kingdom. Jesus said in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here" (NRSV). In this case, Jesus' heavenly standard stopped his followers from using force. But can it work in the real world?

Aquinas said that the standard was limited to clergy. Lay persons under the authority of the government could kill sinners. But according to 1 Tim. 3:2-3 the bishop should be without crime. Clergy should not kill because their first ministry was to the altar of Christ "who was struck but did not strike" (1 Pet. 2:23). Clergy were ministers of the New Law where no violence was allowed.

Anabaptists at Schleitheim disagreed. "For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and who [have come] out of the world." Anabaptists believed that there many activities held in high regarrd by the Christian world, but Jesus had called them to separate from these activities.

Luther and Calvin said the standard was limited to Jesus' unique role in salvation. Calvin's Treatise Against the Anabaptists said, "To mete out corporal punishment was not His task, but he leaves these in whose authority it belongs and to whom the charge has been commissioned." Followers of Jesus should obviously serve Caesar or else the state would collapse.

Good war redefined
The believers at Schleitheim said, "The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ." They agreed that governments were called by God to use the sword to punish the wicked and protect the good. But believers were called to follow the kingdom of Jesus Christ by not using the sword. So what would a Good War look like for believers?

In the church only words and exclusion are means of discipline. In the world Jesus did not wish to mediate disputes. Followers of Jesus use the sword as Jesus used it. Christians are citizens of heaven and use spiritual, not physical, weapons. In short, the mind of Christ would guide all levels of participation in the world.

Walter Klaassen thinks that Anabaptists learned from their violent beginnings in Muenster. As a result, Anabaptists believed that "justice and violence are enemies, and that the attempt to achieve justice with violence is like fighting fire with oil." Klaassen notes, the early Anabaptists ordered their Christian lives as if the old institutions were no longer there. They lived as though the kingdom of God had already come. As Christians, they chose to live in peace. They practiced the separation of church and state.

Loyal opposition
Have we confused the separation of church and state with the separation of Christians from the state? Should not Christians become salt and light in the world by fighting for justice?

The heart of the issue is this: Christians agree that involvement in society is acceptable unless it conflicts with obedience to God (Acts 5:29). However, in the case of war, peace churches obey the law of Christ rather than the laws of specific nations. Here is how the principle could be applied.

In Canadian government, the Loyal Opposition is a minority party recognised by the speaker as having the right to represent an opposing position. Why? Because we think that democracies make better decisions by considering opposing views.

Like the Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons, the followers of Christ will seldom be the ruling party in any nation. But we are still faithful messengers of a peaceful gospel using only peaceful means.

Is it realistic? Christians with limited time and resources need to focus more on the kingdom of God than on earthly kingdoms. Is it consistent? There seems to be a better connection between our message and our methods. Is it biblical? Christ-like love for our neighbour and enemy are basic to our biblical mission of making disciples of all nations.

As a Christian missionary in prison, Paul reminded the Ephesians that the powers were spiritual and the resources were too (Eph. 6:10-20). Recently Jay Smith, a peace church missionary to Muslims, urged Christians to let the governments deal with the crisis using their methods. But, he concluded, it is not a battle of bullets, but a battle of ideas and words.

Terry G. Hiebert is a professor at Steinbach Bible College and is a member of the Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference. He holds a Ph.D. in religion.