Bible Spells Out When and How to Utilize Force

Our 21-year-old son took my breath away recently by walking through our living room door in his new uniform. The hat fit smartly; the creases were sharp; the boots were shined. Between the two of us, I’m not sure who was more proud of his appearance. My eyes filled with tears as I called upstairs to my husband. He came down and shook our son’s hand. I bit my tongue and mentally argued with myself that maybe we should have been more insistent that he go away to college.

Across the nation, this scene is being repeated. This time our family is fortunate. My son’s uniform is not the navy blue seaman’s uniform of his grandfather from World War II, nor the dress blue naval officer’s uniform of his father from Vietnam. It is solid dark brown--the distinctive uniform of a UPS driver.

“Brown is good,” I sighed to myself, recalling my turbulent days, years ago, as a member of “Another Mother for Peace.” The sad fact is that every sailor and soldier is some mother’s son or daughter.

As family members, caring residents in our community, responsible members of society, and citizens of a freedom-loving nation, how are we to respond to the call to war?

President Clinton has cited “moral imperatives” as a justification for involvement in Kosovo. Morality, or applied ethics, usually has to do with the evaluation of human conduct. An imperative implies a duty to act. Moral imperatives can lead us into moral dilemmas, such as the taking of life to preserve life.

Over the years, society has identified many philosophies that speak to moral dilemmas--among them the Judeo-Christian religious traditions. It is tragic that all of these sources admit it is not possible to honor everything at the same time. You just can’t have it all. Values clash, and imperatives inevitably overlap.

Church history is filled with efforts--some contradictory--to come up with a just solution. Jesus seemed to indicate a pacifist, nonviolent approach in statements to his followers, such as “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44).

Eventually the danger posed by Barbarian aggressors made defensive war a possibility. Augustine came up with the idea of a “just war” by combining Greek virtues and divine revelation.

Later the medieval church rejected pacifism completely, evolving the idea of the Christian knight. Voila! The church became the aggressor and crusades were launched to free the Holy Lands from Islamic control. Needless to say, Augustine’s counsel of moderation was thrown out the window.

Churches today continue to divide along these three traditional stances. Anabaptists and Quakers defend pacifism. Lutherans and Anglicans (famous for their via media or middle way) admit the possibility of a just war.

Roman Catholics have traditionally espoused a crusade mentality. Specifically concerning Kosovo, however, the Catholic stance has been ambivalent: Cardinal Roger M. Mahony said recently that NATO bombing of Serbia and Kosovo qualifies as a just war. At the same time, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navaro-Valls initially objected to the allied attack, quoting Pope Pius XII: “Nothing is lost through peace; all can be lost with war.”

The Bible offers this counsel: In the King James version of the New Testament, we find that the ruler “beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4). However, individuals are commanded to “avenge not yourselves.” (Romans 12:19).

Is there a conflict here? I think not. What is not permitted for an individual is granted to the state. It follows that a soldier, acting on orders, is under the aegis of the state’s authority when using force to stop violence.

But what about the rights of the “doer of evil”--the classic moral dilemma? In Christian love, motivated by a nonnegotiable biblical imperative to protect the weak and needy, one is justified to use physical force sufficient to stop the perpetrator of injustice. To fail to act is to put the rights of the strong above the rights of the weak and defenseless. This is a position clearly contrary to biblical teaching. Might does not make right.

I find it interesting that when Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in the temple, he did not touch persons--only the means they used to oppress the poor. In this case it was tables and unfair exchange rates.

Considering today’s industrialized society and sophisticated weapons of war, is NATO’s mission of degrading the Yugoslav army--so that they no longer have the resources to oppress their citizens--any different?

In the end, I believe the answer hinges on our understanding of human nature. If you believe, as I do, that man is capable of good and evil--good because he is made in the image of God, evil because he has a sinful nature--then we must call out to God for reconciliation and grace.

I personally do not believe that man can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. The human will has an incredible ability to survive and prosper, but an uncanny potential to kill and destroy.

Think of Psalms 47:8-9: “God reigns over the nations; God is seated on his holy throne. The nobles of the nations assemble as the people of the God of Abraham, for the kings of the Earth belong to God; he is greatly exalted.”

On Faith is a forum for Orange County clergy and others to offer their views on religious topics of general interest. Submissions, which will be published at the discretion of The Times and are subject to editing, should be delivered to Orange County religion page editor Jack Robinson.