Post Office Box 2268, Westerly, RI 02891
Deuteronomy 7:2 - When the Lord your God has delivered them [the enemy] over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Matthew 5:39 - But I tell you, do not resist him who is evil. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 6:27 - But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.
Romans 13:4 - But if you do wrong, be afraid; for it [the governing
authority] does not bear the sword for nothing. It is God's servant, an angel of wrath to
bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
The present state of this world in reference to nuclear weapons is both critical and
confusing for the Christian. It should be quite obvious why it's critical. Never before in
history has so much destructive power been held in the hands of sinful man. Not only is
this devastating power now stockpiled, but much of it is already aimed and targeted, and
could literally be released at a moment's notice. All the firepower of World War II
was the equivalent of 3 megatons of TNT. At the present time there are at least 18,000
megatons available in nuclear arsenals on this planet. 300 megatons alone would be enough
firepower to destroy all the large and medium size cities on earth! How awesome!
How critical!
The issue of nuclear war and weapons is also very confusing. What
position should the Christian take? Should the Christian opt for an all-out nuclear arms
race in order to have bigger and better and more missiles than "the other side"?
Although the "peace through power" concept is logical and reasonable in many
respects, grave questions concerning this position are obvious. Where do we stop? How many
missiles do we really need? Why "pressure" the other side to further build-up?
On the other hand, should the Christian choose to be totally against nuclear power and for
the complete destruction of all nuclear weapons?
At first, this latter choice sounds like a great position, but it is
much too simplistic. Although every Christian in his right mind would prefer the total
elimination of nuclear weapons from this earth, we cannot turn time and history backwards.
Nuclear know-how is here to stay. Even if it were possible to get everyone to agree
to destroy all their nuclear weapons and technological documents, we know that it wouldn't
be long before the missiles would be showing up again--even in third world countries as
well as in terrorist groups. No, until the Lord's return it will likely be impossible to
clear this planet of nuclear weapons and technology. Moreover, we know that nuclear
technology can be used for good purposes. Just as man's research and development has
always resulted in proper use as well as abuse (consider fire or the wheel, for example!),
so is this true in the application of nuclear technology.
In view of the problems associated with the two positions just
mentioned, maybe the Christian should choose some kind of limited nuclear capability--for
good purposes and defensive war only. Considering the other options, this position sounds
the most reasonable, but it, too, is certainly not without serious questions. Who defines
and controls "good purposes"? Suppose the other side has an outstanding record
of not playing fair? Can a so-called build-down disarmament program be realistically
monitored? Is there even such a thing as defensive warfare in a nuclear age?
When we turn to the Bible for help in sorting through and answering
these complicated questions, we are at once struck with what appears to be contradictory
principles. (Just take a glance at our selected texts!) In light of Scriptures such as
these, how can the growing Christian come to a firm position in reference to nuclear
weapons? It is because of these apparent inconsistencies of Scriptural principles that
four different Christian views of war have been held throughout the history of the
Christian Church.
The Christian pacifist places the emphasis on the "turn the
other cheek" and "love your enemy" group of Scriptures and is therefore
against individual participation in war. Some Christian pacifists would go so far as to
say that even a nation should not involve itself in military activities. We should
depend on God to handle the aggressor in His own way--regardless of the enemy's
nuclear arsenal and evil record.
A second Christian view of war is that of Biblical nonresistance.
Holders of this view not only believe that God has given human governments the right to
govern themselves (Genesis 9:1-17), and that nations must therefore defend themselves, but
also that individual Christians have an obligation to their country in this area. However,
the commitment can only be as non-combatants. While unbelievers may bear arms,
Christians may not because the law of Christ calls them to a higher standard. In contrast
to the Christian pacifist who will have nothing to do with the military establishment, the
Christian nonresistor is willing to get involved in the so-called "good" areas
of the military enterprise such as the chaplaincy or medical corps. Some nonresistors are
actually willing to work in civilian companies with military contracts as long as they can
maintain a "make the bullet but not fire it" status.
A third view of Christian war is the preventive war idea or the crusade
concept which is quite the opposite of either the Christian pacifist or nonresistance
stance. The crusader places an emphasis on those Scriptures condoning the destruction of
the enemy such as Deuteronomy 7:2. The crusade spirit is that the "good side" should
engage in war to correct unrestrained injustices and reclaim territory which is in the
hands of the evil side. Most Christians holding this view would gladly fight in what they
perceive to be a "holy war".
The fourth Christian view holds to the just war theory. In this
view, Christian citizens may participate in their nation's defensive wars. As long
as these wars are deemed "justified" (usually not easy determinations without
hindsight), a Christian may be involved in military service--even to the point of bearing
arms and, if need be, shooting to kill. Under the "just war" concept, a nation
must not "throw the first punch" and must not "twist the knife" in
subduing the aggressor. Only military targets are to be selected and strategy must not
include plans for aggrandizement, conquest or revenge. Looting and indiscriminate
destruction are all theoretically foreign to a just war. In the "just war"
concept, actual warfare is only used as a last resort--when all other efforts to restrain
the aggressor have failed. However, because present-day weapons have the capability of
being used in such sudden and devastating attacks, many just war advocates today consider
that preventative actions are compatible with just war theory. That is, when there is
overwhelming evidence of the enemy's evil intentions, a pre-emptive strike of some sort is
not only justified, but actually considered defensive in nature. Since the time of
Augustine (about 400 A.D.), the majority of Christians have held more or less to the
"just war" theory.
How do holders of the "just war" theory deal with those
Scriptures which seem to be against war? The apparent inconsistencies in these Scriptures
are resolved by seeing them in their proper context. The context of the "turn the
other cheek" group of Scriptures is not national defense. Romans 13 is more to the
point when it comes to Scripture dealing with a government's defense policy. The governing
authorities (13:1) do have the right to bear the sword (13:4) in order to protect
the life and welfare of the citizens they govern. Such police action would logically
include action against external as well as internal evil-doers. However, this biblical
authority does not mean that sovereign nations today have the "sword rights"
that Israel had in the Old Testament. It would be pulling Scripture out of context to use
commands such as Deuteronomy 7:2 as a basis for a no-truce policy or justification for
foreign conquest. These commands were given to ancient Israel as direct orders to remove
the pagan Canaanites from the land God had given His people. As a theocracy (direct rule
by God), Old Testament Israel had no division between Church and state and were guided
directly by God's Word through His prophets. So while Romans 13 does not give nations
today the right to wage a war of conquest, it does give them the right and responsibility
to have "swords" and use them to keep law and order. The fact that nations abuse
this authority (the Roman Empire, for example, was certainly a notorious abuser at the
very time Romans 13 was being written), does not take away this basic right and
responsibility of sovereign nations. The size and number of the "swords" could
be argued, but the just war advocates would say that it stands to reason that the
Scripture OK's a "sword" in order to properly keep the peace.
Admittedly our summary of the various Christian positions and problems
concerning modern warfare has been brief but we hope not over-simplified. We see that
making choices in this nuclear age is not easy for the growing Christian. Nuclear weapons
have forced many Christians to rethink their positions on war. The potential of nuclear
capability for the ever-increasing numbers of terrorist groups has caused many Christian
pacifists to modify their former positions. The ominous threat of a nuclear holocaust has
caused many Christians who once held to the just war position to adopt a "nuclear
pacifism" stance. Continuous technological advances in large scale ABC (atomic,
bacterial, chemical) weapons further complicate choices confronting the Christian.
We conclude by reemphasizing that the Bible seems to definitely give a
sovereign nation the right and responsibility to protect the life and welfare of its
citizens and thus defend itself against aggression. However, beyond this basic
presupposition, we cannot be dogmatic as to the details of a Christian position based on
Scripture. The size of a country's nuclear arsenal, the "star wars" defense
concept, the question of pre-emptive strikes, the value of arms-reduction talks and
treaties, the extent of Christian participation and the legitimacy of conscientious
objection are all areas where Christians will make different choices depending on
convictions and conscience. Further studies of our selected texts and other related
Scriptures will certainly have a bearing on those convictions. (Study in context Exodus
20:13; Deuteronomy 17:16; 1 Chronicles 21:1-7; 2 Chronicles 26:9-15; Matthew 26:52; Luke
3:14; Luke 22:36-38; John 18:36; Romans 12:14-21; 1 Peter 2:18-20, for example.) Remember
that Christians should not judge or despise one another because of differing convictions.
(See Romans 14:10-12.) Rather let us unitedly pray for peace (1 Timothy 2:1-8). We
all long for that day when the Prince of Peace will return and bring the threats and
horrors of the nuclear age to an end.
David R. Reid
Back to Devotions For Growing Christians
Topics with titles starting with A-K
Topics with titles starting with L-Z