Is Ending the War a Matter of Faith

In his blog on Friday, March 16, 2007, Jim Wallis wrote an article entitled: “Ending the War is a Matter of Faith” in which he argued that the War in Iraq is morally wrong and cannot be justified. He says that it cannot be justified by the teachings of Jesus or by Augustine’s just war doctrine. He feels that not only is the war un-Christian, but it is an offense to all the young men who have been sent to fight, to the Iraqis, and to all who have been shortchanged by the diversion of funds from more important projects and concerns. Jim calls for all Christians to pray and seek the end of the war by mobilizing the faith community in our country to change the current wind of public opinion.

St. Augustine said that protection of one’s own life or property is never a just reason for killing one’s neighbor. However, this applies only to individuals and not to the leaders of nations who have the obligation to maintain peace and order. He states, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” He continues, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” So in St. Augustine's thinking a war "was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.”

Preemptive strikes are not considered justified by this doctrine. Iraq never attacked the United States or threatened our security. However, President Bush claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction that he intended to give to terrorists to use against the United States and its allies. The prospect of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons being used against American civilians is a scary prospect, and unfortunately it is very likely to happen in the near future. It is debatable whether the war in Iraq has reduced or increased the chances of this kind of attack happening, but the ends don’t justify the means.

With such a real and imminent threat our government has the moral obligation to act to deter such an attack to protect its citizens. Attacking Iraq was put forth as an essential element in our government’s plan to end global terrorism. The questions that needs to be asked are: Is ending global terrorism within the moral and legal rights of the United States and is it just to pursue military action to secure that objective? Is attacking another sovereign nation justified if it harbors and aids global terrorists that have clearly declared war on the United States? Is military action the best course of action to secure these objectives? Can diplomacy, sanctions and other nonviolent means be used effectively to stop global terrorism?

While I agree with Jim Wallis that indiscriminate war is unchristian and unjustifiable, I am not sure that the war on global terrorism fits that label. International terrorist organizations have clearly and repeatedly declared war on the United States. These organizations have carried out numerous deadly attacks on U.S. citizens, military and civilian, around the world. These organizations have attacked and killed thousands of civilians and military personnel on our own soil. These organizations have publicly vowed to carry out more of such attacks in the future. These organizations are actively seeking out nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use against civilian and military targets overseas and within our own borders. Whether we like it or not, we are at war. Even if we do not strike back, we are still at war.

The difficulty comes not in determining whether we are at war and if we should defend ourselves, but how doe we defend ourselves against attacks against our civilians that come not from other nation states with clearly defined borders, armies, and governments but are transnational and often are indistinguishable from the civilian populations around them. There are not clear military targets, definitive armies or simple borders as in the past. Our understanding of warfare needs to be updated and changed to reflect the new realities. We cannot evaluate wars in the same way as we have in the past. As Christians, we need to spend more time studying these realities and evaluating what biblical responsibilities a government has towards its citizens and how Christian principles should guide decision-making in this new situation.

I agree with most of what Jim Wallis says, yet I feel that his evaluation of the current situation is too limited. I agree that Jesus has clearly laid down principles of non-violence and Christians must not strike back at those who strike them. However, governments have the moral obligation to protect their citizens and to maintain order. The Apostle Paul says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-4). The context is concerned about Christians obeying the government, yet there are some principles in this passage that are applicable to war. Governments are divinely appointed to maintain order and peace and have been invested with the authority to punish wrongdoers. It would be immoral for a government to not punish crime or to allow wrongdoers to continue to hurting citizens. The government has been given divine authority to “bear the sword” both in civil and international affairs. Therefore, it is not always wrong to go to war. In fact, there are times it is wrong to not go to war.

Therefore, the question we should be asking is whether the war in Iraq is essential to bringing criminals to justice and to prevent these criminals from committing future crimes against our citizens. Jim Wallis doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq meets these criteria and therefore should be stopped. I am very sympathetic to his call to peace, but I am still doing more research on the current situation before I make a final decision about the legitimacy of the war. Since I am coming at this years later that Jim, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hold my judgment in humility. However, I must still do my own research and make my own decision based upon as much correct information that I can obtain.

So, is the war in Iraq a matter of faith? Definitely. Should we pray for it to end? Yes. Was it a political and military blunder? Maybe. Is it a just war?

You can read Jim Wallis' article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-ending-war-is-matter-of.html