Jesus and war

[yovargas]

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

I usually avoid doing this sort of thing, questioning other people's faiths, as they are usually more complex than the black and whiteness non-believers often see in them, and also cuz as it's not my faith it's not generally any of my business. But this one is particularly puzzling and apparently straight-forward. Based on these verses, shouldn't all followers of Jesus oppose all war, indeed all violence, in all circumstances, even in self-defense?

[JewelSong]

Quakers do.

From Wikipedia:
Peace testimony, or testimony against war, is a shorthand description of the action generally taken by members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) for peace and against participation in war. Like other Quaker testimonies, it is not a "belief", but a description of committed actions, in this case to promote peace, and refrain from and actively oppose participation in war. Quakers' original refusal to bear arms has been broadened to embrace protests and demonstrations in opposition to government policies of war and confrontations with others who bear arms, whatever the reason, in the support of peace and active nonviolence. Because of this core testimony, the Religious Society of Friends is considered one of the traditional peace churches.

And from the declaration most commonly cited (to King Charles II of England in 1660) by famous Quaker Margaret Fell:
All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world. That spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight any war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.

You will find that testimony of the wall of many Quaker Meeting Houses even today.

[Primula Baggins]

Mennonites do. Their churches work hard for peace and economic justice in the world.

[vison]

What Jesus said is pretty plain. It can't be explained away so it often gets ignored.

I am famously not a Christian. There are many aspects of Christian beliefs that I profoundly disagree with - some of those things are supposedly what Jesus himself said.

But whether he said it or not, much of it is terribly hard. Maybe unreasonably hard.

I think a frank admission of the difficulty is better than a convoluted, twisted, dishonest "interpretation" of these hard things.

When he said to turn the other cheek, he wasn't talking about the guy who cut in on you in the grocery store line up. When he said to forgive your enemy, he meant the guy who really hurt you, not just the clerk who shortchanged you.

I have heard and read "interpretations" of his teachings that allow war, and hatred, and intolerance. That call for killing.

I really, really, really don't think that's WJWD.

[Dave_LF]

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

...
Based on these verses, shouldn't all followers of Jesus oppose all war, indeed all violence, in all circumstances, even in self-defense?

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
—Matthew 7:34, NIV

The Bible is long enough, contradictory enough, vague enough, and mistranslated enough that Christianity is pretty much in the eye of the Christian. If you want war, you can find support for it. If you want peace, you can find that too.

[halplm]

Sigh...

Matthew 7:34 is not about war, although it is often quoted to be. It is about the decidedly harsh difference Jesus's way was to the current way of the world.

Yov, your two verses are about how people should treat each other, and if everyone did so, wouldn't the world be a better place? They are not about war or what nations do.

Jesus said very little about concepts larger than individuals. This was because he was introducing a new concept, that of a personal relationship with God. That each of us is responsible for our own actions. He did not speak on war being good or bad, only that it was a reality and would continue to be until the end times.

Speaking for myself, I support war against terrorists because they have made it clear that it is us or them. If they would live their own lives to themselves, they are free to believe what they want and do what they want. But they have clearly decided what they want is to kill us. If we as a nation or collection of nations have to kill them first to preserve our way of life which allows us to freely excersize our own beliefs, then we must do that.

I want to be a Christian, and I want others to be Christians. The United States was founded to among other things protect the rights of its citizens to not be oppressed by their government about their religion. The United States is responsible for preserving that right. Fortunately The United States is a nation, and not someone that will be judged by God in the future.

Each individual in our nation will have to make their own peace with God, at least as I believe was what Jesus was trying to teach. So a soldier protecting the fellow citizens of the US by killing terrorists will need to be figure that out. Fortunately, Jesus provided a path for forgiveness for any sin.

[nerdanel]

The United States is a nation, and not someone that will be judged by God in the future.

This raises an interesting point that I'm wondering about (and that relates to Jesus/God and war): to what extent do people (who believe in God and afterlife) believe that humans will be judged communally vs. individually for their actions? I've been to synagogue a lot lately, and I'm struck by the extent to which the Jewish people often pray *as a people* - something that may be at its annual height on Yom Kippur, which recently passed.

So, for instance, does anyone here believe that they would answer to God as a 21st century American (or Brit or Canadian or Australian or anything else), and bear part-responsibility for our societal successes and failures, in addition to our successes and failings as individual citizens?

[yovargas]

Yov, your two verses are about how people should treat each other, and if everyone did so, wouldn't the world be a better place? They are not about war or what nations do.

Jesus said very little about concepts larger than individuals. This was because he was introducing a new concept, that of a personal relationship with God. That each of us is responsible for our own actions. He did not speak on war being good or bad, only that it was a reality and would continue to be until the end times.

But war consists of individuals hurting or killing other individuals. "Nations" are just ideas, they can't do anything, only humans can. The humans who somewhere are planning to kill Americans, they are humans, not "terrorists" and the teachings of Jesus say treat humans with love even if they try to hurt you, do they not?

[Primula Baggins]

So, for instance, does anyone here believe that they would answer to God as a 21st century American (or Brit or Canadian or Australian or anything else), and bear part-responsibility for our societal successes and failures, in addition to our successes and failings as individual citizens?

My take on this is that we are expected to act as individuals and to do what we can to prevent unjust and immoral acts carried out by society and government. Our ability to carry out this duty is affected by the groups we choose to be part of; but I don't believe that an individual acting morally in an immoral society would be judged by the wrongs that society committed. More like, insofar as the individual's acts or inaction made those wrongs better or worse.

[halplm]

Yov, your two verses are about how people should treat each other, and if everyone did so, wouldn't the world be a better place? They are not about war or what nations do.

Jesus said very little about concepts larger than individuals. This was because he was introducing a new concept, that of a personal relationship with God. That each of us is responsible for our own actions. He did not speak on war being good or bad, only that it was a reality and would continue to be until the end times.

But war consists of individuals hurting or killing other individuals. "Nations" are just ideas, they can't do anything, only humans can. The humans who somewhere are planning to kill Americans, they are humans, not "terrorists" and the teachings of Jesus say treat humans with love even if they try to hurt you, do they not?

But they are terroists. They have promised to kill us if they can. We are fighting to stop that from happening. If the only way to stop them is to kill them, then that is what should be done.

If we can capture them and lock them all up without risking the lives of the capturing force, I'd love to see that happen. I don't think they'd agree to that, though.

If defeating terrorists was vengeance, then I would agree that Jesus's "turn the other cheek" lesson would apply. Nothing is gained form vengeance. But in the case of the US and our war on terror, it is preventative (I'm sure it's vengeance for some, but that's their issue to deal with).

[yovargas]

That doesn't sound at all in accord with Jesus' words on how to treat your enemies. Would you personally be morally willing to fight as a soldier in war?

[nerdanel]

More like, insofar as the individual's acts or inaction made those wrongs better or worse.

(emphasis mine)

My concern/thought is that that subjects most of us (the "ordinary citizens" of the world) to a potentially significant amount of responsibility. I'm not sure that'd be the wrong result, but it's scary.

[halplm]

That doesn't sound at all in accord with Jesus' words on how to treat your enemies. Would you personally be morally willing to fight as a soldier in war?

I would not choose to, but if say, I were drafted, then I would serve as I was asked.

Jesus did not say anything like "If you know someone is coming to kill you... let them." That's stupid.

There is evil in the world, and while it is not our job to eliminate it, it is up to us to not let it eliminate us.

[yovargas]

Jesus did not say anything like "If you know someone is coming to kill you... let them." That's stupid.

How can you say that? It's almost exactly what he said: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person."

[MithLuin]

Some of my students are interested in joining the military, and many of them are Christian.

And yes, at least one of them thinks that joining the military is basically an excuse to do drive-bys with the sanction of the law.

But anyway, it makes sense that men of God would be men of peace. The world itself will probably never be ready for most of Jesus' message, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Keep in mind that God does demand that we defend the defenseless. There are quite a few verses about looking out for orphans and widows. Turning the other cheek is about wrongs done against you - not others.

Christianity is not about being a doormat.

[Lalaith]

Just thinking out loud here. I wonder if this would be a similar thing to what Jesus says about paying taxes. Matters of state are, well, matters of state. You do what you need to do according to the law.

Of course, that theory falls apart a bit because I would draw the line at following the law if it violated my religious beliefs...

[narya]

How about "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"?

The Catholic tradition condones war only if it is a "just war". What we are doing in Iraq is not "just". In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find any war a "just war". Here's more on it:

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/

Deciding whether or not to kill a terrorist is one of those apples vs orange choices. Neither is good building material. When presented with it, I choose cinder blocks.

The simplistic answer is to say, "well, he's got a gun, and he's totally unreasonable, so I have to kill him". The hard answer is to spend a lifetime promoting human dignity so that terrorism cannot take seed and grow. When we promote universal literacy, civil rights, and health care, teach people non-violent conflict resolution, and listen to and enfranchise those who are disenfranchised, we decrease the chance that those people will seek extremism and violence as the only perceived solution to their plight.

An example I heard recently was this: Should a professor keep a gun in his drawer in the class room, just in case a crazed person walks into a classroom and threatens to shoot everyone? Would shooting the crazed person be the right thing to do? It certainly seems simple enough. But how many hundreds of people are not turning into crazed gun-wielders right now because their teachers, parents, clergy, doctors, friends, co-workers, counselors, and people they meet on the street are helping them to not go down that path?

You cannot know what ripple effect you are having, when you help a friend through a rough day, and she in turn does not yell at her kid, and he in turn does not feel more isolated and angry. Just one act doesn't make much difference in the world (unless it is shooting a kid). But thousands of acts in a lifetime, by millions of people, can make this a better place.

I challenge myself to "fight the good fight" by waging peace daily.

[Túrin Turambar]

When we promote universal literacy, civil rights, and health care, teach people non-violent conflict resolution, and listen to and enfranchise those who are disenfranchised, we decrease the chance that those people will seek extremism and violence as the only perceived solution to their plight.

This goes beyond the ambit of this thread, but terrorists are often educated, wealthy and come from advantaged backgrounds in their home country. Osama bin Laden came from an extremely wealthy family in the construction business and had a university education. Mohammed Atta, who led the 9/11 attacks, was an architect who had lived and studied in Germany and had wealthy and educated parents. Of the other hijackers, two were law students, two were teachers (albeit fairly poor ones), one was an Imam with a university degree, one was an aerospace engineering student, two were studying to become Imams, one was a language student who lived and studied in Germany and one was the son of a wealthy businessman who had lived and studied in Tucson. Aman Al-Zahahiri, Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command and mastermind of several Islamic Jihad attacks in Egypt, was a pediatrician. Abu Bakr Bashir is university-educated. The four London bombers were all raised in the U.K. and benefitted from British education, and one was university-educated and the son of a fairly well-off businessman. Many terrorists are poor and uneducated, but the idea that terrorists are disadvantaged people who would become peaceful with literacy, civil rights and the like is a myth.

[narya]

Many terrorists are poor and uneducated, but the idea that terrorists are disadvantaged people who would become peaceful with literacy, civil rights and the like is a myth.

When you put it that way, I agree with you. But that is not what I was attempting to convey. Violence is often rooted in a perception of wrong that must be righted, and that a violent action is the quickest way to do so. The slower and harder way is as Pope Paul said "If you want peace, work for justice". Our civil rights movement in the USA started with both violent and peaceful action. As we moved towards equality, the perceived need for violence diminished.

You pointed out that the masterminds of some of the recent terrorist attacks are well educated, which is to be expected of masterminds. The cannon fodder they are using, though, consists largely of poor people educated by religious fundamentalists. If this is the only kind of education these young men can get, then holy war will continue to be the "obvious" solution to them.

On the other hand, except for the handful you mentioned, countless other people from other nations are getting their educations in the US, Australia, UK and elsewhere, and are bringing back new ideas to their countries. This could be a much slower, but much more effective revolution: They are being exposed to the idea that people have worth, even if they are of other religions, or nationalities, or female.

[MithLuin]

To piggyback on what Lalaith is saying....

Jesus also told this parable, though of course parables aren't meant as...advice on how to handle a situation. But it is worth pointing out that the king and his son in this parable are fairly obviously meant to represent Jesus and his Father. Leaving vengeance up to God is one way of being peaceable, I suppose....

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. Again he sent out other slaves saying, `Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."'

But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, `The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.

But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, `Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

This is from the same chapter as the "Render unto Caesar..." verse, Matthew 22.

A more fleshed out explanation of submitting to secular authority is given by Peter (in his second letter):

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Since nations do have the right to wage war, we have to accept that on some level. That doesn't mean Christians can't speak out against war and injustice - we obviously are supposed to do that, too. But it might help to explain why not all Christians are complete pacifists and conscientious objectors.

Hebrews 7 talks about Melchizedek, a priest and king who is viewed by Christians as a foreshadowing of Christ. He is King of Salem...King of Peace. So, yeah, plenty of verses explaining why peace is important to Christians!