War – LOVE | ACCEPT

Peace Makers

Peace is the aim of war. With such an important intention, we must commit ourselves then to carefully defining the word. What is peace? By what standard do we infuse the word peace with meaning? A philosophical approach to defining peace may consider many competing values to derive meaning for the term. The Christian must see only shalom.

The defeat of an aggressor may win peace, but surrendering to an attacker may also result in the same peace. Going to war to overcome existential evil may bring about the conditions for peace. Ceding territory or sovereignty might be the seeds of peace. How we define peace, and the experience of gaining or having peace, draws from almost infinite perspectives of winners and losers. Peace as the aim of war is a complex topic. As we work to understand the relationship between war and peace, we often conclude, as President Lyndon B. Johnson did, saying, “In modern warfare there are no victors; there are only survivors.”

The nuance required in thinking about a definition of peace demands a careful approach and the use of wide-ranging sources. If peace is the aim of war, can we have in mind a condition that is simply defined as the cessation of kinetic conflict? Is tranquility or calm composed solely of the absence of rancor? A simple explanation of the term will probably default to a dictionary definition that says peace is calm in personal circumstances and a state of concord or harmony when mentioning the topic in the geopolitical sphere. But what—we must continue to ask—will we do and not do to achieve this experience of peace? What cost will we pay? Is tranquility achieved through “any means necessary” an acceptable approach? Philosophy gives us myriad arguments from which to build our understanding and definition and the range of perspectives will lead to many a rabbit hole. Some philosophers will proffer the notion that seeking peace through any level of violence, destruction, and the loss of human dignity needed is acceptable to success. Peace—declared in these terms —as an aim justifies a full display of might. We will also have to consider an equal number who say that peace is best achieved only through pacifism in all its range of meanings. One-sided definitions are common, but are they ideal?

Christians should derive their description of peace from different sources. The Bible is to be the primary reference, and the definition will expand through the teaching of God’s people through history. Two words primarily define peace in the Bible: shalom in the Hebrew and eirene in the Greek language texts. Shalom is a state defined by much more than the absence of conflict. It carries the meaning of completeness, of a state where everything is as it should be. The word shalom carries the weight of God’s design for the world He made being ‘good.’ It is the shalom that is disrupted by the Fall in the Garden, and it is the restoration of shalom that is the aim of God’s redemptive work in history. Eirene carries the same definition in biblical Greek as a noun, but key texts use the word to describe those who pursue peace. Jesus famously declares “Blessed are the peacemakers [εἰρηνοποιοί]”, blessing those who actively pursue peace in conflict to the good of all parties. Devoting oneself to the pursuit of peace brings the soul into accord with the heart of God in Jesus as Paul writes in Colossians; “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace [εἰρηνοποιήσας] by the blood of his cross.” (1:19-20)

Shalom and its cognate, eirene, have their root in the heart of the God of Peace [Romans 15:33; 1 Thessalonians 5:23]. This means that any definition we use must reflect the holistic concern that God has for all of creation. There are no winners or losers in war in God’s vision of peace. There are only image-bearers on both sides whom He wants to have an all-encompassing peace. And this peace is multifaceted. It is tranquility and security that are matched to justice and wholeness. The defeated need to be treated justly, as this gives them their sense of security. This security contributes to the tranquility in which they rest, not having to be constantly seeking to right injustice at the hands of the aggressor. A life of serenity is possible through the restoration of and provision for human dignity. Ensuring this justice and maintaining this dignity is the responsibility of the victor. God demands of His people that they live out his heart of shalom.

To speak about war, we must be clear about our definition of its aim, peace. Peace as an aim of engaging in war should govern the decision to go to war and the manner in which we fight in war. The choice to go to war, particularly as an aggressor, must include the consideration of how the violence will conclude in such a way as to ensure the dignity of the defeated people. Many people may read this prescription as idealistic to a fault, especially in this day and age of weapons that can effectively destroy the world many times over. Christians are not given the option to view this humanizing perspective as unrealistic. We must pursue every aspect of life, including war or surrender, with the heart of God as our primary source of definition and our guiding principle.

How to Think About War

The original post from which this essay stems was published nearly 20 years ago. There has been much geopolitical and spiritual change over those two decades, and I thought it important—during today’s heated discussions of war in Iran—to revisit the topic and the essays related to it. My aim in rewriting and republishing these is not to persuade toward one position or another. Rather, it is to encourage Christians to examine how they think about topics such as war. My hope is that we will devote ourselves to honing the tools we use to guide or control and express our positions on serious topics, including war. Once sharpened, these same intellectual and spiritual tools enable us to think about and speak to other political and cultural issues of the day from the perspective of a soul enrobed by the Spirit of Christ and devoted to the Lord.

In the multitude of evils that are a part of human experience, war and the destruction and carnage that follow in its wake rank in the top tier of wickedness. War has been a constant of human history and, despite the promise of the transforming power of Jesus Christ, He said that we “will hear of wars and rumors of wars” (Matthew 24:6), that it will be with us until the end of days. Given this constant from Jesus, a Christian’s worldview should be discipled in a biblical way of considering political violence and to have a framework from which we determine our thoughts and actions in relation to the act of war. The Christian is under competing pressures from being a citizen of the Kingdom of Christ and, simultaneously, being a good member of society. Many questions come our way in the ‘already, but not yet’ life we live. Shall we declare ourselves to be conscientious objectors when the country that supports the foundation of our religious liberty is under attack? Can we determine for certain that a war is ‘just’ in the classical definition of the term? Is pacifism the only acceptable stance a Christian can take? These questions sketch some ideas that a spirit-led Christian must wrestle with in approaching the Christlike commitment to seeking peace amidst the ongoing reality of war.

There is a substantial body of work created by Christian and secular thinkers to which we can turn to shape our thinking on the subjects of violence and war. Christianity through the centuries has engaged the full range of philosophy toward war, from full participation to absolute prohibition. If asked, can you define your position and defend it in the heated arena of ideas? Taking a prohibitionary stance that disallows Christian participation in war, for example, is simple to hold but challenging to explain when it means that not-yet-God’s-people non-Christians must be sent to fight in one’s place. Coming to a settled position on this and other hot-button issues of the day requires a familiarity of multiple topics that all contribute to the discussion. The philosophy of ethics is important in considering Just War theory. The imago dei must be held against the use of violence in creating or preserving peace. To engage in the arena of ideas demands that we be able to understand the positions of those with whom we might disagree.

The Bible is the primary resource from which Christians develop their beliefs and worldview, and even a cursory knowledge of the text shows us that war has been a reality for God’s people throughout history. Early in the Old Testament we encounter widespread war commanded by God of His people. In the book of Joshua, we turn the page to be confronted with wars of outright aggression fought with the explicit intent of taking territory. Yahweh sends Israel into battles of conquest with the instruction to “not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17) and to Joshua (Ch 6) the command is to see to the total destruction of Jericho, soldier and citizen alike. This same God will later stand on a mountainside and pronounce a blessing on those who seek peace (Matthew 5:9) and press His listeners to “love their enemies” (Matthew 5:44). The Christian not only needs to hold these (seemingly) contradictory points in hand but devote themselves to knowing the God who gives them and try to understand what lies behind the commands. New questions arise that shape our position: Is God in support of war, despite the destruction and loss of life that follow? What of the words of Christ that even non-Christians can quote to ‘turn the other cheek’ in the face of evil? Is God of two minds? Certainly not, but the complexity of thinking about war and how Christians should think through the topic is clear.

As difficult as the subject of war might be, we must consider the topic to some depth as disciples. We should be able to articulate the position we hold with clarity. The importance of our gospel presence requires of the Christian that we soberly and carefully determine the position we hold given our calling to be light in the dark world.

Gideon Grows Weaker

Finally, the account of Gideon’s judgeship reaches the point of action in its mission to save Israel.

Early in the morning, Jerub-Baal (that is, Gideon) and all his men camped at the spring of Harod. The camp of Midian was north of them in the valley near the hill of Moreh. (Judges 7:1)

His fearful, sputtering start is behind him now. God has shown patience with His Judge; the questions of God’s covenant integrity, the self-centered sacrifice, the undercover operations against Baal, and the hesitant deal making. Gideon and his army are now camped opposite the enemies of Israel, preparing for the battle of redemption. And, at first light, they…

…stopped to count noses!

Well, God did. When we read the account in English we can lose some of the wordplay that paints a truer picture, one that we have come to expect with Gideon at the center. Gideon and his army are camped at Harod which means trembling in Hebrew. His opposite number is camped near Moreh, a close cognate to mora’ or ‘fearful.’ So we envision ‘trembling’ Israel facing down the ‘fearful’ Midianites. As He overlooks this impending confrontation, God does something that we can all probably relate to, he makes Gideon even weaker.

To ensure that the glory for the victory and the subsequent worship are appropriately assigned, Yahweh tells Gideon that his army is far too large. The temptation will be to claim the victory of their own hands rather than to God so Yahweh reduces the force. Anyone trembling with fear at the coming war is excused and we witness 22,000 soldiers turning and accepting the reprieve. Did this decrease the trembling factor of the remaining army? We are not told but we can place ourselves in Gideon’s position. We are called to fulfill a purpose of God and yet, at every turn, the Lord weakens us such that our only hope is further dependence on Him. Do we have sufficient faith to take the next step?