We Christians will freely admit that we’re far from perfect. But surely we’ve got the “You shall not murder” thing figured out?
And yet the Christian community today produces some of the very loudest voices in support of that ultimate instrument of mass murder: war.
No doubt many of you are inclined to read no further. Not so long ago I myself might have disregarded an article with such an introduction. Before you write me off, then, at least hear me out.
Images speak louder than words, so to begin with I invite you to watch this deeply disturbing war footage (snuff film, really) that has been making waves online:
Monstrous immorality, that we should enable such things. Monstrous stumbling block that–through such support–we Christians have erected between Christ and those who might seek him. We need to cut through the rhetoric about collateral damage and recognize this for the murder it is.
Let’s get down to the basics. If I, an individual, kill anyone other than in direct self-defense, I have committed murder. If I kill someone on a hunch that they might kill me at some point in the future, I have committed murder. If, in the course of defending myself against an assailant, I spray machine gun fire into a crowd of bystanders, I have committed murder. If I am the assailant, any death on my hands is murder.
None of this is difficult, neither is it controversial. Yet when it comes to matters of warfare, suddenly the rules are said to have changed. Civilian casualties are regrettable yet excusable–or so it is said–because war is conducted by the government, on behalf of society. And yet what is “government,” what is “society”? Both are abstractions, neither possesses any moral agency. We need to cut through the haze and realize that states are composed of individuals, who are subject to the same moral dictates as are all other individuals. There’s no special moral status gifted to state agents, that somehow frees them from the rules of right and wrong. Murder is murder, no matter who the murderer.
The usual Christian response might be something along these lines: “Government leaders have been placed in their positions by God.” True, of course, but in exactly the same sense that any of us are in the positions we’re in. Most certainly not in the sense that God gives moral sanction to murder. God places us where he wills, but our sins are still our own. Paul says in Romans 13 that leaders are to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (verse 4). In no way does he excuse collateral murder. If you still don’t follow my argument here, consider two clear-cut cases: Were the murders carried out under the command of Adolf Hitler (butcher of Auschwitz and Dachau) or Harry Truman (butcher of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) any less immoral simply because these two men were heads of state?
Another common response: “There will be wars and rumors of wars, now until the end of time.” I wouldn’t doubt that this will prove to have been true. Although I will point out that this is a misrepresentation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:6 and Mark 13:7. In any event, however, this statement of (possible) fact in no way whatsoever justifies murder.
Yet another response: “Just look at all the wars Old Testament Israel fought, under the direction of God.” But right there is the key–under the direction of God. No modern state has a direct relationship with God as did Old Testament Israel. Such an excuse, then, can hardly suffice.
And another: “We need moral clarity.” The perversion of this concept as widely popularized would have us believe that “we” are good and that “they” are evil, and that therefore anything “we” do is good and that anything “they” do is evil. What this argument really boils down to is that murder is alright, so long as the right people are doing the murdering. True moral clarity would dictate that we all are held to the same moral standards, and that murder is always immoral.
One more response: “War is hell.” Yes, war certainly is hell. This is a terribly hollow excuse for murder, however.
Exactly what, then, ought to be the Christian attitude toward state-sponsored warfare? We must totally and unequivocally condemn it, and work with all our might to prevent and suppress it.
Why the “state-sponsored” qualification? The hallmark of modern state-sponsored warfare is indiscriminate destruction. From predator drones, to cluster bombs, to nuclear weapons, civilians are slaughtered, often by the thousands, even by the millions. An “us” vs. “them” mentality develops, which excuses civilian murder on the grounds that “they” are in some way responsible for the actions of “their” government. Slavery (that is, compulsory military service) is all-too-commonly practiced. Even the most otherwise benign, humanitarian mission will involve massive theft (taxation), whether through direct means (income tax, sales tax, etc.) or indirect means (inflation). And in reality, history reveals not one single war that was fought benignly, for humanitarian reasons.
By contrast, it is at least conceivable that defensively-waged guerrilla-style warfare could avoid the pitfalls of murder, slavery, and theft. Again, however, history reveals precious few, if any, large-scale conflicts that have remained within these moral bounds.
To reiterate, then: Christians must reject warfare. Even more broadly, Christians and non-Christians alike must reject warfare, because the antiwar moral argument requires no reference to theology for validity–it is valid of itself and is derivable by rational means. For Christians especially, however, the antiwar position ought to be self-evident–in light of the clear commands of Scripture–and it shouldn’t in the least be controversial.
Admittedly, though, many of you might be reading all this in dumbfounded shock. “Are you suggesting we commit suicide?” you might be asking. “Surely you’re not being realistic!” “You’re an uncompromising ideologue!” Several responses are in order:
It absolutely is worth saying, and saying explicitly: Far better to be murdered than to murder.
I’ll say that again: Far, far better to be murdered than to murder.
As for the uncompromising bit: Surely we all should be uncompromising on the issue of murder. The anti-murder position is not considered stiff or unreasonable in any other context. Why, then, should it be considered so in the context of warfare?
As for the “unrealistic” charge: The moral argument stands on its own, and any cry of “that’s unrealistic!” is an evasion of the issue. At the last judgment, as Christ reveals “I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat…” one can almost hear him including “I was defenseless and you murdered me.” What, then, will the defendants answer? “Surely you’re not being realistic, Jesus”?
We can leave it at that, because the moral argument stands on its own–whatever its consequences may be. It happens to be true, however, that the pragmatic argument strengthens the antiwar case as well. And although a detailed look at the pragmatic component of the antiwar position is well beyond the scope of this article, I will simply note in passing that a belligerent, interventionist foreign policy does not enhance security but rather destroys it. If we value our safety, we should reject war, not embrace it.
In closing, I urge you once more to condemn war. Of course individuals have different callings within the body of Christ, and not everyone is called to active political resistance. At the very least, however, we all must withdraw our support for warfare. And why should we Christians engage this issue? Because murder is the height of immorality. Because God condemns murder. Because we slander God when when we invoke his name to defend and advocate murder. Because murder cuts short one’s opportunity to come to know Christ.
Post Script: For those interested in learning more, there is no better place to start than with the writings of the incomparable Murray Rothbard. Two wonderful general resources are lewrockwell.com and mises.org.