Is There Such a Thing as a Just War?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: Philippians 3, John 18:36, Matthew 5, Romans 13

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-just-war
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
I think there can be with some qualifications, but it is a complicated subject that we should not lightly pass over. So, let me say some things. First, I don't believe that the kingdom of God can be merged with an earthly kingdom.

They're two separate kingdoms. So, while we love our nation, just like the Bible says to love your neighbors and by extension your your home, which I think could extend to your own country, we should love our country and wish our country well. We in America live in a democracy. So I think someone can love their country even if they're living under a dictatorship. But we have an extra advantage. We can actually uh appreciate and believe in our form of government even though we may or may not agree with the particular leaders. We can love our nation but also wish our nation well in a political sense.

But that's not the same as say our nation's values are not the same as the kingdom of God's values. And although in the case of America, we have a lot of biblical um foundations, we're not a Christian nation in an apostolic sense. We are a secular nation. So the interests of the nation are not equivalent to the interests of the church. And in fact, Philippians 3 talks about our citizenship is in heaven. So in one sense, we have a dual citizenship. We love our country. We want to be patriotic citizens and good citizens cooperating with our government and having a good influence in our community.

But at the same time, we're citizens of another kingdom. So we don't accept all the values of the earthly kingdom, nor do we support all the interest of the earthly kingdom. And while we do believe God can use nations to further his purpose, we don't believe the national interests are equivalent to God's interest. So we always have to keep a distance there. And then on a personal level, we have to struggle some very strong teachings in the New Testament. And by the way, what I just stated, uh Jesus also said in John 18:16, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were of this world, then would my servants fight." So we don't fight to advance the kingdom of God.

We've got to be very clear on that. We're not righteous warriors in a spiritual sense just because we're engaged in earthly conflict. Now what brings further tension is in the sermon on the mount in Matthew chapter 5 Jesus talks about not resisting evil turn the other cheek um give to those who ask and those who want to borrow let them borrow and don't sue and people and and on so on and so then we that's a challenge and some people many teachers throughout Christian h history have said Christians should be pacifists they should not uh fight, they should not kill, whether it's in warfare, self-defense, they should they can defend themselves, but they should stop short of taking human life.

Uh that has been pretty much my position personally that I would not ever want to take another person's life. Um and even if they're deserving of it and they're sinful, my hope would be that they they could be redeemed uh and saved. But um but I also recognize the sermon on the mount is dealing with personal morality. So it's not talking about nations or national policy or even the police force or self-defense. It's talking about as an individual. So you shouldn't if somebody attacks you, you should try in everything in your power to turn again turn that away. Um if somebody sues you, you should try to settle with them.

It's not and that's another subject. It's not saying you could never sue, but it's saying especially if you're in the wrong, you should go you should compensate the person, but go beyond what's legally required. Um, and so it's talking about personal ethics that we should look for reconciliation, not conflict, not strife, that we if if we see that there's something we've done wrong, we try to go overboard to compensate. Or even if we're in the right and yet someone's asking for help, we should try to do what we can to help them. But that's not negating that society may need to have rules and so forth.

And so in f in Romans 13, we have the teaching that God has instituted civil government and we're supposed to support it. We're supposed to ba obey our civic leaders. We're supposed to pay taxes. Um and we're supposed to follow the law. And uh Romans 13 also said says the civil rulers do not wield the sword in vain which indicates uh the sword meaning um you know weapons to enforce the law maybe even capital punishment is included there. And so it's saying it again, it doesn't mean you obey uh dictates that are evil or sinful. It doesn't ma say you have to be in favor of a dictatorship, but it's basically just trying to say God has set civil government in place for certain purposes to to uh protect people, to provide safety, uh to pres pro provide peace, to provide an opportunity for the gospel to go forth.

And so it's not talking about what if the government violates those things, but it says under those normal circumstances, even if it's a pagan government like the Roman government of that day, um we should support the legitimate ends of government and the government has a right to use force in certain cases. So I've made the argument where I personally wouldn't want to be an executioner or vote to execute someone, why I personally wouldn't want to point my trigger at someone and kill them, especially another believer. Uh let's say if I'm fighting in a war and one of my our fellow UPCI preachers is on the other side, I don't want to kill them.

Um uh even I I would defend my family and myself by force if necessary. But it it even there personally I wouldn't want to see the attacker killed. I'd want to see them neutralized in some way, but if it's short of being killed, of course I've never had to face quite that situation. Uh but I do recognize that a secular government does have the right to defend itself in defend the nation in war and a right to um defend the peace through law enforcement and and the right to administer capital punishment. So, I'm not necessarily opposed to if there's a a a just war of regretfully that means some enemies will be killed.

Uh or if there is a police um action that where there's a sniper or murderer that has to be killed or um you know or a a a heinous criminal, a murderer being executed. I recognize the government has those rights. So there's kind of a I have a dual feeling there. Other Christians may not not feel there's any conflict. As far as the UPCI, we say this is a matter of conscientious scruples. So we do support those who have a conscientious objection to killing and even to bearing arms. Uh in the US, we don't have a draft, but if there were a draft where people are forced in the military, then we would defend our believers rights if they so chose.

is not required by our church. But if a believer feels I don't want to kill anybody, then we would support their right to be put in a non-combed role uh such as a medic or supply person where they could still support the just war. They could still support the nation, but they would not they could use other ways where they're helping preserve life. as I said, a medic or a chaplain or chaplain's assistant or supply person, they're trying to to support life, even though of course they're also supporting the conflict. So, we we do recognize that right to be a conscientious objector, but we also recognize, which is the case, uh we don't have a draft, but we do have many of our people in the military.

We recognize their right to be in the military if they so choose, which would mean fighting in a war and maybe resulting in the deaths of the opponents. We recognize their right to do that if they if that's what they feel. But the only way I think we can reconcile that is what you brought up that over the centuries Christians of many groups have said it should be limited to just war. And now there's another challenge. How does an individual citizen even know the whole story to know whether it's just and if they do what opportunity do they have to to try to say I don't want to be part of what I consider unjust?

I mean just think of it one of the clearest cases I think of a just war I when we were fighting the Nazis but the individual German soldier didn't know the full story. He didn't know his government was killing Jews. didn't know he was told that the other nations were aggressors. So how would he process that? It's very difficult as you can see. Having said that, I still and you know a German soldier who did oppose the war would probably be imprisoned and maybe executed. There are examples of Christians of various kinds who did suffer that that cost. U so it would be a very difficult decision.

But on the other hand, if we are we believe in our nation, that doesn't necessarily mean we should support every war effort. So how would you know what is a just war? Uh it's it's a complicated subject and theologians have debated exactly how would we know and what are the proper criteria. But I think just looking at the scripture overall, we can't just go back to Old Testament examples. Although they may have some instruction because in the Old Testament, Israel was a chosen nation that was going to be the vehicle for bringing the scriptures, the Messiah, the plan of salvation to the whole world. So God had to preserve that nation.

And so they they did have a right to fight against their enemies. But today, we the people of God have chosen from every nation. So there is not one physical nation for whom we fight, but we're trying to preserve the church through peaceful means. Nevertheless, uh as I've already stated, I do believe that secular governments do have some rights to self-defense and safety and preserving the peace and the international order. So when would we consider that's legitimate? Well, I think a just war implies first of all, you have to have just goals or just ends. So if you're fighting to conquer another country because you want their material, you want that's not just that's not a just end.

If you're fighting for international peace, if you're finding fighting to stop an aggressor from taking over a defenseless neighbor, if you're fighting against terrorism, uh those would be considered just ends. But then you also have to consider just means. So even if the end is just, uh let's say there is a terrorist that you've identified in this city. So you bomb the whole city and kill 50,000 people. Well, 49,000 are innocent. One is guilty. Is that a just mean? So even though the just goal of killing the terrorist is legitimate, you have to find the the least um damaging means of fulfilling that goal, you know, within all the parameters that you have.

So So that's also a complicated discussion of how can you do that? How can you know that? because sadly in any war there is going to be some collateral or unintended damage. So, so how do you know that? Um but I think you have to struggle with it and even even military officers have to say well even if the goal is right is the means we're choosing just under all the circumstances. So um maybe I would go back when I say goal maybe I should start back say a just cause so a just reason to start. So for example years ago when Iraq invaded Kuwait um then President George HW Bush mobilized basically a coalition of a large percentage of the world to fight against them and push them back.

So it was a just cause. We have to defend this innocent nation. If we don't, other nations will be prey and and there will be a world conflict. Um, then the means, are we choosing the the most appropriate, least destructive means to a to that? And then the the goals, the end result, the the cause may be just, but what are you trying to accomplish? Um, and so in that case, that first President Bush said, "We're not even going to try to take the government, overthrow the government, because we're just trying to defend that nation, and once that nation's defended, we're out of there." So he adjusts cause but then you have to ask what are the goals I mean what are the means and then you have what are the goals.

So it is a complicated analysis but I think people in leadership have to carefully consider these things and u and then try to do the best they can under all the circumstances.