Should Christians Go to War?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Neither proof-text settles it — the Sermon on the Mount is personal, the conquests were a theocracy's

• The question posed (in the host's frame): throughout world history, the threat of war and violence, of course, has always loomed, on the horizon. And earlier this year (in the question's layer), we saw an invasion, and members of this audience have undoubtedly heard the reports, seen the photos, of the resulting death, the destruction. And our hearts certainly go out, to the victims of that conflict. As christians, we seem to face a perpetual conundrum. The world is full of war and violence. And yet, on the other hand, we have the teachings of jesus, in the sermon on the mount, where he made statements like: resist not evil. Or, to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either (as the question quotes them). So does this mean — if we interpret jesus' words literally, here — does this mean christians in the invaded country, and elsewhere (as the question frames it), were supposed to just roll over, and let evil people destroy our homes, kill our families and our neighbors, and steal our stuff? How should a christian interpret this, in a world that's filled with the types of things we've seen just this year? The answer: this is a difficult question. And it's difficult, because we, as pentecostals — we feel like we're counter cultural. We have a new citizenship. A heavenly citizenship. We have a new way of life, that's different from the life of the world. So, for us to kill people: is part of the old life. As part of the sinful life. As part of the world. And we're withdrawn from the world. However, we are still in the world. And evil is still all around us. So if you look at the sermon on the mount, you would get the idea that — jesus says: don't resist evil. And don't — and turn the other cheek. And if someone sues you, and they win the lawsuit, give them more than what they ask. And if they ask to borrow money ('somebody needs food can you bar we'll just give them the money', as the survey's letters run) — well, all of that would indicate we should be non-violent. However, as commentators have pointed out: this is speaking of a personal relationship. So yes, in a personal relationship: if someone comes up to you, and slaps you, you shouldn't pick a fight, and slap them back. You should just stand there, and take it. Or, you know, somebody mistreats you: you should not try to be vindictive. You should still show love, towards them. But does that really relate, to a whole society? For example, a war, where an aggressive nation attacks you. Or even in your home: someone breaks into your home, and is starting to kill your family. It seems like the sermon on the mount is not directly addressing — he's talking about reconciliation, personal relationships. Not these cases: self-defense. So then some people go to the old testament, where israel fought battles, and killed enemies. And so they say: yes, go ahead and kill people. But that doesn't exactly apply, either. Because ancient israel was a theocracy, led directly by god. So they could know 100%, if it was god's will. Plus, god had given them the land of canaan. Was going to establish them as a nation. So it was a war for their survival. Because through israel, god would bring the messiah. God would bring the scriptures. God would bring the new covenant. And so, if israel was destroyed, god's plan would be destroyed. And in the case of the conquest of canaan: god had already judged these people, because of gross sins — including child sacrifice, and gross immorality. So it was a means of divine judgment. Where we — we're not a physically chosen nation, today. They're not instruments of god's divine judgment ('where where we we're not a physically chosen nation today they're instruments', as the sentence's letters tangle). So really, those ancient battles aren't very applicable. Plus, we are living under the new covenant, with a higher standard of life, being filled with the holy spirit. So generally, i think the battles of the old testament would be transferred to us, in a spiritual form. Where our battle is with the devil. Not with another physical nation. And jesus even alluded to that, in john (the chapter as he gives it), when he was on trial before pilate ('and paul's asking are you a king then', as the questioner is heard): he says — well, jesus said: my kingdom is not of this world. If it were, then my servants would fight. So he indicates: no, you can't directly use the old testament, unless you transpose it. Our battle — as second corinthians (the chapter as he gives it) said — is a spiritual battle. We do not wrestle. We do not war against flesh and blood. But against spiritual wickedness in high places (the wording as he delivers it under that designation — see the refs note). So that indicates: we don't just have a blanket statement, that yes, we can go kill people, or be part of a militant army. So we've got two opposites. We're struggling.

Scriptures: John 18; 2 Corinthians 10

The Pentecostal history — conscientious objection, and the move to respecting both views

• So the early pentecostals — the early 20th century — the trinitarian pentecostals, then the oneness pentecostals: most of them chose the statement that we're going to be conscientious objectors. That we will not kill people. And if we're drafted in the army — thankfully, the u.s has a policy, that you can say that you're a conscientious objector. That you're willing to serve, as a supply person, as a chaplain, as a medic. You're willing to support a defense — a rightful defense — of your country. But you don't want to be the one who kills people. You're a conscientious objector. So most early pentecostals took that position. It was not a uniform position. But that seemed to be the true majority (a fused caption timestamp fragment is struck from this sentence by the recorded fix). In fact, the upci originally, in its articles of faith, had a statement like that. We did have some people — some of our ministers. I remember one of our ministers in particular. You know, the story was told me afterwards. But during world war ii, he was drafted. He chose to be a conscientious objector. The government refused to accept it. And so they put him in prison, because he refused to go into combat. And they refused to accept his conscientious status. And so he ended up serving time in prison, rather than violate his conscience. And so, in my lifetime, i've seen what i think the majority of our ministers would have been: conscientious objectors. Probably today, that's not so. And so, actually, that statement stayed in our manual, in our articles of faith — mainly to protect those who were conscientious objectors. But u.s law changed. It used to be that, if you wanted to prove your status, you had to belong to a group that had that belief. And so we kept that statement in our books, even as our ministers began shifting. Because we wanted to protect those who had this scruple. But as a result of the vietnam war, the us supreme court decided: you do not have to prove that you belong to a group that holds this teaching. If you yourself have a conscientious objection, you can still maintain it, on individual basis. And so that removed the pressure. And so, under my tenure as general superintendent, we actually removed that original statement, from the articles of faith. We replaced it with a statement that's saying: we hold — we value human life very greatly. It's a difficult subject. And so we respect those who choose to be conscientious objectors. But we also respect those who feel that they can choose to serve, in certain capacities. So we really allowed both views. And we have a position paper, that explains it in great detail.

Just war and its unknowability — and his own line: defend, but not intentionally kill

• Well, if you are not a conscientious objector, then the typical christian alternative has been a just war. Because no major christian group will say: oh yeah, just kill people. You know, hitler was right, putin is right (as he names them). You know, whatever your country says, do it. At the minimum, we feel like: well, you could only participate in a just war. So that would typically be: a war of aggression would be evil, and sinful. You shouldn't participate in a just war of defense — or defense of a neighboring country, or et cetera — well, of course that would be okay ('you shouldn't participate in a in Sign war of defense', as the letters garble the classification). But it also has to be somewhere you treat people humanely. You don't kill prisoners. You try not to kill civilians. So there'll be a lot of things, where you're trying to do it as ethically as possible. Of course, the problem there is: how do you know it's a just war? So let's say you're a russian, and you're told to fight. Well, all the propaganda is: we're killing nazis. And these people believe that. But from our perspective, it's an evil war. It's a war of aggression. But from the point of view of the soldiers who are drafted, they might honestly believe their government is correct. And they're fighting to defend these russian-speaking people, that are being killed by evil nazis in ukraine (as the propaganda frames them). So, how do you know it's a just war? How do you know your government is right? So that creates many, many questions. And then, of course, with modern warfare: you say, don't kill civilians. But if you drop a bomb, it's not going to just kill the soldiers. It's going to kill everybody who's there ('it's going to tell everybody who's there', as heard). And so, where do you go with that (a fused caption timestamp fragment is struck from this clause by the recorded fix)? In my personal life, what i said is: if it comes time to defend my family, i will defend my family. But i will try — i will not intentionally take human life. We don't have a draft, in the united states. And i'm far too old now (his aside trails off in the letters). But i would have — my father was drafted, in the korean war ('my father in was drafted', as heard). He chose to be a conscientious objector. He was a supply officer, or supply person. So he wasn't opposed to the war. He felt like it was a just war. He was supporting his country. But he'd not be the one to kill people. Or take capital punishment. I believe there are certain heinous crimes, that are deserving of capital punishment. Yet i would not be — i would not want to be the one who would kill somebody. I would not want to be part of the firing squad, that pulls the trigger, to kill somebody. I would want to be the chaplain, that goes in there, and tries to pray with him, to see if they can repent of their sins. In fact, i have been involved in prison ministry, even with people convicted of heinous crimes. Even sentenced to death, you know. So my role — so i have a conflicted role. So the bottom line is: i believe society does have the right to defend itself, in a just war. That law enforcement officers have a valid role, to defend civilians. And an individual has a right to defend his life, and his family. And that society has a right to execute certain criminals. But i would not like to be the one, to deliberately do that. And you might say: well, you're being a cop out. But there is a sense in which we're in the world, but we're not of the world. And so i'm trying to walk that fine line. I remember one time: i woke up, in the middle of the night. My wife had screamed out: someone's in the house. She heard a noise. As it turned out, i think something had fallen. And when i woke up, i was standing in the den, with the fireplace poker over my head, ready to hit the person. So i didn't have a gun. And part of the reason why, is: i don't want to deliberately kill someone. But i was going to do serious damage to somebody. That was my instinctive reaction. Not even conscious thought. So i do believe we have a right to self-defense. But i would just simply say: wherever you fall on the spectrum of that, our goal would be: we don't want to take human life. That's not — that's our intention. So if i did hit the guy with the poker, i would hope it would stop him. But i hope he wouldn't die. You know, i'd only go in the hospital, and then from there go to jail (as the aside's letters run). But i wouldn't want him to die, because i hit him. So that would be my thought.

Two preachers across enemy lines, the instinct against killing, and the John 8 close

• And, you know, here's another interesting point. I did a lot of ministry, during the cold war, in communist eastern europe, secretly. And i remember, in the country of hungary, i was ministering. And there was a young man interpreting for me. And he was talking about how he had been drafted into the army. Of course, there, they had no such thing as conscientious objector. And he said: well, i didn't want to kill anybody. I said: well, what would you have done? He said: well, if i'd gone into battle, i just shot in the air ('if i'd had gone into battle i was just shot in the air', as heard). That was his personal way of doing it (a bare caption timestamp bleed is struck after this sentence by the recorded fix). And then that made me think: okay, what if — and this is not just hypothetical. We have hundreds of house churches in russia, today. We have hundreds of believers in ukraine, today. There's a war. What if a united pentecostal preacher is drafted, in the russian army. And a united pentecostal preacher is defending his country, in ukraine. And they meet each other, across enemy lines. Maybe they even recognize each other. They went to a seminar — a training seminar — together. They got ordained together. Is it okay to shoot your fellow united pentecostal preacher, and kill him, because of your country? And, you know, as far as you know, your country is right. But what if you're a russian, and your country is wrong? Would you actually stare that upc preacher in the eye, and kill him? So that personalized it. And you may say: well, that's not fair, because that's not the normal. But that's — that brings it home. These are real people. Husbands. Fathers. In some cases, moms. And so it does make it very hard. So wherever you fall, on the scale of this: i think we have to say, war is evil. It's part of the sin of our society. And, as i said, the way i end up is saying: i do support the fact that there are just wars. That there is a right to self-defense. There is a right to capital punishment. I think there should be guidelines, for as much as possible. And if someone feels they should participate, i support them. I personally would try to choose a situation, where i'm trying to administer grace and forgiveness, in life, in that situation — as a representative of jesus christ. But i do recognize that there's a diversity, even in our own fellowship, of how far it's okay to go, in that. But whatever you come up with: i think we should pray, first of all, for god to deliver us from situations. I do think many times there can be a miraculous deliverance. And i do believe, in cases of self-defense — i've never been in that drastic of a case. But i think i would start rebuking the devil, in the name of jesus, and praying. And hoping that a miracle would take place. But wherever we fall on that: i think we still should pray, for god's protection and deliverance. If we are in a situation where it seems like we might have to take human life, there should be some careful thought beforehand — of what's the limitations. What's the proper procedure. What's the just way. And it may be a case of the lesser of two evils. It's gonna be bad. But you try to have the least bad option, in a sinful world, in a sinful situation. And in the end, you have to trust god for deliverance. And also, if you are in a situation like that, for healing. I read a very powerful book, by david grossman, called on killing. And he's a former military officer. But he explains how the instinctive human reaction is not to actually kill someone. And so, in ancient times, and even as late as the u.s civil war: they've done studies, of picking up bullets after the battle. And they found that the vast majority of people — soldiers — did not actually kill anybody. The only explanation should be: a lot of people just shot blindly, because they couldn't bring themselves to look at a person, and aim, and try to kill that person. So even in hand-to-hand combat, or in shooting: the vast majority of times, they did what my friend said: just, you know, just shoot. So he says: what the military's done, in recent times, with a professional, trained, volunteer army, is to get soldiers repeating their actions so much, that they are instinctive. They don't think of that target, as a human. But it's a stimulus response. Pull the gun. Shoot. Pull the gun. Shoot. Target. Shoot. Target. Shoot. To try to take away that normal human inhibition, that you wouldn't want to look somebody in the face, and kill them. So it has to be an automatic response. And of course, with modern warfare and weapons, part of the whole thing there is: you never see the enemy. You just push a button. Or you basically, like playing a video game. And you never have to face the reality: i'm killing somebody's dad, right here. And so i think that's instructive, too. That, despite all of our — even if it's a just case — there's something in our natural human instincts, which i believe has been given by god, that would inhibit us, from deliberately taking life. And that's something to think about. And then i'll also point out one more thing. In john (the chapter as he gives it), there was a woman who committed adultery. She — under the law — she was worthy of death. So there was — they had just cause, to kill her. But jesus said: i'm not going to condemn you. Go, and sin no more. So: whenever possible, even when there is a justifiable cause, if there's a way that we can grant mercy: that's the new testament response. And so i lean toward trying to find a way, to do what is right, and do what is necessary. But try to protect human life.

Scriptures: John 8

Scripture index: John 18; 2 Corinthians 10; John 8.