I watched this video today of some of our Special Forces in action in Iraq. They bring the thunder. I love watching them in action.
This reminded me of Luther’s classic pamphlet regarding war and the duties of a Christian Soldier. Here is a Chaplain’s blog with some pertinent quotes from Luther.
…In the same way, when I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think of how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, and honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is; and I observe that it amputates a leg or a hand, so that the whole body may not perish…
…The office of the sword is in itself right and is a divine and useful ordinance, which God does not want us to despise, but to fear, honor, and obey, under penalty of punishment, as St. Paul says in Romans 13 [:1-5]…
…Self-defense is a proper ground for fighting and therefore all laws agree that self-defense shall go unpunished; and he who kills another in self-defense is innocent in the eyes of all men…
…When the battle begins…they [soldiers] should simply commend themselves to God’s grace and adopt a Christian attitude…everyone should also say this exhortation in his heart or with his lips, “Heavenly Father, here I am, according to your divine will, in the external work and service of my lord, which I owe you first and then to my lord for your sake. I thank your grace and mercy that you have put me into a work which I am sure is not sin, but right and pleasing obedience to your will. But because I know and have learned from your gracious word that none of our good works can help us and that no one is saved as a soldier but only as a Christian, therefore, I will not in any way rely on my obedience and work, but place myself freely at the service of your will. I believe with all my heart that only the innocent blood of your dear Son, my Lord Jesus Christ, redeems and saves me, which he shed for me in obedience to your holy will. In this faith I will live and die, fight, and do everything else. Dear Lord God the Father, preserve and strengthen this faith in me by your Spirit. Amen.”
How pertinent Luther’s words still are almost 500 years later. Obviously, many disagree about the legitimacy of this war and what we are doing in Iraq. Much of that disagreement is in bad faith (“Bush Lied, People Died” “No Blood for Oil” etc.), but I am willing to admit that many have good faith questions and disagreements about it. Is this a war of self-defense? Can premptive war ever be in self-defense?
I believe the answer to be affirmative on both counts. First, there is no disconnect between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. It is the same war. We are fighting the same enemy.
Second, we were already at war with Iraq when Operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003. Indeed, we had been locked in a struggle with Saddam Hussein from more than ten years since the end of the First Gulf War. We patrolled 2/3rds of his skies with our fighter jets (and were routinely fired upon). He had violated the terms of the original cease-fire coming out of the First Gulf War. Finally, go back and read the more than twenty counts of justification (WMD was just one) in the congressional authorization for war. All of them are still valid.
Third, (and this one will really make your head spin if you are a “Out of Iraq Now!” person) whether you believe the 2003 war was justified or not, what we are doing right now is certainly justified under a just war theory.
At present, we are fighting foreign fighters who have come to Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis of good will. We are also fighting Iraqi militias bent on overthrowing the duly elected government of Iraq. We are fighting hand in hand WITH Iraqis (BTW, we were fighting against them in 2003) against those who are trying to kill them and us. We are fighting to preserve a fledgling, imperfect, democratic state in the Middle East. By every measure, the Iraqis still want us there and we will leave the moment they request it.
There is much to quibble with over President Bush’s management of this war and his (IMHO) too lofty goals for a democratic Middle Eastern state. But, I see no other course ahead but to pursue victory. We are seeing signs that we are winning. It would be disastrous and an immoral betrayal of the people of Iraq for us to exit without finishing the job.
As to the morality of the individual Christian soldier fighting this war. I say, lock and load boys! I pray that your aim is true and that you return home unharmed. Thank you! A thousand times, thank you!
April 4, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Stacey Derbinshire
April 4, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Wow….Amen and well said Dr. Luther and OB1-K
April 5, 2008 at 12:47 am
Thank you Stacey!
We will do our best and appreciate the complement!
April 5, 2008 at 2:52 am
My first instinct is to say piffle. I won’t. And I promised Todd Wilkin I would try to be less sarcastic. So I will try to be plain.
Luther’s stance on Christian soldiers has always been the one doctrine I can’t comprehend. Taken to any logical conclusion, it would allow for us to do anything in the service of the state. Torture. Killing – bombing – women, children, the aged, and so on. Non-judicial incarceration. Lying. Adultery. Assassination. Interference with the internal affairs of other countries. And these things aren’t theoretical; most, if not all of them are currently employed by our military in the name of self defense and punishing the evildoer. By this definition, the Gestapo and the people of it were simply punishing evildoers.
To love your enemy you must work for his good. In no sense do you do your enemy good in dropping bombs on him, or his wife and children. It is in error to work your theology around this.
April 5, 2008 at 8:48 am
I’m glad you fell upon this Janky-o, my first reaction when I read this was, “Janky-o needs to read this…”
April 5, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Hook, line, and sinker. The footage is so cool I’d like to go out and buy Halo and practice the vocation of soldier, serving in a virtual manner the Lord who bore my sins.
More seriously, I hope Obi-1 will help answer some of these questions.
Oh, one more. Are both sets of soldiers working for the Lord, seeking to punish evildoers and all? Or are only one set serving God and the others somebody else?
April 6, 2008 at 2:59 am
I have no doubt that he will answer your questions. Like I told you a looong time ago, I have much to learn when it comes to Luther’s Two Kingdom theology.
April 6, 2008 at 3:11 am
Excellent questions all, Janky-o! I appreciate your interest . . .
Mind you that Luther wrote an entire pamphlet on this subject and he addresses, I believe, all your concerns. You may read that pamphlet online here: http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_e7.htm
Remember we must always distinguish when we are acting within the vocation of a soldier and executing the authority of the state authorized in scripture, namely that of the sword, and when we are acting on our own. Surely, self-defense is permitted in both instances.
But there are some (if not many) acts that are permitted when executing the authority of the sword that are not permitted to us acting individually. Specifically, we are talking about the work and duties of a soldier which can, as Luther points out, include: “to slay, stab, rob, and burn.”
Now, I take some issue with your comments that our military is doing some of the things you accuse them of doing. Killing women and children? Surely, not intentionally. If that is so, it is wrong and those responsible have been or are being prosecuted. Adultery? Not sure where you are going with this? Abu Ghraib? Not our finest moment, but it proves the rule doesn’t it? Those responsible were widely and universally condemned.
There are limits on what Christian soldiers can do in time of war. It is not a complete license. The soldier cannot intentionally murder an innocent bystander during a war and say that he has not sinned. Indeed, he cannot act outside his authorized rules of engagement.
Your last comment also misunderstands why we must sometimes fight: “To love your enemy you must work for his good. In no sense do you do your enemy good in dropping bombs on him, or his wife and children. It is in error to work your theology around this.”
Actually, a war of last resort (which is what a just war is) is an act of love. How is that possible? It is the only means we have to keep the peace and bring about an end to belligerent behavior.
Was it an act of love or hate to bomb Hiroshima? I would argue the former. Love for hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen who avoided having to sacrifice their own lives to take mainland Japan. Love, (yes, I said love) for the Japanese as the Atomic Bomb brought the war to end far more quickly than any invasion would have. Many Japanese were killed by the bomb. Far more would have died if we had refrained and invaded the country with conventional means.
Luther discusses this:
“Although slaying and robbing do not seem to be a work of love, and therefore a simple man thinks it not a Christian thing to do, yet in truth even this is a work of love. By way of illustration, a good physician, when a disease is so bad and so great that he has to cut off a hand, foot, ear, eye, or let it decay, does so, in order to save the body.
Looked at from the point of view of the member that he cuts off, he seems a cruel and merciless man; but looked at from the point of view of the body, which he intends to save, it turns out that he is a fine and true man and does a work that is good and Christian, as far as it goes.
In the same way, when I think of the office of soldier, how it punishes the wicked, slays the unjust, and creates so much misery, it seems an unchristian work and entirely contrary to Christian love; but if I think of how it protects the good and keeps and preserves house and home, wife and child, property and honor and peace, then it appears how precious and godly this work is, and I observe that it cuts off a leg or a hand, so that the whole body may not perish.
For if the sword were not on guard to preserve peace, everything in the world must go to ruin because of lack of peace. Therefore, such a war is only a little, brief lack of peace that prevents an everlasting and immeasurable lack of peace, a small misfortune that prevents a great misfortune.”
Finally, your last post made a very good point about whether it is possible for both sides to be faithfully fulfilling their vocations and acting as Christian soldiers. I think that is indeed possible.
Again, what matters is what is in the individual heart of the soldier. Does he know he is participating in an evil deed? If so, he cannot act. Consider the SS soldier ordered to kill Jews in a death camp. He acts without excuse. When he kills, he sins.
Now, consider the 16 year old German infantryman, drafted to serve on the frontlines in Normandy in WWII. He is ordered to man a machine gun on Omaha beach. He knows nothing of death camps nor is he a member of the Nazi party. But, like any good German, when he was drafted, he answered the call to serve his country. I believe that even when he is firing his machine gun at American GIs coming off LVCs onto the beach, he is acting within his vocation as a soldier and is doing so in a Christian manner, mind you, just like the American GI coming off that LVC.
Now, say these two Christians, the German and the American, should later “meet” each other in a trench and simultaneously shoot one another. My guess is that in next moment they will be staring at each other, not as enemies, but victorious saints. I also suspect they will find their situation somewhat humorous, and if not humorous, highly ironic.
So, you see, it is what is inside the soldier’s heart that matters. The vocation of a soldier can be used for good or evil in practically any circumstance. The question is always whether the Christian will act in accordance with his God-given duties in the execution of his office.
April 7, 2008 at 12:49 am
Okay, I will look into Luther’s tract.
Love is, ultimately, personal. Neither nations, nor families, nor football teams have a soul about which we worry. I would add that arms and legs have no soul of their own (so the analogy with surgery is false). All we have as objects of Christian love are individual persons. Thus I would say that, perhaps bombing Hiroshima was done out of love for one’s country, arguably even for other Japanese, but it could not by necessity have been done in love for the unsaved of Hiroshima, who are without the opportunity they would have had if they had lived.
I don’t contend that our military has not deliberately killed civilians. My point was, it has killed civilians, and has engaged in operations knowing it could. Every serviceman in active duty is in danger of committing a non-Christian to Hell, deliberately or not.
There is no end to what a Christian can be expected to do in war. Not deliberately kill civilians? There is always a rationale. Is the civilian male, a potential combatant? Is he carrying important dispatches? Might the civilian be Viet Cong? Is the civilian manning a factory that supplies the war effort? Is the civilian feeding the troops? Is the civilian healing troops? In every case, the war effort may require her death. Those who believe that soldiers only fight each other carry a facile view. And yes, the war effort can require every other activity of a soldier: assassination, lying, adultery, suicide. I have examples. And don’t forget what the greatest generation did to Dresden, full of refugees.
Lewis’s example of the German and the Ally killing each other and laughing about it after death rings false to me. The killing of a person is nothing that should be taken lightly here or in eternity. They may both give thanks that they have been redeemed, but they won’t laugh about what they’ve done.
And what is the Christian, under orders and on the battle field, supposed to do when he finds the war he is fighting is unjust or that his orders are immoral? Under fire is not the time to tell your commander “I won’t do that” unless you want the firing squad yourself.
Paul talked about how all things are permitted but not all are wise. It’s clear that soldiering, if it can possibly be avoided, is one of those things. It is impossible to express Christian love towards a target.
April 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Janky-o -
Fair enough. To close this out, let me say a few things.
First, I don’t think Luther’s surgery analogy is a false one.
The key is understanding the differences between our duties and obligations vis-a-vis our fellow man and the duties and obligations between states and governments. They are different. Luther’s analogy is good at teasing this out. God gives nation states and their governments different duties than he gives individuals.
As Paul tells us, government is “God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Rom. 13:4) These “agents of wrath” will, of course, be people just like you an me – soldiers, policemen, executioners.
How do we square this with Christ’s admonitions to “turn the other cheek” and to “love your enemies?” How can the soldier, policeman, or executioner follow his Christian duty? Is he banned from that particular office? Must he do everything he can to avoid it as you suggest?
No! His personal duty is to love his enemies and turn the other cheek, but he has no such license when he is executing his office. The state cannot turn the other cheek without shirking its responsibilities to maintain peace and justice for all through the sword and neither can the individual representative of the state responsible for executing his office.
So, this is why I say the police officer, the soldier, and even the executioner should perform their vocations and office without hesitation.
Of course, if they know what they are about to do is an immoral or unlawful exercise of that office, they must refrain whether they will face the firing squad or not. A German soldier in Auschwitz would have been thrown in the gas chambers with the Jews if he had questioned his orders. But that does not excuse his actions. If refusing to kill innocent bystanders upon the order of your superior officer means you will stand with them, that is precisely where you should be.
So, I disagree with your view. I think your error comes from not appreciating the difference between purely personal actions and actions done as the execution of an office, or vocation.
OB1-K
April 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm
[...] it makes for much easier reading. Here are a couple of good quotes that I stole from the blog Planet Augsburg: …In the same way, when I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, [...]