It’s just war.
I grew up in a denomination that began with a full-throated support for The United States. In the 1930’s and 40’s, the Foursquare Church, led by the Canadian immigrant Aimee Semple McPherson, supported patriotic musicals, sold war bonds, and prayed against the godless hordes the US seemed to be battling on every front.[1]
In many ways my church continued to uphold this value. If there was a conflict anywhere in the world that the US (or it’s “friends”) were involved with, we were hoping and praying it would end, with our side as the victors.
We also prayed for our missionaries regularly, and as a church gave money towards the ministry of reaching godless hordes around the world for Jesus.
Until I was a teenager it hadn’t occurred to me that the people who we were praying would die in battle[2] were the same ones we were praying (and paying) for to reach for Jesus.
Around the time I figured this out, I declared I was becoming a pacifist, but then realized I couldn’t quite embrace a full version of it. Like my son who when he was 7 proudly proclaimed he was going to become a vegetarian—until he figured out that meant he couldn’t eat cheeseburgers—my desire to embrace pacifism was an emotional decision that I hadn’t well considered, and it didn’t stick.
But then, I went to a Mennonite university (Fresno Pacific University) and ended up pastoring in a very Quaker town (Newberg, Oregon). Along the way I got to know some very sincere, quite brilliant, and godly people who had sound arguments against war, with the opinion that it was never justified.
And along the way I also got to know some people (especially those who served in the military or law enforcement) who were very sincere, quite brilliant, and godly people who had sound arguments for why war is sometimes necessary, and even just.
So, the question is, did I end up as a pacifist or a militarist?
The answer is, yes.
In the book The Good Kill: Just War and Moral Injury by Mark LiVecche, a case is made for “Just War” and against pacifism. To him it’s not just a philosophical argument but a very practical one. LiVecche is concerned about the moral harm that veterans, and cultures, suffer when there’s not a solid embrace of the rationale for wars that are necessary for protection or retributive justice.
I would like to have critically engaged with and done a deeper dive into several of the ideas presented in this book. One of them, for instance, would be how to better guard against the desensitization to human life when killing is increasingly handled in a “hands-off” way through drone warfare. Or it might have been helpful to process how the church can proactively extend healing to those veterans who return from war with deep moral wounding because of what they have participated in.
However, what I’m processing most after engaging with this book is this: Christians like many I grew with can sometimes consider a conflict and ignore the moral and theological implications because “it’s just the way war is”. And Christians like those I met along the way can sometimes see that same conflict and conclude it’s wrong because “war is just always evil.”
Where do I land? I’ve found articulating exactly where I stand on the Pacifist/Militarist continuum is like attempting to explain my position in the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism, where unless you are solidly in one or the other of those corners, you’re going to get a lot of flak for expressing an opinion in the middle (an opinion that I can’t quite explain 100% myself… you know, there’s that thing called “mystery”?)
So, I’m not arguing against the sometimes necessity of war. I just finished the show Masters of the Air; it once again seems clear to me that there are moments when the world needs to stop evil, and the only way to do that is through war, which always includes death.
But it’s one thing to carefully wrestle through some of Augustine’s Just War Theory[3], or Aquinas’ expansion of that theory[4], or even LiVecche’s own arguments and emerge with some grasp of the soul wounds and moral injury war can cause, even in a justified war; it’s another thing altogether to throw uncritical support behind your nation, or the nation your country backs up, as if it were a Sunday afternoon football game, and you are rooting for the guys wearing the right colors.
I think a pacifist should understand that just war is sometimes necessary. But I also think a militarist must understand that it is never “just war”. Though the cost sometimes must be paid (for instance to stop Hitler), there is always a cost, not just to the side who “looses” but a moral cost to the side who “wins” too (to both the combatants and the ‘spectators’).
Maybe an answer is, as LiVecche suggests, to live into the reality of recognizing the “enemy” as our neighbor[5], and to believe that that enemy, too, “is worthy of being loved.”[6]
[1] https://resources.foursquare.org/world_war_ii_and_angelus_temple/
[2] We weren’t praying directly and explicitly for their deaths but praying for “our side” to have victory would produce those results nonetheless (although I have been in a denominational meeting where there was direct prayer against the enemies of the US, with a chaplain asking God to put “warheads on their foreheads” No kidding!).
[3] St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God (books 19 and 20).
[4] St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica.
[5] Mark LiVecche, The Good Kill, 7.
[6] Mark LiVecche, The Good Kill, 11.
About the Author
Tim Clark
I'm on a lifelong journey of discovering the person God has created me to be and aligning that with the purpose God has created me for. I've been pressing hard after Jesus for 40 years, and I currently serve Him as the lead pastor of vision and voice at The Church On The Way in Los Angeles. I live with my wife and 3 kids in Burbank California.12 responses to “It’s just war.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tim,
What a powerful post! I appreciate your ability to be self-aware and honest. I don’t quite know where I land. I don’t like the idea of killing for any reason but if you tried to hurt my Loved Ones, I would fight to the death if necessary. I love the quote that you ended your post with …it left me feeling hopeful. You shared, ” to live into the reality of recognizing the “enemy” as our neighbor, and to believe that that enemy, too, “is worthy of being loved.” I know that love is the answer to many things, I will try to reside in it and return to it as often as I can. Thank you for such a meaningful post.
Thank you Jonita for the encouragement and engagement. I find it very hard to consider that loving those who are hurting others might include killing them so they stop the evil. Retributive justice is challenging for me because I consider God as the Judge, yet I also know that if we just let evil people do what they want it’s neither loving for those who are suffering nor loving to those who are perpetuating the evil.
In short, I think this is difficult terrain we are on but important for us to travel and process it.
Thank you for sharing your journey around this topic. I appreciate your acknowledgment that no war is just war when you stated: “I think a pacifist should understand that just war is sometimes necessary. But I also think a militarist must understand that it is never “just war”. Though the cost sometimes must be paid (for instance to stop Hitler), there is always a cost, not just to the side who “looses” but a moral cost to the side who “wins” too (to both the combatants and the ‘spectators’).” I think about our nation’s leaders who evaluate the criteria for participating in war to make those difficult decisions and feel the need to pray more earnestly for them.
Cathy, I love that my post inspired you to pray for our leaders. While I didn’t intend that or even think about it, you now have inspired me to do the same!!
Tim,
You summarized my jumbled thoughts perfectly when you wrote, “I think a pacifist should understand that just war is sometimes necessary. But I also think a militarist must understand that it is never “just war”. And yes, our enemies are worthy of being loved! I find myself somewhere in the “middle” of many hot topics so thank you for normalizing my experience. How can the church come along side our bruised and wounded warriors?
Jenny, I think that is a powerful and important question: “How can the church come along side our bruised and wounded warriors?” This book is helping shape an approach to ministry to them. If we have a framework that all killing is morally evil it will be hard to bring healing to those who have killed as agents of the state. But if we don’t recognize that all killing reflects brokenness we won’t be able to help them find healing either.
I too was in the room when the prayer went up: “Lord, put warheads on their foreheads.” So sad.
My question is this, and it’s not very articulate, but here it goes: How do we know when we have another Hitler on the loose?
I don’t expect an answer from you on it, but musing.
The collective “we” always references Hitler, as the example of an instance in which war is justified. And I wonder when Hitler became “Hitler.” Meaning, when did it become clear that he deserved a warhead on his forehead?
GREAT question John. And I ask it with you.
The “Hitler” justification can be (and is) way too easily employed, but I don’t think that negates it. Hitler had illegally conquered neighboring nations (killing many in the process) and was exterminating Jews. I’d argue that the US waited too long to declare “Hitler was Hitler” and had we not been averse to foreign entanglements could have proactively saved millions who died.
So we want to stop evil before it is out of control and ensure justice for the marginalized being slaughtered, but don’t want to use the excuse that everyone is that level of evil to preemptively put ‘warheads on their foreheads’.
Wherever we land it’s worth robustly engaging not just having an ‘easy answer’ or putting our heads in the sand. I appreciate that you are one who truly wrestles.
Hi Time,
You wrote, “I think a pacifist should understand that just war is sometimes necessary. But I also think a militarist must understand that it is never “just war”. Though the cost sometimes must be paid (for instance to stop Hitler), there is always a cost, not just to the side who “looses” but a moral cost to the side who “wins” too (to both the combatants and the ‘spectators’.”
You answer works for me. I recommended this book because I feel that the U.S. Military has been playing catch up with PTSD issues.
My prayer is that the Body of Christ and the pastors who lead them will wrestle with this question and be able to lovingly discuss this with soldiers in their congregation before, during and after the conflicts.
Shalom…
Russell, it is an honor to me that my answer works for you. Honestly. I have so little history with this subject and I have great respect for your opinion born from real life enagageemnt. Thank you for recommending this book, it will be helpful as we minister to those who are going and coming home from war.
Hi Tim- thanks for this interesting post. How cool that you were a pastor in Newberg. I wonder if we were there at the same time?
To throw another head scratcher on the pile of these issues, I’ll bring up the idea of the Conscientious Objector- you know- these are the pacifists who opt to still support their country by serving in the military in non-combatant roles. I have always wondered how it works to function in that sort of middle ground?
Thank you for your mention of the hazard of blindly supporting your nation as you would a football team; of all the considerations, this is the one that concerns me the most.
Jenn, I was in Newberg 2000-2006 pastoring the Foursquare Church (now called Red Hills Church).
I’m really intrigued by “Conscientious Objector” idea. I think the movie Hacksaw Ridge is a really compelling review of that concept.
I do think too often we are not deeply thinking about why we are at war, it’s just “our side” and we blindly support it. While I’m not a ‘full’ pacifist, I do think each military conflict must be addressed on its own merits (which admittedly can get muddy) instead of just pure Nationalism.