Ethics of Life

Let's open in a word of prayer.

Father in heaven, we, once again, we confess our immense thanks that you have shed your love on us through your Holy Spirit.

! Lord, we don't deserve these blessings and these things. You give us all we need to know you, to walk with you, to be in your light.

And more than that, Lord, you give us this wonderful church, this safe place. You've planted us in this city.

We pray, Lord, that we would use these gifts for your glory, to spread your kingdom.

We pray today, and this moment in particular, that you would give us wisdom about that very difficult question of Christianity and Christians regarding warfare.

Give us insight. Give us insight into your word, into your calling on our lives as citizens, but also many of us are voters.

And we just pray that you give us wisdom in these things, and we pray all this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Okay, friends. I was here two weeks ago. The original plan was for us to do capital punishment and then warfare, but then some people's schedule got confusculated,

and then so I'm two weeks late or a week late. But whereas with capital punishment, we talked about using lethal force against someone who had perpetrated a horrific crime.

Today, we're going to be talking about using lethal force that almost by necessity will be used against people who have not committed a crime.

So this is the idea of warfare.

And one definition that distinguishes something like capital punishment from warfare is that warfare is a broader use of force in which very likely some innocent people will be caught up in what is being conducted.

That's what makes warfare such a difficult question and such a fraught question.

As you can tell, perhaps, from this definition of warfare, we could expand this to talk about the use of physical force or violence at all.

So on the one hand, we could talk about warfare in a broader sense to include all kinds of physical force or violence that, when used, has a somewhat reasonable chance of affecting innocent people.

I'm speaking about things like certain police work or if you are doing a security operation or if you're serving in the military but in peacetime or issues of self-defense or potentially moments of heroic but violent self-sacrifice,

where you see something happening and you decide to do something to prevent a terrible act from occurring.

That's perhaps a broader view where you still have this idea of using violence where there's potential for innocence being affected,

whereas a narrower definition would limit warfare to simply what we would traditionally think of as a war, like nation-states fighting against one another.

But all of these questions are bound up in the idea of Christianity and warfare, of Christians and violence.

Is it ever appropriate to use violence as if you are a Christian?

And if so, when and how?

What are the reasons why?

In our last class that I was teaching with you on capital punishment,

the position that I took was that a capital punishment, clearly you see in Scripture that God has mandated it on occasion.

It's not inherently wrong at all times because God did ask it to be carried out at times.

But in that class, I didn't take a position on whether capital punishment should be used in our country today.

That's sort of a separate question, and I presented different points of view.

Today, on this class on warfare, I'm going to do something a little bit different.

Instead of not taking positions or sides on warfare, what I'm going to suggest is that perhaps God can call faithful Christians

to different paths regarding a specific instance of warfare.

That there could be different paths that God genuinely calls Christians that are part of the same community of faith down

in terms of whether to be pacifistic or whether to support the war, and if so, how to support the war.

And I'll explain all that as we go.

What our outline will be is it'll be similar from the last time I was with you,

where I'm going to kind of talk about different passages in Scripture,

some of which appear to support the idea that warfare can be just at times under specific circumstances,

and then passages that can suggest that, no, Christians are called to a different or higher purpose.

I do this so that you can see perhaps the motives and the reasoning behind Christians who take both sides of the question.

Then I want to walk us through a brief history of Christians and pacifism on the one hand,

and then Christians and just warfare on the other hand,

because it turns out we actually have two great traditions in the church,

where on the one hand there will be Christians who argue that the Scriptures support pacifism,

and then we have Christians who argue that, no, the Scriptures support that there are times when warfare is justified.

And then I'll present some thoughts on this,

and then some lessons that we can draw from what we've learned,

and going forward if we're ever faced with very difficult situations like warfare.

Let's get started.

What I'm going to do now is put the, you know, a scholar would call this the locus classicus.

It's the verse that is sort of the calling card of Christian pacifism.

It's Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

It's Matthew chapter 5, verse 38.

Matthew 5:38

And it's a pacifism.

I'm terrible at spelling.

Yeah, I got that right.

And Jesus says this,

You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.

But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him too.

Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Pacifism takes these verses quite literally.

When Jesus says, do not resist an evil person, they take these verses as meaning we should not participate in warfare.

That you should not try to resist an evil person with violence.

It's a straightforward reading.

If you continue reading Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, you know, Jesus will say things like,

Love your enemies.

Pray for those who persecute you.

And the pacifist will say, Jesus meant that.

He meant to love your enemies.

He meant to do these things.

However, you know, someone could point to other things where Jesus says,

I say, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is God's throne.

Let your statement be yes, yes, or no, no.

Anything beyond this is of the evil one.

And someone could reply that I'm not sure he only wants us saying yes, yes, no, no.

I think he's getting at the heart of vows you can't keep and taking the Lord's name in vain.

But this is probably the gold star of Christian pacifism is Matthew 538.

Of course, though, there are many other verses.

They're counterpoints for the idea of just war.

I'm only going to choose one or two.

There are certainly probably better ones because especially in the Old Testament,

there's so many warfare verses.

But I did want to choose one or two in particular that I thought were particularly thought-provoking.

This one is from 1 Samuel 17.

And this is, of course, the famous story of David and Goliath,

where David goes out.

The Israelite armies are arrayed in warfare against the Philistines.

Goliath, this warrior, is coming out challenging the Israelite armies

and defying the God of Israel.

It's very blasphemous.

And no warrior is willing to stand before this giant Goliath, this mighty warrior.

And David, young David, who's probably just a teenager, he's probably like 15 or something.

And he says he will fight Goliath.

And he says,

And Saul said to David,

And of course, as you all know,

David kills Goliath, chops off his head,

and earns a great victory.

What is interesting about this is that there is a psalm of David, Psalm 144,

where he says,

Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.

He is my steadfast love and my fortress,

my stronghold and my deliverer,

my shield and he in whom I take refuge,

who subdues peoples under me.

So this sort of warrior act or warrior ethos that was exhibited by David is also commemorated in the Psalms.

And that gives it a little more than just a historical account.

Sometimes you read the Old Testament,

and of course not all the stories of what people do in the Old Testament are meant to give us moral examples to follow.

Sometimes they're actually the opposite.

They're supposed to show us how not to do things.

But in this case,

there's a psalm commemorating David as a warrior and as a fighter.

So that's one counterpoint on the just war side of things.

I want to walk through a few others.

This one is...

I'm going to go in reverse order here.

I'm going to do the just war passage first.

Now, some people...

We talked about this in the capital punishment class.

Some people might look at these.

A pacifist might respond to this and say,

Yes, that's true,

but that is the Old Covenant.

And in the New Covenant,

we are called to higher and better things.

And that's where this passage is interesting.

This is in Luke chapter 22.

Luke 22 · chapter mention

This is towards the very end of Jesus's ministry.

I think this is actually the day...

It's the last week of Jesus's life.

And Jesus says to the disciples,

he sort of gives them a parting warning.

And he says,

When I sent you out with no money bag or knapsack or sandals,

did you lack anything?

This is when he sent out the apostles two by two.

And then he sent out the 70.

And he asked,

Did you lack anything?

And they said,

Nothing.

And he said to them,

But now let the one who has a money bag take it,

and likewise a knapsack.

So he's warning them,

tough times are going to come.

And then he says this,

And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me,

and he was numbered with the transgressors.

He's prophesying his unjust death that's about to happen.

And the disciples respond to this,

and they say,

Look, Lord, here are two swords.

And he said,

That's enough.

It's a cryptic passage.

There's a lot of surprising things about this.

One, Jesus tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword.

And then they respond and they say,

Actually, we already have swords.

And it looks like the disciples are bringing weapons of warfare around with them,

when they're with Jesus, apparently.

That's what's going on.

But then Jesus also,

you know,

he doesn't,

he says that's enough.

Like, it's almost like he's trying to restrain them at the same time.

But still, it's very interesting.

Swords, remember, there were no guns back then.

And so bringing a sword was how you would defend yourself when you're on the way between cities and things like that.

So that's what they're bringing around, apparently.

However, there are some counterpoints here.

If we keep reading the Gospels,

and we come to when Jesus is arrested,

this also happens in Luke.

So this is just very shortly after Jesus had said about the necessity of bringing a sword.

In Matthew 26,

Jesus is arrested.

Judas, one of the twelve,

comes up with swords and clubs.

And Judas gives a sign,

and he says,

the one whom I kiss

is the man,

sees him.

And he comes up to Jesus at once,

and he says,

greetings, Rabbi.

And he kisses him,

and Jesus says,

friend,

do what you came to do.

And then they came up and laid hands on Jesus

and seized him.

And behold,

one of those who were with Jesus,

this is Peter,

we know from other Gospels,

he stretched out his hand,

he drew his sword,

he struck the servant of the high priest

and cut off his ear.

So he seems to be doing what Jesus literally just recommended.

And then Jesus says,

put your sword back into its place,

for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father,

and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Hmm.

Here we have the classic scenario of using violence.

Jesus has just recommended they buy swords,

people are coming to attack them unjustly,

a disciple unsheathes his sword and attacks.

Peter does this,

and Jesus rebukes him.

And we know from other Gospels,

he heals the man who had his ear cut off.

And then he says,

don't you think

I could appeal to my Father

and he would send twelve legions of angels

to take care of all this?

But how then,

he says,

should the Scriptures be fulfilled

that it must be so?

There's a partner passage with this.

If we keep reading the Gospels,

one of my joys is taking the Gospels

and weaving them together in chronological order.

If you keep reading

and you come to

John,

oh,

I forgot the chapter verse.

It's when Jesus is standing before Pontius Pilate.

It's verse 36.

I forget the actual chapter.

He's standing before Pontius Pilate

in the Gospel of John

and Pontius Pilate is just mystified

that Jesus is not defending himself more,

that he's not.

And Jesus says this,

my kingdom is not of this world.

If my kingdom were of this world,

my servants would fight

that I not be delivered over to the Jews.

But my kingdom is not of this world.

18.

18.

John 18.

Here we have

a very fitting partner passage

where Jesus explains,

hey,

my kingdom is not from here.

My kingdom is a spiritual kingdom.

Otherwise,

my servants would be fighting for me.

But I'm part of a greater kingdom,

a higher kingdom.

So I hope you see the juxtaposition

between these passages.

It also shows,

I think these illustrate

the difficulties of these questions

because in some sense,

I mean,

the disciples were carrying swords.

Jesus recommended they get a sword.

But then,

he also clearly had

very strict conditions

when you might use these things

at minimum.

If you want to go the pacifistic route,

you could also argue

that perhaps he was saying

something symbolically.

He didn't mean the use of literal swords.

But either way,

you see how these questions

are very difficult

and they're fraught

about Christians and violence

and Christians and warfare.

Well,

we do have some other

very interesting passages

that I want to make sure

we go through.

This is when,

this is regards

how the New Testament

treats soldiers.

And one passage

where we find this

is in the early passages

of the Gospel of Luke.

Luke,

and I,

you know,

I cut off the chapter again.

I think it's Luke 4,

but it's verse 10.

It's 3 or 4,

where a crowd

is around John the Baptist

and they're asking,

what should we do?

And he answers,

whoever has two tunics

is to share with him

who has none.

Whoever has food

is to do likewise.

Tax collectors also come

to be baptized by John

and they say to him,

teacher,

what shall we do?

And John says,

collect no more

than you are authorized

to collect.

Chapter 3.

Luke chapter 3,

Luke 3:10

verse 10.

Then soldiers,

Roman soldiers,

come to John

and they say,

and what shall we do?

And he says to them,

do not extort money

from anyone by threats

or by false accusation

and be content

with your wages.

That's what he says.

He doesn't say

abandon your post.

He doesn't say

never use violence.

He just says,

don't extort money.

Be content with your wages.

Soldiers are always

rioting in the ancient world.

Be content with your wages.

Interesting.

Very interesting.

Here's another one.

You might say,

well, that was John the Baptist.

You know,

we're still technically

Old Covenant here.

Maybe that's what he's doing.

But there is

another parallel case

with Jesus.

It's not quite as explicit,

but in another sense,

it's also interesting

for different reasons.

This is when our Lord,

this is Matthew chapter 8.

Matthew 8 · chapter mention

Our Lord enters Capernaum.

That's his home base

of ministry.

And a centurion,

so this is an officer

in the Roman army.

He comes to him

and he says,

my servant is lying paralyzed

at home suffering.

And Jesus says,

I will come and heal him.

But the centurion says,

Lord,

I'm not worthy

to have you come under my roof.

This is a very moving passage.

In the Gospels,

the full context is

that some Jewish leaders

come to Jesus

and they say,

hey,

you got to help this guy out.

He's worthy.

He's given us money

for this synagogue.

He's done all this great stuff.

He's worthy for you

to do this.

But then the centurion says,

I am not worthy

for you to do this for me.

He's a man of great humility

and faith.

And the centurion says,

I'm not worthy

to have you come under my roof,

but only say the word

and my servant will be healed.

And this is important

for our question here.

He says,

I too am a man under authority

with soldiers under me.

And I say to one,

go and he goes

and to another,

come and he comes

and to my servant,

do this and he does it.

When Jesus heard this,

he marveled

and he said to those,

truly I tell you,

with no one in Israel

have I found such faith.

I tell you,

many will come from the east

and the west

and recline with Abraham,

Isaac and Jacob

in the kingdom of God

while the sons of the kingdom

will be thrown

into the outer darkness.

And to the centurion,

Jesus said,

go, let it be done

for as you have believed,

it will be done.

And the servant was healed

at that very hour.

There are two things here.

One is that Jesus is here

teaching a centurion,

a man in the Roman military

and he compliments his faith.

He doesn't rebuke him

for his military service.

He doesn't tell him,

yes, you have great faith,

but you do need to do

this one important thing.

He actually gives him

one of the greatest compliments

he gives anyone

in the scriptures.

And furthermore,

the second point is that

what has the centurion

just said to Jesus?

This, this centurion just,

the centurion gave an example

of how he conducts his life

in the military

about ordering soldiers.

He says, I tell soldiers

to do this and they do it.

And that's why I know

that you can do this, Lord.

So the centurion gives

an argument of Jesus's,

of his faith in Jesus

based on his own

military service.

And Jesus accepts

this argument.

He says, this is,

this man has immense faith.

So, hmm,

interesting food for thought.

But, just like last time,

you know, if we wanted to,

the pacifists could respond

by saying, well, you know,

the gospels

and the New Testament

as a whole

call us to higher things.

And often,

the New Testament

does not explicitly

delve into details

of social order.

You know,

it doesn't always

as openly condemn slavery

as we would hope,

for instance.

And perhaps,

this is an example

where Jesus was,

was simply

treating the centurion

as an individual.

He wasn't thinking

of the larger social

implications of his

military service

or something like that.

Should we not

be thinking of these things

in the full unfolding

of the gospel

and the resurrection

of Jesus

like Isaiah 9

talks about?

Isaiah 9,

Isaiah 9:5

verse 5 says,

this beautiful prophecy

of Jesus,

for every boot

of the trampling warrior

in battle tumult

and every garment

rolled in blood

will be burned

as fuel for the fire.

For to us,

a child is born.

To us,

a son is given.

And the government

shall be upon his shoulders

and his name

shall be called

Wonderful Counselor,

Mighty God,

Everlasting Father,

Prince of Peace.

And of the increase

of his government

and of peace,

there will be no end.

The pacifist would say

that this should be our goal.

We follow Jesus,

the Prince of Peace.

And yes,

perhaps the centurion,

Jesus did not openly

condemn the centurion,

but we are called

to greater things

than this.

And Isaiah 9 prophesies

such a thing.

I think,

actually,

this now occurs to me,

I think I skipped

a very important passage.

I don't know why

I skipped this.

So if you don't mind,

I'm going to reverse order here.

that argument that,

oh,

perhaps the centurion

was doing something

maybe

a pacifist might argue

not inherently sinful

but not

what we're called

to be doing,

if that makes sense.

Sometimes you'll hear

these sorts of arguments.

We see examples of this

with David.

Remember,

David was called

to warfare,

but in 1 Chronicles,

when he is trying

to build God's temple,

King David says

that,

I had it in my heart

to build a house

of rest

for the ark

of the covenant

of the Lord

and for the footstool

of our God,

and I made preparations

for building,

but God said to me,

you may not build

a house for my name,

for you are a man

of war

and have shed blood.

And that's in

the Old Covenant.

So what happens?

Solomon,

his son,

builds the temple

and Solomon's name

means peace.

He's the one

who built it.

So,

you see sort of

the intertwining paths.

I have not,

I have not articulated

a single argument

for pacifism.

I mean,

there's different kinds

of arguments

for pacifism.

One is an absolutist one

where war is never permitted.

It's a horrific crime.

But there's lesser forms

of it.

There's the arguments

that, well,

that's not what we should

ever strive for.

It's always defiling

somehow.

It's never the higher

calling.

There's also those

arguments

for pacifism as well.

But of course,

those who hold

to just war

have a large number

of scriptural passages

on their side

as well.

For instance,

the disciples

bringing swords

around with them

is one of them.

Now,

what I want to do now

is give just a brief

overview of the history

of pacifism

and then a brief

overview of the history

of just war theology.

And I'm going to go

quickly here.

I'm realizing I'm already,

I think I'm already

going slower

than I anticipated.

This book,

The Early Church

on Killing,

a comprehensive source book

on war,

abortion,

and capital punishment

is very useful.

It's a fairly comprehensive

collection of excerpts

from Christian writings

in the first 300 years

of the church

that have to do

with war,

abortion,

and capital punishment.

And it's well done.

The excerpts

are from older translations,

so they can be

a little difficult

to follow.

The reason why

this is important

is because when you look

at the history

of pacifism,

there are two

main streams

of thought.

One is the Anabaptists,

the other is

the early church.

both of them

were pacifistic.

In fact,

the early church

was almost universally

pacifistic.

And I wanted to

read to you

just some quick highlights

from the early church

so you can get a sense

of the passion

that the early church

had for not

practicing warfare.

Remember that

these Christians

are writing at a time

when no Christian

is in governmental power,

they're being

sometimes horrifically

persecuted.

So here we go.

Athenagoras of Athens,

he's writing

in the year 180,

he articulates

that Christians

oppose abortion,

infanticide,

gladiatorial contests,

and then he says,

how then,

when we do not

even look

on gladiatorial contests,

lest we should contract

guilt and pollution,

how then

should we put people

to death.

Tertullian in 225,

he denounces

gladiatorial contests,

but he goes even further

and he insists,

quote,

God puts his prohibition

on every sort

of man killing.

Tertullian,

I love Tertullian,

but he was

about as extreme

as you can get.

Tertullian even argues

that the shedding

of human blood

cannot be forgiven.

But what he probably

means by that

is not that God

won't forgive it,

but that the church

can't forgive it.

In other words,

you're permanently

excommunicated.

Still very harsh,

extremely harsh,

but that's Tertullian

for you.

Minucius Felix,

writing around

the year 200,

he says,

to us,

as Christians,

it is not lawful

either to see

or to hear

of human slaughter.

Origen,

in 254,

unequivocally insists

that under no circumstances

should Christians kill.

And he says,

he warns Christians,

quote,

lest because of warfare

or the vindication

of our rights

or for any occasion

we should take the sword,

there is no such occasion

that is allowed

by the gospel teaching.

We must use the sword

against no one.

That's what Origen said.

He says,

and I quote him here,

nowhere does Christ teach

that it is right

for his own disciples

to offer violence

against anyone,

however wicked

they might be.

Christ did not deem it

in keeping with his laws

to allow the killing

of any individual

whatever.

Cyprian,

writing in 258,

he insists that manslaughter

is a mortal crime.

He says,

he's referring to his flock

and he says,

we are of those

who, quote,

may not kill

but who must be killed.

And he's writing

in this time

of terrible persecution.

It goes on.

I could keep going here.

You know,

Lactantius around the year 300

says,

Christians are ignorant of war.

They are friendly

to their enemies.

They do not commit war

or commit murders.

Putting someone to death

is wrong,

he says.

Lactantius says,

every kind of killing

is wrong.

Abortion,

infanticide,

exposure of newborn children,

gladiatorial contests,

capital punishment,

and warfare,

he believes,

are all wrong.

He even says

that it is wrong

to accuse someone

of a capital crime

because it makes

no different,

quote,

whether you put a person

to death by word

or by sword.

That's how intense

these people were.

They were straight

down the line.

Our first,

one of our earliest

church orders,

this is a church manual

of how you baptize,

how you do the Eucharist,

how you bring in

new members,

and this church order

says that those

who are gladiators

or teach gladiators

or teach swordsmanship

or teach military skills

or weapons training,

they should stop

or they will be excluded

from baptism.

So the early church

was very,

fairly universal in this.

However,

we do have examples,

if I can give a counterpoint

to this,

we do have examples

of Christians serving

in the military

in the early church.

That does come up.

Tertullian,

he's one of the harshest

guys on this.

He even talks about

one of these situations

where he compliments

the Christian soldiers.

So it's not

totally universal,

but there is a quote,

if I can find it,

that the author

of this volume,

this author of this volume

put together,

he says,

and I think this is fair,

he says that

in all of our

hundreds and hundreds

and hundreds of pages

of writings

that we have

from the early church,

there is not

a single statement

that explicitly allows

Christians to serve

in the military.

They're either silent on it

or they're negative on it.

Yes?

All of these individuals

who have made this

pretty clear

past this commentary,

have any of them

written on Luke 22?

So,

Origen has some homilies

on Luke 22.

No,

he has some homilies

on Luke.

I don't know if the homilies

cover Luke 22.

That would be a great

question to ask,

especially because

when Origen said

those statements,

he was talking about

the Matthew 26 passage

where Jesus says,

those who use the sword

will die by the sword.

So,

I don't know

if he then

went and looked

at that one.

Ivor.

Yeah.

I was kind of drafted

and I joined the Navy

to avoid the Army.

Okay,

yeah,

yeah.

And my ship,

the Enterprise,

was doing close air support

of the Marine Corps.

Yeah.

And I was part

of the ship.

So,

that makes me

combat veteran.

Yes.

Yeah.

So,

according to what

you're saying,

I could be included

from church services

for serving

when my government

kind of forced me

into the military?

I don't think that.

Yeah.

But,

there are people

in the early church

who would have said that.

Okay.

That would exclude

members of this congregation.

It would also exclude

members of our families

who serve in the military.

My nephew

is in the military

right now.

And,

my grandfather

and many of my ancestors

served in the military.

They took a really

extreme position

of which I'm going to,

we're about to turn

to the just war theory.

So,

I don't want to end

on this note.

There is another

point of view here

that I'm about to present.

I will also say

about the early church

that

I think

all of those quotations,

though they are very powerful

and all-encompassing,

they are not as universal

as you think.

If you read the early church,

you understand that

we,

the actual

on-the-ground work

of the local churches,

there are soldiers

in those churches.

We know that

from archaeological excavations.

We know that

from other,

from,

from,

um,

Christians,

writers who will mention

Christian soldiers

in the service of Rome.

Uh,

we know that this happened.

We know that it was

fairly common.

We know that they were

welcomed in.

So,

while

the quotations

that we have

universally support

pacifism,

we know that as a whole

that was not what

the early church

actually did

all the time,

if that makes sense.

Peter?

Um,

this time period,

I'm not great

with my church history,

is also,

uh,

during the time

where there was

active persecution

by the military

of the Christians.

Yep.

And could that

be the reason

why they say,

don't be in the military

because they're going

to be ordered

to kill fellow Christians?

And,

and there was

often forced

pagan worship

in the military,

where you had

to swear allegiance

to the genius

of Caesar,

the spirit of Caesar

and worship him

and do incense

to the emperor

as a show of loyalty

to the empire.

That is a huge factor

and,

and people will say that.

Another factor is,

uh,

this sounds really extreme,

but remember,

these are people

who are being slaughtered

for their faith at times

and they are saying

very similar things

to every Christian

that,

so a soldier,

you might respond

and say,

well,

if I'm a soldier,

that means I have to die.

But they're saying

that because if I abandon

my post,

I'll be executed.

But they are saying

the same things

to so many other

non-soldiers

who are in very

similar circumstances.

So they're not

singling out soldiers

for having to risk

something terrible

to leave.

This is for everybody.

Everybody's doing

all of this.

So,

while it is extreme,

you have to remember

they're,

they're casting this net

over pretty much

the whole flock.

Um,

there are,

remember that women

had almost zero rights

in the Roman Empire.

A Roman male citizen

could execute his wife

or children.

He could do that.

They had slaves.

You would have,

if you were a pastor

in a church,

you're going to have slaves

who go home

and get raped

by their masters.

You're going to have

people who are horribly

beaten by their fathers

with no recourse

at all.

This is just,

people who are signed up

for the gladiatorial contest

and compelled

to go and be slaughtered.

I mean,

all of these things

are happening.

So,

uh,

they,

they're living

in really terrible times.

So,

that does breed

extremism

by necessity.

By necessity.

So,

keep that in mind.

Um,

final point,

and this will be

our transition.

Uh,

I,

I want to

honor

and,

and,

and be inspired

by the faith

of our Christian

forebears

in the early church.

But,

it is one thing

to say these,

when you're,

these,

these kind of statements

when you're not in power,

it's another thing

to be in power

and allow violence

to be perpetrated

against innocent people.

And,

that brings in

just war theory.

And,

it turns out

that for 300 years,

Christians were not in power

in the Roman Empire.

And,

then an emperor

comes along

named Constantine

who became a Christian.

And,

he declared freedom

of religion.

Often people say

he made Christianity

the official religion.

He didn't.

He declared freedom

of religion.

He said,

you cannot persecute people

due to their religious beliefs.

It's one of the most

extraordinary

sociological statements

ever.

That he,

he was the one

who,

who really initiated this

for the first time.

And,

all of a sudden

you have a Christian

in power.

What do you do?

And,

this is where

just war theory

begins.

And,

the question

that those

in power

who are Christians

ask is,

should we let

evil go

unopposed?

C.S. Lewis

wrote an essay.

It's in the book

The Weight of Glory

and it's titled

Why I Am Not a Pacifist.

And,

he wrote it

in World War II.

And,

he says,

does anyone suppose,

so he's referring to

Matthew 538

where our Lord says,

do not resist

an evil person.

He says,

does anyone suppose

that our Lord's hearers

understood

good his words

to mean

that if a

homicidal maniac

attempting to murder

a third party

tried to knock me

out of the way

that I should stand

aside and let him

get at his victim?

And,

C.S. Lewis,

it's a complicated essay

but he makes

some good points.

But,

he highlights

that issue

of,

is Jesus here

talking about

personal,

personal vendettas

and vengeance here

or is he talking

universally about

the use of violence

to protect

the innocent?

And,

C.S. Lewis

would say,

he's talking about

personal,

personal

vendettas

and vengeance

and things like that.

He is not saying,

hey,

if you happen

to be a police officer

and you see

some wrong happening,

don't do anything.

That's not

what he's saying.

Yes,

Iver?

C.S. Lewis

lived through the blitz.

Yeah,

he was World War I

in the trenches.

Yeah,

and World War I

in the trenches.

And the blitz as well,

yes.

Yeah,

so,

the blitz,

six months,

bombs were dropped

from the sky

every night.

Yeah,

he knew

what he was talking about.

He lived through the blitz.

Yeah.

And I think

that colors

what he believes.

Yes,

I agree.

I agree.

So,

all of a sudden,

when does

just war theory

first get articulated?

Well,

it starts becoming

articulated

when Christians

finally get into power

and they realize

that,

hey,

we can't just

like let

wrongs happen

here.

So,

the major proponent

of just war theory,

the first one

is Augustine

and his words

are then

the next major,

or there's many

major proponents

of it,

but there's Augustine

and then there's

Thomas Aquinas.

Augustine says,

or he suggests

that loving

our neighbor

can mean

self-defense

of the state.

He said,

Augustine suggests

that loving

our foreign neighbors

may mean using force

to punish evildoers

or to right a wrong.

Thomas Aquinas

writes,

he says,

true religion

looks upon

as peaceful,

so he says,

true religion

looks upon

as peaceful

those wars

that are waged

with the object

of securing

peace.

So,

Thomas Aquinas

says,

it is peaceful

to wage wars

in order to secure

peace,

but he says

they should not be

waged for motives

of greed

or cruelty,

but instead

for punishing evil,

securing peace,

and uplifting the good.

Thomas Aquinas

argued,

and you will see

his words

being used

by many theologians

since,

but Thomas Aquinas

argued that

for a war

to be just,

he had three categories,

he said,

for a war

to be just,

it has to be

carried out

by someone

in the proper authority.

He says,

it's not for

individuals

to declare war

on people.

It has to be done

through the proper

authorities,

that's number one.

Number two,

he said,

that it needs

a just cause.

Your cause

needs to be

just.

He says,

a just cause

is required,

namely,

those who are

attacked

should be attacked

because they

deserve it

on account

of some fault,

to right

a terrible wrong,

to protect

people who

are being

slaughtered.

Those are

why you

should carry

out a just

war.

In fact,

Aquinas

quotes

Augustine,

where Augustine

says that

a just war

should be

described as

one that

avenges

wrongs

when a

nation or

state must

be punished

for refusing

to make

amends for

the wrongs

inflicted on

its subjects

or to

restore what

that state

has seized

unjustly.

So you're

trying to

prevent this

state from

inflicting

wrongs,

you're trying

to prevent

them from

doing so

in the

future,

you're trying

to recover

what was

lost,

you're trying

to do

something

like this.

And then

third,

he says

that you

also need

to have

what he

says,

just

intent.

And this

is very

perceptive

of him

because he

says it's

not enough

to have

just cause

because you

can come

up with a

just cause

why you

need to

invade a

country,

but if

you're really

just wanting

to get

rich off

their stuff,

that doesn't

count.

You have

to have

the just

intent.

Now,

in our

society today,

we could

perhaps add

to this

and maybe

show how

things are

complicated.

Proper

authority,

well,

that's

difficult

in a

democracy.

It's

also

difficult

if

you find

yourself

in a

terrible

situation

where

you're

witnessing

a

violent

crime.

Maybe

we don't

call it

warfare,

but you

might have

to do

something

that could

risk

harming

others.

So this

is a little

bit more

complicated.

Another

issue is

the issue

of,

we heard

this in

the wars

today,

in the

war in

Gaza,

proportionality.

So some

people think

that just

wars should

be proportional,

but people

will define

what they

mean by

that differently.

Some people

will say

that a

just war

should be

proportional.

They should

only carry

out violence

to the

extent that

violence

had been

carried out

by the

evildoer.

Other people

say,

no,

that's not

what proportionality

means.

Proportionality

means that

the violence

that you

use should

be proportional

in order

to stop

the future

evil from

happening.

So that

might mean

you do

have to

escalate the

violence,

but only

because that's

proportionally

required to

prevent the

evil from

continuing to

occur.

Do you see

the two

differences

there?

So one

difference,

if some

tribe goes

and kidnaps

10 people

or kills

10 people

from another

tribe,

the victim

tribe would

only be allowed

to kill

10 other

people in

one

interpretation

of

proportionality,

in another

interpretation,

the victim

tribe would

be able

to do

as much

violence

as necessary

to prevent

the killing

from continuing.

Does that

make sense?

Those are

two very

different

positions.

And then

another

issue

is

the fog

of war.

This is a

really big

issue,

knowing what

is actually

happening.

And I'll

use an

example here.

In our

day and

age,

is there a

famine in

Gaza or

not?

People debate

about whether

that's

happening.

And if it

is happening,

is it

caused by

Israel?

If so,

is it

caused

intentionally?

Or is it

caused by

Hamas?

Because they're

trying to

curry favor

with people.

This is the

fog of war.

How you

answer those

questions will

affect your

position on

whether the

war in

Gaza was

just or not.

Or if it's

continuing the

nature of

it continuing

after two

years is

just.

And it's

the fog of

war.

We don't

always know

what's

happening.

I'll give

an example.

I read a

book to my

kids called

The Great

Escape.

Wonderful book,

really gripping

read.

It's about this

amazing World

War II escape

story from a

POW camp.

And it's

these British

officers who

are in a

Nazi prisoner

of war camp

in Germany.

And they're

trying to escape

and they hate

the Nazis and

a lot of the

soldiers, the

German guards

are jerks and

everything.

But it turns

out the Nazi

officer who was

in charge of

the camp was

actually like

you're reading

this and he

comes up every

now and then

and you're

like this guy

is a nice

guy.

He's watching

out for the

soldiers.

He's not

taking advantage

of them.

And I looked

him up and he

was a very

interesting guy.

He opposed

the Nazis when

they came to

power.

But then he

was a military

man.

But then when

the war started

he was

conscripted into

the service.

So he decided

to serve.

And they put

him in charge

of a POW

camp I'm

sure because

they didn't

trust him.

Probably because

they didn't want

him on the

front lines because

they didn't

trust his

loyalty.

So they made

him in charge

of this POW

camp.

And he

acted justly

towards the

prisoners.

He never

took advantage

of them,

never abused

them.

And there

was an

incident when

the Nazis

were losing

the war where

an order came

down warning

the head of

the camps that

hey we might

give an order

any day now

where we're

going to ask

you to execute

all the prisoners.

And the

German officer

got this

order and he

turned and said

to his fellow

officers well I

guess we will

just have to

die because he

was going to

refuse to do

it.

And after

the Nazis

lost and all

the Nazi

officers were

arrested,

they're soliciting

evidence for

their war crimes

and the

British POW

soldiers said

no that guy

didn't do

anything.

He was good

and he was

released.

And so here

we have this

example of

how difficult

it is.

The fog of war

question comes

up because

the question

is did he

know about

the concentration

camps the

Nazis were

doing?

I mean I'm

not a World

War II expert.

I do know

that many people

were unaware

of these things

or they heard

about them but

didn't believe

them.

They thought