Versión de HTML Básico
Can a Christian Go to War?
497
Testament shows others’ doing on many occasions (cf. e.g., Israel, David,
Samson).
But what of Jesus Christ, the authority for the Christian? Anti-war appeal
is more often made to him, who urges us to turn the other cheek. Soldiers
don’t seem to turn the other cheek and don’t seem to love their neighbors,
and so therefore, by implication, we have Jesus’ authority against war and
being a soldier.
But the appeal to Jesus as the authority against serving as a soldier seems
to ignore the fact that his highest words of praise are found for a soldier, the
centurion who asked that Jesus should heal his servant by speaking a word
at a distance. Jesus marveled at this faith and said, “I say unto you, I have
not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matt. 8:10). It is noteworthy that
Jesus does not demand that the centurion cease being a soldier and in Mat
thew 8:11 speaks of him as being a member of the kingdom of heaven. John
the Baptist, when asked by soldiers in service what they must do, does not
demand that they leave the army, but only that they not misuse their power
for their own sinful goals in exacting by force from civilians what was not
theirs by right (Luke 3:14). Peter is sent to Cornelius, the centurion soldier.
The narrative speaks of that soldier as Godfearing, as one that works righ
teousness, and as acceptable to God (Acts 10).
In none of these encounters are these soldiers told that they must give up
what they are doing because being a soldier is incompatible with their Chris
tian faith.
But how can Jesus speak about turning the other cheek and yet recognize
Christians as soldiers? Are these not mutually exclusive? Perhaps we begin
to find the solution when we realize that the soldier, or any Christian, must
on the one hand accept abuse and even death rather than deny Christ, [and]
on the other hand defend himself, others, and a nation against attack as a
responsibility laid on him by faith in Christ. Perhaps the distinction Paul
makes between the individual Christian and the state in Romans 12 and 13
will point us in the direction that will help clarify this solution.
The individual Christian is not to avenge Jiimself, he is to live peaceably,
he is to feed his enemy (Rom. 12:17-21), and he is to love his neighbor and
therefore not kill (Rom. 13:8-10). But significantly, right in the middle of
those words, the power or authority of the state is delineated in other terms
(Rom. 13:1-7). The state is to avenge. It is a terror to evil. It is a minister
of God and is given no less than the sword (v. 4), and it bears the sword not
in vain but as an avenger who brings wrath upon the one that does evil. We
pay taxes to support this very activity upon which the state is to attend con
tinually (v. 6). Paul says pointedly that “it [the state] does not bear the
sword for nothing” (v. 4). We could say in our day that he is not armed
needlessly. In using the sword, or gun, the state is expressly called a
mi ni s t er