Growing up Adventist in Australia, I was struck by an interesting ambivalence toward war and law enforcement: on one hand, we decried the use of force, encouraged noncombatant attitudes, and had issues with baptizing members of the police force into the Church. On the other hand, we celebrated Anzac Day and Remembrance Day at Adventist churches and schools, honoring those who fought for freedom.

It always struck me as strange that we felt we had done our bit for our country if we served as medics. Imagine if everyone took that stance, what kind of army would we have? Our freedom is built on the willingness of others to do what we would not.

At a state school where I taught, a colleague of mine argued for compulsory unionism. His case was that the unionists paid their union fees and went on strike, losing their pay, but when they won the pay rise, all the non-unionists got it as well, without any pain. I was forced to agree. To share in the blessings should require us to share in the struggle.

Which makes me laugh when I bump into cases where a person has been refused baptism because they are a member of the police force, or even of the fire services. Needless to say, we’d be the first to call for their services if we needed them on the Sabbath. I even know of a case where a particular congregation took several years and three ministers before baptizing someone who worked on Sabbaths at the local power station. Illuminated, amplified, and warmed by his electricity every Sabbath, the board said "no."

So here is this fascinating ambivalence in attitude toward war, simultaneously honored and shunned. I have enjoyed on occasion arguing each point of view. It is possible to build a convincing case for military intervention and for total pacifism. Few Christians will condemn stopping Hitler, while many feel at least uneasy about involvement in Vietnam. But again, most Christians I know support Australia’s military intervention in East Timor, which brought to an end years of occupation and periodic intense violence.

The same tension exists in the Bible, although it seems more clearly divided between the Old and New Testaments. Many Hebrews of the Old Testament seemed entirely comfortable with war, seeing it even as a tool in the hands of God. Yet some of the statements of Jesus in the New Testament seem to be uncompromisingly pacifist.

What to make of the Bible’s attitude to the use of state force? Here is an attempt.

First of all, military and civil enforcement is a function of government. It would be great if the Bible had a section entitled "Obligations of the State," but it doesn’t. As is often the case, things have to be worked out by inference. It doesn’t help much that at the time secular authorities were also often religious leaders, so separating the functions can be difficult.

Although it is easier to find passages telling people how to obey authority, the Old Testament does have some passages instructing authorities on how to behave. For example, Isaiah 58 calls for the power elite to fulfill their social obligations, noting that spiritual responsibilities can never truly be separated from social justice. Presumably, that would include the defense of the oppressed and poor. In a sinful world, this would have to include the use of force to prevent those inclined to violence from using it against the weak.

Some of Paul’s New Testament injunctions suggest force of a kind, when he encourages congregations to expel those who persistently refuse to correct their immoral behavior (1 Cor. 5).

On the other hand, one of the most challenging pieces of Scripture is the radical statement of Jesus in Matthew 5: 38-42, which on the face expects Christians to bow before bullying, and to be passive in the face of evil.

Other passages of Scripture complicate the picture. Matthew 22: 15-22 talks about fulfilling obligations to the state ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s"), as does Romans 13: 6-7, whereas Acts 4: 19 has that wonderfully defiant statement, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God." The sixth commandment tells us not to kill—or murder, as many translations have it—yet this did not seem to interfere with the Hebrews killing many people in God’s name. Perhaps a state-initiated war is not murder.

Matthew 18: 15-17 suggests that powerful sanctions are appropriate after negotiation and mediation has failed, even in religious communities, whereas Paul in Romans 13: 1-5 implies that pagan authorities have God’s mandate to punish wrongdoing.

Finally, neither Jesus nor John the Baptist ever told a soldier (or a tax collector for that matter) to quit their career, although other professions and conditions (prostitutes, the demon-possessed, and some of the ill) were told to change their ways or else.

What can we draw from such diversity? First, that we cannot make definitive statements about war and faith, so any conclusions here are tentative.

Having recognized that I would suggest that a state has an obligation to protect its citizens, which implies the endorsement of both internal and external force, to defend from threats by criminal citizens and by hostile states.

I would also note that Jesus’ radical statements happen in a context. His "turn the other cheek" is not about a meek response to banditry, but in fact about state-endorsed behavior. The soldier who took the coat or forced a citizen to walk a mile was entirely within his rights. Furthermore, Jesus is suggesting a new paradigm. Instead of revenge, which characterized Old Testament justice, he is suggesting a new force, that of love.

This, I think, is the crux of the matter. The use of force is legitimized by its connection to love. "Tough love" is needed, where people are given what they need, not what they deserve. Vengeance is excluded from the repertoire of behavior; rather, the genuine interests of the offender are considered. If an offending person or state responds to negotiation and mediation, then the problem is resolved. But if they refuse to change their violent behavior, then force is legitimate and in their own best interest, helping them to learn that violent behavior gets negative rewards. Although war is never good, at times it is the lesser of two evils.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE