Expert: Andrew Foley - 11/24/2006

Question
Hello Andrew,

I overheard an expert on a radio program saying that Iran has already stated it wants to destroy Israel & the U.S. & it's a matter of time until Iran or some other evil nation will use a nuclear weapon against us. He discussed that the electromagnetic wave from a certain size nuclear device detonated 100 miles above the U.S. could completely knock out much or all of our communications capability.
Are there any Biblical scriptures supporting America or Israel launching a nuclear first strike against our enemies if we know they're going to attack first in a matter of time? Does the Bible indicate anywhere that we would be going against God's law by killing innocent civilians in such an attack?
I would think God would support our first strike option if we go by Old testament law. New Testament law seems a bit different. Christ comes and seems to move us to love our enemies and even "turn the other cheek".
What might be your opinion on all of this?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Mike Eidson

Answer
Hello and thanks for writing. You ask several excellent questions. Let me start from the end and work backwards.

You ask whether it would be morally lawful under Christianity to wage war on a nation (with all the necessary accompanying collateral damage that implies) that we knew was preparing for an imminent attack on us. Let's see what God says about this. As you mentioned, the Old Testament is full of references to the wars and atrocities of the ancient Hebrews. That is not relevant to our situation because 1. All of the wars I can recall were directly ordered by God Himself in order to accomplish His plans on earth, whether they were to punish the Canaanites or to clear out the Holy Land for the Chosen People. Where is our King David today who gets his marching orders directly from God? George Bush? The only Chosen People today is the Church (1 Peter 2:9-10), which is scattered among all nations and whose kingdom is not of this world. I think it is a mistake that too many Americans make to read so much of the Old Testament that they start associating, without any basis, its Chosen People with Americans and its kings with our Presidents (so long as they're Republican). That is a great example of narcissistic theology. Even more importantly though, the Old Testament examples are not relevant because: 2. the Old Covenant not only applied to one particular ethnic group during a particular period in time, but it is broken and superceded by the New Covenant. Paul speaks of it as obsolete and close to disappearing (Hebrews 8:13). Indeed, as you say, if we were operating under the Old Law, spilling the blood of the infidels would probably be no great matter, but we are Christians. As Christians, the Old Testament is only relevant to us in the light and perspective of the New, so let's see what the New Testament says about this topic.

Jesus is quoted as making several very clear statements that would seem to mandate a strict pacifism for Christians. He said to not only offer no resistance to those who hurt you but to actually offer your left cheek to someone who has struck you on your right (MT 5:38-39). He commands us to love our enemies and to_pray_(not resist) those who persecute us (MT 5:43-48). When Peter severed the ear of the high priest's servant in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him, saying "...all who take the sword shall perish by the sword" (MT 26:52). He also said that the peacemakers are blessed and will be called sons of God (MT 5:9). There are several other such verses mandating a life of peace and non-resistance (e.g. 1 Pet 2:18-25).  Many blood-soaked ministers over the course of the centuries have tried to twist these sayings to support whatever war their respective nations were involved in, but I think these very clear words, as well as the entire life of Jesus, speak for themselves. The question about whether these forbid personal violence in all circumstances (to protect one's wife from a rapist, for example) is outside the scope of our topic. But whether these commands forbid war altogether is another question that we will further explore.

There are other verses which imply that physical violence may be acceptable in certain circumstances. I believe the strongest support for that view is when Paul speaks of a government's God-given power to physically punish evildoers (Rom 13:3-4). There are several other verses that pro-war Christians cite to support Christian participation in warfare (LK 3:14 for example), but I don't believe those ambiguous verses provide a strong argument, especially when contrasted with Jesus' very clear admonitions against violence. However, the above cited verse from Paul is clear enough to convey the fact that God allows governments to use force to punish evildoers. Logically, that authority would not be limited to violence against domestic criminals and evildoers but would also extend to foreign powers who would do evil against a nation's citizenry. So, since the  New Testament seems to allow for the possibility of warfare, I guess we then have to ask under what circumstances a government would be justified in exercising that power.

Before we get into that, we should just examine what the early Christians thought about the subject. The beliefs and actions of people who had heard the Gospel from the lips of the Disciples are not mere historical curiosities but a powerful indication that those beliefs and actions were the most faithful to the Gospel preached by Christ Himself. And in the area of war, the Early Church was 100% pacifist. There's just no question about that. Baptism was even denied to soldiers unless they resigned their posts. It wasn't until the decade of the 170s that we have evidence that some individual Christians joined the Roman army but even so, until the conversion of Constantine in the early 300s, all Christian leaders explicitly condemned Christian membership in the military and Christian participation in war. That wasn't just because soldiers had to worship the emperor; the early Christians had a genuine moral aversion to war. I can recommend some good books and articles online if you like. In any case, with changing circumstances, the Church's position on war changed as Christians were now in charge of the state and had to deal with questions of national security and public safety. Starting with St. Augustine (354-430), the Church has wrestled with the circumstances under which the state may wage war and has come up with a theory of "Just War", the essential points of which are covered at this link: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm One of the points says that the deaths of civilians is justified only when they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. So in your example, if we_knew_that Iran was going to launch a nuclear missile at us tomorrow, we would be justified in bombing that missile site, even if it were surrounded by civilians.

The problem is that once a Christian acknowledges that some wars are justifiable, the application of the just-war theory's very subjective standards to the extremely complex circumstances of modern politics depend on fallible human interpretation of events. Honest people can disagree about whether "all" non-violent means were exhausted before attacking Iraq or whether the American Revolution was waged by "legitimate authority" or whether the firebombing of German cities in World War II unjustly targeted civilians. That's not to say that everyone's opinion is equally valid, but that when exceptions are made to a moral absolute (Thou shall not kill), it's very easy for people to find ever more loopholes and lawyerly justifications on a slippery slope to absolute militarism and support for every one of Ceasar's military adventures. Ghandi said, ""I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." How true. For all the noble sentiments behind the just war theory, I can't see any discernible effect it has had on the behavior of Christians. The fact that Christians have probably killed more human beings in history than any other faith group is testament to the danger of that slippery slope. It seems like once you agree to mount that Pale Horse, it's almost impossible to hold the reins.

As for me personally, my carnal side is as bloodthirsty as the majority of my countrymen. If it were up to me, our wars would be nasty, brutal and indiscriminate. We would not now be coming up on our 4th year in the Iraqi quagmire. I would have inflicted a Punic peace on the whole rotten country long ago. That's my carnal, pagan side speaking.  However, as someone who is genuinely concerned with "What Would Jesus Do?", I have to advocate war only in the event of a threat to our national security, and for it to be fought with proper regard for noncombatants. Still, I sometimes wonder if perhaps the Mennonites, Amish, Bruderhof, etc. are the only ones truly living the Gospel.

I am not aware of any Scripture foretelling some kind of attack on Iran, although I am not an expert on Revelation and End Times. However, I suspect that you may be a listener to the preaching of people like John Hagee or other TBN personalities who preach that Israel is still God's Chosen People, that the Old Covenant is still in effect and that it is the responsibility of Christians to unquestioningly support Israel with our blood and treasure. If I am right about your theological proclivities, I would beg you to really do some serious study on the subject. That Christian-Zionist position is a disgusting perversion of the Gospel that is a major reason that we are embroiled in this Middle East mess. As for Iran, I think it's just the Iraq story all over again- the Zionists who have such incredible power over our government are using distortions and lies to stir up the evangelicals in favor of war with a country that is not really our enemy and has no reason to attack us. This article from a conservative website debunks the EMP scare-mongering: http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=20399&commentID=637992 Iran is not about to attack us, and I believe that it would be immoral for us to attack Iran now. I would encourage you to read some opposing information about whether Iran is really a threat, and why we have such problems with the Moslem world.