The Problem Of War (2)

Herman Bavink (Translated by Rev. Steven Voorwinde)
Trowel & Sword. Nov. 1975

(Continued From Last Week’s Post)

These utterances of Christ clearly imply that there are spiritual possessions which are of much greater value than prosperity and peace. The commands of the moral law are not all on the same level, but occupy a different rank. God comes before man. Love for Him is the great and foremost commandment (Matt. 22:38). We must obey Him rather than men (Acts 5:29). His kingdom and his righteousness must therefore be sought above all things (Matt. 6:33). For the kingdom of heaven is a treasure and a pearl of great price (Matt. 13:44.46). Thus a man is worth more than the whole world (Matt. 16: 26), the soul more than the body, life more than food, the body more than clothing (Matt. 6:25). These spiritual and material goods are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can be possessed and enjoyed together. Yet in this present world they may clash and collide with one another again and again. Hence we are placed in a position where we must choose one or the other. The teaching of Christ and the apostles, then, instructs us that we should without hesitation abandon the lesser in order to partake of and preserve the greater. For the sake of Christ and the Gospel the right eye must be torn out and the right hand cut off (Matt. 5:29,30). Father and mother, son and daughter must be left, life lost and the cross taken up (Matt. 10:37-39; 16:24-26; etc.). Christian morality includes absolute self-denial. Life, prosperity and peace are not the highest possessions. There are cases where what is dearest must be forsaken, abandoned and opposed. The martyrs have left us an example of this. Even Christ did not please himself, but for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame (Rom. 15:3; Heb. 12:2).

The same idea may yet be elucidated from another perspective. Our response to the moral law is love, which is the fulfilment of the law and the perfect bond of unity (Rom. 13:10; Col. 3:14). By this definition Christian love is essentially distinguished on the one hand from Buddhist pity (sic) and on the other from so-called free love. According to Buddhism the cause of all misery lies in being. All creation, especially creation that is alive, is thus lamentable and the object of pity. We must exercise that pity mainly for our own sake in order to achieve our deliverance and to kill within ourselves the desire for life. Schopenhauer unjustly identified this pity with Christian love – unjustly because the latter is richer and stands on a higher plane. The mercy of Christianity goes much deeper than pity; it is not the single, dominant virtue, but the disposition and expression of love in a particular direction with a view to the need and misery in the world. Love goes back much further, love extends much further. To begin with, it has God and all His virtues as its object. Moreover, it also directs itself to all His works and creatures, not because they are lamentable, but because it is in God that they love and move and have their being. Likewise, Christian love is basically different from the free love whose praises are nowadays so frequently sung. This free love is really nothing but lack of discipline and the emancipation of sentiment and passion. Christian love is rather the fulfilling of the law, is decreed by God’s will and is man’s duty which binds him by conscience. This love is neither arbitrary nor a matter of personal choice. It does not lie within us to determine whom or what we should love. We must love God as He reveals Himself and not as we imagine Him to be. We must love the neighbour whom God places next to us, and not the one we choose. We must love the man, woman, parents and children God gives us and not another man or woman. We must love all that is true, righteous and pure. We must hate sin and avoid it, no matter how beautifully it may present itself.

There is therefore a true, but also a false, unreal and counterfeit love. Likewise there is a good peace for which we must strive and seek to maintain with all men, but there is also a false, sinful peace which should be broken. If with lies and injustice – by way of concession and for the sake of peace – we make a treaty or quietly permit what is wrong, then we are being spineless and denying truth and virtue. Over against such false peace (cf. Jer. 6:14) Jesus placed the claim that he had come to cast fire upon the earth (Lk. 12:49). There are powers in this world with which we can never live on peaceful terms. There are truths and rights, spiritual possessions and invisible treasures for which we must be willing to sacrifice everything – peace, quiet, respectability and reputation, yea even love for our family and our own life. Conditions in this incomprehensible world may be so serious and complicated that love itself may compel us to break peace and engage in battle. Prophets such as Jeremiah would much rather have remained silent and spent their days in peace and tranquillity, but they could not, nor were they allowed to. They spoke because they believed and they struggled against their nation because they loved it. By his great love for God and man, Jesus himself was moved to resist all evil forces even unto death.

This morality, of course, primarily refers to individual persons, but it also has significance for world powers. A nation is certainly not a mass of souls brought together by men within an arbitrary piece of land but a living organism which has its roots far back in the past and which is animated with a living patriotism in its every bone. Some people take pleasure in splitting the threads of this love into factors such as climate, soil, history, custom, etc., and then displaying it in its foolishness. But so superficial an undertaking is self-condemning and is completely powerless in the face of the reality of this love. Love – even for one’s country – always has a mysterious character. It comes up out of the depths and is fed by hidden springs. For a time it may slumber and sleep, but then it re-awakes with such irresistible power that even the coolest cosmopolitan is carried along with it. It then shows itself to be so enthusiastic, lofty and disinterested that it renders one prepared for and capable of making the most demanding sacrifices.

This points to the fact that when the Most High separated the sons of man, He gave the nations their inheritance and set the boundaries of the peoples (Deut. 32:8). He “determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26), and gave each of them a place and a task in the history of humanity. In this respect it makes no essential difference whether a nation be great or small. Lloyd George and James Bryce have rightly reminded us that relatively small nations have contributed to the increase of the most noble cultural traits as much as – if not more than – the larger nations. Therefore it is no arbitrary matter, but rather one’s calling and duty to defend these characteristics, sword in hand if need be. It is true that in the Sermon on the Mount, namely in Mat. 5:38-42, Jesus calls his disciples to a spirit of forgiveness which, we would do well to recall, stands in direct contrast to the demand of retribution, and is not susceptible to any quantitative computation (cf. Mat. 18:22). It is equally certain that Jesus is here speaking to those who understand, and not formulating a law that has to be observed to the letter; he is merely stating a spiritual principle which demands a different application in accord with the differing circumstances of life. Jesus himself acted in this way (Jn. 18:22,23), and Paul who preached the same spirit of forgiveness (Rom. 12:17-21); 1 Thess. 5:15; cf. 1 Pet. 3:9), appeals to his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25). Personal insults can and must be forgiven, but when truth or justice is assaulted in one’s person, then, according to Christian principles, which place the Kingdom of God and His righteousness above all else, it is one’s duty to defend and give evidence. This obligation is contained even within the Christian virtue of self-denial. For when the latter demands that for the sake of Christ and the Gospel we should forsake everything, at the same time it presupposes that all the things which we must abandon have value in and of themselves, even though it be a subordinate one. For whatever is worth nothing and does not cost us anything requires no self-denial when we have to forego it. For example, life is a possession that may and must be defended if it is not in conflict with higher concerns. In case of need every man has the right and the duty to defend his life, weapons in hand. An intruder into any house may be withstood with violence. Similarly the authorities which are called to maintain justice do not bear the sword, even the sword of war, in vain. If necessary, in the case of an emergency, they must use the sword both at home and abroad. Truth and justice are worth more for a man, for a nation and for humanity as a whole than are life, peace, prosperity and tranquillity.

It is thus noteworthy that the Christian church in all its divisions has never condemned the warrior and war. The church herself of course, may never go beyond preaching the Gospel of peace and fighting with spiritual weapons. A “holy war” for the propagation of truth has been forbidden her by what Christ said to Peter. Yet she has never disputed the authorities’ right to wage war in case of need. Pacifists have resented her for this, but they would probably have reproached the church more strongly had she taken the liberty to mingle in state affairs and without further ado, denied war its raison d’ etre in this dispensation. The church may and must not do so. It is her calling, according to the word of Christ, to render to God the things that are God’s and also to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Christian ethics therefore allows no other conclusion that there can be good and just wars. Perhaps they are very few in number, and even much fewer than we think.

In every war, even the most just, many things take place which both Christianity and humanity very strongly condemn. Yet neither the Scriptures nor history give sufficient grounds to censure every war unconditionally. A war can be good and just provided that it comply with the demands of higher principles, serve the maintenance of justice and only then be undertaken in the case of most dire necessity. Its justification then does not lie in the right of might nor in the virtues of patriotism, heroism, patience, steadfastness, unity, readiness to make sacrifices, etc., which it may engender; even less in the consequences liable to be brought about by victory such as a broadening perspective, an expansion of culture or even of Christianity; and least of all in the philosophical conviction that all that exists is reasonable and that war constitutes an indispensable and precious moment in the evolution of the human race. If war is to be defended it must itself pass the strict test of justice. Even then it resembles the disasters and adversities of life in that it remains an evil (malum physicum) which may in God’s holy hands nevertheless be used for the edification of the human race. The end and purpose thus remains peace, the eternal peace of the Kingdom of God.

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com