The Iraq war

As this column is written, on Feb. 9, the war clouds darken ominously; when it will be read, the war may have already begun. In assessing the proposed action against the regime of Saddam Hussein, Christians, especially in North America, seem to be polarized.

War advocates

One group apparently accepts the position of US President Bush. For some, the argument seems to go little farther than to assert that since President Bush is a Christian, Christians should support him. For others, the analysis is more thorough. They believe that the Iraqi regime has the capacity and the will to launch weapons of mass destruction and that Christians should support the US-led action almost unconditionally.

While acknowledging that in the sub-Christian arena of international politics there are times when international police action or even unilateral military action may be warranted, I am greatly troubled when I hear Christians calling for war.

First, when Christians urge their country to go to war, they are, perhaps unintentionally, hitching the Kingdom of God to the self-interest of a particular country or alliance of countries. I find no New Testament justification for such a stance. Our God is the God of all people. He is not the patron of one country or bloc of states. He is not a tribal leader, and Christians must resist the temptation to tribalize Him. As in earlier times, God may use one or more countries to punish other political regimes, but that does not make Him a political chaplain.

Second, our Lord’s church is universal, not national. The Saviour of the world is surely grieved when part of His church, in one country, puts national political allegiance above Christian allegiance and endorses an attack against other members of Christ’s redeemed family in another country.

Third, for Christians to call for war against mainly Muslim Iraq undermines the Christian missions mandate. If Christians in the West endorse this war, then we should be prepared for increased resistance to Christianity across the Muslim world.

Fourth, the endorsement of war contradicts the fundamental Christian ethical values of love, reconciliation, peace and a readiness to suffer for the sake of the Kingdom. I can’t imagine that Jesus, in this situation, would call for blood, especially given the fact that no government’s hands are clean.

Fifth, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest” (John 18:36). Clearly, Jesus rejected the use of violence by His followers.

The fundamental problem in this response is a tendency to shift both the analysis and the ethic from Christianity to sub-Christian “realpolitik” and then to assume that what may make sense at the sub-Christian political level should also be acceptable in the Christian perspective. But Jesus never taught that the low ethic of international political rivalry and manoeuvring should become normative for His church.

Peace advocates

A second, fairly widespread perspective among Western Christians, including some Mennonites, seems to be based on the assumption that the Christian ethic of love, reconciliation, peace and a readiness to suffer should be applied to political regimes in the same way as it is applied to citizens of the Heavenly Kingdom. This stance strikes me as being simplistic and naive.

First, the reliance on force as the ultimate sanction to maintain law and order is essential for governments. As explained in Romans 13 and elsewhere, the God-ordained institution of government has been given this authority. We deceive ourselves if we think that a government can function without this ultimate sanction. If we argue that government should never rely on the military, then we are denying it its God-ordained role in a fallen world.

Second, it makes no sense to expect discipleship from non-disciples. We should, of course, always promote peace, relying on both religious and secular arguments. But that is different from saying that a government should never use force. Governments live by a sub-Christian ethic. We must accept that reality.

Third, in John 18:36 Jesus stressed that His followers should not fight, but in that same verse He acknowledged that if His Kingdom were “of this world”, then they would fight. It seems evident that Jesus is acknowledging the propriety, under certain conditions, of military power. That’s what worldly kingdoms do!

Since Jesus accepted this reality, we should too. Political leaders strategize and fight for political power, possessions and even survival. These are not the highest priorities for Jesus’ followers. There is doubtless a large role for Christians in giving advice to political authorities, but such counsel must be different from naively expecting political power to live by the Sermon on Mount.

Wiser counsel

Ultimately, of course, we urge all people and all structures to accept the Lordship of Jesus, but for those who have not (yet) responded positively, we still have some other counsel to give. The situation is analogous to one in which we urge a friend to stop getting drunk, but, if he does not accept our basic advice, we can still say, “Don’t drive when you drink.”

While we Christians are divided in our response to the Iraq crisis, let us at least agree on the following: we should fervently pray for peace; we should work for peace; we should love all people, even when they are called our enemies; and we should be accepting and understanding towards fellow believers who interpret the situation differently than we do.

John H. Redekop is on the faculty of Trinity Western University and is a member of Bakerview MB Church in Abbotsford, B.C.