Marcia Sietstra:  Pastor

Last Monday was Martin Luther King Day, and as usual I was working and listening to Minnesota Public Radio at the same time.  There was a discussion on a call-in talk show about Dr. King's legacy, and at one point the talk turned to contemplation of how Dr. King might have responded to the war in Afghanistan , if he were alive today.  One caller was certain that Dr. King would have insisted on nonviolent alternatives to war, just as he insisted that the only way to end racial injustice was through peaceful, nonviolent resistance.  Another caller described how different the war on terrorism is from the civil rights movement, and was equally convinced that Dr. King would not have been in favor of nonviolence as a way to fight today's terrorism.  The talk show guest said he couldn't say for sure how Dr. King would have responded to the current situation.  

My high school students had a similar discussion last Sunday in Sunday School.  We talked about the war on terrorism, and there were differences of opinion about whether or not war is ever morally justified.  So it seemed to me that today, when my time is short, it is a good time to give you a quick overview of the two prevailing Christian views on war, and then offer some brief conclusions.  

There are two classical responses to war in the Christian faith: pacifism and the just war tradition.  Pacifism rejects all violence on the premise that love is incompatible with killing.  Christian pacifists typically base their position on Jesus' own nonviolence, even in the face of Roman persecution, as well as on some things Jesus said, such as When someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.   

Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. both spoke of Jesus as the model and inspiration for their nonviolent movements, which, by the way, were movements of great resistance to evil. Do not make the mistake of thinking nonviolence is the same thing as passivity.   They resisted evil in dramatic and dangerous ways.  However, their resistance was nonviolent. Gandhi actually achieved the independence of India from British rule through nonviolent resistance; he led a country of millions to simply stop cooperating with the British, even when it meant they would be beaten.   

I will never forget seeing the pivotal event in the movie Gandhi, in which he led tens of thousands of silent marchers into the face of the British army in groups of four.  Each quartet of protestors was struck down by the soldiers as they came forward.  Wave after wave they came, receiving their blows, falling bloodied to the side.  The soldiers became increasingly frustrated and anxious as they were forced to inflict violence on innocent protestors who were not fighting back.  On that day, a reporter for the NY Times watched the event and he wired this headline to his editor:  Today India is Free.  Eventually the British gave up trying to coerce an entire country full of people.  So nonviolence can be effective.   

The other classical position, the just war position is based on Jesus' life and teaching too, but it stresses Jesus' great command that we should love your neighbor as yourself.  It is out of love for one's neighbor that one defends the neighbor from attack.  Just war thinkers support the use of nonviolent measures, but they would not rule out possible support for the use of military force if it became necessary in order to protect the innocent.  

There are, however, certain criteria that must be met, according to the just war theory, which has been around at least since the 4th century when Augustine formulated it.  These are the criteria:

1)       War can only be justifiable to repair or prevent some grave wrong.  A just war must be fought from the right intention.  So, for example, a defensive war is typically seen as a just war, since it is fought to stop an attack.  But an aggressive attack to conquer new territory would not be seen as a just war, since it is undertaken for purely selfish reasons, and not from right intentions.   

2)       War must be decided by those who bear legitimate authority (governmental leaders). 

3)      War must be a last resort, after peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. 

4)      There must be a reasonable chance of success in attaining justifiable objectives. 

5)      A just war requires proportionality, i.e. a country should not resort to war if the consequences would likely be worse than not doing so.  So if a war will bring about a worse state of events, it may not be just.

If a war is judged to be necessary, then there are two other criteria:

1)      The war must be conducted with discrimination, which means soldiers must discriminate between soldiers and civilians.  Civilians cannot be primary targets.  Attackers must aim only at military targets and make strenuous effort to avoid civilians.

2)      The warring parties in a just war can use only the force necessary to win their objectives, and not to do more than is necessary, e.g. wipe out an entire culture or bomb a country off the map.

The changing nature of warfare puts pressure on the just war ethic.  Just to give you one example: in the age of nuclear capability, it is nearly impossible to protect civilian life if nuclear weapons are used.  When people were shooting at each other, it was simpler to target only combatants.  The costs go up dramatically when nuclear weapons are used, so much so in fact, that many ethicists doubt that any nuclear exchange can satisfy the just war theory's criteria of proportionality, that is, the idea that the potential outcome will be an improvement over the present situation.  In a just war, the leaders must consider the risk of doing more harm than good, as for example, if Pakistan and India end up in a nuclear exchange, could the situation be even worse than what happened on Sept. 11?  In a just war, leaders consider those kinds of risks.

Today, I want to remind you that Christians have struggled over these two positions for nearly 2000 years.  We are not going to settle this in our lifetime, and we will never know for sure what Jesus thought because scripture doesn't provide that certainty.  Like the radio talk show host who wasn't sure how Dr. King would have responded today, I admit I'm not sure.  So where does that leave us?

It leaves me thankful for both pacifists and just war thinkers!  Thank God that both of these groups are in the world today, reminding a society that is so quick to resort to violence, that we must always practice restraint.  Pacifists remind us that violence usually begets violence, and we must always think twice before resorting to weapons.  The just war thinkers help military planners to think twice before targeting civilians to get at terrorists, and before something that could spin out of control, to the point where any good outcome would no longer be proportional to the harm.

Even when Christians differ on the questions, there is still an enormous amount of common ground.  Both share a commitment to peace, to caring about the welfare of others.  The world NEEDS both these groups, just war thinkers and pacifists! Because Christians are uniquely able to offer the voice of restraint in war, whether we are pacifists or just-war thinkers.  I wonder how many wars have been averted throughout the ages because there were Christians calling for restraint, or insisting on just war criteria.  I am thankful for every single pacifist and every single just war thinker, because we need them all in a society that is quick to retaliate, and to seek revenge. 

            There are both pacifists and just war thinkers in the UCC,  which is to be expected because ethical issues are rarely black and white.  And that’s OK, because we can model civility and respect for diverse opinions.   The church can show the world that it is possible to disagree and yet share common ground in a common desire to work for peace.

            The world needs the church, with all its voices.  Today at our Annual Meeting, you will commit to being the church for another year.  Please know how terribly important the church is in a world where things like terrorist attacks happen, and where decisions about war must be made.  Religion plays a big role in these decisions.

 Remember the Sunday after the Sept. 11 attack, when Americans crowded into churches?  Even people who rarely attended had a sense that God could be found there.  Were it not for people like you, who support the church, week in and week out, the church would not have been there during this national tragedy.

The world needs us!  Please know how terribly important your participation and work is.  Today you will be asked to vote on a budget that is almost $30,000 more than last year's budget.  I am convinced we have to fund this budget if this church is going to survive very far into this century.  Today, remember, it's not just for ourselves or even just for each other that we are the church, even though the church feeds our spirits and is always there when we need it.    The world needs the church, with all its voices.  What we do, along with people in thousands of other churches, is so very, very important in the world.  And I wanted you to know that today.  Amen.