15
To fight or not to fight: the Christian’s dilemma By Peter Lee Since 2001, British military personnel have been fighting in Afghanistan, alongside other NATO partners, in a campaign that has lasted longer than the Second World War and cost more lives than the Falklands Conflict of 1982. More controversially, the UK was part of a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ whose armed forces – led by the US – invaded Iraq in March 2003, with British forces eventually withdrawing in April 2009 after a lengthy, and often bloody, campaign that cost 179 British lives. These two military operations were intended to, firstly, reduce the threat of international terrorism emanating from Al­Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan and, secondly, remove Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as a threat to both the Gulf region and the wider world. Despite the huge cost of these campaigns in terms of both lives and money, Al­Qaeda­ linked terrorist activities have diversified and increased around the world in recent years, Iraq continues to be politically volatile, the Gulf region remains unstable and the nature of warfare itself appears to be changing. It is against this confused and confusing political and military background that men and women continue to ask themselves: Can I, as a Christian, serve in the military? In the first decades after the death of Jesus, Christians were largely ignored or tolerated as a sub­ sect of Judaism. However, from AD64 until AD 313 Christians had to endure regular outbreaks of persecution, some of which were localised and limited, whilst others were attempts to eradicate Christianity. During this period there were a number of obstacles to Christians serving as soldiers: the Roman Army was the main tool of persecution used by a number of Emperors; influential early Church Fathers such as Tertullian, Origen and Lactantius advocated non­violence and opposed military service; and Roman soldiers were expected to participate in Caesar worship and other idolatrous practices that were not compatible with the Christians’ worship of the one true God. Despite the difficulties, between periods of persecution, Christians did serve in the Roman Army, with commanders either failing to enforce the traditional practices or ignoring the Christians’ failure to participate. A century later, Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire and Augustine – monk, priest, bishop and theologian – addressed the question of whether Christians could serve as soldiers. By that time, the issues of paganism and idolatry within the Roman Army had ceased to act as a barrier and the question of Christians serving in the military became an ethical one – as it remains today. For Augustine, the main reason for engaging in war is to attain a better state of peace; not simply the absence of war but a harmony of existence between neighbours where one is not constantly threatening or agitating against the other. Augustine wrote: ‘This peace is the aim of wars, with all their hardships; it is this peace that glorious victory (so called) achieves’. This peace on earth was, for Augustine, to reflect the perfect peace found with Christ in the eternal, heavenly City of God. As well as stating that there are occasions when war is not only acceptable to God but desirable in order to bring about true peace on earth, Augustine argued that God can be honoured by those who serve in the military – supporting his argument with reference to scripture: ‘You must not think that no one who serves as a soldier, using arms for warfare, can be acceptable to God. The holy David was one such, and the Lord offered a great witness to him. Very many other just men of the same period were also soldiers’. Augustine rejected the pacifist view that Christians should reject all forms of violence, a view shaped by Jesus’ instruction to Peter: ‘Put your sword away?’ (John 18:11). Augustine referred instead to Jesus’ response to the centurion that spoke to him: ‘I tell ­ 1 ­ you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith’ (Matthew 8:8­10). Jesus did not order the centurion to give up his military career but recognised him as both a devout soldier and a man of great faith. Augustine also described how Christian soldiers should conduct themselves in battle, limiting their actions to only those that are necessary: ‘Therefore it ought to be necessity, and not your will, that destroys an enemy who is fighting you. And just as you use force against the rebel or opponent, so you ought now to use mercy towards the defeated or the captive’. Fifteen hundred years before the Geneva Conventions set out how prisoners of war should be treated, Augustine was calling for restraint and mercy to be shown to the captive taken in war. Augustine’s priority was not simply for soldiers to fight just wars; his priority was his concern for the souls of Christian soldiers, with the appropriate fighting of just wars being the means by which they could secure their heavenly futures. Eight centuries after Augustine, Thomas Aquinas wrote about just war in a way that is still recognisable in just war writings today: In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged ... Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault ... Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. The question of authority was important for Aquinas – as it still is for Christians – and can be traced back to Paul’s letter to the Romans: ‘Everyone must submit themselves to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established’ (Romans 13:1). The Christian serves in the military under the governing authorities and – in the case of the UK – it is the elected government of the day that decides if a war is to be pursued or not. A just cause for war – such as self­defence or protection of the innocent – should be demonstrated and the intentions of the government should be the advancement of good and the avoidance of evil. Part of the discomfort, or downright unhappiness, that some people feel over the UK’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq invasion can be linked directly to questions over the way the action was authorised, doubts about whether the cause was fully shown to be just and scepticism over the intentions of the major powers involved. However, when a soldier is deployed he or she goes at the command of the government and it is those in authority who are legally and morally responsible for any decision to go to war. The soldier remains legally and morally responsible for his or her own actions on the battlefield (or in the air or at sea), which can include the taking of another human life in the line of duty: another area where Aquinas’ guidance is still relevant. The taking of life in battle is just if the person killed is an enemy combatant similarly engaged in war, who shares the same risks and responsibilities on the battlefield. Harm to the innocent – or noncombatants such as the wounded or prisoners of war – must be avoided, even at added risk to the soldier. The national sense of shame over the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib will be felt for many years. If the soldier’s intention is to take as many lives as possible, regardless of whether or not those killed are combatants or innocents, such acts are unjust, illegal and sinful. As well as facing judgement in military or other courts, the Christian will face God’s judgement. In the present strategic environment the challenges facing the soldier – Christian or otherwise – is huge. Taliban fighters in Afghanistan do not wear military uniforms; they wear the same civilian dress as their innocent neighbours – as do insurgents in Iraq. The weapons of choice are the roadside improvised explosive device, the long­range sniper’s rifle and the suicide bomber. To show restraint and protect the innocent when an unseen enemy operates from among them is a tremendous challenge. To serve in the military is a high calling. Those who may be required to take another human life should value it most of all – none more so than the Christian who believes that all life is a gift of God. In protecting the innocent from violence and oppression the soldier may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. Such sacrifice is rightly honoured and remembered. Jesus said:
­ 2 ­ ‘Greater love has no­one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13). In choosing whether or not to take up arms, every Christian must weigh up the potential cost against the need to protect those who cannot protect themselves and oppose the tyrants and dictators who can only be stopped by force. If the Christian will not take up the challenge, who will? (For further reading please refer to the AFCU article booklet: ‘The Christian and War in the 21 st Century’ by the Revd Peter Lee).
­ 3 ­