The "War on Terror" has, by most accounts, been remarkably successful. In the past year and a half, there have been dozens of terrorist training camps obliterated, thousands of terrorists brought to justice and two heinously evil regimes overthrown. America is almost undoubtedly a safer place today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But something still bothers me.
I am troubled because some of the biggest critics of the war come from a group I have tremendous respect for: Christian leaders. Indeed, some of the most qualified religious experts and Biblical scholars in the world are decisively convinced that Jesus would be opposed to our military actions. And if you ask, me that's reason for concern.
Now I'm not saying that I fret when a preacher says that Saddam Hussein poses no threat to U.S. national security. Such an argument is entirely political and holds no more weight coming from a religious expert than it does from anyone else. The arguments I'm calling unsettling are theological ones. What's most worrisome is that individuals possessing masterful amounts of scriptural knowledge often say that God opposes violence even when it seems to be the only way to avoid catastrophe.
The Christian argument for pacifism certainly has a Biblical basis. While violence is explicitly condoned at many points in the Old Testament, the message Jesus spread was almost entirely one of love, compassion and mercy-even to vicious and unrepentant enemies. Duke's Stanley Hauerwas-the man Time calls "America's Best Theologian"-says that he finds it "hard to understand how one can be a Christian without being a pacifist."
I doubt many feel the same way Hauerwas does. Given events like the Holocaust and Sept. 11, where it was agonizingly clear that engaging in military action against thoroughly evil people was the only possible way to prevent massive amounts of bloodshed, theories of pacifism seem to defy basic standards of moral conduct.
So what is a Christian to do? Try to accept his or her religion as being in conflict with common sense and morality?
I guess the strongest answer I can give is maybe not. I base it on three arguments.
First, there may be a difference between personal morality and morality in foreign policy. As Dr. Adam Garfinkle reveals by writing that "there is nothing particularly moral about getting blown up for avowedly moral reasons," one of the biggest aspects of foreign policy to consider is how high the stakes are. Though treating others with grace on an everyday basis is generally not endangering, history has shown that being the "better man" in global conflicts often results in the loss of innocent lives. The Bible focuses mostly on personal relations, not governmental or international ones. Perhaps a different set of principles (see St. Augustine's Just War Doctrine) apply to the latter.
Second, the famous "turn the other cheek" passage in Matthew may not refer to violence at all. Many have argued this by asserting the significance of the word "right" in the statement "if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." It is in fact peculiar that Jesus would specify the stricken cheek as the right one, for a violent face-to-face punch would almost always be dealt to one's left cheek. Some claim that the act of striking one "on the right cheek" is a Jewish idiom meaning a slap. If this is the case, then the passage might not be referring to force (and especially not foreign policy), but instead insults that ought to be shrugged off damage free.
Third, there is Biblical evidence that Jesus may have condoned military action. Christians who are not pacifists often point to Matthew 8, where Jesus meets a centurion who begrudgingly tells him that he does not deserve Jesus "under his roof" since he is "a man under authority, with soldiers under" him. According to the passage, Jesus tells the centurion that he has "not found anyone in Israel with such great faith" and assures him of his place in heaven. One could very easily interpret this passage to mean that Jesus understood the necessity of warfare, as he did not condemn, but instead praised a man who had just told him that he ordered people to kill for a living.
Obviously, these arguments do not prove that Jesus wants us dropping bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they do, perhaps, show that those who find military action to be, at times, both necessary and moral may not be harboring unchristian feelings.
In the Bible, God calls on Christians to seek the advice, wisdom and support of religious leaders. But he also urges them to not be blind followers, but instead constantly ask themselves what God would think of situations. To me, if one legitimately analyzes issues and asks for guidance in analyzing them, then he or she need not be ashamed of the conclusions that are reached.
Nathan Carleton is a Trinity sophomore.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.