In Defense of the Gospel of Peace: An Evangelical Antiwar View

by Bill Barnwell
by Bill Barnwell

For the average Evangelical, they must feel that the only valid position on militarism is to embrace warfare and the military state. That’s if they listen to the bulk of TV and radio preachers, popular Christian magazines and most of their pastors. Yet there have been whole movements of Protestantism, such as the Anabaptists and Mennonites who have outright rejected military strife. Today there remains a small remnant of conservative Protestantism which continues to advocate for peace and nonviolence on Scriptural grounds. Their voices are drowned out by a chorus of Protestant groups who loudly clamor for war. Those on the sidelines, both Christians and skeptical non-Christians, are left feeling that there is no other theological option for honest Christians other than to embrace militarism. This essay will prove that such an assertion is unfounded. There are indeed conservative Evangelicals like myself who adhere to an antiwar Biblical position and worldview and who believe that the time has come to wage an intellectual battle against those pro-war Evangelicals who would have the world believe that their position is the only "conservative" or "Biblical" position.

As a pastor in a conservative Christian Evangelical denomination, and as a graduate student in ministry and theology, I believe I have some credibility on the issue. I believe that the majority of Evangelicals err in their view on military strife on four levels: (1) The manner in which they have let party politics influence their theology, particularly on the issue of warfare, (2) Their misunderstanding and application of Old Testament conquest texts, (3) A failure to read the Old and New Testaments in harmony with one another, and (4) Their detached and calloused view towards to the human suffering caused by war. This is due in large part to their hyper-patriotism, which runs counter to the attitude of love and mercy in the Bible, which views people not as political entities, but as humans created in the image of God. In the end, I believe both Christian and non-Christian readers can be encouraged by a study of these issues. Let us first examine each point in the remaining space of this essay.

The Politicization of Theology

I fear many have embraced, or at least resigned themselves to the notion that warfare is necessary for fear of being labeled a "liberal." Let me make something clear: The platform of the Republican Party does not dictate what should be the polity and practice of the church. There was a time in many denominations, including my own, when an embrace of peace and an outright rejection of warfare was the "conservative" position. Evangelicals are letting party politics influence their theology and that is simply wrong. Regardless of where we stand on the issue of military strife, it should be common sense that God is not a registered member of either the Democratic or Republican Party.

While strongly antiwar, my own politics and theology are anything but liberal. I have served on the board of Right-To-Life in Michigan’s third largest city. Most of my columns are directed against Republicans and conservatives for selling out and watering down their messages. As a pastor, I belong to a very conservative and Evangelical heritage which views the Bible as the inspired, authoritative Word of God which is profitable in all areas of life. This is hardly the profile of a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Yet I don’t let the Republican Party or any other organization, think-tank, etc., dictate to me what I should think on any particular issue. Protestants need not view Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as their supreme political bishop who gives them spiritual discernment on issues of war and peace.

Where either party gets an issue right or wrong (I think both usually get them wrong), we should affirm or reject their stance. We must evaluate each issue on its own merits. What I fear has happened is that since most Evangelicals are conservatives, and most conservatives are Republicans, they feel they must tow the Republican line on the issue of a hawkish foreign policy. Failure to do so would somehow make them bad theological and political conservatives. Yet it is God’s Word and Jesus Christ who should formulate a Christian’s worldview and philosophy, not a political party or any other entity.

The Misapplication of the Old Testament Conquest Stories

Many Christians do indeed attempt to justify their hawkish, militaristic views through Scripture. At a camp meeting this summer, one of our denominational evangelists said from the pulpit, "Those who think that God doesn’t like war should read the Old Testament." He was of course drawing attention to the conquest stories of the ancient Israelites. But when we preach expository sermons to our congregations on those texts, is the application today that we have a right to commit genocide, or that warfare is just and necessary? First, let me say that I do not dismiss those passages in a Marcionite manner and claim they have no relevance to the Christian today or that such passages are any less inspired than the Scriptures of the New Testament. Yet proponents of military strife who are using the conquest stories as proof-texts to affirm their doctrine of militarism are making several mistakes.

Space does not permit me an adequate commentary on Battles of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Yet it would benefit all readers of Scripture, whether you view Scripture as authoritative and inspired or whether you just read it as literature, to remember several things. First of all, according to the Bible, violence was never God’s initial intention for human relations. God created man and woman to live in peace and perfect union with him. Sin entered the world and soon after the first act of murder occurred when Cain murdered his brother Abel. Soon violence began to fill the earth and was one of the reasons that God brought the flood. The conquests of the Old Testament were unique to the nation of Israel. God had to bring his people back into his promised land and had to drive out the wicked tribes and nations who were occupying their land. Such groups like the Canaanites were utterly wicked and abominable, practicing various forms of idol worship, paganism, and even child sacrifice. God’s instruction to kill every living thing was a drive to purify both the land and the Israelites.

Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites did not obey God’s instructions and were punished time and time again for their lusting after idols and the wicked practices of these foreign nations. Yet, it must also be remembered that the God of the Bible is a God of grace and mercy. Had the wicked nations repented and turned away from their sin, God would not have destroyed them. One must also have a clearer, scholarly understanding of the background and culture of the Ancient Near East and harem warfare. We must also read the whole of Scripture in its context. I believe that the whole of canonical Scripture will show that violence, murder, and hatred between individuals is not God’s will and should not be practiced by Christians today. In short, the conquest stories are indeed inspired Biblical texts, but we must also read scripture in its historical context. Those situations where unique to the chosen people and the promised land of Israel. When we read and preach from such texts the applications we gain are not excuses to promote and go to war, but rather holiness, separation from sin, the consequences of sin and the result of polluting ourselves with the world. To say that such texts are analogous to contemporary foreign relations are hermeneutically irresponsible.

Bringing the Old and New Testaments Together

The vision of peace was set forth in Old Testament. Isaiah looked forward to a day when the lion and the lamb would lay together (Isa. 65:25). Even when God did command war in the Old Testament, he laid certain restrictions, such as condemning those who sought out strength in modern weaponry instead of in the Lord (Isa. 31:1). Both the Law and the Prophets uphold the crossing of the sea in the Exodus as an ideal battle, where God delivered the Israelites even though they had no weapons (Ex. 14:13–14). Coupled with the concept of God’s grace and mercy (Dt. 4:31), God’s original design was peace for his creation (Gen. 1:31; 4:10), and his sorrow for violence in the world (Gen. 6:11), we see that the whole of the Old Testament does not put warfare on a pedestal. The cause and God’s sanctioning of war in the Old Testament is a direct result of human sin and wickedness and could have been avoided and was not the original plan of God.

Then came Jesus Christ, the New Covenant and his wonderful message of peace and nonviolence, which did not nullify the Law or the Old Testament, but even raised the ethical bar higher. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt. 5:9). He instructed us against hatred and said it sowed the seeds of murder in our hearts (Matt. 5:21–24). He told us that instead of seeking revenge through "an eye for an eye" that we should turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:38–42). When he was persecuted and about to be crucified he did not fight back and even prayed for his persecutors (Lk. 23:34). He rebuked Peter for attacking the servant of the High Priest (Matt: 26:52). All throughout the New Testament were are taught about forgiveness, love and peace. Paul and Silas sang praises during their persecution in prison (Ac. 16:25). Paul wrote in his later epistles that he rejoiced in his sufferings (Col. 1:24) and that Christians should repay evil with good (Rom. 12:19–21). Peter, the man who earlier was rebuked by Jesus for drawing his sword wrote later that we should repay evil with a blessing (I Pe. 3:9).

Yes, the New Testament does tell of a coming day of judgment where the Prince of Peace will lead the final battle (Rev. 19:11–21), but we must also remember that vengeance belongs to God (Dt. 32:35). Nowhere in the Bible did God ever allow people to go to battle without Him at the helm and nowhere is violence and strife outside of that realm condoned. Christians, on the other hand, are told to endure suffering and persecution, love their neighbors and enemies and do good to those who wrong them. The ultimate message of the Bible is that of love, grace and forgiveness, not warfare, destruction and hatred. The above interpretation does nothing to spiritualize or do away with the Old Testament or question the immutable character of God, only to draw attention to interpretive and contextual elements in Biblical study to show that the whole of Scripture, I believe, points to nonviolence.

The Callousness and Hyper-Patriotism of Mainstream Evangelicalism

I give this background on the Old and New Testaments to show that holding to a doctrine of peace is not some wild, liberal theological heresy. I personally believe that a whole and complete reading of Scripture will affirm a doctrine of nonviolence for the Christian today. Thus I am sad to see so many Christians clamoring for war. I am sad to see so many pastors preaching jocular and belligerent messages from their pulpits cheering on the death and destruction of warfare. Conservative, American Evangelicalism has drifted into a prideful, nationalistic, sectarian and belligerent movement on the issue of foreign relations and warfare which for some reason sees the lives of Americans as worth more in God’s eyes than the lives of foreigners and takes the horrors of war for granted. Talk about racism and arrogance!

Evangelicals have also bought into the notion that one cannot criticize their government’s foreign policy without being a traitor. Patriotism now trumps Biblicalism. Why is it OK for theological conservatives to criticize their government in almost vitriolic terms on other issues but they feel the need to conform on the issue of militarism? Why is it that the draft, a minority opinion in the U.S, enjoys some of its strongest support from Christian conservatives? In the minds of these Christian conservatives, it is reprehensible for the government to take a third of our incomes but makes perfect sense for the government to forcefully take control of the lives of young people in their prime to take up arms and possibly face death. To protest such a thing is "unpatriotic." When advocates of nonresistance such as myself object to the popular views of Evangelicals, we are slandered instead of having our arguments taken seriously. Why cannot these Christians argue with us on a theological, moral, and philosophical level instead of mindlessly accusing us of being unpatriotic for opposing what we consider to be unbiblical?

It is unfair slander to say that those of us who oppose our government’s foreign policy are traitors or cowards. We are motivated out of love for human life and the Biblical principals explained above. It is because we value the human life of our people – and yes indeed foreign people – which in part causes our objections. Let those Christians who oppose us show us through Scripture where we are wrong before hinging their arguments on nationalistic and political defenses which elevate the goals of man-drawn political boundaries above Scripture.

Also, I ask my readers, what indeed does war ultimately accomplish? Christians are constantly using utilitarian arguments to advance war, claiming that the suffering, bloodshed and misery that it causes are worth it in the long run. That is quite easy to say when you are detached from the suffering and misery that war brings. Think of all the countless lives, futures and hopes that have been crushed because of the onslaught of war. What we have seen from history is that warfare usually comes from offensive, not defense motivations and does nothing but grow government and destroy lives, property and stability. (Those who object and point to Hitler in World War II would do well to check their history and see that it was the "war to end all wars," the first World War which laid the groundwork for Hitler and Nazi Germany. Had there not been a first World War – a war that was caused by great powers intervening in a small Balkan crisis – which most scholars conclude was horrific and unnecessary and lead to millions dying needlessly, there never would have been a second world war).

Advocates of nonviolence are also ridiculed as being hopeless utopian idealists who have an unrealistic view of the world. Have Christians become so defeatist that they believe the ideals set forth by Christ and the Bible are unattainable? Do they really believe that with God all things are possible? Do they really believe that love and mercy is not realistic or unattainable and must be crushed by war, hatred, bombs, destruction and misery? What a hopelessly depressing and fatalistic view of the world and a negation of the impact that the faith can achieve! When Christians, like Joe Farah, say that "there are no other options" they are thereby limiting the power of God and pessimistically claiming that Christians virtues of love and peace have no real bearing and influence on the world if they are "realistic."

Finally, even if you disagree with my reading of Scripture and do consider war to at times be a necessity, I do believe that Christians, and all people no matter what their religious and political background, should take a more serious and realistic look at war. If some pastors believe that war is at times necessary, they should not go into their pulpits and preach sanctimonious, belligerent and tough-guy sermons about God’s divine mission for America or His coming judgment on nations like Iraq or Serbia. Instead they should be saddened and heart-broken over the destruction that is taking place and the countless lives being lost. They should call their people to humility, not boasting. They should be saddened that sin has resulted in such violence and that man has chosen to ignore God’s original intentions and that brother has turned against brother. But watching the 700 Club or listening to the average Evangelical preacher on the radio, you’d think that the Christian leaders were thankful and happy for war.

Conclusion

Whether we agree or disagree on the issue of complete nonresistance, we should all concur that we need to promote love and justice and be saddened at acts of violence and war. That is what all reasonable people should come together on, and one need not be a Christian to affirm such an attitude. As to the larger issue at hand, I call upon all Christians from all denominations and backgrounds to have a real dialogue on the issue of militarism and war. To my fellow Evangelicals, do we believe that Christian virtues can indeed make a difference in the world? If so, then we should stand firm for them and stop putting our hopes in politics, bombs, and war. To the non-Christian audience, realize that whole denominations and movements of Christianity have historically upheld a position of peace and have soundly based their positions on Scripture, philosophy and reason. They have not endorsed the Crusades, Inquisition, state-sponsored Protestant persecutions during the Reformation era, or any other militaristic act done by Christians which has left a black eye on the faith. Nor do they applaud the contemporary War State today.

I hope and pray this essay provokes thought amongst skeptical non-Christians who feel that the Bible is a manual for warmongering. I hope some skeptical Christians are influenced who have been suckered by the likes of Pat Robertson into believing war is the only and best way. I hope both Christian and non-Christians can study the Bible from an objective standpoint and with an open and scholarly mind to find what the whole of the canonical text really teaches. To the pro-war Christian, I challenge and ask you: Do we choose peace, or the sword? Do we feel we can make a real difference or not? Do we choose hope or fatalism? I pray that we will choose the former over the later and return to preaching a doctrine of hope, love, and nonviolence over a doctrine of fatalism, worldliness and war.

To all readers I ask: Do we choose liberty or slavery? Regardless of your religious beliefs we must be awakened to the fact that the modern military state is only leading us down the path to bigger government and the needless destruction of property and lives. Whether or not you believe in the Bible, it would do us all good to incorporate the values and ethics taught by Christ into our approach to human relations and foreign affairs. Many Evangelicals could stand to do a little more research on that.

December 18, 2003

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor in Swartz Creek, Michigan and a Master’s of ministry student at Bethel College.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com

Bill Barnwell Archives