WWWJF (What war would Jesus fight?)

The recent five-year anniversary of the beginning of hostilities in Iraq served not only to recall the onset of fighting against an arguably terrorist regime, but also as a reminder that our nation has become enmeshed in a conflict that, soon after the launch of that mission, became much more than anyone had anticipated.

The degree to which this war has divided one American from another is also a reminder of another highly controversial war that formed the social and political background of my coming-of-age years, Vietnam. About the only thing that’s changed since the country was torn apart by often violent emotions concerning that war is that Americans of all opinions are much more supportive of our troops now than before, when soldiers were called “baby-killers” when they were over there, and largely ignored when they returned home.

Not that wars have ever been a widely popular event with Americans. World War 2 was a tough sell to the then-isolationist nation, up until Pearl Harbor was nearly wiped off the map. Even then, only Hitler’s declaration of war against us, following our declaration against the Japanese, assured that we would at last join the British in their struggle against Germany’s power. But many years later, Saddam Hussein is a much less agreed-upon opponent than the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

But apart from the political or social implications of going to war, I find very interesting the way different people try to relate their religious feelings to the general subject of warfare, and especially the kind of war that engenders such wide disagreement about the necessity of fighting against an enemy that may or may not, according to your perspective, be a threat to our national and personal security.

Ever since Vietnam rocked the political conscience of college students across America, there have been many people who don’t profess any particular religious convictions, who are convinced of the need to avoid any and all wars, seeking instead to “give peace a chance.” But whenever Jesus is referenced as an “informed Source” of wisdom on the subject of war, it seems that the “Peaceful Jesus” is the one most often preferred. I’ve never heard anyone try to argue from Jesus, the Cleanser of the temple, to an image of “Rambo Jesus.” Instead, “Peace on earth, good will to men” has been invoked as a general principle, aside from its Christmas context, to imply that Jesus would never approve of hostile actions against anyone, individual or nation. But, as contemporary English versions make clear, the angels’ announcement is better translated as a promise “…on earth, peace among men with whom He is pleased." (Luke 2:14)

In summary, two main points could be made about Jesus and peace.
(1) Jesus never promised “peace on earth” in general. If anything, he said to those who were looking for Him to restore the Kingdom of Israel in their time, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Wherever that Gospel has gone, there has been conflict between light and darkness.
(2) Jesus is the One who will one day launch the greatest “offensive” the world has ever seen, when He returns to conquer His enemies in the “Day of the Lord.” In that day, “While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)! Talk about “Shock and Awe!”

But for now, does Jesus want His individual children to be “peacemakers?” Definitely! Is it appropriate on the individual level to “turn to other cheek?” Likewise! But just as the nation of Israel had a place for armed conflict against the enemies of peace and righteousness, I believe it’s appropriate for our nation to prosecute a war, at the least, for defending itself against imminent threats from nations radically opposed to a biblical peace, or to defeat an aggressor determined to take away our peace by armed aggression.

The tricky part seems to be defining a “threat.” If there is general agreement on that, and that’s something very much absent in relation to Iraq as it was with Vietnam, then such necessary conflicts, while still fitting Sherman’s eloquent description, “War is Hell”, are nonetheless to be preferred to allowing other nations, who don’t share our love of “peace on earth” to have their way with us. The good news is that, even in times of war, there can be peace, “not as the world gives”, but the peace of God that “passes understanding.” And that’s a peace we don’t have to fight for – just surrender to King Jesus, the Prince of Peace.