In War There Are No Winners

Micah 4.1-5; (or Isaiah 2.1-5)
Romans 12.9,14-21

Last Sunday, as the Bova family lit our Peace Candle, Kim read a prayer written by a serviceman serving his country in Operation Desert Shield. Ronald Nava's prayer included these words:

"Show us the way to a peaceful conclusion to the tensions we now face, for in war there are no winners."

I have borrowed Ron's words for the title of this sermon, In War There Are No Winners. And I pray, as I begin to write, for an uncommon grace; for a message that is respectful of the commitment of those who serve their country with distinction, and a message that is respectful of the fact that sincere Christians asking the same questions can be given different answers, but above all, a message that is faithful to the Word of the Lord as it is given to me in scripture and in prayer at this critical moment of history.

Last Sunday I staked a claim and planted a flag. I took a stand on a major Biblical and Theological issue that severely divides Christians today. But I said nothing explicit about the division, so you very well may not have even noticed. What is the destiny of the creation, of the planet earth, of human history? Does the plan conclude with destruction or with a new creation? With war or with peace? Christians today are answering these questions in two radically different ways. Both ways claim to be Biblically grounded and to answer the question, "What in the world is God doing in the world today?"

Way number one--and I want to make this brief so I will of necessity simplify everything--Way number one draws its insights from the apocalyptic and prophetic literature of the Bible, most notably Daniel and Revelation. Proponents of this view believe that we live in the end times, that events in the Middle East are leading to the cataclysmic end of history as we know it, that Christ is coming soon and that our primary responsibility as Christians is to be ready for His return.

Applying what they believe about the plan of God to life on the earth in the last days, adherents are likely to believe that the earth and all that dwell therein are relatively unimportant. God is going to trash the planet anyway, and soon, so there is no reason to be overly concerned with preserving it for our great-grandchildren. In discussing issues of war and peace, they may express little concern for the casualties and the horrors of war because, after all, all these things have to happen before God can bring history to an end and Christians can escape this veil of tears called human existence. I have read what they have written and I have heard what they have said, such as, "Working for peace would be working against the plan of God. Just pray for the end to come soon. That's the only way out of these frightening times."

Way number two--the second way Christians are answering the question, "What in the world is God doing in the world today?" draws its insights from the Creation plan and from Salvation History as they are revealed from the beginning to the end of the Holy Scriptures. Proponents of this view believe that we live in a critical turning point in history as God pours out His Spirit upon the human family for the salvation of the world, including all that dwell therein. Humanity is, always has been, steward of the creation and that role has never been more important. The human family is walking on a razor's edge, but God can show us the way, if we will follow.

Applying what they believe to life on the earth in this critical era, adherents are likely to be radically concerned for the fate of the earth. They know that, though the situation is grave, it is not yet too late. But they also know that transformational change will be required within the human family.

This second way is, of course, where I took my stand last Sunday. The healing of the earth, the cleansing of the womb of God, to use last Sunday's metaphor, will require the healing of each of our lives. Resources will have to be reallocated from the defense of privilege and power to the defense of all people and all of creation. Nations will have to grow, inch by inch, new ways of relating to each other. The unfolding of God's plan within our lives and times requires--there is zero option here--God's plan requires that "Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they learn war any more." (Micah 4.3) Once upon a time the Israelites invaded the promised land and Joshua fought the battle of Jericho. But that time is no more. Once upon a time the Romans conquered seemingly endless territory and Caesar Augustus thought himself to be a god. But that time is no more. Once upon a time the Crusaders drove the Moslem infidels out of the Holy City of Jerusalem. But that time is no more. Once upon a time the World went to War and millions died in trenches gas chambers and in firebombing and in Nuclear blasts. But that time is no more. Maybe in those times war worked. Maybe then war had winners.

But, we are approaching a new time--let no one suffer from the delusion that we are already there--but we are approaching, and our survival depends on it--the day about which the Prophet Micah spoke:

READ TEXT:

Please note a few things about this text. First of all, it is also found, almost word for word, in Isaiah chapter 2. The message here is important enough that God gives it to two different prophets. What the Prophet Micah says here is so central to understanding God's plan that it must be repeated, yet many who study Biblical Prophecy still miss it entirely. According to Isaiah and Micah, peace, not destruction, is God's plan, for history, for the nations, for you and me.

Next, remember that the text begins with the words, "In the last days". The prophecy of Micah and the prophecy of Isaiah are that the last days will include no more war. Note especially that the words of the prophecy are not "can" words, they are "will" words.

They will beat swords into plowshares.
They will train for war no more.

If Micah and Isaiah are correct, Armageddon is not the only way for history to end. A world at peace is also possible.

And then, please notice at the end of the text, the two reasons that this end to war is able to happen in the last days. The first reason is that everyone has their own prosperity and everyone respects the prosperity of others. "Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree." Peace requires plenty. The plenty will be given, in fact has already been given, but stupefying human greed has interfered with the distribution of God's abundance. The second reason peace can happen is that every nation comes to respect every other nation and every religion comes to respect every other religion. "All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever." In the last days there is no more war fueled by religious hatred.

Peace is possible, not because of what presidents, nations and mankind will do, but because of what God is already doing.

Peace is possible, not because it is in our plan, but because it is in God's plan.

Peace will, I believe, finally come to the human family by way of a desperate necessity. We will finally decide to cooperate with God when we finally see that every other path is suicide, just as many individuals surrender to God only after every other option has been exhausted. At this very moment of history, we are perilously close to that crisis moment of decision. And like the people of Israel, listening to the Word of the Lord in Deuteronomy, the Lord God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, has set before us a choice between life and death, blessing and curse. And God is telling us, now, "choose life that you and your descendants may live."

Let me summarize. Peace is the intention of God for all of God's creation. Peace, the reconciliation of all things, is the reason Jesus came. Listen again to Colossians 1.19-20:

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in Christ, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

The creation counts to God and its salvation, including the salvation of the human family and the earth community, is both God's plan and God's possibility. However, for that plan and possibility to emerge into history, humanity must cooperate with God's saving activity.

And so we must look at what human cooperation is all about in the midst of the violent, evil, unjust, and frightening circumstances of our history. What does Christian Peacemaking look like in a broken and fallen world? I ground my answer in Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome. Paul's words echo the teaching of Jesus but I turn to Paul because I want to illustrate how the teachings of Jesus permeated the life of the early church.

READ TEXT

The Christian church, up through the year 312, was essentially pacifist in its orientation. "In that year, emperor Constantine gave positive recognition to Christianity and provided it with favored status so that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. From this dubious honor the church has not yet recovered. Under the favor of Constantine, the Christian church moved from being a despised, persecuted minority to the dominant religion of society....The general consensus of church historians is that when Christianity allied itself with the power of the state, it entered into a period of corruption and disintegration, gradually losing much of its moral authority and its spiritual dynamic." (Campolo, The Power Delusion, p. 64) The church also lost it's non-violent, anti-war, pacifist orientation.

Serious, Biblically grounded Christians, have, I believe, only two choices when considering issues of war and peace. The first choice is to be pacifists. And before we reject this choice out of hand, I want to read you part of a story written by Tony Campolo in his book, The Power Delusion. Campolo is an American Baptist Professor and writer and speaker who is widely recognized as the foremost religious spokesperson in America today. He is telling the story, at the end of a chapter titled, "What to do While Waiting for the Second Coming", of a debate held during a meeting of the Mennonite Church. A highly respected Mennonite farmer has just presented the case for the church to abandon its historic position of pacifism. A young man has just challenged his views and the old farmer says to him:

"It's all right for you to talk in this lofty manner, but one of these days they may come and take everything you have."

The young man responded, "That poses no problem for me. You see, sir, when I became a Christian I gave everything I had to Jesus. If they come they can only take from me what belongs to Him and that is His problem."

The older man quickly responded by saying, "All right, so they can't take what you have because you have already given it to Jesus, but they can kill you."

The young man answered, "No, they can't. You see, sir, I am already dead. When I became a Christian, the life that belongs to this world came to an end, and the new life that I received in Christ can never be snuffed out."

In frustration the older man said, "They may not be able to take what you have and they may not be able to kill you, but let me tell you that they can make you suffer."

Once again the young man answered, "When that day comes, I hope I will remember the words of Jesus who said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake; for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.' You see, sir, there is not much you can do to somebody who doesn't have anything, who is already dead, and who rejoices in persecution."

Campolo concludes, "This young man knew the secret that made the early church such a dangerous threat to the society of its day....Perhaps the attitude of this young man is an attitude that has come of age. Perhaps the hour is at hand for radically living out the Sermon on the Mount, for turning from power as a means of resolving international conflicts, and for being totally committed to using love as an instrument of social change. It may be that the challenge of our time is whether there arises a people who dare to make the loving on one's enemies a political philosophy. I myself am not there yet; but the more I consider it, the more I am aware that there may be no other option."

I deeply appreciate Campolo's confession, for it is also my confession. I know that what Jesus teaches is an ethic of non-violence--do not return evil for evil, not ever, but overcome evil with good. But I am still far too frightened to take Jesus literally and must, for today at least, fall back, probably with most of you, on the second option that is available to serious Christians today.

This option is best explained as The Just War Theory. There have been, tragically, millions of militant Christians, thousands of sadistic military and political leaders who have called themselves Christians, death-dealing dictators who cloaked themselves in Christ, and even theologians and Biblical scholars and preachers and a few Sunday School teachers who loved hating enemies and were cheer leaders for the armies of war.

None-the-less, there has been within the Christian Church, across the centuries, across denominations and across the world, a consistent body of thought that has stood the test of time called Just War Theory. One amazing aspect of Just War Theory is that serious Christian thinkers reflecting deeply on Biblical truths have come up with essentially the same conclusions in the fifth, tenth, fifteenth and twentieth centuries. These were Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran and Baptist Thinkers. They faced varied historical circumstances. But their conclusions were the same.

There are seven principles:
1) Last resort. All other means to the morally just solution of a conflict must be exhausted before resort to arms can be regarded as legitimate.
2) Just Cause. The goals for which one fights must be just. And the opponent must be clearly unjust, even though one recognizes moral ambiguity even in oneself.
3) Right attitudes. Anger and revenge have no part in just wars.
4) Prior declaration of war. Individual citizens must not take up arms as self-appointed defenders of justice. A formal declaration of war must precede armed conflict so that the opponent has an opportunity to abandon unjust activity.
5) Reasonable hope of success. If there is not a reasonable chance of success--the things one is fighting for must not be destroyed in the process--then it is wrong to fight, no matter how just one’s cause.
6) Noncombatant immunity. In a just war, no military action may be aimed directly at noncombatants. That is not to say that civilians may never be injured. If an army justly destroys a military target and nearby noncombatants are killed, that is an unintended side effect which is permissible within limits.
7) Proportionality. There must be a reasonable expectation that the good results of the war will exceed the horrible evils involved. (Ronald J. Sider and Richard K. Taylor, 1982. Used by permission of Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 60515)

It is my contention that as Christians, if we cannot accept a pacifist position, that our only remaining choice is to accept and apply Just War Theory. So, as you read these principles, which ones jump out at you as particularly relevant to the situation we face today in the Persian Gulf?

As I read them I am amazed by how each one presses us to ask relevant questions about the crisis in the Middle East. I could easily develop an entire sermon on the application of each principle to the Persian Gulf crisis. I earnestly hope the seven principles will guide your thinking in days and weeks ahead.

All the principles have been helpful to me in answering the question, Would a war against Iraq be a just war? But it is principle 5 that speaks the most loudly to me, "Reasonable Hope of Success". The final statement of this principle reads, "There must be a reasonable probability that the things for which one is fighting will not be destroyed."

My study and my prayer have led me to the same conclusion, that even were we to win a decisive military victory against Iraq, there would be no victory. The war would have no winners. Nothing would be accomplished. It used to be said, "To the victor belong the spoils." Now it can only be said, "Even for the victor, all is spoiled."

I believe that, grounded as they have been in greed for cheap oil and an unwillingness to honor the just cause of the Palestinians, I I believe that our military and economic policies have been morally bankrupt for decades in the Middle East. We helped to arm Saddam Hussein, whom we now call a "madman". He was once our man. Days before the invasion of Kuwait, the State Department was telling Iraq that the United States had no commitment to Kuwait's defense. There are deep divisions between Palestinians and Jews and Americans and Moslems that will be immeasurably worsened by war. Should Iraq be destroyed, the number one military power in the Persian Gulf region would, once again, be Iran. Saddam Hussein is a menacing figure, but in order to defeat him we are befriending a former terrorist, Hafez Assad of Syria, who is widely regarded to be as vicious as Saddam and a lot smarter. War will not protect cheap oil, rather the devestation would add fuel to the the fires that are driving the world economy towards depression. The Arab people will hate us even more. We will move immeasurably further, maybe hopelessly further, from a resolution of the long standing tensions and injustices of life in the Middle East. War will accomplish nothing.

In addition, there is a much larger picture, the fact that we live in one of the most critical turning points in the history of the human family and the earth community. And we cannot afford a war. Period. War will not help us to achieve cherished objectives, it will destroy those objectives. Given the current ecological crisis towards which enormous resources must be turned; given the current economic crisis that is already straining the ability of our nation and other nations to solve their problems; given the economic, political, moral and spiritual necessity of the nations of the world to learn a new spirit of cooperation; given the fact that, as Micah says it, peace on earth will require mutual respect among the religions of the world; given the fact that God is pouring enormous spiritual energy into God's creation for the saving of our lives and the saving of the world, this is no time at all for a war in the Persian Gulf. (I might state, parenthetically, that when I considered the Persian Gulf crisis from a secular and humanistic point of view I could come to no sure conclusion. If anything, I leaned, along with most Americans, towards knocking that lunatic Saddam off his block. But I was, literally, startled at how clear the issues became once I asked God for God's point of view.)

For the first time in 150 years, the great powers of the Earth have figured out that war has no place between them. When in the course of human history have you ever seen the nations of the world act with such unanimity as in the decision to blockade Iraq? This is a time of opportunity. God has infused new possibilities for peace into the affairs of the nations of the earth. Peace is possible in our time. But we could also blow this possibility away and the consequences would be devestating for us all. This would not be a cheap and easy war, and we might never finish paying for it.

The alternatives to war? Politically speaking, they are already in place--embargo and negotiation. I believe that Saddam Hussein must be stopped and that the military might of Iraq must be dismantled. Given enough time, given the unparalled cooperation of the nations of the earth, the embargo can accomplish these objectives. And we will have used this crisis to move one step closer to a just and peaceful world, instead of one step closer to disaster. In my opinion it would not be adequate to negotiate Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait while leaving him intact in Iraq. The embargo must have a wider objective than the liberation of Kuwait. And the negotiations must, I believe, have a wider objective than the restoration of an uneasy peace. There is a window of opportunity here for addressing wider issues in the Middle East and it must not be shut by either violent action or the lack of political vision. While praising our nation for the efforts already extended to gain international support for action against Kuwait, I believe that the command of all forces in the Persian Gulf should be turned over to the United Nations and that any decision to use military force should be made in the council of nations.

All of that being said, I believe that the Word of the Lord to us is that the alternative to war, the only alternative to war, is prayer. The alternative is a great and mighty and unexpected work that the Lord will do, if we pray, if we give God time to show us the ways that make for peace.

If just once in your life you have experienced that kind of answer to prayer, God helping you from an unexpected direction, then you can believe in the possibility of peace and you can remember that that work often takes time.

For our lives and our history, the Word of the Lord as I hear it is that any way but the way of peace is suicide. Can God stop us if we choose collective suicide? Yes, I believe God can present us with another opportunity on another day to choose life. But the suffering will be unimaginable. In this war there would be no winners.

Let there be peace on Earth. Let it begin with me. Let it begin with prayer.

So be it.

Amen.