WAR AND PEACE; Iraq, A Just War?
March 30, 2003
Isaiah 2:4-5; 9:6-7; Matthew 5:9, 38-46
Also Baptism of Jesus, Justice theme, Isaiah 42:1-9
sermon was not given on Baptism Sunday, but on March 30, 2003, as
the nation was getting ready to declare war on Iraq.)
at Grace Lutheran Church in Des Moines, Washington, a dialogue
sermon is when Pastors Ed Markquart and John O’Neal dialogue about
the text(s) in a pastoral office and then bring the best parts of
their conversation into the pulpit the following Sunday.)
to you and peace from God our Father,
from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
For children in grades five
through today who are taking notes on the sermon, the title of this
sermon is “War and Peace.”
The texts are from Isaiah 2, 9 and Matthew 5. You students do
not need to take notes on the sermon except for the outline which
will appear on the screen.
1930 a movie was made about World War I called "All Quiet on
the Western Front." In one scene some American
"doughboys" were talking. A comic character asked,
"Where do wars come from anyway?" Another replied,
"Well, one country gets mad at another country, and they start
fighting." The first soldier asked, "Do you mean that one
piece of land gets mad at another piece of land?"
"No," the other replied. "The people of one country
get mad at the people of the other." The first soldier picked
up his rifle and started walking away. When asked where he was
going, he said, "I'm going home. I'm not mad at anybody." Wouldn’t
it be nice if were that simple?
But wars and their causes are always complex and seldom have
simple answers or universal agreement.
I am thinking of the name of
James Stewart during World War II. This was not the Jimmy Stewart
from the movies, but the James Stewart who was a famous theologian
during World War II. James Stewart was famous for his sermons. He is
remembered in church history as that theologian who wrote
voluminously during World War II but did not mention World War II.
His sermons were clever and erudite, but there were no references to
the real world of war which was part of his history. Here at Grace
Lutheran, we have tried to preach in such a way that we address the
current, gripping situations of everyday life such as the murder of
a local policeman, the Columbine murders and or the military
intervention in Kuwait ten years ago. Also, some time past, I
attended a pastor’s group and I learned from that pastor’s group
that a pastor could never criticize a government official from the
pulpit, that there was safety in silence, that we pastors should
keep our mouth shut, and we would then avoid trouble. Today, we
pastors have agreed to not be safely silent and keep our mouths
we approach the sermon today on such a controversial and emotional
topic, I feel that it is important for us to be more pastoral than
prophetic in our delivery this morning.
That is to say, we, as shepherds, need to enter into
conversation with you, the flock, and try to bring some peace and
comfort as we are all on edge during this difficult time in our
country’s history. We
need to help you experience some that peace that passes all
In our conversation with each
other in the office, John brought up the concept of prophetic and
pastor and the need for this sermon to be given in the spirit of
pastoral compassion. I responded that we pastors also need to be
teachers. That is, we are not experts in foreign policy, politics,
or war making but we are experts (so to speak) in our study and
knowledge of the Bible and church history. We need to have a
teaching sermon about war and peace as found in the Scriptures and
in church history. So as Biblical teachers, we would like to share
four themes about war and peace that are found in the Bible.
neither Pastor Markquart nor I are experts in the field of world
politics, foreign policy, or military strategy, we feel it is
important to stick with topics we are knowledgeable about such as
the Bible, church history, and spirituality.
So we begin with the Bible looking at the person of Jesus of
Nazareth and what the Bible taught about Him as our model of the
in the Old Testament, which is filled with stories of war and fierce
battles, we find the prophet Isaiah with visions of a better time.
In chapter 2, Isaiah writes about a wonderful vision of peace
when people walk in the light of the Lord, he writes:
will judge between the nations
And will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
Nor will they train for war anymore.
Then when the Messiah comes Isaiah describes
what that will be like. In
Chapter 9, Isaiah writes:
For to us a child is born,
To us a son is given,
And the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty
Everlasting Father, Prince of
7 Of the increase of his government and
There will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
And over his kingdom,
Establishing and upholding it
With justice and righteousness
From that time on and forever.
several places in the New Testament, we are called to be peace
makers. We are called
to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies and pray for those who
persecute us. If
someone steals our coat, we are to give him our shirt as well.
Jesus tells his disciples when He was arrested, that “he
who lives by the sword will die by the sword.” We cannot simply
ignore these teachings but must wrestle with them and try to
understand what they mean for us today as our country engages in
first theme: Jesus was the Prince of Peace and we Christians are to
be called peace makers.
The Bible and New Testament
primarily emphasize that Jesus was the Prince of Peace and we
Christians are called to be peace makers. Now a second theme but a
lesser theme in the New Testament is that Jesus, the Prince of
Peace, highly praised the great faith of Roman centurions who were
Roman soldiers and commanders. Roman centurions commanded a hundred
men and hence we get the name centurion.
Jesus, the Prince of Peace, commended these soldiers for
their deep faith and not once did the Prince of Peace suggest
that these military commanders stop being military commanders. There
are four stories in the New Testament about centurions.
Not once is the centurion criticized for soldiering
and not once does Jesus ask these military commanders to stop
being military commanders. In other words, there is a paradox here.
The book of Isaiah and the New Testament emphasize that Jesus is the
Prince of Peace, the most peaceful person who ever lived, who taught
people to walk in the paths of peace…but the Prince of Peace did
not ask the Roman soldiers to stop being soldiers.
Last Sunday, I preached on the story of Jesus cleansing the temple where
He used a
weapon made of cords to drive the money changers out of the temple.
It is obvious that
even Jesus resorted to some violent behavior
where He felt it was necessary to
his objective, which was the cleansing of the temple.
As teachers of the Word of
God, we hear a third theme about war and peace in the Bible. That
is, all people are created in the image of God. All people of every
race, of every color, of every religion, of every language, of every
century: all people everywhere are created in the image of God. All
people throughout the earth are God’s children. All people
throughout the earth are loved by God. As the New Testament says in
the Book of Acts, God shows no partiality. God shows no favoritism
to one race of people over another, to one group of people over
another. All human beings are children of God and therefore all
people on earth are part of our family, including the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people are our brothers and sisters.
heard me speak recently about the Great Commandment and the Great
Commission and that all we do should be grounded in these two
mandates from the Bible. The
great Commandment says we are to love God and we are to love our
neighbor as our selves. In the Gospel of Luke there was a teacher of
the law who asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
To which Jesus responded by telling the parable of the Good
Samaritan. The question is the same for us today.
“Who is our neighbor?”
Is it Iraq? And
how do we love our neighbor? On
TV this past week, the news interviewed a young soldier that was
helping to distribute clean water and supplies in Iraq.
Several children were coming up to the soldier, smiling and
thanking him. The news commentator asked him how he felt.
The soldier’s eyes filled with tears of compassion for the
children and he said, “Now I know why I’m here.”
For me that was an example of loving our neighbor even in the
midst of war.
We pastors are not experts in
foreign policy, politics or war making, but we are to know about
what the Bible teaches. In this sermon, we now move a step forward
into church history because we pastors are also to be knowledgeable
about church history. We discover that human beings are warring
people. Jesus was right when he said that there will always be wars
and rumors of wars. We discover that war is part of our human
condition, that we are in bondage to sin and evil, and so we
inevitably ask: “What wars can we participate in?” In other
words, what wars are just? Augustine, in the fourth century, was the
first important theologian of the early church to think deeply about
the question: “What wars are just? What makes for a just war?”
During the past sixteen hundred years, his ideas have been expanded,
but Augustine was the first Christian theologian to think through
the question: “What makes a war justified?” As pastors, we will
now present the six characteristics of a just war. The two of us
pastors believe in just wars, and we need to be reminded of
what constitutes a just war.
want to put on the screen for you the “Just War” theory as it
has been understood throughout history and is still applicable
What is a Just War? The
war must be for a just cause. Examples of a just cause
against an unjust invader, or humanitarian intervention to stop
abuses of human rights by a tyrannical regime.
The main just cause is to put right a wrong. Sometimes a war fought to
prevent a wrong from happening may be considered a just war.
The second characteristic of
a just was is that it is to be declared by a lawful authority.
That is, the war is to be declared by a nation or a government. War
cannot be declared by an individual or guerilla group, but by
nations or states. More recently, the United Nations has become the
highest authority among nations to authorize war or not
authorize war. That
is, technically, the United Nations cannot declare war but the
United Nations can give a “lawful authorization” for use of
military force e.g. in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. For many
people, the United Nations is now the highest authority which can
authorize war or not. Others insist that individual nations or
states still have the authority to declare war, with or without the
supporting resolution from the United Nations.
third characteristic of a just war: the intention behind the war
must be good. One’s objectives must be just.
Annihilation of an enemy is not a legitimate goal.
intentions include: creating, restoring or keeping a just peace;
righting a wrong; assisting
The fourth characteristic of
a just war is that all other ways of resolving the problem be
tried first. War must always be the last resort, after
all peaceful means to solve the conflict have been genuinely tried.
Non-violent means to solve conflicts between nations are: economic
sanctions, diplomacy, withdrawal of aid, condemnation by the United
Nations or other nations, a resolution by the United Nations.
There must be a reasonable chance
of success. Not just war for the sake of war, or having a war
that would go on indefinitely.
There must be a reasonably attainable objective at which
point the war ends. This comes from the idea that war is a great evil, and that it
is wrong to cause suffering, pain, and death with no chance of
A sixth characteristic of a
just war is that the means are proportionate to the ends.
That is, wars are to prevent more evil and suffering than they
create. The positives from engaging in war are to far outweigh the
negatives. The benefits are to far outweigh the harm that war will inevitably
people and non-combatants should not be harmed. The
Geneva Convention lays down that civilians are not to be subject to
attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate
attacks against areas in which civilians are present. I am impressed with the great effort our military is
putting forth to accomplish this, even to the point of risking their
lives such as when people pretend to surrender only to get them out
in the open where they can be fired upon.
Only appropriate force is to
be used. Let me give you an example: many people have concluded that
the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
justified during World War II because these enormously powerful
bombs prevented the killing of millions of Japanese and hundreds of
thousands of G.I.s which would have occurred during an invasion of
Japan. But use of atomic bombs would be entirely inappropriate if
dropped over Baghdad. Some weapons are appropriate; some are not.
This also leads into discussion of which weapons are inherently evil
which we will discuss later.
would now like you to find the insert in your bulletin entitled, THE
ETHICS OF WAR, The Theory of the Just War. (This article is found in
the appendix of this sermon.) Please notice the website for this
would ask that you take this article home and examine this website
about the theories of the just war. It was the best website we could
find on the just war theory. There was good information about
Augustine and then Thomas Aquinas. Please turn to page two of this
insert and notice the six characteristics of a just war. This has
been the outline for this section of the sermon. Each underlined
topic is a link to further information. This further information is
turn to the bottom of page two and the category: “Weapons That Are
Intrinsically Evil.” I would like to highlight these words and
thoughts for you.
are usually taken to be chemical and biological weapons. These were
banned by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.”
writers will argue that nuclear weapons are inherently evil.” A
few comments. Shortly after I arrived in this congregation nearly
thirty years ago, I announced that I was a nuclear pacifist, that I
believed the use of nuclear weapons was inherently evil, that these
weapons indiscriminately destroy both civilians and the environment.
I still an a nuclear pacifist and believe that nuclear weapons
should be outlawed just as biological weapons were in 1925, after
World War I.
is a growing view that landmines, because they are indiscriminate
weapons which cause great harm to civilians, are inherently evil.” Again, it is the same argument that is used against nuclear
weapons: indiscriminate weapons cause great harm to civilians. As a
member of the board of Lutheran World Relief, I hear of partners of
LWR that make prostheses for arms and legs, hands and feet. The
innocent victims of landmines are civilians who are injured some
fifteen to twenty years after a war was over. LWR consistently
advocates that landmines be banned. Lutheran church women by the
thousands have signed petitions banning landmines. Our government
has not yet joined the overwhelming majority of nations to outlaw
Hague Convention of 1907 bans: poison weapons, killing or wounding
treacherously, killing or wounding an enemy who has laid down his
arms, using arms to cause unnecessary suffering.”
agree with Ed on this. I
believe that all biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons should be
outlawed. They all kill
indiscriminately and can cause long-term damage.
They can’t distinguish between combatants and
We now come to the end of our
sermon. We have been pastoral in our Biblical teaching about war and
peace from Scriptures and from church history. At the conclusion of
this sermon, we would now like to speak, not as pastors or as
Biblical teachers, but rather we would like to share our own
personal views about the war in Iraq.
John, what are your personal feelings … and not as a pastor
or Biblical teacher?
really hate war and I wish the wars would never happen.
I will continue to pray for peace and the end of all wars.
I will continue to hold on the vision of Isaiah where nation
will not take up sword against nation and neither will they learn
war any more. But in
the mean time, I will be a just war advocate and I will support the
brave men and women who fight for the cause of freedom and dignity
for all people. Do I totally agree with President Bush and the way
he has gone about this war? No!
Am I nervous about the lack of support from the rest of the
world, the UN, and other normal allies?
Yes! But I, like you, helped to elect the leaders of our
country, and I believe it’s time to place our trust those leaders,
to pray for them, and stand behind them, hoping that when it’s all
over we will look back and know that this was the right thing to do.
My personal feelings revolve
around two personal points. The first is that I do not trust our
political leaders to sufficiently disclose the facts of a given
political situation. That is, I did not trust Bill Clinton, Al Gore,
nor George Bush. I believe that a primary purpose of elected
officials is to shape the truth in order to get re-elected. In the
recent past, I have not trusted Clinton, Gore or Bush, but I have
trusted and do trust General Colin Powell. For some reason or
another, I trust Powell. Perhaps it is because he is a general and
not a politician who wants to get re-elected. If General Powell had
run for the Presidency, I would have voted for him, regardless of
which party he joined. So when Colin Powell supports this war in
Iraq, I take him seriously. When Colin Powell believes that this
particular war is just, I am sympathetic with his point of view.
there is another issue for me personally. That is, in 1991, after
the first President Bush marshaled the United Nations and the United
States government into supporting a military intervention in Kuwait,
I was impressed. I was so impressed that I initiated a resolution
for our ELCA synod assembly that commended the first President
George Bush for a just war. The resolution was soundly defeated and
instead, a much more pacifistic motion against any use of violence
was passed by the synod assembly. Twelve years later, I will not
submit a similar resolution commending the current President Bush
for a just war.
is, I have three serious reservations that get in my way of
initiating a synod resolution. First, the lack of support from the
United Nations for a military action against Saddam Hussein. I still
cannot figure out why the support of the United Nations was so
important in 1991 and a mere twelve years later, the support of the
United Nations is not that important. Secondly, the lack of support from the neighboring Arab
nations. Those neighboring Arab nations seem to see America as the
“big bully” in the region, having the power and authority to
exercise our political will in the region, regardless of their
belief and values. Third and perhaps most importantly, I am hesitant
for our nation to engage in a pre-emptive strike against Saddam
Hussein, knowing that Hussein is an incredible evil dictator. In the
past, “pre-emptive strikes” were not part of the just war
theory. I feel uncomfortable in including the concept of a
“pre-emptive strike” into the characteristics of a just war. By
doing so, we may be unleashing a whole series of problems that we do
not foresee. Respecting General Colin Powell’s support of a war
with Iraq, I still will not bring a resolution before the synod
assembly that praises President Bush for his efforts against Saddam
Yes, we are called to believe
in Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. May we learn to walk in the
paths of peace in our generation.
see the following two pages that were distributed to the
congregation for this sermon.
comment: Unfortunately, we had two households leave the parish
because of this sermon. They (and others who did not leave) felt
strongly that we pastors were free to speak as pastors and be
Biblical/historical teachers from the pulpit but that we pastors
should not have spoken our personal views at the conclusion of the
sermon. In conversations with such people, I pointed out that I
previously shared my personal political point of view in a sermon
prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and again in another sermon
prior to the voting on State Initiatives 119 and 120 about abortion
and euthanasia (also in 1991, now in Series A, Epiphany 6, CHOSE LIFE).
There were no objections to me then about those sermons.
I think about the differing reactions to me expressing my personal
political point of view in 1991 and 2003, it seems that the degree
of polarization within the congregation and nation was much stronger
in 2003 than in 1991. It also seems that the pastor’s group who
previously warned me that a pastor should never criticize a
government official from the pulpit knew about the subtleties of
pastoral ministry. In 1991 I was positive about the decisions of the
first President Bush; 2003, I expressed my reservations about the
decisions of the second President Bush. One sermon was supportive;
the second sermon expressed reservations. I believe that
congregational members are more accepting of supporting of
presidential leadership than expressing reservations of that
a broader view of the theme, “Church and Politics,” read the
sermon from the Roman series of sermons on Romans 13. I believe that
this sermon is also helpful in discussing the role of church in
politics. This sermon is can be found at: http://www.sermonsfromseattle.com/romans_churchandpolitics.
ETHICS OF WAR The
Theory of the Just War
St Augustine was a 4th century Christian who lived in Algeria and
Italy. He believed that the only just reason to go to war was the
desire for peace.
do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we
may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may
vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the
prosperity of peace."
tried to reconcile Christian pacifism with the world as it actually
was; to bring together the pacifist teachings of Jesus Christ with
the obligations of Roman citizens - including Christians - to fight
for their country when required to.
accepted that there would always be wars. He thought that war was
always a sin, and if there had to be a war, it should be waged with
Augustine said that war was always the result of sin, and that war
was also the remedy for sin. And if war was the remedy for sin, then
war could sometimes be justifiable - but only if it was a remedy
made it clear that individuals and states (or the rulers of states)
have different obligations when it came to war or violence.
stated that Christians did not have the right to defend themselves
from violence, however they could use violence if it was necessary
to defend the innocent against evil.
rulers of states, he said, had an obligation to maintain peace, and
this obligation gave them the right to wage war in order to maintain
peace. It also gave them the right to wage war in order to ensure
justice and even impose punishment - something that would not be
just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a
nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for
the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has
was because injustice was a greater evil than war, and it was proper
to carry out a lesser evil if it would prevent a greater evil.
a war is only just if those waging it do so with the intention of
doing good. Punishing the enemy is not a sufficient motive on its
religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for
motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of
securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the
was much less concerned with how people should be treated during a
war, because to him, physical death was not a particularly important
is a Just War?
Six conditions must be satisfied for a war to be considered just
(each condition is linked):
war must be for a just cause.
war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.
intention behind the war must be good.
other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.
must be a reasonable chance of success.
means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to
should a Just War be Fought?
A war that starts as a Just War may stop being a Just War if the
means used to wage it are inappropriate.
people and non-combatants should not be harmed.
appropriate force should be used.
applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used.
agreed conventions regulating war must be obeyed.
that are intrinsically evil
These are usually taken to be chemical and biological weapons. These
were banned by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.
writers argue that nuclear weapons are inherently evil.
is a growing view that landmines, because they are indiscriminate
weapons which cause great harm to civilians, are inherently evil.
military methods are also regarded as intrinsically evil such as
genocide, mass rape, torture and so on. The
Hague Convention of 1907 bans: poison or poisoned weapons, killing
or wounding treacherously, killing or wounding an enemy who has laid
down his arms and surrendered, declaring that no mercy be given to
defeated opponents, using arms to cause unnecessary suffering.