An Essay On the Affirmative of War and Necessary Conflict

There are many claims by which Christians take the stance of pacifism, both theological and sentimental. But the number one reason why -that I have come to find- that Christians of a certain sect tend to fall on the side of pacifism is their discomfort of judgment; since God is the only giver of life, only He can take it away, and humans have no right to make the judgment that God no longer has any use or purpose in this life for the person on trial. In other words, humans cannot kill other humans because God can always use a person, even in their most dire need of Him. It is fair to note that there are other reasons why the pacifist takes the stance at hand, but this is the argument I have found to be the most popular, and the most challenging.

If I have portrayed this stance fairly and accurately (as I believe I have), then this stance is false for two reasons. First, I will pose that in the instance of war, self-defense, or capital punishment, it is not man that is making the judgment. Second, the statement does not correspond biblically with the responsibility given to us. We will examine these two challenges on the pacifist statement.

The first objection is an observation of the logic: If God gave man life (part A), then man cannot make the judgment that another man deserves death (part B), therefore man should not kill (part C). Although this argument might seem logical because God did indeed give man life and He is the only giver of life, but the problem lies between parts B and C. It is not necessary for man to make the judgment that another man deserves death (B) for him to be the one that carries out the judgment (C).

It is accurate to observe that the pacifist claims that it is humans who do the judging in any killing situation, when only God should. On the contrary, the judgment has already been made. In fact, it was the first commandment given by God after Noah exited the ark. In this passage, the Lord says that “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man (Gen 9:6).” Because we are made in the Image of God, we are to shed the blood of the man who shed man’s blood. God is saying that this is the only retribution for a murder offense. Capital punishment was not instituted by man, but rather, created by God. Therefore, we can conclude that man does not make the judgment, for it has already been made; and if God has already made it, then there is no choice in the matter. The only judgment that we are to then make is whether the person on trial is guilty or innocent.

The second objection relates directly to the claim in itself. The statement that man cannot be the capital judge of the life of another man is clearly and dogmatically not biblically based. Two scriptures come immediately to mind; first is I Corinthians 6:1-4 where Paul writes

“If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!”

More specifically pertaining to the issue at hand however, is the passage in Romans where Paul writes that “if you do evil, be afraid; for he [the government] does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil (Romans 13:4).” I have heard the pacifist response to this scripture stating that Paul was using this passage to simply teach Christians not to be anarchists. While it is true that this passage implies that God instituted government, this is clearly not all that is said. The certain and specific language of the text leaves no room for anything other than the reader to acknowledge that we (the government) are to “execute wrath” on him who practices evil.

The second thing to notice about this passage is the very nature of the analogy. Paul uses the illustration of “bearing the sword,” as he also makes a similar illustration in 2 Timothy 2:4 referring to the church to “enlist as soldiers.” But one could hardly state that this is merely an analogy, because of the purpose and responsibilities of government. If taking the life of a human was indeed inherently wrong, then Paul would not have used the term “bearing the sword” just as he would have not said “you are enlisted as prostitutes for Christ,” or “you have been selected as drunkards of the Holy Spirit.” In fact, when a biblical author is describing something evil, they use illustrations that correspond to the wickedness of the culture (for example, Hosea and Israel the “prostitute").

Although it is sentimental to say “man cannot make the judgment to end another mans life,” that is all it is, a mere sentiment. As we have seen in scripture, God already made the judgment for us to protect the sanctity of life by one, requiring it of whoever takes the life of the innocent; and two, by protecting against those who would seek to destroy the innocent. Rejecting this responsibility will destroy the very thing that the pacifist movement wishes most genuinely to build; community.

In Christendom today, we have forgotten the gravity of the issue. For if the affirmative is right, then the pacifists idea is hurting and weakening the cultures of which it is most prominently accepted. But if the pacifists are right, then every single affirmative believer is then a murderer according to the principle of Romans 1:32.

I believe however, that pacifism is not a compliment to the Christian life. This may sound dogmatic, and that is because it is. With the knowledge of the of murders and mass genocide that is carried out every day by people who with racist motives, potential self-gain, or simply murder for pleasure, the church and all those of the Christian faith must realize that pacifism is not only a false belief, but that it also has catastrophic consequences.