President George W. Bush declared to a joint session of Congress that we are at war with the terrorists that destroyed the World Trade Center buildings and heavily damaged the Pentagon. After his message, the polls showed that 91% approved of this declaration of war.

The biblical and spiritual implications of this declaration against both terrorists and those who harbor them are profound. For centuries, since Jesus’ day and the establishment of Christianity, the question of Christian involvement in warfare and the right of governments to engage in war has been the subject of much discussion and debate. This was not so much a matter of discussion under the Old Testament dispensation because God is described as entering into such conflicts and giving victory to those who followed Him.

There are some obvious differences between the old covenant with Israel and the new covenant with people of all nations. The Old involved a theocratic arrangement, a religious and political government. The New included people of all nations so that a war might cause Christians to be fighting against Christians. The Civil War (1861-65) and the two World Wars (20^th century) are examples. The Civil War often divided families.

Compare "the Lord is a man of war" to "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Exodus 15:3, Isaiah 2:4.) How do we reconcile these passages? Note the differences between Romans 13 and Revelation 13. Both refer to the same government, the Roman. Romans 13 speaks of it in positive terms, that it is opposed only to the evil doer. Revelation 13 speaks of it in negative terms, describing it as a beast that devours Christians.

Today, there are differences among Christians on the issue of war, even the right of governments to exist, the right of Christians to participate in governments, and the proper relationship between political entities and the spiritual Kingdom of God. The church has not had a visible division over these questions, but Christians differ greatly. We have many pacifists in the church, especially among the restoration leaders. Alexander Campbell was strongly opposed to War, as were many others. One notable exception was Walter Scott. More recently James D. Bales passionately promoted the pacifist’s view, writing the book The Christian Conscientious Objector and debating the issue (Bales-Stonestreet Debate). Later in his life, Dr. Bales changed his views. This is how he reasoned.

Brother Bales noted that Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies. We are also taught to love our wives. When the love for your wife comes in conflict, the love of your wife should be chosen over the love for an enemy who may be raping or killing her. Bales once argued that the love for our enemies was the hallmark for Christians, and that it should always stand. He reasoned that a husband could find another way to escape danger. But there are too many examples of where an alternative did not exist. The present situation where thousands of innocent men, women and children died an unspeakable death in the terrorists’ attacks of September 11, 2001, goes far beyond harm being done to one person. Can a nation now take up arms against those who murdered innocent people? Does a nation have the right to punish evildoers? I answer in the affirmative. However, I offer the following cautions.

There can be no justification for a carnal, hawkish, warlike, rejoicing-attitude over the death and destruction of human beings, even though they are guilty. Some people are easily excited; their carnal passions are disturbed. An immature, rash spirit is out of step with the Christian attitude and it is out of step with the terrible consequences of any war.

James and John wanted Jesus to send down fire from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village because they would not receive Jesus and his disciples. Jesus replied, "You know what manner of spirit you are. The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them." (Luke 9:55-56.)

There can be no justification personal hatred or petty differences. There is a great difference between personal revenge and allowing the proper governmental authorities to execute vengeance. The powers that be are ordained of God and they should carry out their tasks with an attitude of great responsibility and soberness before God. Paul called them "the ministers of God to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Rom. 13:4.)

Presidents and world leaders should not bring their nations into war over personality conflicts and personal animosity. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they hide the true reason for going to war. It is often over money and power. We should not fight a war for financial gain. Remember that "munition makers have a vested interest in wars."

There is no justification for self-proclaimed holy wars. Before one announces that such is a holy war, one should be certain that such is the view of God Almighty. Many wars have been fought in the name of God, but did not have His authority or approval. Jesus said, "Yea, the time comes that whosoever kills you will think that he doeth God service." (John 16:2.) If God were on the side of the Iraqis in Desert Storm, how did the US-led coalition so easily and quickly defeat them?

We have already noted one reason given above. Brother Bales once reasoned that the love for our enemies forbade any action against them. He later rejected that reason saying that the love for your wife should be greater than you love for your enemy.

Alexander Campbell wrote passionately against wars of any kind. He wrote, "I conclude that there never was a good war, or a bad peace." (Millennial Harbinger, "War," 384, 1848.) I disagree. There have been good wars in the sense that evil doers were stopped and that God was involved. There is a bad peace if justice is not done and if innocent people perish. Can you imagine what would have happened if Hitler were allowed to continue his madness? Or Mussolini? Or Stalin? Or Hussein? Should we allow the terrorists to continue to terrorize?

In addition, Campbell wrote eloquently, "Give me the money, I would say, that has been spent in wars and I will clear every acre of land in the world that ought to be cleared---drain every marsh---subdue every desert---fertilize every mountain and hill---convert the whole earth into a continuous series of fruitful fields, verdant meadows, beautiful villas, hamlets, towns, cities, standing along smooth comfortable highways and canals, in the midst of luxuriant and fruitful orchards, vineyards, and gardens, full of all fruits and flowers, rich and beautiful, with all that pleases the eye and regales the senses of man. I would found, furnish and endow as many schools, academies and meeting-houses, public halls and lyceums, and furnish them with libraries adequate to the wants of a thousand millions of human beings.

"Beat your swords into ploughshares, your spears into pruninghooks; convert your warships into missionary packets; your arsenals and munitions of war into Bibles, schoolbooks, teachers, and professors of literature, science, and art. . . ."

It is true that there have been many unnecessary wars and too much bloodshed. It is true that the money spent on such wars could have fed the hungry multitudes and bettered society. But all of this assumes that both parties would be willing to turn their warships into missionary packets. What if the enemy allowed you to do that while he plotted your destruction? The truth is that Campbell held post-millennial views. That is, he believed that a golden age of peace and prosperity for the Gospel was at hand in his day. He believed that at the end of such a glorious age, Jesus would return for the second time. The Civil War ended all such fanciful notions. A fallen human race will never have a glorious, golden age of peace on this earth.

I believe that one of the foundational demands for war and capital punishment is that man lives in a fallen world. The poetic and wonderful descriptions of peace by Isaiah describe a spiritual environment in the hearts of those who enter the Lord’s Kingdom. His Kingdom would not be advanced by the sword, but by "the Sword of the Spirit" which is the Word of God. As long as we live in a fallen state, there will exist the need for severe punishment for evil doers to restrain them.

There are many who do not understand the true nature of fallen man. These are the humanists. Francis A. Schaeffer wrote, "Beginning about eighty years ago, we began to move from a Judeo-Christian consensus in this country to a humanist consensus, and it has come to a special climax in the last forty years. The things that have come into our country which have troubled us are the inevitable results of this humanistic worldview. If you hold this worldview, you must realize there is no source of knowledge except what man can find for himself; all revelation is ruled out, and knowledge never can be certain. There can be no value system and only arbitrary law. Ultimately we lose the intrinsic value of the individual person." ("Is There A Time For War?" by Francis A. Schaeffer, New Wine, October 1983, 5.) Have you noticed the silence of the ACLU since the terrorists attacked the USA? Why don’t they defend the terrorists and argue for them in a court of law? Why doesn’t Clarence Darrow arise from the dead and say that they are just the results of some minor blemishes in the evolutionary process? In the face of such destruction and death, the flimsy arguments of the pacifists, the humanists, and the evolutionists are seen for what they are worth!

There is a time to speak up against evil. There is a time for severe action to punish them. Why didn’t the believers in Germany speak up and tell the world what was going on in their country? The French theologian-philosopher Jacques Ellul, wrote, "It was in 1930 that Christians should have alerted the world. That is when the churches should have mobilized without let up. That was when clarity of vision was essential. After 1937 it was too late. The fate of the world was sealed. But in those years the Christians, full of good intentions, were thinking only of peace and were loudly proclaiming pacifism. In matters of that kind, Christians’ good intentions are often disastrous." (In False Presence of the Kingdom.)

There are many who will not speak up when dangers are present. Others try to divert the energies of those who would stand against evil. It is not non-Christian to act against evil through God’s appointed ministers. What is someone kills another? What does the Bible say?

"Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man." (Gen. 9:6.)

"So you shall not pollute the land wherein you are, for blood it defiles the land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." (Numbers 35:33.)

God has appointed some powers to deal with evil doers. Regardless of the discussion about Nimrod, Paul’s and Peter’s words are hard to deny.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid. For he bears not the sword in vain; he is a minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Rom. 13:1-6.)

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." (1 Peter 2:13-14.)

Some argue that war is anti-Christian. (God and Government, "The New Testament Teaching on War," H. Leo Boles, 129-172.) If so, why do New Testament writers use war to describe the Christian’s fight against evil. If marriage is dishonorable, would the Bible use that analogy to describe Christ and the Church? If governments are man-made and evil, then why are there so many references to the Kingdom of God? Would something evil be used to describe something wonderful and good?

All of us agree that peace is better than war, but not at any price. The price of peace can be greater than war.