This post will be half a historical lesson and half biblical commentary. The reason is because of the fact this post will draw from a historical source and the historical background is both interesting on its own merits and ties into the biblical content.
This commentary will draw on the scholarship of Henry Wager Halleck, Major-General in the Union Army during the American Civil War, from a book on military history, tactics, and strategy he wrote while he was still a 1st Lieutenant called Elements of Military Art and Science. While most of the text is concerned with matters utterly unrelated to the Bible, the very first section examines the reasons and justification for war and draws on moral precedent offered by the Christian faith for his arguments on the topic.
It's worth noting Halleck was never much of a battlefield general, his record in that regard being, on the whole, uninspiring and mediocre at best. His credentials as a scholar and military bureaucrat, however, were indispensable to the Union during her darkest hours, and it's his academic credentials that I will comment on below.
His original comments will be in italics, and mine will be in bold text.
It has been deemed proper, in commencing a course of lectures on war, to make a few introductory remarks respecting this question of its justifiableness. We know of no better way of doing this than to give on the one side the objections to war as laid down in Dr. Wayland's Moral Philosophy, and on the other side the arguments by which other ethical writers have justified a resort to war. We do not select Dr. Wayland's work for the purpose of criticizing so distinguished an author; but because he is almost the only writer on ethics who advocates these views, and because the main arguments against war are here given in brief space, and in more moderate and temperate language than that used by most of his followers. I shall give his arguments in his own language.
"I. All wars are contrary to the revealed will of God."
This section is Halleck's initial thrust against moral arguments against war, using the arguments put forth by a leading writer on ethics of his time. The sections in quotations in the above italicized text are the arguments which he is setting out to refute.
It is said in reply, that if the Christian religion condemns all wars, no matter how just the cause, or how necessary for self-defence, we must expect to find in the Bible some direct prohibition of war, or at least a prohibition fairly implied in other direct commandments. But the Bible nowhere prohibits war: in the Old Testament we find war and even conquest positively commanded, and although war was raging in the world in the time of Christ and his apostles, still they said not a word of its unlawfulness and immorality. Moreover, the fathers of the church amply acknowledge the right of war, and directly assert, that when war is justly declared, the Christian may engage in it either by stratagem or open force. If it be of that highly wicked and immoral character which some have recently attributed to it, most assuredly it would be condemned in the Bible in terms the most positive and unequivocal.
In the lede of his argument, Halleck rightly points out that the Bible in no way outright condemns war, at least in the sense they do not condemn the waging of one under just and lawful pretenses. He also points out that while war had meaning to the public consciousness both of Biblical time and of the contemporary day in which he wrote his text, neither support the assertion war was wholly in controversy to the expressed Will of God.
From Genesis until the end of Kings are lots of examples of military campaigns, many with God's sanction, knowledge and/or approval. The Books of the Law contain specific regulations for the disposition of troops, the sharing of spoils, the conduct of armed forces, and so on. The Books of Joshua and Judges contain many details of sanctioned military actions done with God's personal approval. The Books of Samuel and Kings also contain more of the same. These are but a few examples, but are quite illustrative of my point.
But it has been said that the use of the sword is either directly or typically forbidden to the Christian, by such passages as "Thou shalt not kill," (Deut. v. 17,) "I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," (Matt. v. 39,) &c. If these passages are to be taken as literal commands, as fanatics and religious enthusiasts would have us believe, not only is war unlawful, but also all our penal statutes, the magistracy, and all the institutions of the state for the defence of individual rights, the protection of the innocent, and the punishment of the guilty. But if taken in conjunction with the whole Bible, we must infer that they are hyperbolical expressions, used to impress strongly on our minds the general principle of love and forgiveness, and that, so far as possible, we over come evil with good. Can any sober-minded man suppose, for a moment, that we are commanded to encourage the attacks of the wicked, by literally turning the left cheek when assaulted on the right, and thus induce the assailant to commit more wrong? Shall we invite the thief and the robber to persevere in his depredations, by literally giving him a cloak when he takes our coat; and the insolent and the oppressor to proceed in his path of crime, by going two miles with him if he bid us to go one?
Halleck in this section addresses many common canards of the anti-war side, citing passages of the Bible usually drawn divorced from their context to support the assertion war is not sanctioned by God under any circumstance. As Halleck points out, without the agency of critical thinking, then those same parties would be right. Further, he notes the illogic of this point would invalidate all structures of society dedicated to the law and its enforcement on society, and even worse, would make a paradox of civilization itself.
He goes on to note that, when taken in context with the rest of Scripture, the expression of "Thou shalt not kill" does not prevent such exigencies as self-defense, for food (in the context of hunting), or the extermination of pest animals. In fact, the Books of the Law explicitly condones all the above and often provides detailed instruction on their extent and execution.
On the topic of waging war, Halleck notes that it would be an institution that made no sense if the Bible did not specifically rule out all instances and reasons for doing so yet forced us to literally obey "Thou shalt not kill" in its absolute literal sense minus the biblical context of the phrase.
Again, if the command, "Thou shalt not kill," is to be taken literally, it not only prohibits us from engaging in just war, and forbids the taking of human life by the state, as a punishment for crime; it also forbids, says Dr. Leiber, our taking the life of any animal, and even extends to the vegetable kingdom,—for undoubtedly plants have life, and are liable to violent death—to be killed. But Dr. Wayland concedes to individuals the right to take vegetable and animal life, and to society the right to punish murder by death. This passage undoubtedly means, thou shalt not unjustly kill,—thou shalt do no murder; and so it is rendered in our prayer-books.
Halleck further elucidates on the context of "do not kill", noting that when it is considered in the context of the rest of Scripture, the more appropriate meaning in that context is a prohibition against killing for any reason that constitutes evil intent. Self-defense, the harvest of food, and lawful punishment of taking life without lawful cause are thus three immediate reasons for which one would have, the right, under the stricture of the context of Scripture in its Whole, to take the life of another, be it plant, animal, or one's fellow man.
It cannot have reference to war, for on almost the next page we find the Israelites commanded to go forth and smite the heathen nations,—to cast them out of the land,—to utterly destroy them,—to show them no mercy, &c. If these passages of the Bible are to be taken literally, there is no book which contains so many contradictions; but if taken in connection with the spirit of other passages, we shall find that we are permitted to use force in preventing or punishing crime, whether in nations or in individuals; but that we should combine love with justice, and free our hearts from all evil motives.
It is at this point Halleck makes the decisive part of his argument. After having shown the fallacy of cherry-picking Scripture for a justification against killing for military purposes, he goes on to show that doing so was at times sanctioned, approved, and commanded by God, therefore, killing in those cases fell under the auspices of Law, specifically, as a lawful punishment that God commanded the Israelites to inflict on those who offended Him.
He finishes by noting killing is thus not absolutely forbidden by the Word of God, so long as it is done under the following conditions.
1. Killing is done to preserve the rule of law or to punish it's violators.
2. Killing is done with motives consistent with love of our fellow man combined with justice, meaning no reason for the waging of war should be for any reason that is selfish, petty, or malicious.
No comments:
Post a Comment