Email this information to a friend

In his State of the Union address, President Bush presented a strong case for the danger that Iraq presents to the peace and security of our world. Piece by piece the evidence shows a deeper deception by Saddam Hussein in hiding weapons and material of mass destruction that he is known to possess. The president said, “Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror…the gravest danger facing America and the world…is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder.”

What is to be the Christian response to this? This is the key question and the one that we will address in this paper. Of course, no one “wants” to go to war. But there are times when war, for the security and peace of the world, is unavoidable. In the book of Ecclesiastes 3:1 & 8 the scripture states quite clearly, “There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven…A time for war and a time for peace.” The key is knowing when the right time has come. Church history, doctrine and the scriptures help us to determine the answer to this question.

War is horrible - this proposition will not be disputed by any reasonable person. No sane person wants to see a war develop; especially if the war involves their nation. Professor John Murray, of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia from 1937-1966, said, “War is, to say the least, a ghastly evil. I did not say, war is wrong. The waging of war is often highly necessary and even dutiful.”[1] Murray recognized that we would prefer to have peace rather than war, but there are times when this is just not possible. Sometimes war is the only way that a lasting peace can be established. 

Indeed it seems that in our fallen world war is an inevitable part of life. Jesus spoke plainly in Matthew 24:6-8 and said that wars would be a part of the history of mankind right up until the end:

6 “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.

7 “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.

8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

James, in his New Testament epistle, gives us the cause of wars: “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel.” Wars often occur because someone wants more power or more pleasure and sees the only way of obtaining it is through taking it from someone else. This is the epitome of selfishness and self-centeredness and both are a result of sin that entered the world in the fall.

The “Just War Theory” has been developed to help Christians determine the appropriateness of military conflict. There are some who believe that war is never justified and so they see the idea the “Just War Theory” as being a needless discussion. We do, however, live in a world that Jesus said would involve wars and rumors of wars. Therefore, we must give every effort to try and determine what a “Just War” is and when it is to be waged.

Throughout the history of the Christian church theologians have debated this issue and sought to bring the light of Scripture to bear upon it. One of the most respected of the church theologians to wrestle with this concept is Saint Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. In this magnificent work Aquinas states that there are three[2] necessary matters for a war to be considered “just.”

First, there is the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. It is not the business of a private individual, or group, to declare war. Aquinas quotes Paul in Romans 13:4: “for it (civil government) does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Aquinas comments on this verse by saying, “it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common [welfare] against external enemies.”[3] Saint Augustine, another church father who wrote extensively on “Just War”, says that “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” купальники большого размера

The second criterion for a just war is that “a just cause is required.” Namely, those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Again Augustine weighs in on this and says, “A just war is apt 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 has been seized unjustly.”[4]

The third factor is that it is “necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.”[5] Hence Augustine says, “True 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 good.”

Augustine and Aquinas were scholars in the Catholic tradition, and the mainstream Protestant Reformers agreed with them on the issues of just war. Martin Luther stated that “without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace.”[6]

The question that faces us at this point in time is whether or not the potential preemptive strikes against Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein match the cause of a just war. Obviously, Saddam is an evil man and has proved that over and over again, but is that, in and of itself, grounds for bringing down his regime in Iraq? I believe that it is based on Aquinas’ points above.

The first point in Aquinas’s list is a given. The United States is a legitimate authority that is responsible for protecting its citizens and interests worldwide. There can be no argument here.

The second point relates to the cause being a just cause. That is for an attack on Iraq to be considered just there must be a good reason, a just reason, for the action to be taken.

Saddam Hussein has been a problem on the world scene for many years. He has used chemical weapons on people without any scruples whatsoever. He invaded Kuwait over a decade ago and when driven out by the United States forces he set fire to oil fields, not only destroying natural resources but also causing one of the worse environmental disasters in many years. He has shown that he has no regard for human life or liberty.

Perhaps, some will argue, this should have been dealt with in the Gulf War of the early 1990’s, but the fact that it was not does not lessen, and perhaps increases, the need for bring an end to the danger that exists in Iraq. What are some of the reasons that cause Iraq to be considered, as Aquinas puts it, someone who deserves it “on account of some fault”?

1.      In 1999 the United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical material to produce weapons that could kill several million people. In November, 2002. the U.N. called on Hussein to report how. these weapons had been destroyed. In Iraq’s report to the United Nations no evidence was made that the materials had been destroyed. President Bush’s assessment of this is simply, “The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving.”[7]

2.      Intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons that can be used against America and our allies. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor to President Bush, said, “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, stated, “The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990’s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”[8] virgin media telephone numbers

3.      Iraq has harbored terrorist groups, such as the Nbu Nidal Organization and the Palestine Liberation Front, within its borders. These groups have been implicated in hijacking and murders across the Mideast, including American citizens.[9] President Bush expanded this evidence in his State of the Union Address, when he made clear that “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorist, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”[10]

Secretary of State Powell, said members of a group affiliated with Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has had contacts with al Qaeda, have been operating freely in Baghdad for eight months.[11] According to all accounts al Qaeda continues to be the biggest threat to the United States. If Saddam Hussein continues to possess and develop these weapons of mass destruction he can easily provide them to al Qaeda for use against our country. Интернет-магазин Startgame.com.ua psp приставки много интересных игр Описание на сайте.

4.      In April of 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. Calling the bombers “martyrs”, Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out the money to the families, said, “You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.”[12]

5.            5.      The purpose for going into Iraq is not to conquer land or take natural resources. The purpose is to protect the Iraqi people, the people of the region, and indeed our own people, from a dictator who has demonstrated that he is willing to use whatever means necessary to rule over as many people as possible. President Bush made that plain when he said, “And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.”[13]

The world in which we live has changed drastically over the past year. We cannot make the mistake of waiting for Saddam Hussein to begin to use weapons of mass destruction before we try to stop him. We know his intentions, we know his history, and we know that if Saddam is not stopped the world will be a more dangerous place.

It is of great comfort to know that our president is not simply depending on his own wisdom and that of his advisors. We can find great encouragement in the closing words of President Bush’s State of the Union Address: “We Americans have faith in ourselves — but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.”[14] We must pray for our nation’s leadership, especially President Bush, that God will direct them to what is right and just in the days to come.

Bill Haynes
Senior Policy Analyst for
Cultural & Worldview Studies

Home | Email this information to a friend | Questions?