2 of 6

The second attitude is the opposite of the dove: the hawk. By this I mean the person who is always looking for a fight, for controversy and the use of force to get his way. While one can be sympathetic with the godly mistake of the dove, there is little or no sympathy for the man of violence. The Scriptures say, "The Lord. … hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" (Ps. 11:5), and "The anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires" (James 1:20).

So we are warned, "Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways, for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord, but the upright are in his confidence" (Prov. 3:31-32). Nowhere in the Bible do those who love violence get God's approval. Those who are pleased, thrilled, and excited about this war should look to themselves and repent, for they are out of step with God.

The third and fourth attitudes are neither pacifist nor militaristic. The difference between them is timing.

In Ecclesiastes we read the striking verse: "a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Ecc. 3:8). There is a time for governments to take action, to step into the affairs of the world with punitive action, be it by the police, the judiciary, or the military. There is "a time for war."

But when is the time? Was Neville Chamberlain right in his timing, or too slow to go to war? Was Winston Churchill right or too precipitous? It is a matter of human judgment of the pragmatics and strategy of war. We are not God, and we do not know what to do.

"Not yet," then, is the third position—those who say that this is "not yet" the time for war. Maybe if the United Nations did more, maybe if Iraq invaded a neighboring country, or if more clear evidence of a terrorist connection could be established—but not now, with the present information and the present activities of the government of Iraq.

Many who believe our government has acted too quickly have been tempted to disparage it, even condemn it as immoral and genocidal. But the Bible says we must nonetheless respect those who are appointed over us in government. The first-century Christians were called upon to respect and obey the tyrannical and persecuting Roman government of their day as being appointed by God. It is no less incumbent on us to respect our leaders (Rom. 13:1, 1 Pet. 2:13). And we must not attack the servicemen and servicewomen who, obedient to the duly elected government of the day, are willing to lay down their lives to protect our freedom, including our freedom to dissent from government opinion.

The fourth attitude is that of our government—"at last" we have had to act. Those who hold this position must remember God is not on one side in this war. He is not utterly disinterested, but neither does he identify completely with one side or the other. This is our war, not his. This war cannot be fought in the name of God. Even if we realize that this is not a religious war, as the governments of England, the United States, and Australia have been forcefully arguing, we may still feel that God is on our side. But that cannot be known from the Bible.

Furthermore, it is worth reminding ourselves to keep listening to others and weighing the costs and benefits of the war. For as the Bible teaches, "By wise guidance you can wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory" (Prov. 24:6). And as Jesus said, "What king, going out to encounter another in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace" (Luke 14:31-32).

next page... |  2 of 6

share this page

May 2003, Vol. 47, No. 5