Who would Jesus Bomb?

Today is Armistice Day, and like many people, I find myself truly confused over the issue of war.

In case you, dear reader, are not aware, there is a whole philosophical discussion on what constitutes a Just War. If you are interested to explore that - as well as the debate around it - a good place to start is Wikipedia (Click Here).

The Men's Group of my Parish - all 37 of us - packed into a small room last night to debate this very same thing. Among our number were a few ardent pacifists, who believe that war in any circumstance is morally repugnent, and anti-Christian. They pointed out that Jesus spoke only of loving one's enemy - never of killing them.

However, we also have, in our Men's Group, a number of serving and ex-military guys (a product of being so close to Portsmouth Naval Base). Many of them are also Christians - and do not find a contradiction between their faith and their profession. They point out that Jesus never condemmed the army (in fact he commended two centurions for their faith), and neither did John the Baptist (who simply told soldiers who came to him for guidance to be 'happy with their pay').

The Bible is of course packed with wars - and one interpretation of many of the battles it contains is that God has used wars between nations to bring punishment on the wicked and establish Godly rule. (By this means, for example, he used the Hebrews to punish the pagan Cannanites who were sacrificing their children, and then used the Assyrians and Babylonians to punish the Hebrews when they strayed from God's path). A modern parrallel might, of course, be God's supposed use of the British nation to lead an alliance of other nations to vanquish the evil of Naziism.

But I don't state any of this as fact. A perfectly reasonable alternative interpretation of all those biblical battles is that the middle east was (still is!) simply a mess of warring factions: a fact which was recorded for us by one of the factions, the Hebrews, along with their (perhaps flawed) attempt to understand what was going on theologically.

This is a thorny issue, to say the least. Our discussion last night, which was conducted with much civility and respect of opposing positions, demonstrated that much.

One of my good friends at the gathering expressed surprise that I would not come down on one side or the other. And I find myself similarly surprised (I'm not, as you probably know, backwards in coming forwards with an opinion!). But on this issue, I remain ambivalent, confused, undecided.

There is a large part of me that wants to believe that a pacifist position is tenable. I want to believe that if Christians would simply refuse to fight, that evil people would eventually be won over by their love. (Of course, many pacifists would say that the ultimate goal of pacifism is not to win over the enemy, but simply to be obedient to the call to love...whatever the consequences).

But I also find it hard to believe that Jesus - for whom the concept of justice was such a passion - would have stood by while millions were being hacked to death in Ruwanda. He was passionate enough in his opposition to hypocritical pharisees...what would he have said about Hitler?

Who would Jesus bomb? Perhaps any evil dictator who has caused the torture and genocide of the innocent? Is there, I wonder, a tendancy for us to focus too much on Jesus sense of compassion and forget that he also proclaimed justice...justice which (if the Old Testament and the New are to be fully understood) is often wrought through violent conflict. (See the Book of Revelation for the New Testament's war-like imagery!)

What do you think? Now is your chance to educate me, and help me make up my mind. Join the debate by clicking on the word 'comments' just below...