All photos from Wheaton College Special Collections
I wrote a novel set during The Great War which affected my thoughts on war.
How should we see war? How should we react? What is war?
Oswald Chambers, a noted Bible teacher in the years leading up to World War I, had interesting insights which bear examination.
He believed elements of war are inevitable, as recorded in the December 4 devotional of My Utmost for His Highest:
“Life without war is impossible either in nature or in grace. The basis of physical, mental, moral, and spiritual life is antagonism. This is the open fact of life.”
Antagonism is always apparent in men and women and has been with us since Cain and Abel. On a broad scale, that will lead to war and certainly that’s what happened in 1914.
Oswald Chambers presented an interesting angle on what war is and why it occurs.
His article in the September 1914 issue of Tongues of Fire, addressed these thoughts:
“Is war of the devil or of God?
“It is of neither.
“It is of man, though God and the devil are both behind it.
War is a conflict of wills either in individuals or in nations, and just now there is a terrific conflict of wills in nations. Click to Tweet
“Our Lord insists on the inevitability of peril. Right through His talks with His disciples, without panic and without passion and without fear He says, ‘you must lay your account with this sort of thing, with war, with spite, with hatred and with jealousy, with despising, with banishment and with death. Now remember I have told you these things that when they happen you may not be scared.’ [Luke 21]
“We are not only hearing of wars and commotions, they are here right enough. It is not imagination, it is not newspaper reports, the thing is here at our doors, there is no getting away for it. War, such as history of the world has never know, has now begun.
Jesus Christ did not say: You will understand why the war has come–but : Do not be scared, do not be in a panic.
There is one thing worse than war, and that is sin. Click to Tweet
“We get tremendously scared when our social order is broken up, and well we may. We get terrorized by hundreds of men being killed, but we forget there is something worse–sinful dastardly lives being lived day by day, year in and year out in our villages and towns . . . these are things that produce pain in the heart of God, not the wars, and devastation that so upset us.
“Are the terrors, that are abroad producing panic? You never saw anybody in a panic who did not grab for themselves whether it was sugar or butter or nations.
“Jesus would never allow His disciples to be in a panic. The one great crime on the part of a disciple, according to Jesus Christ, is worry.
Whenever we begin to calculate without God we commit sin.” Click to Tweet
(Taken from David McCasland’s Oswald Chambers: Abandoned to God, pp 194-195)
Chambers, as always, goes to the heart. The root cause of war is sin, individual sin.
It’s an interesting concept, because our own sin is something we can control.
Once it starts in one person’s heart, however, and is allowed to grow unchecked, it can spread to another and another until the whole world is up in flames.
On serving during WWI
He was not a pacifist. Oswald Chambers “enlisted” in the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) chaplaincy corps, to help those going to war.
Oswald and Biddy closed down his Bible Training College in 1915 and headed to Egypt where he served at the Zeitoun YMCA camp, six miles north of Cairo.
There, Oswald spoke to crowded tents of ANZAC soldiers at Zeitoun, teaching them from the Bible and helping prepare their hearts for their service in battle.
“They” say there are no atheists in foxholes. Chambers worked to ensure everyone who crossed his path understood his significance to God and what that meant, before they faced eternity.
On Wednesday nights, Chambers preached at Ezbekieh Gardens in downtown Cairo, not far from the famous Shepherd’s Hotel. The YMCA rented three acres of grounds at Ezbekieh as a rest and recreation center for the troops. Chambers lectured, much like Billy Graham, after hymn singing, piano playing and other entertainment. His was a popular ministry.
How do you deal with war? Particularly war you did not bring upon yourself?
Oswald Chambers took it upon himself to use that war, those circumstances, as an opportunity for men and women to examine their personal consciences and make choices about their lives–both then and in eternity.
He did not take up a rifle, but he laid down his life.
When Oswald Chambers died on November 15, 1917, the British military command in the Middle Eastern Theater understood the significance of his death. He may have been a YMCA chaplain, but in that heat and humidity, they delayed Chambers’ burial for a day.
They wanted, and they did, bury him with full military honors.
Have you ever likened your own personal sins to war?
How should Christians respond to war?
Do you agree with Oswald Chambers that “Life without war is impossible either in nature or in grace?” Click to Tweet
Great post, Michelle. Oswald Chambers is one of my favorites. I love how he goes deep into the scripture and doesn’t sugar coat the Word of God. Is war avoidable in the natural or the spiritual? As long as there is a battle between good and evil, between the Spirit and the flesh, the battle will always rage.
Amen. The notion that we’re all at war–with sin–was profound for me. Thanks.
This is an interesting topic, and raises some challenging questions.
I’m not sure about the comparison of personal sin to war, except in the broadest sense. While it’s true that personal sin saddens the Almighty, war goes beyond even an exponential magnification of sin.
It’s an obscenity in itself, that breeds and fosters both specific sins, and an environment in which they can flourish and grow.
This is true even of the just war, because both mercy and proportionality of action have to be suspended as lesser evils to eliminate a greater evil. The only way to stop the Nazis was to kill as many soldiers and civilians as possible, as quickly as possible, to destroy both the will and the ability of a truly evil enemy to continue resistance.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are another case in point. Upward of a hundred thousand civilians died, many of who at least passively opposed the war foisted on them by Japan’s rulers. Thousands of children were immolated.
And yet…the slaughters at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa would have been a drop in the ‘bucket of blood’ that would have stained the East had an invasion of the Home Islands been attempted.
Is it right to kill some of the innocent, to save more of them? Where does the greater sin lie? And both are sins.
Personal sin is a personal choice, but the sin of war is only a choice to the very few at the top levels of leadership. That’s the only place where a comparison might be drawn.
Anywhere below elephant level, the sins of war are institutionalized, and in a just war are explicitly placed into the service of the good cause.
The question of how Christians should respond to war has something of a Scripturally ambiguous answer. When Jesus healed the servant of the Centurion, he didn’t say, “Oh, and while you’re listening…quit your job.”
On the other hand, He told Peter that living by the sword ensured death by the sword.
Some think that He’d already written off the Centurion as a pagan, and that peter was being held to a higher standard, but the praise He gave to the Centurion as a man of faith would seem to torpedo that premise.
My thought is that He saw the need for a professional military to keep order in a fallen world, and was glad to see that at least one man was stepping beyond the temporal into a transcendent faith.
With Peter, on the other hand, I think that what He was saying was that a hot-headed, passionate response – literally, making the sword one’s life as making it one’s ‘heart’ – would only lead to death. (John Hershey’s novel “The War Lover” explores this in detail.)
And not just a physical death – taking violence into the heart forces a person not just to sin, but to BECOME sin.
And then, of course, there’s turning the other cheek. But I think that’s more easily dismissed as a prohibition on war; in context, it seems to be advice to the Apostles (and by extension to every Christian) that persecution for faith is inevitable, and that in the face of that specific persecution we should be meek, and not militantly self-protective.
It doesn’t seem to proscribe the just war. The Good Shepherd, after all, lays down his life for his flock, but he doesn’t just let the lions eat him before moving on to the lamb and mutton. He goes down fighting, protecting the flock to the death.
So how should Christians wage war (assuming the valid concept of a just war)? Coldly and dispassionately. They should kill when necessary, but not a moment longer. They should show mercy when possible, but not at the expense of allowing further and worse atrocities – sins – to occur.
They should be benevolent in victory, and tenacious in defeat, never giving up and surrendering to the dominion of sin.
Finally, is life without war impossible either in nature or in grace? Certainly, if one accepts the premise of ‘war in Heaven’. Why should we have it any different?
Well, THAT was a long-winded comment.
Very insightful, Andrew, and you’ve obviously thought these arguments through most closely than I. I appreciate your comment about Peter and the Centurian; I agree, Jesus was looking at their hearts and responding to what was there.
While my husband was in the service, we attended Officer Christian Fellowship Bible studies in which a great emphasis was placed on “servant leadership,” a military officer could not well lead his men unless he had an attitude of a servant. I see the military role as a vital one to preserve and protect. I’m not sure what I would have thought and felt had I lived in an aggressor nation like Germany or Japan. I’ll write a post at some point about President Wilson and the travesty of the ending of the Great War. He came at war in some ways as you’ve indicated–balking for six years but when he went in, he went in to win like Sherman.
Unfortunately, pride got into Wilson’s way and he could not admit when he was ill–which is one of the reasons I believe the 1919 treaty was so devastating to Germany and set the stage for World War II. Stay tuned.
I like your lion and lamb analogy as well.
Thank you for a very thorough comment.
And thank you for bringing up this topic, Michelle – it’s important.
Servant leadership is vital in an effective military organization, though it’s often neglected based on the inherent military class structure. The Marine rule of “officers eat and rest last” is one of the finest implementations of this concept around.
The question of what the responsibilities are for a citizen of an aggressor nation are complicated, and defy easy analysis.
As an Asian, I am more familiar with Japanese culture and values, and can speak to those, at least to some degree. The Germans leave me flummoxed.
I think one has to consider the large view-small view conundrum. While the overall aims of Japan were completely immoral, the duty of a Japanese soldier, sailor, or airmen to those in his immediate vicinity may fall under John the Baptist’;s exhortation against exceeding authority.
Mordecai Sheftall’s masterful work, “Blossoms in the Wind – The Human Legacies of the Kamikaze” explores this in some depth. In the West, we see the self-immolation of the Kamikaze as being something beyond barbaric, ‘killing for the sake of killing’; but that really wasn’t the case. These young men believed what they were told, that the Americans would destroy their society and culture, rape their mothers and sisters, and casually kill their younger siblings. With that sincere belief – and some Japanese were Christians – they could be likened more to the firemen who went into the World trade Center towers, knowing they would likely fall,rather than to the 9/11 terrorists of Al-Quaeda.They were motivated by a love, and a desire to protect, rather than a blind desire to kill.
The point you make about Wilson’s handling of Versailles is excellent. Pride and anger – understandable anger – led the Allies to impose a less-than-benevolent peace on Germany, and it did water the seeds of an almost unique xenophobic nationalism which found its expression in Hitler.
Contrast that with the enlightened Marshall Plan, and with MacArthur’;s administration of Japan, which turned defeated adversaries into our staunchest Allies!
I look forward to your future posts on this subject, and hope that one day you will look more closely at the actions of those unlucky enough to have to serve in the militaries of the aggressor nations.
At your recommendation, Andrew, I bought my brother Blossoms in the Wind for Christmas . . . though he’s never said anything about it.
I don’t know the answer to those who are caught by their government and must serve no matter their convictions; my husband was in the volunteer Navy. Japan, of course, was led by military officers who did not want to go to war, so in 1936, there was a coup and they were swept away. The march then began. I don’t know what I would have done. Certainly there were many genuine believers amid the German Army; I don’t know how they squared their beliefs with what happened, though from Bonhoeffer we know the church had pretty much been marginalized.
I just found Chambers’ comments interesting because they were published a month after the war began. Serbia had been looking for a fight for a long time; it was the treaties that dragged everyone into the war. Once Russia mobilized, there was no stepping back–they could not recall their reservists. Tragedy all around. MacArthur, of course, learned from Wilson’s mistakes; he welcomed missionaries with an emphasis on grace into post war, Japan, I believe. Thanks for your, as usual, insightful comments.
This comment was emailed to me from a vet:
My first thought is regarding the point Oswald was trying to make – we focus on the horror of war, as if this makes war the worse sin. God focuses on the horror of sin (disobedience to His will) and makes no distinction on which sins are worse. We excuse ourselves, because our sin isn’t so bad as (fill in the blank). This would be my caution to Andrew on his opening statement “war goes beyond…” We need to remember that the penalty for sin is the same, regardless of what the sin is, and it required the same payment.
The theological reason behind this deals with not the sin, but against whom we have sinned. If I threaten the life of a plant no one gets too concerned (weed killer that I am), if I threaten the life of an animal I better have a justification, if I threaten the life of a person the law will react, if I threaten the life of a president the full force of the law will fall upon me. Thus, even we recognize the seriousness of a crime is linked to whom the crime is against. As God is infinite in power and authority, rebellion against Him of any sort warrants eternal death.
My second observation is the dangerous idea of a “just” war. This is an inferred Biblical concept, not direct, which is why there has been so much debate on this issue. A more challenging, and today more relevant, question is how should a Christian serve in the military of a post Christian country (who will fight unjust wars)? This was the problem facing soldiers to whom John the Baptist gave guidance. He didn’t tell them to leave their service but only to not abuse their position. We are called to be in this world but not of it. We are called to salt and light in the world, not to separate ourselves from them. We are not called to be successful, only faithful.
Good points!
What I was trying to express by referring to sin as ‘going beyond’ is the depth to which an individual becomes enmeshed in sinful practice.
It’s a sin for a middle-aged man to ogle the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, but the remedy is fairly straightforward, and requires focus and discipline. It’s not difficult.
On the other hand, consider a young German who was raised in a Christian household, and was drawn into the Nazi orbit, to the point of committing atrocities as a member of the SS. Retreat from that depth is difficult, as it requires not only a conscious choice to step back, but also the potential of a very unpleasant death at the hands of his former cohorts.
Stepping back is necessary, yes, absolutely, but the ‘;institutionalization’ of sin makes the process of returning to grace that much harder.
It would seem that compelling others to sin is more pernicious than individual sin; Jesus implies this through His talk on what would befall those who led children down the wrong path. He was quite specific in His condemnation of such a course of action,
It’s true that the concept of a just war is inferred, but I think that the inference is fairly strong, certainly from an Old Testament perspective.
It’s definitely more ambiguous in he New testament, but the advice of John the baptist not to exceed authority is a good starting point for a theological justification, along with the aforementioned duties of the Good Shepherd.
The unjust wars waged by a post-Christian society are a tougher issue, and there I think the Christian is faced with having to make a moral choice of what’s worse – serving a fundamentally non-Christian authority, or allowing atrocities to continue. The parable of the Good Samaritan points us toward involvement – but what would the Samaritan’s preferred actions have been had he actually seen the traveler being assaulted?
C.S. Lewis points out that Christianity is not a teetotal religion, like Islam or Sikhism – and I think that a point can be made that it’s not a fundamentally pacifist religion like Jainism. Jesus Himself resorted to physical violence in the Temple. Whether he injured the moneychangers is not known, but He sure scared them, begging the question of finding a distinction between the threat of force and its application.