Re: Palestinian Doctor has 3 daughters killed by Israeli Tan
The ethical dilemmas surrounding the theology of a just or unjust war are vexing for many.
One of the better treatments of this subject can be found in Dr. Norman Geisler's work: Christian Ethics: Options and Issues.
By personal experience and by theological conviction I affirm the ideas that affirm Covenant Headship, even Natural Headship. In other words, if I live in a country whether I like it or not I am affected by the decisions of my natural or covenant head leaders. Just as Eve and all of us were affected by Adam's choice to sin against God we were born with a corrupt or tainted nature.
But, mercy is always a concurrent doctrine which according to James takes precedence over justice. Thus, I am thankful both when our government does their best not to kill or destroy "innocent" citizens when invading a particular region or country. Though it is not always doable I am grateful and believe the goal to avoid innocent citizens is a worthy and honorable goal if at all possible.
Justice and mercy though are at times tough tensions that are on a scale.
Unless someone embraces a theology of pacifism then there is then grades or nuances of what is classified as a just war and how a war is to be fought justly. Most ethicists in philosophy and theology and embrace the idea that at the minimum a war in order to defend the innocent is a just war as it is a war designed with the teleological goal of having peace. In such versions then generally war is justified on the right of the government to use the Sword (Romans 13) but then a proper use of the sword is only for those who seek to kill without cause. Strictly speaking that is one of the more tight and sound positions in mature Evangelical theology and natural philosophical schools of thought.
However, pacifism has its proponents who are often called peace churches. From one website Peace churches "are Christian denominations explicitly advocating pacifism. The term historic peace churches refers specifically to three church traditions: the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites (and some other Anabaptists, such as Amish and Hutterites), and the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends). The historic peace churches have, from their origins as far back as the 16th century, always taken the position that Jesus was himself a pacifist who explicitly taught and practiced pacifism, and that his followers must do likewise. Pacifist churches vary on whether physical force can ever be justified in self-defense or protecting others, as many adhere strictly to nonresistance when confronted by violence. But all agree that violence on behalf of a country or a government is prohibited for Christians."
The issue with those views however is the failure to see the distinction between personal action in the name of Christ and governmental action which is and has been given the power and right to use the sword to protect the good and put down evil and those who do wrong.
I find it interesting that the pacifists would not have the freedom to oppose or speak their minds if it were not for those who gave of their life and time to defend their rights to be free enough to speak such views.
As far as the Israeli tank and its destruction of a home and children that is certainly an awful situation. All of us who have hearts devoted to the love of Christ hurt for that man and his family. Yet too, there has to be questions asked: why was the tank there? Did the tank malfunction and was it on purpose or accident? Was it the goal of the tank or commanders to target innocent citizens? If so then even if the war itself on the whole is just then the individual act would not be in that part. However, an overall just war can never by the rules of logic or biblical precedent be classed as an unjust war just because of some innocent civilian deaths.
This goes back to the above points about natural headship. A citizen is under the protection and liability of his or her natural or covenant heads in regard to the state or country. If a person lives in and under a corrupt government and is under their rule he or she or the whole citizenry will likely suffer the consequences of the evil actions of the ruler. This is the natural law of natural headship that God has ordained and established in his universe.
Hypothetically if this week our country here in the USA decides it wants to begin destroying countries for the mere fun of it I will suspect and expect others countries to take out this government leadership. In that process many of us would likely die and/or be injured in that process. It is the natural consequence of being yoked together with a corrupt system.
I would not like it. If I could leave I would. But I could not blame or hold in totality the other countries responsible if they were working to put down evil and in that process I or my family got caught up in the crossfire. Just as I suffered when Adam sinned, and thus experienced eternal death by his stupid decision (see Romans 5), so too if my covenant or natural government heads make a dumb and stupid decision I shall too suffer for it. And this is too one reason why many philosophers uphold the idea of a democratic-republic. The idea is a natural outworking of the idea that if I am going to suffer for what my heads do then I need to have a say in who gets to be the heads.
