Can a Soldier Love Their Enemy?
I am a Christian and a pastor and I am in the military. I have actually read in books that it is impossible to be both a Christian and be in the military. I think I am doing both.
I have been having a conversation with someone on Twitter and the person makes some good points.
Now to be clear, I am an army chaplain and I will never be given a weapon or be asked to kill another person. But I don’t counsel Christians in the military to release because it is against the faith.
Let’s look at the entire passage regarding loving enemies.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)
Instead of just grabbing the “Love your neighbor” part, we need to be reading this in the surrounding context and the context of the Gospels.
What is the main point that Jesus is trying to make? Most of chapter five (Sermon on the Mount) is challenging claims of self-righteousness. Boasting of not committing adultery is no good when you have lust in your heart. Boasting of not committing murder is no good if you have hatred in your heart.
Jesus’ contemporaries would agree that they are to love their neighbours. But who are their neighbours? The average person would say they are people just like them. People that are not that hard to love.
Throughout the Gospels Jesus works to redefine “neighbour.” The parable of the Good Samaritan is one example. Here in the Sermon the Mount, Jesus is saying that it is not enough to love people who are lovable, we need to love those who hate us. We need to love our enemies.
But isn’t killing enemies in war unloving? Isn’t it hating enemies? This may seem strange but killing doesn’t always come from a place of hate.
Imagine a school where there is an active shooter. Several children lie dead or wounded on the ground. The shooter is looking for more. A police officer arrives, pulls out their weapon and shoots. Is that shot taken out of personal hatred for the shooter, who presumably the police officer doesn’t know, or out of a desire to protect the children?
Obviously not every act of force by a police officer is always just. Recent events have proven that. I am just trying to make a point that killing does not have to emerge out of a feeling of hate.
Even if it does not come from hate, shooting a person, even if they are an aggressor can hardly be called loving.
There are times when one can not love the aggressor and the victim in the same way. While it may be loving to not use force on the aggressor, that may not be loving toward the victim. Using force against an enemy is not ideal, but when it can be used to save a victim, I believe that it is the better way.
But my conversation partner doesn’t just focus on using force to protect victims but on using force to protect oneself.
Didn’t Jesus say to turn the other cheek? Doesn’t that mean that we never seek to protect oneself? I deal with this in more detail here. I believe that Jesus is talking about revenge rather than self-protection.
But didn’t Jesus demonstrate the need for non-resistance by the cross? The problem with using this example is that it is clear that Jesus had to go to the cross. He didn’t resist, not just because resistance is always wrong, but because it was God’s intention that Jesus go to the cross. It could be argued that the Jesus of Revelation is not demonstrating non-resistance in the face of evil.
This of course is not the final word. But hopefully it will keep the conversation going.
many christians have no problem in coming up with reasons not to pay attention to what their supposed messiah says. In the verses about turning the other cheek, it says nothing about it being revenge or self-protection. what it says is pretty simple and a pacifist attitude:
“27 “But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.” – Luke 6
and again “38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” – Matthew 5
Matt 5 is very clear: “Do not resist an evildoer.” No exceptions are given. This would indicate that it is entirely wrong to wage war, no matter who the enemy is.
A lot of Christians would offer the excuse that JC advised his followers to get a sword, said he was bringing “the sword” and that this character used violence in the story about the clearing of the temple. The problem with the temple story is that this god supposedly made it necessary for people to sacrifice animals and use special money, so JC was going against this god by his actions. It makes little sense in the context of a messiah who said that everyone should follow all of his father’s laws no matter what.
The stories about swords are another matter. We have JC saying that he is not peaceful but will cause people to hate each other and requires people to follow him without question or suffer the consequences, standard cult leader talk. We also have him saying that those who live by the sword will die by it. So which is it, is violence okay or not? We also have the weirdness in Luke where JC wants people to have swords (two for twelve guys), but when they use one then JC doesn’t want them to.
As for Jesus “needing” to go to the cross, no, he didn’t. God doesn’t “need” to do anything, right? If it does, then there is a power superior to it. it decreed the rules of the game and it, at any time, could change them. That this god evidently needs satan to pull off this nonsense shows that resisting evil isn’t part of the story, especially since this god again works with evil with no problem in Revelation.
this makes no sense again. The bible really needed an editor.
In basic training, are not soldiers taught to de-humanise the enemy and to hate them? (It’s harder to kill someone, otherwise.) Should a Christian soldier not question this approach?
And here’s another thought:
How might a Christian soldier rationalise the killing of a fellow-Christian soldier who just happens to be fighting on the other side? (There’s very little I can find online that addresses this, in my view, very important question.) I guess I’m thinking of World War I… Surely, there must have been many thousands of combattants who were in this position. (Surely, some must have been aware that they were likely, albeit unwittingly, to take the lives of fellow-Christians…?)