By Ben Talsma

Guest Writer

In the Sept. 28 edition of Chimes, Andrew Chase-Ziolek published a number of different arguments in favor of Christian pacifism. I found his case particularly unsatisfactory, and would like to present counterpoints.

First, Chase-Ziolek disputes the appropriateness of Senator John McCain's comment, ``God may have mercy on these terrorists, but we will not.'' Chase-Ziolek reminds McCain that he should ``be perfect, just as your father in heaven is perfect'' (Matt. 5:48). There is the distinct possibility, however, that McCain's use of the qualifier ``may'' indicates that he does not, in fact, assume the primacy of God's mercy over his justice; the statement provides God with the freedom to do as he chooses, but implies strongly that McCain doesn't expect to see bin Laden at the pearly gates. Operating on this assumption, McCain would expect a military pursuit of justice to emulate God's intent.

But of course, if pacifism is morally superior to retaliation, then McCain is wrong and indeed should be criticized. In an attempt to establish the superiority of the pacifist position, Chase-Ziolek mentions what he calls ``moral realism - a belief that ... some actions are wrong in all circumstances.'' I would be more inclined to dub this the moral absolutist position, but labels aside, if killing is wrong under all circumstances, then biblical evidence condemns God.

For example, Jeremiah 50:21, for example, God decrees: ``Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them.'' If war were forbidden under all circumstances, then it would be anathema for God to command Israel to take arms, as he frequently does. There is no way to defend many divine directives without introducing circumstances into the argument: if you try to differentiate between Old and New Testament law, for instance, you make the morality of an action contingent on the time at which it occurred - a circumstance. A far better argument, I believe, is to say, ``There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven ... a time to kill and a time to heal'' (Ecclesiasties 3:1-3).

The more pertinent question, then, is whether this is a time to kill. There is a case for using military or police force to break up terrorist networks and to prevent them from flourishing, and there is an opposing case for refraining from any violence or threat thereof. In his article, Chase-Ziolek makes an extensive utilitarian case that war causes more problems than it solves, although the whole argument is later deemed unsatisfactory on the basis of its utilitarianism. However, to the extent that it is extremely difficult to disagree with any attempt to solve problems and save lives, let's disregard the disregard for practical applications, and assume that it is important to examine the argument that war begets war - and therefore kills more people than it could ever save.

Let us look for a moment at the radical militancy of the current Japanese regime. According to data submitted to the United Nations by Hiroshima City in 1976, the death count of the Hiroshima attack was 140,000 people, almost all of them civilians; the resulting bitterness and resentment has created the current Japanese environment of instability and anger. Of course, there currently is no militant Japanese regime, and you never hear bellicose rhetoric from Prime Minister Koizumi. While I feel it is difficult to justify such a catastrophic attack, it is not at all difficult to argue that our action did not contribute to a cycle of violence. It is possible to argue that violence has a tendency to beget violence, but it is not a necessary consequence.

There are ways - and by all indications, President Bush's administration is pursuing them - to make people realize that justice is not revenge, and that our disruption of terrorist networks ought not to engender anti-American antipathy. The intensive endeavor to build coalition and world solidarity is a strong indication that the United States recognizes the need to fight terrorism in the minds of the multitudes. The bulk of our diplomatic resources are being brought to bear on the governments who can choose either to fuel or to stifle hatred.

Hopefully, we can utilize persuasion to such an extent that no violence is necessary. Hopefully, God gives the Taliban a collective epiphany, and they realize that their tenuous grasp on power is less important than the ethics of their actions. Hopefully, through prayer, protest and diplomatic pressure, we will be able to curtail or eliminate serious terrorist activity. If the terrorists and their abettors cannot be persuaded, however, further steps must be taken. Pacifism must have a last resort.

And this is the point at which the absolute pacifist's argument completely disintegrates, most strikingly in Chase-Ziolek's example of Nazi Germany. ``[I]t was the responsibility of the citizens of Germany to resist the radical nationalists and the anti-Semitism that followed them with every ounce of strength that they had,'' he writes. This statement contains a titanic error, beyond the location of the modifier: while the citizens should have resisted the rise of Nazism, they didn't. If we had pleaded, cajoled and implored Hitler to relent, he would have been unmoved. If we had not violently intervened, we would have been complicit with the slaughter of millions more.

We cannot assume that the entirety of mankind will act like people should; some people have been convinced by lies, will act badly and will devote - and sacrifice - their lives to evil. When confronted by an individual who threatens the rights and the lives of others, it is our responsibility to use whatever means necessary to stop them. When confronted by a power that threatens the rights and lives of others, a power so bent on its crooked path that it cannot be deterred by reason or persuasion, it is our moral obligation to save the lives of our own citizens by destroying that evil power. It is both a matter of justice and of self-defense.

It is not only morally acceptable, but also morally responsible for the United States to defend itself and to pursue justice. If we cannot do so without the use of violence, we should use as little violence as possible. We should not, however, refuse to fight the good fight simply because it involves fighting.