By Brad Bulthuis

Guest Writer

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center have resulted in many different reactions. Ignorant Americans have decided to take out their anger on Arab-Americans throughout the country. The President has declared a war on terrorism. We don't exactly know what that means, since the Mr. Bush has not elaborated on this declaration in detail. It is not the intent of this article to figure out what actions will be taken or what actions should be taken. I will not make the moral judgments necessary to determine the proper military response to the tragedy. There are far too many things to consider and far too many opinions on those things to properly judge the situation within the scope of this article. I do, however, wish to consider war more generally.

There is a difference of opinion on war. It stems from a difference of opinion on the nature of war. Those who oppose war totally, or consider it a ``necessary evil,`` view was as just that: evil. War, they say, is something that is inherently against human nature. It degrades and devalues human life by saying that it is something that can easily be taken away. This, in essence, makes the idea of a ``just war'' impossible. The consequences of a war do not make the war itself just. It may be necessary, but the act itself is wrong. Responding to greater evil with lesser does not make the lesser evil ``just'' or good. War makes it impossible for the dead to repent of the sins that caused the war. Human nature is corrupt, and war is a manifestation of that corruption.

Another view of the nature of war does exist however. This view holds that war is not inconsistent with Christianity. It is this view of war that I endorse. When war seeks to put right an injustice, it can be considered ``just.'' John Calvin argued that ``[War] is God-like because God restrains evil out of love for His creatures'' (First Things, Oct. 2001). Out of a love that imitates God's love, we are called to love those who suffer unjustly. This turns the opposing view of war around. The focus is not on a prohibition of force, but of injustice. Love for your neighbor is being Christ-like. This love should be extended toward those who are under a brutal regime. Failure to act doesn't fully show love since it leaves the weak or suppressed in suffering.

Love was the main message that Jesus gave to us, demonstrated perfectly through his sacrifice. The example that Jesus set for us should not be mistaken, however. Many people use Jesus' sacrifice and unwillingness to respond to attack as a prescription for pacifism. Jesus is our redeemer. He did many things while he was on earth. The reason he remained on the cross was not that he was morally against responding to attacks. He had to remain on the cross in order to fully redeem our sins. He was not setting the example for pacifism.

Jesus and Paul did not display a ``Christian pacifism that requires a lifetime of civil disobedience'', as an article in last week`s Chimes said (``The Duties of Christian Pacifism'', Sept. 28). The idea of civil disobedience may be reasoned from the Bible, but I don't think the examples in the Bible call for it.

Many Israelites in Jesus' time thought that he was the Messiah of the line of David who would free the Israelites from Roman domination. Jesus clearly stated that he was not. That wasn't the freedom that he was there to give, violently or through reform. That wasn't his goal. Paul didn't preach pacifism either. He preached the gospel. Neither one sought to change the political situation in anyway, violently or peacefully. It is problematic to use either Jesus or Paul as evidence that we should change our situation or anyone elses.

There is a proper way to view war. War is not a ``necessary evil.'' It can be a reflection of the love for our neighbor of which Jesus spoke. Leaving the injustice to itself would be to turn away from Christ. It would be a failure to show love to a neighbor that needs it the most.

Now that war has been discussed in general terms, let's look at reality. Theoretically, war may be an expression of God's love. That, however, was much easier to say and believe in Calvin's day than in ours. Religious wars are not a reality for the United States. For the United States to declare war on Islam is impossible because the United States is not a religious entity, but a civic entity. Our national identity is, obviously, not based on our religion since so many religions coexist in relative peace. Our government does not act with the intention of spreading the love of God and bringing forth his kingdom. As a whole, I don't think we can classify our wars as ``just'' because they lack that element.

In theory, a just war can exist. In reality, I have a hard time finding one. Each side thinks they are just, either politically or religiously. I find it much too difficult to label one nation's struggle as just or unjust. We must consider the justice of a war when deciding our own, personal response to an attack. When considering personal motivations behind force, justice can be used. However, when push comes to shove, war may be necessary. Yes, people should have done more to prevent the Holocaust, but there came a point when force was needed to stop those behind it. War can be just and unjust. Those who would fight must examine their own intentions to see if they may be a messenger of God's love through taking up arms.