Last week, a few hours after the US and Israel entered into a state of war with Iran, I was asked if I would participate in such a war. I could not give a coherent answer, but it made me think about the whole concept of war and whether a Christian could participate in the intentional killing of fellow human beings and, if so, under what conditions. In other words, is there a time when it is reasonable for a Christian to participate in war?

To help me with that answer, I did a little research, and I discovered that the church has been thinking about this for a long time. Even as long as 1600 years ago, Christians were asking that question, and they came up with some criteria that would help us decide if it can be legitimate for a Christian to go to war.

The first criterion is this: Is going to war a last resort? Have all other means failed? Has diplomacy failed so completely that no amount of talking will change anything? War, as we know, involves the killing of people who are created in God’s image, and it makes sense that we try to avoid that unless there are no other options. War must be a last resort, not just one item on a list of possibilities in resolving a dispute. Leaders who call their nations to war must be able to prove that they have done everything they can and that violence is the only alternative left to them. With regard to the current situation, can our leaders say without qualm and with full honesty that they tried to talk but to no avail? Or might it be true that diplomacy was moving slowly and an opportunity to speed things up through violence presented itself, and they made the most of that opportunity? Is war a last resort?

The second criterion is just cause. Why is the war being waged? What are the reasons given for the war? Is justice being accomplished by going to war? Wars of conquest, where a powerful nation arms itself against a weaker one simply to obtain the resources and land of that weaker nation are not just. It is thievery, and we are told in Scripture is against God’s will. A just war, however, might include saving people whose lives are in danger. Although not fully understood at the beginning, entry into war with the Nazis saved the lives of millions, although, sadly, salvation did not come soon enough for millions more. While the ends do not justify the means, if the ends are just, sometimes the means (war), if there is no other option, do bring justice to a situation.

The third criterion is this: is there a reasonable chance of success? To answer that question, we have to first define what success looks like. Is success the overthrow of an evil regime? Or is success the elimination of weapons of mass destruction intended to be used in unjust ways? Before war can begin, those who lead their nations into war must carefully define what the purpose of the war is and then also show what success will look like. Once success has been achieved (the overthrown of an evil regime, for example), the war should come to an end. Going one step further than the stated goal would be to engage in a war that could well be deemed as illegitimate.

Even with these three criteria, there are other considerations, principle among them the welfare of civilians. While it is generally accepted that when there is war and the lives of noncombatants become insecure, it must be the goal of the military to preserve the lives of civilians as much as possible. When combat involved weapons that could be employed only in hand-to-hand combat, the threat to the lives of civilians was minimal. However, when the weapons became more powerful and could be used at greater and greater distances, civilians were placed in greater danger. Bombing runs using visual sites often resulted in high civilian casualties. With the advent of high-tech electronics and sensitive GPS devices, it is possible to place a weapon within millimetres of its intended target. Sadly, however, weapons can be mis-aimed, or their tracking system may fail, and missiles which were intended to destroy military sites tear classrooms of students into shreds. Whatever the methods used, in war, if the collateral damage (a sanitized way of saying “death of men, women and children not engaged in war”) must be minimal and must be proportionate to the cause. The death of a handful of civilians might be justified if it means the saving of the lives of thousands. It is never right, but civilian deaths generally are inevitable in a war.

As an afterthought, we would do well to be reminded of Gregory Chaucer’s words as quoted from The Canterbury Tales:

There is full many a man that cries: “War, war!” that little knows what war involves. War at its inception has so high and wide an entrance, that every man may enter when he likes and easily find war. But, truly, what end shall befall, is not easily known. For truly, when war is once begun, there is many a child yet unborn that shall die young because of that war, or else live in sorrow, and die in wretchedness. And therefore, before any war is begun, men should take counsel and deliberate deeply.

I must admit that I cannot answer the question whether I would feel compelled to participate in any war, but it does seem that before anyone enters into or supports a war, they must carefully consider whether it is the only option left to obtain justice. War, which always involves the killing of fellow human beings who are created in God’s image and thus to be protected, should never be an easy option. It should always be a last resort in which its purpose and success are clearly defined, and where the injustices it seeks to overthrow far outweigh the injustices it creates.

And, always we must consider that Jesus, though fully able to win the war against his enemy by calling upon 10,000 angels to do battle, and while being fully justified in doing so and engaging in war, did not consider war to be the last resort but gave his life instead so that others could be saved. While we might not be able to save others through self-sacrifice, we should also consider the way of following in the footsteps of Jesus.