War--Immoral, Moral, Prudent?

Luther was not someone who categorically ruled out war. But he was someone who taught that only defensive wars are wars approved by God. And even those wars should be engaged in when it is prudent to do so.

As America is once again engaged in a war, I find Luther's way of thinking about war very helpful to assess what is going on from a sound Christian perspective. That's why I thought it's good to unpack what Luther has to say on these important issues. Maybe you find Luther's teachings helpful as well to get some basic categories for analysis and assessment.

Before we get into these teachings, Luther's essential teachings on war are set forth in these two books you can download and read for free in an accessible translation published by Lutheran Press: Luther's book on Christians serving as soldiers and Luther's book on Christians and government. If you are not familiar with these important works, I'd recommend that you download and read them carefully. For the broader context of Luther's teachings on war, please check out my new book, God's Masks.

Christians May Support and Fight in Wars

Luther taught that the government may wage war and that Christians may serve as soldiers and fight the government's battles. How did he arrive at this conclusion? Did not Christ say that he who takes the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52) and that his followers should not resist evil but turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)? No doubt, Christ said that. And Luther affirmed it as absolutely binding on all Christians--whether they serve as soldiers, husbands, wives, parents, children, employers, employees, government leaders, or citizens.

But while affirming these commandments of Christ , Luther also affirmed that John the Baptist told soldiers to be content with their wages, not to lay down their weapons (Luke 3:14). Luther also affirmed that Paul taught that the government is instituted by God, is God's servant, and does not bear the sword in vain (Romans 13:1, 4). Luther also affirmed that the believers who lived in the time of the Old Testament--e.g., Abraham (Genesis 14:14-16) and David--waged war.

How could both be true? Many serious Christians before and after Luther struggled with this seeming tension: How can one not resist evil while being a solider? Isn't the job of a soldier to resist evil? Some have therefore said: As a Christian, you cannot be a solider. Others have said, if you want to be a perfect Christian, you cannot be a soldier but must withdraw from the world (e.g., by living in a monastery). But if you are a regular Christian who lives in the world, it's ok, you can go and fight and protect those perfect Christians who live in a monastery.

Luther disagreed with these two positions because for him, Christian perfection is not a matter of some outward lifestyle, such as a withdrawal from the world (monastery, pacifism, etc.). Rather, it is a matter of faith in Christ. It's by faith in Christ that sinners are justified and made perfect before God. In other words, we are Christians by faith in Christ alone. And as individual believers, we may not and will not resist evil. Rather, like Christ, we must and will turn the other cheek and live in peace even with our enemies, commending our cause to God who judges justly, just like Christ (1 Peter 2:21-23).

But we do not live as individual believers in this world. Rather, we live as neighbors in this world. Our faith in Christ produces love, i.e., it moves us to serve our neighbors in love. Love, by definition, seeks what is beneficial to the neighbor. And love that grows out of faith only seeks what is beneficial to the neighbor according to God's will.

Pulling texts like the ones I referenced above together, Luther explained that Christians serving as neighbors resist evil only for the sake of their neighbor, not for their own sake. That is the only kind of resisting evil Christians may engage in. And so it is that we don't resist evil (for our own benefit) while at the same time we do resist evil (for the benefit of our neighbor).

As soldiers fighting in battle know from personal experience, if you wish to serve your neighbor as a soldier, you have to put up with a lot of really evil stuff: Drones hover over your head. Shrapnel from rockets injure you. You have to deal with cold, heat, hunger, thirst, fear, fatigue, and separation from your loved ones at home. You even have to expect the ultimate evil: death itself. Soldiers, however, put up with these evils to serve their fellow citizens--so that these neighbors can live without having to contend with these evils themselves as untrained civilians.

If you try to avoid any and all of these and similar evils, you will be of no use to your neighbor. You'll just live your own life in splendid isolation--exercising your "right" to be left alone--and avoid and any all commitments to your fellow human beings. But this is not how Christians should live because they are commanded to love their neighbor as themselves.

So, serving as a solider in war may be one way in which Christians may serve their neighbor in a selfless manner: By not resisting evil as far their own property and life is concerned, they seek to resist evil for the good of their neighbor.

Defensive War as the Only Legitimate War

Does that mean Christians may serve in any war, so long as they have a selfless attitude in their heart, e.g., by dedicating their lives to the greatness of the Nation?

For Luther, the answer to this important question was a clear NO.

Why? Because the Christian life, while motivated by faith in Christ in the heart, is lived according to God's law summarized in love (Romans 13:8-10). Faith in Christ is therefore not some magic motivational pill that we can use and manipulate to motivate people to do what WE want them to do. After all, faith is not an attitude humans can conjure up in their hearts or in the hearts of others. Instead, faith is given and sustained by the Holy Spirit. As a result, it seeks to please God by living according to HIS will. Put differently, a properly selfless attitude does not go with engaging in certain wars.

Those familiar with Luther's Small Catechism are familiar with the fact that Luther, in the part of the Ten Commandments, introduced the explanation to commandments two through ten by the words: "We should fear and love God so that we ...." He did that to tie these commandments back to the First Commandment which commands us to "fear, love, and trust in God above all things."

"Trust in God"--the Creed lays out who this God is and what he has done and continues to do for the world: the Father created and sustains the world, the Son redeemed the fallen world, and Holy Spirit brings the Son's redemption to the world by the message of the gospel. Christians trust in this God. Our faith in this God is active by leading our lives according to the commandments of this God.

One of these commandment is the Fifth Commandment: "You shall not kill." What does this commandment require of all people, according to Luther? Well, it again requires them to "fear and love God." And as they fear and love God, they "may not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need."

Here you again have the two strands I talked about at the beginning of this post: Not hurting our neighbors by not resisting (or committing!) evil. Instead, helping and befriending--or serving--our neighbor in every bodily need, even in the need of having to defend their physical lives.

Based on the foregoing, it is evident that, for Luther, only defensive wars were permissible. Only in a defensive war do you defend the bodily lives of your neighbors--not because you want to but because love compels you to do something about your neighbor's need. In a war of aggression, by contrast, you are not defending any lives because there was no threat against your neighbors. Instead, you are destroying lives. You are harming your neighbor in his body--not because you have to but because you want to. Why would you want to do this? For your own glory? To get your hands on your neighbors' money? Their land? Their resources (water, oil, lithium, ...)? Their bodies (slavery)? Their souls (conversions)? This you may not do.

When discussing which wars are acceptable to God, Luther cited Psalm 68:30 where David prays that God may scatter those who delight in war. For Luther, the ones who delight in war are those who fight wars of aggression, wars of choice. They don't engage in defensive wars, wars of necessity, wars that are forced on them by their enemies, wars they engage in reluctantly.

So, Christians may support and serve in defensive wars. They may do so because these wars are necessary to defend the lives and possessions of their neighbors. Not because they delight in war. Not because they are drunk on crushing their enemies with their own technological superiority. Not because a war promises great rewards to them. Not because they've finally succumbed to their bloodlust.

Prudent War

Someone once quipped that the first casualty in war is the truth. Indeed, it's not always possible to know right away who fired the first shot in a war, who was the aggressor and who the victim of aggression. And sometimes, nations are locked in cycles of violence that have lasted for generations--who did fire the first shot or the first arrow?

In 1939, e.g., Germany claimed that it had to fight back when it started World War 2 by attacking Poland. In fact, German forces staged several false-flag operations which German propaganda used to blame the outbreak of war on the Poles. Even before these operations, German propaganda had accused Poland of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. "Finally," someone had to do something about all this injustice! That something turned out to be a war of annihilation that eventually consumed Germany as well.

This is typical for wars of aggression. Because they are wars of choice, the real reason for why a particular war is chosen at a particular time may need to be concealed. It may not be palatable for a leader's supporters. Phony reasons are offered instead that typically have to do with defending the homeland or a valued ally. As the saying goes, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

Still, there are genuine defensive wars. Think of the Allies during World War 2 where America in particular was reluctant to enter that war. In our time, think of Ukraine's brave struggle against various invasions by the Russian armed forces, beginning in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea.

Luther was willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it is not clear whether a particular war is defensive or not. To be sure, Luther did not mean allowing for this kind of doubt to be a blank check for the government to do as it pleases when it comes to war--so long as it pumps out some type of propaganda to dupe its own citizens. But there will be instances when reasonable people, arguing in good faith, will reasonably disagree on whether a specific war is defensive or not.

Importantly, while a government may successfully deceive its own citizens and allies, God will not be deceived. He is not confused by the fog of war generated by governmental and non-governmental smoke machines. He sees what is in the heart and judges accordingly. So if we are deceived in love that believes all things while not rejoicing in iniquity but in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6-7), it will not harm our souls. But it will harm the souls of those who deceive us.

In any event, Luther rejected a mindset of automatic military retaliation for any hostile act, no matter how slight. Just because your cause is just--because you did not initiate hostilities--does not mean that you should go to war. Generally speaking, it is better to put up with a small evil to avoid a big evil.

So, when should you go to war, according to Luther? Simply put, when it's necessary and prudent to do so.

As Luther understood it, prudence is an amazing virtue. Acting prudently means to do the right thing using the right means at the right time. Prudence coordinates the other virtues so that a good, life-preserving, prosocial result is the outcome. Prudence carefully weighs the costs and the benefits of a contemplated course of action. Prudence looks at the big picture. Prudence is the result of (life) experience.

For Luther, the virtue of prudence is equivalent to love in the biblical sense--love that serves the neighbor instead of hurting the neighbor (Romans 13:8-10).

Applying this to war, Luther stated that "justice and injustice are never a sufficient cause to ... go to war indiscriminately." As Luther explained, those who must make the decision of when to "fight back" against military aggression must consider whether it is prudent to "risk a country for the sake of a castle," whether a personal slight against the ego of the leader of one's government warrants creating many widows and orphans, whether punishing one injustice creates an even greater injustice.

Those who cannot overlook minor attacks and other evils, Luther said, are not fit to govern because they cannot govern prudently. As it says in Proverbs 28:16: "A prince who lacks prudence will oppress many with injustice." It was no accident that Luther cited this verse to introduce his practical advice to those who would take on leadership positions in government.

In his lectures on the book of Genesis, Luther cited these German proverbs :

A young physician needs a new cemetery. About a young and inexperienced jurist is said that he confounds everything in discord and war. And about a young theologian is said that he fills hell with souls. For all these—because they lack the kind of experience that alone engenders prudence—judge and do everything according to their laws and rules. This is why they run into trouble and make mistakes causing great harm to the bodies and possessions of many people.

As Luther explained elsewhere, some political leaders have prudence in an almost intuitive sense. They have a sense of justice and a sense of timing. They just know what the right thing is and how and when it needs to be done. All will be well when they are in charge of government.

Others think they have this type of prudence but lack it in its most rudimentary form. Instead of looking carefully at facts and circumstances, they simply a simplistic rule: Act decisively in every situation then people think you're doing the right thing. They are the worst kind of leaders, as they will oppress many with injustice, make a big mess of everything, start wars, fill cemeteries, and eventually bring God's own crushing contempt upon themselves (Psalm 107:40).

Others still are all too aware that they lack prudence because it is something really difficult to obtain, especially when they are cast in a leadership role without having had a lifetime to acquire the type of experience Luther referenced in the quote above.

What should they do? They should pray for prudence, as King Solomon did after his father David had died (1 Kings 3:9). They should also follow the example of prudent leaders as God gives them the ability. They should carefully listen to all their advisers without entrusting to any one of them the decision for which they alone are responsible.

And they should err on the side of caution, even if that proves costly. As Luther noted:

One must keep peace for as long as possible, even though one must buy it with all the money that would be spent on the war or won by the war. Victory never repays for what is lost by war.

Because this is so, let us heed Paul's call (1 Tim. 2:1-6) and pray for all who are in authority everywhere so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence, as it pleases Christ our Savior who desires all people to be saved.