Love Your Enemies

In his piece entitled "love your enemies", Andrew Osenga struggles over the concept of a "just war" and what he tends to think of as the Christian mandate for pacifism. At one point he makes these comments, the basic essence of his objection:

The only real way to end a war, that I can see, is by ending the fight. For good. And that only happens one way. Not by victory, but by forgiveness. We will kill each other until someone chooses forgiveness over revenge, even over justice.

Especially as a Christian, one who believes that God chose to forgive me over exacting justice, how can I not apply that in war? Weren’t we commanded to love our enemies? I don’t see any grey areas there, as much as I feel I’m supposed to. I just don’t. Not only do I think forgiveness is the wisest thing to do, I feel like it’s the right thing to do.

I don't think a Christian who is in his right mind would disagree that forgiveness is the right thing to do. No one can deny that the founder of Christianity commanded that we love our enemies. But is it, then, the required conclusion that we should, therefore, take no action toward justice?

This would be an interesting system, to be sure. There would be no laws ... or, at least, no law enforcement. The only real law would be "forgive". It didn't matter what anyone else did; the only legal recourse would be "forgive". Rape, murder, theft, child molesting, it wouldn't really matter because the only allowable response would be forgiveness.

"Wait!" you say. "This is a Christian command. It isn't applicable to non-Christians." Okay, good, let's go with that. It leaves us with the question of whether or not there is the possibility of a "just war" ... for non-Christians. Maybe it's wrong for Christians to be in the military fighting in Iraq, but it wouldn't have anything to say about non-Christians. And, of course, it would still leave us in an awkward position. While the rest of the world around us would have a legal system, laws, police enforcement, jails, etc., we would be unable to use any of them. They would have some legal protections, but for all the rape, murder, theft, child molesting, or taking of our legal rights under the Constitution, we would need to remain silent and forgive. Is this really the mandate of Scripture on believers?

There are some problems with the kind of thinking that Andrew espouses. I've noted some. First, it doesn't make sense. Beyond reason, though, it isn't applicable to everyone. Even if we assume that we are mandated to turn the other cheek to death, we cannot make the same demand of all citizens because they don't recognize Christ as their Commander. His instructions are non-binding. This problem is extended by the "False Analogy" fallacy. Andrew has drawn an analogy between his belief about what he should do to what a nation should do. The problem is ... a nation is not a Christian, or even a person. The analogy doesn't work. A government does not operate as a person. It doesn't have the same rights nor the same responsibilities. It cannot be "saved" or "damned". Nations and their governments are temporal. They don't operate in the same sphere as individuals. And this isn't mere conjecture. It is a God-given fact. Paul writes that God has established governments and authorities (Rom. 13:1-7). We are told, for instance, "'Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord", yet Paul tells us that government is "an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Rom. 13:4). So while Andrew complains about "vengeance" in war, it appears that this is a God-given governmental task. So the "love your enemy" and "forgive" commands to individuals is not extended to governments, and the argument breaks down.

There is another important error in the particular line of thinking that Andrew was suggesting. The suggestion is that "love your enemies" precludes the possibility that one would, say, smite your enemy. The suggestion is that "forgive" means "no consequences". The suggestion is that "thou shalt not kill" is a blanket statement for all time for all circumstances. It is always a sin to kill under any circumstances. These are all popular ideas ... but they're wrong. Love does not preclude inflicting pain. Forgive does not require no consequences. And "thou shalt not kill" cannot be a blanket sin without making God a sinner. These are important distinctions. It is possible to love a murderer and execute him. It is possible to forgive a child molester and send him to jail. And there are times when killing is not sin.

The suggestion that war is evil sounds very right ... because it generally is true. The plea to love your enemy and forgive those who trespass against you are certainly biblical. But we need to be careful where we take them. They cannot be applied to those who don't recognize their authority. And governments are not people ... by God's design. And "love" and "forgive" doesn't necessarily mean "no consequences". We start out on the right foot, but these missteps could get us into dangerous places.