Barth on War

This week, our youth group is diving into a very touchy and difficult subject; war. One of the students asked the question a few weeks back whether a murder done in self-defense was morally justifiable. I'm sure all of the press coverage on the gun control debate contributed to his confusion. He wanted to know whether or not such a thing was consistent with the church's Christian witness and this naturally spiraled into a discussion on war and the like.

If you know me well, you know this is a subject I don't take lightly. Over the past few years I have grown increasingly more distasteful towards war and any other form of violence; perhaps even violence executed in self-defense. I'm not sure I would call myself a pacifist per se just yet, however I have sympathized more with the pacifist position than most of the other options out there. Just war theory seems almost untenable seeing as there's always somebody in power lying about its justifiability to those without all the facts. Of course the church could just keep their nose out of the world's political matters and stick to the spiritual issues; but the  whole idea of leaving the government unchecked with the sword while the church sits quietly unengaged seems a bit irresponsible for those God calls out as peace-makers. Steering clear of the world powers only to talk about spiritual things seems unlike anything I've read in the New Testament.

Anyways, as I prepared for this evening's discussion, I came across some powerfully insightful comments on war in Barth's Church Dogmatics. In KD III.4, Barth takes up an analysis of the protection of life in the context of the sixth commandment: "You shall not murder." He discusses all the controversial issues: abortion, assisted suicide, suicide etc. Finally, towards the end of the section, he picks up the topic of war. He makes the following comments: 

I. When a nation goes to war, every individual member of the nation becomes implicated in the war - no one is removed. Gone are the days of serfdom and feudalism where the wars were fought by land-owners and a professional military class. Today, when a nation goes to war, each member of that nation is thrown into military responsibility. Think of it. We pay taxes from our own paycheck to pay for military weapons and individual soldiers. In WWII and Vietnam, the draft was instated because each individual was responsible to act in defense of the nation. What may be even more deplorable is the reality that we as a nation enjoy the bountiful benefits of the spoils of war both corporately and individually when we win. The nation as a whole then, selfishly rallies for its victory. It then gets to enjoy riding the comfortable, prosperous economic coattails of its war victory while leaving behind the dispossessed and impoverished conquered ones to waste away. 

II. War is about power and power acquisition. In the past, it was easier to hold up the illusion that war was waged for the maintaining of great truths like justice, honour and cherished national values (democracy, religious freedom etc.). Today however, as a result of seeing unadulterated war and perhaps due to the great technological advancements in communication, the veil has been lifted. We  see war for its true monstrosity. Today we know war to be the manipulation of powerful elites; the broadening of imperial boarders and the gaining of material prosperity. Barth comments: 

"[...] the real issue in war, and an effective impulse towards it, is much less man himself and his vital needs than the economic power which in war is shown not so much to be possessed by man as to possess him, and this to his ruin, since instead of helping him to live and let live, it forces him to kill and be killed."

III. War entails nothing less than the killing of another human being. It used to be that two opponents met each other face-to-face and fought to the death. There was in it some mistaken sense of honor and courage; two men in hand-to-hand mortal combat. Perhaps even in all this, it was easier to claim the killing of the other man in self-defense. Today however, the veil is lifted again. We kill people by the hundreds with a flip of a switch. Dreaded drone strikes can wipe out a whole village without getting anyone's hands dirty. No claims of self-defense, no face-to-face, hand-to-hand combat. Just killing cleanly and effectively - without any honor or dignity. 

-------

Barth continues on and on with all of his other nuanced arguments and eventually comes to rest on a confusing mediating position between pacifism and just war. He talks about war being a last resort in extreme situations ... whatever that means. Who gets to decide when the situation is extreme? How can we tell? Again, there's a lot of gray area.

In the end evaluation, I want to say that at the very least we need to recognize that war is a truly evil thing. Just like other evil things, it shades and cloaks itself in good intentions and justified actions. We have war, because evil and sin and injustice are unchecked in the world. Only the rule of Christ can heal the nations. We wait in expectant hope. And as we wait, we take action by seeking peace. 

As simple as that all may sound, I have found many a Christian who would disagree; who would get behind war as a necessary evil for the sake of good. I'm not on that boat and I would venture to say humbly I don't think Jesus is either. 

War requires our repentance; our seeking after God's mercy and forgiveness. There is no glory to be had in it all. 

I found the question Barth closes with in his discussion particularly poigniant:

"Does not war demand that almost everything that God has forbidden be done on a broad front? To kill effectively,  steal, rob, commit arson, lie, deceive [and] slander. It is certainly not true that people become better in war. The fact is that war is for most people a trial for which they are no match and from the consequences of which they can never recover."

I hope you'll share your thoughts. 

//ExProfundis//