Isn't it incredible that there's around 150 armed conflicts ongoing in our world today? We're familiar with war in Gaza and Ukraine, but there are over 100 more armed conflicts happening at this very time, the highest number since the World War II conflict ended. Every year around half a million people are killed in these armed conflicts according to the Geneva Declaration. And the bad news for us is that Jesus Christ has predicted that wars and rumors of wars will continue until the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, comes again. Perhaps your pension invests in stocks and shares which are involved in the production of arms and that troubles you. Perhaps you work in a company which makes tires not only for vehicles for the street but also for aircraft involved in flying over and involved in those conflict areas. You feel this conflict between being called as a Christian to be a peacemaker and your investments or your work being involved in armed conflict. The subject is current, it's relevant, and we need to reflect on it, to open up our Bibles, young and old, and understand the teaching of the Bible, the whole teaching of the Bible on this subject. As the young people know, there are two major views on this subject of war and peace. One is pacifism, and the other is the just war position. I also mention a third position which is emerging within the Christian church of nuclear pacifism. Christians are called to be peacemakers. We follow the Prince of Peace. We serve the God of Peace. We're called, the Bible says, to live in peace with all men. James 4.1 claims that war originates in the human heart. So should Christians oppose war in all circumstances? Our government voted not to get involved in the Ukrainian conflict in a direct way. It supports Ukraine in a peripheral way, but it's condemned some of the actions of Israel in Gaza. Do we support our government on its views on those wars? We pray for our government, but what are we praying about for them. Perhaps a young man or woman in our congregation wants to join the armed forces. Should the elders of our congregation take them aside and advise them against this? We've remembered this year the landings in France. Was it all a big mistake? Over 700,000 British men and women, their lives being taken. The UK currently has 225 nuclear weapons capable of killing hundreds of millions of people. How are we to think of these weapons? Does the Bible say anything about that policy? Our view on war and peace has many practical implications for our lives, our minds, our behavior. And the Bible sets out, as it does on every subject, some principles for us to follow. We'll think first of all of pacifism, secondly of just war, thirdly of nuclear pacifism. First of all, pacifism, the new term that they prefer to be called by is peacemakers. It comes in many forms, but the basic assertion of pacifism is that the use of force under any circumstance is wrong. Pacifism objects to preemptive strikes in war, as well as to war as self-defense. It argues that other means should be used Scott Ray describes it as pacifists insist that the idea of a just war is an oxymoron. They argue that all wars are unjust and that all participation in war is immoral. So pacifism claims that war is always wrong. The Quakers Gandhi of India held this view. Peace, they argue, should be sought through other non-violent means. And why do they hold this position? One reason is because of the effects of war. The effects of war on people, they point to the horrors endured by soldiers engaged in war, typified in films like Saving Private Ryan, World War I and II documentaries, and the current atrocities that we witness in the Ukrainian and Gaza wars. The impact on people, they argue, indicates that war should not be engaged in. They highlight the pain of bereavement on families when these young men and women die. In the Second World War, the average life of a RAF pilot was 22 years. And they mention the long-term impact of such a loss on families. They mention the impact of conflict on combatants in the form of PTSD, 11% of veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. They also mentioned the impact of war on economies. They point to Ukraine, for example, which in the first year of the conflict in 2022, its economy shrunk by 30%. The effects of war on people, and on economies, this view argues, indicates that we should not engage in armed conflict. Secondly, they point to passages within the Bible and key passages are found here for us. Matthew 5, First of all, Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount, do not resist the one who is evil, verse 39, and then in verse 44, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. They argue that this attitude that Jesus is promoting here is one of nonviolence. Do not resist the one who is evil. love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. And how would you respond to them opening the Bible at this passage and pointing it out to you? Do not resist the one, verse 39, who is evil. Is this not asserting that war is misguided, is wrong? Is Jesus not teaching us here that we should abandon that position? Christ was arrested, as we read. He was crucified and condemned. He did not act in a violent way. He did not resist that oppression. They do acknowledge that there were wars in the Old Testament with Joysha, with David, but they consider that the teaching of Jesus is an advance on those Old Testament accounts. Looking at this passage, they claim that it is wider than persecution. Verse 39, do not resist the one who is evil. So they argue from this passage that war in every instance is wrong. A second passage they appeal to is Romans 12 verse 19, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God. They argue from this that armed conflict, as self-defense even, is not allowed by this assertion that we are to leave our defense in God's hands. And then a third passage, which they refer to in 1 Peter 2, verse 23, describing the Lord Jesus, when he was reviled, he did not revile in turn. When he suffered, he did not threaten. So here is Christ. He is being attacked. Aggression is being directed towards him. But the way of Christ here is that of forbearance, of forgiveness, of non-violence. So they argue from the effects of war on people and on economies. They open up the Bible, Christian pacifists do, and they argue from Matthew, from Romans, from 1 Peter. And a third argument they have is that the church and the state are separate. The brethren would have this argument. We belong to the church, to the spiritual kingdom of God. Unbelievers are to be concerned with war and with the defense of the nation. We have a different calling. We have a calling to serve in the kingdom of God and that unseen spiritual kingdom of heaven. So pacifists, Christian pacifists, use arguments from the Bible and from the community. This view of pacifism is really useful to us. It indicates that all alternatives are to be sought and tried. Sanctions, talks, every area is to be explored before a conflict is engaged in. One of the protests by people in Israel at this time is that the Israeli government has no interest in making peace with Gaza and is pursuing its own agenda to get the hostages back from Gaza. Pacifism also is useful in drawing our attention to the teaching and life of Christ. He calls us to be peacemakers. He granted forbearance and forgiveness to those who oppressed him. And we are to pursue peace with all men. This is a really useful emphasis by this position in highlighting the teaching and life of Jesus. And what a wonderful thing within congregations and families it would be if you and I were more desirous of peace. And thirdly, this view is important in highlighting the proper spending by governments. One of the arguments of the pacifists is all the money that's been spent on stockpiling arms could be and should be diverted to proper causes. of need. And that's an important point to make. Has North Korea got the right balance between arms and need in its country? Has India got the right balance between its nuclear program and the need of its country? Has the UK got the right balance between its nuclear program and the NHS? Probably not in any of those cases. So pacifism raises some really useful, important points. What we have, well, I say we, I have fundamental difficulties with pacifism from a biblical and a practical point of view. I have absolutely no idea what anyone here thinks about this subject. I'll find out later, no doubt, and that's fine. That's what the coffee and tea's for, chat and discussion, in a peaceable manner, of course. Biblically, let's just think of these verses. I think pacifism appeals to the right verses, but misinterprets them. The issue in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 is personal, it's not national. It's about individuals, not nations. I think they're wrong in widening out the subject in Matthew 5. I think it's a very narrow and constricted subject of persecution for being a follower of Jesus. What we do as a private person to a neighbor who laughs at our church going should be and will be very different from what our government will do if France invade our country. The one is personal, the one is about us being a follower of Christ, the other is national, and the government has a responsibility to defend its citizens. In Matthew 5, in every detailed instance that Jesus cites there, the slap on the cheek, the taking of the cloak, the going the extra mile, there is no life-threatening situation in view. It's not a war situation that Jesus is advising on here. In Romans 12, again, the emphasis is on personal revenge, not national defense. The revenge is personal. The retaliation is personal. We're to commit our case to God. He's the one who will deal with the individual who is wrongly treating us. Or, as the next chapter indicates, the government will step in and deal with this wrongdoer towards us. So once again, it's talking about our personal situation. We're not to go out and take matters into our own hands. were to bring the matter to God or to the government whom God has appointed to deal in this life with wrongs. Then in Peter, about the suffering of Jesus. Once again, Jesus is being afflicted and oppressed on a personal matter. It's as a person, It's his claims, his leadership, his identity. And further than that, he's following and fulfilling the will of God, going to the cross as our savior. But when we look at the whole life of Jesus, we see that there are situations where he exercises justice on others. He cleanses the temple. You remember, and that was a disturbing action. He does it twice. He tells his disciples to buy two swords to defend themselves. He includes war in some of his parables. He praised the faith of a centurion and helped this man in his need. He sung the Old Testament Psalms, as we know, some of them calling down judgment from God on nations. his forerunner John the Baptist, when soldiers asked him what they should do, didn't tell him to leave the army, but to be content with their wages. So pacifism, it does appeal to the Bible, but I argue that their interpretation of those passages, while it's good that they draw attention to them, is warped. And further, the practical scenario which is often brought up in this discussion of a robber entering your home, threatening to kill your wife and children. What do you do? Do you stand back? There's no time for the authorities to come. Do you stand back? Do you engage in discussion and debate and bargaining with them? Or do you seek to disarm them, which includes wrestling and violence and physical action? It was Augustine who advised us that in that situation, love for your family should be greater than love for your enemy. So pacifism is useful in emphasizing peace and the call to peace by Christ and the peace that God in heaven has secured through the blood of his son. but it doesn't consider the whole teaching of the Bible, I would argue, and it misrepresents some parts of it. So building on that, and that reflection on passivism, we come to just war. Just war admits, reluctantly, that sometimes war is necessary to maintain security and justice within one's borders. maintains that in some circumstances it's permissible, justifiable, and perhaps even necessary to engage in war. And there's three levels of this just war dimension. Self-defense, preemptive strikes, and intervention. Self-defense, preemptive strikes, and intervention. Self-defense is responding to unprovoked aggression. Scott Ray defines it as, once aggression is visited upon a nation, the properly constituted authorities in that nation are morally justified in meeting force with force and defending their people from a hostile aggressor. And there are three principles which those who advocate just war as self-defence set out, and I know the young people learn these in their RE class. The first is the cause must be righteous. It must be a defensive action and not an aggressive action. For example, in the book of Judges, you might remember, the Midianites were setting fire to the fields of the Israelites, and in response to that aggressive action against them, under Gideon, the Israelites went to war. So self-defense to an unprovoked aggression is one of the just war positions. It must be righteous. It must be controlled. The use of weapons should be proportionate and discriminant. Righteous, controlled, and thirdly, the outcome must be predictable. There must be a calculated prospect of victory. Righteous, controlled, predictable. So a just war is a war that's fought for a righteous cause by controlled means with a reasonable expectation of success. It's response to unprovoked aggression. It has the intention to secure a fair peace for all parties. It's as a last resort after diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. It's initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities. It's limited to objectives to secure peace, not to annihilate the opposition. It's got a sense of proportionate means, only enough force to repel and deter the aggressor. and respects non-combatant immunity. Only those representing the respective governments in the military can be targeted in the course of a just war. So in this just war, in self-defense, it's justifiable when a nation has been attacked The second aspect of the just war is that it includes preventative strikes that ward off imminent attack. So say there's nations that clearly intent on attacking the UK, then the just war position extends to a preemptive strike, which would give the advantage of surprise and perhaps end this war far quicker than allowing those aggressors. time and strategy to attack our country. This happened in 1967, in June of that year, in the Six-Day War. Israel was surrounded by three nations who had collaborated to annihilate Israel. Assyria in the north, Jordan in the east, and Egypt in the south. And Israel made a preemptive strike on those nations. And thirdly, within just war, there is an argument for intervention when one nation is attacked by another nation. So in a far country, Germany going to Austria, Germany going to Poland, the Allies argued that here was a just war situation. One nation invading another nation. In that situation, the Allies argued, They should intervene. In scripture, there is no conflict between faith and a just war. There are many instances of a just war being fought. Abraham fighting to get back lots in his possessions. You remember in Genesis that we studied together. Joysha invading the promised land. David fighting against the Philistines. Hebrews 11 verses 33 and 34 links war and faith. It was by faith those leaders of the Old Testament church overcame their enemies. No conflict between war and violence and bloodshed and killing and the faith of God's people. And that indicates that war in itself is not intrinsically wrong. In the New Testament, Romans 13.4 is the main passage, the sword. God allows them the sword as governments to punish evildoers. So God appointed duty of governments to encourage good, to reward well-doing, but also to hold the sword. The sword, the symbol of defense, the symbol of battle, the symbol of war. God has entrusted them to defend their people and to protect their borders. It's part of the duty of government. And so taking into account the whole of the teaching of the Bible on war and peace, the just war position, albeit handled by fallen, imperfect men and women does seem to reflect scripture more accurately than the pacifists' position. The third position, the nuclear pacifism, is an emerging position and you've maybe not thought about it at all. The development of atomic, biological, and chemical weapons, the ABC, is forcing the church and society to think about their view on nuclear weapons. Nine countries, as you know, have nuclear weapons, US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. The nuclear capability of the world and of some of these individual countries could destroy mankind many times over. The position of nuclear passivism, and it might be one that you have to go and research and look into, it's grounded in the principles of just war and argues that a nuclear war can never be justified. And the biblical basis of their view is that innocent blood should not be shed. Proverbs 6, 16 and 17, there are six things the Lord hates. Proverbs 6, verses 16 and 17. And one of them is hands that kill the innocent. Jeremiah 19 and verse four, God complains that they have filled Jerusalem with the blood of innocent children. You remember the anger of God when Joab killed Abner and Amasa in a time of peace. You remember that Judas betrayed the innocent blood. So President Reagan and Russian leader Gorbachev recognized the lethal nature of the weapons that they were stockpiling in the Cold War. And in 1985, they said, a nuclear war cannot be won and never should be fought. The 6th of August, 1945. 140,000 people were killed in Hiroshima. Only 20,000 of them were military. The just war principles rule out, I think, the use of nuclear weapons. Alec Macdonald, the Free Church Minister, or was, writes that it is permissible to use nuclear weapons when attacked by conventional weapons. But I disagree. It would appeal to the principles of just war that nuclear weapons is not a proportionate and discriminant and controlled response to the attack. The objection to the nuclear pacifism position is that nuclear weapons can be limited in their devastation. For example, they could target a munitions factory with a small nuclear weapon. But our response is there will always be a fallout that will affect non-combatants. This is demonstrated in 1945. The bomb in Hiroshima was specific. It was dropped on a munitions factory, but it killed 120,000 non-combatants. Further, the use of any nuclear weapon will lead to an escalation. When one nuke is fired, others will follow. The fire break will be crossed. Nuclear pacifism allows for the retention and development of nuclear weapons. However, with this clause, firstly, the UK will never fire a nuclear weapon first. Secondly, they will work toward getting rid of them in the world completely. And thirdly, they should be kept as a deterrent. There's a big distinction between possession and threat and use. And the UK has to be clear that it does not want to use them. So pacifism, and we would set that one aside, though there are points that we need to listen to from that position. Just war, yes, it's been misused. It's been misused in our lifetime. It's been used imperfectly. It's been used selectively to argue for wars, but I think the church from Augustine pulling together the whole of the Bible's teaching, that's the right area for us to be in. Nuclear pacifism, I would commend it to you to consider, to look at, to research. As we close today, let us be peacemakers wherever possible. Let us put out the fires wherever we can. We will not be going to those 150 countries to make peace, but we could have a peaceful lunch today, couldn't we? We can increase the peace in our congregation, in our workplace, in our town. Let us be known as those who promote peace. Every non-Christian, as we said to the boys and girls, is an enemy with God. This should be the focus of our thinking just at this moment. Am I at peace with God? Our sin, your sin, my sin, have made us enemies against God. The Bible is absolutely clear about this. Life may be good for you. You may have health. You may be successful in your exams. You may have so many of the good things of life that you've desired and acquired. But if you're not a Christian, you're an enemy of God. And you need to repent of your sin. and receive Jesus Christ as your Savior. Part of the Christian hope is that we are destined for a place where there is no war, where violence and bloodshed and conflict will cease. And we will live forever at the feet of the presence of the Prince of Peace, who from the ashes of his crucifixion has risen to give peace to all who trust in him. So let us as a congregation and as families pray for our world. Pray that unjust wars will stop immediately. Pray that just wars will be brought to a quick conclusion. Pray that our government will have the proper balance between spending on defense and spending on needy causes.