Bob Schaefer
Final Paper: “Can Christians Serve in the Armed Forces?”

Whether or not Christians can serve in a military capacity has been a pressing question for centuries. From the very beginning, there have been soldiers who have believed in Jesus Christ and accepted his message — some of these are even mentioned in the New Testament. (Matthew 8 provides one noteworthy example.) Clearly those in the military have found Jesus just as compelling and central to life as their civilian counterparts. Yet we have Jesus’ commandment to love our neighbors even as we love ourselves. Is it possible to reconcile the military occupation with the Christian life?

Luther took up this question in 1526 in his letter Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, to Assa von Kram, a professional soldier and friend of Luther’s. The question was not simply a philosophical one: Evangelical rulers were facing military opposition from an alliance of Catholic rulers loyal to the emperor. Overshadowing even this conflict was the advancing threat posed by the Turks. The evangelical states — and the whole of European Christendom — found themselves in grave danger should military action not be taken.

The issue is no less urgent today, as Christians around the world are called upon to fight in “peacekeeping actions,” conflicts and full-scale wars. What is the appropriate Christian response to war? Is there such a thing as a “just war?” Can Christians serve in the armed forces? Can they earn their living as soldiers? In this paper I will examine the position Luther took in Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, and consider several difficulties in his argument.

Luther’s general response: The military vocation

The key to Luther’s argument is that soldiers serve a vocation just like all Christians do. That is to say, they have been given an office which is intended to serve their neighbors’ welfare. Although this is the case, Luther says, he wants to qualify his statements in two ways:

(1) Distinguishing between the office and the officeholder. Though the office may be good and right, and even appointed by God, it is possible for the holder of the office to be corrupt and evil. This is true of all vocations, and not unique to military men. A judge may faithfully execute his duties to the benefit of those under his jurisdiction, or he may accept bribes and pervert justice; either way, the vocation of judge is not deemed corrupt, but the person holding the office.

(2) Distinguishing between righteousness before men and righteousness before God. This is a chief concern of Luther’s, and it is not surprising that he sounds this cautionary note here. Simply because a soldier’s vocation may be just and righteous here in this world, he ought not to presume to be made righteous before God by his work. When we speak of any vocation as being just or unjust, we are dealing with the earthly kingdom and not the kingdom of heaven.

Having laid out these two caveats, Luther takes up the argument proper. First, he proposes, God himself has instituted what Luther calls “the sword” in order to “punish the evil, protect the good, and preserve peace.” [1] When Luther speaks of “the sword” he intends the power which authorities wield in order to exercise their vocation as rulers on behalf of their subjects. The authority of the sword is granted along with the vocation of ruler, so that both are equally instituted by God. The sword is not merely a symbolic thing, but the very real right and responsibility to use force when required to achieve the goals mentioned above.

Luther finds the sword in the example of the patriarchs, who were often called upon to wage war against the pagan residents of Canaan. “If the waging of war and the military profession were in themselves wrong and displeasing to God,” Luther reasons, “we should have to condemn Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and all the rest of the holy fathers, kings, and princes, who served God as soldiers and are highly praised in Scripture because of this service.” [2] The Old Testament precedent for warfare, when just, has been clearly established in Luther’s mind.

Lest anyone argue that the heroes of old were under special command of God, and therefore constitute exceptions and not the rule, Luther turns to the authors of the New Testament:

• St. Peter and St. Paul... both command obedience to worldly ordinances and to the commandments of worldly rulers even under the New Testament [Rom. 13:1–4; I Pet. 2:13–14]. And we have already pointed out that St. John the Baptist instructed soldiers as a Christian teacher and in a Christian manner and permitted them to remain soldiers, enjoining them only not to use their position to abuse people or to treat them unjustly, and to be satisfied with their wages.[3]

In fact, the sword is God’s own creation and the use of it is God’s own activity, Luther claims. “God honors the sword so highly that he says that he himself has instituted it [Rom. 13:1] and does not want men to say or think that they have invented it or instituted it. For the hand that wields this sword and kills with it is not man’s hand, but God’s; and it is not man, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, kills, and fights. All these are God’s works and judgments.” [4]

The exercise of the sword, Luther says, is like a surgeon performing an amputation. Such a procedure is only done in the most dire of circumstances, when the life of the patient is at stake and there is no other recourse. The decision to operate is not made lightly, but with consideration for the well-being of the entire body. Just so, the decision to use the sword is one that is made with all due consideration by the ruler, and never is to be made lightly. Just as the goal of the surgery is to remove the diseased member, the proper exercise of the sword is intended to remove those who would steal, kill, and otherwise undermine the laws God has established to maintain society. Though this indeed appears cruel and even evil to the limb being removed or the brigand being chastised, the result is the health of the whole body. This is the manner in which God rules through the power of the law, and it is right and good.

A just war, then, is merely an extension of the ruler’s proper exercise of the sword. Where the domestic use of the sword reigns in subjects who would disturb the peace, the sword in war preserves the peace against outsiders who would attack and kill. Not only is it appropriate for a ruler to fight under certain circumstances, it is required of him by his vocation as ruler.

Having established that warfare, properly conducted, is nothing more than the use of the sword as established by God and practiced by the saints of old, Luther moves on to consider soldiers. It is really a matter of pragmatism, he suggests: A ruler cannot wage war on his own! If this office is to be carried out at all, there must be individuals who will serve as soldiers to wield the sword in the name of their ruler. These individuals truly have a vocation, since they are fulfilling a divinely instituted role (the use of the sword) for the benefit of their neighbors (the definition of vocation) in the name of their ruler (the source of their authority). “Christians... do not fight as individuals or for their own benefit, but as obedient servants of the authorities under whom they live,” writes Luther. [5] This, too, is typical of his understanding of vocation: It is not something we do as Christians (that is, before God in order to win God’s favor) but as neighbors (directing our works toward them out of love and obedience to the law).

If it is true that a soldier’s work is his vocation every bit as much as a farmer’s, then it stands to reason that a soldier is as entitled to just compensation as a farmer is. While some may be pressed into service in a time of urgency, this does not negate the appropriateness of a professional military, nor does it imply that a soldier should be denied fair wages. Luther sites Matthew 10:10—“a laborer deserves his wage.”

But what, it may be asked, if the Christian soldier perceives that his ruler’s reasons for going to war are not just? What would his vocation require of him in such a case? Luther’s answer is simple but difficult: “If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fear God rather than men, Acts 4 [5:29], and you should neither fight nor serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God.” [6] The burden is placed upon the soldier to determine with certainty that his ruler is in the wrong, and if that is the case his role as a Christian must take precedence over his vocation as a soldier. Conversely, if the soldier cannot say for sure that his ruler is wrong, then he is to fulfill his obligations under the law through his vocation without a troubled heart; he is doing God’s will, Luther claims.

Luther’s qualified response: Three scenarios

To clarify his understanding of the Christian’s obligations in wartime, Luther considers three possible scenarios for warfare: (1) War against one’s superior; (2) war against one’s equal; and (3) war against one’s inferiors. I will briefly treat each of these cases below.

War against one’s superior. Luther understood this to mean rebellion against someone who is in authority over oneself. Luther understood the rulers of this world to have been ordained by God; hence, Christians are obligated to pray for them and serve them faithfully. This applies to tyrants as well as benevolent rulers. A good ruler will have his subjects’ best interests at heart when he acts, but even a tyrant has been ordained by God — most often because of the people’s own sinfulness.

From a practical viewpoint, Luther suggests that rule by one tyrant is preferable to the mob justice that he believes would prevail were subjects free to depose or kill their rulers: “If injustice is to be suffered, then it is better for subjects to suffer it from their rulers than for the rulers to suffer it from their subjects. The mob neither has any moderation nor even knows what moderation is. And every person in it has more than five tyrants hiding in him. Now it is better to suffer wrong from one tyrant, that is, from the ruler, than from unnumbered tyrants, that is, from the mob.” [7] What’s more, it is very difficult to improve a government, Luther writes, though it is quite easy to change it for the worse. Perhaps because of the lingering memory of the Peasants’ War, he is unwilling to allow much leeway for dealing with a tyrant.

In fact, it is not necessary for the tyrant’s rule to be overturned by his own subjects; God himself is quite capable of dealing with tyrants in innumerable ways, should he so desire. In any case, it is unacceptable for an individual to wage war against his superior. Though such actions might be used by God to bring about a tyrant’s end, the soldier has no right to make such a decision, and is working against his vocation in doing so.

War against one’s equal. Luther understands this to mean war between two people, neither of whom rules over the other. This most often will be two heads of sovereign states, although there are other possible permutations. The key is that there is no vocational or legal obligation of obedience on the part of either party to the other.

In such a case, war is acceptable in only one circumstance: self-defense. The authority of the ruler is truly a conservative thing — that is to say, it is intended to conserve the peace and protect the status quo. The sword was not given by God as an instrument of aggression but as a tool for justice. “Whoever starts a war is in the wrong,” the reformer writes. “And it is only right and proper that he who first draws his sword is defeated, or even punished, in the end. This is what has usually happened in history....God tolerates no injustice and he has so ordered things that warmongers must be defeated in war.” [8]

The party suffering attack is perfectly in the right to defend himself and his subjects, Luther writes. But he should not confuse the righteousness of his war with righteousness before God! Should he live or die, win or lose, the battle is God’s own... the sword is always in the hand of God. A ruler is to go into battle humble before the Lord, and confident of victory — not because his cause is right but because God is good and gracious.

War against one’s inferiors. Campaigns in this category often closely resemble police actions, and are generally appropriate for rulers, provided they are taken to put down rebellion that threatens the peace. A ruler may not, however, attack his subjects without just cause, since the office of the sword was instituted for punishment and for peace, not for personal gain or settling scores. Since overlords exist for the sake of their subjects, their vocation is to serve them, not to smite them.

Difficulties in Luther’s argument

There is much to be commended in Luther’s argument; even so, several difficulties quickly become apparent to a modern reader. First of all, Luther seems to be overly indulgent of tyrannical rulers. One might well ask him, “Is our responsibility greater to our rulers or to our neighbors?” If a tyrant is oppressing our neighbor, would not the loving thing be to protect and assist our neighbor in every way possible against the evil that is assailing him? Were we in a position to oppose the tyrant who was thus abusing our neighbor, ought we to step aside out of obedience to this ruler? While it is true that the tyrant, too, is our neighbor, is it not possible to oppose him in love, and thereby prevent further harm to our neighbors his subjects?

It is further worth considering whether God actually ordains tyrants, or whether he simply allows them. It is entirely consistent with God’s actions in the Bible to assume that God allows a people to punish themselves because he does not prevent a tyrant’s rise to power. God frequently uses these tyrants for his own good and holy purposes. But whether God has appointed an individual to be a tyrant is a worthwhile point of contention. Perhaps it is fair to say that God appoints all rulers, but that there is no such vocation as “tyrant.” That is, the tyrant does not serve his subjects by punishing and preserving the peace. Just the opposite! So the tyrant is merely a ruler who has perverted his God-given vocation. Just as we would remove and punish a corrupt judge, the tyrant ought also be subject to the sword if he misappropriates his vocation.

It is also worth considering whether Luther’s understanding of warfare is even useful in a society where the leaders are granted their authority by a social contract. Under such a system (as all modern democracies have), those in power govern only by the consent of the citizens who have appointed them. The people, rather than the rulers, hold the ultimate power. While it might still be possible to argue that God has appointed the rulers chosen by the people, such rulers are bound by duty, oath, and vocation to serve their constituents faithfully, and have implicitly or explicitly agreed to have their power bound to the people’s consent to be governed. If such a leader were to become a tyrant, having broken oath and honor, would not the people have the right to revoke their consent and take up arms against such a person?

Further difficulties appear in the complexities of modern warfare. Military actions are less and less frequently so clear-cut as “A is the attacker; B is acting in self-defense.” For instance, is it appropriate to enter a war that has already begun as an ally of one side or the other? Although a particular nation might not be fighting in self-defense, is it not right to help a friendly ally defend itself against an aggressor? Luther never addresses such a scenario.

Further, is it ever ethically acceptable to strike first? Great evil might have been prevented had the United States not waited until it was provoked to enter World War II. Is it possible to say that Hitler’s actions constituted an offensive strike against humanity, so that any nation could have been said to be fighting in self defense against the Nazi war machine?

So-called “peacekeeping” missions are another military reality that is at least a gray area under the conditions described by Luther. These forays are not strictly defensive, since they involve deploying troops to hotspots to serve as impromptu police forces. Yet they are not specifically offensive, either, as they do not involve attacking others unless provoked.

A final area of objection is to the willingness Luther shows to allowing soldiers to “just follow orders.” Many great crimes have been committed by men who were only doing as their superiors had ordered them. Although he explicitly allows Christians to defy their rulers if they are certain the rulers are acting unjustly, Luther seems to set the bar impossibly high. What citizen has all of the facts necessary in order to make such a decision with so great a certainty? Luther allows very little room for the Christian’s conscience, emphasizing instead the duty to obedience. In this way he seems to be opposing the work of the Spirit in each believer’s heart.

The debate over Christians serving in the military is ongoing. Luther gives Christians a sound case for taking an active role in the defense of peace and the execution of the sword. Though there are many areas that are open for debate, Luther has laid a solid groundwork for the debate.

[1]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 95.

[2]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 97-98.

[3]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 98.

[4]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 96.

[5]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 99.

[6]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 130.

[7]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 106.

[8]M. Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1967). Vol. 46, Page 118.

Ssite, contents, and design copyright © 2002-2006 Robert James Schaefer. All rights reserved.
Last updated Sunday, August 20, 2006.

Pages viewed since 9/13/04
Please sign / view my guest book!