killing paper

for those who might be interested--its a draft of my paper on killing--remember, only a draft (for those not interested--see below for update post)

Souza, James, M.

2^nd platoon/4^th squad

July 2009

On the ethics of killing

Two weeks after 9-11, I preached a sermon titled “Is it OK for President Bush to want to kill Osama Bin Laden?” My bottom line up front was, “it depends”. The preparation for that sermon has since influenced my theology about killing. As I prepare for the chaplaincy, I now realize that those convictions regarding Bush and bin-Laden also address the issue of soldier killing in combat.

I believe those convictions will help me as a chaplain in preparing soldiers to face the ethical dilemma of killing another human being. They will also assist in helping soldiers who have already killed process their actions and ultimately find peace.

I argue that combat killing can be justified based upon the biblical principle of stewardship. The key text is Romans 12: 17- 13:5.

A practical example of justification by stewardship:

One situation where most believe it is moral and ethical to kill is where a father acts to save the lives of his children. If an armed monster entered my house and I concluded that my children’s lives were in danger, I would kill the intruder without entering into a moral dilemma. Why? Because I am the protector of my children.

From the Free-Methodist (my endorser) perspective, all children ultimately belong to God, who, in turn, entrusts parents to raise them. Parents are stewards of their children, and God holds them responsible for their children’s welfare and upbringing. The principle of stewardship demands that the father act by any means necessary to protect his children. . . . If only it were that simple. The motivation that undergirds such action by any means necessary creates an important distinction between ethical and unethical killing, for the bible clearly instructs Christians “not to repay evil for evil” (Rom 12:17) and to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). Regarding the intruder, a father’s actions should not be vengeful. His actions are not based on feelings of anger or hatred for the intruder. Such actions would violate the above cited scriptures and constitute sin. In fact, the fathers thoughts should not on the intruder at all, they should rest solely on the welfare of his children. It is the difference between, “I’m protecting them” vs. “I’m killing him”. Thus, the act is stewardship based (dutiful) and not revenge based (personal).

David Grossman uses the metaphors of sheepdog and wolf to communicate the same message. The sheepdog kills to protect (dutiful) and the wolf kills to fulfill its own desires (personal). The acts are the same (killing) but the motivation behind each places them in a different ethical category. The sheepdog is noble while the wolf is depraved.

The bigger picture:

The idea of justifiable combat killing is a macro example of the above example. In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul states that governments are given authority by God, ordained to be “agent(s) of wrath” and bearers of “the sword”. The argument here is that governments are given the responsibility of stewardship over its citizens in much the same way fathers are given stewardship over their children.

In my 9-11 sermon, I argued that President Bush would be justified in wanting to kill bin-Laden if, as the God-appointed steward of the American people, he felt compelled to act on behalf of their safety. On the other hand, if Bush sought to kill bin-Laden based on feelings of outrage by the actions of 9-11, he would find no justification before God who commands us “not to repay evil for evil”. The bottom line, as it always seems to be in the Christian tradition, lies in the condition of one’s heart.

I believe the same principle holds for soldiers in combat. As soldiers, they are an extension of the President. Thus, they serve as our nation as stewards, protecting the American people as called upon by those to whom God has given authority. If the task of killing is approached this vein, it is justifiable. Soldiers kill the enemy as a means of protecting those people he/she has been appointed by God to protect. But, if in combat, the soldier kills the enemy out of outrage and desire to personally exact revenge, his/her actions cannot be justified. At this point the soldier would need counsel about grace and redemption.

Where the rubber hits the road:

Using Afghanistan as a relevant example, this argument would emphasize the rhetoric and past actions of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. 9-11 reminds us that these groups pose a threat to every citizen of the United States. Presidents Bush and Obama, acting as God-appointed stewards, have decreed that military action must be taken in an effort to protect Americans. Soldiers carry out this protection by meeting Taliban and Al-Qaeda soldiers in combat, often resulting in death. The soldier is acting in the role of the sheepdog.

Conclusion:

There is no doubt that the line drawn here is unclear. Surely some level of anger is evident in every soldier during combat. How much anger is too much? At what point does the soldier cross the line from steward to personal? While all these questions are valid, I still believe that this perspective provides a solid foundation that would make sense to the soldier and provide clarity within the inherent tension involved with combat killing.