Shall the Sword Devour Forever?

       War!  (uhuh) What is it good for?  In the case of the civil war between Judah and Israel the answer really is clear.  Absolutely nothing.

       The last time we saw David, two Sundays ago, David was weeping over the death of King Saul and his son Jonathan.  As 1 Samuel 2 opens, David moves to the Judean capital of Hebron.  There is he crowned king of Judah – but not as king of all Israel.  The people of the north have another king, Saul’s surviving son Ishbaal.  Ishbaal isn’t much of a guy.  But he is propped up by Saul’s top general Abner.  Abner’s the real power in the land.

       Abner and David’s general Joab now take center stage in the story of David.  

       Abner is an opportunist.  He somehow wasn’t at Saul’s side in the last desperate fight with the Philistines.  But he’s quick to seize the reigns of power – reducing the pathetic Ishbaal to a figurehead.  Later he figures out that the future is with David.  So he changes sides and works out diplomatic ways to turn the north over to David – and gain for himself a top spot in the government. Abner uses a lot of religious language to support his schemes.  He’s very generous with the God talk.  But he’s out for himself.  He’s very smooth.

         Joab, on the other hand, isn’t smooth at all.  He is a marvelous combination of temper, inflexibility and muscle. 

         You read page after page of their story in 2 Samuel and you wonder, “What’s this doing in the Bible?  I don’t want to read about jerks. I want the happy story.  I want the David tending sheep and playing the harp story.  The Bible needs a good editor.”

       No it doesn’t.  The point of the Bible is that God works out our salvation in real life and calls us to serve Him in real life.  Real life isn’t just filled with beautiful characters like Jonathan and Abigail.  It is also filled with tragedies like Friday’s Metrolink accident and characters like Abner and Joab.  So if God is going to work and we are going to serve, it has to be done in the real world.  That’s why Abner and Joab get so much ink.

       The opening story sets the stage for what follows.  For some reason the two commanders bring their armies and meet at the pool of Gibeon.  Abner takes his place at one side of the pool.  Joab’s at the other.  They agree to a sports match but both Abner and Joab intend treachery.  The treachery of one side cancels the treachery of the other and twenty four wrestlers all kill each other with hidden blades.  The stands empty on both sides and a general fight erupts.  The battle between brothers goes against Abner’s side.  Abner heads for the hills – pursued by Joab’s fleet footed brother Asahel.

        Abner warns Asahel not to come after him.  Always the opportunist, he even suggests that Asahel content himself with killing one of Abner’s own young soldiers instead.  “Look at that one.  He’s not that good a fighter.  Take him.  He’s a sucker for a low lunge with the spear.” But Asahel wants Abner.

       Abner doesn’t want to fight him.  He’s not afraid of Ashael.  He knows he can take him.  But killing him will make it personal between Abner with Joab. The fierce Joab will become the avenger of blood for his dead brother.  That’s the way it is in a tribal society – just as the Arab word “clan” is literally translated “blood revenge group.”

       Abner tries to stop Asahel with words.  “Turn aside from following me. Why should I smite you?  How would I then hold up my face to Joab your brother?”   Abner knows Joab won’t regard a dead brother as a casualty of war but as a foul deed to be avenged.

      Asahel doesn’t stop.  He keeps running.  Abner can’t outrun him so he tries a trick.  He suddenly stops and drives the butt end of his spear into Asahel’s stomach.  I think Abner only intends to knock the wind out of him so he can get away.  But Asahel is just too fast.  The butt of the spear goes through the young man and comes out the other side.

      It is an accident.  But Joab’s going to be mad. 

      Asahel’s death shocks Joab’s army.  Verse 23 says that all who came to the place Asahel had fallen stood still.”  But not for long. With Joab in the lead they take up the chase.  By nightfall Abner and his men find themselves trapped on a hilltop surrounded by Joab and his army.

       There is no moral cause at stake here.  Joab and Abner are simply obsessed with their own power, trying to establish their preeminence, indulging their vanities.  Now personal vengeance is added to the mix. 

       But in the middle of the cycle of spiraling violence Abner calls out, “Shall the sword devour forever? Do you not know that the end will be bitter? How long shall it be before you command your soldiers to stop the pursuit of their own people – for we are brothers.”

      Those words sound very statesmanlike.  The reality behind the words is that Abner needs to use words to escape death.  Abner is always out for Abner.  If he was the one at the bottom of the hill – if he had Joab trapped like a rat – I doubt that Abner would have been merciful himself. 

      But amazingly, Joab listens.  He says that if Abner had not spoken, he and his men would have attacked.  But now Joab sounds the ram’s horn to pull his troops away. Abner and his survivors head the opposite direction. 

       That sounds like a good start toward breaking the cycle of the sword.  But that doesn’t happen.  There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. Blood has been spilled and the furies are free. Peace isn’t that easy to achieve in a payback world.  People on both sides refuse to allow their dead to have died in vain.  You can be a person like Abner asking “how did we get into this mess?” yet be unable to get out of it.  The cycle of violence takes a lot of straightening.

       And over all these events lingers the unanswered death of Asahel.  Joab finally answers Abner’s question, “Must the sword devour forever?” with a pointed reply – “Maybe not forever, but at least one more.”  Just as Abner is about to turn the north over to David, Joab assassinates him.    Joab creates new enemies for David and greatly complicates his plans – all for the sake of revenge. 

       “One more!”  That was Joab’s answer. 

       But how would we answer Abner’s question, “Must the sword devour forever?” That is a question we have ample reason to ask and answer in our own place and time.  The sword has never stopped devouring since the time of David. 

       This morning as we gather, the Middle East is in danger of boiling over.  Iran has missiles pointed at Israel.  Israel has carried out simulated air attacks over the Mediterranean at the identical distance to the capital of Iran.  Our soldiers continue to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have gone to war but the nation as a whole has not.  The burden falls on a relative few.

      You might be a bit surprised today that I am talking about war.  But it is where God’s word today leads us.  It is also a part of the world we live in and the world we live in is what the gospel is meant to address. I don’t want to be like the James Stewart who was a famous theologian during World War II.  He is remembered in church history as a theologian who wrote extensively during World War II – but somehow never mentioned World War II. His sermons were clever and intelligent, but there was no connection to the real world.

      Pastors are not experts in foreign policy, politics or war making.  But we are to know about what the Bible teaches. So what does the Bible say about war and what does the church say about what the Bible says?

       First, we need to recognize that in the Old Testament, war is taken for granted as part of the way things are in the world and even as part of the way God works in the world.  David is a man who began his life as a shepherd living by violence.  Sheep may be loveable and cuddly but they can’t survive if shepherds are like that. 

       In the Old Testament and in our own world, war is not one thing.  There is liberative war or war designed to free other people like Abraham’s rescues of Lot in Genesis 14 or the NATO intervention in Kosovo.  There is punitive war, or war designed to bring retribution on people who have done wrong like Saul’s attack on Amalek or the war on Al Qaeda.  There is defensive war like the American response to Pearl Harbor.  There is aggressive war designed to gain control of territory like the invasion of Canaan or the Russian attack on Georgia.  There is preemptive war designed to stop somebody from doing something wrong. 

       But what about the New Testament?

       It is very surprising to some people that Jesus did not include in the Sermon on the Mount a statement like, “It was said of old, ‘You shall only make war when God tells you to,’ but I say to you, “You shall not make war at all.”  But Jesus doesn’t say that.  In fact, in passages like Matthew 24, Jesus says that war will continue until the final war of them all at Armageddon when He will return to finally establish Isaiah’s Kingdom of Peace.  So to Abner’s question, “Will the sword devour forever,” Jesus says, “No, not forever – but certainly for a long time.”   So it’s not enough to ask, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”  Until Isaiah’s peaceable kingdom, somebody will always show up. 

       The question for us isn’t “should we ever fight?” but “when should we fight?”  What wars are right for Christians to fight?

       The church has wrestled with this question for a very long time.  Beginning at the time of St. Augustine in the 4^th Century, the church has tried to determine which wars are justified – not holy wars – there are no such things -- but just wars. The church developed the just war theory that gives us six guidelines that we are called to apply to the world today.   Not everyone in the church agrees with this.  Some say that all wars are bad and Christians should never, ever fight for anything. But the majority of the church agrees that some wars are good for more than nothing and that this is what we are to fight for.

       First, the war must be for a just cause. Examples of a just cause include:  defense against an invader, or humanitarian intervention to stop abuses of human rights by a tyrannical regime.  The main just cause is to put right a wrong. Sometimes a preventive war, fought to prevent a wrong from happening, may be considered just.

      Second, all other ways of resolving the problem must be tried and exhausted first. War must always be the last resort; after all peaceful means to solve the conflict have been genuinely tried and exhausted.      

       The third characteristic of a just war is that it is to be declared by a lawful authority. The war is to be declared by a nation or a government. War cannot be declared by an individual or guerilla group, but by nations or states. 

       Fourth, there must be a reasonable chance of success.  We should not fight war for the sake of war, or have a war that goes on indefinitely.  There must be a reasonably attainable objective at which point the war ends.  This comes from the idea that war is a great evil, and that it is wrong to cause suffering, pain, and death with no chance of success.

       The fifth characteristic of a just war is that the means are proportionate to the ends. That is, wars are to prevent more evil and suffering than they create. The benefits are to far outweigh the harm the war will inevitably do.   The force used in the war must be the minimum force necessary to achieve the war’s goals.

       Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed.  Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present. I am impressed with the great effort our military in Iraq is putting forth to accomplish this, even to the point of risking their lives.  

       War, especially modern war with high explosives, is inherently terrible.  But the more collateral civilian deaths caused by the war, the more suspect will be the basis for claiming that the war is just.  The massive carpet bombing of German cities and the destruction of thousands of lives at the very end of World War II when Germany was already defeated is an example of a just war gone off track.  The destruction of Dresden wasn’t done to hasten the defeat of the Nazis but to impress the Soviet Union with the power of allied arms – just in case the Russians got ideas.    Thousands of civilians died for the sake of a political point – which was wrong.   Even a just war like World War II can easily mutate into evil because war has its own terrible momentum.  

       The sixth characteristic of a just war is that the objectives must be just.  Annihilation of an enemy is not a legitimate goal.  Revenge is not a legitimate goal. Good intentions include creating, restoring or keeping a just peace, righting a wrong and assisting the innocent.

       That’s the guidance of much of the church over the centuries – developed on the Word of God by Christian brothers and sisters who have gone before us.  The burden of proof is always on those who would call for war – not on those who oppose it.  The stance in "just war" theory is always against war, not in favor of it.

       But that’s hard to hold on to when the drums are beating.

       Lisa Suhay is the author of several children’s books.  Soon after the invasion of Iraq she wrote some words that are worth our attention. 

       “In a nation at war, peace is suddenly a dirty word. This is what I was told in an urgent phone call from someone in publishing who insisted that I drop my role in a project called "Pass it on for Peace." The project entails the creation of a traveling, growing library of stories written by students in grades five through eight. Topics for the stories cover the building blocks of peace like tolerance, kindness, not giving in to hate, fear or anger.

       "You do not want your name associated with peace right now," I was told. "This will come back at you. People will think you are anti-war. Nobody wants peace now it's un-patriotic, un-American. We have to win this war and to do that we can't be using the P-word."

       “I asked the caller if it was just possible that this was one person's reaction.  ‘No,’ the caller insisted from the other end of the line. ‘This is America and peace right now in un-patriotic as spitting on the flag.’ 

        “Wow. Flag spitting is bad, so I decided to call some other associates in marketing, publishing and related fields that cover public opinion. The reaction was nearly uniform. Each person called was someone who had thought the project a good one until I asked about this new take on peace.

       "Peace? I'd better check with marketing," was one response. "Let me get back to you."  Another, after a long pause, said, "That's an angle worth worrying about. Peace is pretty tricky. Let me crunch on this and call you back."

       “As I wait breathlessly by the phone for them all to "check" and "crunch" I have come to my own conclusions. Actually that is a bit misleading since I had never left my conclusions in the first place.

       “Peace is a good thing. Peace is something we want. It is something we should be teaching our children to consider and to strive to achieve in their time.  To love and long for peace is not an attack on our nation's military.
       Suhay concludes, “Peace is not something we need a committee to judge as good or bad. Peace is not a state of being that should ever be considered unpopular or politically incorrect …the day the word peace inspires rage, disgust and derision in us is the day we must reevaluate what we are battling for...”

      I love peace.  I pray for peace. But I’m not a pacifist.  I believe that some wars are just and some aren’t and it’s up to me as a person called and redeemed by Jesus Christ to figure out which ones.  That influences how I vote and where I serve.

       During the Vietnam war, for example, our government had a mental slot for conscientious objectors but didn’t know how to handle people like me – people who are selective conscientious objectors who oppose a specific war for a specific reason;  people who were willing to serve in one war but not another.  The government asked how it could wage war if each person decided for themselves whether of not they could fight.  But that decision is exactly the decision God calls us to make in our own conscience.  That’s not something that belongs to any state.

       I’m certainly not trying to reopen the wounds of the Vietnam War here today.  I have too many friends including some here this morning who fought and served honorably for a cause they believed was right.  I’ve talked with some of them about this sermon. 

       I know that not everyone who carries a sword – or an assault rifle – is a devourer.  At the recent General Assembly, I spent a good amount of time working with the Command Chaplain at Ft. Benning.  I know many others who serve in the armed forces whose great goal is to be peacemakers.

       I’m just using it as my own example of a struggle that young men and women who are here today may someday face – as the sword continues to devour in many places in the world -- and to point out that we need to be prepared to stand with them with intelligence, compassion and strength as they wrestle with their own use of the sword.. 

       That’s a gift I received from my own dad.  My dad served as a combat infantryman in World War II in Patton’s Third Army.  He spent six months in a German prisoner of war camp.  He was always quiet about his experiences and thoughts as many men of that generation were.  So I didn’t know how he would respond when I wrote from college about my wrestling with what course to take if I were drafted. 

       My dad wrote back a letter that was filled with compassion and insight.  He said that he hated some of the things he had done and some of the things he had seen but he was still proud to have served.  He said that he hoped I would be willing to serve in the same way if our nation faced today the global threat and incredible world-destroying evil the people of his generation faced.  But then he said that he did not know what he would do with the war in Vietnam and that he would love and support me whatever path I chose. 

       Finally, fortunately, I didn’t have to choose.  I pray that you young people here today don’t have to make that choice either.  But if you do, the subject is not off limits.  My door and the doors of many of us will always be open to help you wrestle with your own consciences before your God and your people.