Chapter 14: War and Peace
Chapter Fourteen
War and Peace
In the author’s lifetime, the United States has been engaged in these wars:
World War II
Korea
The Cold War
Vietnam
The invasions of Grenada and Panama
The Gulf War of 1991
Somalia
The invasion of Afghanistan, and
The invasion of Iraq.
In addition, we have supplied weapons and troops to countless “brush fires” and “training missions” in places such as the Philippines, Colombia, Yemen, and on and on. We live in a time of almost constant war. That is not a judgment, but a statement of fact. And we, as citizens, disagree about our nation’s involvement in at least some of those wars. That, too, is a statement of fact. This chapter will not take a position on any of those wars, or on the role of the United States as a superpower in a post-cold war world. Rather, it will look at John Wesley’s thoughts on war, to see what we can learn from him for our own day.
Wesley’s Thoughts on War
We saw, in Chapter 6, the long list of wars in which England fought during the eighteenth century. This was the period when England was becoming a major world power, and extending its rule over more and more of the globe. Even though the American colonies were lost, England held on to Canada, and added India to the Empire. For most of Wesley’s life, there were Englishmen fighting and dying somewhere around the world, if not in Europe itself. So what did he think on the subject of war?
For all his conservatism, and his loyalty to King and country, Wesley was not fond of war. He did not leap to the notion that we have to support the ruler in time of war, no matter what. His writings on war, specifically the war that we call the American Revolution, tended to blame both sides equally.
The most extended writing on war is found in his essay, “The Doctrine of Original Sin,” which was published in 1756, during what we call the French and Indian War, which was actually the first of several world wars fought between the English and the French. The goal of both sides in these wars was expanded colonies, trade opportunities (and monopolies) and economic power. Here’s what Wesley had to say about the causes of war at his sarcastic best:
But is there not a cause? O yes: “The causes of war,” as the same writer observes,” are innumerable. Some of the chief are these: The ambition of Princes; or the corruption of their Ministers: Difference of opinion; as, whether flesh be bread or bread be flesh; whether the juice of the grape be blood or wine; what is the best colour for a coat, whether black, white, or grey; and whether it should be long or short, whether narrow or wide. Nor are there any wars so furious as those occasioned by such difference of opinions.” (Works, IX, p. 221)
Wesley goes on to list other causes, such as the desire for more territory, the desire for power over a weaker country, or what we would call a pre-emptive strike, to make war on a stronger neighbor who might not be prepared at present, but whom a king dares not allow become stronger.
But it is the result of war that most bothers Wesley and calls forth some of his most eloquent prose.
But whatever the cause, let us calmly and impartially consider the thing itself. Here are forty thousand men gathered together on this plain. What are they going to do? See, there are thirty or forty thousand more at a little distance. And these are going to shoot them through the head or body, to stab them, or split their skulls, and send most of their souls into everlasting fire, as fast as they possibly can. Why so? What harm have they done to them? O none at all! They do not so much as know them. But a man, who is King of France, has a quarrel with another man, who is King of England. So these Frenchmen are to kill as many of these Englishmen as they can, to prove the King of France is in the right. Now, what an argument is this! What a method of proof! What an amazing way of deciding controversies! What must mankind be, before such a thing as war could even be known or thought of upon earth? (Works, IX, p. 222)
The context of those passages is, as noted, an essay on original sin. Wesley saw original sin as the nature of the human spirit apart from God, and war is only one of several examples he uses to illustrate the point. For him, war is an expression of sin, of life lived without God in the world. The causes of war he lists (and there are more in the original essay) are all examples of the self-centeredness, short-sightedness, and willful disobedience to God that are the marks of sin.
Wesley is clear that war cannot be reconciled to religion. But more than that—war cannot be reconciled to any degree of reason, or of common sense. Think about it. What is reasonable about sending young men (and women as well, in our day) off to war? Where is the common sense in that? In another ironic passage, Wesley expresses amazement that, in the slaughter and destruction of war, we can still talk about human dignity. We can’t do that, he says. We can’t talk about the power of human reason, so long as there is war in the world.
In May of 1775, Wesley wrote a letter to Thomas Rankin, who was head of the Methodist missionaries in America. At this point, war between England and the colonies seemed almost inevitable. In that letter Wesley wrote; “wherever war breaks out, God is forgotten.” (Works, 12, p. 327) A major concern for Wesley was that war would lead people to forget God, overcome by waves of patriotism, anger, fear, despair, and the physical suffering brought on by war.
Also in 1775, this time in November, Wesley preached a sermon called “National Sins and Miseries.” In the sermon, he explored the causes of the war with America. These included the loss of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and civil liberties in the colonies. He was sympathetic with the grievances of the colonists, but still did not think these grievances were reasons for war. War, he said, would only compound the problem. The sermon does not really take sides, but focuses on the folly of both sides in moving toward war. It’s interesting that, even though Wesley was not interested in politics and preached loyalty to the king and his ministers (see chapter 13) he points out to those ministers the folly of going to war.
Finally, in 1776, he published a little tract called “A Seasonable Address to the More Serious Part of the Inhabitants of Great Britain” (and that’s the condensed version of the title!). Instead of publishing it over his own name, he wrote on the title page, By a Lover of Peace. In the essay, he pointed out the stupidity of what was getting ready to happen in the colonies. Englishmen (on both sides) were going to kill each other, to prove who is right on the question of taxation without representation! He was amazed at the waste and stupidity involved in making major decisions on the basis of “who can lick whom.” He was not interested in who was right, or who “started it,” only in the waste involved in war. Surely, he argued, there are better ways of solving disagreements than this.
At about the same time, he was writing to Rankin in America, expressing a hope that the preachers could work for peace between the two sides, and war could be averted through their efforts.
And yet, Wesley was not a pacifist. He thought war was foolish and wasteful, and there should be better ways of solving international disputes. It is not clear if he believed in Augustine’s “just war” theory. In fact, already by Wesley’s day, it was almost impossible to meet the requirements of a “just war” laid down over 1300 years before. But when it seemed that France might invade England, Wesley proclaimed his support for the government, and even offered to raise a regiment for the defense of the homeland. As in so many other areas, Wesley was an amazingly complex person when it came to the thorny questions of war and peace.
In one of his essays on the causes of poverty, and the lack of food for the poor, Wesley did advocate cutting the size of the army, in order to make grain available for the poor. That statement shows that, like all the rest of us, Wesley did not always think through what he was saying. If the King had actually disbanded regiments and used the savings to provide grain for the poor, the law of unintended consequences would have kicked in. All those discharged soldiers would have been without work, and in need of the same grain that Wesley intended for the poor. Chances are that the situation of the poor would not have improved in that case. But, the idea does suggest that Wesley was willing to consider serious change in government policy in order to care for the needs of the poor.
And We Have Learned . . . ?
Questions about war and peace are never easy for Christians. We live in the tension between loving our neighbors, even loving our enemies, on the one hand, and the desire to be loyal citizens of a nation we love, on the other. This tension has always divided the church, and our generation is no exception. But what can we learn from Wesley about war that we can make a part of our lives today?
First, there is the awareness of the horrors of war. Remember Wesley’s description of the armies killing each other. Add to that the so-called “collateral damage,” the deaths and wounding of civilians, the destruction of the infrastructure of the warring nations, and the devastation of economies. As General Sherman said, “war is hell,” even when it is necessary.
Second, I think Wesley would want us to remember that God’s ultimate will is peace. One of the implications of that is to look carefully at the reasons for war. Obviously, if a nation is attacked, it will defend itself. The list above of some of the reasons why nations go to war reminds us that we often do not look for God’s ultimate will, or even for a common-sense reason for war. Instead, we focus on selfish ends, the expressions of what Wesley called original sin.
Third, Wesley’s statement that, in war, God is forgotten is a powerful one. The old adage says that there are no atheists in foxholes. That may or may not be true. It does seem to be true, however, that God’s ultimate will is easily forgotten in time of war.
Questions for Reflection