May I suggest the following scenario as one method for achieving peace in the world:
The United States, which to my knowledge is the only nation capable of producing neutron bombs, should proceed with utmost haste to complete the development and manufacture of several thousand of these weapons, which are highly touted for their ability to destroy life while doing only minimal harm to buildings and other valuable adjuncts of civilization.
Once the bombs are available and perched atop missiles, the United States could deliver an ultimatum: All fighting must cease within 24 hours. All current and potential battlefields will be kept under constant surveillance by satellite; and if signs of continued hostilities are detected, the battle area will immediately be subjected to neutron bombardment.
The grand advantage of this method of establishing peace on earth would be that all the truly incorrigible warmongers would eventually be wiped from the face of the earth, and only those who could be scared into peaceful coexistence would be left. Thus all the world would be compelled to coexist peacefully as the United States and the Soviet Union have done for the past 40 years—not exactly as best friends, but too scared to start a fight.
Now that I've got your attention, please hear me out.
Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt. 5:9), and Paul wrote, "As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Rom. 12:18). The question I'd like to get at is Just how far does God expect us to go to maintain peace?
The thing that prompts the question is a growing awareness of an upsurge of nationalism and what I call "defensism" among some conservative Christians.
Should Christians actively support the buildup of ever larger nuclear stockpiles to assure the peaceful continuation of mutually assured destruction? I have on my desk a letter from a very prominent conservative evangelist. His unique appeal for funds is based on fear of a nuclear freeze. He wants me to send him money to help him combat the people who are calling for a halt to proliferation of nuclear bombs and the missiles they are attached to.
I'm not ready to take sides in the freeze debate. I don't have enough facts to make a judgment. What concerns me is the confusion of issues that is generated when someone expects me as a Chris tian, on the basis of my religion, to oppose the so-called liberals who would like to see the arms race slowed or stopped.
Is it really true that our strength as a nation keeps the world at peace? If so, why are so many wars going on right now? And why the upsurge in terrorism?
Should Christian pastors encourage their flocks to crowd the grandstands of public opinion to cheer every blow our nation can strike against infidel terrorists and atheistic communists? If so, is there not a very real danger of blurring loyalties to the point that patriotism and Christianity become one and the same, just as they were at the dawn of the Reformation?
If the issue of continued arms buildup and of proliferation of new offensive and defensive systems could be divorced from patriotism and removed from the arena of conservative versus liberal, where would Christians stand? Would we sup port the same expenditures on other projects whose measurable benefits to society are equally questionable?
Finally, if peace through strength is a Christian cause, why did Jesus use His supernatural power to mend Malchus' ear instead of to improve Peter's aim? (I doubt that Peter was really aiming for the servant's ear.) On which side should Christians really stand?
Jesus' kingdom was not, and is not, of this world; so to Him two swords were enough (Luke 22:38). I wonder how many warheads would be enough.— K.R.W.
