Question: “Is there a difference between killing to kill (for selfish reasons) and fighting for one’s country or killing to defend one’s family? Is the latter considered glorious to God?”

This is another perennial question. Of course, there is a difference between killing (murder) and fighting for one’s country or defending one’s family. The person asking the question has struck on the answer: the motivation. Killing for selfish reasons is murder and has to be wrong because the person has a callous view toward the sanctity of life and is interested in advancing a personal agenda at the expense of someone else’s life. Killing in defense of country or family has a view to the general good in the one instance and the love and protection of one’s family in the other.

The church has traditionally affirmed this distinction through the centuries. Admittedly, there has been killing in the name of God that was actually selfish or completely unnecessary, but the principle seems to remain intact. God did indeed command killing on occasion, but only when the failure to do so would threaten the welfare of His people. On the other hand, murder is always wrong and is really the point that God made in the sixth commandment (“You shall not murder”). Jesus brought the matter of the attitude of the heart into play when he said that anger and slander against a brother was a kind of murder for which one is held accountable (Matt. 5:21-22). Thus motivation is a major factor in considering whether killing is justified.

The whole question of a ”just war” has been brought into scrutiny by pacifists for several hundred years. Pacifists would hold that the proper Christian response is to allow evil to run unchecked and unresisted lest we harm a fellow human being. Anabaptists, Quakers, and others hold this view as a religious tenet. However, the vast majority of Christians, while understanding that it is often difficult to discern what is a just and what is an unjust war, believe that fighting in genuine defense of the country against aggression and tyranny is right.

The pursuit of peace is certainly the obligation of all, and godly political leaders should diligently pursue such a policy wherever possible. The pursuit of peace is certainly a law of the heart, but to bind pacifism as a law of God for all is quite a stretch. The traditional answer has been to leave that to the individual conscience, and with that I concur.