"War is unchristian," the great man said. He was giving a sermon, a beautiful sermon, in the largest Seventh-day Adventist church in the world, in Loma Linda, California. The church was packed, as he is the world president of this church. The people were listening, and listening well. The president doesn't come to town every day.

At first, I thought I had heard wrong. I listened to the sermon again on tape, to be sure. There it was, a bald sentence with no qualifications around it, save a weak "self-defense is understandable." Even this was swallowed up by such statements as, "There are better ways of resolving issues" (yes, sometimes) and "Has history not taught us anything?" (Yes, history has taught us that war is occasionally the only thing that works to take out evil regimes that threaten civilization.)

"War is fundamentally unfair, uncivilized, unchristian."

As president, this man is very important to my church. I respect him for that. I am certain he means well. His sermon was otherwise a masterful and impassioned call to Christian love in action. But his view on war, as stated, is a view I do not share. I heard him saying that, while self-defense may be "understandable," all war is in the same condemnable moral category.

I used to think this view was an honest mistake, excusably naive, engendered by misguided compassion and misinterpreted Bible texts. I have come to believe differently. I believe it is an immoral view. First, it is immoral because in a just war it aids and comforts the enemy. Second, it is immoral because, but for those who don't share it, it would allow evil to prevail. Third, it is immoral because it disheartens those who fight evil, putting their very lives on the line for those of us who are enabled to enjoy the fruits of their fighting: freedom, democracy, and human rights. Finally, I believe it is immoral because it is untrue. Not all wars are morally the same, or even close.

"War is unfair." Perhaps we might think about how this blanket assertion would appear to the Japanese, or the Germans, or the Italians, all of whom, without the Allied victory in World War II, would be living in fascist societies under brutal dictators.

"War is uncivilized." This statement might be problematic to the Jewish people, few of whom would be alive today without the military defeat of Adolph Hitler. Or to the Europe of mid-last-century, which would have come fully under the domination of the wicked Nazi regime, with unthinkable results for all of civilization.

"War is unchristian." I wonder how this would sound in the ears of African-Americans, who would have been slaves very much longer-perhaps would still be slaves-without a civil war. I wonder how this sounds to the Bosnian Muslims, who were rescued by nothing less than war. Or to the South Koreans, who would have been swallowed up by the fearsome North Korean regime. In fact, the North Korean situation of today is a good example of how evil metastasizes when allowed to remain. It never sits still. It always wants more.

One could say war is at times a necessary evil. But I think truth is better served by saying that war is sometimes moral. That which prevents massive evil cannot itself be evil, though it may have to employ means that are of the world of imperfection. If war is evil, even a necessary one, then those who fight wars are invariably evil. Wait, the lowly foot soldier crouching in a foxhole, waiting to do his part to eradicate a holocaust at the risk of his own life is evil ?

It goes without saying that not all wars are moral; in addition to being unimaginably brutal, many if not most are manifestly unnecessary or ineffectual. And it is indeed true that war is hell. But it is far less hell than that which a just war aims to prevent. Is it what God wants for the human race? No, but neither does He want gulags, or concentration camps, or brutal dictatorships. God doesn't want brain surgery for us, either, or the grinding punishment of hemodialysis, but I believe He endorses these things because of what they aim to solve.

C. S. Lewis wrote a superb essay on the error of pacifism, which appears in his book, The Weight of Glory. He concluded, along with most major philosophers of times past, that some wars to fend off evil are indeed necessary and therefore right. In a separate book, God in the Dock, Lewis observed, "If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful." This would indeed make some wars moral, if lawful. And those who fight them, heroes. That is, in fact, how I view those service men and women engaged in the fight against terrorism. It is also how I believe our church ought to view and support its members who are presently signed up to serve in the militaries of the world that are fighting terrorism. If, instead, we call all war "unchristian," what does that make these people?

Scott Simon, a Quaker who for most of his life was an avowed pacifist, changed his mind after the events of September 11, 2001. He wrote, "Those of us who have been pacifists must admit that it has been our blessing to live in a nation in which other citizens have been willing to risk their lives to defend our dissent. The war against terrorism does not shove American power into places where it has no place. It calls on America's military strength in a global crisis in which peaceful solutions are not apparent." He ended his splendid Wall Street Journal article with this honest admission: "It is better to sacrifice our ideals than to expect others to die for them."

Whether any particular war is moral or is carried out morally is a separate question, and an entirely arguable one. I fully respect those who are deeply concerned, for example, about the potential effects of the war the United States is contemplating with Iraq. I share many of their concerns. They must be weighed carefully against the other set of concerns, regarding what will happen in the future if the current Iraqi regime is left in place.

The morality or immorality of war is always contextual, always dependent upon the end in view, the probability of success, and the means employed. A moral war aims to reduce the sum of potential human suffering in the world, which is in line with Christian principles. Our national and international leaders must constantly be considering these questions.

Is the Bible against war? Certainly such a case cannot be made from the Old Testament. That leaves us with the New Testament. Jesus addressed the Roman centurion without making any statement about his profession, that of a warrior. I know of no sentence Jesus spoke that addressed the topic of war directly. Some would say He addressed it indirectly when He spoke of such things as turning the other cheek. I would suggest that He was primarily speaking in these places of our relations with those with whom we live and work, not of an unlimited mandate for all human situations, personal and global. Even in the personal realm, we must sometimes take a stand against evil or against people who are acting in evil ways. But even if we take Jesus' statement to mean that we ought to always and without exception turn our cheek and offer the other one when we ourselves are being hurt (which I do not), this would still not address the situation of what to do when our brother is being hurt. Surely we are not being told to turn his cheek, also.

Of course the non-violent, non-war solutions are always preferable, if they exist. Every one of them must be tried first if there is the slightest chance of success. Nobody is arguing that war is ever the first preferable alternative. It is the last. But sometimes it is necessary. When it swings open the doors of the stinking concentration camps, when it liberates the slaves, broken and exhausted, when it frees those who are about to be tortured and murdered by the hundreds or thousands or millions, when it makes freedom possible where before existed only gulag, it is a good, not an evil.

Perhaps one day our church will awaken to this, perhaps not. But one thing is certain, and that is the fact that wherever around the world its members enjoy the freedom to worship, that freedom has come almost invariably because someone, some group, at some time, has fought for it.

Are we still comfortable with our old stand? We don't feel right about bearing arms ourselves, but we'll help others who will? No honest person living in the free world can say we have not needed these others to do so on our behalf. How is this intellectually and morally tenable? The newer generations may not be as willing to live with the cognitive dissonance so clear to me now in the traditional Seventh-day Adventist position on this important topic.