Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

War may be necessary, but it is never good

Opinion

War may be necessary, but it is never good

An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.

Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Swearengin is an author, emotional and spiritual well-being coach, podcaster and content creator known as Pastor Paul.

It seems quite a disconcerting time in the world. If only people wore white hats and black hats, like the old Westerns, so we could easily identify "good guys" and the “bad” ones. We find ourselves in such a tumultuous moment as horrifying pictures of violence come out of Israel and Gaza, causing a "who's right?” dividing line to form in America. For some, however, the question of right and wrong, good and evil, can become as simplistic as those old movies.

For example, many Christians believe it is their religious requirement to support anything Israel does as holy and heaven-endorsed. For others, the decades-long tragedy of Gaza may not justify the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, but certainly might be the cause for many to want Israel to silence weaponry and search for a lasting solution. Perhaps our attention needs to be drawn to the Hebrew story of Jonah for wisdom in these times.


Many know the story of Jonah’s "big fish" (Hebrew scripture does not call it a whale, by the way, in which his retreat from his commanded purpose is stopped when he is swallowed by a large ocean animal and returned to his God-commanded destination. What we might miss, though, is the necessity of the fish in compelling Jonah to consider his view of the people in Nineveh.

Jonah believed the Ninevites an enemy worthy to be wiped from the face of the earth and it’s easy to see why Jonah could have a right to believe so. The Ninevites had long been in conflict with Jonah's community and Jonah likely had witnessed the atrocities brought by war between factions. Jonah believed these people of a different culture, race and religion were terrorists and savages, more worthy of divine wrath than transcendent graciousness.

"I'd rather be dead than live in a world where my enemies receive mercy,” Jonah says in the story. The response from heaven was jarring.

"Do you do well to feel this way?” responded the divine voice. In modern parlance this is: "How's that mindset working out for you?”

Now, Jonah's desire for retribution can be justified by biblical texts. A fair argument can be made that the Hebrew and Christian Bibles seem to make allowances for governmental retribution against wrongdoers. That doing so might even be endorsed by these ancient texts. Without doubt, one can point to numerous times when the God of Israel ordered the military to wipe out peoples. Romans 13 of the Christian Bible can be interpreted to say government authority to create defensive militaries is ordained and endorsed by the Christian God.

No one is evil who thinks Pearl Harbor demanded an American response or that it was necessary to fight aggression in Europe. Those are respectable opinions. Can we, however, face more nuanced questions as to how hundreds of years of Western colonialism played into the actions of World War II’s “bad actors”? Or can we be honest as to how unfair Allied treatment of post-World War I Germany fed into the actions that led to World War II? Can we honestly consider how Western European racism and colonial goals prevented us from intervening for Ethiopia against its Italian invaders? That failure to live up to the promises of the League of Nations encouraged Mussolini to continue militarization of his country and partnership with Hitler.

Far too often, we, like the writers of ancient Hebrew texts, claim godly permission for violent acts. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln noted that both the North and South invoked God’s name for their military cause. Could it be our belief in God’s value for our military might provide cover from considering if we, like Jonah, prefer personal justice over the saving of lives of those we consider “others”?

Perhaps we consider our wealth and sizable military to be a sign of a divine preference for us over other nations and peoples. Jonah believed the shade from a miraculous plant endorsed his feelings of moral superiority. Yet, when the plant dies, just as miraculously as it came to be, Jonah cries out with a sense of injustice. Again, the divine interaction in the story challenges Jonah’s perception of his enemies.

"You think it unfair that the plant died," the voice from Heaven scolds, "a plant you had nothing to do with creating. Yet you root for the destruction of 120,000 human beings and their livelihoods." Does our mindset towards our military and financial advantages give us permission to fight for our self-interests at the cost of others?

Jesus was surrounded by people calling for resistance and revolt against a tyrannical Roman government, yet he refused to engage this cause. Instead, he challenged his own people’s sense of injustice while treating Samaritans, women, lepers and tax collectors unjustly. He made the outrageous statement that a true display of resistance against the establishment was, when commanded by a Roman soldier to “go a mile” in carrying their war implements, to “go two.” Jesus proclaimed loving and serving our enemies is the solution to the world's issues and said those who love only people like themselves aren't doing anything better than those they perceive to be the worst of a society. True connection to heavenly truth, according to Jesus, was an ability to “love our enemies.”

"Do you do well to feel this way?” Heaven asked Jonah. How about us? Should we be challenged with the same question as we settle in perceptions of people as enemies, terrorists or thugs; unworthy of basic human treatment?

In a recent presidential primary debate, the candidates uniformly called for cruel and violent vengeance in the Middle East, using language like “finish the job” and "wipe them out," sentiments that can be understood in the context of the horror seen on Oct. 7. But can we seek justice without losing our ability to consider if we’re missing a heavenly “do you do well?” opportunity for introspection and thoughtfulness that can help facilitate solutions?

I don't want Israel or the Palestinians to be wiped out. I want generational violence to cease and the human beings in the area to all be able to enjoy life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I recognize the complexities of the situation are many. Former President Jimmy Carter, who worked his entire life for peace said this:

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children. To be true to ourselves, we must be true to others.”

Perhaps more of us could realize that war is never good and hear the challenge posed to Jonah: "Do you do well?" Then maybe hearts will change and solutions will follow.


Read More

The spectacle of Operation Epic Fury
A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 02, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

The spectacle of Operation Epic Fury

The U.S. and Israel’s joint military campaign against Iran, which rolled out under the name Operation Epic Fury, is a phrase that sounds more like a summer action film than a real‑world conflict in which people are dying. The operation involves massive strikes across Iran, with U.S. Central Command reporting that more than 1,700 targets have been hit in the first 72 hours. President Donald Trump described it as a “massive and ongoing operation” aimed at dismantling Iran’s military capabilities.

This framing matters. When leaders adopt language that emphasizes spectacle, they risk shifting public perception away from the gravity of war. The death of Iran’s supreme leader following the bombardment, for example, was a world‑altering event, yet it unfolded under a banner that evokes adrenaline rather than anguish.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Race and Species are Leveraged Against Each Other

Texas Rep. Al Green held a sign reading "Black People Aren't Apes," protesting a racist video Trump had previously shared on Truth Social. Green was escorted out of the House chamber just minutes into President Donald Trump's State of the Union address.

How Race and Species are Leveraged Against Each Other

This was nothing new.

Before President Donald Trump released a video on his Truth Social account earlier this month that depicted Michelle and Barack Obama as apes, many were already well aware of his compulsive use of AI-generated deepfake content to disparage the former president. Many were also well aware of his tendency to employ dehumanizing rhetoric to describe people of color.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

Getty Images, Fotosearch

Four Freedoms: What We Are Fighting For

The record of the Trump 2.0 administration is one of repeated usurpations and injuries to the body politic: fundamentally at odds with the principles of democracy, without legal or ethical restraint, hostile to truth, and indifferent to human suffering. Our nation desperately needs a stout and engaging response from the party out-of-power. It’s necessary but not sufficient for Democrats to criticize Trump, rehearsing what they are against. If it is to generate renewed enthusiasm among voters, the Democratic Party must offer a compelling positive message, stating clearly what it stands for.

Fortunately, Democrats don’t need to reinvent this wheel. They can reach back to a fraught moment in our history when a president brought forward a timely and nationally unifying message, framed within a coherent, memorable, and inspiring set of ideas. In his address to Congress on Jan. 6, 1941 – a full 12 months before Pearl Harbor – Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed the international spread of fascism an “unprecedented” threat to U.S. security. He also identified dangers on the home front: powerful isolationist leanings and, in certain quarters, popular support for Nazi ideology. Calling for increased military preparation and war production (along with higher taxes), he reminded citizens “what the downfall of democratic nations [abroad] might mean to our own democracy.”

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump filled record-breaking State of the Union

President Donald Trump delivered the longest State of the Union address in American history, standing at nearly 108 minutes and more than 10,000 words.

(Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)

How Trump filled record-breaking State of the Union

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump delivered the longest State of the Union in history at almost 108 minutes Tuesday night. He began the address to Congress, which totaled more than 10,000 words, by stating that America is the “hottest country” in the world.

Trump centered his fourth official State of the Union address — the first of his second term — on economic, immigration, and international policy. He framed his accomplishments around America’s 250th birthday.

Keep ReadingShow less