Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone and I'm your RS teacher today.

I'm pleased to be working with you on this lesson on Different religious views about weapons of mass destruction.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain different Christian responses to weapons of mass destruction.

Keywords we'll be using today are disarmament, nuclear deterrence, and weapons of mass destruction.

Disarmament is reducing or eliminating weapons.

Nuclear deterrents have nuclear weapons with the aim of deterring or preventing other states attacking for fear of retaliation and nuclear war, possibly leading to Mutually Assured Destruction.

Weapons of mass destruction are weapons which cause widespread indiscriminate damage.

For example, nuclear, chemical, or biological.

First of all, we're going to look today at Christian teachings on weapons of mass destruction and then at Christian responses to weapons of mass destruction.

So let's get started on Christian teachings on weapons of mass destruction.

Christian attitudes to weapons of mass destruction are informed by different sources of authority including the Bible, Church teachings, the example of other Christians, Christian ethical theories such as Natural Law and situation ethics, their conscience and ability to reason.

They may interpret the sources differently or emphasise one more than another.

The use of weapons of mass destruction directly violates Just War theory.

A Just War should be proportional.

The damage caused should be no greater than the military advantage gained.

Clearly, a weapon of mass destruction violates this rule because the scale of destruction and suffering caused by weapons of mass destruction is far greater than any legitimate military advantage.

A Just War should discriminate.

So this means civilians and non-competent must be protected and not deliberately targeted.

Again, this is violated by weapons of mass destruction because weapons of mass destruction cannot distinguish between competence and civilians, and so they cause widespread indiscriminate harm.

So why do many Christians believe that the use of weapons of mass destruction violates Just War theory? I'd like you to choose two correct answers.

We have A, they target military bases without warning, which breaks the rule of a last resort.

B, they cannot distinguish between soldiers and civilians breaking the principle of discrimination.

C, they cause destruction far greater than any military advantage gained, breaking the rule of proportionality.

Or D, there are too costly to produce breaking the principle of proper intention.

So remember, you're choosing two correct answers.

Pause the video, have a look through the answers, choose the two that you think are correct.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you spotted that it is B and C, they can't distinguish between soldiers and civilians and they cause destruction far greater than any military advantage gained.

The Bible is a source of wisdom and authority for Christians on weapons of mass destruction.

Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created unkind in his own image." This means that every human life has dignity and value.

Weapons of mass destruction devalue human life by treating people as collateral damage, which goes against the belief in the sanctity of life.

"You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13.

Weapons of mass destruction kill indiscriminately, including many innocent people.

This commandment clearly forbids the intentional taking of human life, especially on such a scale.

"Blessed are the peacemakers." Matthew 5:9.

Jesus praises those who work the peace, not destruction.

The use of weapons of mass destruction contradicts the call to be peacemakers and live in a way that reflects God's will.

Which of the following quotations best supports a Christian argument every life has dignity and value.

A, "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13.

B, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Matthew 5:9.

Or C, "So God created mankind in his own image." Genesis 1:27.

Take a moment if you need to, pause the video, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you chose C, "God created mankind in his own image." Christian teaching differentiates between nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction such as biological or chemical weapons.

Christians agree that weapons of mass destruction of any sort should never be used.

Let's think about nuclear weapons.

Well, on this one, there are some Christians that accept nuclear deterrent as a temporary step.

But others reject nuclear weapons completely.

When it comes to biological and chemical weapons, Christians agree not only that chemical and biological weapons should not be developed, but they should not be stored, used or even threatened.

We've already seen that church teachings on weapons of mass restriction vary depending on whether we are talking about nuclear weapons, or biological, and chemical weapons.

Those teachings do vary between denominations.

So if we look at Methodist, Roman Catholic, and Church of England, all of them would argue that the use of any type of weapon mass restriction, so all types is wrong.

When it comes to possessing weapons of mass description focusing just biological and chemical weapons, again, they'd all agreed that that is wrong.

When we move on to the possession of nuclear weapons, the Methodist church would also say, no, they've never accepted the possession of nuclear weapons.

The Roman Catholic Church would now say, no, they shouldn't be possessed but historically, they have accepted the possession of nuclear weapons, and the Church of England to a limited degree accepts the possession of nuclear weapons because they are a nuclear deterrent.

When it comes to disarmament, all churches agree that disarmament is ideal, so that is the long term goal.

The Methodist Church argues this should be unilateral.

So that means one nation should decide to get rid of their nuclear weapons and should do so regardless of what others are doing.

The Roman Catholic and Church of England would argue it should be multilateral, which means that nations work together to agree together to reduce or eliminate their nuclear weapons.

So which Church tradition has always been against nuclear deterrent? So that means possessing a nuclear weapon as a deterrent.

Is it A, the Methodist Church.

B, the Church of England.

Or C, the Roman Catholic Church.

Take a moment, pause the video, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Excellent work if you chose the Methodist Church, they have always been against the possession and the use of any kind of weapon of mass destruction.

For part one of our task, I'd like you to look at the statements below and decide whether it's taught in the Bible and then suggest what it says about weapons of mass destruction.

A, Christians are called to work for peace, not to cause large scale destruction.

B, mass killing is sometimes acceptable if it brings an end to war quickly.

C, human life is sacred and should never be treated as disposable.

D, owning powerful weapons can be justified if it helps prevent future conflict.

So take your time to think about the four statements and decide whether they match Bible teaching and how or why.

Pause the video, come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for A, Christians are called to work for peace not to cause large scale destruction.

"Yes, this reflects the teaching, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Christians who follow this would likely reject the use of threats of weapons and mass destruction as they oppose the call to work for peace." B, mass killing is sometimes acceptable if it brings an end to war quickly.

"No, this is not reflected in the Bible.

In fact, it reflects utilitarian reasoning.

Christians would likely reject this view because it goes against the sanctity of life and the commandment, "You shall not murder." C, Human life is sacred and should never be treated as disposable.

"Yes, this is reflected in the Bible, in the teaching, "So God created mankind in his own image." This teaching supports the idea that weapons of mass destruction are wrong because they devalue human life and treat people as collateral damage." And D, Owning powerful weapons can be justified if it helps prevent future conflicts.

"No, this is not in the Bible.

In fact, it reflects a modern argument for deterrence.

Some Christians might accept it in practise, but it's not based on scriptural teaching." Excellent work if you've managed to spot whether each of those is reflected in Bible teaching.

For part two of our task, I'd like you to have a look at the question.

Explain to different religious beliefs about weapons of mass destruction.

Refer to sacred writings or another source of religious belief in teaching in your answer.

To help you do this, you can follow the guidance point, develop, point, develop.

Once you've made your points and developed them, you will need to make sure you link in a relevant source and explain what it teaches in relation to at least one of the points.

This might be a quotation or a general belief or teaching.

To pause your video, we are looking at making two points and developing them and with at least one of them linking in a relevant source and explaining what it says in relation to the point you've made.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "Methodists reject all weapons of mass destruction.

Since chemical and biological weapons are already banned under international law, they focus their call on nuclear disarmament.

They believe possessing these weapons contradicts the belief that every person is made in the image of God.

Methodist support giving up nuclear weapons unilaterally if necessary because they believe the UK must lead by example.

Roman Catholics and many Anglicans also believe that the use of any type of weapon of mass destruction is always morally wrong as they use harms innocent people.

However, some accept the possession of nuclear weapons as a temporary deterrent if it helps prevent war and is part of a clear plan to achieve peace.

This reflects the teaching, "Blessed of the peacemakers," showing that peace can sometimes require careful, gradual steps." Excellent work if you've managed to put across to Christian beliefs about weapons of mass destruction.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at Christian responses to weapons of mass destruction.

Sarah is an Anglican chaplain in the British Army.

She has been asked about weapons of mass destruction.

Sarah says, "I have served in areas where chemical weapons were used by armed groups and have seen the long-term suffering they cause.

Ideally, I want a world without weapons of mass destruction.

However, I can see that keeping nuclear weapons can prevent war because as long as others have them, giving ours up could be dangerous.

Romans 13:4 says, 'For the one in authority is God's servant for your good.

' Governments have a duty to protect us even if deterrent is not ideal as a long-term solution." So how does Sarah justify the possession of nuclear weapons? Take a moment, pause the video, have a look at what she said.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Asher is a Pentecostal Christian and he has also been asked about his views on weapons of mass destruction.

Asher says, "I believe God calls us to value every human life.

Weapons of mass destruction wipe out whole cities, including the innocent.

I cannot reconcile their use or possession with Jesus teaching to love our enemies.

He said, 'Blessed are the peacemakers' in Matthew 5:9, and I believe that includes working for a world without these weapons.

I think Christians should speak out for peace, justice, and disarmament." So how does Asher oppose the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent? Take a moment, pause the video, look back at what he said, and come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? Christians may support disarmament whilst also believing that nuclear weapons can serve as a deterrent.

Take a moment, think about your answer, but also think about why? Pause the video if you need to, come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you spotted it's false, but why is it false? Well, some Christians believe nuclear weapons may keep the peace temporarily, but overall, their moral duty to protect life and promote peace leads them to support disarmament as a final goal.

As well as looking at Biblical and Church teachings, Christians might apply Christian ethical theories when working out how to respond to the statement, "Possessing weapons of mass destruction can never be justified." Natural Law is often use in Catholic teaching.

In Natural Law, moral rules are found by using reason to identify the natural purposes built into nature by God.

Natural Law could be used to justify the possession of nuclear weapons as a temporary way to preserve life, but it could also be used to argue against it by showing that both the use and possession of weapons of mass destruction goes against our natural purpose to protect life.

Jason is a Catholic priest.

Along with using the Bible and church teachings, he also uses Natural Law when making moral decisions.

Jason says, "Natural Law teaches that we must protect life and seek peace.

The church has consistently opposed the use and possession of chemical and biological weapons as they cause indiscriminate suffering and go against our duty to preserve life.

While nuclear weapons were once tolerated for deterrence, the church now teaches that even possessing them is immoral because Natural Law shows they threaten the primary precept of preserving life and undermine the dignity of the person." Situation Ethics is often linked to liberal Protestant ethics.

In Situation Ethics, moral decision should be made by choosing the most loving action, agape, in each situation.

Situation Ethics is generally used to oppose all weapons of mass destruction as their use for this widespread suffering and opposes love.

It could only be used to justify the possession of nuclear weapons if it prevents war and protects innocent lives.

Ji-eun is a Methodist minister.

Along with using the Bible and looking for guidance from her Church, she also uses Situation Ethics when making moral decisions.

Ji-eun says, "I follow Jesus' example by choosing the most loving action in each situation.

Since peace is the most loving response, weapons of mass destruction are wrong due to the indiscriminate suffering they cause.

As a Methodist, I reject deterrence as it relies on fear.

The loving choice is unilateral disarmament, setting an example for the world and working towards a future free of such weapons." So which of the following is an argument a Christian might use in favour of possessing nuclear weapons? A, nuclear weapons may prevent war by deterring aggression and protecting innocent lives.

B, nuclear weapons cause indiscriminate harm contradicting Jesus' teachings on love.

Or C, some argue that nuclear weapons are not morally justified under any circumstances.

So take a moment, pause if you need to, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you spotted it's A, nuclear weapons may prevent war by deterring aggression and protecting innocent lives.

Here is an evaluation statement about weapons of mass destruction.

That is never a good reason for any country to possess weapons of mass destruction.

Now, in a full question, you might be asked to evaluate the statement and in the answer, give reasoned arguments in support of this statement.

Give reasoned arguments to support a different point of view.

Refer to religious arguments.

You might refer to non-religious arguments and you should reach a justified conclusion.

What I'd like you to do for your task is write a paragraph of reasoned arguments in support of this statement from a Christian point of view.

So take your time.

Think back over what you've learned about Christian attitudes to weapons of mass destruction.

Think about why they might be in support and to say no one should ever possess weapons of mass destruction.

Remember, that would include chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Pause the video, come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "Many Christians would argue that there is no good reason for any country to possess weapons of mass destruction.

Christianity teaches that all life is sacred and these weapons cause mass suffering and death, often harming innocent people.

Jesus taught that we should love our enemies and weapons of mass destruction clearly go against this teaching by causing unnecessary harm.

The Bible also says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," meaning Christians are called to seek peace, not to use violent means like these weapons.

The Methodist Church teaches that unilateral disarmament is the most ethical response, believing that one country should set an example by giving up its weapons to promote peace and security for all.

As Christians believe in protecting life, only weapons that can destroy entire cities contradicts this moral responsibility." So some key points there will be that life is sacred and that holding or possessing weapons of mass destruction goes against that teaching that they cause harm and that they do not work for peace.

And you might also have remembered that the Methodist Church in particular argues for unilateral disarmament.

Well done if you've got some of those points in your answer.

In today's lesson, we have learned that Christian opposition to weapons of mass destruction is based on the Just War theory.

Biblical teachings such as, "You shall not murder," "Blessed are the peacemakers," and the sanctity of life oppose weapons of mass destruction.

Church traditions vary.

Methodists reject all weapons of mass destruction, Catholics, and many Anglicans oppose them, but may tolerate nuclear deterrence temporarily if aimed at achieving peace.

Christian ethical theories like Natural Law and Situation Ethics can be used to assess whether possessing weapons of mass destruction can ever be justified.

Well done for all of your efforts today on this lesson.

Thank you for working with me.