An attempt...to justify [a] war for the individual Christian citizen, after it has been judged incompatible with the ministry of the church, is a refusal to be honest with the absolute priority of church over state in the plan of God.
- John Howard Yoder, The Christian Witness to the State
For members of the discipleship community, there are two choices in regard to the morality of war. The first is the just-war theory, and the second is total pacifism. There is no other way.
Pacifists and just-war theorists hold much more in common than they hold in opposition. For instance, pacifists and just-war theorists both hold that a Christian's loyalty to the way of Christ comes before any loyalty to the nation-state, and thus deny the ultimate lordship of Caesar. Both hold that war as such is an evil that must be reigned in as much as possible. And both are willing to face the wrath of the nation-state rather than violating their 'unrealistic' moral commitments.
So it is a tragedy that the majority of efforts of both parties go into protesting the other rather than into their mutual goals of reigning in violence and witnessing to the lordship of Christ.
To begin dialogue, I would propose the following conversation starters.
- Given that the majority of church-goers know nothing of either pacifism or just-war doctrine, and simply support whatever wars their national leaders tell them to, how can we educate the church on these matters?
- Seeing that so many in the world pay lip service to the just-war tradition while denying it both in bellum and in bello, on the basis that warfare itself has changed since the formulation of the theory, what specific applications can we make for the theory in modern- and future-war scenarios?
- What can be done in an increasingly post-Christendom age to strengthen the restraints on national fighting deemed out of line with just-war criteria? This is as important to the pacifist as to the just-war theorist.
- A war that does not meet just-war criteria is not an "unjust war." From a Christian perspective, there is no such thing as an unjust war. A war that does not meet the criteria is something other than war - it is terrorist action, or genocide, or something else. How can the church witness to the just-war doctrine specifically in its use of language?
- Just-war doctrine developed primarily out of the writings of Plato and Aristotle, which Augustine and later Aquinas developed. How can the church develop and practice a more Christocentric just-war doctrine?
- Would we be willing to call for surrender before supporting a war effort that could not be won without resorting to unjust methods of warfare?
- In the aftermath of WWII, the Nuremberg trials made it clear that an individual is morally and criminally responsible to disobey an unjust order, yet selective service laws in the United States continued to specifically disallow draftees from being conscientiously opposed to specific wars. While across-the-board pacifists could qualify for CO status and be placed in other national service positions, just-war objectors had the choice to serve or be jailed. While the U.S. doesn't seem likely to reinstitute a draft, how can both pacifist and just-war churches support one another in their commitment not to shed blood unjustly?
- Many just-war churches have members serving in branches of the armed services. What kind of support can be given to these members in times when the church deems a particular war their members are fighting in, or the means used to fight it, unjust?
- Many pacifist churches (particularly the Quakers) are tapped to address international conflict before it turns to formal declaration of war, but considered irrelevant once the fighting begins. How can pacifist and just-war churches form partnerships that are effective at all levels of international conflict?
Before much of this dialogue can take place, there needs to be an overarching discussion with frankness and repentance on both sides. Too often pacifist churches have simply washed their hands of service to the world and withdrawn into sectarianism. Too often just-war churches have given lip service to the just-war doctrine while practically supporting whatever war their nation calls on them to support. Too often pacifists have refused to work with their just-war brothers and sisters, and have judged them as lovers of violence. Too often just-war churches have disregarded their pacifist brothers' and sisters' call to a life of total discipleship.
Much of the dialogue will be over the nature and apparent shortcomings of just-war doctrine, as well as the nature and apparent shortcomings of pacifist withdrawal. Ultimately, parachurch ministries not unlike the Fellowship of Reconciliation need to be created, bridging the pacifist and just-war divide, working for common goals, such as the witness to the supremacy of Christ and the abolition of war.
As a pacifist or just-warrior, do you resonate with these thoughts, or find fault with them? How can such dialogue be fostered in the first place? Help me out here.
Resources- Introduction to Just War Theory from JustWarTheory.com
- The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, A Pastoral Letter on War and Peace by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
- Beyond Just War and Pacifist: Nonviolent Struggle Toward Justice, Freedom and Peace in The Ecumenical Review, by Gene Sharp
- Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence by the American Friends Service Committee
Comments (16)
i'll be frank, i don't know really what can be done to reconcile both sides. i find myself in quite a conundrum of sorts, not unlike w/ our country's economic crisis.
i don't think there is any perfect earthly solution, and i'll be careful how i state this, but i think the lack of solution gives us an inkling as to where we are headed. i definitely don't claim to know the future, but i believe there will come a point where the culmination of events which we are now seeing unfold, will make it necessary for the anti-christ to arise and give his false peace. i am not saying that we should just sit back and give up, however, i am suggesting that perhaps the disunity, confusion and lack of viable solutions is prevalent and unfixable for a reason. i believe God is in total control here, and as much as it is good for us to try to do what is right/best, sometimes these things which we do not always understand are allowed to happen for a reason.
it's as you have stated here. logic and reasoning would seem to support that there should or could be a way to reconcile this all somehow. but things have gotten so complex. just as things have gotten so complex with our economic structure. there are no easy solutions anymore. no matter what is decided, the consequences would be major, and many would not be happy with the result. it's almost as if staying w/ the status quo/apathy is the route these days. i'm not sure doing nothing is the best solution -- but i don't honestly know what we can do (?)
sorry..not much of a solution/nor a discussion, eh?
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my message earlier. As I mentioned I don't believe there is any evidence that Jesus would agree to a "just war." He rejected involvement with any liberation movement/revolution against the Roman occupation, preaching instead radical forgiveness.
As for a constructive dialog concerning the pacifist and just-war camps among Christians, there ought to be some forum, but it will be problematic to arrange considering the level of emotional (irrational) rhetoric arising from the side with less supporting evidence. It is important to stress at all times time that there is no historical instance of war where civilian populations are not held in the balance.
@YouTOme - There aren't easy solutions to the problems, but it's easy to know what to do at any given time. And that's to witness to the reality of the Kingdom of God. We can't see it imposed on the world, but the world can see it imposed in our lives and communities.
I wouldn't get too hung up on waiting for the antichrist, though.
@SirNickDon - oh i know, and i agree w/ you on all accounts here.
interesting post for sure...
if I'm reading this right... reconcilling the notion of war... so i have to ask... how does one bring about peace?
the idea of a just-war is one that we really can't decide because of so many ppl's differing interpretation of what is just... and complete pacifism will in eventuality invite more destruction than what would be desired...
as far as I'm aware of... living as a citizen of the United States... and by defintion of as far as I've been aware of is that the US is a superpower... and such that... a superpower has the moral responsibility to defend the weak... Desert Storm was considered that (conspiracy theories and Michael Moore wannabes aside), Vietnam was an attempt at that (again conspiracy theories aside), WW1 was the inevitability of US involvment as was WW2 was the US provoked into war to defend American shores, the war of 1812 was again to defend the established state, the Civil War was on the basis of human slavery, and the Revolutionary War was to become independant from a monarchist state that many colonists didn't appreciate (namely taxation w/o representation and other such)...
all that I'm aware of really... as a Christian, we are to live the way Jesus lived... with humility, with suffering, with meekness, to illustrate and show forth Christ... and if soldiers are Christians (which you really can't deny their faith just on the basis of them holding a gun and wearing camo), then they are doing the duty called forth by their nation in which they are to obey the law of the land they live in if it doesn't conflict directly with Scripture... but in such, still that kind of lifestyle of humility and meekness to communicate the Gospel...
but then again... and this is dependant on your view of Revelation... and from my perspective... you really can't be a true pacifist or else you may just not appreciate the fact that Jesus will come as a warrior king in the end... and Scripture does note that He will bring about a massive killing spree just by His Word alone... and in that instance it really doesn't matter what you appreciate or not because it's gonna happen whether you agree or disagree and by that time, it won't matter...
so... my 2 cents...
It's sad to state this, but history has proven that there are times when the people must stand up for what is right.
In my opinion, standing up in non-violent protest is the preferred methodology. However, there comes a time when certain atrocities occur and non-violent protest is only a shouting silence that does one thing - shine the light on the fact that further action may be necessary.
That further action, sad to say, may involve the military....if political means doesn't resolve it first.
We hope that in time people will be able to resolve differences in a peaceful way, until then - we are only at the liberty for which are governments allow. And our God placed those in power, so we must serve as our convictions lead us.
Just a few thoughts. Good post.
The church does not and should not have absolute authority over anything - GOD does, and should. Period. To suggest otherwise is the larges theological fallacy.
@leadworshipper82@revelife - That's an extensive $0.02. Actually, I am a total pacifist precisely because I trust that Jesus controls life and death by his word, and will exercise that at the end of time. It's the logic Paul uses in Rom. 12, where he says to give up your right to vengeance, and leave vengeance to the Lord, but to love your enemy, and in so doing you will pour hot coals on his head. It's not that Christian pacifists are pansies who want to see justice ignored; we just trust only God to judge rightly.
The just-war doctrine is a very specific set of guidelines for determining when military action is acceptable; if it doesn't meet all the criteria, it is not acceptable, even if it would be a very desirable thing to do. In other words, by applying just-war standards to the nation, the church is declaring exactly when the military is in direct conflict with scripture. Of course, then there is the problem of what Christians in the military are to do, once a war or particular method for fighting that war has been declared unjust by their churches.
@edlives - I hear you. I think the beauty of the just-war doctrine is that it allows church bodies the flexibility to support military action where it's unquestionably needed and also guides the consciences of Christians in questionable matters. I think it's a strength, not a weakness, that it doesn't leave the matter of service up to individual consciences, but to very definable criteria.
Also, if just-war thinkers are being honest, they will have to reject participation in 99% of wars as it is. And if just-war thinking became the norm among American Christians, the military might find it worthwhile to focus on the morality of warfare in order to gain the use of that many more troops.
@radicalramblings - I agree. The church should not exercise power over anyone or anything. Now, does that mean that the church should admit to being irrelevant to the social order and withdraw into a sectarian stance? Or what? Are there ways in which the church can serve the world specifically by reducing the levels of violence in it?
@SirNickDon - isn't it quite possible though that in such passivism... how many slaps to the cheek can u take before you're regarded as nothing more than a throwrug to be beaten and stepped on... I don't think Jesus meant for us to be that when He said to turn the other cheek... and Jesus did allow the disciples to carry a sword to defend themselves... though granted it was used to cut the ear off of some guy... which was misplaced for sure... but I think that iin trusting God with life and death as we should... there does come a moment of national obedience regardless because you trust in God...
a just war is hard because how we define just is subjective... due in part because sometimes, it would be considered just to protect "our" foreign interests... according to conspiracy theories... this is where obey the law of the land comes into play i think BECAUSE you regard Christ as central and this was His command...
though I dont' know.... i decide to use violence in other forms... such as violently defending what and why I believe, violence against my own flesh, violence against bad theology and bad doctrine, violence against spiritual wickedness, and other such ideals rather than violence at flesh and blood... unless provoked... then i will defend myself... but other than that... unless called by my nation (as an American)... i won't be holding an AK47 anytime soon that's for sure...
@SirNickDon - "the church" can't do anything without the Church - i.e. the body of believers - deciding that they want to start living the way they pretend to for a few hours in their padded pews on Sunday morning.
Believe it or not, I am somewhere in the middle of the two. I tend to more naturally incline to the "Just War" side, because I can't do anything but think that it is good to defend the helpless, even if that means the physical, armed defense of them. For instance, I find it hard to believe that the correct, Christ-like response to genocide is to do nothing, (and I believe that in instances like those democracy, and "talking" will get us nowhere, since the committers of the crime have no desire whatsoever to talk.)
However, there is the issue of Divine Sovereignty, and the fact that nothing happens outside of the ordination of God. This isn't saying that God creates war, but He certainly allows it to happen. So is it really my place to try to stop what God has allowed? But then, who's to say He didn't allow it so that I WOULD get involved, and in defending the defenseless so demonstrate the Love of Christ who defended the TRULY helpless?
It's a quandary.
"Given that the majority of church-goers know nothing of either pacifism or just-war doctrine, and simply support whatever wars their national leaders tell them to, how can we educate the church on these matters? "
This is the conversation starter I'd most like to address. My answer will seem simple, but it's the only answer.
Preach the Word in greater and greater ways. Not changing it, not using "better tactics" to explain it.. just teach it deeper and deeper. That's all that's needed. As we learn more and more of the truths in the sincere milk of the word, the application in our lives is accomplished through the Holy Spirit. Clearly, God is a God of means, in that He uses this to do that, and that to do this. He uses a thorn in the side of Paul to keep him humble, he uses the thrice-given denial of Christ by Peter to make him stronger for when he'd need to be, and He uses a simple rod in the hand of Moses to let the Israelites know that it's by God's power alone that enemies are defeated, though He uses the Israelite armies to accomplish the defeat at times.
So we preach the word. We become transformed by the renewing of our minds. That's how we accomplish ANY Biblical world-view training and education. At least, that's the part we play in it.
1 John 2:26-28 (King James Version)
26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
- thinking of "no greater love hath a man than this, that he should lay down his life for a friend."
It could be used to justify Just war. But that's not the correct application. It's not saying greater love is had in killing the enemy of a friend in order to save his life, so it could also be used for a pacifism view. In other words it could be said that regarding the defenseless, the greater love would be to step in front of the bullet meant for the defenseless, however even that is actually an act of war, negating the pacifism principle.
Quite the quandary indeed.
(It's an act of war in that war is two sides fighting to stop the objective of the other. In stepping in front of the bullet meant for the defenseless, you are doing something tangible to stop the intended objective of "the enemy.")
I think the important thing is correctly to understand the just war doctrine. Just war has nothing to do with revenge, it has everything to do with prevention, this is why America rebuilds countries after the war. This can only be accomplished by just warriors, so my current focus is to train warriors to be just, compassionate and restrained. That's my contribution. The Church can not practice a more Christ centered just war doctrine, because the Church does not wage war. That is the responsibility of the nations and warriors who do.
I definitely think that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (with the exception of non-lethal chemical agents such as tear gas) have no place in warfare. They exist for no other purpose than to attack civilians, and even as a deterrant they have no place. Never bluff with a weapon you don't plan on using.
I disagree, however, that a war that isn't just is not a war. That's rather a violence to the term. War is simply armed conflict between two large scale opponents, regardless of whether it is just. Those other terms refer to various types of armed conflict between disproportionate opponents.
@P_Obrien - You're absolutely right that a just war has nothing to do with revenge. At the same time, scripture teaches that God often uses the wars of the nations to execute his own wrath and vengeance. We see it throughout the Old Testament, and the principle is generalized in Rom. 13. If Rom. 12-13 are read together, the idea is that God prohibits Christians from taking vengeance, because God will deal his own vengeance. One way he does that is through national wars. This reading of Rom 12-13 is one reason some Christians believe Paul and Christ did not intend for Christians to be engaged in the military.
I've always been glad that you emphasize virtue. Training warriors to be just seems a million times more effective than teaching people what rules not to break in the heat of battle, and I think it's a worthy contribution. Do you find any difference training Christians vs. non-Christians to be just warriors?
But I'm not convinced that churches don't wage war. There is, after all, an American flag in most every American sanctuary. Many churches also sing patriotic songs filled with war-motif, allow military recruiting in their foyers and universities, train and send chaplains into military service, and perform organized services to pray for and bless those joining the military or being deployed. Granted that the church doesn't sign a formal declaration of war, but I think it wages war in a more churchly way. But even aside from that, I think Christian ethical thought has to come from the conviction that Christ is lord for the whole world, not just those who confess them. So as Christians we realize what the state does not, which is that Christ is lord over the state. Now, I don't believe the just-war ethic is for the church, but the state. But I still can't help but see it as a major shortcoming of the just-war doctrine that it is essentially unchristian.
I'm with you on nuclear/bio/chemical weapons. I'm amazed how many people try to justify those things even within just-war constraints, usually by making 'necessity' mean the opposite of what it was intended to mean.
Defining war is surprisingly difficult, especially if you are trying to get at a definition that includes all the wars throughout history, without also granting dignity to the war that al-Qaeda claims to be fighting against western imperialism, for instance. The task isn't made easier by phrases like "the war on terror," which if you grant the title of war is already unjust on the basis that it has no clear attainable condition for victory. The word 'war' is powerful and legitimizing in the minds of many people, so I think it's part of the church's call to honesty to call an unjust war what it actually is. (What it is will vary based on what causes it to be unjust, of course.)
Thank you, incidentally, for the multi-tiered and in-depth response. I've always appreciated the respect you've shown me, even as I try to undercut and malign your vocation. Please don't think I judge you or look down on you. It's quite the opposite. I'm just trying to work through all these things I see as necessary implications of the gospel.
@SirNickDon - I meant to get back to this early, but I was busy, so here it is several days late.
Whether or not God uses the actions of protectors as a punishment has no bearing on whether or not those actions are legitimate. I take it for granted that God always has purposes for our actions beyond our intentions. The legitimacy of our actions and intentions must be decided on other grounds.
I find the biggest difficulty with training restraint into warriors is not religion, but rather an instinctual "Us vs. Them" mentality. If you study the psychology of killing you quickly find that every army that has ever fought has insitutionalized a way of emphasizing the difference between them and the enemy (Hence terms like Jap, Kraut, Gook, and Haji). It is subconscious and almost impossible to avoid. Perhaps because I have met so few soldiers who truly embraced Christianity, I have met few soldiers for whom faith was a significant aid in overcoming this insulation. Actually, the biggest wedge in that psychological armor is the children. American soldiers usually love the children, when they aren't being too annoying, especially the very small ones and the little girls. I have seen grown men melt like butter at a single glance from the big dark eyes of an eight year old girl. We usually try to keep the boys at bay and give gifts of snacks or whatever to the girls when the boys are not around. Otherwise the boys will steal everything for themselves. That's their culture. It taps into that protective instinct that you can't really be a man without, but for a Christian warrior it isn't enough. You have to extend that protective love to everyone, even the unlovable, such as the retarded, the handicapped, the dirty, thieving little beggars, and even the enemy. I don't want any insulation between myself and the man I kill. If I must kill him, I want to look him in the eye and know that I am killing my brother. Anything else is just lying to myself.
That is the source of restraint, and it is not natural. It must be trained into warriors. I posted here about an experience in Afghanistan that illustrated the nature of that restraint. As you said, it must be instinctive, not the applying of rules in the heat of combat, especially not in the grip of a battle rage. The probability of that rage, almost its inevitability, (it is as much physiological as mental and spiritual) renders this conditioning even more necessary.
I have never met another soldier who thought that, or who had put that much thought into it in the first place. I'm not sure the army is the best place to teach that, due to the irreligion of the culture, but I do what I can where I am put for now. I have been thinking about this philosophy of the Warrior for almost ten years now, and trying to write a book on it for the past six. I should finish the book sometime before I die, God willing.