So I have been doing a lot of reading and thinking about an upcoming presentation I will help give at the end of the semester on "just war theory." From the start, I was very firm on the stance that there is no such thing as a just war, and I wanted to take this opportunity to share with people what my reasons for thinking are, and perhaps convince some along the way. I decided, however, since I want to gain a wider perspective on the idea of war as a whole, to argue the opposite side of what I believe: that there is such a thing as just war. And I'm definitely widening my horizons and seeing both sides of the picture. Specifically I've been reading The Sword, The Cross, and the Eagle, by Davis Brown, and he gives an overview of the American and the Christian history behind the just war theory. The most compelling argument so far is how each side chooses to define "peace." If one thinks everyone should be pacifists, then it becomes impossible to maintain what the author might call a "healthy" peace. That is, if there is no one to maintain order, and protect the rights of individuals, both in our own country and around the world, then there will be suffering, persecution, oppression, slavery, and all sorts of inhumane activity. I think that no one really wants our world to look like that, but then what role does government play in maintaining order? And more importantly what role do Christians play? And then if we have Christians in government, what role do they play? 

                  I am very attracted to the Mennonite, Ana-Baptist, Amish tradition of staying out of politics entirely, because that allows Christians to live a drastically differing life-style from the world, and will hopefully attract the disenchanted and suffering of the world. Brown, on the other hand, believes that Christians should definitely be involved in politics, especially in America, where we are clearly a majority. His reasoning: as Christians, why wouldn't we want to establish Christian values and beliefs in our people by establishing laws that coincide with what God says are moral? If what the people practice is moral, then of course the people themselves will be much happier and better off. This is also an attractive argument; however, I am much less convinced. I think Jesus knew something about the nature of man when he chose Shepherds, fisherman, prostitutes, and tax-collectors as his band of followers. Jesus made it simple that his kingdom was not going to be created from the top-down through some sort of governmental laws or military-enforced justice. Jesus' kingdom is much more counter-intuitive, and would be created from the lowliest of the low.