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.
I feel like I have come full circle: believing in pacifism, then perhaps seeing the need for war to maintain justice, and then coming back to the teachings of Jesus. I do believe that we all want to see justice in our world today. At the same time I am tempted to say we will never see justice, not really, because of the fall of man; but doesn’t God want us to build his kingdom on earth too? “Let your kingdom come, your will be done” as it says in the Lord’s Prayer. The only option left, then, is that we are supposed to create justice in our world today, but we aren’t supposed to resort to violence. The only option we have is to take the very hard road of non-violent resistance, as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, who took their inspiration I believe, from Jesus, did. What does it mean for a man to love his neighbor? To turn the other cheek? One of the hardest things for Christians here in America to accept is this: we are not called to be successful, but we are called to be faithful. So whether or not we are successful in bringing evil to justice is not relevant, we are commanded to love our enemy. Christians may be pacifists when it comes to war, but we are not to be passive about war.
I think this post is rather interesting. I do not consider myself a terribly religious person but this strikes a cord because I am a military wife. My husband defends this country in the United States Navy. I have never been a proponent of war. Especially now that war times mean that my husband could be in danger and potentially loose his life. And while I fully understand the purpose behind what we have established with our government and military, their actions can potentially create a situation where my husband is taken away from me. I think we all have our reasons for justifying the need for war and I think it is different for each person based on gods plan for each of us.
Thanks for a good read =)
“We are not called to be the judge….only the messenger”
“We must proclaim the message of Christ”
“God uses our obedience to change the world”
“Obedience is progressive”
(We have been studying the book of Jonah at my new church) We are all fighting some kind of war and it’s our nature to want to win…..but we need to focus on living our lives in a way that shows what we believe….by loving all of God’s children.
If we elect Christian leadership….then how much easier will it be to follow our leaders….to support them…. thus showing God’s love by respectful obedience to those in charge?
I wrestle with the idea of “war” often. I truly hate knowing our young men & women are being killed and gravely injured……as much as I hate knowing they are killing and gravely injuring others (and the life long effects this will have on them). But we can’t just stand by and allow other countries to bomb and destroy our country. There comes the time we need to stand up for what we believe and protect our own…..but more as a last resort.
So as christans are we to sit idly by wile evil runs rampant. I belive as belivers we will see judgement for that. It is our duty to see souls saved. We are to be diciples to all the lost. If they are dead then we can not do that. So if violence/war is required to save lives then where is it wrong. Now to be the instagator is a totaly different thing. As for christians and politics. I believe that to not get involved is basically the same thing. If we stay away and let all of the imorality run the government then we will eventually be silenced. Once again we can not reach the lost if we are dead.
Interesting read. I guess there is a time for war and a time for peace with any situation… But whatever we do, it should be done with the understanding that we seek to help whatever the problem is. Compassion can be the most important thing- Sometimes just knowing that someone else has taken the time to simply care can make all the difference in the world- even if it is through war. :/
First let me just say that I am a christian and i am currently serving my country in the United States Air Force. Before i even had a thought about joining the armed forces I never really quite agreed with the thought of war, but also at the same time i know that sometimes war is the only way people get their point across, sadly. I honestly believe that it is God’s calling for me to join and serve my country while serving beneath him. Now even to this day I always keep thinking to myself about the meaning of war and if it truly the right thing to do and i keep questioning myself about it. I believe that i am doing the right thing for myself, my family, friends, country and God himself even when i know some of the consequences that could possibly happen.
Like Jessica Said, thanks for a good read and good luck on your presentation!
Today is the 6th year anniversary of my dear friend’s (Cpl. Ian T. Zook) death in Iraq. I went to Bible school with Ian. He was a very strong Christian and a very dedicated soldier. His death was a very hard blow, but I couldn’t be more proud of him. He was a shining example for all of us.
Christians and war go hand in hand, but our war is not against flesh and blood. God did not invent war, but He asks us to be warriors. We are soldiers in His kingdom. We do not have a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power. We are to be wise as snakes and gentle as doves. God is a God of love, and he is a consuming fire. I could go on with the paradox and complexity of it all.
There is nothing more intimidating than a man who is completely sold out to Christ on the spiritual of physical battlefield. A true man of God is a mighty thing to behold; something then men and demons fear. War is not of God, but what the darkness intended for evil, God intended for good…even war.
To preface this I will say that I do not find myself to practice Christianity but I am familiar with the religion as taught through the Catholic institution I attend. I also speak from someone interested in the politics of war and the philosophy behind it all.
I want to address the religious view expressed by Brown in regard to establishing laws that coincide with what God says are moral. Something worth bring up is the question of morality. There are 2 views here: the Devine Command Theory and the Euthyphro dilemma. The Devine Command Theory states that God exists and commanded all things to be and from this the existance of morality depends on God’s commands. The Euthyphro dilemma raises the question in regard to the Devine Command Theory, is something good because God commands it or does God command it becuase it is good? In which case just because Christians are a majority in the United States does that make it ethical to influence law and policy to advance their cause at the expense of another religion? What is moral to one group may not be moral to the next. Establishing laws based on the Christian God’s ‘morals’ creates problems from the start. From problems arises conflict and from conflict arises war. Once the question of morality is decided on by society, that is when the question can be answered.
Is war just? In the American society, yes. Without war there is no peace. It is impractical and impossible to have total peace and cooperation. The set of morals instilled in the society dictate to us what is right and what is wrong and from this we enforce laws supporting this. Those in our society that do not follow the laws are prosecuted accordingly. Due to the position the United States has taken on as ‘world police’ we have even tried pressing our beliefs of the basic human rights on other cultures. This is where debate begins with what role does government play in maintaining order. I believe the government has a right to ensure the safety of its own citizens first. If there is an attack or immediate threat I believe it should be handled with appropriate measures and force from the government. The goal should always be to eliminate the threat, not get even. Once the threat is marginalized or diminished completely, the government should remove itself from any sort of combat and refocus on maintaining security through intelligence only. As for foreign issues, I think it is our duty to support countries that are strong allies of the United States and our interests. I don’t think it is the government’s responsibility to be a physical presense in all matters but I do think verbal support and some financial support is warranted if it is protecting our interests. However, I completely disagree that one country should push its own ideals on another. I think the laws and beliefs are up to the individual society and for the most part should be left alone within that society.
For those of you waiting for a response, I have decided to include some more indepth comments in another blog: Reflections #2, be sure to check it out!
Matt, I am proud of you for struggling through these issues. I only want to share a a few brief thoughts:
1. War is a necessary concession in this time of redemptive history because sin is still in the world. As such, the civil magistrate is given legitimate sword-bearing authority (Rom. 13)to restrain evil and seek the general peace for all. When Jesus comes back, it will be the real war to end all wars, forever and ever. In this sense, we should all affirm that part of our eschatological hope consists of a world with no wars, no suffering, no sin, and may glorious absences in the Kingdom to come. The desire for a lasting peace is wholly congruent with what Christ will do in the renewal of all things at His return. I just watched “Flag of Our Fathers” last night and I concur with all who have said that war is hell.
2. The idea of being a peacemaker before the return of Christ is something commendable. At the same time, thoe who practiced appeasement in the name of peace when Hitler was seeking to dominate the continent were suckered into actually contributing to his power. I’m sure you have read Bonhoeffer and the confliction he felt. Needless to say, there are some today, mostly in the Ana-Baptist strain, who seek to live out their convictions in a wholly separate community based on a Christian ethics. There is no distinction between Church and State in such a model as they seek all matters in society to be bound to Jesus’ teaching, such as the Sermon on the Mount. As such, the rationale goes that if all are brought to Christ, then war will cease in this wholly other sacred community. Most Ana-Baptist are pessimistic in their eschatological framework, whereas some actually share an optimistic post-millennial framework where they hope the world to be transformed into one global sacred community.
3. I land mostly in the Reformed Two-Kingdom perspective on things, but with many qualifications. Essentially I see the civil magistrate as a servant (diakonos, Rom. 13)appointed by God for the general equity of all (Christians, pagans, etc.). They have legitimate authority to dispense capital punishment and to wage war only when protecting the well-being of the state. The teachings of Christ are not applied to the administration of the magistrate, but rather in the Church. Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek is not good public policy for police officers seeking to apprehend a raging criminal, nor was it ever intended to apply to such affairs. Jesus was teaching His disciples that we should not be like the zealots who thought to advance the kingdom through means of the sword in the name of Christ. This does not prohibit a Christan from participating as a soldier or police officer, for Scripture bears out that early believers served in Rome in such capacities.
I have many more qualifications to the “Two-Kingdom” perspective. I am somewhat Theonomic, but still working through a consistent hermeneutic in how to apply such principles (a great challenge to say the least).
The irony about Theonomists and Ana-Baptists is that they are both “theonomic” in their tendency to see certain Biblical texts binding on public policy. There are some things to note about the Theocracy of Israel: no standing army (once they occupied their land), no jails, no permanent debt, no hoarding of property and resources, etc., that jives well with liberal types.
Well, so much more to say. Perhaps we can talk on phone and catch up a bit.
Rick, I also talked to pastor White about it this past weekend, and I think I will at least concede the fact that war is bound to happen as long as their is sin in the world. But I also believe that since the time of Jesus we have the Holy Spirit working in us and through us to create the new kingdom here in this age, and part of that new creation is to work towards a true and lasting peace (one in which war is not necessary to ensure justice).
I think that the problem is that we have a severe lack of creativity and wisdom when it comes to solving social justice issues. Yes, of course, it is clear that when nations like Nazi Germany threaten to take over the world, something must be done. But it has become far too easy for countries, especially America, as a super-power, to resort to brute(and often brutal) force in enforcing justice. And it has likewise become far too easy for Christians to do their “good Christian duty” and “submit to the authority” and encourage such wars. I think it is possible for some wars to be just, but I think we have to take responsibility (not just blame the leadership in the US, but our own silence on the issue) and own up to the past unjust wars we have waged.
I still feel in my own life a personal calling to pacifism and non-violent resistance. I don’t think that the US has the right to train me to kill other human beings. If I am to be perfectly honest, I think that Jesus wants us to love even those individuals who would want to do us harm in enemy countries. I don’t disregard that sometimes neighboring countries do evil things (doesn’t America sometimes cause evil too?) But who are we to judge others? I would choose to follow my own conscience and not the whim or “wisdom” of our national leaders. I submit to authority that way Jesus told me to: “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Unless I misunderstand Jesus’ purpose, I think he is implying that we are to submit to authority as long as the actions they take are not directly conflicting with my beliefs in God. And for me personally I know I would never choose to take a person’s life, because that violates my conscience. Am I coward for saying so? Perhaps. But I think that true non-violence, such as the kind Jesus preached lived out (by laying down his life even when he was unjustly crucified), takes even more courage.
What would the world look like, if instead of going into enemy countries to shoot and kill people, we went and loved the hurting in those countries, fed the hungry, visited those in jail? Could any nation blame us for being peace-makers in our world today?