| |
For an overview of the Christian Pacifist position, on one hand, and the Just War position, on the other hand, see the following articles in this issue:
Points related to each side of the argument may be found below, but my aim here is to be descriptive so that the phrase "Just War" can be understood in its proper historical context.
The Early Church:
The earliest Christians were mostly anti-war and non-violent. Jesus’ words about turning the cheek and loving enemies were not lost on them. Jesus called for a higher allegiance to a higher kingdom. Besides, what realistic chance did any small band have against Rome anyhow? Paul’s allowance in Romans 13 that the state was ordained of God to wield the sword against evildoers was not seen as a call to arms for the church.
Thus, for the first three centuries, Christians disapproved of war and avoided it. According to one source, a study of tombstone inscriptions reveals that only seven Christians out of 4,700 extant inscriptions were members of the military. This changed around the forth century.
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430), an influential bishop in the fourth century church, believed that war was always result of sin. Yet, in some cases, it might be necessary to wage a just war against the forces of sin and evil. Since the restoration of peace sometimes calls for practical resistance to wickedness, Augustine offered a theological framework for waging a just war.
Conditions for a Just War:
- 1. Public Authority. A just war must be waged by the proper authority (in Augustine’s words, “the authority of a prince”). Augustine noted Paul's instruction in Romans 13 that we submit to the God-ordained governing authorities. Without the authority of the prince, Augustine did not approve of a Christian using force to defend even his own life. He took the ideals of non-violence personally and seriously, and limited any exceptions that might be justified to the actions of legitimate and accountable governing authorities (and not all of their actions were necessarily justified either). Vigilantism is not an option. To quote Augustine, "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
- 2. Just Cause. A just war must rise from a proper cause. The objective of a just war is to protect innocent life, defend human rights, punish injustice and restore peace. For Augustine, the cause of maintaining peace was not merely proper, it was an obligation for a leader. He wrote, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.”
- 3. Just Motive. A just war must be waged with right intentions, not vindictive motives. This point effects both the manner of fighting as well as the motives. Cruelty, restlessness, revenge, and lust for domination are all unjust motives. Political motives should not extend beyond peace-keeping protection for the common good.
- 4. Last Resort. Force is justified only as a last resort, when peaceful alternatives have been exhausted and no other viable options are perceived.
As centuries passed, other principles for a just war have emerged:
- 5. Probability of Success. A just war demands that there be a reasonable likelihood that war will achieve its aims. Even if the conditions above are met and losing is still a sure thing, there is no excuse for driving men to their deaths. Human life is too sacred for that.
- 6. Comparative Justice. Beyond the odds for victory, there must also be a realistic expectation that this victory in war will end more evil than the war itself causes. The harm caused by a just war must not surpass the harm caused by the evil itself.
- 7. Proportionality. Unnecessary violence is forbidden. Excessive fear-mongering and inflating the danger are illegitimate. Also, dropping a nuclear bomb in response to a smaller attack is disproportionate. All is not fair in the name of war.
- 8. Discrimination. Non-combatants must never be targeted. Indiscriminate killing of the innocent is prohibited. In fact, pains must be taken to identify and protect them. This is not easy when your enemy is evil enough to dress as civilians and use them as shields.
- 9. Aspire for Reconciliation. A realistic hope and a plan for reconciliation should remain on the table throughout the effort and after victory. Vengeance should not cripple this plan.
Questions and Contingencies Remain:
A Christian pacifist holds that no conditions justify the use of force. This does not necessarily make him or her a dreamer or a saint, or a coward. All positions along the spectrum (from full pacifism to hawkish aggression) may be held for motives that may please or displease God. So, whatever position you take, remember that you can still be holding it for reasons that may be right or wrong, kind or cruel, courageous or cowardly. The heart you bring to this dialogue may well be more important than taking an ‘official’ position.
In fairness to Just War theory, it should not be confused with the hawkish aggression side of the spectrum. Nor should the pacifist position necessarily be regarded as one without sufficient concern over the seriousness of evil. As you sort out the ideas and ideals involved, know that the stakes are high. If your position is not borne of deep thought or concern, then don't bother bragging about it being “right.”
In reality, there is no certified list of just war conditions. The issue is too complex for that. Theory and practice are hard to reconcile, especially in the realm of war. Modern technology, for example, has complicated just war theory. The potential for mass destruction has increased dramatically. A tiny germ or chemical can do great damage. In light of these and other contingencies, consider the following tough questions.
- 1. To what degree can we respond to evil when we do not know its source?
- 2. How far can we go to seek life-saving intelligence (covert action, torture, bribery, etc.)?
- 3. What about the pre-emptive use of force to save lives? Such actions are often based on speculation over threats. How can we assess the reliability of speculation?
- 4. Can a modern army cross borders with peace-keeping self-defense as their main motive?
- 5. Who should get the blame when non-combatants are accidentally killed; those who use civilians as shields or those who wield the weapon that killed them (or both)?
- 6. Can we both love and kill our enemies at the same time? Does loving our enemy mean we must allow them kill the innocent?
- 7. What about God? Do we trust weapons and human strategy more than God? To what extent can we look beyond imminent danger and trust the bigger picture to Him?<
Jesus was a man of peace and prayer who knew that wars were common and that they were coming. His first priority had to do with God’s kingdom both in and beyond this world. Let’s give Him the last word:
- “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” Jesus (John 16:33).
|
|
