In our last Grace Talk session I was tasked with answering a question about war:
“I have had discussions with a hippy friend of mine who says war is sinful because Christ calls us to “’turn the other cheek.’” Aside from Old Testament events, is there such a thing as a “’righteous war?’”
Within my reply I referenced the following views of war and was reminded (thanks Drew!) that I was late in my posting. So, here are the three basic views regarding whether or not it is right to go to war. P.S. I would stand in the tradition of the “Just War” category for the reasons I gave during the Grace Talk session.
What is War?
War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities and not a personal fight or disagreement. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). The three traditions of thought that dominate the ethics of war and peace are: Realism; Pacifism; and Just War Theory.
Just War
Right Reason
Just war theory is guided to be guided clearly by the most important rule: A state may launch a war only for the right reason. Aggression is the use of armed force in violation of someone else’s basic rights.
Right Intention
A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate. Ulterior motives, such as a power or land grab, or irrational motives, such as revenge or ethnic hatred, are ruled out.
Proper Authority and Public Declaration
A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The “appropriate authority” is usually specified in that country’s constitution. States failing the requirements of minimal justice lack the legitimacy to go to war.
Last Resort
A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation.
Probability of Success
A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. The aim here is to block mass violence which is going to be futile. International law does not include this requirement, as it is seen as biased against small, weaker states.
Proportionality
A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or “worth”, the costs may the war action proceed.
Just war theorists insists all six criteria must each be fulfilled for a particular declaration of war to be justified.
Realism
Realism is most influential amongst political scientists, as well as scholars and practitioners of international relations. While realism is a complex and often sophisticated doctrine, its core propositions express a strong suspicion about applying moral concepts, like justice, to the conduct of international affairs. Realists believe that moral concepts should be employed neither as descriptions of, nor as prescriptions for, state behaviour on the international plane. Realists emphasize power and security issues, the need for a state to maximize its expected self-interest and, above all, their view of the international arena as a kind of anarchy, in which the will to power enjoys primacy.
Referring specifically to war, realists believe that it is an inevitable part of an anarchical world system; that it ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest; and that, once war has begun, a state ought to do whatever it can to win. In other words, “all’s fair in love and war.” During the grim circumstances of war, “anything goes.” So if adhering to the rules of just war theory, or international law, hinders a state during wartime, it should disregard them and stick steadfastly to its fundamental interests in power, security and economic growth.
Morality is a luxury states can’t afford, for they inhabit a violent international arena, and they’ve got to be able to get in that game and win, if they are to serve and protect their citizens in an effective way over time. Morality is simply not on the radar screen for states, given their defensive function and the brutal environment in which they subsist.
Pacifism
Literally and straightforwardly, a pacifist rejects war in favor of peace. It is not violence in all its forms that the most challenging kind of pacifist objects to; rather, it is the specific kind and degree of violence that war involves which the pacifist objects to. A pacifist objects to killing (not just violence) in general and, in particular, she objects to the mass killing, for political reasons, which is part and parcel of the wartime experience. So, a pacifist rejects war; she believes that there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong.
The pacifist, it is said, refuses to take the brutal measures necessary for the defense of himself and his country, for the sake of maintaining his own inner moral purity. An objection to pacifism is that, by failing to resist international aggression with effective means, it ends up rewarding aggression and failing to protect people who need it. Pacifists reply to this argument by contending that we do not need to resort to war in order to protect people and punish aggression effectively. In the event of an armed invasion by an aggressor state, an organized and committed campaign of non-violent civil disobedience—perhaps combined with international diplomatic and economic sanctions—would be just as effective as war in expelling the aggressor, with much less destruction of lives and property. After all, the pacifist might say, no invader could possibly maintain its grip on the conquered nation in light of such systematic isolation, non-cooperation and non-violent resistance. How could it work the factories, harvest the fields, or run the stores, when everyone would be striking? How could it maintain the will to keep the country in the face of crippling economic sanctions and diplomatic censure from the international community?
For a fuller treatment of the secular rationale in times of war, please see the Stanford Encyclopedia
What about Jihad and War in Islam and Christianity? See this article from Stand to Reason.
This is an interesting subject. I don’t think the bible explicitly teaches any of these. The bible seems to teach War as a picture of Gods judgment upon man, and war is always the just judgment of God on those rebellious to him. This is regardless of the brutality of either side in the War. In that way, all war is right. I think the new testament is pretty silent on the issue; save revelation where the war is explicitly against God himself and all opposed are utterly destroyed (figuratively or not).
So then it seems to me the issue is are we sinful in participating in war as a political entity and as individuals? I think it is possible to be sinful as a member of a community even if you are not explicitly participating; as Isaiah said “I am a man of unclean lips, from a people of unclean lips.”
We as Christians trust in the fact that Jesus paid the price for our sins and as such have an inheritance with him. Those who are not Christians do not have such an assurance, but the Lord is patient with them. The New Testament seems to teach that it is good and right to give up your rights based on these facts. Not to approve or comply, but to recognize this is not our hope. Here is where it gets tough; wouldn’t it be better for a Christian to give up his or her life in order to foster the time for the unbeliever to come to saving faith? So, it seems to me the bible’s teaching for individuals is to not fight. Not to take another’s life because this life is not the end, and, we have a hope in the next.
So I guess I am a Pacifist with the caveat that I don’t think War is wrong. However, I don’t really want to be. What am I missing?
O’ Ryan, while I understand that the Bible doesn’t give us an explicit answer to our orientation to war as individuals (we are not ethnic Israel of the O.T.), the issue is when is war right Since we are in a Republic, in which we have representation, we have a responsibility to discern when war is justifiable and urge Congress toward a particular action.
Would you agree that it would be justifiable for our Nation to go to war with another nation if that nation was slaughtering millions of innocent people?
“Would you agree that it would be justifiable for our Nation to go to war with another nation if that nation was slaughtering millions of innocent people?”
In a word, no, unless US interests are at stake. A nation’s military is for the protection of its territory and citizens. Unless we’re prepared to intervene militarily in every situation around the world where “innocents” (as defined by us presumably) are being killed by their government (North Korea, Cuba, China, Burma, etc., etc.) we need to stick to protecting our own shores and people. I believe as the Founding Fathers did – we should avoid foreign wars and entanglements unless they directly threaten our national interests (meaning territory and people in most cases, not some nebulous ‘foreign policy’ that changes like the weather).
So, (if we could go back in time) and the Nazi’s were slaughtering innocent Jews, and we could do something to stop it, we would be under no obligation (as Christians) to cry out for our Country to intercede?
Yes that is the issue, and the question.
Were the Assyrians and Babylonians justified in slaughtering Israel? Is the nation justified in going to war if one “innocent person” is killed? What does being justified mean? How do you square that philosophy with the bible?
Its not sure its that simple. During that same time Stalin was murdering millions of Ukrainians with a created famine. More eventually died at the hands of Stalin than Hitler yet we got in bed with Stalin to stop Hitler and then turned half of Europe over to him after the fact. I’m not sure there’s much moral high ground there.
Another thing to consider is that Hitler was in many ways made possible by our intervention in WWI. If we’d avoided foreign entanglements in 1918 its quite possible WWII would not have happened.
If you get a chance, read Pat Buchanan’s book “Churchill Hitler and the Unnecessary War”. It puts the events of those years in a whole different perspective.
I don’t think the Nation of Israel, and the times surrounding the Old Covenant) are in play here. After all, Israel had specific, verbal cues from God that set us aside. There are other reasons, but I think we could agree on this…
You have surfaced one of the most difficult aspects of this issue for me, how many people need to be suffering and to what degree are we able to help prior to initiating war. I would eliminate the idea of “one innocent person” since that is a worm-hole that is simply unending in its implications. So, we need specific examples in which to quantify our rationale. Take the Holocaust as an example, I think we would be justified on the Biblical principle of meeting the needs of others. Paul speaks of coming to the aid of the poor, Jesus illustrates showing compassion to those in need (“Good Samaritan”). Would we (Christian contingent) not similarly call for this response as a nation for another nation (after a certain level of distress is experienced – which is still open to debate)?
Larry , I get that it is not simple for sure. I am seeking to argue from a position of principle. I do realize that a position of principle has to at some point become an actionable plan. I am not, and most likely will never, arrive at a “one size fits all” conclusion. But I believe there must be parameters or you end up with pacifism that seems to be more a system to enable evil than to stand for righteousness.
Really enjoying the vigorous discussion. Tough subject!
“I think we would be justified on the Biblical principle of meeting the needs of others. Paul speaks of coming to the aid of the poor, Jesus illustrates showing compassion to those in need (“Good Samaritan”).”
My push back would be to whom are those instructions directed? I would say to individuals, not governments. If we apply those commands to government we can justify not only what we’re discussing here but a whole host of social programs and welfare schemes where government’s job is to meet people’s physical needs. Many ‘social gospel’ theologians use such passages to do just that in fact. I’m not putting you in that category BTW. 🙂
In mentioning Israel I am not making direct comparisons between the Nation of Israel in the old testament and any modern nation. I mention it because it is the only place in the bible where war is explicitly mentioned so it seems to me that would be the place to find the principals or parallels.
What I see happening when taking the “Just War” position is the idea along the lines of God is on our side. However we have data, namely the invasion of Israel by the very wicked and evil Babylonians and Assyrians, that shows God is not on the side of the less wicked. At least in the way “Just War” advocates are using the concept.
I would say the basis given for “Just War” are not convincing. Aside from contextual problems, the examples provided i.e. providing succor to the needy and caring by the good Samaritan are a far cry to advocating violence as a response.
Personally, I don’t think my conscience allows for being a pacifist. I think the horrors done by the Nazis were wrong and the right thing for a nation to do is to work to stop them, and usually that requires large scale violence. Same with the Japanese, the warlords in Somalia, or the openly corrupt governments in other parts of Africa. I just cannot square the idea with what the Bible teaches.
I too enjoy vigorous discussion. Thanks.
Nice. I actually don’t have exegetical confidence, but find the principles of justice and compassion that are essential Christian do seem to relate best to the “just war” position. I do see holes in my argumentation from the principle to the application since it could apply to a world of obligations that simply are not feasible (Larry mentioned some).
However, I don’t think you have to find “biblical” support for a particular Christian action at the level you seem to be suggesting. For example, we extrapolate justification for other actions from principles and not a “thus says the Lord” orientation. Some of these items would be the “biblical” mandate to vote (principle is based on our stewardship as citizens) or giving in church (principle is based on the fact that God owns all and we can what we choose to give out of gratitude). So, although there is no specific, uniform application from the Bible the principle can and does draw legitimate sense of authority as coming from God.
During the Grace Talk answer to this question it seemed that we were saying that the enemy had to pose a significant moral threat in order for war to be justified. What criteria do we use to determine if the enemy is sufficiently evil to justify waging war?
@Dan, I don’t need “Thus says the Lord…” exegetical rigor. I find the Pacifict The stronger case given the arguments presented above.
~Drew, This is another problem with the “Just war” position. Also, all actions are justifiable. I’m sure Hitler, Stalin, Mao, you name him felt justified on some level.
Drew, this is one of the challenges with the “just war” position. We rely on the governing authorities to determine the threat level and have adequate cause to initiate a conflict. The reality is that we are simply not in a position to determine with a strong sense of finality. It is not easy and drives us to pray to God for personal wisdom and for the leaders of our Country to be led by the providential hand of God.
‘O Ryan, while determining an adequate condition to justify war is very difficult, I would not say that this indicates that the Pacifist position is “stronger.” What would have been the result if we would have let Hitler march across Europe? Or, how about allowing the Japanese to island-jump all the way to Australia in order to get a foothold from which to create a national annex from which they could create another totalitarian empire? Or, what about Charles Martel fighting back the advance of the Muslim’s who desired to dominate Europe under Islamic Law. It is been reported that the Battle of Tours “was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world.” The pure pacifist position would say that each of these conflicts are wrong since they fought back. Yet I am convinced that each of them, although marred with a certain level of sinful motive, had a measure of justifiable reason to merit the need to act. I can’t imagine you would say that the pacifist position, in each of the examples I cite above, would have been a better posture given the reality of what we know to be true about the nature of evil.
You also said, “Also, all actions are justifiable. I’m sure Hitler, Stalin, Mao, you name him felt justified on some level.”
Remember, the term “just” is vital to the conflict. It is not just a word to be bantered about, but must be fulfilled in the actual cause of a particular war. While each of the antagonists you mention may venture to fly the banner of being “just” to justify how they acted, I have yet to find anyone who would say they were correct in doing so. The use of each of these murderers as examples (since they may have considered what they did as being “just”) is so far off the map that it is hard to position a cogent reply. Can you give me examples of these tyrants positioning their actions as serving justice?
Have you considered that the pacifist position would have not only allowed these barbarians to continue, it would have found doing so a virtue. I can’t imagine that anyone would really believe that the pacifist position is a viable posture given the presence of evil in this world. Pacifism actually accommodates everything from terrorism to totalitarianism.
While the “Just War” theory does have its holes, it has a measure of true virtue and ethic that seem to be a realistic counter to the evil in this world. Again, I am not saying a Just War position is a slam-dunk, but it is a far cry from the vague notions of hope that the pacifist position can offer on its best day.
Its true that we don’t usually have complete information about why our government goes to war but I would contend that we often have enough information to look at the conflict in light of the “Just War” theory. For example, the last military action of the Untied States that satisfied #3: “Proper Authority and Public Declaration” was the Second World War.
True. Larry, did the gulf wars meet the same level of declaration?
I don’t believe congress issued a formal declaration of war in either case.
Dan, what I am saying is that everyone is wise in his own eyes. The communists wanted a utopia where everyone was cared for equally and consistently; that was the rallying call. They thought the capitalist system was oppressive and led to massive systemic injustice. Sounds like justification to me. I am NOT saying what they thought was right or good. What I am saying is that when judging when to go to war everyone has a so called right cause and a right intention. It is history that teaches different not theories of justice or popular opinion. Not only that these tyrants did not go to war alone, they had nations behind them, so I am not so sure the villainy is so focused or easily identified.
What would have happened in all those cases; we don’t know. We can’t know. What would have happened in India if Gandhi was a Guerilla? Or Martin Luther King Jr. rioted instead of marched? Or Peter urged the church to arm themselves and fight the oppressors of the church?
My position would be for doing nothing or applauding the tyranny of evil; my position would have to be that Christians are called to go and help, but not to kill as a matter of recourse. I don’t think this is true because of practical reasons, but seems to me what the bible, and Christian history teaches.
Finally, have you considered how little has actually been done to curb evil, tyranny, oppression and suffering in the world? The problem isn’t that it has been tried and failed, but that it has not been tried.
Larry, that is helpful in regard to forming an opinion.
‘O Ryan. Let me clarify a misunderstanding. You said, “My position would be for doing nothing or applauding the tyranny of evil; my position would have to be that Christians are called to go and help, but not to kill as a matter of recourse.”
I would never say Christians should do this. My starting point and ending point on the justification for a war relates to the government. Christians are NEVER to “kill as a matter of recourse” when it comes to this topic. The issue we are considering is when is a NATION justified in going to war? So, I make a clear distinction between the personal rights and the just-cause of a nation. I believe the two categories must be separate.
Hope that makes better sense.
I realize I made a type-o, probably more than one. I would be opposed to doing nothing and against the applauding the tyranny of evil.” I bet there are more, multitasking is hard.
I have one final push back in regards to you last post. How can it be that Christians are not justified in killing as a matter of recourse; yet governments, namely representative governments elected in part by Christians, can be justified in killing? Is it wrong to kill but okay to pay someone else to do so?
‘O Ryan, from one typo-bandit to another, no worries.
While it may seem inconsistent to say governments (even representative governments) can kill while individual Christians cannot, I find this harmonizing in Romans 13.
In v.2 it shows the extend of authority that the governing authorities can wield:
Then in v.8, Paul says,
So, we see the role of the governing authority being quite different from the individual follower of Christ.
I have a role to play as a citizen and so does the governing authority. Due to the presence of evil in this world, the governing authorities (who are to provide for our protection both within our society – “laws of the land” and for our civilization – going to war) play a role of providing a measure of protection for its citizens. This may mean determining a need to war against another people group according to the principles of mounting a “just-war.”
I don’t see the inconsistency. I do realize that there is a push-and-pull in regard to how this dynamic is activated in a nation of some 300 million.
I think that was the disconnect I was missing. Good work, thanks.
Dan’s point is an important one. The government does have a different role than the individual and can therefore do some things, such as execute criminals, that the individual cannot. However, we must remember too that individuals are still responsible for their actions even as they operate under the government’s authority. We don’t get a pass on something because the government authorizes it or tells us to do it. The Allies rightly rejected the “I was just following orders” defense at Nuremberg. That’s why its so important to analyze things like war and gauge our participation and support accordingly.
So, if Christians are not to kill as a matter of recourse, but governments can, does that mean that Christians can’t serve shouldn’t serve in the armed forces (at least not in combat)? What about Christian senator who votes for a declaration of war? I think I’m missing something here.
Unless we say war is wrong at all times and in all circumstances (which I don’t think we are), we cannot say Christians should never serve in the military or vote to declare war. However, I think because of the seriousness of war, Christians should be among the last to pursue it and should do so with sorrow and reluctance as a last resort.
That last “Larry” was me BTW 🙂
Drew, you bring up a very tough issue. If a Christian takes a vow to serve in the military he must assign a level of confidence and allegiance to the decisions of the “Commander in Chief.” If a particular Commander initiates a war that would be (according to the conscience of the Christian serving) sinful then that solider would have to not obey and face the consequences. I don’t see any other recourse. A solider who is a Christian has a greater allegiance as a follower of Jesus Christ than a soldier for our Country.
In regard to a representative the same would apply. If the cause if just (remember this is not an individual but a member of the government who is charged to uphold our Constitution and preserve our way of life) then that representative who is a Christian can and should vote or not vote as the case may be to go to war. The representative is first a follower of Christ and then a representative. However, the burden for serving as a governing authority has a greater spectrum of consideration than simply being a Christian.
Make sense?