Due to time constraints this will be much more truncated then I would prefer, but hopefully we can explore this further as the comments progressed.
In early 2003 I taught a class at church that attempted to legitimatize our preemptive attack on Iraq by virtue of the Just War Theory. I have since repented of such a gross misapplication of Scripture.
If Constantine’s misuse of the Church was a dark page in our history then our adoption of the Just War Theory would comprise a full chapter. Before Augustine attempted to define the City of God there was no Christian author that attempted to make a case for Christians involved in warfare. For the first 400 years of the church there was no writing in support of war.
Walter Wink writes:
…when the church that had stood up nonviolently to the brutal repression of the Roman Empire found itself strangely victorious, it naively assumed the role of court chaplain to an empire eager for its support. It is as if Satan, unable to defeat the church by violence, surrendered to the church and became its ward. The price the church paid, however, was embracing violence as a means of preserving empire. But the removal of nonviolence from the gospel blasted the keystone from the arch, and Christianity collapsed into a religion of personal salvation in an afterlife jealously guarded by a wrathful and terrifying God–the whole system carefully managed by an elite corps of priests with direct backing from secular rulers now regarded as the elect agents of God’s working in history.
Despite the overwhelming testimony of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the example of the early church, the universal understanding of the early Christians of the nonviolent legacy of Jesus, once Christianity became the “sanctioned” religion of the State, the defense of the State at all costs was inevitable.
Enter the Just War Theory.
Just War Theory consists of these principles:
1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. The argument is that all non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
But how can we truly determine if ALL options have been explored? How many wars have been entered into after trying Jesus’ recommendation of overcoming evil with good? In my estimation, none.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. This is to proscribe any action taken by an individual or group.
But what constitutes legitimate authority? Isn’t Jesus the ultimate authority for the church and its stance on morality, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us? Does the President or congress have veto powers over the admonitions of Christ?
3. A just war can only be fought to right a wrong. In other words we must have the right intentions in waging war.
But who argues for war on the platform that it is not just? Don’t all sides believe they are just and right in their stance? What wrongs are righted?
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
But how can we, as Christians, legitimately lend credence to this argument? What is success, killing more of their people than they kill of ours? What is success in war?
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
But it is impossible to determine if a greater peace can be established after we go into conflict. Violence does not beget peace.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
Wait, I know the basis for this one. I think it is called “An Eye for An Eye.” Right?
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
What possible biblical basis can there be to “justify” spilling innocent blood? Modern warfare doesn’t discriminate between who is wearing a uniform and who is not. Is there a biblical justification for killing 3000 of “them” if they kill 3000 of “us?”
It’s interesting to note that Augustine had another criteria that stated that before you engage in killing, the Christian should repent of what he is about to do and then wear God’s love for the enemy into the battle. As if inner love can cancel out outward killing.
Another criteria of Augustine was that of humane treatment of prisoners of war and the honoring of international treaties and conventions. No commentary is needed here.
For the Christian these must be problematic. Our citizenship is in Heaven, Paul tells us. Our ultimate allegiance is to our King. We must tremble at the weight of taking another life, even under the auspices of a “just war.” As the church we answer a higher call. To quote Wink again:
…the church’s own witness should be understandable by the smallest child: we oppose violence in all its forms. And we do so because we reject domination. That means, the child will recognize, no abuse or beatings. That means, the woman will hear, no rape or violation or battering. That means, men will come to understand, no more male supremacy or war. That means, everyone will realize, no more degradation of the environment.
Ultimately “practical solutions” to “real-world problems” are embraced with regularity over the Kingdom viewpoint.
Ultimately, war is not just. Nor can it be. Christians must wrestle with the implications of embracing a doctrine that runs so counter to Scripture. We have been given a ministry of reconciliation. May the church forever endeavor to be agents of peace in a war torn world.
