 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 |  | |||||
 | | | | | | |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 | ||
| | |
Christian responses to war The following paper is a revised edition of one given at a forum after worship on Sunday March 23rd 2003. The build up to the present Gulf War in Iraq, and its commencement last week, have provoked strong opinions around the globe and across the country. Christians are divided over the issue, and so the question arises as to how we are to think about the issue of war. What tools does the tradition supply to help us analyze this conflict? In the paper I intend to look at three major approaches to war in general – I will leave you to decide which one you find to be most convincing. It is important to notice that the title of this paper isn’t ‘The Christian response to war’ or ‘Christian responses to this war’, but it is ‘Christian responses to war’. Pacifist The first view is that of the Pacifist. It is important to distinguish Christian pacifism from that of secular pacifism otherwise known as ‘liberal humanist pacifism’. Christian pacifism arises from a particular interpretation of specific verses in the gospels, and a general appeal to the life of Christ who never took up the sword to defend himself and who, when his followers tried to defend him, rebuked them. It seems, at face value the obvious position to adopt as one reads the Sermon on the Mount as it is found in both Luke and Matthew’s gospel. So for example Matthew 5:38-39. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also’.” Other texts like ‘Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword’ (Matthew 26:52) and the refusal of Christ to appeal for the Father to send ‘legions of angels’ to defend him (Matthew 26:52-3) make this initially seem a powerful position against which to argue. Perhaps the most eloquent defender of this position in American Christianity is Stanley Hauerwas who is a professor at Duke University. Hauerwas gives theological definition to his position when he says, ‘Pacifism is not just another way that some Christians think they should live. Rather pacifism is the form of life that is inherent in the shape of Christian convictions about God and his relations to us. Though it counts individual passages of scripture such as Matthew 5:38-48 important, pacifism does not derive its sole justification from them. Rather pacifism follows from our understanding of God, which we believe has been most decisively revealed in the cross of Jesus Christ. Just as God refused to use violence to insure the success of his cause, so must we.’ (Quoted in A Textbook of Christian Ethics, edited by Robin Gill, p. 339-40). It is necessary to distinguish within the pacifist position at least two approaches. Hauerwas represents what some call Messianic pacifism and others Deontological Pacifism. This form of Pacifism advocates non-resistance and is content to leave the political and social consequences of non-resistance to God’s providence. As another eloquent defender of this position, John Howard Yoder argued, we do not have a duty to make history come out right since history is in God’s hands. The important point for Messianic Pacifism is to witness to what they believe about the peace God wills for his people and that characterizes his kingdom. Messianic pacifism involves complete non-resistance because Jesus gave no resistance to his killers. Hauerwas argues for what some have called a ‘consistent ethic of life’. This view argues that all taking of life is wrong, whether it be abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia or war. Hauerwas says that any use of protest that has overtones of violence, like protest marches, chaining oneself to fences, lying down in the street, shouting slogans, or berating people with loud arguments is to give into the very forces that Christians should be seeking to overcome within themselves, and in the external order of things. ‘Pragmatic’ or ‘Consequentialist’ pacifism involves non-violent resistance such as witnessed in the streets of some cities in this country, and exemplified by the movement Ghandi founded. It believes that such action will bring about positive political and social consequences. Its adherents have an essentially optimistic view of human nature. The general Pacifist position says that violence and force are the same thing, and the Sermon on the Mount is to be followed in a most direct and more literal manner – it is radical discipleship. The Pacifist position focuses its objection on the means by which war is conducted rather than the ends to which a war is directed. A pacifist and a combatant therefore may agree on the ends of war, namely that peace be secured and wrongs righted. However, the Pacifist says the means, namely the use of force, is always and in every situation, wrong, and therefore the end or goal can never be secured by resort to arms. A thoroughgoing Christian Pacifist position is associated with minority sects like the Amish Mennonites, Anabaptists, Brethren, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Quakers. Individual pacifists are found within all mainline denominations. Just war The Christian Pacifist position begins with the argument that within the Christian tradition there is a presumption against force. The Just War theory rests on the conviction that there is a biblical presumption in favor of justice. The Just War theory was developed by theologians for government officials to help them in their obligations towards those for whom they have responsibility of protection. It is therefore preeminently a tool of statecraft rather than a tradition designed to enable individual discernment. Most simply put, and it must be remembered that there are a number of versions of just war theory, the argument proceeds as follows. For any war to be considered just at least three criteria must be met.
Other considerations that have been incorporated into this theory include reasonable chance of success, last resort, and that the conflict will eventuate in a new and more just state of peace. In this tradition peace is conceived not only as the absence of war but as a condition is which justice is present. Last resort is not decided in a crudely mathematical way, i.e. proceeding through a series of non-military options until they are all exhausted. The virtue of prudence must be applied in determining whether some non-military options are feasible or availing. It does not mean therefore that everything humanly conceivable must be tried, one would never exhaust peculiar and extreme options. The second component of just war theory looks at the means by which war is prosecuted. Once the decision is made to go to war the war must be waged in a just manner. The two criteria for this are: Discrimination – you must never deliberately target non-combatants, and Proportionality - the harm done must be less than the good achieved. Notice that good moral ends are considered before the question of morally appropriate means – this is a very important point. The theory depends on the idea that the first and most urgent thing in the face of evil is to stop it. A distinction is made between violence and force; not all use of force is violence. Violence is the act of individuals and gangs for the purpose of vendettas or terror. As mentioned, this theory is intended to be used as a tool of statecraft. It is to help governing authorities decide whether, in a particular situation, war is justified. The theory thus locates the ultimate responsibility for such a decision in these authorities because the average citizen has far less access to the information relating to deliberations over war. Citizens therefore defer to the judgement of their government if its stated aims in going to war conform to those approved by the just war tradition - the qualification being until and unless the government manifestly violates these principles. The Just War theory urges on Christians humility about the knowledge they possess in relation to their leaders. The role of the Church is to clarify for the authorities what the criteria of just war are and to exhort them to abide by them. Theologically just war theory arises from the commandment to love ones’ neighbor as oneself. This places the Christian under the obligation to protect his or her neighbor from physical harm and conditions of injustice. To restrain evil out of love for neighbor is a God like act. When force is the only means by which this can be done (as will inevitably be the case from time to time in our fallen world) war becomes a positive good and therefore is not just morally permissible but imperative. The soldier fighting for a just cause and using just means is engaging in virtuous conduct. This theory also incorporates a belief expressed at various points in the New Testament that the state has a place in God’s providence namely that of insuring the security and welfare of its citizens. Over the past thirty years there has been a growing amnesia concerning Just War theory largely because of the growing secular disapproval of war in any form. The theory has increasingly been reduced to a series of means tests with little analysis of the ends to be achieved. The discussion frequently focus on the loss of innocent life that inevitably occurs in warfare with little or no consideration of the moral good that might result from war in a given set of circumstances. But perhaps the most serious misreading of just war theory has been the assumption that it begins with a presumption against violence. Such a view is fraught with historical and methodological difficulties. Such misunderstandings of Just War theory have been chronicled and refuted by such eminent scholars of Just War theory George Weigel and James Johnson Turner. Weigel writes, ‘War is a moral category. Moreover, in the classic tradition, armed force is not inherently suspect morally. Rather, as Johnson insists, the classic tradition views armed force as something that can be used for good or evil, depending on who is using it, why, to what ends, and how. Thus those scholars, activists, and religious leaders who claim that the just war tradition “begins” with a “presumption against war” or a presumption against violence” are quite simply mistaken.’ (George Weigel Moral Clarity in a Time of War, ‘First Things’, January, 2003 p. 22) Contemporary just war advocates have argued that the theory needs to be developed, as has been done in the past, in order to account for the new realities of our day. They urge, for example, that the understanding of what constitutes defense against aggression needs to be adjusted in light of the proliferation of rogue states and terrorist cells and the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The major proponents of the Just War theory within the Christian tradition are St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Just War theory has been the majority approach of the Church to the issue of war. Dirty Hands A hybrid position, that combines the Pacifist and Just War positions, but it is therefore not really either is called by Darrell Cole, professor of religion at Drew University, ‘dirty hands morality’ and therefore I will call this the ‘Dirty Hands’ position. It accepts for the most part as correct the Pacifist interpretation of the life of Christ and the exegesis of particular texts within the gospels. However, proponents of the ‘Dirty Hands position argue that this is the ideal, the goal, and yet we live in a sinful world and must, sometimes use force against real evil. The use of force is always compromised, always sinful, ones hands are always tainted - hence the term ‘Dirty Hands’. But sometimes a greater evil must be stopped and one must not be naive about the true nature of evil. The ‘Dirty Hands’ position might be described as mournful pragmatism longing for an unattainable purity of motive and action. To a large extent it results from a misreading (see above) of the Just War theory for it places war conduct questions ahead of prior war decision questions. It uses to some extent the criteria of the Just War theory in determining when to wage war and how to pursue it once it is waged. But it departs from that theory by assuming the means, though necessary, are always evil. Jimmy Carter articulated this position recently in his acceptance speech upon winning the Nobel Peace prize. The ‘Dirty Hands’ position began to be articulated in the period of the Renaissance with the rise of Humanism. Erasmus might be regarded as an exponent of this view in that he regarded war as unnatural and therefore unfitting but at times necessary. It has gained more popularity since the Enlightenment of the 18th century with the growth of a worldview that has separated moral and religious concerns and has embraced a moral pragmatism and utilitarianism. It is the attempt to try and hold together two seemingly irreconcilable notions, namely following Jesus as he appears to come across in the gospels and yet at the same time trying to live responsibly in a society and a world in which evil would prosper if good keeps silent. Analysis Because space, and the author’s brain capacity, the following analysis only begins to touch the surface of the issues raised by the three approaches. Battles over scripture It is obvious that perhaps the most pressing issue in adjudicating between these views is the use of scripture. Clearly the Old Testament cannot be construed as a pacifist document. The commandment often translated as ‘thou shall not kill’ should be more accurately rendered, ‘thou stall not murder’. Murder was distinguished in Jewish tradition from authorized form of killing such as warfare and capital punishment. Moreover this commandment in located within a narrative that describes numerous instances of warfare enjoined upon Israel by God. The debate then is over the New Testament and to what extent the Old Testament is abrogated, modified or fulfilled in it. Here are some scriptural passages to grapple with: John 19 (Jesus speaking to Pilate) ‘You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.’ Romans 13:1-7 ‘The governing authorities have been instituted by God… The ruler does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrong doer.’ Matthew 5:9 (from the Beatitudes) ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’ Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Luke 6:29 “To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.’ Luke 3:14 (soldiers asking John the Baptist prior to baptism) ‘Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.’ Note that John does not instruct them to give up being soldiers. Luke 7:1-9. Matthew 8:5-13 The Centurion’s great faith. Jesus praises the faith and makes no criticism of his profession. Acts 10. Peter brings the gospel to the Gentiles via the Centurion Cornelius. John 2:13 Jesus in the Temple uses force (and a weapon) to drive out the money lenders. 1 Peter 2:13 ‘Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake’. There are numerous scriptural passages that have been debated by those espousing differing Christian responses to war. The issue we face is how much weight to give certain texts and what do the disputed texts means – a question of exegesis and emphasis. Some would have us believe that Paul thinks differently about this issue of war and the State than Jesus did. They make the claim that Jesus came with a simple message and that Paul complicated and distorted it. Such arguments display more ignorance of scripture and the early Church than knowledge of it. The Pacifist position, for example, looks almost exclusively to the gospels for its warrant because Paul clearly does not endorse such a view. Even if you confine yourself to the gospels you need to take into account that nowhere is soldiering condemned. Indeed, Jesus commends a Roman Centurion for his faith and his disciples were clearly carried arms like a modern person might carry a wallet. The Just War theory looks to both the gospels and the epistles and thus a larger portion of the Canon of scripture and sees these to some extent in continuity with the Old Testament. A criticism that Just War theorist might well level at pacifists is that in refusing to take the Pauline epistles on this matter they are excluding from consideration the earliest New Testament documents that we have. What would Jesus do? There is also to some extent a debate over how one follows Jesus. Differently put: Do we walk in his shoes or follow in his footsteps? The Pacifist would say that Jesus went to his death unresistingly; to follow him means to do precisely that in our own lives. Just War advocates respond by saying that Jesus’ unique mission as the savior of the world required that he give himself up sacrificially in this manner. This is not something that any of us are called to do because there is only one redeemer, we are called to follow at a distance and the taking up of our cross has to be expressed in a different way. So the question is not ‘what would Jesus do’ but ‘what would Jesus have us do?’ The Early Church Pacifists have argued that before the era of Constantine and the edict of Milan (313 AD when the church began to exercise political power) it was pacifist. Therefore the development of the Just War theory at about this time in history signaled a falling away from Pacifism. Just war theorists respond by saying that this is a misreading of the evidence, that in fact what little evidence there is from this period on this subject is inconclusive. The State Pacifists would stress that a Christians primary allegiance is to Christ and his kingdom and that whenever the state asks for the Christians support of war it is in effect asking for disobedience to Christ. The Just war theorist would say that although our primary allegiance is to Christ and his kingdom God has also ordained temporal institutions for our benefit and that these require our loyalty and support insofar as they fulfil their responsibility to protect us and to insure a just social order. They would also say to the Pacifist that if the State is not permitted to use force to conduct war then it how can it be justified in it’s use to fight crime or to administer justice? Conclusion Three possible approaches have been examined. I have avoided looking at the issue of ‘Crusade’ simply because it has never had the level of support the other three theories have had. Because it has been the majority position, and because it has been misunderstood, the Just War theory has had more extended analysis. In all of this we can never speak with the totality that only God can speak with. But we are all urged as Christians to practice what is the good and avoid what is evil. Christians might differ on their conclusions about the dividing line of good and evil, but they are commanded by God to work at that discernment and not to throw up their hands and say, ‘because I cannot make it perfectly I shouldn’t make the attempt.’ Because our judgements will always be limited in no way protects us from the necessity of action, and it is critical to remember that there is a great deal of difference between imperfect good and outright evil. | ||
| | |
All Hallows Episcopal Church, Wyncote, PA 19095 - 215 885-1641 | ||
| | |