Just war?

[Xeno.of.athens]

The question is why do Christians take up arms to fight in wars between nations or wars within one nation?

 

[ViaCrucis]

It has nothing to do with having political power but everything to do with, as examples, whether one has the right and duty to defend the innocent, to risk their lives for another, to use force to defend their own families. Answer those questions and you’ll have the reason behind the just war theory.

I get this. I do. And I am open to Just War Theory, at least on paper; and accept that there is a matter of conscience that plays a role in this: Namely, we ought not to violate our conscience: whether an act of violence can be justified by circumstance for the purpose of minimizing greater violence is a complicated subject and should be treated with the complexity, nuance, and sensitivity it deserves.

What I find problematic is that violence and war are viewed, today, by many Christians as being easy and not complicated, that violence and war are good simply because the powers that be declare it to be. As St. Cyprian says, when an individual kills it is counted as homicide, but when killing on a grand scale--such as war--is enacted and is "legal" it is viewed as virtue.

Killing the "bad guys" is the right thing to do because it's us against them.

But this history of supposed "good guys" and "bad guys" has almost always been between kings, kingdoms, and nations competing for power and glory--and then using human beings like an expendable resource.

A system in which Christians are killing other Christians in the name of a temporal power, in the name of a flag, or national ambition--that is certainly recognizably insane, right? That the people whose lives are to be marked by the cross and suffering of Jesus Christ are slaughtering one another because they are told to do so. "For God and country" "for a flag", or whatever.

I'm not saying there can't be, under any circumstances, a justifiable and minimal use of force to prevent greater harm (and on this point, I usually consider Pastor Bonhoeffer's difficult decision to join the plot to assassinate Hitler, a decision which got Bonhoeffer sent to and then killed in a concentration camp).

But let's not allow hypotheticals and extraordinary circumstance rule our every day living. The apostolic injunction is "As far as it is up to you, live peaceably with all." (Romans 12:18).

Do you believe that it is right to kill in the name of a country by being sent halfway across the globe in a conflict which your nation started? For example, the wars started by the Bush Administration in the early 2000s which continued right up until recent times, leading to the longest lasting period of active war in the history of the United States. This was a conflict in which those who fought at the beginning had children who would grow up and fight int he same conflict. Is this Just War Theory in practice? Is this this justifiable violence? Or is this just violence in the name of power and temporal glory, violence for the sake of violence; violence which having begotten greater violence has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.

The false doctrine of American Exceptionalism, the false doctrine of American Nationalism, and the false doctrine of glory over the cross have been full adopted in many corners of the American Christian experience. When I grew up in my Evangelical environment, I was raised believing in God and Country. The cross upon which our Savior died, and the banner of the stars and stripes were treated with near equal dignity and respect. Something that was left unspoken, but definitely reinforced in many ways, was that America is a uniquely "Christian nation" and Christians in other nations were either fake Christians (because they were Catholic, Lutheran, or etc) or only had Christians because modern American missionaries did it--including in Europe, Latin America, etc. America = Christian, Christian = America. It wasn't until I was in my 20's that I was finally able to see the absurdity of this, and how poisonous it has truly been for the Church in the modern era.

Why should the servant of the Prince of Peace go and kill his or her fellow human beings, including fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ? Because a government said to? If the government said we should jump off a bridge to prove our loyalty, should we? Realizing that it's just people, people all the way up and people all the way down, is a good thing.

Again, I'm not saying there can't be, under certain circumstances, a justifiable use of minimal violence in order to prevent greater violence. But the way of violence cannot be the norm, the ordinary, way of the servant of Jesus Christ. It is antithetical to everything our Lord commanded, to what the Apostles taught and instructed, to the faith and confession of the ancient fathers. There is a clear and abiding witness that the call upon the Christian, the call of discipleship, is a call to peacefulness, "Blessed are the peacemakers".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

I get this. I do. And I am open to Just War Theory, at least on paper; and accept that there is a matter of conscience that plays a role in this: Namely, we ought not to violate our conscience: whether an act of violence can be justified by circumstance for the purpose of minimizing greater violence is a complicated subject and should be treated with the complexity, nuance, and sensitivity it deserves.

What I find problematic is that violence and war are viewed, today, by many Christians as being easy and not complicated, that violence and war are good simply because the powers that be declare it to be. As St. Cyprian says, when an individual kills it is counted as homicide, but when killing on a grand scale--such as war--is enacted and is "legal" it is viewed as virtue.

Killing the "bad guys" is the right thing to do because it's us against them.

But this history of supposed "good guys" and "bad guys" has almost always been between kings, kingdoms, and nations competing for power and glory--and then using human beings like an expendable resource.

A system in which Christians are killing other Christians in the name of a temporal power, in the name of a flag, or national ambition--that is certainly recognizably insane, right? That the people whose lives are to be marked by the cross and suffering of Jesus Christ are slaughtering one another because they are told to do so. "For God and country" "for a flag", or whatever.

I'm not saying there can't be, under any circumstances, a justifiable and minimal use of force to prevent greater harm (and on this point, I usually consider Pastor Bonhoeffer's difficult decision to join the plot to assassinate Hitler, a decision which got Bonhoeffer sent to and then killed in a concentration camp).

But let's not allow hypotheticals and extraordinary circumstance rule our every day living. The apostolic injunction is "As far as it is up to you, live peaceably with all." (Romans 12:18).

Do you believe that it is right to kill in the name of a country by being sent halfway across the globe in a conflict which your nation started? For example, the wars started by the Bush Administration in the early 2000s which continued right up until recent times, leading to the longest lasting period of active war in the history of the United States. This was a conflict in which those who fought at the beginning had children who would grow up and fight int he same conflict. Is this Just War Theory in practice? Is this this justifiable violence? Or is this just violence in the name of power and temporal glory, violence for the sake of violence; violence which having begotten greater violence has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.

The false doctrine of American Exceptionalism, the false doctrine of American Nationalism, and the false doctrine of glory over the cross have been full adopted in many corners of the American Christian experience. When I grew up in my Evangelical environment, I was raised believing in God and Country. The cross upon which our Savior died, and the banner of the stars and stripes were treated with near equal dignity and respect. Something that was left unspoken, but definitely reinforced in many ways, was that America is a uniquely "Christian nation" and Christians in other nations were either fake Christians (because they were Catholic, Lutheran, or etc) or only had Christians because modern American missionaries did it--including in Europe, Latin America, etc. America = Christian, Christian = America. It wasn't until I was in my 20's that I was finally able to see the absurdity of this, and how poisonous it has truly been for the Church in the modern era.

Why should the servant of the Prince of Peace go and kill his or her fellow human beings, including fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ? Because a government said to? If the government said we should jump off a bridge to prove our loyalty, should we? Realizing that it's just people, people all the way up and people all the way down, is a good thing.

Again, I'm not saying there can't be, under certain circumstances, a justifiable use of minimal violence in order to prevent greater violence. But the way of violence cannot be the norm, the ordinary, way of the servant of Jesus Christ. It is antithetical to everything our Lord commanded, to what the Apostles taught and instructed, to the faith and confession of the ancient fathers. There is a clear and abiding witness that the call upon the Christian, the call of discipleship, is a call to peacefulness, "Blessed are the peacemakers".

-CryptoLutheran

To a large extent I think your argument is against the religious right. "Merica!!", for better or worse. I opposed Bush's war-at the time-while even the media seemed all for it: "America fights back" was the common banner/mantra onscreen. The Vatican was opposed as well. "War is Satan" was a quote I remember, from John Paul II, I believe, who'd lived through the hell of it in Poland as a youth.

The problem is that, while being Christ-like, loving as He does, is our blessing, duty, and goal all in one, we live in a fallen, messy world, where the same sentiment and virtue isn't necessarily expressed and valued at all- even by self-described Christians. So war can become a necessary evil in such a world, as a greater good than the evil that would be perpetrated on people by certain aggressors who seek to conquer and dominate and take. Augustine said that the only reason for war should be peace: "There'll be blue skies over the white cliffs of dover..." And the restoration of justice defiled.

Warmongering=bad, while defense against it isn't bad. Theologians have distinguished between different kinds of life-taking, with not all such occurrences constituting murder. Rather than explaining it myself I'll present some teachings from our catechism. Sorry if a bit lengthy but I thought it might be of value here if interested.

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,68 and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Intentional homicide

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

 

[ViaCrucis]

To a large extent I think your argument is against the religious right.

You're not wrong. I take far less issue with historical Christian perspectives on the subject (which tend to be far more nuanced) than I do with modern idolatry, which is what I view as one of the cardinal sins of the Religious Right. I'm not particularly shy about my condemnation of the Religious Right as more-or-less faithless and apostate. I believe that the American Religious Right has amounted to little more than rank heresy and a rather total rejection of Jesus Christ.

When I find myself having to argue that Jesus was serious when He said we have to love our enemies, and that He wasn't just joking around, I find myself deeply aware of just how bad things have gotten.

But it's important to understand, that I've seen churches literally replace Jesus and His Cross with an American flag. And I don't know what else to call that except blasphemy of the highest degree. It is antichrist.

-CryptoLuthean

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I still am wondering why Christians so willingly follow their nation's leaders into war - especially considering how few wars take Christian 'Just war theory' to heart. Was the invasion of Iraq a just war and is the invasion of Ukraine a just war? To me they do not look just.

 

[Philip_B]

I still am wondering why Christians so willingly follow their nation's leaders into war - especially considering how few wars take Christian 'Just war theory' to heart. Was the invasion of Iraq a just war and is the invasion of Ukraine a just war? To me they do not look just.

Christians live in nations where the duly elected or appointed Political Masters are described as leaders, which implies they are not followers of the citizens but rather leaders.

In the case of the two wars you cite there was set before us some sense of argument for a 'Just War', in the case of the Invasion of Iraq there was the long excursus by Bush and others about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction, and in the case of the Invasion of Ukraine, we were told about the swamping of Ukraine by the LGBTQI community and Nazis. In both cases, these arguments appear flawed.

In a free society, we might look to the leaders of Christ's flock to fulfill a prophetic role of the Church, and be a clear sound for justice in the noise and confusion. Part of our ability to do that depends upon the clarity of the information we have to hand (or misinformation it would seem at times).

Given that the just war is largely a 'western' theology, it was fascinating to see Putin, clearly an 'eastern' Christian try to invoke just war rhetoric.

For the rest of us, as thinking Christians, we are left to listen and evaluate as best we can. Often if we ask questions about the economics involved (follow the money) we may often see more clearly what is happening, which may provoke an alternative theory, and then we examine the credibility of the argument.

I have concluded that Kyiv is no gayer than Moscow, and the talk of the neo-nazi movement has been vastly talked up by the Russian President. As Zelenski was elected with the support of the oligarchs and has an agenda of bringing an end to oligarchical corruption in Ukraine, this may well be motivated by a determination to maintain oligarchical power and wealth. It is certainly a credible alternate theory.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Christians live in nations where the duly elected or appointed Political Masters are described as leaders, which implies they are not followers of the citizens but rather leaders.

In the case of the two wars you cite there was set before us some sense of argument for a 'Just War', in the case oif the Invasion of Iraq there was the long excursis by Bush and others about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', and in the case of the Invasion of Ukraine, we were told about the swamping of Ukraine by the LGBTQI community and Nazis. In both cases these arguments appear flawed.

In a free society, we might look to the leaders of Christ's flock to fulfil a prophetic role of the Church, and be a clear sound for justice in the noise and confusion. Part of our ability to do that depends upon the clarity of the information we have to hand (or misinformation it would seem at times).

Given that the just war is largely a 'western' theology, it was fascinating to see Putin, clearly an 'eastern' christian try to invoke a just war rheoric.

For the rest of us, as thinking christians, we are left to listen and evaluate as best we can. Often if we ask questions about the economics involved (follow the money) we may often see more clearly through what is happenning, that may provoke an alterate theory, and then we examine the credibility of the argument.

I have concluded that Kyiv is no more gay than Moscow, and the talk of the neo-nazi movement has been vastly talked up by the Russian President. As Zellenski was elected with the support of the oligarchs, and has an agenda of bring an end to oligarchical corruption in Ukariane, this may well be motivated by a determination to maintain oligarchical power and wealth. It is certainly a credible alternate theory.

Considering what you've written I still wonder why Christians choose to follow leaders into wars of any kind and why even in a war where some attempt to justify it was made along the lines of just war theories any Christian chooses to follow their national leaders into war. War is, without any doubt, killing other people who are made in God's image Can a Christian in good conscience, willingly kill another Christian because the other is in the military or civilian ranks of the other nation?

 

[Philip_B]

Considering what you've written I still wonder why Christians choose to follow leaders into wars of any kind and why even in a war where some attempt to justify it was made along the lines of just war theories any Christian chooses to follow their national leaders into war. War is, without any doubt, killing other people who are made in God's image Can a Christian in good conscience, willingly kill another Christian because the other is in the military or civilian ranks of the other nation?

Perhaps if I bold a couple of words you will see what I was saying

For the rest of us, as thinking christians, we are left to listen and evaluate as best we can. Often if we ask questions about the economics involved (follow the money) we may often see more clearly through what is happenning, that may provoke an alterate theory, and then we examine the credibility of the argument.

That group may indeed be a minority sub culture!

 

[DragonFox91]

A lot of our wars have been really unpopular lately, but people keep enlisting, most likely knowing the wars are unpopular & some basic history of them. They'd be better at answering then me why do Christians fight our leaders' wars.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Perhaps if I bold a couple of words you will see what I was saying

That group may indeed be a minority sub culture!

I hope that the gospel is for more than thinking Christians alone. I hope that the theory of a just was is somehow consistent with the gospel and in some way is drawn from it. Nevertheless why do Christians join in the wars of the nations against one another and a nation against itself when civil war arises? It is still a question that I wonder about.

 

[Philip_B]

I hope that the gospel is for more than thinking Christians alone. I hope that the theory of a just was is somehow consistent with the gospel and in some way is drawn from it. Nevertheless why do Christians join in the wars of the nations against one another and a nation against itself when civil war arises? It is still a question that I wonder about.

So do I.