Just war?

[Xeno.of.athens]

There's a theological theory about when it is right and just to engage in war. It makes sense in its own way. But something is amiss in it. No leaders can go to war without people to fight the war for them. Why do Christians agree to fight the wars of their nation's leaders?

 

[RDKirk]

There's a theological theory about when it is right and just to engage in war. It makes sense in its own way. But something is amiss in it. No leaders can go to war without people to fight the war for them. Why do Christians agree to fight the wars of their nation's leaders?

Good question, particularly if the enemy is other Christians.

I'll extend the question: Is the war still just if you goaded the other nation into it, or you failed to negotiate peacefully when you had the opportunity?

 

[bling]

Our war is against satan and his army.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Good question, particularly if the enemy is other Christians.

I'll extend the question: Is the war still just if you goaded the other nation into it, or you failed to negotiate peacefully when you had the opportunity?

I see your point, it is applicable to several recent wars and, of course, one current war.

 

[angelsaroundme]

During World War 1 they gave men who weren't serving in the military a white feather, which someone had made an emblem of cowardice in England. Giving men a white feather was a way to pressure or shame men into joining the fight. Regardless of whether this or that war had an outright conscription or a draft, that doesn't mean people weren't being pushed into joining.

The men who would not fight | First world war | The Guardian

Military service also has many social or economic benefits, both today and in the past. Men who go to war are hailed as heroes and can make useful connections. In Ancient Egypt, they received plunder from battles as well as a plot of land. Historically, war has probably been the best chance of social advancement for the common person. It's high risk, high reward, though some wars benefitted the soldiers more than others.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There's a theological theory about when it is right and just to engage in war. It makes sense in its own way. But something is amiss in it. No leaders can go to war without people to fight the war for them. Why do Christians agree to fight the wars of their nation's leaders?

Strictly speaking, most wars have not met the strict criteria of Just War Theory. Just War Theory presents, at least on paper, a fairly good standard. The problem is introduced when we ask the question if the Christian is even permitted to engage in a theoretically just war. The position of the ancient fathers, and a fairly strict interpretation of the New Testament, seems to present violence as a non-option. Though I am sympathetic toward arguments of extraordinary circumstance. I'm thinking of the extraordinary circumstances of the Nazis and Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer's ultimate agreement to participate in the plot to assassinate Hitler (which got Bonhoeffer arrested and ultimately martyred).

For myself, I have come to a place where I cannot embrace violence nor nationalistic sentiment as valid; as such I maintain, like St. Cyprian, that there is no fundamental difference between illegal murder and legal killing in the name of the state or at the behest at the state.

"The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle I.6

 

[fhansen]

There's a theological theory about when it is right and just to engage in war. It makes sense in its own way. But something is amiss in it. No leaders can go to war without people to fight the war for them. Why do Christians agree to fight the wars of their nation's leaders?

They agree because the war is just. Just war is defined as defending the innocent, standing up for that which is right, etc. Should we allow someone to come into our house and murder our family if we can prevent it?

 

[RDKirk]

They agree because the war is just. Just war is defined as defending the innocent, standing up for that which is right, etc. Do we allow somehow to come into our house and murder our family?

That's not the origin of the vast majority of wars, however.

 

[bèlla]

Just…good…and fair. Here’s our stats.

 

[fhansen]

That's not the origin of the vast majority of wars, however.

all right so, for example, there have never been aggressors with unjust intentions towards a relatively innocent and peaceful neighbor? No one seeking to take from another what doesn't rightfully belong to them? No reason for the Allies to defend themselves or the Jews against Nazism or native Americans against their aggressors? I mean, even if only one war fits the definition, the theory is valid.. And, again, the concept is no different from defending your family from an intruder.

 

[RDKirk]

all right so, for example, there have never been aggressors with unjust intentions towards a relatively innocent and peaceful neighbor? No one seeking to take from another what doesn't rightfully belong to them? No reason for the Allies to defend themselves or the Jews against Nazism or native Americans against their aggressors? I mean, even if only one war fits the definition, the theory is valid.

A theory can be valid even if nothing is found to fit the definition...let's not confuse "valid" with "proven."

I could argue that if Allied nations following WWI had been more merciful and not as vengeful against Germany--IOW, more Christlike as the Christians they claimed to be-- Hitler would not have risen to power. That dilutes the "justness" of their reaction to the German national monster they had a hand in creating. I could also point to the anti-Semitism of Europe (and America) in general as a factor in allowing it to grow to such enormity in Germany.

We have to ask ourselves what I mentioned earlier: How "just" is this war if we could have avoided it by having been more Christlike earlier on?

If "Just War" is posited as a Christian theory--if we're going to say that Jesus approves it, that it's a righteous act--then we are obligated to seek out just wars in which to engage, and certainly not to ignore one, as we are obligated to perform righteous acts.

 

[fhansen]

All right, I suppose the Holocaust was the Allies fault to. It's a fallen world. That doesn't mean we let everyone run over us just because no one's perfectly innocent.

And, you're right if there's a just war then we should desire to wage it in order to defend the innocent. To the extent we're able, just as we defend our family in such a case. That doesn't mean that the limitations and politics and fear won't play their respective roles as well and possibly prevent us from doing what is otherwise the right thing. Should we help with Ukraine now? Is the suffering and death there irrelevant?

 

[Philip_B]

The Just War is a specifically Western Doctrine.

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Now if we go back to the 24th of February or thereabouts, Vladimir gave a lengthy address, and it was interesting to see an Eastern Leader delivering a defence of his proposed 'Peace Keeping Mission', to liberate some parts of Eastern Ukraine from Ukranian repression. He cited as causes for this the rise of the LGBTQI cause in Ukraine, the rise of the Neo-Nazi case in Ukraine, and the persecution of Russian Speaking Ukrainians.

What has transpired since then seems disproportianal, even if his arguments were valid. Indeed, given that Vlodimir Zelenski himself is a Russian Speaking Ukrainian, and his family took up the cause against the Nazi's in the 2nd World War, and given that the Neo Nazi movement in Ukraine is largely a fringe movement, and given that Ukraine in all likelyhood is no more gay than Moscow, one is inclined to thik one needs to look elsewhere for his motivations.

Zelenski was elected on a platform of ending oligarchical control in Ukraine, and sought to move the nation more to a western style of free citizens rather that the controlled freedom of the Russian Federation he has made some powerful enemies.

Putin's words suggested he wanted to liberate Donbas, however his actions seem more in line with obliterate Donbas. A reasonable reading of the situation suggests that the Russian Aggression is unjust and the Ukrainian Defence is just.

The lesson of the 2nd Word War is clear, appeasment is not a solution.

 

[RDKirk]

All right, I suppose the Holocaust was the Allies fault to. It's a fallen world. That doesn't mean we let everyone run over us just because no one's perfectly innocent.

And, you're right if there's a just war then we should desire to wage it in order to defend the innocent. To the extent we're able, just as we defend our family in such a case. That doesn't mean that the limitations and politics and fear won't play their respective roles as well and possibly prevent us from doing what is otherwise the right thing. Should we help with Ukraine now? Is the suffering and death there irrelevant?

Who is this "we" that you speak of?

You specifically? Are you volunteering? Probably not.

You're talking about sending someone else--probably some young 19-year-old Christian who hasn't yet figured out his theology to kill other Christians who also haven't yet figured out their theology.

This is where we have to consider what @ViaCrucis has said in post #6 above.

 

[ViaCrucis]

All right, I suppose the Holocaust was the Allies fault to. It's a fallen world. That doesn't mean we let everyone run over us just because no one's perfectly innocent.

And, you're right if there's a just war then we should desire to wage it in order to defend the innocent. To the extent we're able, just as we defend our family in such a case. That doesn't mean that the limitations and politics and fear won't play their respective roles as well and possibly prevent us from doing what is otherwise the right thing. Should we help with Ukraine now? Is the suffering and death there irrelevant?

If Just War Theory is the definition of what is minimally acceptable (which is the point), then we should take seriously when the ancient saints and fathers spoke emphatically that military service was, in fact, in opposition to the Christian way. St. Martin of Tours, for example, when he was being pressed into military service emphatically said that, as a soldier of Christ he was not permitted to fight. St. Marcellus of Tangiers cast off his military belt in front of the emperor, which ultimately gave him his martyr's crown. St. Hippolytus in his Apostolic Traditions writes that a catechumen/baptismal candidate who does not cast aside his military belt and oath is to be rejected.

The fathers are not mild in their opposition to war and violence, they are exceptionally clear. Just War Theory did not exist until Christians started having political power as magistrates and emperors. Which is why St. Augustine, for example, bothered at all to try to craft a Just War Theory. Just War Theory is, itself, a compromise. There was no such thing as a Just War Theory for the fathers who lived before the Edict of Toleration. Just War Theory is a response and reaction to a brand new event in the history of the Church: Christians in positions of political power, Christianity as the favored, and later official religion of the Empire.

And there is valid, patristic, reason to challenge that co-mingling of Church and State that was forged, ultimately, under Theodosius I. After all, it doesn't take a genius to see that the collusion of Church and State was a miserable failure. Whether we are talking Byzantine or Western political power. The Church has always been most faithful when she is not in charge of the world, but when she is suffering in it. And this can be seen throughout history, whether we are talking the Holy Martyrs of Nagasaki, the precious saints who came through the Diocletian persecution, or both Protestant and Catholic martyrs in the post-Reformation era.

Embracing the State as anything more than a public necessity for the organization of human civilization has consistently resulted in the compromise of the Christian faith. Crusades, pogroms, the holocaust, it is all the collaborative guilt of us, as Christ's people in the world. Our failure to be faithful disciples. Such things should drive us to our knees in repentance. It's why St. Pope John Paul II actively devoted himself to a ministry of reconciliation and repentance. That's what it means to fear God. Which Christians in the modern era have forgotten. Especially in their love of political power.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

Who is this "we" that you speak of?

”We” are all people, as all people are called to do the right thing. That doesn’t mean that “we” will always do it.

 

[RDKirk]

”We” are all people, as all people are called to do the right thing. That doesn’t mean that “we” will always do it.

"We" is never "all people" when going to war.

 

[fhansen]

If Just War Theory is the definition of what is minimally acceptable (which is the point), then we should take seriously when the ancient saints and fathers spoke emphatically that military service was, in fact, in opposition to the Christian way. St. Martin of Tours, for example, when he was being pressed into military service emphatically said that, as a soldier of Christ he was not permitted to fight. St. Marcellus of Tangiers cast off his military belt in front of the emperor, which ultimately gave him his martyr's crown. St. Hippolytus in his Apostolic Traditions writes that a catechumen/baptismal candidate who does not cast aside his military belt and oath is to be rejected.

The fathers are not mild in their opposition to war and violence, they are exceptionally clear. Just War Theory did not exist until Christians started having political power as magistrates and emperors. Which is why St. Augustine, for example, bothered at all to try to craft a Just War Theory. Just War Theory is, itself, a compromise. There was no such thing as a Just War Theory for the fathers who lived before the Edict of Toleration. Just War Theory is a response and reaction to a brand new event in the history of the Church: Christians in positions of political power, Christianity as the favored, and later official religion of the Empire.

And there is valid, patristic, reason to challenge that co-mingling of Church and State that was forged, ultimately, under Theodosius I. After all, it doesn't take a genius to see that the collusion of Church and State was a miserable failure. Whether we are talking Byzantine or Western political power. The Church has always been most faithful when she is not in charge of the world, but when she is suffering in it. And this can be seen throughout history, whether we are talking the Holy Martyrs of Nagasaki, the precious saints who came through the Diocletian persecution, or both Protestant and Catholic martyrs in the post-Reformation era.

Embracing the State as anything more than a public necessity for the organization of human civilization has consistently resulted in the compromise of the Christian faith. Crusades, pogroms, the holocaust, it is all the collaborative guilt of us, as Christ's people in the world. Our failure to be faithful disciples. Such things should drive us to our knees in repentance. It's why St. Pope John Paul II actively devoted himself to a ministry of reconciliation and repentance. That's what it means to fear God. Which Christians in the modern era have forgotten. Especially in their love of political power.

-CryptoLutheran

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.

 

[fhansen]

"We" is never "all people" when going to war.

War is never to be desired. Should Ukraine fight back or not? Or does any country have the right, ever, to defend itself? “We” is all people when deciding whether or not war is ever justifiable.

 

[Hawkins]

Wars under most circumstances are a game of Caesar vs. Caesar or even beast vs. beast, where innocents died even before they had a chance to believe Jesus. In order to end WWII, 2 atomic bombs were dropped to kill tens of thousands of innocents. No war can be justified in terms of the innocents' death. (Of course, unless it's directly commanded by God, as God has a higher mind towards the salvation of humankind)