Justifyable War?

[mooduck1]

So after the urging of a friend, I've taken to looking deeper into my views of whether for a Christian there is such thing as justifiable war or whether we are to take Christ's command to 'turn the other cheek' to mean that we should basically be doormats for our enemies unless God himself avenges us. So, I've picked up my dictionary of early Christian beliefs and I must confess I am a bit astonished by what I've found. Of the early Christian writings that exist including the ones in the NT , there seems to be unanimous opinion that warfare for any reason is wrong...period even as late as as the 300's. early church writings absolutely condemn war of any kind for a real follower of Christ. Biblical references we all have memorized so here is another outside the Bible as an example. Soldiers WERE apparently allowed to stay in the army so long as they did not kill - 'A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and and to refuse to do so if commanded...if he is unwilling to comply he must be rejected for baptism....a military or civic magestrate who wears purple must resign or be rejected...if an applicant seeks to become a soldier he must be rejected, for he is dispised by God..' - hippolytus

Is it only after Constantine that we find any doctrines of 'just war' against other people? IF so, what are the consequences and responsabilities for us now??

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Is it only after Constantine that we find any doctrines of 'just war' against other people?

Paul makes it pretty clear in Romans 13 that God has invested civil authority with the use of the sword in order to despense justice and restrict evil.

We also know of Christian generals, saints even, before Constantine. St. Demetrios, a very popular saint among the Orthodox, was a general in the legions of Diocletian.

I also cannot image some of the soldiering metaphors used in the New Testament and early church fathers if warfare is evil in-and-of-itself. Soldiering is a vocation that necessarily involves the taking of other human lives. If the earliest Christians thought it warfare as universally and necessarily evil, soldiering is morally equivalent to prostitution.

Yet Paul (and Clement of Alexandria following him) tells his readings to be 'good soldiers for Christ Jesus.' Can we really, honestly image Paul saying 'Be good little harlots for Christ Jesus'?

Doubtful.

Edit: And as for the Sermon on the Mount, I would contend that Jesus is challenging his Jewish contemporaries to not engage in armed resistance against Rome, because the redemption of Israel will come through his own person, not through the reestablishment of national sovereignty.

 

[Loukuss]

Glad to see you coming around, Mooduck.

 

[MrJim]

I also cannot image some of the soldiering metaphors used in the New Testament and early church fathers if warfare is evil in-and-of-itself. Soldiering is a vocation that necessarily involves the taking of other human lives. If the earliest Christians thought it warfare as universally and necessarily evil, soldiering is morally equivalent to prostitution.

Yet Paul (and Clement of Alexandria following him) tells his readings to be 'good soldiers for Christ Jesus.' Can we really, honestly image Paul saying 'Be good little harlots for Christ Jesus'?

Pretty interesting observation.

 

[mooduck1]

Paul makes it pretty clear in Romans 13 that God has invested civil authority with the use of the sword in order to despense justice and restrict evil.

I also cannot image some of the soldiering metaphors used in the New Testament and early church fathers if warfare is evil in-and-of-itself. Soldiering is a vocation that necessarily involves the taking of other human lives. If the earliest Christians thought it warfare as universally and necessarily evil, soldiering is morally equivalent to prostitution.

Yet Paul (and Clement of Alexandria following him) tells his readings to be 'good soldiers for Christ Jesus.' Can we really, honestly image Paul saying 'Be good little harlots for Christ Jesus'?
I here you, but maybe my source material is bias, though it claims to be definative, but I cannot find a single church father before like 400 A.D. saying killing under ANY cercumstances is ok, but I can find TONS of VERY vehament condemnations of killing in warfare even to the point of not allowing someone to be baptised if they've killed in war. I need more info so if anyone else has anything to add to support 'just war', I'd love to here it.

 

[freespiritchurch]

Paul makes it pretty clear in Romans 13 that God has invested civil authority with the use of the sword in order to despense justice and restrict evil.

We also know of Christian generals, saints even, before Constantine. St. Demetrios, a very popular saint among the Orthodox, was a general in the legions of Diocletian.

I also cannot image some of the soldiering metaphors used in the New Testament and early church fathers if warfare is evil in-and-of-itself. Soldiering is a vocation that necessarily involves the taking of other human lives. If the earliest Christians thought it warfare as universally and necessarily evil, soldiering is morally equivalent to prostitution.

Yet Paul (and Clement of Alexandria following him) tells his readings to be 'good soldiers for Christ Jesus.' Can we really, honestly image Paul saying 'Be good little harlots for Christ Jesus'?

Doubtful.

Edit: And as for the Sermon on the Mount, I would contend that Jesus is challenging his Jewish contemporaries to not engage in armed resistance against Rome, because the redemption of Israel will come through his own person, not through the reestablishment of national sovereignty.

The civil authorities that God instituted were pagan, not Christian. So there are three possibilities:

1) Christians should not take on civil authority.
2) Christians should take on civil authority, and use force when the think it's for the greater good.
3) Christians should take on civil authority, and make pacifism a national policy.

All three of these are viable directions for Christians to take based on the Bible.

Alan

 

[mooduck1]

Glad to see you coming around, Mooduck.

Hey what can I say, I come here to learn almost as much as I come to rant, I'm open to being shown wrong.

 

[desmalia]

I wanted to point out a few things here, and I do realize they may seem a little surprising coming from someone with an Anabaptist icon.

First, many people assume that "turning the other cheek" is the same as being a doormat. But that is not what Christ was saying at all. What he was talking about is persecution for the sake of the faith. When we are attacked for the faith, we need to remain graceful and not respond with hate, anger, or fear. We need to be willing to suffer for the sake of our Lord when the time comes.

As Christians, I don't think it is our place to wage war on the world in a "crusade" kind of manner either. At least not with weapons and violence.

However, when it comes to protecting the oppressed, there is a time for war. Hitler would be a perfect example of this. I cannot see how "turn the other cheek" would have been a valid excuse for allowing him to take over the world. We are commanded to look out for those who cannot take care of themselves.

One final comment. I think it's vital to always remember that we are in the midst of a spiritual war. It's not war itself that is the sin. It is the human intent that defines whether the war is justified or sinful.

 

[ScottBot]

I wanted to point out a few things here, and I do realize they may seem a little surprising coming from someone with an Anabaptist icon.

First, many people assume that "turning the other cheek" is the same as being a doormat. But that is not what Christ was saying at all. What he was talking about is persecution for the sake of the faith. When we are attacked for the faith, we need to remain graceful and not respond with hate, anger, or fear. We need to be willing to suffer for the sake of our Lord when the time comes.

As Christians, I don't think it is our place to wage war on the world in a "crusade" kind of manner either. At least not with weapons and violence.

However, when it comes to protecting the oppressed, there is a time for war. Hitler would be a perfect example of this. I cannot see how "turn the other cheek" would have been a valid excuse for allowing him to take over the world. We are commanded to look out for those who cannot take care of themselves.

One final comment. I think it's vital to always remember that we are in the midst of a spiritual war. It's not war itself that is the sin. It is the human intent that defines whether the war is justified or sinful.

You do realize that if Christians hadn't waged war in a "crusade-type manner" the cresent moon flag of Islam would be flying all over the globe.

 

[elsbeth]

I've been told that Jesus meant His teachings for individuals, not nations. But I don't buy that argument. I can see where there could be some rare instances (stopping Hitler, for example) where a nation needs to step in to stop something. But it should be rare, and ABSOLUTELY justified, no other choice, in my opinion.

 

[ScottBot]

These are the tenets of the "Just War" doctrine:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• 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. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[desmalia]

You do realize that if Christians hadn't waged war in a "crusade-type manner" the cresent moon flag of Islam would be flying all over the globe.

Indeed, when we're talking about defending against an oppressor, war is justified IMHO. And it has been suggested that the Crusades were in response to fast-spreading Islamic oppression, of which there is still much evidence today. I was referring to a more general sense of trying to conquer the world via war when I used the word crusade (but thank you for pointing that out ). Again, it all comes down to the intent. What makes it even more complicated is that you have a large group of people operating within a war. Some may have pure intent, while some may not. So then not only does the intent of leaders have to be considered, but also the hearts of each soldier. Further to that, when we're talking about large-scale war, there is also the issue of communication and information. Misinformation can easily lead a person (even one who means well) to do something terrible, without knowing it at the time. So the final outcome can often be muddy at best. Complicated stuff.

 

[Loukuss]

Hey what can I say, I come here to learn almost as much as I come to rant, I'm open to being shown wrong.

That's a great attitude and very refreshing around these parts. That approach will carry you far, my friend.
Good luck in your search.

shalom.

Lucas

 

[Gwenyfur]

Or we could just sit back on our self-righteous laurels and say "it's their problem...let them deal with it" while christians, women and children are tortured, raped, murdered and worse...

While I don't mind being killed for the name of the L-rd, I do have an issue with women and children being tortured and maimed for the sadistic pleasure of a few corrupt "rulers".

Somehow, I don't think Y'shua likes it much either

James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Deuteronomy 10:18
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing.

Deuteronomy 24:17
Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.

Isaiah 1:23
Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow's case does not come before them.

vis·it

/ˈvɪz

ɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[viz-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1.to go to and stay with (a person or family) or at (a place) for a short time for reasons of sociability, politeness, business, curiosity, etc.: to visit a friend; to visit clients; to visit Paris. 2.to stay with as a guest. 3.to come or go to: to visit a church for prayer. 4.to go to for the purpose of official inspection or examination: a general visiting his troops. 5.to come to in order to comfort or aid:

Sometimes coming to comfort or aid indeed means coming to make war against the oppressors...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I here you, but maybe my source material is bias, though it claims to be definative, but I cannot find a single church father before like 400 A.D. saying killing under ANY cercumstances is ok, but I can find TONS of VERY vehament condemnations of killing in warfare even to the point of not allowing someone to be baptised if they've killed in war. I need more info so if anyone else has anything to add to support 'just war', I'd love to here it.

That's all true, and a person like myself who has come to understand the just war tradition has no problem admitting that.

The just war tradition is based upon a series of criteria that state when it is and is not permissable for people to ethically engage in warfare- legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, combatant-noncombatant discrimination, establishing lasting peace, reasonable chance of success, etc.

These criteria are actually designed to make war more just and limit warfare's scope. We cannot engage in a 'necessary evil' argument, because not only is that a slipperly slope that can lead to such atrocities as nuclear war, but it is also directly condemned in Romans 12 (which gives Romans 13 all the more force).

I would contend that there is an implicit understanding running from Christ to Romans 13 to 1 Peter and through the early church fathers that killing is not evil in-and-of-itself. Many the second and third century fathers forbid participation in the Roman military, it is true.

But it is exceedingly important to remember that context of the third century. Throughout the third century, Rome faced a series of military crises, with legions acting as little more than private armies for aristocrats and the emperors being repeatedly overthrown. There were as many years as emperors in the third century. The condemnations of warfare found in Tertullian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria must be read within this context.

The just warrior must be ready to stand for peace and hold their governments accountable for illegetimate uses of political violence. But based on my above reasoning (regarding Romans 13 and the soldier-prostitute non-parallelism), it seems that government uses of violence can be properly regulated if reasonable criteria are employed to direct its aim.

As Christians, I don't think it is our place to wage war on the world in a "crusade" kind of manner either. At least not with weapons and violence.

Naturally. And much of the apperantly pacifistic language in the Sermon on the Mount I take to be our Lord pleading with his Jewish contemporaries to not take up the sword against Rome. Christ sought to challenge his revolutionary brethern to find a way to restore Israel in a new and bold way (namely, through his own person in the crucifixion and resurrection) instead of through armed resistance against the legions and the prefecture to the end of reestablishing Israelite national sovereignty.

Therefore, it's quite incumbant upon us to reject all attempts to spread Christianity through force of arms, because the people of God are only established through the spread of the person of Jesus Christ into the heart of all.

The civil authorities that God instituted were pagan, not Christian. So there are three possibilities:

1) Christians should not take on civil authority.
2) Christians should take on civil authority, and use force when the think it's for the greater good.
3) Christians should take on civil authority, and make pacifism a national policy.

All three of these are viable directions for Christians to take based on the Bible.

I think option 1 is a legitimate option for individuals. Some, like priests, may reasonably take the higher road of personal nonresistance, just as they may take the road of chastity or poverty or obedience.

Option 2 is really the prefered option for nations, as long as the nations are operating within the reasonable criteria.

I find option 3 absolutely untenable in the real world. A political entity, like a government, is, by it's very nature, coercive. It requires force of arms to maintain such basic things like law and order. A nation-state cannot afford to disarm.

I also think those who follow option 3 are profoundly confusing the two kingdoms.

 

[Bystander]

You can't just let a conquerer march over and steal fredom can you? I say no but conquering land for gain is wrong

 

[mooduck1]

That's all true, and a person like myself who has come to understand the just war tradition has no problem admitting that.

The just war tradition is based upon a series of criteria that state when it is and is not permissable for people to ethically engage in warfare- legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, combatant-noncombatant discrimination, establishing lasting peace, reasonable chance of success, etc.

These criteria are actually designed to make war more just and limit warfare's scope. We cannot engage in a 'necessary evil' argument, because not only is that a slipperly slope that can lead to such atrocities as nuclear war, but it is also directly condemned in Romans 12 (which gives Romans 13 all the more force).

I would contend that there is an implicit understanding running from Christ to Romans 13 to 1 Peter and through the early church fathers that killing is not evil in-and-of-itself. Many the second and third century fathers forbid participation in the Roman military, it is true.

But it is exceedingly important to remember that context of the third century. Throughout the third century, Rome faced a series of military crises, with legions acting as little more than private armies for aristocrats and the emperors being repeatedly overthrown. There were as many years as emperors in the third century. The condemnations of warfare found in Tertullian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria must be read within this context.

The just warrior must be ready to stand for peace and hold their governments accountable for illegetimate uses of political violence. But based on my above reasoning (regarding Romans 13 and the soldier-prostitute non-parallelism), it seems that government uses of violence can be properly regulated if reasonable criteria are employed to direct its aim.



Naturally. And much of the apperantly pacifistic language in the Sermon on the Mount I take to be our Lord pleading with his Jewish contemporaries to not take up the sword against Rome. Christ sought to challenge his revolutionary brethern to find a way to restore Israel in a new and bold way (namely, through his own person in the crucifixion and resurrection) instead of through armed resistance against the legions and the prefecture to the end of reestablishing Israelite national sovereignty.

Therefore, it's quite incumbant upon us to reject all attempts to spread Christianity through force of arms, because the people of God are only established through the spread of the person of Jesus Christ into the heart of all.



I think option 1 is a legitimate option for individuals. Some, like priests, may reasonably take the higher road of personal nonresistance, just as they may take the road of chastity or poverty or obedience.

Option 2 is really the prefered option for nations, as long as the nations are operating within the reasonable criteria.

I find option 3 absolutely untenable in the real world. A political entity, like a government, is, by it's very nature, coercive. It requires force of arms to maintain such basic things like law and order. A nation-state cannot afford to disarm.

I also think those who follow option 3 are profoundly confusing the two kingdoms.

Thanks all, this discussion is helpful. I wa reading on a Catholic site that they are looking into updating the 'just war' doctrine a bit for the 21st century realities of terroism etc.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks all, this discussion is helpful. I wa reading on a Catholic site that they are looking into updating the 'just war' doctrine a bit for the 21st century realities of terroism etc.

A book called The Virtue of War, by Alexander Webster, also addresses this. Hopefully one day I'll write a book considering this point as well.

When it comes to terrorism, the big question (I think) is how to justifiably maintain the criterion of discrimination between combatants and noncombatants in an era where guerilla fighters and terrorists purposefully pose as civilians.

 

[ScottBot]

Or we could just sit back on our self-righteous laurels and say "it's their problem...let them deal with it" while christians, women and children are tortured, raped, murdered and worse...

While I don't mind being killed for the name of the L-rd, I do have an issue with women and children being tortured and maimed for the sadistic pleasure of a few corrupt "rulers".

Somehow, I don't think Y'shua likes it much either




Sometimes coming to comfort or aid indeed means coming to make war against the oppressors...

Preach it sister!

 

[Gwenyfur]

Preach it sister!

Semper Fi, Doc!