"We call upon the churches to give up any theological and moral justification of the use of military power, be it in war or through forms of oppressive security systems, and to become public advocates of a just peace." - Konrad Raiser, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Germany 1991

The Christian Church operates in a violent, war ravaged world. Northern Ireland, the Balkans, anti- semitism (in almost all of Europe and Arab countries at some time or another), Vietnam, Bosnia/Herzegovina, the Persian Gulf, Cambodia, Panama, Hiroshima, Dresden and World Wars one and two are just some of the scenes of terrible conflicts and wars that have taken place in recent history. The list could go on and on, and indeed in the future could go on and on. Some of these conflicts have been influenced or actively supported by the Christian Church, others have perhaps been influenced more subtly. But a safe assumption can be made that “At the centre of many of the conflicts, providing an aggravating force - if not the primary motivation - are differences of religion.” (Roger Ruston, “The War of Religions and the Religions of War”)

Could the Christian Church have stopped or hindered these conflicts? Should the Christian church be advocating a just peace or a just war? First, we need to examine the origins of Just War Theory to properly understand it. Secondly we need to examine the different interpretations and applications of Christian Just War Theory. Thirdly, we need to establish whether Christian Just War Theory can be justified these days from our examination of the theory. Fourth and finally we can then make a judgement as to whether Christian Just War Theory has a place in contemporary events and theology and whether it can today solve the contradiction at the heart of Christian teaching concerning violence - whether one should be passive and Christ like, or whether one should defend the “earthly city”..

For the first three hundred years or so, Christians were persecuted and did not violently fight back. Like the radical religious sects of seventeenth century England, Christianity had started life small and powerless. Coercive social management was left to the Romans. The Christians did not have the influence or manpower to be effectively violent. To survive as a minority, they needed to show that they were not a threat, and that they were non violent and would not fight back, then hopefully, they would be left alone. To fight back would have meant destruction, but one cannot defeat, defeat. Also, one has to remember their pacifist and Apocalyptic beliefs. They imitated Jesus attitude at the Crucifixion and allowed themselves to be killed for their faith.

However, with the Christian conversion of the Roman Empire and its army, Christians did fight, and did so to consolidate their position in history. So now the Christians needed to protect themselves from hypocrisy, or needed to justify Christ’s’ teachings in the light of warfare. Without the Just War Theory, introduced into Christian doctrine in the fifth century by Augustine, Christianity may well have vanished from history. The justification of the use of armed force by Christians whose new-born Empire was threatened from the north and east was the only way this non-aggressive religion was not only able to save itself, but proselytise through the historically inevitable conflicts to come.

This Just War Theory has always been the traditional justification of rectifying injustice with violence. However, differences in interpretation of the Bible (and hence whether the Just War theory can be justified) has been evident since the pre-Constantine and post-Constantine church. Augustine claims that the protection of the innocent is the justification of the Just War Theory. He interpreted the act of “turn the other cheek” as an inward disposition rather than a bodily act, and that it is our responsibility to protect the “earthly city” from Gods’ enemies. He felt that Christians should not wage war for God or the Church (which needed no such defence) but for the state, as a kind of temporary duty existed to it. He also saw Christ’s condemnation of Peter’s use of his sword in Matt. 26:52-3 as “a condemnation of acting ‘in hasty zeal’ and ‘without the sanction of constituted authority’, rather than as a condemnation of the sword as such.” (“Ethical Criteria for Judging the Morality of Conflict Situations” - David Smith). Tertullian on the other hand argues that the phrase “unbuckle your belt and sheath your sword” clearly condemns weapons. But Augustine did not see anything glorious in warfare. This took the Just War Theory a step towards a non-religious war. “Augustine began a tradition of desacralisation of war.” (“The War of Religions and the Religions of War” - Roger Ruston). Perhaps Augustine saw wars a having strict moral limits, becoming fallible instruments of worldly justice? If this is so, then the Just War Theory seems reasonable in the time that he lived.

For so long wars have been seen as the judgement or the hand of God (and this is clearly evident in the Old Testament). But “God is on the side of the army with the biggest battalions” (Voltaire). No nation is chosen by God, if so this God would be a tribal God like the God of the Old Testament. Does God’s judgement or hand mean he has an active role in the atrocities of warfare? What kind of God does the Just War Theory show us he is today? Since Augustines time, warfare has changed radically. Can the Just War Theory answer these questions? If not it will need revising, or should not be heeded at all.

So, can Christian Just War Theory be justified these days? Throughout history, there has been a struggle for souls between state and God. But there has been confusion between the goals of the nation and the goals of God and attempts to associate the two. Often state wars have been decreed just if they were against infidels. This is the struggle for souls Augustine recognised, and used Just War Theory to justify it. War has often been a religious experience. The Wrath of God, blood sacrifice and death. War does what the Church tries to do: demand sacrifice, and helping people become something greater than themselves. But the patriotic mood unifies unlike any sermon can. “...War is simply a religious phenomenon, which readily feeds on the symbols of existing religions.” (ibid.). Wars are steeped in religious language, the sacrifice of soldiers in World War I was associated with Christ’s sacrifice, “They died that we might live” is carved in countless war memorials. The Gulf war was also religiously emotive “.....dead soldiers were described as fallen warriors who perform, like Christ, the ‘ultimate moral act’” (ibid.). The Christian Church seems to lend itself very well to war and the sanctification of war. However, one must see the contradiction at the heart of Christianity and war: Christ submitted to violence, but soldiers commit it. Perhaps Father McKenzie stated this better: “Jesus... taught us how to die, not how to kill.” These days, the ability of Just War Theory to justify Christian support of war seems tenuous at best.

Though these religious sentiments in war may have worked in history, they cannot work in the context of modern warfare. In modern war the conquerors and conquered are both devastated and innocents on all sides are killed to a greater extent than before due to our more efficient weapons. Yet the Just War Theory claims to justify this, even though it has actually failed “...in the very purpose for which it was formulated, namely, the protection of the innocent from unjust aggression and the circumscription of violence and killing; and it has not been faithful to the totality of vision expressed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” (“The Just War Theory: A Wolf in sheep’s clothing” - Antonia Malone). Augustine’s claim that the innocent are protected has been used as the justification for war to this day, legitimating the evil and violence of war, whilst claiming to love those who the atrocities are committed against by thinking of “turning the other cheek” as an inward disposition. But when has war ever protected anyone, especially the innocent, today or in history? In the Gospels, there seems to be nothing in Christ’s teaching that condones armed conflict. Christ’s messages like “The Kingdom of God will come only when we are ready to turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:43) and “We must recognise and respect the image of God in the least of humans” (Matt. 25:45) are anti-violence, as are most of his actions. Before his death he refuses help from angels and Peter and allows himself to be Crucified. Yet, Christ is not passive, he does not warn against self-defence or anger, but retaliation and blind rage.

Furthermore “The Just War Theory was traditionally limited to wars between nations. In our contemporary climate of nationalist and ideologically based violence it would appear to have little relevance.” (”The War of Religions and the Religions of War” - Roger Ruston). The criteria of Just War needs to be broadened and adapted to discern just and unjust violence, and even then, it may not be good enough from a Christian perspective. Take the Just War idea of proportionality as a problem. Today proportionality is impossible with the existence of chemical and nuclear weapons, and the same argument stands for the discrimination of targets idea; and this is not possible during revolutionary war either. It seems that an all encompassing theory of war is no longer possible (if it ever was). Wars must be considered as they present themselves. But are there times when the Church has to advocate a war? Would Christ have allowed us to sit back and allow Nazi Germany to continue killing Jews? Christ showed that we must help those under attack, as the story of the good Samaritan teaches. But again, despite Christ’s teachings wars can only be seen in two ways, as just or unjust. “Any resort to violence to rectify injustice must always be seen as a failure by human society. Everyone, therefore, bears a responsibility to strive for the establishment of justice so as to avert the horror of war.” (“Ethical Criteria for Judging the Morality of Conflict Situations” - David Smith). But because of the situation we humans are in, some wars sometimes need to be fought, but it does not seem enough effort is being made to stop needless violence, and I believe this is what Christ taught Christians to stop.

The Just War Theory cannot be found in the New Testament. Neither are equipped in this way to deal with wars on the scale that they can happen today. The Just War Theory and Christ’s non- violent approach are contradictory aspects of Christianity that in this day and age of nuclear holocaust and world wide warfare cannot be reconciled. Views held like this: “Let men take every advantage of the seeming weakness of love... At some time or another the very weakness of love will cut them down... I am sure that is so, human hearts being what they are”. by people like MacGregor (in “The New Testament Basis for Pacifism”) are ideological and naive at best, and dangerous at worst. Does he think the human will so indomitable? Does he not realise that such eschatologically justified arguments like his are unconvincing to non-religious (and indeed, some religious) people? MacGregor has not grasped the fact that war breaks people and breeds yet more and more violence. This is what an arms race is, this is what torture is and this is why humans have still wage wars that more often than not, seem more destructive than useful. In the words of George Orwell “In the face of pain, there are no heroes” (“1984” - George Orwell). When Christian leaders commit themselves to war, God becomes a God of Blood, not Love. A war is a war against God, it is a war against the Son’s teachings, so there is no such thing as a “just war”. War is not God’s judgement, but judgement of a whole political culture, of humanity and perhaps religion.

Yet, without war, Christianity may not exist. It is only through war that Christianity is here today and is the major world religion. War has given Christianity a chance to proper and proselytise. Christianity needed war, and may still need war. With increasing secularisation (or at least non-attendance) in the Western Europe, war is the only time when true religious sentiment is felt by many. Religious passions persist under secularisation to re-emerge in times of crisis. In this climate, Christianity is becoming more a religion of war than peace. And without war as a driving force Christianity may become irrelevant in a violent world where the conquerors write history, not the pacifists. The Just War Theory seems to be an integral part of the history of Christianity that cannot be used today as it was first formulated. The Theory needs revision in the light of modern warfare. But non violence is not an option, “The pressure for justice may, at times, necessitate the use of armed force. In these situations it is essential that Christians have an able criteria for assessing the morality of force employed” (”The War of Religions and the Religions of War” - Roger Ruston.) And the Christian church should always regret that it has to advocate a just war, and should work towards solving conflict.

Bibliography

“Studying War No More? - From Just War to Just Peace” - “Ethical Criteria for judging the morality of Conflict Situations” - David Smith. A Pax Christi book edited by Brian Wicker (Kampen: kok Pharos, 1993)

“Studying War No More? - From Just War to Just Peace” -”The Just War Theory: A Wolf in Sheeps clothing” - Antonia Malone.. A Pax Christi book edited by Brian Wicker (Kampen: kok Pharos, 1993)

“The New Testament Basis for Pacifism” - G.H.C MacGregor

“Christianity and War in a Nuclear Age” - R. Harries

“Studying War No More? - From Just War to Just Peace” - "The War of Religions and the Religions of War” - Roger Ruston. A Pax Christi book edited by Brian Wicker (Kampen: kok Pharos, 1993)

My Writings:

Other:

Links:

Please consider making a small donation to keep this site ad-free.