Just War and Pacifism: Issues

Or, as Jan Brady might have said, "culture! culture! culture!"...

Posted Wednesday, January 03, 2007 by Josh Michael
Categories: Theology
Having examined the major alternatives, we need to consider a few of the issues that are important to the discussion. Though we won’t answer any questions, we should at least know what the questions are. And, we may discover some of the key fulcrum points of the debate.

The Role of Scripture

On the issue of warfare, as in all other ethical areas, Christians first turn to Scripture to determine how it speaks to the issue. As the two selections from the gospels at the beginning of this series indicated, the language of the Bible appears equivocal. On the permissive side of the equation, there are commands for Israel to exterminate the nations of Canaan, descriptions of God as a mighty warrior, charges for believers to obey their governments, and an account of God’s final, bloody victory over evil and sin in the Apocalypse. On the prohibitive side, one finds a central theme of love and concern for others, prohibitions against relying upon human weapons of warfare, a command against killing, a call to be peacemakers, and a realization of heavenly, rather than worldly, citizenship. It is also important to note what is not said. Among other things, one does not find a charge to take up arms to defend oneself or one’s country, nor, on the other hand, does one find any disapproval of military service. All in all, it is clear that the ambiguity of the Biblical texts ensures that differing conclusions will abound. Pacifist thought, while drawing upon the whole of Scripture, often finds special inspiration in the Gospels. The focus of the New Testament upon love (often referenced as “the ethic of love”) seems quite contrary to the dehumanizing and malicious aspects of war. Specific injunctions to turn the other cheek, to be peacemakers, or to love your enemies are impossible to reconcile with just military service in general. For instance, basic training seeks to reduce individuality and to enfeeble any internal resistance against taking life and submitting to authority. Pacifist writers often find the language of the prophets, with its concern for justice and mercy and peace, to be supportive of their position. On the other hand, the conquest narratives and warfare of the Old Testament have proven more challenging to such interpretation.Just-war authors frequently draw upon the language as well as the history of the Old Testament to make their case. The apparent sanction of warfare, and a violent and brutal warfare at that, argues for a recognition of war as an unpleasant evil, but one which is necessary at times. The instructions of Paul and Peter regarding submission to civil authorities and the dramatic imagery of the Apocalypse also provide fertile ground for those arguing for the unfortunate legitimacy of warfare. The gospels generally prove to pose much more problems for just-war theorists than other passages do.Ultimately, a coherent position on the question of warfare and the Christian must reconcile the complete testimony of Scripture. The ethic of love must somehow find a meeting point with putting things to the ban.

Interpretive Issues

Certain theological subjects play an important role in determining positions with respect to war. Consider the role of anthropology. Historically, those theological groups most amenable to just-war conclusions have had a more negative conception of human nature, while those groups who have a more generous view of human nature tend to find pacifism more agreeable. One might profitably explore soteriological leanings of particular theological camps and how those relate to the conclusions they hold regarding warfare. Of course, theological traditions within Christianity may have a history or position with respect to warfare. It would be surprising if one’s commitment to such a tradition had little influence on that person’s conclusion about the Christian and warfare. Social and cultural factors are of key significance in the debate also. Political inclinations, relative levels of enfranchisement in levels of power, civic commitment, or national attitudes are examples of the sort of unconscious matrices that inform much of the decision-making in this field.It is worthwhile to note that the differences between just-war and pacifist thought are grounded in foundational realities. For instance, justice, both as an aspect of God’s character and as a subsequent reflection in special and natural revelation, is a vital motivating principle for both viewpoints. To simplify things, for a pacifist, justice demands that he or she not inflict harm on another in order to prevent harm. For a just-war advocate, justice demands that he or she undertake action to free another from oppression, in spite of the necessity to enter conflict with the oppressor. In each case, the individual is fulfilling one definition of justice but violating the other. The principle of love is another abstract reality that communicates different implications to either side of the debate. Love precludes the pacifist from entering into a conflict, while demanding that the just-war practitioner become involved. Issues of definition will prove problematic in resolving debate on the subject.A vital question which is rarely discussed in the literature on the subject is the relationship between levels of ethical behavior – individual or corporate. For the just-war writer, the corporate example of Israel and the corporate responsibilities of nations are explored in no small detail, while ethical conduct on the individual level receives less attention. In addition, the corporate commands to Israel are too-frequently assumed to function in the same way for latter nation-states (this is especially surprising in works by dispensational authors). For the pacifist, the ethical commands of Jesus which were issued on an individual level are uncritically transferred to a corporate application. How do the ethical instructions of Jesus apply to nations? What does God’s relationship to Israel in the Old Testament mean for struggles between nations today? Typically, just-war thinking draws a sharp divide between individual and national ethics (what a nation may do in some instances, a private citizen may not), while the pacifist sees little to no distinction between them (a nation should not engage in that which is prohibited to individuals). Both sides begin with different starting points. Pacifist thought begins with individual ethics and extrapolates those principles to national ethics. Just war writers begin with the responsibilities of nations and from those deduce individual responsibility.As you may surmise, different significance attached to the same terms and competing starting and ending points often result in pacifists and just-war advocates blithely arguing past one another. There is really little hope that any sort of consensus might ever be reached. Cultural IssuesFinally, one of the most significant aspects that affects interpretation on this question is the historical-cultural setting of the author, book, or debate. Engaging the literature on war and theology allows one to experience the peculiar sensation of time travel. References to “the growing crisis in Europe” or to the ominous “Soviet threat” or an imminent “World War III” may seem amusingly anachronistic, but they serve as reminders of the settings in which such works were (and are) produced. The history of Christian thought indicates that much of the material which addressed warfare was occasioned by specific circumstance – the involvement of Christians in the Roman army, the social and national conflicts of the Reformation and the following century, the two world wars, the Cold War, and so forth. Typically, upon close examination, many items betray their particular compositional circumstances. It should be noted that this is not necessarily an objectionable (or avoidable) quality. But any student of this subject should recognize that the answer an author offers on the question of Christianity and warfare is conditioned by the local circumstances of that author. National status and military traditions, political persuasion, denominational history, social mores, and other factors impart much influence upon one’s conclusion. Consider two important early 20^th-century authors on the topic – Adolf Harnack and Cecil Cadoux. In his introduction to Harnack’s Militia Christi, Gracie notes that Harnack supported Germany’s involvement in World War I, while Cadoux, whose work sought to recast some of Harnack’s material, was a committed pacifist with respect to the same conflict. Is it any wonder that Harnack understands the early church to be permissive with respect to military service, while Cadoux’s work argues that the same church was decidedly pacifist? Or consider the most well-known work on the question of war and military service and the Church Fathers, Bainton’s Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace. What role did the author’s Quaker associations and beliefs have on his conclusions (which were inclined toward pacifism)?It is vital for anyone trying to arrive at a conclusion regarding war and the Christian to consider how cultural factors and the historical moment affect his or her decision-making. What about political persuasion, views on civic responsibility, levels of societal enfranchisement, or personal experience? In many cases the church one attends could provide a pretty accurate indicator of how one might resolve the question of Christianity and war. Which comes first, our conclusions or our presuppositions?

Series: Just War and Pacifism
Just War and Pacifism	We talk about the background to understanding the relationship between warfare and theology.
Just War and Pacifism: Two Categories	We take a brief survey of the two major options.
Just War and Pacifism: Issues	Wherein we discern some of the key issues affecting the debate.
Just War and Pacifism: The Problems	This post describes some of the key problems with pacifist and just-war approaches.

Follow-up Posts
Upon the Altar of the Nation

Monday, March 19, 2007 12:03 PM

Anonymous wrote: Slaughter

Do you really think that Jesus was a pacifist? He wasn't. Do you really think that he is telling us to do nothing while an agressor slaughters us? No. He died on the cross, not because he wouldn't fight, but because he was a law-abiding citizen. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Law (however unjust it may have been) killed him. He was much like Socrates.

Your whole premise that Christians should be pacifists is based on the false arguement that Jesus preached pacifism.