Just War and Pacifism: Two Categories
Eeny, Meeny, Miney...
Posted
Friday, December 22, 2006
by
Josh Michael
Categories:
Theology
In the previous part of this series, we reviewed some of the background concerning our question about the proper relationship between Christianity and warfare. In the following, we will take a look at the general options or positions which Christians have adopted. Also, since the history of Christian thought in this area plays upon the debate in a most pronounced way, we will take an abbreviated overview of the chronology of the debate.
The Two Basic Categories
We can describe two major categories of Christian thought regarding warfare: that which understands it to conflict with the Bible and/or the claims of Christianity (prohibitive), and that which does not (permissive). Within each of these overarching themes are various specific categories which might differ substantially from one another though sharing the same fundamental attitude toward warfare. For example, absolute pacifism and non-combatant participation (which permits Christians to serve as medics for instance) both understand the Bible to preclude Christian involvement in warfare, but they differ immensely in how that is to be applied. For the purposes of this survey, we shall label that category of theological thought which rejects warfare as a legitimate arena for Christians as pacifist, and the contrary category we shall label just-war. Of course, each has secular counterparts which are not motivated from religious or theological concerns. Each of these two terms also possess a more technical frame of reference within their categories, particularly as like-minded but distinct positions or views are compared.
Our pacifist category includes a wide variety of distinct viewpoints. Some pacifists view the use of force as inherently objectionable – that is, any recourse to violence is necessarily invalid. Others suggest that the fundamental issue is one of greed and the petty strivings of nations which result from it. In this way of reckoning, it may be necessarily for an ultimate authority (typically conceived as a universal body, whether governing or adjudicating) to intercede to successfully engage rogue elements. Though this sounds akin to just-war theory, advocates of such a view hold that it is not legitimate for nations themselves to engage in warfare or the use of force – only the international policing element may. Still other pacifists would permit Christians to function as non-combatant members of the military.
As for the just-war category, it gathers a number of conflicting viewpoints together which understand warfare to be legitimate. The most notable would be the classic just-war position. This holds that a nation may resort to war as a necessary evil if certain criteria are met. The criteria consist of a number of qualifications concerning the legitimacy of entering into war (jus ad bellum) and the other qualifications which outline conduct while engaged in war (jus in bellum). Individual Christians, as members of such a nation, may then participate in that war without a conflict of conscience. The number and exact nature of the limiting qualifications may vary from author to author, though a central, agreed-upon core can be synthesized.
Other positions which understand war as a legitimate endeavor (thereby coming under our category of general just-war) are holy war, Christian realism and unrestrained warfare. Holy war is typically characterized as a view in which war (usually a specific war) has divine sanction or approval. The Crusades or jihadist thought are often used as examples of such a view. We might extend this and note that nations have often invoked religious elements to support and succor their will for enduring a conflict or fervor for engaging in one. Christian realism, most notably expressed by Reinhold Neibuhr, gives greater importance to national and political interests while attempting not to forsake absolutely ethical and moral guidelines. It is more concerned with acting in the muddy quagmire of real-world events and less with abstract theorizing. Finally, unrestrained warfare understands war to be outside the scope of moral bounds, or more precisely, the nature of modern war as “total war” precludes any limiting factors – moral, theological, or otherwise.
General Chronology
One of the few points of consensus regarding the early church and warfare is that the church did not stake out a conclusive position. While the sources indicate that it was much more common to see a disconnect between Christianity and military service than otherwise, there was no attempt to establish a systematic position of pacifism or non-violence. The uncertain role of pagan religion within the Roman army, the question of emperor worship, and the small number of cases of Christians connected in some way to military service complicate studies in this time period. At any rate, the expansion of Christianity, and its 4th-century toleration brought the question of Christian accommodation to the state and vice versa into greater prominence. The more common disapproval evolved toward toleration and, in some cases, approval. Augustine’s writings on the application of moral principles to warfare served to introduce a new manner of thinking about Christians and the military. His application of moral principles to war on a large scale, rather than solely an individual scale, was the beginning of theological-based formulations of just-war thought.
Medieval expressions of thought on Christianity and warfare ranged from the more strident proclamations surrounding the early crusades to the deliberate formulations of Aquinas. Aquinas, taking his cue from both secular and Christian thought, crafted distinct principles by which one might describe a war or conflict as just or unjust. The Church, now possessor of no small degree of temporal power, attempted to regulate the aggressive inclinations of the conflict-minded, with varying degrees of success. The turmoil of the Reformation and the conflicts which resulted from it, forced Reformers and Protestants to consider how war might or might not fit into God's plan. State churches and enfranchised religious movements typically took a permissive attitude toward warfare, so long as it met certain standards or moral justifications. Though some elements opted for violence and conflict, the Radical wing of the Reformation began to produce groups who, contrary to the general trends of the preceding centuries, understood warfare to be diametrically opposed to followers of Christ. Most peace churches (Brethren, Mennonite, and Quaker) trace their antecedents to these earlier pacifists, and modern theological pacifism is founded upon the same arguments expressed which they expressed.
The 20th century has seen a proliferation both of warfare and theological writing about warfare. Both of the World Wars provided much food for thought for both pacifist and just-war authors. For pacifists, the horrors of trench warfare, global conflict, saturation bombing, total war, millions of casualties, and nuclear warfare proved the ultimate bankruptcy of warfare and provided the strongest evidence that pacifism was the only legitimate option. For just-war thinkers, the genocides, tyrants, revolutions, unprovoked aggressions, naked militarism, and unrestrained states only confirmed the need for the selective but restorative use of force. Increased attention was given to the writings of the early church, while the seemingly limitless appetites of human rapaciousness and destruction brought forth the most definite and uncompromising conclusions. Complex moral questions (the Holocaust and nuclear war foremost among them) served to fragment traditional categories into fine gradations of conviction. For instance, the necessity of ending the Holocaust provided a challenge to pacifist thought, while nuclear warfare and mutually-assured destruction forced just-war theorists to draw a line in the sand.
More recently, the activity (and sometimes the inactivity) of the UN, globalization, humanitarian crises, and terrorism have provided a whole new set of challenges to anyone who would hope to maintain a consistent and faithful belief regarding war, peace, and Christianity.
to add comments