Christian "Just War Theory"
My family hosted an educational and fellowship gathering this afternoon and evening at our home, and we watched Sessions 4-6 of Marshall Foster's "From Terror to Triumph." In session 5, "Bravehearts and Beauties," one of the topics of discussion was the Christian "Just War Theory."After discussing the unsuccessful 1529 siege of Vienna (which had only 16,000 soldiers) by Suleiman and his 100,000 Muslim warriors, Marshall Foster quoted John Calvin as stating, "Until the Church finds the heart and will to care for those lost souls bound in Islam with the hope of the Gospel, we shall always be at peril." At root, the conflict was (and still is) religious, and the lasting solution is peaceful Gospel conversion, not bloodshed and violence.
However, Marshall Foster went on to discuss a Christian view of "just warfare" that was devised by Augustine and others who followed after him, including Aquinas. William Einwechter gives a helpful analysis in his article, "A Christian Perspective on Just War." In summary, the following encompasses a "Statement of Just War Principles," which Mr. Einwechter's article explains in greater depth:
- The war is conducted by legitimate civil authority.
- The war is based on a just cause.
- The war is waged with right intention.
- The war is undertaken only as a last resort.
- The war is fought on the basis of a reasonable chance of success.
- The war has the establishment of a superior peace as its goal.
- The war is waged with proper discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.
[Dabney:] Defensive war is, then, righteous, and only defensive war. Aggressive war is wholesale robbery and murder. If the magistrate is armed with righteous power to destroy the domestic murderer, a fortiori he has the right to destroy these alien murderers, committing the crime wholesale. The “Peace Society” used to argue that all war is sinful, from the horrors of war. They are enormous. But common sense would rather argue from this the guilt of the perpetrators and the right of punishing it in some appropriate way. Who may do it if not the magistrate? But war should only be defensive. As soon as the invader is disarmed, his life should be spared; especially as individual invaders are usually private subjects of the invading sovereign, who have little option about their own acts as private soldiers. It is scarcely needful to add that the Scriptures of both Testaments expressly teach the righteousness of the patriot soldier’s profession. The Apostle, in Heb. ii [11], teaches that the valour of the defensive soldier is one of the noble fruits of religious faith, a principle he ascribes to the inworking of God himself. A moment’s reflection shows that the rightfulness of capital punishment stands or falls with the lawfulness of defensive war.For a supplemental, thought-provoking view of Christians and warfare, see this lecture by Laurence Vance.
[Carnell:] Defensive warfare is simply the use of a national police force to destroy gangsterism on an international scale. The soldier is in exactly the same position as the civil officer at the scene of a bank robbery. Each must put down perversity with force. War is the last expedient to which a nation can turn when its survival is threatened by those bent on world domination and the lust for power. There is no doubt but that war is a terrible thing, almost too awful to speak of without tears in our voices. But the consequence of not matching force with force within the collective ego is infinitely less bearable. We will destroy the very securities within which men can preach and hear the Word of Life; we will betray all of the forms that guarantee our basic freedoms; and, worst of all, we will commit a sin against the very God who has ordained that Christian citizens be subject to those who have been placed in civil office as a praise to the good and a terror to the evil.
posted by C.S. Hayden @ 10:22 PM
4 Comments:
Caleb,
I would be interested in the principle behind #5. Is a reasonable chance of success a necessary ingredient in a "just war"? Did the American war of independence have a "reasonable chance of success"? It sounds pragmatic to me.
I can't help but notice some similarities between just war theory and justifiable self defense on a personal level. I was hoping to write some about that after coming back from FS, but I would be interested in your writings if you ever have the initiative to write on that subject.
Bryce
Bryce, thanks for the comment. That issue came in during our discussion, as several guys had a similar reaction to principle #5.
Mr. Einwechter summarizes the issue, thus: "Before war is pursued there must be a careful calculation to determine if a nation has the strength and resources to win the war. If not, the commencement of military action should either be abandoned or postponed until the nation is ready. It is considered unjust to commit soldiers to die and to subject citizens to the depravations, sorrows, and horrors of war in a vain undertaking."
He then states, "The Word of God generally supports this principle of the just war position. In Luke 14:28-32, Jesus teaches the folly of those who begin something without considering if they have what is necessary to finish it. He specifically speaks of the wisdom of a king who does not go to war unless he calculates that he has a good chance of success. If the king determines that he cannot win the war, according to Jesus, he shows prudence by sending ambassadors to the leader of the army coming against him to seek conditions of peace. Also relevant is the word of the prophet Jeremiah where he called on Judah to not resist (fight) the Babylonians who were coming to conquer them because it was futile to go to war against them. It was futile because God had decreed judgment against the wicked rulers and people of Judah."
Finally, he quotes from Mosley: "The next principle is that of reasonable success. This is another necessary condition for waging just war, but again is insufficient by itself. Given just cause and right intention, the just war theory asserts that there must be a reasonable probability of success. The principle of reasonable success is consequential in that the costs and benefits of a campaign must be calculated. However, the concept of weighing benefits poses moral as well as practical problems as evinced in the following questions. Should one not go to the aid of a people or declare war if there is no conceivable chance of success? Is it right to comply with aggression because the costs of not complying are too prohibitive? Is it not sometimes morally necessary to stand up to a bullying larger force, as the Finns did when Russia invaded in 1940...? Besides, posturing for defense may sometimes make aggression itself too costly, even for a much stronger side. However, the thrust of the principle of reasonable success emphasizes that human life and economic resources should not be wasted in what would obviously be an uneven match. For a nation threatened by invasion, other forms of retaliation or defense may be available, such as civil disobedience, or even forming alliances with other small nations to equalize the odds. Historically, many nations have overcome the probability of defeat: the fight may seem hopeless, but a charismatic leader or rousing speech can sometimes be enough to stir a people into fighting with all their will."
Einwechter concludes: "And a factor that Mosely does not mention is the power of God granting victory against seemingly impossible odds to a people who obey and trust in Him as He did repeatedly for Israel."
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/a_christian_perspective_on_jus.aspx
Obviously, the formulation of Christian "Just War Theory" is subject to critique, and we should follow it only insofar as it accords with Scripture.
Good idea to write about justifiable self-defense. I need to do that! Please let me know if you put something together on the subject, as well.
Since I did not attend the gathering or watch the video, you will have to fill me in on the skeptics and on exactly what Marshall Foster believed. Did Marshall Foster specifically reference that principle or mention that article or was that all editorial comment?
Einwechter's article is, in general, an excellent one on just war. I have even used it as a summary of my position, to others, on just war. However, I would also take issue with principle #5.
To state my arguments, first, we have the example of Gideon in Judges 7. During his night attack, he was outnumbered by about 500 to 1 but he still attacked on the command of God. According to principle #5, he would have been wise to recalculate why he began the "rebellion" when he had no logical expectation of winning apart from God's help. As you quoted him, Einwechter does mention that God does help His people. However, why is this principle even on the list since obviously the only people who follow the "Christian" just war theory are "Christians" and thus can expect God's help in time of war.
Second, Einwechter mentions two Scripture references that don't help him out much. In Luke 14, Jesus is talking about how there is no turning back when someone decides to follow Him. As vs. 26 mentions, it is even to the extent of hating our family. We have to completely give up on everything for the sake of Christ. Christ then gives two examples of men who began projects but then had to stop in the middle because of being unable to finish. Jesus concludes with the exhortation that we have to forsake all to be His disciple, we can't meet halfway. The context of these examples is on not giving up once we set our hand to the plow, it is not about abstaining from a just war because we don't have enough faith in God.
In the second passage, Jeremiah is merely recognizing the sovereignty of God. When God has decreed judgment against you, there is no weapon or army that can save you. What if Judah had a larger and better trained army than the Babylonians; would Jeremiah's advise been any different?
What about Abram and his 318 servants in Gen. 14? If he was thinking in accordance to principle #5, he would not have pursued after the wicked kings. The chapter gives no record of God commanding Abram to pursue after them. But for this slaughter, Abram received the blessing of Melchisedec, the priest of the most high God (Heb. 7:1).
To summarize: in my mind, principle #5 is somewhat undermining the sovereignty of God without attempting to do so. In Num. 11:23, God asks Moses, "Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not." This is a question for the ages that only has one answer.
Will we be held back from conducting lawful and just warfare simply because the numbers are against us and our faith is too weak to trust God, or will we remember the Lord and go out and fight for our families and our houses (Neh. 4:14) when it is a just war, according to Bible?
Good points, Peter. Some of the guys yesterday had a similar reaction, thinking that the analysis implied by principle #5 was not biblical.
As general rules for life, Scripture urges prudence and counting the cost. At the same time, we should not shrink from duty simply because we perceive a low probability of "success." It seems that if all other conditions are satisfied -- the cause is just, the war is defensive, the war is a last resort when all other measures have failed, the war is waged by a legitimate authority (contra vigilantism), and so forth -- then we have a duty to act.
I probably should have made it more clear that Mr. Einwechter's article only came up in our discussion afterward.
Here are my notes pertaining to just warfare from Dr. Foster's lecture (he might not have laid out the bullet points quite like this, but this is how I jotted down the points he made):
o Waged as a last resort
o Undertaken by a legitimate civil or individual authority
o For the purpose of redressing wrong
o Waged with a reasonable chance of success
o The goal is peace
o No genocide
o Limited violence to non-combatants
Other materials provided to accompany the "Terror to Triumph" series stated: "The Christian Just War theory said that war had to be a defensive war to be justified, not started unprovoked to take land or property of another. It could be justified if a tyrant was pillaging the innocent or threatening other nations. It was balanced with the admonition to never steal land or goods from foes in battle. And the Just War Theory forbade the harming of innocent civilians."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home