Reinvigorating the Discourse on Just War and Pacifism

I think what he means by this statement is that there are a number of policies, and cultural practices within the military itself which make it easy for wars to be started by a willing President. I think that Logan is making the connection between the lack of real support for systems, such as Conscientious Objector status, which would make it easier for soldiers who object to a particular mission to push back against it. If these systems were actually given a stronger force and protection of law, it would amount to a democratic veto system if enough soldiers signed on. I agree that we outside the force need to become much more cognizant of the power of the Executive to start a war, and hold our Presidents accountable for these decisions. Of course, reading 'Wired for War' makes it pretty clear that, eventually, there will not be any human soldiers around to object, and it will be even easier for Presidents to embark on adventure wars for fun and profit.

dlondonx, thanks for your comment, it was mostly right on the mark. i was also thinking on just a personal scale as well. it was not possible while i was in to volunteer for humanitarian stuff, like when oklahoma flooded when i was at ft. sill during basic and AIT. it was not heard of to practice nonviolence in the battlefield, though countless did it during vietnam (two winning congressional medals of honor). however, haditha and acts like it are not hard to come by, and often do not make press. furthermore, not every atrocity reaches those levels. is it any less atrocious to kill just one person illegitimately? one family? when these things happen, do we hear about them, or do they only live on in the troubled consciences of our service men and women?
if one carefully reads my posts on Sojo, they will likely find that i am not in the camp that advocates for an end to the military or the like. but if we want those in our service (hence "service members") to actually be able to disobey unlawful orders, we must extend them the right to act on such a moral imperative. the TCCW is not breaking new democratic ground, merely solidifying the expectations we have of our men and women in uniform to make rational, informed decisions regarding what they do in our name.

sistermarie, im sorry you thought i was blaming "some 18-year old kid." what you have forgotten is that people change. i would hate to think that i am expected to have the same moral awareness now as when i was 18 years old (i was 24 when i asked to return to iraq without a weapon, but 28 before i could finally fulfill that wish). many people join out of very admirable reasons (which is why i did not seek discharge), but come to see a military that was not presented on the video screens at the local recruiting station where they enlisted. please, we must afford every human being the right to continue to form their own moral character. even if it does not conform to our own.

A rigorous application of classical just war theory would foreclose any imaginable war, as Cardinal Ratzinger (the former military deserter who is now Pope Benedict) once noted. But I'm not aware of any cases where supposed adherence to JWT actually stopped a nation from going to war.

It seems that once you admit the possibility that waging war could be justified, war becomes inevitable despite the fact that the criteria can not be met. But if you rule out war as an option, then options that might not normally get far in the decision process, and often wouldn't even have been thought of, can emerge as viable options.

As a Christian, I must hold to the position that I can never support war. But this position is not naive and impractical, as President Obama (along with millions of others) claims, but in fact is the only wise and practical position towards war. War is always part of a cycle with horrendous consequences that can not be stopped as long as one considers war to be a viable option.

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by linkspolitik: RT @sojourners: The time is ripe to reinvigorate the discourse surrounding just war and pacifism. http://su.pr/2AEqDs...

My first statement, regarding Martel, is a bit hyperbolic, to be sure. Not "all" would be sons of Allah. Others would remain Christians under dhimmi status, with virtually no cultural option for public expression of the faith. The destructive impact on churches of the institution of dhimmitude in the middle ages has been studied and written about by Bat Ye'or and Phillip Jenkins. Very interesting stuff. But again, as far as government policy is concerned, do you consider it an obligation, or a proper stance of a civil government charged with responsibility of protecting all citizens (of whatever worldview or ideology) to promote or be governed by principles of Christian pacifism? (Assuming pacifism is a Christian principle, which I think is problematic). Again, you have every right to sacrifice your own life to an aggressor, but do you defend the government's "right" to stand by and allow others, who may want to live, to be exterminated by an avowed enemy in the interests of maintaining the purity of your ideology? This always seems to lead back to the paradigmatic event, Chamberlain at Munich. Peaceloving man, good guy, trusting, and probably even offering "conversion" to peaceloving ways. Good. But I wouldn't call him a "peacemaker." But he did maintain his pacifist integrity, but who cares about the millions who died an unnecessarily early death because of his craven love of "peace?" I knew a pacifist years ago who was visibly angered by William Shirer's indication that had Western powers moved, militarily and early, against Germany's expansionism, we might well have been spared World War II and the Holocaust. Apparently this man, who taught history at a college where I also taught, preferred what happened.

I would agree, though, that on an even cultural playing field, in which the Christian gospel and Islam could both express themselves openly and equally (impossible in Muslim societies today) Christian faith would probably win more converts than it would lose the other way. I think Muslims realize this, which may explain why conversion from Islam is, in accordance with Muhammed's command, the object of capital punishment.

You accept the fact of Charles Martel's victory as the only way christianity could continue. Muslims have become Christian and many have lived in the Muslim world from the beginning. We have to have faith that no matter what happens, christ's Kingdom will continue. It was worse off under Rome in the beginning. Christianity doesn't correspond, i think to your ideas. Nonviolence is not passive, but a force that defends by offering conversion of the enemy. Yes, there may sometimes be "collateral" damage and killing, but probably never as much as in wars. At least war has never had a good and complete victory, whereas many nonviolent campaigns have (integretion, Danish protecting Jews in WWII, and many others)

When the soldiers asked John the Baptist, "And what shall we do?" he replied, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." Since they could not remain soldiers and practice nonviolence, this passage suggests he told them to put down their weapons and seek a peaceful profession.

Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9) Expressing concern for God's children, he said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

"In concrete and vivid precepts," writes Professor G.J. Heering in The Fall of Christianity, "the Sermon on the Mount set forth the character and conduct of those who really follow Jesus: of those who may really be called God's children; of those who shall submit to the rule of God, of those who shall enter His Kingdom; in short, of true Christians: the pure in heart, the meek, the peacemakers, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, and are willing to suffer for its sake. They are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

"And then follow the commandments; 'Ye shall keep yourselves from killing but also from revenge. And in place of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, resist not that which is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' Can one find one little implication in these words that does not plead for peace or that does not shrink from violence in every degree or form?

"Jesus does not give detached commands. He brings you whole being and doing and suffering under the compulsion of one single principle. 'Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy, but i say unto you: love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you: that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven.' (Matthew 5:43-45; Luke 6:27-38)

"'Love even your enemy!' This is the highest demand that can ever be made. This love of enemy is not just one virtue among many, but the fairest flower of all human conduct.

"It is recognized that these commands though lay stress on the inward disposition and have not the force of law, were certainly meant as concrete instructions for the followers of Jesus. They had to be obeyed. Their carrying out was counted on. Behind these injunctions, which admit no cleavage between conduct and character, stands the newly sent Ambassador of God with His 'But I say unto you.'

"Not only the war of aggression but also defensive warfare is ruled out by the Sermon on the Mount...the gospel condemns war...We have primarily to recognize, however hard it may be to do so, that the waging of war has no place in the moral and spiritual teachings of Jesus.

"Hippolytus, second century Christian father and historian, wrote what he considered the Apostolic tradition and so the authentic Christian teaching, maintained, that when he applied for admission to the Christian fellowship, a solider must refuse to kill men, even if he were commanded by his superiors to do so and also must not take an oath.

"Justin Martyr, the principle apologist of the early Church (Cir. AD 150) writes that:

"'Christians seek no earthly realm, but a heavenly, and that this will be a realm of peace. The prophecy of Isaiah-that swords shall be beaten into plowshares and spears to pruning hooks begins to find fulfillment in the missions of Christians. For we refrain from the making of war on our enemies, but gladly go to death for Christ's sake. Christians are warriors of a different world, peaceful fighters. For Caesar's soldiers possess nothing which they can lose more precious than their life, while our love goes out to that eternal life which God will give.'"

The apostle Paul taught that Christian warfare is spiritual. (Romans 13:12) According to Professor Heering: "Origen, the great Christian father of the second century, would hear nothing of earthly military service: he regarded it as wholly forbidden:

"'We Christians no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus who is our leader. We do not serve as soldiers under the Emperor, even though he requires it.

"'Persons who possess authority to kill, or soldiers, should not kill at all, even when it is commanded of them. Every one who receives a distinctive leading position, or a magisterial power, and does not clothe himself in the weaponlessness of which is becoming to the Gospel, should be separated from the flock.'"

Although he was the son of a military officer, the early Christian father Tertullian (AD 200) was opposed to militarism and violence. Professor Heering observes: "The question Tertullian faces is not whether a Christian may be a soldier, but even whether a soldier may be allowed within the Church. He answers 'No.' The soldier who becomes a Christian ought to leave the army. 'One soul cannot be true to two lords-God and Caesar. How shall a Christian man wage war; nay, how shall he even be a soldier in peace time, without the sword, which the Lord has taken away?--for in disarming Peter he ungirded every soldier.'"

The great Church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, denounced war and wrote:

"The whole earth is drenched in adversaries' blood, and if murder is committed, privately it is a crime, but if it happens with State authority, courage is the name for it: not the goodness of the cause, but the greatness of the cruelty makes the abominations blameless."

Attacking even capital punishment, Cyprian wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted to guiltless to put even the guilty to death."

The Christian writer Lactantius of Bithinia wrote about the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") as follows:

"When God prohibits killing, he not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which is not allowed even by public laws, but he warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men. And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier for justice itself is his military service, nor to accuse anyone of a capital offense, because it makes no difference whether they kill with a sword or with a word, since killing itself is forbidden."

Erasmus, a fifteenth century Christian father, scholar and theologian, considered it a sacrelige for a soldier to stitch the cross on his standard. "The cross," he said, "is the banner and standard of Him who has overcome and triumphed, not by fighting and slaying, but by His own bitter death. With the cross do ye deprive the life of your brother, whose life was rescued by the cross?

"O, you cruel, shameless lips: how dare ye call Father whilst ye rob your brother of Life?

"'Hallowed by Thy name': how can the name of God be more dishonored than by war?

"'Thy kingdom come': will ye pray thus while ye scraple at nought and shrink from no bloodshed, however great?

"'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven': God desires peace and ye make war.

"Ye pray your common Father for daily bread, and meantime ye burn all your brother's rye and corn.

"How shamefully will ye say: 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us, while ye desire nothing else but to slay and to do mischief.

"Ye pray that ye may not come into danger or temptation and ye lead your brother into every sort of danger and temptation."

In her 1991 essay, "The Bible and Peace and War," Ursula King asks, "how are we to explain that Jesus, the founder of Christianity, is often called 'the Prince of Peace' and yet Western civilization so deeply shaped by the Christian story which is clearly pacifist in origin and essence, has become so militaristic from an early stage in its history?"

King quotes Christian pacifist John Ferguson from his 1977 study War and Peace in the World's Religions:

"The historic association of the Christian faith with nations of commercial enterprise, imperialistic expansion and technological advancement has meant that Christian peoples, although their faith is one of the most pacifistic in its origins, have a record of military activity second to none."

According to King, "In the early Church, pacifism was the dominant position up to the reign of Constantine, when Christianity became a state religion. Until then no Christian author approved of Christian participation in battle, whereas in AD 314 the Council of Arles decreed that Christians who gave up their arms in time of peace should be excommunicated."

In Theology and Social Structure, Robin Gill has written:

"The situation of the pre-Constantinian church appears all the more remarkable when it is realised that no major Christian church or denomination has been consistently pacifist since Constantine. Indeed, Christian pacifism has been largely confined to a small group of sects, such as the Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Brethren and Jehovah's Witnesses. Further, pacifists within the churches, as distinct from sects, have in times of war been barely tolerated by their fellow Christians."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that in today's world the choice is either nonviolence or nonexistence.

Logan,

I believe that our invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake costing hundreds of American lives and tens of thouisands of Iraq lives. But I must take issue with a couple of your statements.

"I know that the military as it exists today is a system that makes it difficult to do good and very easy to do evil." The military did not make the decision to invade Iraq. That decision was made by Bush Cheney, and Rumsfeld, so lets put the blame where it belongs.

"The main thrust of the Commission will be to explore conscientious objection in the U.S...." Conscientious objection already exists. If someone objects to taking up arms and shooting people, they simply don't join the military which simply does what the civilian government orders it to do.

I'm not saying that excesses did not occur. But lets put the blame where it belongs - not on some 18-year old kid.

The simple fact remains that if it were not for a man named Charles Martel none of you would even be talking about this, or even be allowed to talk about it because you'd all be sons of Allah. Also, all of your discussion assumes that the government of the U.S. is supposed to be a "Christian government," that is to say, a theocracy, the very thing Jim Wallis et. al. ridicule the "religious right" for. Since when does the Christian faith invest a secular state (charged with protecting ALL its citizens, including people who do not adhere to Christian beliefs) with the responsibility of upholding specifically Christian "peace" and "justice" values? A person has every right to sacrifice himself to an aggressor (or jihadist who wants to cut his head off) out of "pacifism." What is unjust, however, is for a person who assume power to sacrifice everyone else, just so he/she can feel good about having maintained his/her "values." Government entails dealing with realities that move beyond the singular ideology of a particular group (e.g. pacifist Christians) who think it is their right to claim the instruments of government as their special preserve. If Jim Wallis were president, he'd have every right to say "if some enemy out there wants to kill me, then so be it, I won't use any amount of force to prevent it." But he would not have the right to make that decision for millions of other people. That is where, in my understanding anyway, pacifists are very self-centered and in fact unloving.

A rigorous application of classical just war theory would foreclose any imaginable war, as Cardinal Ratzinger (the former military deserter who is now Pope Benedict) once noted. But I'm not aware of any cases where supposed adherence to JWT actually stopped a nation from going to war.

It seems that once you admit the possibility that waging war could be justified, war becomes inevitable despite the fact that the criteria can not be met. But if you rule out war as an option, then options that might not normally get far in the decision process, and often wouldn't even have been thought of, can emerge as viable options.

As a Christian, I must hold to the position that I can never support war. But this position is not naive and impractical, as President Obama (along with millions of others) claims, but in fact is the only wise and practical position towards war. War is always part of a cycle with horrendous consequences that can not be stopped as long as one considers war to be a viable option.

When the soldiers asked John the Baptist, "And what shall we do?" he replied, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." Since they could not remain soldiers and practice nonviolence, this passage suggests he told them to put down their weapons and seek a peaceful profession.

Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9) Expressing concern for God's children, he said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

"In concrete and vivid precepts," writes Professor G.J. Heering in The Fall of Christianity, "the Sermon on the Mount set forth the character and conduct of those who really follow Jesus: of those who may really be called God's children; of those who shall submit to the rule of God, of those who shall enter His Kingdom; in short, of true Christians: the pure in heart, the meek, the peacemakers, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, and are willing to suffer for its sake. They are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

"And then follow the commandments; 'Ye shall keep yourselves from killing but also from revenge. And in place of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, resist not that which is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' Can one find one little implication in these words that does not plead for peace or that does not shrink from violence in every degree or form?

"Jesus does not give detached commands. He brings you whole being and doing and suffering under the compulsion of one single principle. 'Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy, but i say unto you: love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you: that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven.' (Matthew 5:43-45; Luke 6:27-38)

"'Love even your enemy!' This is the highest demand that can ever be made. This love of enemy is not just one virtue among many, but the fairest flower of all human conduct.

"It is recognized that these commands though lay stress on the inward disposition and have not the force of law, were certainly meant as concrete instructions for the followers of Jesus. They had to be obeyed. Their carrying out was counted on. Behind these injunctions, which admit no cleavage between conduct and character, stands the newly sent Ambassador of God with His 'But I say unto you.'

"Not only the war of aggression but also defensive warfare is ruled out by the Sermon on the Mount...the gospel condemns war...We have primarily to recognize, however hard it may be to do so, that the waging of war has no place in the moral and spiritual teachings of Jesus.

"Hippolytus, second century Christian father and historian, wrote what he considered the Apostolic tradition and so the authentic Christian teaching, maintained, that when he applied for admission to the Christian fellowship, a solider must refuse to kill men, even if he were commanded by his superiors to do so and also must not take an oath.

"Justin Martyr, the principle apologist of the early Church (Cir. AD 150) writes that:

"'Christians seek no earthly realm, but a heavenly, and that this will be a realm of peace. The prophecy of Isaiah-that swords shall be beaten into plowshares and spears to pruning hooks begins to find fulfillment in the missions of Christians. For we refrain from the making of war on our enemies, but gladly go to death for Christ's sake. Christians are warriors of a different world, peaceful fighters. For Caesar's soldiers possess nothing which they can lose more precious than their life, while our love goes out to that eternal life which God will give.'"

The apostle Paul taught that Christian warfare is spiritual. (Romans 13:12) According to Professor Heering: "Origen, the great Christian father of the second century, would hear nothing of earthly military service: he regarded it as wholly forbidden:

"'We Christians no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus who is our leader. We do not serve as soldiers under the Emperor, even though he requires it.

"'Persons who possess authority to kill, or soldiers, should not kill at all, even when it is commanded of them. Every one who receives a distinctive leading position, or a magisterial power, and does not clothe himself in the weaponlessness of which is becoming to the Gospel, should be separated from the flock.'"

Although he was the son of a military officer, the early Christian father Tertullian (AD 200) was opposed to militarism and violence. Professor Heering observes: "The question Tertullian faces is not whether a Christian may be a soldier, but even whether a soldier may be allowed within the Church. He answers 'No.' The soldier who becomes a Christian ought to leave the army. 'One soul cannot be true to two lords-God and Caesar. How shall a Christian man wage war; nay, how shall he even be a soldier in peace time, without the sword, which the Lord has taken away?--for in disarming Peter he ungirded every soldier.'"

The great Church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, denounced war and wrote:

"The whole earth is drenched in adversaries' blood, and if murder is committed, privately it is a crime, but if it happens with State authority, courage is the name for it: not the goodness of the cause, but the greatness of the cruelty makes the abominations blameless."

Attacking even capital punishment, Cyprian wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted to guiltless to put even the guilty to death."

The Christian writer Lactantius of Bithinia wrote about the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") as follows:

"When God prohibits killing, he not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which is not allowed even by public laws, but he warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men. And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier for justice itself is his military service, nor to accuse anyone of a capital offense, because it makes no difference whether they kill with a sword or with a word, since killing itself is forbidden."

Erasmus, a fifteenth century Christian father, scholar and theologian, considered it a sacrelige for a soldier to stitch the cross on his standard. "The cross," he said, "is the banner and standard of Him who has overcome and triumphed, not by fighting and slaying, but by His own bitter death. With the cross do ye deprive the life of your brother, whose life was rescued by the cross?

"O, you cruel, shameless lips: how dare ye call Father whilst ye rob your brother of Life?

"'Hallowed by Thy name': how can the name of God be more dishonored than by war?

"'Thy kingdom come': will ye pray thus while ye scraple at nought and shrink from no bloodshed, however great?

"'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven': God desires peace and ye make war.

"Ye pray your common Father for daily bread, and meantime ye burn all your brother's rye and corn.

"How shamefully will ye say: 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us, while ye desire nothing else but to slay and to do mischief.

"Ye pray that ye may not come into danger or temptation and ye lead your brother into every sort of danger and temptation."

In her 1991 essay, "The Bible and Peace and War," Ursula King asks, "how are we to explain that Jesus, the founder of Christianity, is often called 'the Prince of Peace' and yet Western civilization so deeply shaped by the Christian story which is clearly pacifist in origin and essence, has become so militaristic from an early stage in its history?"

King quotes Christian pacifist John Ferguson from his 1977 study War and Peace in the World's Religions:

"The historic association of the Christian faith with nations of commercial enterprise, imperialistic expansion and technological advancement has meant that Christian peoples, although their faith is one of the most pacifistic in its origins, have a record of military activity second to none."

According to King, "In the early Church, pacifism was the dominant position up to the reign of Constantine, when Christianity became a state religion. Until then no Christian author approved of Christian participation in battle, whereas in AD 314 the Council of Arles decreed that Christians who gave up their arms in time of peace should be excommunicated."

In Theology and Social Structure, Robin Gill has written:

"The situation of the pre-Constantinian church appears all the more remarkable when it is realised that no major Christian church or denomination has been consistently pacifist since Constantine. Indeed, Christian pacifism has been largely confined to a small group of sects, such as the Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Brethren and Jehovah's Witnesses. Further, pacifists within the churches, as distinct from sects, have in times of war been barely tolerated by their fellow Christians."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that in today's world the choice is either nonviolence or nonexistence.