2. Biblical sources

a. Old Testament

The OT is replete with violence and commands by God to do acts of violence. Josh 6:17, Joshua 10:40 (annihilation of Jericho) killing malefactors at God's command (1 Sam 15:1-3) (Ex 32:27)

On the other hand the OT shows God as intervening without Israel's armies or fighting in Israel's behalf: the people are told not to fight. The entire Exodus story is one such case--this is the paradigm experience in the OT. Other examples: (1 Sam 5-6) (2Kings 18:13-19:36) Even Joshua won by divine intervention (Josh 24:12)

Problems from the OT: how to reconcile the Christian understanding of God with the violence of the God revealed in the OT; if God, the creator of all life commands or allows violence, can we ever assume to act in God's name?
American "civil religion" raises this question quite clearly.

The OT views peace as the product of the Messianic age: SHALOM is the major theme of the Messianic era.(Is 2:4; Micah 4:3)(Is 9:5-7) (Is 11:6-9)

b. The New Testament

The New Testament is clearly non-violent in its teaching. The life and example of Jesus is primary. Jesus specifically refused to do violence, told his followers to put up the sword when he was captured, died on the cross forgiving his enemies. (crucifixion narratives of all 4 gospels)

In the face of conflicting Messianic strategies among the Jews--some of which entailed violence--Jesus specifically chose a non-violent one and did so in the face of an occupation force which repressed the people.

Jesus' central teaching: (Mt 5:38-48) statement to Pilate about the nature of the Kingdom (Jn 18:36)But Jesus is not verbally or psychologically passive. (Mt 23:13-33) scribes & pharisees "brood of vipers." (Jn 18:19-24) he reproves the one who struck him.
Controverted NT passages

"render unto Caesar" (Mk 12:17; Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26) and its connection with the requirement to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)

The meaning of Romans chapters 12 and 13: the complex passage on leaving vengeance to God, but being subject to rulers who are not "bearing the sword in vain;" repaying no one evil for evil, etc.

Cleansing of the Temple (Jn 2:13-19 and corresponding passages in other gospels) did Jesus use or advocate violence? what was his purpose? what kind of violence does that authorize us to use?

"wars and rumors of wars" (Mt2 24:6; Mk 13:7;Lk 21:9) does this mean that we simply accept war?

Soldiers in the NT (Mt 8:10 and Acts 10) as justification for killing which is the soldier's raison d'etre.

"buy a sword" (Lk 22:35-38) why does Jesus instruct his disciples to buy a sword when he later says that whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword? what is the purpose of the sword in this passage?

3. The Early Church life and teaching

Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Cl;ement of Alexandria, Cyrpian, Minucius Felix, Lactantius--Christian writers of the second and third centuries--all condemned Christian participation in war. The pagan author Celsus complained that Christianity was a threat to the empire because Christians refused to serve in the army.

There were Christian soldiers in the Roman army. Officers were supposed to sacrifice to the gods, enlisted men were not. Some Christian complaints to military stemmed from need to sacrifice to gods, but most seems to have come from teaching of Jesus against violence. Most Christians would not serve. Council of Nicea reproves soldiers who return to combat. Opposition was not so much to service in the army but to combat roles. Roman army acted as occupation force throughout much of the empire, though they brutally suppressed rebellion.

The Fundamental Christian Position

Mt 5:38-48. This coupled with Jesus' example of forgiving enemies on the cross and the entire thrust of NT faith enshrines the position of the Christian pacifist as normative. It derives directly from Scripture and was the position of the early Church. Soldiers served in the Roman army, but combat operations were not approved. Any position which differs from this must "show cause" for its existence. The pacifist position is related the Messianic age and the Hebrew notion of Shalom--Peace.

Shalom. The Hebrew word is very rich. It means Peace in the ultimate sense. This is the peace that passes understanding. It is the peace of God who is the author of peace. It is more than the absence of conflict. It has to do with wholeness and health, security and prosperity, comfort and joy, righteousness and justice, political and economic and spiritual well-being, all in their fullest sense. It is a right relationship involving self, fellow creatures, the creation and God. It is the vision of things promised and hoped for. It is eschatological in nature. According to Isaiah, shalom is the vision of the "latter days" when people will beat swords into ploughshares and that nation will not lift up sword against nation. It is a messianic vision.

Hebrew and hence authentic Christian thought cannot separate the latter days of the messianic age from the present day. It is the purpose of the religious community to work always toward the fulfillment of God's Shalom. The Christian must live in the world this way, but the Christian must also be a citizen of the world. Citizenship in the Roman empire by members of the early church was always dangerous.

4. The Just War Tradition

After 313 situation begins to change. The Church is freed from persecution and becomes religion of the empire. Rome declines and the "barbarian invasions" begin. The Germanic and Frankish tribes were very hostile and warlike, e.g. Attila the Hun or Alaric's statement before the gates of Rome:"I terrify you, Rome, with my bare hands, take a spear and hide yourself.")--and he did!

Augustine of Hippo (d.430) and other Christian thinkers develop the "just war tradition."

The "just war tradition" growing out of the problems of the early middle ages is also arguably legitimate. In it war can only be the "lesser of two evils" never a good. It attempts to bring about Peace in a different sense, expressed by the Latin word: PAX

Pax, peace in penultimate sense. It is the peace of the ordered political community that makes corporate existence a possibility. It is the absence of conflict, or its minimization. It has to do with proximate justice, compromise, half a loaf, negotiation, prudence, balance of power. It denotes more an impermanent state of affairs, than a permanent relationship. It is based on mutual agreement or contract, perhaps fragile, and is usually backed up by force. It symbolizes a temporary and at least adequate balance between order and liberty in the human community. 1

The just war tradition allows us to function in a very weak and sinful world by adopting the lesser of two evils when both choices are evil. Just war principles reflect this:

The pacifist tradition is "in possession" of the high ground as a Christian moral theory, given the clear New Testament teaching. However....given the changed conditions...?

Problem: Is it ever legitimate for a Christian to use lethal violence against another human being and still be faithful to the gospel of Jesus. The just war theory answers a reluctant "yes," but only under certain conditions. The reluctance comes from the realization that the New Testament endorses only non-violence. The question: how does a Christian live in a world of changed social conditions wherein violence seems sometimes to be the lesser of two evils--it is never considered a good.

The Christian moral presumption is always against war. War can only be tolerated as the lesser of two evils--it is never a good.

IUS AD BELLUM "Right to go to war." Obligations of the nation in making the decision to go to war. Whether the war is just or not.

a. war is truly a last resort. after all other means like negotiations are exhausted. war is the only possible way to restore justice.

b. just cause. war can be used only to defend against an unjust aggressor who threatens innocent life and the existence of the common good of a society.

c. right intention. only to restore justice, not for vengeance or angry reprisal.

d. war called by legitimate authority. only when society's legitimate authorities call for war. never an act of a mob

e. reasonable hope of success. if no chance of success, combat only brings about meaningless and useless slaughter of those who engage in it. must be a reasonable probability that the society will not be destroyed in the process.

f. non-combatant immunity. no military action may be aimed directly at that portion of the enemy's population which does not constitute a threat. non-combatant life must be preserved wherever possible.

g. proportionality. there must be some proportion between the violence and slaughter caused by the war and the purpose for which it is fought. the horrible evils of war may not exceed the reason for the war in the first place.

IUS IN BELLO "Right conduct in war." Obligations of the combat soldier. The moral aspect of combat operations.

a. non-combatant immunity. the tactics of war, combat operations must preserve non-combatant life as much as possible.

b. proportionality. the combat operational tactics must preserve some proportion between the violence and the goals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Michael Walzer. Just and Unjust Wars 1977;
Ron Sider, Richard Taylor. Nuclear Holocaust & Christian Hope. 1982
Allan M. Parrant unpublished paper 1983
James Turner Johnson. Morality and Contemporary Warfare 1999
Chris Hedges. War is a Force That Gives us Meaning. 2002
William P. Mahedy. Out of the Night:... 1986,1994,2004

For an update on just war tradition see: Mark Douglas. "Changing the Rules: Just War Theory in the Twenty-First Century." Theology Today. Jan 2003

ADDENDUM TO THE JUST WAR TRADITION

IUS POST BELLUM "Right conduct after war."

(Ideas from Michael J. Schuck, Associate Professor of theology, Loyola University, Chicago in The Christian Century Oct 26, 1994)

1. Principle of Repentance. Victors conduct themselves humbly after a war. Victors should show remorse for the price of war paid, not only by comrades, but by the vanquished. No nationalistic, ethnocentric celebrations of victory which disregard the profound pain of those on both sides. Distinction between celebrating the return of sons and daughters from war and celebrating the defeat of one's enemies. Distinction marginal: J.C. Murray: "in morality margins often make all the difference."

2. Principle of Honorable Surrender. Victors construct terms and method of surrender in a way that protects the fundamental human rights of the vanquished. No punitive terms like Versailles Treaty of 1919. Ideal: Joshua Chamberlain and the salute of defeated Confederate troops at Appomattox, April 9, 1865. This avoids degradation and desperation, desire for revenge on part of victors, allows vanquished to resume their lives.

3. Principle of Restoration. Victors should return to the battlefield to remove the instruments of war and assist in the repair of the social infrastructure (and also the physical infrastructure). Proscribed would be the neglect of the vanquished and disregard for the fact that for many innocent victims the war continues after the battles. (UN estimate that 105 million land mines remain in 62 countries.)

These principles expand the moral sensibilities of people who believe that war, while evil, is sometimes necessary for the protection of human life. Existing just war theory discredits war if principles not adhered to. Post bellum principles would do the same. Abuse of post bellum principles would call into question the victor's actual motives.

In addition to Schuck's principles I would add:

4. Principle of moral, spiritual and psychological healing of veterans and victims on both sides.

HOW HISTORICAL CHANGE HAS IMPACTED THE JUST WAR TRADITION
(suggested by the Mark Douglas article)

1. Technological changes: air war, the use of missiles, satellites, carpet bombing, ability to destroy civilian infrastructure. The death of non-combatants is much more widespread because of current weaponry. Question: Can these non-combatant deaths still be considered "collateral damage" or must they be factored in as intrinsic to the intention of those waging the war?

2. Political changes. Democracies and the role of the people in determining whether to wage war. (Responsibility for ius ad bellum is now more diffuse.) In this situation who has the authority to wage war? The executive, the legislature? The people?

Many present wars are actually not between states but "intrastate" types of insurgencies, revolutions and civil wars. (The colonial uprising in Boston in 1775 and the attack on Ft. Sumpter in 1861 are more distant examples)

Current moral questions arising from changed political conditions:

The Iraq war has apparently slipped into a civil war between Shiite and Sunni, with Kurds on the edges. The Lebanese government can clearly not control Hezbollah, which has widespread support among the people of South Lebanon. Hamas was democratically elected in Palestine. Who has legitimacy to start an insurgency and what are the conditions of injustice that bring about such a war? Can a nation-state legitimately wage war on an elusive group within another nation-state, especially one which cannot be controlled by its own government?

3. Economic Changes. The world now has a global economy with economic interdependence. Such measures as sanctions, embargoes, bloackades which used to be considered as steps to be taken before resorting to war, have now become equivalent to acts of war. Usually, the people who suffer most from these are the most vulnerable members of a society. An example: the sanctions on Iraq prior to the invasion of 2003 had been responsible for countless deaths.

THE ROLE OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY, REGIONAL CONSORTIA OF NATIONS, THE UN, NATO, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

The just war tradition seems to be moving in the direction of requiring the a plurality of legitimate and morally responsible governments exercise constraint upon rogue regimes like that in Iraq, ultimately disarming and changing them through continued pressure. The UN seems to be the agency through which this will occur. Military intervention may, in extremis, be justifiable.

Because political and economic systems are now more fluid and inter-connected, there has been a moral shift away from the nation state as the final arbiter in many areas of life. Economic power within a nation can no longer be controlled internally. The movement and aspiration of peoples is no longer contained within national boundaries. Just war thinking has begun to recognize this inter-connectedness with the result that there is now a greater emphasis on seeking the consent of other nations. The ius ad bellum criterion of last resort is more clearly met when a body of nations and a wider spectrum of people decide that war is justified than when a single state makes the decision to go to war. The Nuremburg war crimes trials exemplified the belief that the opinion of other nations was crucial. The UN, NATO and the Geneva Conventions all embody this belief--and all were instituted at the behest of the United States. Both the ius ad bellum decision to wage war and ius in bello judgements regarding the conduct of the war must now take into consideration this wider body of judgement.

RELIGION AND WAR, INCLUDING AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

Clearly, religion continues to play a significan role in waging war. It is an open question whether it is truly religion at stake or political agendas which use religious idealogy as a cover. The misuse of religion, especially when separated from moral principles can screen out the kind of thinking required for real ethical analysis. Religion misused in this way can create a moral blind spot. This is expecially true in waging war. The just war tradition has not been rendered obsolete, but some religious undercurrents cause many people to believe that it does not apply to "our side."

American civil religion. We have invested our political system, our way of life with religious characteristics. We have given to them a sacred dimension through which we intepret our historical experience. Americn life is usually seen in terms of the New Jerusalem, city on the hill perceptions of our myth of origin. We believe we are still God's new creation (Novus ordo saeclorum on the dollar bill). We decided that transcendent goals lay at the heart of our own political processes. At the same time we contructed a model of God based on our own polity. Our political categories: law, justice, democracy became more than analogues. They took on the characteristics of ultimate reality. Of course, the corollary to this is our mythology of war. We do not fight wars, we fight crusades.

This has been a problem throughout American history, but it is now more virulent and dangerous than in the past. Those now in the ascendancy in the American government who began the war in Iraq clearly believe they are fighting a war of total good versus total evil. This represents an ancient philosophical dualism, but in the U.S., it takes the particular form of American civil religion. Given this context, just war analysis, though never more needed, becomes almost impossible to conduct because of the visceral opposition to real critical thinking.

JUST WAR, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND LEBANON IN AUGUST 2006

The just war tradition has never held the combat soldier responsible for the justice of the war, i.e. for any decision connected with the ius ad bellum, but only for his or her personal actions during the war, the ius in bello. The moral presumption has always been that citizens of any nation are justified in following their political leaders when they call for military action. Ordinary citizens who become military combatants are presumed not responsible for whether the war is just or not. This is a time-honored principle.

Examples: after World War II, the leaders of both Germany and Japan were held morally and legally accountable for what was clearly an unjust war, but no combat troops those who actually conducted the war of either nation were put on trial. This reflects international law and just war principles. But Vietnam veterans, on the other handx, were wrongly blamed for the entirety of the Vietnam war.

Afghanistan.

The United States, with justification, invaded Iraq to capture Osama bin Laden, disband Al Quaeda and their Taliban supporters and to prevent further 9/11 type aggression. This was in accordance with the ius ad bellum. Subsequent events in Afghanistan raise further questions, which will not be addressed here.

Iraq.

The argument for war on humanitarian grounds, i.e., that Saddam Hussein had oppressed, brutalized and terrorized his own citizens for decades has some plausibility. This was the justification for military operations in the the former Yugoslavia. In such cases, the proportionality between the violence inflicted and the end to be achieved must be weighed. Humanitarian intervention in places like China or Russia could never be contemplated because no humanitarian goal would outweigh the level of violence, death and destruction.

This argument was not made as a justification for the invastion of Iraq. The arguments that were made: weapons of mass destruction, the capacity to produce nuclear weapons were false. The aim which has come to be used as a justification, i.e., exporting western style democracy, fostering more benevolent governments in the area have also proven to be false.

The violence unleashed in Iraq, which was publicly predicted ahead of time by many astute observes, has certainly exceeded anything Saddam Hussein could have inflcted on his own people

This was also the case in Vietnam. The Communist regime was clearly ruthless and brutal, terrorizing its own citizens. But the massive violence inflicted on that country by the American military and the NVA/VC response to U.S. operations exceeded the bounds of any morally legitimate goal.

In the case of Iraq, the moral issue is further complicated by the fact that the U.S. was aware of Hussein's ruthless regime when it supplied him with weapons to use in his war against Iran in the 1980s.

It seems that at this point, the level of violence visited upon Iraq, the suffering of the innocent and upon the Iraqi people, the waste of American lives and the suffering of American military and their families is out of all proportion to any goal that could reasonably have been attained. The problem is that we are now in Iraq, so where do we go from here? The ius post bellum requires that we cannot abandon Iraq without assisting in its reconstruction.

Lebanon.

The bombing of innocent Israeli citizens by the Hezbollah is clearly immoral, but the Israelis have already inflicted more violence upon Lebanon than Hezbollah could possibly inflict upon israel. The fault lies on both sides, but the government of Lebanon cannot control Hezbollah. The United States insisted that Syria evacluate Lebanon. The U.S. also tolerated the Israeli incursions to capture Lebanese prisoners. The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was a strike against a military target. The Israeli response has been to target the entire population of Lebanon, including the Christians, who can in no way be accused of being Shiite supporters. The Israeli response has already rendered their incrusions immoral according to just war norms. The U.S., because it has the capacity to influence the situation.

Moral Responsibiliy.

Moral responsibility for military action in Iraq according to the ius ad bellum lies with the political leadership of a nation. In a democracy this leadership devolves ultimately on the people. The Bush administration and Congress bear the primary responsibility, but American citizens are ultimately the morally responsible parties. Passive acceptance of an unjust war amounts to complicity in it. Those who understand what war is (veterans) have an obligation to speak out. Those with power and influence (business and political leaders) and those who articulate and interpret events (the media) have a greater degree of responsibility than ordinary citizens, as do religious leaders.

Responsibility of Military Personnel.

Military personnel, citizens themselves, who are genuinely convinced of the immorality of war have the option of filing for conscientious objector status, but ordinary soldiers cannot be held to this kind of moral insight or action. Just war tradition has always held that citizens may without moral blame enter military service and participate in a war that their national leaders tell them is just and necessary. Military personnel, once on active duty are bound to follow lawful orders. An unlawful order, which the soldier is morally bound to disobey, refers only to those actions connected to combat operations, the ius in bello provisions of just war. Military personnel are never responsible for anything connected with ius ad bellum.

For this reason we must not hold active duty personnel responsible for the war in Iraq excepting those of flag rank who exercise political power (e.g. the Joint Chiefs). Therefore we should support the troops in the Gulf in every way possible. Military chaplains, even those who oppose the war, may legitimately serve the troops because these men and women have a right to have their religious leaders with them in combat.