The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 4
Having examined the activist and pacifist approach to war, the Christian dilemma of war can be clearly seen. The activist is right in pointing out that governments have been appointed by God to wield the sword of His wrath against those who do evil (Romans 13), but fails to recognize that one’s government can use the sword in a wrong manner and act unjustly. The pacifist is right in pointing out the evil nature of war and killing, but fails to recognize that the higher laws of love and justice sometimes deem war and killing necessary.
The middle ground between activism and pacifism is selectivism, or what is known as the just war theory. The purpose of the just war theory is to limit war, not justify it. Just war theorists acknowledge, like pacifists, that war is evil, but they also conclude that some wars are unavoidable, which leaves open some very important questions: When is it right to go to war? What are the criteria for going to war? Who decides when war is warranted?
The question of what makes a war just has been discussed for centuries. Early formulations of the just war theory are found in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but it was Cicero that first developed the theory in detail. Later, a modified Christian version was defended by theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin.
The just war theory has historically been divided between the criteria of when to go to war and the criteria of conducting a war. On the issue of when to go to war, the following criteria must be met: a legitimate authority must judge if the war is necessary and just, a declaration of war must be the last resort, a declaration of war must come from the highest governmental authority, there should be reasonable hope of success, the objective should be in proper proportion to the cost, and a war should be fought with the right intention.
When conducting a just war, the objective must be to restore a lasting peace, not conquest, economic gain, or indoctrination of an ideology. The destruction of political institutions and infrastructure should be avoided unless they stand in the way of lasting peace. The military should seek to incapacitate the enemy, which means capturing the enemy is to be preferred over killing the enemy. There should be an attempt to inflict a minimal amount of suffering. Noncombatants, especially civilians, should be given immunity, and the effects on civilians must be in proportion to the evil averted.
A war can be deemed just if it is waged to defend the innocent or to execute justice. If a country is committing torture or genocide, or invades or assaults another nation, it may be an act of justice to take military action. The Allied forces were just in invading Germany and routing the Nazis because of Hitler’s aggression against France and other European countries. When a country sponsors terrorism against others nations, military action against that country is considered just.
The just war theory seems to be the best approach to the question of war, but it is not without its difficulties. Questions such as preemptive strikes and the use of nuclear weapons are not easy to justify under this theory. Next week we’ll take up these questions and then we’ll compare the just war theory with the biblical pattern of war.
The middle ground between activism and pacifism is selectivism, or what is known as the just war theory. The purpose of the just war theory is to limit war, not justify it. Just war theorists acknowledge, like pacifists, that war is evil, but they also conclude that some wars are unavoidable, which leaves open some very important questions: When is it right to go to war? What are the criteria for going to war? Who decides when war is warranted?
The question of what makes a war just has been discussed for centuries. Early formulations of the just war theory are found in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but it was Cicero that first developed the theory in detail. Later, a modified Christian version was defended by theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin.
The just war theory has historically been divided between the criteria of when to go to war and the criteria of conducting a war. On the issue of when to go to war, the following criteria must be met: a legitimate authority must judge if the war is necessary and just, a declaration of war must be the last resort, a declaration of war must come from the highest governmental authority, there should be reasonable hope of success, the objective should be in proper proportion to the cost, and a war should be fought with the right intention.
When conducting a just war, the objective must be to restore a lasting peace, not conquest, economic gain, or indoctrination of an ideology. The destruction of political institutions and infrastructure should be avoided unless they stand in the way of lasting peace. The military should seek to incapacitate the enemy, which means capturing the enemy is to be preferred over killing the enemy. There should be an attempt to inflict a minimal amount of suffering. Noncombatants, especially civilians, should be given immunity, and the effects on civilians must be in proportion to the evil averted.
A war can be deemed just if it is waged to defend the innocent or to execute justice. If a country is committing torture or genocide, or invades or assaults another nation, it may be an act of justice to take military action. The Allied forces were just in invading Germany and routing the Nazis because of Hitler’s aggression against France and other European countries. When a country sponsors terrorism against others nations, military action against that country is considered just.
The just war theory seems to be the best approach to the question of war, but it is not without its difficulties. Questions such as preemptive strikes and the use of nuclear weapons are not easy to justify under this theory. Next week we’ll take up these questions and then we’ll compare the just war theory with the biblical pattern of war.
Labels: just war theory
posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 |
0 comments
