The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 5
Over the past several weeks we’ve discussed the Christian dilemma of war. It is difficult to justify killing our enemies when Jesus commands us to love our enemies. It is important, however, to make a distinction between the responsibilities of individual Christians and the role of governments. Individuals are not to retaliate or take vengeance on evildoers because God has given that role, at least in this life, to governing authorities (Romans 12:19; 13:4). According to Romans 13, God has given governments the power of the sword to punish evil. But in order for governments to punish evildoers, it must commission individual citizens, such as police officers and soldiers, to carry out this task. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles all had encounters with Roman soldiers, and none of them commanded the soldiers to leave the military service. It is therefore not wrong for Christians to fight in wars under the authority of the government, provided the war is just.
As we alluded to last week, the just war theory seems to be the best way to approach the issue of war. The just war theory is more difficult to consider than activism or pacifism, which require very little thought. The activist says war is always right if the government declares it and the pacifist says war is always wrong. The just war theory, however, requires a great deal of thought and discernment in order to decide if a particular war is just—and there lies the problem. When deciding if a war is just, who must decide and what ethical criteria should be used? What happens if a government claims a war is just and the citizens who must fight the war decide it is unjust?
There are also other difficulties. The just war theory is primarily concerned about defensive wars. Historically, all offensive wars were deemed unjust. But in this day of weapons of mass destruction, can a country afford to wait until it is struck first? Is a preemptive strike ever just? These questions have led some ethicists to call for a modification of this ancient theory in order to keep up with modern warfare. Some have suggested that a preemptive strike, especially in the case of WMDs, would be considered a defensive act. There also may be certain circumstances in conventional warfare in which a preemptive strike would be considered defensive. Consider the Six Day War in 1967. Israel understood that its Arab neighbors were massing armies to invade and ultimately destroy them. Deciding not to wait until the Arabs delivered a devastating first blow, Israel delivered a successful preemptive strike. Many just war theorists consider this preemptive strike an act of self-defense.
There is also a question of nuclear weapons. Many suggest that the use of nuclear weapons can never be justified because of the massive killing of civilian non-combatants, complete damage to a nation’s infrastructure, and permanent damage to the environment. This is a difficult question, but it is even more difficult to think about how to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. In this age of nuclear proliferation, unilateral disarmament would leave a nation open to nuclear blackmail, which may even increase the chances of nuclear weapons being used. Over the past half century, the idea of mutually assured destruction has actually kept the nuclear option in check. There are, however, no easy answers to this.
As we alluded to last week, the just war theory seems to be the best way to approach the issue of war. The just war theory is more difficult to consider than activism or pacifism, which require very little thought. The activist says war is always right if the government declares it and the pacifist says war is always wrong. The just war theory, however, requires a great deal of thought and discernment in order to decide if a particular war is just—and there lies the problem. When deciding if a war is just, who must decide and what ethical criteria should be used? What happens if a government claims a war is just and the citizens who must fight the war decide it is unjust?
There are also other difficulties. The just war theory is primarily concerned about defensive wars. Historically, all offensive wars were deemed unjust. But in this day of weapons of mass destruction, can a country afford to wait until it is struck first? Is a preemptive strike ever just? These questions have led some ethicists to call for a modification of this ancient theory in order to keep up with modern warfare. Some have suggested that a preemptive strike, especially in the case of WMDs, would be considered a defensive act. There also may be certain circumstances in conventional warfare in which a preemptive strike would be considered defensive. Consider the Six Day War in 1967. Israel understood that its Arab neighbors were massing armies to invade and ultimately destroy them. Deciding not to wait until the Arabs delivered a devastating first blow, Israel delivered a successful preemptive strike. Many just war theorists consider this preemptive strike an act of self-defense.
There is also a question of nuclear weapons. Many suggest that the use of nuclear weapons can never be justified because of the massive killing of civilian non-combatants, complete damage to a nation’s infrastructure, and permanent damage to the environment. This is a difficult question, but it is even more difficult to think about how to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. In this age of nuclear proliferation, unilateral disarmament would leave a nation open to nuclear blackmail, which may even increase the chances of nuclear weapons being used. Over the past half century, the idea of mutually assured destruction has actually kept the nuclear option in check. There are, however, no easy answers to this.
Labels: just war theory
posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home