Christianity and War

[SOJOURNER]

I just had my first class of three on the Just War Theory. These people articulate in some way that the use of military force in a given case is the right thing to do.

The criteria for a Just war are:

Just Cause

Just Means

Last Resort

Legitimate Authority

Reasonable Hope of success

Porportionality

Discrimination Between Combatants and Non-Combatants

If you read The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies all the above items apply to the text.

For next Tuesday's class we were asked to look for text showing a just war for the war in Iraq. Before I begin my research into this, I was wondering if anyone would care to share what they might know about this.

[Clint]

Far Rider wrote: There is no Christian justification for war today whatsoever.... No where in the New Testament do you even find a reason for self defense.

I don't understand what your asking... Since you have a title with Christianity in it.

Are you looking for a legal reason to justify war? (in Iraq) Or a Christian reason for war? (in Iraq).

As a combat veteran I will tell you this... no war that the US has entered since WW2 mets all the qualifications you listed above.
I have the same question for Sojourner that you do. My question for you is whether or not there was actually descrimination between combatants and non-combatants in WWII? Atom bombs don't descriminate very well as I understand them.

[Accountable]

SOJOURNER wrote: [...]

For next Tuesday's class we were asked to look for text showing a just war for the war in Iraq. Before I begin my research into this, I was wondering if anyone would care to share what they might know about this.
I'm sure Colin Powell's speech to the UN is available somewhere. You may have to use the Freedom of Information Act to get it from a gov't office.





Just Cause - Powell listed just causes ad nausium; the question is, do you agree with the US stated opinion.



Just Means - Easy one: conventional.



Last Resort - People argue this point. Powell definitely addressed it.



Legitimate Authority - Being a member of the UN, the US claimed legitimate authority to enforce UN sanctions/proclamations (I'm blanking on the actual term). This is the weakest link for me.



Reasonable Hope of success - Helloooooo? Iraq? Come on!



Porportionality - Probably in Powell's speech; if not, look toward some early battle briefs or Presidential speeches.



Discrimination Between Combatants and Non-Combatants - I'm with Clint on this one. The discrimination might have been implicit in other wars; I don't know.



~~~~~~~~~~



I'd be interested in a running commentary on your class. I am curious about the Christian connection; I don't see it.



Do you think whoever is presenting the class has a political agenda?

[SOJOURNER]

Far:

What I'm looking for is enlightenment.

Knowledge is power and hopefully it is the way to change (sometimes only ourselves). If no one questions what is going on and tries to understand it, we can find ourselves pushed to an acceptance of something we think may be inevitable, but in reality, is not.

Since most of us would not accept a premise of warlike conduct without cause and since very, very few are truly Pacifists, that leaves us with a theory of a "Just" war.

How do you justify a war!? As a Christian how do you understand the concept of going to war.......

How many people can actually speak to how we came to be involved in our current war? Sure, we listen to the news, read the news, but isn't there a lot of spin in the news? We have various fractions saying many different reasons for our being over there......... Which version do you believe? Is it based on an emotional response? Is it a factual response..........and who's facts........

The format of the class I'm taking is discussion. It's education from many sources with opinions thrown in too. Sometimes until we speak what we think and someone challenges it, we are not always aware of the lack of substance in what we say.

Biblical responses to the Just Resort to War:

Just Cause... A decision for war must vindicate justice itself in response to some serious evil, such as an aggressive attack. I Chronicles 28:9 (God knows the heart)

Just Intent... The ends sought in a decision for war must include the restoration of peace with justice and must not seek selfish gain or the total devastation of another nation. Habbakuk 2:8...... (A nation is judged because of its wars for selfish gain)

Last Resort... A moral presumption against going to war. Every possibility of peaceful settlement of a conflict must be tried before a war is begun. Numbers 20:14-21 and 21: 21-24 (Moses attempts a peaceful passage through the land and only fights when all his other options have failed)

Legitimate Authority... A dicision for war may be made and declared only by properly constituted government authority. Romans 13:1-5 (God's recognition of a Governments role)

Reasonable Hope of Success... A decision for war must be based on a prudent expectation that the ends sought can be achieved. It is hardly an act of juctice to plunge one's people into the suffering and sacrifice of a suicidal conflict. Luke 14:31-32 (commonsense)

Biblical responses to Just Conduct in War:

Discrimination... This requires respect for the rights of enemy peoples, especially for the immunity of non-combatants from direct attack. Deuteronomy 20:1-15 (Moses talks about killing only the men [soldiers] and limited spoil-taking in case of surrender.

Porportionality... The amount of damage inflicted must be strickly proportionate to the ends sought. Small-scale injuries should not be avenged by massive suffering. I Chronicles 28:6-15 (A prophet condemns Israelites for "slaughtering ina rage") & Genesis 34:25-31 (Simeon and Levi are condemned for a heartless act of revenge.

We have the Declaration of Indepence for our war with England. What exactly do we have for our war with Iraq so that I can look at it and see if it meets a just war criteria for a Christian.

[chonsigirl]

http://pewforum.org/just-war/

[SOJOURNER]

[QUOTE=Far Rider]There is no Christian justification for war today whatsoever.... No where in the New Testament do you even find a reason for self defense.



Do you believe that we are to only look to the NT for guidiance? Yes, it is a new covenent, but God's will has not changed.

[SOJOURNER]

Clint wrote: I have the same question for Sojourner that you do. My question for you is whether or not there was actually descrimination between combatants and non-combatants in WWII? Atom bombs don't descriminate very well as I understand them.


Then perhaps this was not a Just War????????????

[SOJOURNER]

Accountable wrote: I'm sure Colin Powell's speech to the UN is available somewhere. You may have to use the Freedom of Information Act to get it from a gov't office.



I'd be interested in a running commentary on your class. I am curious about the Christian connection; I don't see it.



Do you think whoever is presenting the class has a political agenda?


///////////////////////////

Thanks for the lead -- I shall start my search there.

The leader of the calss is a Pastor Harley Wheeler (sweet name, eh). He is an employed Methodist Pastor and continuing student. He is delighted to be able to also find teaching work and share his knowledge quest

I'll be glad to update you on where we go next week, though I feel sure at the end of these 3 brief classes I will have more questions than answers.

[SOJOURNER]

chonsigirl:

Thanks for pointing me to the site. I shall peruse it this evening.

[Accountable]

Clint wrote: I have the same question for Sojourner that you do. My question for you is whether or not there was actually descrimination between combatants and non-combatants in WWII? Atom bombs don't descriminate very well as I understand them.
SOJOURNER wrote: Then perhaps this was not a Just War????????????
I'm not sure you can point at a single act (or 2) within a years-long war and deem the entire war unjust. Do you?

[SOJOURNER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint

I have the same question for Sojourner that you do. My question for you is whether or not there was actually descrimination between combatants and non-combatants in WWII? Atom bombs don't descriminate very well as I understand them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOJOURNER

Then perhaps this was not a Just War????????????



QUOTE:

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ACCOUNTABLE

I'm not sure you can point at a single act (or 2) within a years-long war and deem the entire war unjust. Do you?

/////////////////////////



No to Clint.

I do not think that there was actually descrimination between combatants and non-combatants in WWII.

No to Accountable.

I do not think a single act or two within a long war deems an entire war unjust.

The criteria for a just war, would in my opinion, be used to begin or respond to war. There's no way one can predict, nor anticipate, all the reactions that would result from a decision for war. Keeping a war just is another thread.

[Clint]

SOJOURNER wrote: [QUOTE=Far Rider]There is no Christian justification for war today whatsoever.... No where in the New Testament do you even find a reason for self defense.



Do you believe that we are to only look to the NT for guidiance? Yes, it is a new covenent, but God's will has not changed.
The “New Covenant” is not the “Replacement Covenant”. The Torah (Law) is still valid. Jesus never declared it invalid or out of play.

Romans 10:4 says; “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. The Greek word “telos” here is wrongly interpreted as “end” or terminated.

In the great majority of the cases where the word “telos” is used in the New Testament it means aim, purpose, goal toward which a movement is being directed or outcome, result, consummation, last part of a process not obviously being directed and may or may not be terminated. That it is being used to describe Jesus as the purpose of the law is consistent with His teaching and the whole of the Bible.

Jesus is the “Word” in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus was there from the beginning. He is the word. The Law came through Him.

Matt. 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Since heaven and earth still exist the law must also exist.

Paul and the other Apostles were law observant Jews until the day they died. The death and resurrection of Christ were all done in concert with celebration of the Passover which was commanded by God.

I say all that to say that the "New Covenant" or "New Testament" is a continuation of the “Old Testament”. To say that Jesus taught something different than what He, God (Echad) had been teaching from the beginning simply isn’t accurate.

Revelation 19:11

[ The Coming of Christ ] And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.

War is clearly not outside His nature.

[SOJOURNER]

Clint,

Thank you for your clarification. You said it so well.

[polycarp]

chonsigirl wrote: http://pewforum.org/just-war/


You've said it all my friend. No more no less! :driving:

[gmc]

To make war is to take a decision to pick up weapons and set out to kill another, person, tribe , country or whatever. People used to war over land and resources, to survive, make themselves better off in some way. To one side or the other war war a necessity forced on them, to others it was a life style choice.

Nowadays on free countries people are less disposed to go to war so leaders have to convince their people that there is no choice in the matter else they won't fight. Therein lies a whole debate on it's own-how do you persuade people to go to war.

For those actually fighting whether it is just or not is irrelevant they are the ones that get killed and pay the ultimate consequence. Many will justify a war, otherwise the alternative is that all these lives are being thrown away for no good purpose, to the extent they will condemn those who question the reasons for it. Having supported a call to war it is hard to turn round and say it was the wrong thing to do and maybe we should have hesitated.

One of the myths of the latter part of the 20th century is the concept of limited warfare to take out an opponent. On olden times it was simple imperialism with limited wars being fought to take out the ability of the country being taken over to resist the more powerful invader, just as in the past stronger tribes would take over weaker. Nowadays political leaders convince themselves you can have a short sharp war to take out an opponent and forget how the people in the country might react. They can't justify their action by any way except to convince others there is no alternative. Think about it, you can only have a limited war against a far weaker opponent

posted by clint

I have the same question for Sojourner that you do. My question for you is whether or not there was actually descrimination between combatants and non-combatants in WWII? Atom bombs don't descriminate very well as I understand them.




WW2 was all out total war with both sides attacking civilian targets without mercy in order to destroy the infrastructure that fuelled the others capacity to make war.

Bear in mind at the time many held to the theory that the bomber would always get through and enemies could be bombed in to submission.

The germans and british made no bones about what they were doing and only later did conscience prick when the effects of firebombing were seen and people forget that at the time everybody wanted to at at the enemy every way they could cos the bastards were bombing us-they bombed us we'll bomb them. The US bomber force did the same in europe and japan-more people were killed in the firestorms deliberately started in japanese cities (using techniques developed by the british and tested over europe first, fuel air bursts and bunker busters are nothing new) than were killed by both the atomic bombs put together.

Never mind debates about whether it was just or not-that is a choice only those alive at the time can decide for themselves and looking back it is easy to say-hang on a minute-personally I'm glad we won, if Britain had not chosen to keep fighting the world would be a very different place-for good or ill.

Hitler came within a hairs breadth of having a nuclear capability and the ballistic missiles to deploy them-the V2 which was used on london, if he could have he would have. The reason chemical weapons were not used is because Britain had more advanced and more of them than the germans and churchill made sure Hitler knew we would use them. I have seen suggestions that the results of the Grunaird island tests were made known to the germans even as the decision not to use them was taken. Japan carried out biological weapons testing on the chinese.

Without the atomic bombs japan would have kept fighting and even more would have been killed invading the japanese homeland. Without atomic weapons it is very likely there`would have been further wars in europe. (as a side note both France and Britain insisted on their own nuclear deterrent because if push came to shove they were not going to depend on America to be prepared to use them in their defence they wanted control of their own)

The romans had a saying that went something like " if you would live in peace be ready for war" (if you will forgive the paraphrasing). However, I would add go to war only if you have to but don't kid yourself it is a game or a simple means to an end.

War is war. Go to war if you have to but it's not a good thing no matter how you justify it.

As to christians and war? I'm not a christian but if you need someone to tell you whether an action is justified or not maybe you need to think for yourself and be responsible for your own actions and all the consquences. Why do you assume nother has a better grasp on morality than you

[SOJOURNER]

Very interesting post, GMC. Gives one a lot to thing about.

Regarding: As to christians and war? I'm not a christian but if you need someone to tell you whether an action is justified or not maybe you need to think for yourself and be responsible for your own actions and all the consquences. Why do you assume nother has a better grasp on morality than you

I respond with: War isn't the choice of each individual. It is the choice of the "powers that be". Whether we agree or disagree, it either happens or doesn't. Instead of having a mass of people ticked off for one reason and calling for war (when a less deadly action could resolve it), there is a criteria of numerous reasons for starting a war. Meeting the numerous points makes people think about the consequences to BOTH sides and gives cooler heads a chance to make those decisions. Yes, there are individuals making those decisions, but they must all come together to a final concensus. I think it is very apparent that people are thinking for themselves. Listen to the peoples views around you, listen to the many, many protests there are going on at this time..... People are thinking. People are speaking out. People are trying to make a difference by promoting their own morality on everyone.................

[gmc]

posted by sojourner

I respond with: War isn't the choice of each individual. It is the choice of the "powers that be". Whether we agree or disagree, it either happens or doesn't. Instead of having a mass of people ticked off for one reason and calling for war (when a less deadly action could resolve it), there is a criteria of numerous reasons for starting a war. Meeting the numerous points makes people think about the consequences to BOTH sides and gives cooler heads a chance to make those decisions. Yes, there are individuals making those decisions, but they must all come together to a final concensus. I think it is very apparent that people are thinking for themselves. Listen to the peoples views around you, listen to the many, many protests there are going on at this time..... People are thinking. People are speaking out. People are trying to make a difference by promoting their own morality on everyone.................


Not quite sure I understand your point, but the powers that be are only the powers that be as long as the people decide they are. When the powers that be try and curb dissent and get away with it that is when there is a problem.

[gmc]

posted by far rider

It is not a just war for "Christians". It is the right action for our long term protection. The more insurgents and resources al quada wastes fighting us there the better off we are. I'ts that simple.


Now that's kind of a moot point. How does invading a country that had nothing to do with the 911 attacks and was no longer a threat have anything to do with long term defence?

Posted by far rider

It simply has to meet a justification level high enough to justify the loss of life to complete the objective.

Only two questions in my book... can we do it? can we afford it?

I'm so far past doing it legally it isn't even funny, it's battle over there, or battle here.


So you are saying if the enemy is too strong you won't fight for what is right?

How about asking should we do it, is there no alternative and what exactly is the objective?

Warfare sometimes creates a whole new set of problems that are sometimes worse than the one you are trying to solve.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: [...]

So you are saying if the enemy is too strong you won't fight for what is right?
We've let China run rough-shod over Nepal. The Dhali Lhama (sp) can't even visit his own country. The difference between that invasion and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait were (1) the value to us of the invaded country and (2) the military strength of the enemy. So to answer your question: Yes, if an enemy is too strong we (US, UK, and everybody else) will not fight for what is right.

[gmc]

posted by accountable

We've let China run rough-shod over Nepal. The Dhali Lhama (sp) can't even visit his own country. The difference between that invasion and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait were (1) the value to us of the invaded country and (2) the military strength of the enemy. So to answer your question: Yes, if an enemy is too strong we (US, UK, and everybody else) will not fight for what is right.


Would agree with you about Nepal, but not the last point. It was the British that stood alone against the Nazis when everybody else gave up or didn't want to know.

Decisions about war are never simple or easy to make.

So you are saying if the enemy is too strong you won't fight for what is right?


I was being slightly facetious, I think all the people in the world will in the right circumstances stand and fight regardless of the odds. Mind you being British i don't think there is a single country we haven't picked a fight with at some point except maybe zew zealand, australia and canada who are special cases.

posted by far rider

Been over this one a hundred times... saddam played a dangerous game of cat and mouse, he lost, the invasion was justified based on his game playing, we just wernt sure he did not have WMDs.


Don't want to go over it again, agree to disagree and so forth. i would just like to say cobblers and leave it at that:yh_laugh

Actually it was a fascination with warfare that got me interested in history beyond the bare facts of it. What would make men march to within a hundred yards of each other, stand in ranks and fire muskets knowing that the odds were pretty good they would get killed, supreme self confidence or what, or stand in a shield wall for hours at a time. WW1 was a turning point in europe many came home vowing that never again would such a pointless war be fought, yet a generation later we were at it again. People with simple answers don't get the question I think.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: Would agree with you about Nepal, but not the last point. It was the British that stood alone against the Nazis when everybody else gave up or didn't want to know.
Proves my point. To the British the value of the invaded country was worth going up against the strength of the nazi enemy. Nepal wasn't worth it.

[gmc]

posted by accountable

Proves my point. To the British the value of the invaded country was worth going up against the strength of the nazi enemy. Nepal wasn't worth it.


Not that simple, hitler expected us to sue for peace, he saw the british empire as natural allies in an ayrian world. We went to war when he invaded poland as a metter of principle.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: posted by accountable





Not that simple, hitler expected us to sue for peace, he saw the british empire as natural allies in an ayrian world. We went to war when he invaded poland as a metter of principle.
Semantics. Why not defend Nepal as a matter of principle?

[gmc]

posted by accountable

Semantics. Why not defend Nepal as a matter of principle?


Just dawned on me you mean Tibet not Nepal which is still an independent country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_ ... 166516.stm

They fought us to a standstill but they were so impressed by the British they wanted to join our army.

http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/

We did nothing for the same reason no one else did, end of WW2 no one wanted to fight another large scale war with the Chinese, no interests there. If they had gone in to Nepal we probably would have got involved especially after the way the gurkhas fought with the british against japan and germany. China stopped at Tibet because they were looking at warfare with India and britain if they had tried it. India and China have come to blows a few times over borders as it is. Why do you think they want nuclear weapons? It's not just Pakistan they worry about but china as well.

If you look hard for principles in international diplomacy you do find them, it's just that realpolitik tends to get in the way. Nowadays countries are a bit less blatant about it than they used to be but I don't think any country can claim the moral high ground. Certainly "perfidious Albion" is way down in the depths. I would like to think it's getting harder for govts to fool their peoples the way they have in the past, but I'm an optimist. On the other hand who can study history and not become ever so slightly cynical?

[Accountable]

gmc wrote:

Just dawned on me you mean Tibet not Nepal which is still an independent country.
I knew I should've listened to that little voice in my head. You're right. It's Tibet. It may be independent on paper, but why is the country's leader in exile?



The country itself is irrelevant. It's just an example. I'm not laying any blame anywhere, simply stating a fact as I see it. No country can cure all ills, so she picks and chooses. What better criteria to use than self-interests?

[gmc]

posted by accountable

I knew I should've listened to that little voice in my head. You're right. It's Tibet. It may be independent on paper, but why is the country's leader in exile?


Because it's independent only on paper, effectively its a chinese colony.imperialism does not need an emperor.

posted by accountable

The country itself is irrelevant. It's just an example. I'm not laying any blame anywhere, simply stating a fact as I see it. No country can cure all ills, so she picks and chooses. What better criteria to use than self-interests?




kind of agree and disagree with you, often the interests being protected boil down to short term commercial interests of powerful groups within a country rather than the long term interests of the general population. So you have dictatorships propped up, (because they favour someones business interests), instead of opposition groups that want democracy and might also want the natural resources being exploited for the benefit of the country rather than seeing the profits being exported abroad.

In the UK for instance, North Sea oil is taxed and any oil company complaining would get a very short answer. (whose oil it is is adifferent quyestionb) Yet in South America govts trying to tax oil revenues for the benefit of their people get accused of communism and ineterfering with free trade. Same thing different language.