On the surface, the doctrine of a Just War is a seminal work of ethical reasoning constructed to reduce the incidences of unrestrained aggression and war. War for instance that so horrifically scars the history books of the twentieth century. It was constructed with a noble aim to reduce from flood to trickle the cruelty visited upon our fellow man by narrowing the limits of acceptable aggression and response.

It falls to us however, to critically evaluate this doctrine of Just War in the light of how it fits into the framework of biblical ethics, the dynamics of a changing world and in the face of rising unconventional warfare.

I believe that in our evaluation we should respect the doctrine of Just War because it attempts an honest, rigorous moral reflection of a complex issue that 3000 words no matter how insightful will not fully explore.

The doctrine of a Just War makes a single assumption that I intend to challenge, that is, that a war can be just. That single underlying assumption seems to setup a system of thinking that measures conflicts in terms of not “how can we make this situation better” but rather “when can we attack”. The assumption that a war can be just in itself advocates thinking for making war an option.

No matter which way you choose to look at it, war equals death. That being said, I have a great deal of trouble believing that war in any circumstances can be signed off as acceptable by a populous, but I intend to challenge my own assumptions as well.

I believe that the challenge for us all is to think differently about how we approach the topic of war. To re-examine our doctrine in light of recent world developments such as the rise of Islamic extremism, changing technology such as weapons of mass destruction and our commitment as Christians to becoming peacemakers seeing His Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.

As Karl Barth said “we ought to preach with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other”, this paper will reference the ongoing Iraq War [1] as a point of dialogue to help evaluate the doctrine.

Definition: What is the Just War doctrine?

John Stott shows that while “the concept of the ‘just war’ antedates the Christian era and may be traced back both to the ‘holy wars’ of the Old Testament and to some Greek and Roman ethical teaching. The notion was Christianized by Augustine in the fourth century… systematized by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth, first developed by Francisco de Vitoria in the sixteenth, and endorsed by most of the Reformers”. [2] Peter Temes notes that it draws not only from Augustine and Aquinas but also “from secular Just War traditions”. [3]

Its various forms usually contain seven conditions to be met: “formal declaration, last resort, just cause, right intention, proportionate means, non-combatant immunity and reasonable expectation”. [4] However we may take Stott’s lead and boil down these seven, which contain a reasonable amount of overlap, to just three: the instigation, the execution and the conclusion of hostilities.

For a war to be considered just under the doctrine it must be a righteous cause. Typically this means it must not be a war of aggression, only one of self-defence.

“Its objectives must be to secure justice or remedy injustice, to protect the innocent or champion human rights. It must be undertaken as a last resort only“ [5] (Emphasis mine).

Secondly, for a war to be considered just it must be undertaken in a controlled manner. “There must be no wanton or unnecessary violence.” [6] It must be a reaction that is taken in proportion to the precipitating action. It must also discriminate between the opposing enemy and non-combatants such as civilians.

Thirdly, the outcome of going to war must be predictable. “like the king in Jesus’ parable who ‘counted the cost’ before going to war (Luke 14:31-2), there must be a calculated prospect of victory”. [7]

War, what is it good for?

It is my assertion that war today just does not work. While the world spends an approximate 2% of GWP (Gross World Product), which is approximately US$1.3 trillion [8]

“ethnic and cultural clashes continue to be responsible for much of the territorial fragmentation and internal displacement of the estimated 6.6 million people and cross-border displacements of 8.6 million refugees around the world as of early 2006″. [9]

Former UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar states “the current proliferation of civil wars ‘is new anarchy’. The fact that in 1993 42 countries were engulfed in major conflicts, and 37 other in lesser ones… we live in ‘an age of localized mini-holocausts’”. [10]

Instead of engaging in well thought out, well executed and calculated wars we are seeing an increase of genocides and wars drawn not simply over lines on a map but wars that are increasingly defined on ideological battle lines that simply can not be won other than by genocide.

How exactly does one go about winning a “war on terror” against an enemy who has no standing army, no general, just an idea of injustice that needs to be somehow avenged?

An unconventional enemy requires an unconventional response. There is a favourite quote of mine, the origin of which remains elusive that states, “When all you have is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails”. I put it to you that war does not work anymore, save in very limited and defined circumstances, but because we have institutionalized the idea of war as the correct response to injustice it has become our hammer in the face of conflict.

“The greatest moral challenge to Just War doctrine in each great religious tradition is the proximity to the state’s appetite for war.”

Temes recalls an anecdote he once heard about U.S. President George H. W. Bush wherein he had a military officer with seminary training “write out on a card that might fit in the president’s pocket, the essential principles of Christian Just War doctrine.” [11]

This card is said to have remained in the president’s pocket for the entire time the Gulf War raged. At first blush this seems a praiseworthy action but it serves to underscore my point that the existence of the doctrine gives credibility to the approach of war.

“Even if a nation has been wronged and therefore has a right to wage war, it should, whenever possible, give up the right and try to settle matters by arbitration or conference or by casting lots. For even just war is bad. Peace is more important that freedom because the slaughter of a people is the worst possible evil… The ship is saved by casting out the cargo (liberty), not the passengers.” [12]

Counting the cost

Recent estimates from top economists predict that the cost of the current “war on terror” will reach approximately US$3 trillion [13] on top of the United States current military spending of US$.56 trillion per annum.

I believe this is important, not to make a point against the ongoing Iraq war, but in light of the insight of another US President Dwight D. Eisenhower who said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” [14]

The king in Jesus’ analogy counted his cost in terms of human collateral, his 10,000 troops verses 20,000 enemy troops but I believe that Jesus’ ethics would resonate with Eisenhower here. Our understanding of the cost of war does not extend only to the loss of human life but to the loss of opportunity to invest wisely in the future of our fellow mankind.

Shortly after the beginning of the Iraq War I was engaged in debate about the justification for the war, my opponent offered the opinion that removing Saddam Hussein from power was right in itself and worth the (monetary) cost. Attempting to think differently I posited that could not a greater good been achieved by investing the accounts devoted to war to simply bribing the Iraqi populace to abandon their leader? [15] It may not be a practical or workable solution but the suggestion that there is any variation from a fight or flight response was met with incredulousness.

While we devote ourselves to counting the cost what is the point of asking this question if we believe the cause to be righteous? If it could be shown that there is a justifiable reason to war against another why does the cost undermine the justification? If it is right, it continues to be right no matter the outcome since, “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” [16]

Or as the Spanish jurist Alfonso Tostado said, “In a just war there is nothing that may not be wrought against the enemy except for a violation of truth”. [17]

John Howard Yoder offers, “Once a desirable course of history has been labelled, once we know what the right cause is, then it is further assumed that we should be willing to sacrifice for it”. [18]

This is not an advocacy of violent action on my behalf, I simply can not reconcile the two criteria.

Thinking different

While reflecting on the general responses to evil, Walter Wink contends that Human evolution has conditioned us to think along the lines of fight or fight only. In the face of evil we respond only with violent opposition or with passivity. [19]

Jesus certainly never advocated either of these approaches in the face of evil and to suggest otherwise would be inconsistent with the man presented to us in the Gospels. The man who called the Pharisees a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs. The man who confronted evil spirits and commanded them to leave. And the man who resisted temptation for 40 days and nights in the dessert in a direct conflict with the devil.

No, this god-man sought to think differently from flight or fight and any exegesis of his words in Matthew 5:38-41 that suggest thinking of him as “gentle Jesus meek and mild” does him and his ethical teaching a disservice. This course of thinking castrates the meaning of Jesus’ words and limits us to flight or fight thinking.

Wink offers the radical interpretation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:38-41. His assertion is that various biblical translations have taken their cue from the King James translation rendering the Greek antistenai as “resist not evil” and “translating nonviolent resistance into docility. The Greek word means more than simply to ‘stand against’ or ‘resist.’ It means to resist violently, to revolt or rebel, to engage in an insurrection”. [20]

Wink believes a far better translation of the passage would be “Do not retaliate against violence with violence”[21] because after all, “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52 ESV).

While not wanting to rely to heavily on the exegesis of one man, I will look at two of the three ways that Wink suggests that Jesus told his followers to stand against their oppressors in a non-violent action. Jesus clarified his stance of not retaliating against violence with violence by giving these three hypothetical situations:

“But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” (Matt 5:39-41 ESV).

“To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks… What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight.” [22]

When encouraging us to got the extra mile, Jesus is referencing the Roman practice of limiting the amount of forced labour a soldier could levy on a subjected populous. “A soldier could impress a civilian to carry his pack one mile only; to force the civilian to go further carried with it severe penalties under military law”. [23]

Each of Jesus’ instructions are geared towards making the oppressors think about their own actions. Turning the other cheek creates a situation where the oppressor either insults himself by performing an unclean action or steps away from the situation unfulfilled. Going the extra mile creates a situation both dangerous and comical where the soldier would be begging for their pack to be returned to them.

I am not suggesting for one moment that a course of action, seeking the third way that goes against our natural desires, is in any degree a safe one. This opposition may further anger the opponent and instead of him walking away ashamed of his position, he may act on his natural inclination and violently react. However I believe that this is the willingness to sacrifice that Yoder speaks about, the ability to take up ones cross and follow Jesus where ever he may lead.

At the cross we are invited to participate in the suffering of Jesus, it is not an easy road but a narrow one full of obstacles as we walk it.

Jesus encourages us to think differently about our circumstances, to not rely on our natural inclinations towards flight or fight but to seek out a third way of dealing with life. One that seizes the moral initiative finds a creative alternative to violence, which asserts your dignity as a human being or forces you to into a position as an inferior.

Let me turn my attention again to the current “war of terror”. Many hold to the opinion that this war began with a first strike by the forces of Al-Qaeda on the 11^th of September 2001, others see further back and argue that it was a retaliation against American imperialism and mistreatment of the Muslim world. [24] Wherever your opinion lies on the subject I am challenged here to consider how Jesus might counsel us to respond to the hijackings and destruction of the twin towers.

I can not help but wonder at what Osama bin Laden’s reaction would have been if the President of the United States of America stood up on the podium on September the 12^th and said something to the effect of “to those who mean us harm, we forgive you. There will be no retribution here, no eye for an eye, we forgive you for the deeds you have visited on us and hope to be reconciled to you as brothers.” To such a response how can one maintain the moral high ground and attack again? Is this turning the other cheek? I believe so. To strike once more, to fail to enter into a dialogue would I believe have drawn condemnation from the quarters that now support the cause of militant Islam.

The technology of the war machine

It is an uncomfortable truth that the destructive force of technology has exceeded our ability to fully defend against. Chemical, biological, and of course nuclear weapons have been used in anger with horrific results. We have teetered on the brink of disaster on too many occasions [26] The consequences of Einstein’s own actions in the creation of the atomic bomb along with his fellow scientists weighed quite heavily on their shoulders.

Oppenheimer solemnly stated, “I became death, the destroyer of worlds.” [27]

In May 1943, Ken Bainbridge was recruited to the nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos. There he prepared and directed a facility for the first explosion of a nuclear bomb, the “Trinity Test.” Following the fearsomely successful explosion early in the morning of July 16, 1945, he congratulated J. Robert Oppenheimer and the others and then made his legendary remark, “Now we are all sons of bitches.” Oppenheimer later remarked that this was the best thing anyone had said just after the test. Ken subsequently was deeply dedicated to the control of nuclear weapons. [28]

An end to war

We have surveyed the doctrine of Just War to it’s constituent parts having seen that it requires first a righteous cause, to be undertaken in a controlled manner and to have a predictable outcome.

Through it’s examination, I hold to the position that the existence of this doctrine begets the thinking that leads to its execution. That is, buy saying that a war can be just, we are allowing into our thinking war as a suitable solution to a particular confrontation.

We live in a world that spends an obscene $1.3 trillion a year on the war machine, that has seen a changing face of war from direct conflict to wars of attrition and terrorism played out on a global scale.

I am in practice far to cynical to believe that we will see an end to war in any generation before the return of Jesus but I do not live without the hope that as a human race we can begin to think differently about the hostile situations we find ourselves in and consequently, begin to act differently.

I count it not out of the realm of possibility that Christian’s can make a principled stand against injustice that does not involve resorting to violence. Jesus gave us three practical examples of acting against our own nature and the expectations of society in Matthew 5:38-41. Walter Wink offered up a contemporary exegesis on the passage suggesting that previous attempts to translate the passage has castrated it’s message of resiting oppressive force by asking us to resist not the evil person instead of a more faithful rendering of not meeting violence with violence.

The call of Scripture is for Christians to be peacemakers, to play a part of the redemptive action of God in the world. We are called to be ministers of reconciliation and leave judgment to the one who is worthy to receive power. This may mean a difficult road for us to follow, one saddled with a cross but we have been called to nothing less in this life.

References

Bin Laden, O., http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

(2008) CIA Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

Teicheman, J., Pacifsm and the Just War: A Study in Applies Philosophy, (Oxford: Basil Blakwell, 1986)

Temes, P.S., The Catholic Vocabulary of War: the Centre and theFringe of Catholic Just War Doctrine, (New Haven: Yale University, 2004)

Stott, J, Wars and Rumours of Wars, (London: Marshall Pickering, 1999)

Bilmes, L.J., Stiglitz, J.E., The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html (9/Mar/2008, pB01)

Quote Database http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/405

The New Encyclopaedia of Christian Quotations, (Hampshire, John Hunt Publishing, 2000)

Yoder, J.H., Conspectus of the Just War Tradition, (Lecutre Series 1989), 245-6

Wink, W., Christian Non-violence, (http://www.zmag.org, article 6889, 2004)

http://www.atomicheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=237