POST SERIES

Introduction
Views of Christian Participation and War
Jesus on Violence and the Kingdom in Matthew 5:38-44
Paul on Empire and Submission in Romans 13:1-7
The Kingdom of Heaven and Christian Identity
Analyzing War and Christian Participation in Light of a Kingdom-Identity
A Christian Response to War
Conclusion

A few days ago we began a series on what a Christian posture should before violence generally and war particularly. I’ve begun this post in light of the Aurora shooting and fever-pitched bleatings in support of the 2nd amendment in the face of renewed calls for gun regulation and oversight—both outside and inside the Church, unfortunately especially inside the Church.

I’ll ask the same questions I posed in the intro post: As Christians, how should we view issues relating to the 2nd amendment? Is it ethically wrong for Christians to own guns for the purpose of hunting? Is it ethically wrong for Christians to own a gun for protection? Is it ethically wrong for Christians wield a gun in armed military conflict?

Today we layout three dominant positions regarding Christian participation in war, which I think also extend to this conversation on violence and gun control. Tomorrow we’ll dive into the text with a look at what Jesus has to say about violence and the Kingdom in His Kingdom Manifesto (aka Sermon on the Mount).

————————————————–

The views of Christian participation in war general fall along three fault lines: just war theory; pacifism/nonviolence, and just peacemaking theory. While just peacemaking is a new, more innovative solution in a post-Cold War world, the other two have been held by various Christian thinkers for centuries. First, in the 5th century St. Ambrose and Augustine articulated a first ethic for war and peace in what has become known as the just war theory. ((Glen H. Stassen, “The Ethics of War and Peacemaking.” in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy. (ed. by Ronald J. Sider and Diane Knippers. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005) 292.)) Holmes identifies seven separate criteria with this theory: 1) Just cause. All aggression is condemned and only defensive war is legitimate; 2) Just intention. The only legitimate intention is to secure a just peace for all involved and revenge, conquest, economic gain or ideology are not just grounds for war; 3) Last resort. War may only be initiated when all negotiations and attempts at compromise have been tried and failed; 4) Formal declaration. A state of war must be officially declared by governments before engaging; 5) Limited objective. Since the purpose of war is peace, unconditional surrender or devastating national infrastructure are unjust aims; 6) Proportional means. The weapons and force used must be limited to that which repels aggression or limits further attack in order to secure peace. Total or unlimited war are both ruled out; 7) Noncombatant immunity. Only those who are official agents of the government may fight a war and those not actively contributing should be immune from attack. ((Arthur F. Holmes, “The Just War.” in War: 4 Christian views. (ed. by Robert G. Clouse. Grand Rapids: BMH Books, 1986), 120-121.))

Stassen agrees with most of these criteria, but adds three more: first, only just authority, in the form of governments that are truthful and societies with freedom of the press, can declare and engage war; secondly, “it is wrong to enter into a war that will kill many people, depriving them of the right to life, liberty, and community, in order to achieve a more important goal, if we will quite surely lose and not achieve that goal, and all those people will die in vain.” Thus, the probability of success is requires for a just war; thirdly, not only is the  rule of proportionality of cost required to be applied to the decision to go to war, just meansare also to be used in it. ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 293-296.)) “A war that fails to meet any of these criteria is unjust, and by the logic of the just war theory we must oppose it. It is not enough to have a just cause if other possible resorts are not tried, nor is it adequate to have a just cause if the war is carried out by unjust mean.” ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 297.)) These criteria are established, then, in order to ensure a just war and understand when a war becomes unjust. Though Ambrose, Augustine, and several more thinkers since have helped articulate a theory of just war, for the first three hundred years of the Church’s life pacifism and nonviolence were held, a view that has nuanced and evolved over the life of the Church. ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 299.))

While some distinguish between pacifism and nonviolence, it is more common among contemporary discourse to understand them in sync as two points of opposition toward war in general, but especially Christian participation in it. ((In his description of consistent nonviolence in his article “The Ethics of War and Peacemaking,” 299-301, Stassen makes no distinction between the pacifism and nonresistance/nonviolence positions. In being committed to alternatives to war, both perspectives bear witness to the way of Jesus and derive their responsibilities from his teachings on enemy-love. Both actively avoid doing violence and resist war in a negative way, while also advocating peace and pursuing peacemaking in a positive way. Anabaptists,Quakers, Ronald Sider, John Howard Yoder, and Martin Luther King Jr. are examples of groups and people whose descriptions as nonviolent/pacifists are used interchangeably. In fact, in his article on critiquing the nonresistance position in War: 4 Christian Views, Augsburg insists his own position on pacifism is “better expressed by the term nonresistance.” For the purpose of this essay, then, the author will use these terms synonymously.)) Hoyt explains seven elements of nonresistance, though each of them also describe the aim of pacifism, too: 1) Separation of the believer from practices of the world; 2) A definite separation of Church and State; 3) The method of offense and defense are different for the Church and State; 4) Believers are forbidden to use physical violence to accomplish any purpose; 5) Believers do not have the right under any circumstance to use physical violence to propagate the Christian faith; 6) As it is wrong for believers to use physical force to advance spiritual causes, so too is it wrong for believers to join the world by using physical violence to achieve temporal interests; and 7) Though physical force is forbidden, believers are still called upon to use spiritual means to bless and do good to others here on earth. ((Herman A. Hoyt, “Nonresistance” in War: 4 Christian views. (ed. by Robert G. Clouse. Grand Rapids: BMH Books, 1986), 32-34.)) “A Christian committed to nonviolence is committed to making a clear witness to the way of Jesus. In this view, trying to make that witness while advocating killing enemies is wrong not only because it advocates killing people, but also because it disobeys Jesus and distorts Christian witness to his way.” ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 299.)) Stassen distinguishes between two types of nonviolent Christian pacifists: one is nonviolent in obligation to a rule (i.e. “love your enemy”) and simply avoids violence and war, yet may not actively work for peace; the other is nonviolent out of commitment to the person Jesus Christ and the Kingdom way of life He established for His followers. ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 299.)) Some, however, believe more deliberate effort is needed from the Church.

A third and final perspective on Christian participation in war is the more recent just participation theory, which is more intentional. As Stassen explains, during the height of the Cold War in the 1980’s several major church groups believed it was necessary to provide a “third way” between the two existing options—just war and pacifism—that would argue for a positive theology of peacemaking. ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 301.)) In the wake of the modern warfare machine, this theory has sought to advocate for effective war-preventing practices that call on Christians everywhere to actively “make peace” as Jesus has instructed his followers. ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 302.)) Stassen outlines the ten effective practices of peacemaking the authors of the theory agreed upon: 1) Actively support nonviolent action; 2) Take independent initiatives to reduce the threat of violence; 3) Use cooperative methods to resolve conflict; 4) Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice, while seeking repentance and forgiveness; 5) Deliberately promote democracy, human rights, and religious liberty; 6) Foster just and sustainable economic development in order to overcome extreme inequalities in wealth and power; 7) Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system to mitigate the threat of war; 8) Strengthen the United Nations and other international efforts for cooperation and human rights; 9) Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade; and 10) Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations, like churches and synagogues. ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 302-305.)) Though a majority of the authors support just war and some are committed to consistent nonviolence, they all agreed debating whether war is justified is not enough; guidance on what peacemaking practices Christian should support is also needed, which led to this declaration. ((Stassen, “Ethics of War,” 302.)) Not only does this perspective deny violence, it deliberately works toward peace.