A Call for Conversation: Seeking Justice and
Peace through
Non-violence and Abolition of War
Study and Reflection Paper presented to the
Presbytery of Greater Atlanta
What does it mean to be a disciple
of Jesus Christ in a violent world? How
is the church to bear witness to the presence of God’s kingdom amid the
atrocities of the distant past—Nazi Germany, the treatment of Native
Americans—and recent memory—Rwanda, Sudan, and Bosnia? Is war ever justifiable? If so, then how
ought we to speak of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? If not, then what alternatives ought we to
pursue? These are important questions,
but also questions about which Christians have long disagreed. Historically, two responses have dominated
Christian reflections on war. The
first, the just war tradition, argues
that there are certain circumstances that justify Christian participation in
war. The second, the pacifist tradition, argues that
Christian faith is incommensurable with participation in any form of
violence. Historically, both traditions
are theologically rich, filled with internal variations that belie attempts to
caricature and dismiss either of them.
It is well beyond the limits of this
paper to fully reconcile proponents of the just war tradition and pacifists. Both traditions presume very different
accounts of how Jesus’ life and teaching relate to moral claims about war. While there are numerous Christological and
theological differences that divide pacifists and just war advocates, all agree
that the church is called to be a community that speaks about war with openness
and honesty. In an age in which
Christians disagree about what such speech requires, it is ever more important
that we learn more about why we disagree.
It is vital that we discuss the practices that God calls us to pursue
together in spite of these differences.
This paper is a starting point for this
conversation. It is structured in three
parts. Parts 1 and 2 present a brief
account and defense of the Christian just war tradition (part 1) and Christian
pacifism (part 2). Each section is authored by a Christian who speaks in his
own voice about the tradition he represents. The paper concludes in part 3 with
an attempt to find some common ground between the just war tradition and pacifism
by presenting the practice of Christian just peacemaking. Just peacemaking offers a “third way” for
Christians who may otherwise disagree about the justifiability of war, a way of
coming together to secure conditions in the world that make war less inevitable.
Part 1: The Christian Just War
Tradition[1]
How shall one speak of war? Let it first be said that there is much about which we of the
just war tradition and pacifists can agree.
We agree with our pacifist sisters and brothers that war is a tragic
reality of a world in rebellion against its Creator. We agree with pacifists that our response to war begins with an
acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ.
Christ’s life and teaching are indispensable to the church’s
deliberation about war. We agree that
the church is to be a community that bears witness to the reign of God in the
world. We also agree in the
constructive potential inherent in nonviolent, peacemaking practices. We part ways, however, in how we describe
the moral significance of Christ’s lordship.
While the pacifists argue that Jesus’ life and teaching compels the
Christian to reject all forms of violence, we believe that in a world filled
with sin, suffering, and injustice there are moments in which war, while
tragic, is necessary. The just war
tradition seeks to place limits on war so that when it does occur it may
further the positive end of securing justice.
The Christian just war tradition does not see the just
war as a compromise of Christian morality.
Jesus taught his disciples the two greatest commands: “You shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your mind,” and “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself” (Mt.
22:37-39). Saint Augustine, one of the
earliest Christian contributors to the just war tradition, argued that love of
neighbor is what compels the Christian to take up arms when the neighbor is
faced with grave injustice. Considering
the parable of the Good Samaritan, Paul Ramsey asks a question that well represents
the posture of the just war tradition: admitting that the good Samaritan is to
love his neighbor in all things, what would love require of the Samaritan who
happens upon his neighbor in the act of being robbed, stripped, and beaten? In the face of an injustice that is ongoing,
the just war tradition insists that it is in keeping with love of neighbor for
the Christian to intervene on the neighbor’s behalf in order to free the
neighbor from this harm. The earthly
peace that one achieves in a just war involves only a relative freedom from
insecurity and injustice; it does not necessarily resolve the larger problem of
disordered or displaced loves that plague human existence. While the peace that is achieved through war
cannot be equated with the eternal peace that alone comes through right
relationship with God, this lesser peace is nevertheless something that
Christians value and contribute to through service in the just war. Thus, while the just war advocates agree
with the pacifist that the “peace” achieved through war is not the peace
promised by Jesus Christ, we still believe that it is in keeping with our
identity as disciples of Christ to affirm the relative value of this lesser
peace.
The just war tradition grows out of a
complex history, one that draws from ancient Roman law, Christian theology, and
modern political theory. In its current
form, the just war tradition offers a theory consisting of nine principles that
place moral limits on war. These
principles are subdivided into two major categories. Jus ad bellum criteria
establish conditions that define when a war is justified. There are seven Jus ad bellum criteria:
(1)
Just cause—a
war is just only if it is confronting a grave injustice (i.e., genocide would
constitute a good example of a reality that gives just cause).
(2)
Right intention—a
war is just only if it is for the purpose of restoring justice (i.e., a just
war cannot be for the sake of vengeance or for empire-building purposes).
(3)
Legitimate authority—a war is just only if it is conducted by authorities vested with
military power (i.e., renegade private citizens do not have legitimate
authority to take up arms, even if for a just cause).
(4)
Reasonable chance of success—A war is just only if there is a reasonable
probability that the injustice can be corrected through military intervention
(i.e., futile wars are never considered just).
(5)
Proportionality—A
war is just only if the harm caused by the war is outweighed by the good that
is achieved (i.e. many just war advocates would regard the good achieved
through World War II to satisfy the condition of proportionality, in spite of
the anticipation of massive number of lives that would be lost).
(6)
Last Resort—A
war is just only if all other peaceful alternatives have been pursued (i.e., diplomatic
negotiations should be exhausted before opting for war).
(7)
Comparative justice—A war is just only if, recognizing that neither side is wholly good or
evil, the harms afflicted by one significantly outweigh those done by the
other.
A war must satisfy all criteria in order for it to be
deemed just.
While Jus
ad bellum criteria establish limits for the justifiability of a war, Jus in bello criteria limit the conduct
of combatants in the just war:
(1)
Discrimination—Participants
in a just war may intentionally target only those who are participating as
combatants, not civilians or other non-combatants (i.e., intentionally
targeting civilians through indiscriminate bombing is unjust, even if for a
just cause).
(2)
Proportionality—Participants
may only use force that is comparable to the harm endured and the good that is
to come (i.e., a massive military intervention that leads to the unintentional
deaths of many civilians would violate proportionality if in response only to a
minor harm).
It
is entirely possible to argue for the “justness” of a certain war at the same
time that one recognizes the immorality of certain acts. Many in the just war tradition would argue
that World War II satisfies the Jus ad
bellum criteria that define a just war, and yet most would argue that the
fire bombings of German cities and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki clearly violated the principle of discrimination. Weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear
weapons are inherently problematic precisely because they are indiscriminate by
nature.
As for the interaction of Christian
pacifism and the just war tradition, just war advocates are often appreciative
of the witness of peace churches and of the positive peacemaking practices that
these communities promote. At the same
time, advocates of the just war express several concerns about the pacifist
response, especially when this response is promoted as a normative response for
the nation state. Too often Christian
pacifists wed nonviolence to a liberal optimism that assumes that nonviolence
will necessarily lead to a better world, free from violence, terror, and
injustice. Reinhold Niebuhr criticized
the social gospel movement of the early twentieth century for this presumption,
which he argued was utopian and naďve about the reality of sin. The call to abolish war can quickly sound
utopian, especially if the pacifist believes that the nation state can
“convert” the enemy merely by refusing to engage in war. There are unfortunate circumstances in which
military intervention for the sake of the neighbor seems the only response to
an injustice that would otherwise go unchecked. Consider for example the plight of the millions of Jews murdered
by the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s.
It seems highly utopian to suggest that calling a fascist state to
abolish war will lead that state to eschew genocide. Furthermore, calling other states to then reject military
intervention as a justifiable option in the face of genocide in the hope that
this will make the world more just is unacceptable to just war advocates. We believe that in circumstances such as
this, military intervention to protect the oppressed is not only justified, it
is fully in keeping with our Christian commitment to loving our neighbor.
Admittedly, not all Christian pacifists believe that
pacifism will necessarily contribute to a just world. Christian pacifist John Howard Yoder acknowledges that
nonviolence admits the possibility that injustice will prevail for a time;
Christians are to trust that ultimately their patient refusal to rely on
violence will be vindicated by God.
Christian just war advocates appreciate the honesty of this non-utopian
pacifism. At the same time, we remain
unconvinced that discipleship requires that we sacrifice justice in order to
remain a follower of Christ.
Part 2: Christian Pacifism[2]
A coming new age of peace based on non-violence is
foretold by the prophets in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4: “they shall beat their swords
into plowshares; nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war any more.” The early Church proclaimed the good news
that a new age of non-violence is coming, through the power of God’s love made
known to us through Jesus in his life, death on the cross, and resurrection.
We believe this is God’s goal for
the world, and therefore God calls both Christians who support some wars (in
the name of justice) and those who are pacifists (refusing to participate in
any war) to commit our lives together to Jesus’ way of active non-violent
social transformation. We believe God
calls us to go beyond assenting to the call for war by the nations’ leaders, to
go beyond the traditional “just war” theory, and to go beyond the individual
refusal to participate in war. In order
to proclaim the “peaceable kingdom of God,” we believe God calls for the
creation of mass movements of non-violent social change. Only when Christians and the Church teach
and actively practice non-violence as Jesus did can we help lead the world to
God’s new age of peace and justice.
We must be honest. The Bible does not speak with a single voice
on these matters. In the Old Testament,
God is presented as the giver of shalom,
and the concept of shalom is given
much greater breadth and depth than usually attaches to our English word
“peace.” Many of the provisions of the
Old Testament law, the Torah, were
designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, the rise of institutional
violence, in Israel. The prophets
insist that God is on the side of the powerless: the widow, the orphan, the
refugee. But the Old Testament is also
the record of war after war after war: wars commanded by God, wars in which God
assists the armies of Israel, wars in which the Israelites are commanded to sit
still and let God do all the fighting.
The tradition of “holy war” makes warfare almost sacramental, and God is
hailed as “the divine warrior.”
Jesus, nurtured from childhood on
the Old Testament, faced its ambiguity regarding violence. He struggled, as his ministry began, with
the temptation to use violent means to bring in the Kingdom of God. But Jesus made a fundamental choice. He consciously rejected the popular
expectation of a Messiah who would use violence to free Israel from the Roman
yoke. From the beginning he taught and
practiced God’s way of non-violence. He
lived a life of non-violent resistance to injustice and violence, including
institutional violence against the poor and the weak.
Non-violence does not mean
non-resistance. It would seem so, when
we read Jesus’ command in the Sermon on the Mount, which is usually translated:
“Do not resist an evildoer” (Matt. 5:39).
Jesus is questioning the time-honored principle that violence should be
met with limited, but equal, violence: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.” He suggests that there are
other ways of dealing with violence besides either exacting revenge or giving
up and giving in. We can make definite,
non-violent responses to the violence, that will demand that the evildoer
reconsider his ways and change them.
Walter Wink has shown that the three responses to violence suggested by
Jesus – turning the other cheek, going the second mile, surrendering the inner
garments when the outer garments are seized – are not the passive acceptance of
abuse, the offering of no resistance whatever.
They are all unexpected responses that surprise the evildoer, that make
the evildoer think in new ways about what he or she has done, that open
possibilities for repentance and reconciliation. While we do not agree with Wink that they exact a sort of secret
revenge, exposing the evildoer to loss of control, to ridicule and shame, even
to discipline by his or her superior, they are all examples of non-violent
resistance. Paul understood this well
when he wrote in Romans 12: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves…do not repay evil
for evil…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Both Jesus’ teaching and his
non-violent actions in effect say to us,
“You should not acquiesce in the face of oppression, nor should you react
violently to acts of injustice and violence.
He urges us to respond to ill treatment with resistance that respects
the humanity of the oppressor. He knew
that violent means do not lead to peaceful ends. Violence is not redemptive.
Accordingly, Jesus taught and lived a life of peaceful resistance to
injustice and violence, including institutionalized violence against the poor
and the weak. He was condemned to death
because of his challenge to the violence of an unjust society. He decided in the end to suffer and die
rather than cause others to suffer and die.
Whatever he may have meant by his seeming approval of violence in
self-defense (Luke 22:35-38), when Peter used his sword to defend Jesus, Jesus
rebuked him and said: “Put your sword back into its place: for all who take the
sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52).
The last healing miracle of his earthly life was to repair the damage
done to the ear of the high priest’s slave (Luke 22:51). Jesus’ love for his enemies even as they
nailed him to the cross, his prayer for their forgiveness, demonstrates the way
of God’s love – a love so powerful that it breaks the cycle of violence and
death. After the resurrection, Jesus’
disciples came to understand that the only way of reconciliation with God and
with each other is through this love that embraces even the enemy, and opposes
hatred and injustice by rejecting violence.
We believe this clear example is the way God prefers and intends the
Church, led by the Holy Spirit, to achieve peace and justice on earth.
By and large, the early Church
followed Jesus’ way of non-violence.
Although soldiers like Cornelius remained in the army after their
conversion, there were almost no volunteers for military service among
Christians. This began to erode late in
the second century, when we find allusions to Christians in the army, mainly on
the far eastern borders of the empire.
The numbers increased during the third century, but we have no way of knowing just how many there were. What we do know is that Christian writers of
this period were unanimous in their condemnation.
At this critical time, as the world’s most powerful
nation, the United States is faced with the temptation to continue to follow
the way that many believe will lead to peace and security through war. We believe God calls our nation to reject
the way of military domination and instead to help work towards a new approach
to peace and security based on justice.
As Christians and as a Church, we are called to
disciplined lives of Bible study, prayer and discussion together in order to
receive the courage, energy and imagination from God to overcome our own
spiritual limitations and tendency to believe that violence brings peace. We need to admit that we have difficulty
receiving the spiritual power to do what we must do to follow Jesus’ way of
non-violence. We believe that we are
called to reject not only war, but all forms of oppression that violate the
equal and inalienable economic, social, civil, and political rights as well as
the God-given dignity of all people.
The question is constantly raised whether non-violence
is merely an impractical ideal. The
years 1989-90 were years of unprecedented political change. In 1989 alone thirteen nations with a total
of 1.7 billion people, including South Africa, the Philippines, Lithuania and
Russia, all experienced successful non-violent revolutions. Walter Wink points out that nearly 3 billion
people were touched by non-violent revolutions during the last 100 years. In contrast, the violence in the
Palestinian-Israelis conflict has shown that violence only begets more
violence.
We believe it is urgent for the
Church to commit itself to Jesus’ way of non-violent opposition to all forms of
injustice, violence and oppression. We
believe that, as Christ’s disciples, we need to take concrete steps together
toward the abolition of war, urging the nations to bind themselves by
international treaty to oppose and outlaw war as a means of resolving
disputes. We believe that we should
urge our government to shape our foreign policy around the central role of
non-violent direct action for peace-with-justice as an organizing principle of
our government and national life.
Under the just war theory, the churches have, in the
main, forsaken Jesus’ way of non-violence and supported taking up arms to
defend the interests of nations and empires.
They have even launched crusades, involving the genocide of
“heathens.” There have been
exceptions. In Roman Catholicism, the
“religious,” those in monasteries attempting to be perfect Christians, were and
are forbidden to fight. At the time of
the Reformation came the rise of “peace churches” among Protestants, groups
like the Anabaptists, Quakers, and others, who forbade their members to
participate in warfare. There have been
Christian individuals and groups willing to suffer and die, non-violently
resisting injustice and war. But the
dismal record of Christians killing Christians, convinced that their warfare is
“just,” continues year after year and century after century.
Just War Theory faces a huge problem
with the development of modern weaponry.
Adherence to the seventh principle, “discrimination,” is no longer
possible. As early as World War I, a
British theologian declared that just war was obsolete. The long range cannon like “Big Bertha,”
when aimed at cities, could not possibly discriminate between non-combatants
and combatants. Non-combatants,
including women, children, babies, were included in the target. With the use of bombs and missiles, aimed at
cities, discrimination disappears.
Most serious is the development of
nuclear weapons. The manufacture and
use of nuclear weapons is morally unacceptable. By design, nuclear weapons, if used, will exterminate masses of
civilians. They perpetuate the
domination of nations with nuclear weapons over other nations through the
threatened use of the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. They hold the unthinkable possibility of
destruction of life on earth.
Ultimately, security cannot be created for some by creating insecurity
for others.
In the light of all this, can a
nation ever be said to engage in a “just war”?
Some believe that it is possible to engage in a “just war,” where the
purpose is to protect the innocent from violent aggression. Others have concluded, through serious study
of the “just war” position and the terrible experience of tens of millions of
innocent civilians killed through war, that war can never be justified as a
means of resolving disputes.
Recognizing, however, that we as a
Church are not of one mind on the matter of war and peace, we prayerfully
request the individual members and congregations of the Presbytery of Greater
Atlanta to pray, study, and reflect on Jesus’ way of non-violent opposition to
all forms of injustice and oppression, trusting that the Holy Spirit will guide
us all.
“When, if ever, is war
justified?” Christian pacifists and
just war advocates will continue to disagree about how Christians should answer
this important question. While this
debate will not go away soon, increasingly church leaders are coming to realize
that there are other questions that are equally important and more fruitful in
helping the church pursue its mission of witnessing to God’s reign in the
world. One of these questions motivates
a third approach to the problem of war: “What Christian practices may
contribute to the creation of just conditions that make war less likely?” The advantage of this question is that it
forces us to think positively about how we respond to injustice prior to the
onset of violence. The liberation
theologians of Latin America have helped us to recognize the inherent violence
in situations where oppressive regimes impose the will of a few on the many,
the will of the “haves” on the “have-nots.”
Thus, violence includes not only armed conflict, torture, and physical
abuse, but also the suffering caused by social injustice.
“Peacekeeping”
is often the effort, by use of force, to prevent an inherently violent situation
from exploding into armed conflict and other commonly recognized forms of
violence. “Peacemaking” is a response that seeks to remove the violence
inherent in unjust and oppressive situations, so that overt violence is avoided
altogether. Christ calls Christians to
be peacemakers. Just peacemaking is a theoretical approach
to war that describes those concrete practices of the church that contribute to
justice and make war less inevitable.
Pacifists and just war advocates, while disagreeing about the
justifiability of war, may pursue together peacemaking practices.
What are these practices? Just peacemaking calls church leaders, pastors, and lay members
to consider concrete practices that can contribute to just conditions in the
world. Christians ought to resist, as Christ resisted, oppression of the poor
by the rich and powerful. Just
peacemakers call national leaders to become true servants of all the people,
especially the poor, and to create economic and political structures that allow
people to meet their basic physical needs and fulfill their God-given
potential. Christians ought to engage
in non-violent resistance against injustice and tyranny everywhere, foster
non-violent ways of humanitarian intervention, and take steps together toward
the abolition of war.
Out of the devastation wrought by World Wars I and II,
a consensus arose among nations that their common interests in peace and
justice could be advanced through international cooperation and avoidance of
conflict. This multinational commitment
is set out in the Preamble to the United Nations Charter, in which the
participating nations resolve
-
to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought
untold sorrow to mankind, and
-
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human
rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of
men and women and of nations large and small, and
-
to establish conditions
under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and
other sources of international law can be maintained, and
-
to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and
-
to practice tolerance
and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
-
to unite our strength to
maintain international peace and security, and
-
to ensure, by the
acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall
not be used, save in the common interest, and
-
to employ international
machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all
peoples.
Just peacemakers see these as praiseworthy resolutions
that offer the possibility of an alternative to war in the settlement of
international disputes. But the
organization formed to implement them has many problems. The great numbers of nations that have
joined the United Nations create an unwieldy and slow-moving organization. The bureaucracy created to head things up
seems unable to weed out corruption.
The Security Council seems unable to act decisively to enforce its
decisions. We tremble as we hear the
very nations that formed the U.N. now call it useless and obsolete. In the nuclear age, where a few superpowers
insist that they have a “moral right” to produce and stockpile weapons of mass
destruction, it is important that the U.N. should be strengthened, not
abolished.
Global structures of peaceful
multilateral negotiation in place today give a unique opportunity to help
foster global alternatives to war and to strengthen the forces of non-violent
resistance to unjust power structures within and between nations. Christians ought to support multilateral
peaceful negotiation through the U.N. to help each nation resolve conflict
peacefully, monitor peace agreements, and follow the economic, social, civil and
political human rights principles established by the nations together in the
United Nations. Global security
measures against war and terrorism through the International Court of Justice
and War Crimes Tribunal are necessary in order to prevent war and terrorism in
the future. The peacemaking power of the
U. N. should be increased by the authorization of U. N. peacemaking teams to
negotiate with parties in conflict before the outbreak of armed hostilities. U. N. peacekeeping forces must include the police power
necessary to enforce compliance with agreements reached through non-violent
negotiation between parties in conflict based on the principles of the U. N.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are essential steps in the
transformation from a world of war based on the dominant military power to a
world of peace based on international law.
Although non-violent changes have often occurred when
there were no other alternative and without preparation, preparation in
non-violence training and practice of non-violence as a way of life and respect
for law are important elements for success in the future. Just peacemaking requires education. The church needs to support serious peace
studies programs that are underway at many of our colleges and universities
today. Just peacemakers lift up
movements such as Witness for Peace, Christian Peace Teams, the Nonviolent
Peaceforce, etc., which are at work in accompanying activities and other
non-violent techniques in the midst of violence-conflicted situations in many
places in the world.
Recommended
Sources
Cahill, Lisa Sowle.
Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory. Augsburg Fortress Press, 1997. [A fine
survey of war and the Christian theological tradition from the early church to
the modern era.]
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a
Violent World. Basic Books, 2004. [A defense of the just war tradition in
the face of new terrorist threats.]
Stassen, Glen, ed.
Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War. Pilgrim Press, 2004. [Probably the best book
available on peacemaking practices. The
diversity of viewpoints represented in the volume is commendable, an example of
pacifists and just war advocates speaking to transcend debates over the
justifiability of war]
Winn, Albert Curry.
Ain’t Gonna Study War No More: Biblical Ambiguity and the Abolition
of War. Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1993. [A compelling, honest assessment of the ambiguity of the biblical
text on the topic of violence as well as a argument for the abolition of war.]
Yoder, John Howard.
The Politics of Jesus.
Eerdmans, 1994. [Probably the most influential book of the last three
decades defending a Christological vision that emphasizes the pacifist
implications of following Christ.]
[1] Part 1 is written by Victor McCracken, currently a doctoral candidate in the Ethics and Society program of the Graduate Division of Religion at Emory University.
[2] Albert Curry Winn, a retired Presbyterian minister who has served as seminary professor and president, pastor, moderator of the 119th PCUS General Assembly (1979), and author of a number of books, including Ain’t Gonna Study War No More: Biblical Ambiguity and the Abolition of War (Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), has written a summary of the pacifist tradition.