Category Archives: War

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 23, 2016

Posted under

American Culture, Justice, Natural Law, War

A Presumption Against Injustice, Not War

D-Day

One of the key insights from Charles and Demy’s book is the shift in just-war thinking since World War II. The just war tradition used to proceed on a presumption against injustice. When injustice occurred coercive force could be used to correct that injustice. The use of coercive force would not only be just, but a necessary act of love. We all understand this in domestic situations. If a man steals another man’s car an injustice has occurred. Force could be used to correct that injustice. To allow the thief to go free for the sake of peace is morally repugnant.

But since WWII there has been a move or rather a subversion of just-war thinking where now the presumption is not against injustice, but against force, violence, and war itself. The authors spend quite a bit of time addressing this shift. They do not see it has  good one. It is not in keeping with just-war tradition and most importantly sides with the oppressor and leaves the weak trodden underfoot. Here are a few quotes from early in their book which address this shift.

Thus already in 1960, Roman Catholic theologian John Courtney Murray could write that the use of force was no longer considered a moral means for redress of violated legal rights. The justness of the cause, he worried, has become “irrelevant, ” and [the words in quote marks are from Murray. Bold mine]

“There simply is no longer a right of self-redress; no individual state may presume to take even the cause of justice into its own hands. Whatever the grievance of the state may be, and however objectionable it may find the status quo, warfare undertaken on the sovereign decision of the national state is an immoral means of settling the grievance and for altering existing conditions.” [End Murray quote]

What Murray conceded is applicable to the present day. There exists today-perhaps less so among laypersons but overwhelmingly so in academic circles and in many religious circles-a presumption against war and force in general rather than a presumption against injustice. 

After citing numerous sources that agree with this shift, including the 1983 statement by the U.S. Catholic Bishops The Challenge of Peace, Charles and Demy say this

The authors assume that peace is the starting point for thinking about justice and that force cannot be a moral entity…the just-war tradition, however, proceeds on a different assumption. Without justice, peace itself can be illegitimate. Again, in the words of Aquinas, “peace is not a virtue, but the fruit of virtue.” The animating spirit of just-war thinking, properly understood, is that “social charity comes to the aid of the oppressed.” [Citing Paul Ramsey] Therefore, if we categorically rule out the possibility of war or coercive force, we then categorically rule out intervention, which may on occasion be an requirement of love rightly construed. The just-war tradition, hence, strongly qualifies “peace” by acknowledging that if this “peace” is not justly ordered, it may well be illegitimate, even oppressive…As thinkers such as Aquinas and Suarez argue, those who wage war in just manner are not opposed to peace, unless, of course, it is an evil peace.

The authors of these sundry statements [denominational papers against war] mistakenly assume that the just-war tradition begins with a presumption against war; however, this reveals a basic misunderstanding of the tradition.  In its moral justification, the classic just-war position issues out of a presumption against injustice and evil…The just-war position proceeds on the assumption that coercive force per se is not evil and that its application depends on the moral character of those employing it. Correlatively, it understands that there are occasions arising from gross injustice in which, reluctantly, we may need to apply coercive force, even if this means going to war, for the protection and preservation of a third party.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 23, 2016

Posted under

American Culture, Book Review, Natural Law, Theology, War

Book Review: War, Peace, and Christianity by Charles and Demy

War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War PerspectiveWar, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War Perspective by J. Daryl Charles

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

In my circles people talk about just war all the time. But rarely was it defined or described. What is a just war? I bought this book hoping for two things: 1. It would give me the basic parameters of just war theory. 2. It would give a me a lot of footnotes that would point me to other sources. I got both of these in spades.

The authors use a question and answer format to describe what just war is, what it is not, some questions that still need answered, and the history of just war. They talk about just war in relation to philosophy/natural law, history, the statesman, the theologian, the combatant, and the individual.They rely heavily on Aquinas, Grotius, Vitoria, and Suarez. The also use a lot of O’Donovan and a current just war writer named James Turner Johnson. They address terrorism, nuclear war, humanitarian intervention, the UN, post war development of countries, non-lethal weapons, “turn the other cheek,” does war violate the command to not kill, did Jesus change our approach to war, is just war only a Christian idea or it can it be found in non-Christian sources, Bonhoeffer’s attempt on Hitler’s life, Ghandi’s pacifism, C.S. Lewis’ writings on war, supreme emergency, the early church on war, including Roland Bainton’s pacifistic reading of the church fathers, criteria for going to war, criteria within a war, private military contractors, ethical development of weapons, Romans 13, etc. etc. The great value of this book is how much ground it covers. You will not get an in depth chapter length discussion of terrorism and just war, but you will get some basic ideas on it. It is an excellent introduction to just war thought, though I doubt any reader will agree with all.

The only drawback I would note is there is a quite a bit of repetition. The reason would seem to be the nature of the book where the questions and answers in various sections overlap with questions and answers in other sections. There are other areas that I would have like more discussion on, such as what makes an authority legitimate, but the sources cited should give provide those if the reader wished to pursue them.

View all my reviews

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 15, 2016

Posted under

Reformed Theology, War, Work and Labor

Martin Luther on War

Here is an interesting quote from Martin Luther’s little work Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved. 

The very fact that the sword has been instituted by God to punish the evil, protect the good, and preserve the peace is powerful and sufficient proof that war and killing along with all the things that accompany wartime and martial law have been instituted by God. What else is war but the punishment of wrong and evil? [Quoted in Charles and Demy]

My guess is that Luther is not saying that all war and violence is okay. Nor is he saying that even in a just war, all actions taken by soldiers are automatically okay. But his basic point is one that needs to be repeated. If the sword and the magistrate are “instituted by God” and  “God’s servant” [Romans 13:1, 4, I Peter 2:13-14] then they cannot be ungodly by definition. They can become ungodly through sin, but it is a legitimate vocation through which a Christian can honor God and serve his fellow man. Thus Christians can be soldiers, policeman, or any other profession similar to those.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 9, 2016

Posted under

American Culture, Natural Law, War

Approximate Justice & Just War Theory

I have benefited from the book War, Peace, and Christianity. Reading it has given me a better understanding of the terms that surround just-war theory, as well as numerous other sources to read.  I plan on quoting from the book in the coming days. Here the authors give their reasons for the authority of the state, which I generally agree with.

The state’s authority exists for the purpose of preserving and defending the rights of its members. Its authority is legitimate to the degree that it carries out this mandate. Just-war thinking arises out of certain fundamental convictions-for example that justice is due all human beings, that approximate (versus absolute or perfect) justice is discernible, and that this approximate justice is worth attaining and preserving. This mode of reasoning applies equally to domestic or international concerns.

This quote contains two key insights that I have gained from reading the book. First, we will rarely, if ever, get justice perfectly right. We use our reason, nature, conscience history, and as Christians God’s Word to guide us to an approximate justice or as a Christian would say, true, but imperfect justice. But while we may not be able to make things perfectly just we can make them more just. The failure to attain perfect justice does not make the pursuit of justice hopeless or waste. There is a post-modern mindset that says if we ever get it wrong we should not do it all, after all who really knows if a war is just or not? Innocent people are harmed when thinking like this becomes common.

Second, the idea summed up on the last line has been helpful for me.  The authors frequently compare the local police to international affairs. Their point is that the same principles apply in defeating a kidnapper that apply in freeing a state that has been occupied by a foreign country. It is more complicated on an international scale, but the principles do not change.  If I saw a man purposely burning down my neighbor’s house, I would call the authorities or stop him myself. I would not sit there and go, “Well that is none of my business.”  This is true on the international scale as well. That does not mean America should jump in to solve every possible problem. But there are some situations where America or some other stronger country coming in to help a smaller country is not just necessary it is morally obligatory.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 29, 2016

Posted under

Justice, Natural Law, Politics, War

Opposed to Injustice, Not Force

The heart of just-war moral reasoning historically has been its opposition to-and, hence a basic presumption against, injustice and oppression. Recent reinterpretations of just-war thinking however, particularly in religious circles have tended instead to proceed on the presumption against war itself. This mutation-and indeed we are justified in describing this shift as a mutation-has led to what James Turner Johnson, perhaps the foremost contemporary authority on the just-war tradition, properly calls, “the broken tradition.” What Johnson is reiterating is simply that the mainstream of classic just-war moral reasoning historically has stood first and foremost against injustice and oppression, not force per se.  Charles and Demy in War, Peace, and Christianity.