PDA

View Full Version : Christian Ethics and War



Trinitarian
July 12th 2003, 04:43 PM
Which of the following views do you believe represents the most accurate and biblical position on the morality of war?

The following is brief description of the general postions that the Church has held on war. I do not intend to defend any of the views scripturally, simply to describe their features.

The Just War Theory

The Just war Theory holds that Christians may engage in war if the war in question meets certain criteria that establish it as a "just" war. These criteria vary slightly in different accounts, but in general the agreed criteria of the Just War are as follows:

1. War may be waged only by a legitimate authority.
2. War may only be fought for a Just cause.
3. War may only be fought with the right intention.
4. War may only be waged after all other options have been exhausted.
5. The war must be defensive, not agressive.
6. Force used in war must be proportional and noncombatant immunity must be respected.
7. The war in question must have definitite goals and a reasonable chance of winning.
8. The war in question must not demand unconditional surrender or seek to propong the war.

Preventative War

This view holds the basic features of the Just War theory, but allows for some wars that are not technically defensive. If conflict is immininent and certain beyond a reasonable doubt, a premeptive strike is acceptable.

The Crusade

This view essentially holds that war is acceptable to further the cause of the church and the gospel. In many ways the crusade view allows for most wars so long as the result is positive. This is the view held by medieval Christianity and Islam. It still claims some adherents today, although they are somewhat out of the majority in Christian thought.

Christian Pacifism or Non-Violence

This view holds that war is never an acceptable option for a Christian. Christian Pacifists hold that the example of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus give us an example of non-violence and love that Christians are called to follow through their discipleship. Christian Pacifists do not expect the world's problems to be solved through their rejection of war, but rather see it as part of the church's witness to the world sustained by their faith in God.

Christian pacifism is also closely connected with a strong view of the Kingdome of God. Christian Pacifists see the Kingdom of God as the fundamental locus of our allegiance and service. This kingdom is not based on war, but on the God whoose reign is established through his death on the cross. In view of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus as the fundamental paradigm for Christian life, war is necesarily excluded. Pacifisim was the view of the early church until the conversion of Constantine and the Edict of Milan that was issued in 313 AD.

spl_cadet
July 12th 2003, 05:00 PM
Preventative war.

The fact that I'm going to go into the Navy (after college, so in about 5 years) does not in any way influence my views :teeth:

Trinitarian
July 12th 2003, 06:02 PM
Oh my gosh!! We have the Same Birth-Day!! That's amazing! I hold to Christian Pacifism, but the fact that we have the same birthday still makes me beleive that we have more in common than in distinction.

spl_cadet
July 13th 2003, 12:16 AM
Today @ 03:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147652#post147652)
Trinitarian:

Oh my gosh!! We have the Same Birth-Day!! That's amazing! I hold to Christian Pacifism, but the fact that we have the same birthday still makes me beleive that we have more in common than in distinction.

Heh, cool. What's even more interesting is that my cousin Christopher was born on Feb 5, 1982 (or 83, but my dad is pretty sure it was 82) and he's currently in the Navy right now as an enlisted sailor.
Not sure if he's Christian though.

Trinitarian
July 13th 2003, 02:47 PM
Today @ 05:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147783#post147783)
spl_cadet:



Heh, cool. What's even more interesting is that my cousin Christopher was born on Feb 5, 1982 (or 83, but my dad is pretty sure it was 82) and he's currently in the Navy right now as an enlisted sailor.
Not sure if he's Christian though.

This just gets wierder all the time.

Belteshazzar
July 13th 2003, 06:12 PM
Hey, you modified the 'Just War' conditions we normally take from Thomas Aquinas, especially the note about the war being defensive instead of aggressive. Aquinas explicitly states that those who are attacked should be attacked because of a just cause. Anyway, he says it a lot better than I, so here are the three reasons Thomas Aquinas gives.


Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica II,40

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."


So, I'm voting for Just War, but using Aquinas' definition.
Jerry

Trinitarian
July 14th 2003, 08:39 PM
07-13-2003 @ 11:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148020#post148020)
Belteshazzar:

Hey, you modified the 'Just War' conditions we normally take from Thomas Aquinas, especially the note about the war being defensive instead of aggressive. Aquinas explicitly states that those who are attacked should be attacked because of a just cause. Anyway, he says it a lot better than I, so here are the three reasons Thomas Aquinas gives.




So, I'm voting for Just War, but using Aquinas' definition.
Jerry

Just War was first formulated by Augustine, who held that wars had to be defensive to be just (at least to the best ov my knowledge). That's why I included it. If anyone modified the Just War conditions, it was Aquinas.

One Bad Pig
July 14th 2003, 10:56 PM
spl_cadet:

Preventative war.

The fact that I'm going to go into the Navy (after college, so in about 5 years) does not in any way influence my views :teeth:

I'm with you on this one. Navy? Been there, done that, got the Honorable Discharge certificate. :smile: I did my six-year enlistment and then went to college (~2 yrs. nuclear power training, then 4 yrs on a submarine). Breaking in new officers was fun! For the enlisted guys, I mean. :teeth: Have a blast!

spl_cadet
July 14th 2003, 10:58 PM
Today @ 07:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148914#post148914)
One Bad Pig:
I'm with you on this one. Navy? Been there, done that, got the Honorable Discharge certificate. :smile: I did my six-year enlistment and then went to college (~2 yrs. nuclear power training, then 4 yrs on a submarine). Breaking in new officers was fun! For the enlisted guys, I mean. :teeth: Have a blast!

Well, five years from now so it isn't exactly a soon thing.
Besides, I already know everything I need to to be a good little junior officer:
Chief is God. Do whatever Chief tells you to. :smile:

Hitch
July 15th 2003, 12:38 AM
Eccl 3:8
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
(KJV)

That's as plain as it gets