|
|
|
Just
War
Paul Brown,
Dunstable
When
I was a teenager at school one of the great questions among Christians
was whether or not it was legitimate to join the armed forces and fight.
I remember going to a Question and Answer session at Dorchester Grammar
School where this was one of the topics debated. My father was a
pacifist, but the attitude of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ to
soldiers suggested to me that it was a legitimate calling. Experience
seems to teach that within the churches we need to respect the
conscientious views of those who believe in pacifism, and yet recognise
that others believe that defending their country is a necessary task
which can quite properly be undertaken by Christians. However, pacifism
is sometimes a cop-out on the part of those who are not prepared to
think through the fact that we live in a fallen world. And on the other
side, some go blithely into the armed forces without the sober
realisation that they may be called upon to kill – or help others to
kill – a fellow human being.
But
war is never just an individual matter. Is it possible to justify a
country going to war with another? Is there a Christian attitude
to war?
In
the Old Testament two strands of evidence seem clear. Firstly, there is
the conquest of the land of Canaan by the people of Israel. This,
however, is wholly exceptional and cannot provide any mandate for war
today. Israel had a definite command from the LORD for the capture of
the land and destruction of its people, and acted as the instrument of
God’s judgement on their sinfulness. Secondly, there is the defence of
the land and people once they were settled in the land that God had
given to them. This appears a more secure precedent for
legitimising war, but Israel’s uniqueness as a theocratic nation and
the trans-national nature of the Christian church means that the Old
Testament alone is insufficient.
When
we turn to the New Testament there seems a completely different
atmosphere. The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’s words in John
18:36, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this
world, my servants would fight, and similar passages have led many to an
outright pacifist position. On the other hand, soldiers are never told
to leave the army, nor is there any definite prohibition of war.
Paul’s words about the sword in Romans 13:4, which refer to the
restraint of evil within a realm, are surely relevant to the restraint
of evil from without as well.
Historically,
it is true that generally speaking the early churches took a pacifist
position. Most Anabaptists were also pacifists and this is still an
article of faith among the Mennonites. Within the mediaeval church the
doctrine of the just war developed and this was generally accepted by
the Reformers. Before we look at the principles of a just war there are
two preliminary matters to deal with. Firstly, the idea of a just war
must be distinguished from that of a holy war, or crusade. Tragically,
such a view was developed by the Church in the 11th century
which had serious implications not only for the understanding of
professing Christians themselves, but for future relations between the
Christian West and Muslims. It is not too much to say that our present
situation is still fuelled by the ancient hatred stirred up by the
Crusades.
Secondly,
for some people ‘just war’ is a contradiction in terms. How can war
ever be just? Is it not always evil and destructive? The question
perhaps needs to be turned round, aren’t there circumstances in which
evil itself needs to be resisted? Just as I would resist an evil person
who came with the intention of killing my wife, so a government surely
has the right and responsibility of defending its citizens. In
some circumstances, then, war might be the lesser of two evils. Many
would think it was right to resist Nazi Germany when it set out on its
conquest of Europe.
What
are the principles of a just war? We can outline seven:
The first is that war must be waged by a properly constituted authority
(Romans 13:1-4). It is the responsibility of a government to determine
whether to wage war or not. If it decides to do so, there should
also be a declaration of war.
The
second is that war should be a last resort. As Churchill said, ‘Jaw,
jaw is better than war, war.’ Nevertheless negotiations may
break down, or they may reach a point where they are getting nowhere.
Thirdly,
a country should only go to war for a good cause. This might be the
defence of the realm, resisting aggression or coming to the aid of
others. War was declared on Germany upon the invasion of Poland.
Fourthly,
war must be for a good end. War cannot be justified if its purpose is
domination or colonisation. This was why the restoration of both Germany
and Japan took place after Second World War. This was in sharp contrast
with Nazi war aims.
Fifthly,
war needs to be just in its conduct. This is what is set out in the
Geneva conventions. They cover things like the treatment of prisoners.
Sixthly,
a distinction must be made between combatants and non-combatants. This
is easy to state in theory, but modern warfare has made it much more
difficult. An example is the problem of bombing. Attacking a legitimate
target may nevertheless almost certainly kill or wound civilians, even
with ‘smart’ bombs. Moreover, as a war drags on there is increasing
pressure to use ever more drastic means to bring it to an end. In
February 1945 Dresden was bombed with incendiary bombs which created a
firestorm, killing thousands of people, many of them refugees from the
eastern front.
Finally,
there must be a proportional response to the threat. For example, it
would have been impossible to justify dropping nuclear bombs on
Afghanistan. This raises the question whether nuclear weapons can ever
be justified. On the 6th August 1945 a nuclear bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima killing 80,000 people immediately, and three days
later a second was dropped on Nagasaki, killing another 40,000. The only
justification for these acts that can be offered is that they brought
the war to an abrupt halt, preventing further fighting and the killing
of prisoners in Japan.
My
own belief, then, is that in certain circumstances war is a necessary
evil. But we face an ever more complicated situation. Just as modern
weapons raise questions about just war theory, so the rise of terrorism,
the possibility of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, and
suicide attacks, pose new problems. Just war principles suggest that a
pre-emptive strike against a potential enemy is unjustified, but present
threats indicate a situation might arise which make it essential if
thousands of lives are to be saved.
In
spite of constant fighting in many places the world has seemed a
relatively safe place for several decades. October 22nd,
1962, when the world seemed poised on the edge of a nuclear holocaust,
is just a bad dream in the memories of the generation that lived through
it. But, as they say, nine-eleven changed all that. As Christians we
need to do some hard thinking if we are going to be able to come to any
sure conclusions about the use of war in the present situation. I can
think of many reasons for doubting whether an attack on Iraq is
justified; I hope and pray it doesn’t need to happen. It is the
greatest of blessings to trust in the living God, the source of all our
stability and hope. If we were not able to pour out our prayers to our
Father for our nation and the world how helpless and insecure we would
feel. Even if our views on war in the present situation turn out to be
wrong, we have this comfort: God is sovereign and all things are in his
hands.
Back to main Articles page
|
