War: Morally Justified?

Jordan Richardson

October 6, 2007
 

Throughout life, man is faced with moral dilemmas. Some dilemmas are graver than others. It is man’s duty as a Christian to carefully examine the motives and reasons for the course of action that he, or his nation, wishes to take. Especially important is the issue of whether war can ever be morally justified, and then, after concluding that it may, how it is executed and monitored throughout. Many support the idea of the abolishment of war, and others deem any violent defense to be contrary to the Scriptures, yet it is imperative to scrutinize the reasons for these views and allow room for the just-war as part of the conversation.


There are two mainstream views concerning war: Pacifism and Just-war doctrine. Not many would claim to hold a position of militarism, though sometimes militaristic views are brought forth in debates concerning terrorism. I think it is fair to say that very few law-abiding citizens wish war, and those who do support its use are generally restrained regarding the extent of excessive force. Categorically, American Christians abhorred war, and spoke against it, but at the same time, acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary as a last resort; i.e., the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of a situation where action was necessary. It states, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future. As Christians, we must be vigilant to ensure that justice and protection of the innocent prevail, even if it may mean engaging in a war.


There are two authorities on the two different theories. Dr. Earl Zimmerman, associate professor and director of the Conflict Resolution Center at Eastern Mennonite University, and Dr. Jean Bethke Elshtain, Rockefeller Professor of Social Ethics in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. They both recently defended their views on war at a symposium held at Bryan College. Dr. Elshtain supports the right for a people to defend themselves, or innocent parties, when the criterion for such action is warranted. Her views fall under the category of Just-war doctrine. Dr. Zimmerman is of the Mennonite peace church tradition and is a pacifist.
Just-war doctrine establishes that wars should not be waged unless there is clear, conclusive evidence of a threat, or if innocent parties are being harmed. There is a specific term for this reasoning: “Jus ad Bellum,” Latin for "Justice of War". The main idea is that there must be certain criteria met before a nation retaliates or preempts violently toward an aggressor. There are six criteria for this doctrine, and it is important to realize that many of these constraints are biblically founded as well.


The first of this list is just cause, a specific reason to enter into war in the first place. It might be to right a wrong, such as recapturing things that were taken, or for punishing an aggressor. Proverbs 3:30 reminds us of this: “Do not contend with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.” Another criterion falls under this category: right intention. You must have a legitimate reason for going to war, i.e., with the end goal being peace, and not for economic or material gain.


Moreover, the next criterion demands that you must use war as a last resort. You must have expended every option to peacefully solve the grievance, and, only after all options have been exhausted, turn to the category of war. In situations where peace is a foreseeable option, nation states must make sure to utilize the diplomatic and other non-violent means of persuasion. As Dr. Elshtain points out, however, enemies such as Al-Qaeda are not willing to negotiate, and since there is no peaceful solution, war against the jihadists is necessary.


One complicated criterion deals with comparative justice. The mandates of this criterion state that the injustice done to you must significantly outweigh the injustice done to your enemy. In a world where it is easy to see both sides to an issue, it is vital to make the distinction of comparative justice before retaliating violently. Who is to say which deed done was worse than the other? It is imperative for a review of the circumstances before a war occurs.
Additionally, the persons conducting a violent war must have legitimate authority to do so. Romans 13:4 addresses the role of the government as this agent of justice, saying, “For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Vigilante justice, or justice taken in the hands of a group of citizens that do not hold authority, is prohibited.


Another very important criterion is that there must be a reasonable chance of success. It is not responsible to engage in a conflict that kills thousands, yet, accomplishes nothing. The reasoning behind this principle is to put a high value on the lives of the ones fighting in the war and those caught in between. There comes a point when a nation’s case for justice is overruled by the damage that is incurred by the violence. These criterions serve to ensure that wars will not be fought for whimsical, or hotheaded notions. It is crucial that nations closely scrutinize their justifications for war before deciding to declare violent action.


One of the key elements to the just-war doctrine is the theory of Jus in Bello, or the proper way for combatants to behave. The most widely recognized form of Jus in Bello is the policy of discrimination; meaning the nation at war will not intentionally shoot civilians or non-combatants. There is serious cause for concern when repeated instances of this type of abuse may occur. Secondly, Just war conduct must be guided by the principle of proportionality. This relates with the use of discrimination, and the third issue of minimum force. These principles seek to properly set forth attacks against the enemy in the least violent way of accomplishing the end goal. There is no need to machine-gun down a group of barely armed soldiers, when another tactic may be used to peacefully force them to lay down their arms. In such ways, the issues of discrimination and proportionality provide a task of responsibility for the nation at war.


A further criterion, though not often mentioned, is an important principle; justice in ending a war, or Jus post Bellum. This idea states that there must be a responsible way of ending the war with treaties and official declarations of surrender. There must be a right intention while accepting surrenders, by not seeking revenge, and adhering to the principle of proportionality regarding the terms of surrender. There must be a just punishment for the aggressor, which does not exceed or limit what the boundaries of discrimination allow. There must be a distinction made between military and political leaders, and citizens, and a legitimate authority must accept the terms of peace.


Dr. Elshtain believes that the current war in Iraq is an example of a just war. She asserts that justice and punishment of wrongdoers not only applies to local and national injustices, but also to those who have no voice or means of justice. Her view on the matter differs sharply with Dr. Zimmerman’s, which is that of an absolute non-violent philosophy. Dr. Elshtain makes the point that many Christian leaders have stepped forth to proclaim that there is room for a just war in extreme circumstances. She refers to a letter to the president, in which Richard Land and several other leaders expressed their concern that the president understand the implications of invading Iraq, and providing him with the argument that the war was, indeed, just. Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, Bill Bright, chairman of Campus Crusade for Christ, James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, and Carl D. Herbster, president of the American Association of Christian Schools, signed their support for the war and gave a clear example of how just-war doctrine relates to current events.


Dr. Elshtain’s philosophy is that not only should justice be served, but that it is our duty to perform that justice. Where Dr. Zimmerman interprets the verses in the Bible concerning justice, as what is to come at the end of time, Dr. Elshtain argues that until Christ comes back, pacifism is not a practical or even moral way of being God’s instrument of authority on earth. She referenced a question from C.S. Lewis that concisely dealt with the problem of pacifism: “...if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?” If the issue of morality is problem for the pacifist, then what kind of problems must he have with allowing evil to overcome innocent, defenseless parties?


Dr. Zimmerman holds to the belief that as a general policy, Christians should not support or enter into any war of any kind. He also believes that the law against murder includes killing. His main reasoning for this comes from scripture. The main Biblical support for the pacifist doctrine is found in Matthew 5:
[Jesus said:] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”


Zimmerman asserts that Jesus never intended Christians to engage in war, and that all means for solutions to violent conflicts should be dealt with peacefully. His stance offers the evidence that peaceful solutions can be found, giving the examples of Mahatmas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Zimmerman’s main concern with just-war doctrine is he feels that in a time of tension and fear, just-war doctrine may be carried so far as to justifying war. Note the difference: Just-war doctrine demands a reasonable cause for entering into any sort of violent conflict, and Zimmerman believes that the action of justifying an act of violence after the fact could be an offshoot of just-war thinking.


To be more specific, he believes that after September 11, 2001, many Americans were anxious to rush to war against any nation that supported the attacks on the World Trade Center, and that their grief muddled their logical reasoning regarding Jus ad Bellum principles. He believes that only after we had to deal with Jus in Bello principles, did we realize that the original reasons for invading Iraq did not hold any value concerning Jus ad Bellum doctrine.
Dr. Zimmerman has a different measure of absolute pacifism than most would. While other pacifists are fine with completely rejecting the idea of war, and not offering alternative solutions to the problem, Zimmerman seeks to provide a practical form pacifism. He observes the world as pre-occupied with war and violence in general.
His solution to the predicament that he declares we are in, a situation that one can hardly deny, is to focus more on the peace talks between nations and parties. The conflicts in Kosovo and Yugoslavia, he believes, were the result of scarce communication between bitter opponents, and that to prevent such actions in the future we should have more peace discussions. His stance of absolute non-violence translates into policies that would force those parties of opposition to come before an assembly to talk over their problems. The United Nations is the institution that he foresees as the best enabler of those discussions. Thus, instead of merely rejecting war, he gives an alternative.


Both theories carry numerous arguments and analysis, and serve to deepen the level of discourse on such a grave topic. There is, however, a need to clarify and indentify the specific reasons why, or why not, a Christian should adopt either resolution. The problem first noted is with Dr. Zimmerman’s case. While pacifism sounds wonderful as a concept, it has little expediency in the real world. Jesus’ words of peace are to be followed in personal devotion. A stance of non-violence can be practical in certain situations, but there is point where pacifism will just not work. If I practice turning the other cheek, does that mean that my enemy will do the same? And how many times must he slap me before I quit giving him my face? What if he slaps the face of my family; must I remain quiet and restrain from helping them, violently, if necessary? An absolute stance of non-violence, as Dr. Zimmerman promotes, is only useful when men have been stripped of their evil nature and free will.


Dr. Zimmerman relies primarily on the idea that killing is equated with murder, and that any practice of killing, even in defense, is contrary to the scriptures. He uses the one of the Ten Commandments as a rationale: “Thou shall not murder.” This scripture is usually misinterpreted. The word in the Hebrew language, “Ratsach,” is defined as “an angry reaction to stimulus; or lying in wait, as one waits for prey.” Now, it is obvious that God did not, and does not, prohibit the ending of a life. Many of the sacrifices offered unto Him for the forgiveness sins entailed killing an animal upon an alter. He also commanded the Israelites to destroy the different cities that they passed through, even to the point of killing all living inhabitants.
Clearly, God was not opposed to the ending of lives. Therefore, this word “kill” is best defined, in our English language, as “murder,” the act of killing without authority: a premeditated act of vengeance.

I think it is clear, however, in wartime, nation states do have the authority to take another’s life. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Moreover, Romans 13:4 clearly gives the legitimate authority to the state to enact justice on earth. Governments and states must provide justice and punishment for the wrongdoer, and it would be foolhardy to say that that privilege does not extend to wartime powers.


It is important to note the difference between an act of anger, and the intervention in a situation where the innocent are being harmed. Justice is not something that is constrained by boundary lines. If an aggressor is consistently molesting an innocent party, it is our duty, as an act of love, to bring forth justice when we can. Pacifism applies the principle of turning the other cheek when someone strikes you to the area of domestic and international conflicts. There is a point, however, when we must ask ourselves if we have the right to turn our neighbor’s cheek for them?


While students of the different schools of thought may never reach a consensus on the principle of war in general, it is essential that the principles of pacifism be combined with just-war ideology. A pacifist approach to diplomacy and the pursuit is necessary to accomplish the goals of peace. I believe, however, that war is allowed while using extreme caution to be sure that there is a just reason to go to war. Our fight against Islamic radicals is a situation where pacifism will not work. Until there is a significant violent or religious end to their jihad, we can never survive as pacifists. We can never protect our family or our nation. Their goal is our death, even if they must kill themselves to accomplish that end. How do you negotiate terms peace with an enemy such as that?


I believe that the just-war theory holds enough checks and balances to ensure that a war may be fought on moral terms. The reality of war demands that we seriously consider the long-lasting damages that will occur, and the thousands who will be scarred forever. War is never the answer to all questions, but it is the approximate amount of justice to a select few.
John Stuart Mill succinctly sums up the argument, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”


It is a moral duty to protect and defend the innocent, and guard against those who do evil. Extreme measures must sometimes be taken, and it is with grace and plea to God for His mercy that we so boldly accept the authority that God gave us. May we never take for granted the responsibility entrusted to humanity.