John Kuhn Bleimaier
War has been a fact of life ever since The Fall. Organized conflict between human beings is just another manifestation of our sinful nature. Recollect that in the Garden, before our ancestors decided to sample the forbidden fruit, everything was completely peaceful. Allow me to posit that if we all could completely conform our conduct to the laws and directives which God has provided, we would be able to reestablish peace as between persons and nations. However, on the basis of Divine prophesy we know that war will continue to plague us until the Second Coming. Nevertheless, our realization that sin will continue to cast a shadow on our existence does not absolve us from resisting the onslaught of the prince of darkness in all his iterations every day. It is our obligation to resist sin individually and collectively.
The first indication that the New Covenant would not countenance warfare comes in the pronouncements of John the Baptist, the voice crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord. When John was asked by soldiers how they should live their lives, he answered unequivocally, “Do violence to no man.” Luke 3:14. This is very distinct from any theoretical admonition to ‘obey your orders,’ or more circumspectly to ‘obey your just orders.’ To not do violence is to not wage war. If all soldiers were to follow the direction of John the Baptist there could be no such thing as war.
Our Lord instructed us to put up our swords and that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 25:52. During the Apostolic Era and through the 4th Century Christians were characterized by their conforming their lives to Jesus’ admonitions as articulated in the Beatitudes. They were meek peacemakers living as the blessed children of God. When the satanic forces called our believing forebearers before magistrates and synagogue elders, they were willing to be martyred for their faith, offering no resistance save for testimony as directed by the Holy Spirit. No one thought to call these early Christians, “pacifists.” They just lived and died in strict conformity with Divine ordinance. Ironically, it was during this time that Christianity spread like wild fire in the Roman Empire and beyond. The population at large was astonished and attracted to a faith which allowed adherents to face life and death with stoic equanimity. During all the intervening centuries the witness of those early followers of Christ continues to shine forth.
Everything changed dramatically during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine. So compelling was the witness of the early Christians that their influence came to bear in the highest chambers of society. Miraculously the leader of the most powerful polity on earth accepted Jesus as his Savior and was baptized. In a literal sea change the oppression of the Church came to a halt. The Christian genocide concluded. Constantine was not martyred by the erstwhile pagan leadership of the empire. Due to either political acumen or Divine providence the emperor was able to transform the faith of the outcasts into an official religion recognized by the mightiest state.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the change in the status of Christians in the 4th Century would have an impact on the essential nature of the church as a human institution. The Church as Bride of Christ is the celestial entity to which we all aspire. The brick-and-mortar church as well as the ecclesiastic bureaucracy are intended to reflect our spiritual ideal. However, church history confirms the scripture to the effect that ravenous wolves on occasion penetrate the fold. When Christians became part of the societal official structure, it was probably unavoidable that “practical” considerations of imperial administration would gradually impact doctrine and the life of Christians in society. The exigencies of state deflected the beatific ideal. “Real world” considerations took precedence over Divine absolutes.
The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the epitome of practical institutions. The Roman curia has taken pride in devising intellectual edifices which address everyday needs with minimal offence to Christ’s Teaching. Canon law and the science of theology are the products of well-meaning minds applied to intractable controversies. Witness the Just War Doctrine. With its roots in the teaching of Saint Augustine this doctrine addresses the conundrum of reconciling the peaceful teachings of Jesus Christ with the survival of the state in a bellicose environment. The Roman church has always assumed that well motivated human wisdom can get behind or ahead of God’s plan. Permit me to parenthetically articulate the entirely Lutheran observation that the foolishness of God surpasses the wisdom of men. 1 Corinthians 1:25.
Augustine extrapolated to the effect that since God ordained an orderly society and since the sovereign possessed a sword, it was permissible for him to resort to violence in order to protect peace and punish wickedness. Augustine further reasoned that peacefulness in the face of a wrongdoing that could only be stopped by violence would be a sin in itself. This represents the genesis of the concept of a just war; the idea of a war to end all wars and the notion that soldiers are peacekeepers. A just war is thus a war which does more good than it causes harm. My Lutheran parenthetical comment is to the effect that no one ever enters into a war subjectively expecting to do more harm than good.
Further to the Roman Catholic evolution of the just war concept, Saint Thomas Aquinas set three requirements to be met in order to justify resort to war. First the war must be initiated by a legitimate sovereign. Second the war must be occasioned by a wrong committed by the adversary. Third the warring sovereign must be motivated by the intent to promote good and avoid evil. God’s commandment not to kill and Jesus’ instruction to put away the sword were thus abrogated by the well-meaning theoreticians of the institutional church.
The quintessential theorist of the just war was the Dutch theologian Hugo Grotius who wrote the seminal text of international law, The Law of War & Peace, in 1625. Based on the Roman Catholic notion that there is a “natural law” which is common to the conscience of all humankind, the prosecution of organized international hostilities can be advocated despite the preeminence of peace in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the teachings of the Roman church are always cumulative. Aquinas builds on Augustine. Grotius builds on his predecessors. Grotius posited that just war could be waged for self-defense, reparation for injury and as punishment.
Grotius’ pronouncement has formed the juridical basis for virtually all “civilized” conflicts from the17th Century Thirty Years’ War to the 21st Century Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. It can be cogently argued that every leader frames his or her resort to arms in terms of self-defense, reparation or punishment. Note that in our time the apologists for power have legitimized the notion of “anticipatory self-defense.” A sovereign can justify aggression on the basis of the other guy’s expected aggression. Is it any wonder that cynics conclude that international lawyers can argue the justice of any sovereign client’s conduct… with a straight face?
It is generally assumed that Martin Luther did not abrogate the views of warfare which had been articulated by his theological predecessors. Importantly he recognized the right of conscientious objection. Luther’s conception of two kingdoms, one celestial, one temporal, allowed for the utter peacefulness of God’s kingdom, yet the legitimate use of force in the earthly realm. In his personal life Martin Luther had to interact with the worldly authorities when he challenged the errant ways of the Roman church of his day and when he established alliances with princes which safeguarded the Reformation.
Martin Luther’s most important pronouncement with regard to war is a declaration of conscience which appears in his 1531 document addressed to the German people. “It is not fitting for me, a preacher, vested with the spiritual office, to wage war or to counsel war or incite it, but rather to dissuade from war and to direct to peace, as I have done until now with all diligence.” Luther’s ringing admonition leaves no room for believers to legitimately argue that the conduct of war is just a natural extension of worldly authority.
The Roman Catholic Church has always been a bastion of pragmatism. To this day Rome countenances war as a final resort, in self-defense; where there is a reasonable prospect for success; and the damage inflicted is not greater that the evil which is sought to be overcome. The Catholic cautionary admonition that there must be a reasonable chance of success establishes the ultimate supremacy of practical considerations over idealistic motivations. Logically, few sovereigns would launch an attack if they did not expect victory. A pragmatic religion gives sovereigns effective carte blanche.
Pope John Paul II, an articulate exponent of Roman Catholicism stated as follows: “Peace, as taught by Sacred Scripture and the experience of men itself, is more than just the absence of war. And the Christian is aware that on earth a human society that is completely and always peaceful is, unfortunately, an utopia and that the ideologies which present it as easily attainable only nourish vain hopes. The cause of peace will not go forward by denying the possibility and the obligation to defend it.” This restates the epitome of the Just War Doctrine.
As a practical matter the Just War Doctrine allows the jurisprudents on all sides to decry the conflicts initiated by their adversaries and to justify the bellicosity of their own sovereign masters. Interestingly, the attitude of communist ideologues in relation to armed conflict is no less self-serving. V.I. Lenin the Marxist theorist and one-time Soviet leader, stated that the imperialist bourgeoisie deceived the peoples of the world, waging wars by means of resort to nationalism and defense of the fatherland, in order for ‘slave-owners’ to effectively strengthen the institution of capitalist slavery. However, Lenin also believed that the conduct of war could be just when it was a rebellion of the proletariat, a war of liberation from colonialism or it was in the defense of a socialist state against capitalist enslavement. All the serious-minded philosophers seem to agree that there can and must be just wars.
Believing Christians know that there will be wars on this earth until the Second Coming of Our Lord. Similarly, we know that the fallen nature of humankind dictates that sin will not be eradicated from the world in our era. However, the inevitability of war and sin does not relieve Christians of their obligation to resist both. The Just War Doctrine is as fundamentally flawed as the cynical argument for the commission of the lesser of two evils. I personally do not have the courage or fortitude to be a pacifist. I admit that I have never turned the other cheek. Nevertheless, I am convinced as an article of faith that Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, was completely, totally and unequivocally on the side of peace. May I respectfully propose the absolute superiority of the Just Peace Doctrine. Peace is justice.
What we read about in the news each day is just a war. However, it is not a just war. Placement of the article matters.
Christian News 