In talking about war and the question of what attitude Christians in particular should take regarding the use of force, it might be helpful to distinguish two traditions or strains of just war thinking. These two strains are distinguished, I think we could say, by what they judge to be the paradigm instance of a justified use of force.
The more modern tradition (enshrined, for instance, in common law and the UN charter) takes self-defense to be the paradigm case of a justifiable use of force. If I am attacked, or threatened with an attack, then it is permissible for me to use force (but only the necessary minimum amount of force) to repel or prevent the attack. The logic of this position is farily straightforward – if I have a right not to be unjustly harmed, then I have a right to prevent unjust harm to myself, even if that requires the use of force (since a right which can’t be defended is, practically speaking, no right at all). Since the aggressor is the one who breaks the peace, he can no longer claim immunity from physical retaliation.
Clearly, as we saw with the run-up to the Iraq war, there can be large areas of disagreement about how certain we have to be about a threat, as well as how imminent the threat is judged to be, before we are justified in responding with force. But virtually no one denies that there is some point at which a threat is so obviously imminent that not to respond would be foolish (e.g. the proverbial armies amassed at your border).
For Christians, the problem with this approach is that it seems, at least on the face of things, to conflict with the clear command of Jesus not to resist evil, to turn the other cheek, etc. The so-called historic peace churches have taken these injunctions, along with the command to love our enemies, as well as the example of Jesus’ life to mandate a position of total pacifism for Christians.
But there is another strain of just war thinking that tries to take the commands of Jesus and the apparent need to restrain aggression in a fallen world with full seriousness. For this tradition the paradigm case of justifiable force is not self-defense, but defense of the neighbor. A Christian, on this view, should not resist attacks on his own person, but this by no means entails that he should leave his neighbor to suffer the depredations of violent aggressors.
While strange to modern ears, this appears to have been the view of the earliest proponents of just war theory in the Western chuch such as Augustine and Ambrose. Gilbert Meilaender (who I quoted on vocation the other day) explains it as an expression of the dual commitments of entrusting our own life to God, while being willing to serve the needs of our neighbors:
[T]he life of love diverges from a philosophical principle of equal treatment of human beings. It diverges not because Christians love their life less than that of any other person, but becuase they have entrusted that life to God. It is in safekeeping. Of course, God may well care for us by moving others to use force on our behalf. And God may, in turn, care for them by moving us to use force in their behalf, even though we ought not use it for ourselves. … Some Christians hold that the use of force is always forbidden those who trust God, and theirs is certainly an authentic discipleship. Better, however, is an understanding that permits neighbor-love to flow from trust by distinguishing what we do for self and for others.
To understand love in this way enables us to come to terms with the “hard sayings” of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount–and to do so in a way that neither loses their force nor turns them into a prescription governance of the world or withdrawal from the world. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also….” (Matt. 5:38-39). Luther captures in one sentence the meaning of such love: “Although you do not need to have your enemy punished, your afflicted neighbor does.” That is, God may use us as the means of protecting a neighbor’s well-being, making us thereby the means by which that neighbor’s trust in God is vindicated. But God would not have us defend our own well-being; instead we are to wait in trust for him to defend us–which he may, of course, do through a neighbor who protects our rights and meets our needs. (Gilbert Meilaender, Faith and Faithfulness: Basic Themes in Christian Ethics, pp. 85-86)
For this tradition going to war can be (strange as it may sound) an act of charity. A just war is motivated by the love of neighbor and concern for his well-being. Whether this attempt to square participation in war with certain commands of Jesus in the NT is successful is another matter.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a reply to Chris T. Cancel reply