A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

More on giving teeth to JWT

In a comment to the previous post, Michael Westmoreland-White asks a fair question of Just War theory:

Has JWT EVER led to massive civil disobedience and refusal to fight on the part of a church’s members? Pacifists have often been arrested or executed for refusing to fight. When has this been true of JWTers? CAN the doctrine be given “teeth” or will it always just be a sop to the consciences of nationalistic warriors?

The reason this is an important question is that, if the only effect of JWT is to bless whatever wars the government undertakes, then it’s not functioning as a theory of the morality of warfare. And I think it’s fair to say that many American Christians have gone along with the state’s war plans while using the rhetoric of just war more as a fig leaf than as a critical tool. Both the mainline and evangelical churches have been guilty of buying into forms of nationalism that serve to blunt criticism of the government’s actions, especially during wartime. It’s also worth pointing out that the vast majority of Christians aren’t taking to the street to engage in civil disobedience in protest of any of the other great evils our society is complicit in, whether that be abortion, poverty, ecological degradation, or what have you.

Still, it has to be pointed out that many Christians, both clergy and laypeople, who have protested war have done so for broadly Just War reasons. Unless we’re going to assume, for instance, that everyone who protested the Vietnam war was a committed pacifist, there must’ve been at least some cases where opposition was motivated by people concluding that the war didn’t meet the standards of a just war. And I think it’s safe to say that this has been the case in more recent years as well. The mainline churches, none of which are officially pacifist, have been very critical of the Iraq war and many of their members took part in demonstrations protesting it. Granting all that, though, it’s safe to say, I think, that JWT doesn’t provide the controlling template for how most American Christians think about war.

Whether or not JWT can become more effective as a genuine restraint on Christians’ willingness to participate in unjust wars depends, I think, on whether it can be effectively taught. My evidence is strictly anecdotal, but my impression is that JWT is rarely taught or discussed in most congregations. No moral framework can be put into practice if it isn’t taught and received. And this is true of any morality. Sexual morality doesn’t require abstinence in all cases, but it does require the practice of restraint and discrimination, as well as the development of virtues necessary for that practice. Likewise, putting JWT into practice means not just learning a theory, but also learning the virtues of restraint, moderation, and justice as well as faith, hope, and charity. That it hasn’t been taught and internalized isn’t necessarily a knock against the theory, but a knock against us. If mainline chruches are serious about JWT, maybe a first step would be to learn from the peace churches how they reinforce and inculcate the practices of peacemaking in their members.

5 responses to “More on giving teeth to JWT”

  1. I fail to see why civil disobedience should be idealized as the model course of action if one concludes, using JWT, that a given war is not just. I, for example, concluded that the current Iraq War was unjust before the invasion, based on the criteria of JWT (imminent threat, for example, as well as other courses of action: I thought we should simply have decamped from Saudi Arabia & let the UN handle the situation by itself, warning that we would not come to serve as a wall for Saudi Arabia again). If the war had clearly constituted naked aggression, imperialism, and/or profiteering, then I likely would have protested or refused to fight, but I wouldn’t have engaged in massive civil disobedience.

    In addition, I recognized that I might have been wrong. Suppose, for example, that vast stores of chemical weapons had been found ready to use in the depots scattered throughout Iraq, and that definitive proof of an impending attack on the United States or one of its allies had been discovered. I would have participated in civil disobedience that was ill-founded, merely because I prized my ill-informed opinion above that of those who could actually see the evidence. Moreover, that civil disobedience (which, quite often, involves vandalism against innocent bystanders) would have contributed to additional polarization of the country.

    I’m not saying that civil disobedience is an invalid course of action; I’m saying that it’s not necessarily the ideal course of action, and sometimes it is unwise. At some point we have to admit that honest people can draw different conclusions after looking at exactly the same material, which is why St. Paul advises us to pray that our leaders are wise enough to come to the correct conclusion. They weren’t this time, and the effects of this war on our country—as well as the effects of an awful lot of irresponsible things said by the “no war at any cost” faction—are in my opinion sufficient proof that war should be avoided unless one is absolutely certain.

  2. I agree with you, Jack. I think it’s an open question whether civil disobedience is the best way in a given case to seek to remedy a purported evil.

    Also it’s worth pointing out that civil disobedience may have different purposes. There’s CD which is aimed directly at changing some policy (CD as protest). And there’s CD in the sense of refusing to obey an unjust law or order. The former is a case of breaking a law (e.g. against trespassing) which is otherwise unobjectionable to make a political statement. But the latter is concerned with the unjustness of the law itself. Seems to me the latter has a stronger grounding in Christian tradition.

  3. Oddly enough, Mr. Westmoreland-White’s blog points to a recent example of an apparent JWT-related refusal to fight. That is just one example, of course.

    To give another example, I’ll speak for myself. I am a young man in the United States. Because of my JWT principles, I am unlikely to join today’s military. (There are other reasons for my reluctance as well — reasons that suggest the military is better off without me — but that doesn’t change the fact that JWT is one of my reasons.) And I voted against George W. Bush in 2004 almost entirely because of the Iraq War, and I have tried very hard to win my friends over to my perspective.

    A friend in college asked me whether I would have dodged the draft in Vietnam. I answered that I was not sure. I still am not. And that’s true even though civil disobedience is totally contrary to my temperament, and in most circumstances contrary to my ethical principles as well.

    Does my JWT position have “teeth?” Maybe not, but I’m not sure what more Mr. Westmoreland-White would like me to do under the circumstances.

  4. A friend in college asked me whether I would have dodged the draft in Vietnam. I answered that I was not sure. I still am not.

    I can answer the question. I would not have dodged the draft. My father didn’t, and I have a lot in common with him, so I have some evidence to back that up. He ended up getting sent somewhere else anyway (to his dismay) which is how he met my mother in Italy.

    The Vietnam War, especially in retrospect, was to my mind clearly justified, Tonkin incident or no. The “retrospect” is abundant with evidence. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam shortly after we left, in clear violation of the peace treaty. This was not unusual, just as North Korea routinely violates treaties. These states see treaties as postponements of their aims, not as deterral.

    The same thing they had been doing for years. The North Vietnamese violently purged the country of those who did not subscribe to Ho Chi Minh’s communism, nurtured and assisted Pol Pot in taking over Cambodia, and then with the rest of the world turned against him when they realized that his extremism would destabilize their own country. The decade after the Communist takeover of Vietnam saw boat people, and the past two decades continue to see refugees from Vietnam. The latest news has been the Montagnard ethnic minority of the central highlands, whose land has been subject to confiscation because (a) in a communist state, it doesn’t belong to them anyway, so the state can simply take it from them, and (b) the state can give the fertile farmland to other Vietnamese peoples, who (c) are seen as “more loyal”, partly due to ethnic allegiances, partly due to the Montagnards having been some of the most determined foes of the communists during the War.

    Many people today argue that we were supporting an unjust government in South Vietnam. True. But was the North Vietnamese government that much more just? I’d argue that only people who think communism is inherently better than anything else would say so. The Ho Chi Minh government was a disaster for Vietnam, just as Mao was a disaster for China and Castro has been a disaster for Cuba. China and Vietnam have since abandoned communist ideology, and have begun to prosper. Cuba, well…

    In the end, the domino theory proved correct. After Vietnam came Cambodia and Laos. Thailand didn’t fall, because we invested such huge amounts of money and aid propping up a corrupt regime that was, for all its flaws, less corrupt, unjust, and bloody than the “heroic” communist regimes to its east.

  5. Hardly anyone is a committed pacifist. If a million people protested the Iraq war, I doubt, 1% of them were actually pacifists — which means they are consciously or not, some form of just war types.

    I mean if only committed pacifists actually demonstrate, then how come the anti-war movement was so much bigger for Iraq than Afghanistan?

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply