 |
"Worldview training for all the World" ........ Psalm 50:12 Premier Worldview® Center 800-948-3101 |
|
|
| |
"Worldview training for all the World" ........ Psalm 50:12 Premier Worldview® Center 800-948-3101 |
|
|
Just War DoctrineBy: Marc Clauson 03/19/2003 Just War Doctrine By: Marc Clauson 03/19/2003 PEERS POSITION PAPER- Q15 It is always preferable to settle disputes among nations by free discussion and compromise, not by conflict or war. Proper Answer: Disagree 1. Analysis of the Question 1.1 Introduction The proposition states that the best solution to international disputes is always one involving discussion and compromise rather than outright war or other conflict. In other words, war is never the best solution. The implication is also that war is an undesirable solution to international disputes. 1.2 Definitions 1.2.1 "Disputes among nations": issues crossing national boundaries and representing genuine disagreements between or among nations. 1.2.2 "Nations": in a legal sense, a nation is a legally independent entity with some form of government and official boundaries. The nation may or may not be composed of a homogeneous population and may be held together as a nation only by its government and related institutions. Related to the term "nation" is "nationalism", an idea which came to flower in the late 18th century and which has to do with an attitude toward one's particular nation, its peculiar culture, myths, and other unifying factors (e. g. language and history). 1.2.3 "Free discussion and compromise": either continuing dialogue, for example peace talks, summit meetings, negotiation, or the adoption of action on the part of one nation which amounts to a capitulation to another nation's demands. One can also speak of various forms of action in between the two mentioned above. 1.3 Analysis The key word here is "always". The statement essentially asserts that "peace at any cost" is always the best policy for any nation involved in conflict with another. War in particular ought to be avoided by all means, due to the tremendous costs in human life as well as economy of nations. Reasons for this approach would vary from nation to nation, including religious conviction or simply pragmatism of a nation's leaders. The results of compromise in some cases have been the loss of national autonomy (pre-World War II Europe), but could also include religious or economic modifications. 2. Supporting Biblical Passages 2.1 All passages are in context and comments are intended to draw legitimate deductions from Scriptural data. 2.2 Note: Direct Biblical support for the answer desired to this proposition is not evident. But from certain passages, the answer may be deduced, after a careful analysis and systematization of the totality of the Biblical information. 2.3 Passages 2.3.1 Acts 5: 29: "Peter and the other apostles replied [to the command of the authorities not to proclaim the gospel], 'We must obey God rather than men'". Comment: The context of this passage is critical. Peter and the other apostles had been preaching the gospel of Christ to the Jews, in accordance with the command of Matthew 28:19-20 to proclaim the gospel. They had then been arrested but released after being ordered not to preach. They then went to the temple courts and began to preach. They were then brought again before the Sanhedrin where they were, in effect, castigated for their failure to obey the officials, failure to compromise. At that point Peter and the apostles stated in no uncertain terms that their first allegiance was to God. We may draw a few conclusions from this passage. First, it is clear that there is a point in the life of individuals (can we extrapolate to nations) at which compromise would conflict with the standards of God's will. At that point, the right action is to obey God, even if it might lead to conflict (in the case of Peter, conflict certainly did result, as it did for many early Christians). In other words, compromise is not always possible if one is to obey God, that is, if one is to choose the priority action. his is not to say that discussion or dialogue is never to be chosen as course of action. Scripture gives ample examples of dialogue. In addition, compromise in its best sense, is also a legitimate option, if it does not conflict with some ethical/moral/doctrinal principle derived from Scripture. The point is that it is not always possible or desirable to compromise and still remain true to the standards of the Word of God. The question still remains, when is war legitimate or acceptable? This question leads to the very old issue of the "just war" and will be addressed more fully below. For the present, it will suffice to say that where dialogue, negotiation, and compromise end, war will often (though not always) result. But under what circumstances is a war just? Such a question leads one to the further question, what is justice? In the event war is inevitable, under what circumstances may it be carried on? How is a war to be conducted? Another question is, can we extend the passage in Acts to the situation of a nation? Is it legitimate to apply the principle that at some point one must choose the standards of Scripture over negotiation or compromise, to the circumstances of international affairs, particularly in the event of potential conflict between nations? The answer is "yes" in the sense that the Scriptures speak to every issue of life, including the affairs of nations (see Psalm 22:28, 47:8, Proverbs 21:1 and others). Nations, like individuals, are responsible to the laws established by God in the Scriptures (or deduced from Scripture) and they too will inevitably come into potential conflict with other nations and will be required to follow the standards of Scripture in those situations. In some instances, those actions, if in conformance with Scripture, will conflict with the principles of negotiation and compromise. But this is necessary even if conflict results. 2.3.2 Joshua 11:20,23: " For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.--- So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Thus the land had rest from war." Comment: This passage first of all must be seen in its narrative context, in order that we not make the mistake of transforming it into a commandment universally applicable in all modern situations of a similar nature. Because it is a narrative of a particular command of God for a particular people at a particular time, it cannot transfer as normative in an automatic sense. It was a specific revelation of God to Moses and to Joshua to wage war against ungodly peoples. Unless one has such a specific revelation and unless it is verified externally, one would not necessarily be justified in such an action today, unless it could be justified on the ground of special revelation (the Scriptures). On the other hand however, in this passage we do see clearly that God does not condemn war in all cases and in fact condones (commands) it in certain cases. Thus we know that it is not God's will in every case to negotiate or compromise. Again however, we must be careful to understand this passage in its context. It does not by itself give universal approval to attack any nation in any situation. In addition, because it is a narrative of God's acts in a particular situation, we must be careful to seek other Scriptural support of a legal or hortatory nature to justify war or conflict. Nevertheless, war is a definite possibility in certain situations. 2.3.3 Deuteronomy 7:16: "You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity...." Comment: See comment above on Joshua 11. 2.3.4 1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them..." Comment: Again see comment on Joshua 11. But in addition, it is important to reiterate that, based on these types of "war passages" and others in the Scriptures, we may at the very least say that God does not unequivocally condemn war and does in certain situations condone or command it. But from these passages we cannot determine precisely under what circumstances God would condone war in modern times. To do that requires reference to the entire Scriptures as well as legitimate deduction from them. 3. Implications and Conclusions 3.1 First, we can say that one situation in which negotiation and compromise would be evidently wrong is in connection with a Godly nation against an ungodly one, that is, a nation which has rebelled outright against God. But even here, we must be careful. In the Old Testament instances we have studied, God clearly and specifically commanded the Israelites to attack and wage war on the surrounding wicked nations as part of His promise to the Hebrew people regarding Palestine. Unless we have a specific special revelation of God (extra-biblical) and unless it can be externally verified as valid, then we probably would not be warranted in taking unilateral action against even an ungodly nation. But there may be circumstances in which one nation could legitimately wage war on another. What are those circumstances? 3.2 The circumstances under which war may be legitimately waged have been the subject of much debate within the church (as well as outside the church). Thomas Aquinas' just war theory has become famous (see article by John Macquarrie, in Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. by John Macquarrie. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, pp. 182-183). The conditions for a just war were: (1) it must be waged by constituted authority; (2) the cause must be just; (3) the intention must be to establish good or rectify evil; and (4) the war must be waged by proper means. Some modern Christian authors have cautioned that a Biblically-condoned war in addition should be one to defend one's own country in the case of harm or imminent threat of harm to its citizens. This condition would make the cause just (in terms of a Biblical definition of justice). In addition, the Biblical scholar would certainly emphasize the condition of the intention to establish good and especially to rectify evil. Evil would of course include the unprovoked attack upon one's nation or its citizens. 3.3 It is also important to note that, although it is true that in the kingdom of heaven, there is no place for war and that the abolition of war seems to be an ultimate goal, the New Testament nowhere rejects war unconditionally. John the Baptist did not ask the soldiers to abandon their profession (Luke 3:14). Nor did Jesus ask this of the Centurion of Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-13) or Peter of Cornelius (Acts 10). 3.4 Finally, one must be careful to label as "evil" any act he arbitrarily chooses. In fact, we would probably be on safer ground by adopting a definition of evil with respect to a condition for war, as an attack or imminent threat to one's country. Other wise, we see that Scripture by no means denigrates the notion of peace (see Micah 4:3-4 where the absence of fear and the prosperity of owning one's own fig tree are associated with beating swords into plowshares: Macquarrie, op. cit., p. 247). What the Scriptures do not countenance is "peace at any cost"). 4. Bibliography This list is not exhaustive but suggestive and is not in priority or alphabetical order. Article, "Just War", by John Macquarrie, in Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. by John Macquarrie. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, pp. 182-183; and article, "Peace and War", by Harvey Seifert, in Id., pp. 247-249. Article, "War and Militarism", by Theodore Ropp, in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed. by Philip Wiener, 4 volumes. New York: Scribners, 1973, vol. IV, pp. 500-508. Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. See especially Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace, Nashville: Abingdon, 1960 for a full historical, theological, and philosophical discussion. Article, "War and Christian Service in War", by Karl Burger, in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. by Samuel Macauley Jackson, 15 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950, vol. XII, pp. 264-265. On the concept of nationalism, see Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism: A study in its Origins and Background. New York: Macmillan, 1944.
|