|
the
frosted mini-wheat look at war
By
John O’Keefe
The
question that has been driving me as of late is,
“can there truly be a “just war?”
I am certain that others will disagree, but
I cannot think of a single reason for a Christian,
a follower of the teachings of Christ, to go to
war. No
matter how I try, I just can’t think of a single
reason for taking the life of another person.
Before I go on, let me say this, I am a
pacifist – to some, even a radical pacifist; and
i will have to say i am a relatively new pacifist.
Now, I do not say this to apologize for my
stance, but to let you know that I do have a bias
towards peace and non-violence, so you know now
there is a “spin” to this writing (as there is
to all writings - everyone has a spin).
That being said, I believe all war is
wrong; all war.
In fact, I have a hard time dealing with
the modern evangelical dualism of being
“pro-life” (their argument is that all life is
sacred and the unborn are innocent) and the desire
to take human life (in a “just war,” where all
life is sacred and many innocent people will die, because they
believe God allows it).
However, more then that, I will admit to
being in conflict between my human side and my
spiritual side.
I feel like frosted mini-wheat, battling between my
human side and my spiritual side, and yes, the
whole-wheat side represents the spiritual side
because it is healthier for you then the frosted
side. While
I understand why some would see the need for a war
(my human/frosted side), the idea of a “just
war,” that many evangelicals pass around as
“being righteous” in the eyes of God (as if
farwell or robertson can see through the
"eyes" of God), escapes
me at all levels (my whole wheat/spiritual side).
I have a friend who is totally for
war; “go in, take names and kick some terrorist butt” is
his motto – but he is also an atheist.
While I do, and as he can attest loudly,
disagree with his stance on war, I cannot fault
his foundation, which is “secular humanism”
(totally based on the frosted side of things).
He does not claime to be a follower of Christ and I cannot see how anyone can take the words
of Jesus and come up with a “just war” theory
(the whole wheat side coming out).
But the problem I have with most evangelical
theology is that it defines Christian ethic based
on the human condition, and that is something we
must never do. My question is how can anything that is as
unjust as war can never be seen as just?
A
whole-wheat view
If
we look at war in light of Jesus’ teachings in
Matthew 5, how can we “love our enemy” and
harm them at the same time? (The idea of “tough
love” is not in scripture.
Read 1st Corinthians 13 for a
deeper understanding of love). How
can we react to an evil person with war when
we’re told to go out of our way not to fight
them? How
can we see “self defense” as a viable excuse
for war, when no such teaching of Jesus can be
found? How
can we agree with war when the “peace makes”
are called “the children of God?”
If we look at Paul (2 Corinthians 10:2-4 -
“We are human, but we don’t wage
war with human plans and methods.
We use God’s mighty weapons, not mere
worldly weapons, to knock downs the Devil’s
stronghold.” – emphasis added) We see
a call not to act on human terms, but on God’s
terms. So,
how can a Christian justify a response based on
“our being human?”
But people still believe we need a “tough
love” stance towards our enemies – again, the
only problem with “tough love” is it is not a
scriptural concept.
Jesus, or any disciple you pick, never
called for a “tough love” way of life.
In fact, Jesus’ teachings about love show
anything but toughness.
Paul is the same way – no tough love on
his end. I
know many are now formulating all the Old
Testament scripture to support a war – and let
me say this – you can pull all the Old Testament
scriptures you desire, but I believe all of them
are trumped by the words of Jesus.
Jesus
tells us to “love our enemies.”
Paul (1 Corinthians 13 – emphasis added) says that “love
is patient and kind it is not rude; it
does not demand it’s own way; it keeps no
records of wrongs; it never gives up, never fails,
never loses faith, is always helpful and endures
through every circumstance and best of all, love
will last forever.”
Mother
Teresa said,
“I have found the paradox that if I
love until it hurts, then there is no hurt, but
only more love."
No matter how many Old Testament
scripture you pull out, Jesus words trumps them
all.
1st
Corinthians 13 is used in weddings all the time to
speak of the love between a man and a woman –
but that sells the scripture short.
Paul did not write the scripture as a
“love in marriage” scripture; he wrote the
scripture so we could know that this love is
between all humans – it has a zero sexual
component –
it has a 100% spiritual reality (keep thinking
“whole-wheat”) for all humanity and to sell it
short as “marriage” scriptures is just not
right. The
scripture has nothing to do with marriage; it has
everything to do with the way we, as Christians,
are to act towards everyone.
The problem is that if we see this
scripture for what it is – how we are to act as
children of God (and remember that “peace
makers” are called “the children of God.”),
it puts a major dent in the
evangelical/traditional stance of a “just
war.” We
are not called to have an “eye for an eye” –
I remember recently talking with a Baptist Pastor
who said, “I’m an Old Testament man when it
comes to sticking back – an good old ‘eye for
an eye’ is what we need right now.”
But that is a direct violation of the
teachings of Jesus (“You have heard it said, and
eye for an eye; but I say, do not
resist an evil person!
If they slap you on the right cheek, turn
the other, too…. Matthew 5:38-42 – emphasis added)
– Jesus teaches that we do not follow
that teaching of an “eye for an eye,” and we
are to go well above the idea of sticking back.
A
Just War in History:
Now,
I will agree that the whole “just war” (jus in
bello) theory has a long and accepted
Christian/state history (we, as humans, like the
frosted side better).
While I would agree that all ethic is formed in
the context of histroy, i must also say that i do
not believe it is a captive of that history.
Either way, that does not make a just war right;
in my opinion it puts a major dent in the way we
view the theory (the idea of a “state”
involved theology that supports their point of
view and instructs Christians in allowing war, is
just wrong.).
The only thing a lengthy state supported
history provides is to entrench the idea as part
of a tradition and make it harder for those who
follow it to give it up.
The problem becomes, as a tradition, if we
remove the idea of a “just war” we need to
examine our hearts - past, current and
future. It
would require that we reexamine our faith to the
point of actually asking ourselves if we truly
have loved as we are called to love?
It would require that we look deep into the
collective soul of past generations and ask if we
got it right, or did we mess it up?
And we are afraid of knowing that answer,
because we fear it will be in the negative.
We fear the reality that we killed when we
should have loved, we judged when we should have
forgiven, and we condemned when we should have
up-lifted.
Saint
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his “Summa
Theologicae” (a series or writings dating
between 1266 –1268) gives the most systematic
exposition of a just war (most of it found in
Question 40 and 42 of the Summa).
In the Summa, Aquinas presents the general
outline of what eventually becomes the “just war
theory.” In
the Summa, he discusses, not only the
justification of war, but also the kinds of
activity that are permissible in war, a “what
makes a good war” kind of thinking.
Aquinas's thoughts become the model for
later development of the just war theory.
Interestingly, it was seen as a kind of
"natural law" ethic, and, in his book The
Peaceable Kingdom (1983, page 61) Hauerwas
says, "I do not mean to imply that adherents
of a "natural law" ethic are inherently
more violent; but rather that violence and
coercion become conceptually intelligible from a
natural law standpoint." this is
true in the reaction that many who hold to a
"just war" theory believe that anyone
who does not see the need for a violant reaction
is "not right and is unUSAmerican - a natural
ethic forces people to "follow the corporate
line. Basically, thought behind a “just war”
consists of a body of ethical (notice they are not
scriptural, but natural) reflection that falls into three
areas:
(a)
The ruler under who the war is fought must have
the authority to do so,
(b)
A just cause is required,
(c)
Their must be a “right intention,” to achieve
some good or avoid some evil.
Again,
keep in mind that Aquinas did not base these on
“scripture” but on human reasoning, sprinkled
with a Neo-Platonic moral code of the time of the Summa and a
healthy dose of political acceptance. In
fact, Aquinas depended more on the writings of
Aristotle (384-322), Augustine (354-430), and .Dionysius
the Areopagite (aka, "Pseudo-Dionysius - a fifth
century Syrian monk) and other neo-Platonic writes
like Proclus (418-485) then he did scripture.
When he did quote scripture he did so out of
context. But the important thing to remember
is that it is these three simple “guidelines”
that give birth to the “seven points” of a
just war. Let
us look at the traditional “seven points” of a
“just war.” you will notice that many of
these can be seen in a very modern dualistic
light.
A
just war can only be waged as a last resort.
How can anyone determine if all non-violent
options have been exhausted before the use of
force can be justified?
Maybe one last effort will work?
In a Christian reality war is not a “last
resort,” it is not even a consideration.
A
war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate
authority.
Define “legitimate authority?”
I find it interesting that those in the
modern evangelical community who are calling for a
war use this one – it kind of gives them an out
I guess. But
this brings out another evangelical dualism;
if we question the authorities in USAmerica our
modern evangelical leaders inform us that “God
selects all the civil authorities” and we must, as a
scriptural mandate, follow them.
Then you ask, “but what if that authority
is wrong?”
The standard evangelical response has been,
“that is not our place to determine, that is the
hands of God.”
Ok, agreed.
So – to carry the logic further, we can
say that God is behind the “authority” in all
countries (unless we actually think that USAmerica
has some kind of “special nation” status given
to us by God).
Then we have no right to war to remove an
authority simply because we disagree with
policies, that would be violating God’s
sovereign nature – no matter how “cruel” or
“corrupt” we believe them to be.
Now, wait a minute, those “other
countries” did not elect their leadership (in an
honest election) so they are dictators who simply
control the country.
Ok, let’s go with the idea that all
leaders of a country must be elected.
What if USAmerican policy places a dictator
in office? What
of all the Kings and Queens, do they govern with
the blessings of God?
Here’s a added kick to think about; since
one of the qualifications of a just war is it can
only be waged by a “legitimate authority” then
the USAmerican Revolution was a violation and not
a just war – it was not blessed by God.
By definition, a revolutionary faction
cannot be defined as a “legitimate authority”
because they naturally stand opposed to the civil
authorities currently in power.
A
just war can only be fought to redress a wrong
suffered.
Over time self-defense against an attack
has always been considered to be just.
But according to the teachings of Christ,
this is not the case.
Our responsibility is to “turn the other
cheek.” So,
the question becomes who determines the redress of
the wrongs? And,
because an attack would be based on a
“redressing of a wrong” is that not revenge?
And, if I am not mistaken, that always in
the hands of God.
A
war can only be just if it is fought with a
reasonable chance of success.
I love this one – if we are sure we can kick
their butts, we can attack; if not, we should not
– if we win, it’s a good thing, but if we
lose? So,
this part of the “just war” theory is simply
based on a human desire to “kick butt and
win.” because this says, "no matter
how cruel or corrupt the other government is, if
we can't win we can't attack."
The
ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish
peace.
Violence never brings peace.
Hitler, in WWII, used the Treaty of
Versailles and the ways the German people were
treated after WWI as a reason to come to power,
rearm Germany and invade Poland.
How did the “just war” of WWI
re-establish peace?
All it did was kill hundreds of thousands, and form the
kindling of WWII. Never in history as a was
brought peace. even WWII did not bring
peace. rather it brought a divided Germany,
a Soviet State and the deaths of millions in Soviet
prison camps.
The
violence used in the war must be proportional to
the injury suffered.
How can this be determined?
And, if it can, is it not simply another
way of saying an “eye to an eye?”
How can we see this area in the theory in
light of the teachings of Jesus that says, “If
they take your coat, give them your shirt.
If they want you to walk a mile, walk two.”
The
weapons used in war must discriminate between
combatants and non-combatants.
Bullets kill anyone and they do not know
the difference between a combatant and a
non-combatant.
Even the smartest and best bombs we have
can only tell us they are hitting a building, and
not who is inside that building.
Bombs and bullets do not know the
difference between a school child and a soldier.
So, while this is a part of the just war
theory it is impossible to follow – and because
of that it is ignored by most who believe in a
“just war.”
Closing:
One
thing we need to remember is that all wars, ALL
WARS, are just in the minds of those who are
starting them.
Every war can be squeezed into the idea of
a “just war.”
Every war that has ever been fought can be
seen as a war that was just, because it all
depends on which side you are.
Hauerwas says (again in The Peaceable Kingdom,
page 114), "Moreover when freedom and
equality are made ideal abstractions, they become
the justification for violence." War, to stop an evil, is wrong – evil
cannot stop evil, evil always feeds upon itself.
I believe that even WWII can be seen as a
“unjust war.”
The understanding that violence is justified for
the sake of one definition of freedom or justice,
is more a matter of power then of peace. The idea that Hitler and the German army
were so evil that we needed to “jump in and save
the world” is not a reality; rather it is the
"party line" and the ideal view of what
happened.
If we look at the Soviet Union as an
example of an “evil empire” (Regan’s words
not mine) we see that it was destroyed, not by war
– but by feeding upon itself (as evil always
does). The
same could have, and most likely would have
happened, to a Nazi Germany. I believe that
the moment Hitler died the inner circle would have
fed upon themselves to the destruction of the Nazi
party.
Today, not many people view “Communist”
(big “c”) leaders as heroes; yet, through war
we have created folk-heroes (twisted folk-heroes,
but folk-heroes none the less) out of the
leadership of the Nazi Party.
By not allowing them to feed upon
themselves, we have created a “false” end to
the evil, and if we look around, we can see this
evil growing once again in our world. With
the birth of Neo-Nazi's what peace have we
brought?
When
we cry for peace, we need to remember the words of
Jesus as the primary focus of all we do as
followers of Christ.
To quote Mahatma Gandhi, "You
must be the change you wish to see in the
world."
If you wish peace, you must be peace.
In
Luke we are given the prophecy of Zechariah that
“because of God’s tender mercy the
light from heaven is about to break upon us…to
give light to those in darkness and to guide is to
the path of peace” (Luke 1:78-79
– emphasis added).
This is not a “figurative” peace, or a
“future/in heaven” peace – it is a peace
that speaks to the heart and to the spirit that
violence is wrong, and that war is evil and can
never be just.
Many
think
that this is hard, and
that there are times when we think (operative word
here is “think”) we need to fight.
But the way of peace is easy, the way of love
is not hard, the way of forgiveness is not painful;
because the teachings of Jesus the Christ tell us
that “to follow me, my yoke is light.”
War
is wrong, all war is wrong.
To think, even for a second, that talking a life
is good or needed, for any reason, is "just" then we
misunderstand the teachings of Christ.
Now, before I get a ton of email telling me
how “un-American” I am and how “scripture
supports such an action” I am reminded of what
Tony Campolo has said concerning this topic –
(paraphrased) “Send me New Testament proof that
I am wrong and we can talk.”
I do not care about how many Old Testament
scriptures you can pull together to support your
point of view – I am a Christian and as a
Christian, I follow the teachings of Christ in the
New Testament.
Christ tells us that war, violence and
killing are wrong – so, send away.
Show me any words of Jesus that contradict
the teachings of peace, love and forgiveness and I
will retract this article.
Show me any time Jesus said war was an
acceptable alternative to peace and I will say I
was wrong – in the teachings of Christ you will
find more on love, peace and forgiveness then on
anything else – so, send away.
|
