War and Peace
C. Christian Tradition
Pacifism
Arguably, this is the position of Jesus, as presented in the gospels.
It is less obvious in the Old Testament. There the battles of Israel as Chosen People, against a series of foreign foes, are celebrated, as in the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges. The commandment against killing in the Decalogue is generally understood as opposing murder, but not killing when licensed by the state to promote God’s justice. Though there was some playing down of military activity against the occupying power, as at the time of the Maccabaean Revolt in 175BC, armed resistance and the Zealot tradition as it developed over the next two hundred years have a higher profile.
For the most part Jesus appears to be against this. Not only is murder wrong, but so is the harbouring of murderous thoughts. If provoked, we are invited to ‘turn the other cheek’ and, if pressed against our will to take on an extra task, to take on even more. Jesus could have resisted arrest, but did not. He allowed himself to be killed. The message is plain: avoid engaging in all forms of violence.
Any counter examples from Jesus’ behaviour in the gospels are hard to find. There is the story of his ejecting the traders and money changers from the Temple forecourt. There is also the incident during his arrest when one of the disciples is not only carrying a sword but uses it. But these are exceptions to the main picture. In that, Jesus is the prototype of unilateral loving.
Pacifist Christians are clear on the implications. Irrespective of the response of the other person, they themselves should give. Hedging of bets, weighing of selfish consequences do not come into it. However painful the implications, a true follower of the way of Jesus will imitate his radical commitment to peace.
Throughout the subsequent centuries, there has been continuous evidence of Christians following this example:
avoidance of service in the Roman army (this was common until Constantine, that is when the Emperor himself became Christian)
non-resistance against those making martyrs of them as in the imperial arena (some even rushed to get themselves killed – hence the strength of Augustine’s opposition to suicide)
commitment to a stance of humility in expression of a monastic vow, or the ruling of canon law which forbade clergy and bishops from wielding weapons of war
followers of Menno Simons – as Mennonites (the European movement subsequently gained renewed momentum in N America)
http://www.mennosimons.net/
similar groups such as the Amish, Doukhobors or Hutterites (the readiness to engage in acts of civil disobedience such as public nudism is but one example of non-violent
weaponry)
George Fox and the Quakers (the actions of the Friends Ambulance Service in two world wars demonstrates Quaker commitment to take the risk of binding wounds even in the midst of war)
Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence is attributed by him as much to his reading of the gospels as to the Indian tradition of ahimsa.
Martin Luther King’s use of non-violent strategies to challenge racism.
Such instances abound, and have often been unpublicised. They have frequently been dismissed as acts of unremarkable cowardice rather than extraordinary courage.
There is an attractive purity about this stance. It is highly principled. It is not prepared to do to another person anything, which would not be wanted by the actors themselves to happen to themselves. Something of the shock of its claim to self-evident right-ness is conveyed by the remark that “Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity”.
Yet pacifism has its critics, both from other Christians and from secular sources. Here are three examples of the kinds of criticisms made:
it is naïve about human nature: we are biologically carnivorous creatures, ‘red in tooth and claw’ and given to violent emotions and actions to defend or promote our interests, especially when they are threatened
it abdicates responsibility, handing over to evil instead of preserving the good, thus the might of a rapist, a mini- or maxi-Hitler is allowed to prevail at whatever cost to the innocent
it shelters behind the courage of others for its own survival by allowing them to take risks, as in the case of conscientious objectors in England during the second world war who had the ‘luxury’ of being protected as such only at the expense of those who fought from underwater or the air against blockading u-boats.
“I’m free to be non-violent because of the violence of others – even permitting, by my own non-resistance, others to become murderers.”
Pacifism remains powerful amongst Christians today, not the majority stance, but one held and lived by a substantial and significant minority.
Holy War
In sharp contrast to the pacifist position, ‘holy warriors’ have had a stronger presence within Christian tradition than is sometimes supposed.
It is a position already well developed in the Old Testament. It is there in the conquest of the Promised Land in the campaigns of Joshua, in one of the name used to refer to God as Lord of the Armies, and in the practice of the burnt offering (‘holocaust’) of human and animal spoils of the conquered city. It is there in the inter-testamental (ie written between the date of last of the books of the Old Testament and the first of the New) Dead Sea Scroll texts of the Qumran Community, with the famous battle between the Sons of Light versus the Sons of Darkness. And it is found in what is known as the ‘apocalyptic’ strands of the New Testament, which picture an impending future Revelation of Judgement accompanied by acts violent destruction.
It is, however, not the case that the New Testament puts Christians themselves in the position of perpetrating divine violence. The gospels provide evidence that Jesus did indeed have quite close contact with some of those associated with the Zealots. They provide no support to justify the claim that he was himself identified with these contemporary terrorists of liberation. If this was even a temptation in his thinking, the dominant impression is that he resisted it along with that of political power, as in the vivid tale of the Satanic options he rejected (Luke 4:5-8).
By contrast, there have been many over the centuries, who have invoked his name to justify war as an instrument to further the interests of both church and gospel.
They are especially visible during Medieval Christendom, when crusading was a dominant mode of operation for Christians. They were encouraged to fight the Lord’s battle against all manner of perceived foes: heretics, Jews, Turks and latterly witches. Violence to obliterate those who were the enemies of the Church was following divine logic. Killings to rescue Jerusalem from alien Muslim occupation, torture and death to persuade the Cathars of southern France of the errors of their ways, expulsions of Jews and expropriation of their properties, drownings and burnings of women who might be a rival sources of health – all these were expressions of holy zeal.
The same zeal was shown in the battling at its height in the sixteenth and seventeeth century Europe between different sections of the Church. Antipathy was virulent between Catholics of one persuasion and Catholics of another, similarly between Catholics and Protestants. Pope Pius V issued a ‘fatwa’ against Elizabeth I of England. Cromwellian soldiers, after praying in good Protestant tradition, killed Charles I, an Anglo-Catholic King.
Although the sentiments may be exaggerated, such slogans as “Kill a Commie for Christ” as heard during the Vietnam war, continue this tradition. But so do any who, in the name of Christ, claim that their enemies have become less than human. They are convinced of their own righteousness in carrying out extermination programmes, which are proper expressions of God’s will.
Arguably, ‘holy warriors’, in whatever guise, are heretical in relation to mainstream Christian beliefs and values. They disregard the central claim of the incarnation, that there is God-relatedness in every man, woman and child – whatever their ethnicity or religion.
Just War
The third position is the one, which has predominated generally within Christian tradition. Its origins are Biblical and its enactment is evident in the words and actions of the members and leaders of the churches in the world today.
The central criterion is Justice. Herein lies the only justification for war – that by engaging in it a greater peace and a lesser evil will be achieved than would otherwise be the case.
The background in the Old Testament is the affirmation that God’s cause is moral and can in this regard even be directed against Israel. The priority is shalom: ‘Justice shall go in front of him and the path before his feet shall be peace’ (Psalm 85:13). Some of the extremes of brutality associated with Holy War are tempered by such controls as the following: before actually attacking an enemy stronghold, make an offer of peace (Deuteronomy 20:10); in the course of an extended siege, do not destroy fruit bearing trees (Deuteronomy 20:19-20); and respect the interests of captive women (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).
The background in the New Testament is the recognition and deference explicitly shown towards those in positions of public authority. Key passages in the letters of both Paul (Romans 13:1-6 ) and Peter (1 Peter 2:11-13) expressly recognise that political and other leadership carries responsibility for moral order in society. With that authority comes appropriate use of force.
Such power is not given only to leaders who are Christians. As in the Old Testament with the other people’s kings and emperors, so in the New Testament: anyone in authority in some sense owes their position to God. They should only present a major problem for Christians if they abuse their authority – by behaving unjustly, or by absolutising their own position and turning themselves into gods.
A further source was the Stoic tradition, which was already a background strand in the wider first century cultural world, within which Paul travelled and taught.
It is sometimes argued that In the early centuries of the life of the church, Christians did not join the army. Whilst it is certain that some Christians did indeed refuse this calling, especially when it required treating the Roman Emperor as God, others did serve. Once the Emperor Constantine himself became a Christian in 312AD, any distancing between the public life of a soldier and that of the professing Christian largely ceased. Almost immediately, every Roman soldier carrying a shield had emblazoned on it the cross of Christ.
Church leaders successively over the centuries articulated the view that war in certain circumstances was justified, provided it was entered into with the right intent and carried out with due propriety. The succession of theologians teaching this includes Ambrose, Augustine, Gratian, Aquinas, Vittoria, Grotius and on to the likes of Niebuhr and Ramsey in the twentieth century.
Just war criteria are developed on two fronts – the JAB and the JIB. JAB: ‘Ius ad bellum’ are criteria which relate to the reasons for going to war. JIB: ‘Ius in bello’ are criteria regarding actual conduct within war. Cumulatively, they become more and more sophisticated and comprehensive.
JAB: Ius ad bellum The checks on whether or not war is justified include the following:
clear evidence of wrong having been done, warranting corrective justice
judgement to be made by persons in proper positions of authority
reasonable likelihood of success, ie an outcome which is better than would have been the cased without such intervention
last resort, in that all other options, pleas and negotiations have been tried and failed
right motive and intention that actually has the interests of the enemy at heart.
JIB: Ius in bello Checks on just conduct within the war itself include the following:
the degree of violence used should be proportionate to the wrong done
the violence should be the minimum necessary to achieve a successful outcome
special care should be exercised in relation to civilians, especially women and children
the right not to participate should be respected.
These conventions were very fully articulated within the framework of Christian belief. Just as their origins drew on sources outside that frame, so their featuring widely in contemporary international law and debate does not depend on the authority of the churches. The key bridging figure in this position is the Dutch Protestant scholar Hugo Grotius who published a treatise in three volumes on The Law of War and Peace in 1625. He expounds the relationship between
the law of nature – principles deriving from the natural necessities of social existence
the law of nations - laws of mutual consent between states
municipal law – locally agreed routines rules for the promotion of immediate well being
divine law (derived from the Bible and subsequent interpretations in Canon Law and agreement amongst theologians.
These he draws on to set out systematically the full range of ‘jab’ and ‘jib’ considerations. In his Introduction to doing this, he makes clear the rootedness of his own convictions and judgements in the Christian faith, but he uses the phrase ‘etsi deus non daretur’, meaning ‘even if we should concede that there is no God’. (Prologomena 11) Though he immediately repudiates such a position as in his view both wicked and unreasonable, he asserts the validity of international law as potentially independent of religious belief.
On this basis, there is Christian theological legitimation for the continuation of church oriented thinking about how to guarantee justice in society with the minimum use of force and for the shared development of such thinking with people who are not themselves Christian. Thus, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a series of ‘jib and jab’ -related rules were hammered out. These pertained to weapon usage, in the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. And, likewise pertaining to the personal welfare of participants and bystanders, in the Genevan Conventions of 1864 (treatment of the wounded in field armies), 1906 (treatment of the sick), 1929 (prisoners of war) and 1949 (civilians). These have all been taken forward by the subsequent Arms Control Treaties and Conventions of the International Red Cross.
The notion of the Just War therefore remains a central one for Christians, and one which is now shared as a priority by the interest of many others in the international community. Renewed attention is now being given to the notion of a Just Peace. This is a fundamental concern for Christians, but it is again one which they share with others.
Of these three position, Pacifism, Holy War and Just War each has its own distinctive importance. That of Holy War is an embarrassment to those associated with either of the other two positions, for it demonises other human beings. Yet, its zeal to challenge what is inimical to God is impressive and found in a far healthier form when the language is used symbolically as in the case of the Salvation Army. Here, however, the holiness served and proclaimed is that of Isaiah, and tempered with justice and compassion.
Christians who would be just warriors are involved in compromise. Whilst committed to peace and love, the live in a world in which injustice and conflict abounds. Whether in the role of volunteers in a Territorial Army, pilots of supersonic fighter jets, or members of an elite SAS corps, the challenge to their integrity is how to be involved in the deployments of war without the corruption of God-given humanity.
Christian pacifists do not have an easier time. They recognise the horrors of violence and war, and they are sorrowful at the sufferings of anyone involved. They may know the temptations of self-righteousness, which can arise from ‘taking a moral stance’. Yet that stance will be understood by them as their deepest obligation.
If they were to get together, could just warriors and pacifists together be able to generate a new world? Would their equal commitment to using their intelligences creatively in the interests of peace and justice make any difference to the world?
Illustrative Quotations
Augustine City of God (c 425)
Everyone wants peace
Whoever gives even moderate attention to human affairs and to our common nature, will recognize that if there is no-one who does not wish to be joyful, neither is there any one who does not wish to have peace. For even they who make war desire nothing but victory... For what else is victory than the conquest of those who resist us? and when this is done there is peace. It is therefore with the desire for peace that wars are waged, even by those who take pleasure in exercising their warlike nature in command and battle. And hence it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war. For every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace. For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better. They do not, therefore, wish to have no peace, but only one more to their mind. And in the case of rebellion, when men have separated themselves from the community, they yet do not effect what they wish, unless they maintain some kind of peace with their fellow-conspirators. And therefore even robbers take care to maintain peace with their comrades, that they may with greater effect and greater safety invade the peace of other men. …Thus all people desire to have peace with their own circle whom they wish to govern as suits themselves. For even those whom they make war against they wish to make their own, and impose on them the laws of their own peace…
For the most savage animals … encompass their own species with a ring of protecting peace. They cohabit, beget, produce, suckle, and bring up their young, though very many of them are not gregarious, but solitary -not like sheep, deer, pigeons, starlings, bees, but such as lions, foxes, eagles, bats. For what tigress does not gently purr over her cubs, and lay aside her ferocity to fondle them? What kite, solitary as he is when circling over his prey, does not seek a mate, build a nest, hatch the eggs, bring up the young birds, and maintain with the mother of his family as peaceful a domestic alliance as he can? How much more powerfully do the laws of man's nature move him to hold fellowship and maintain peace with all men so far as in him lies, since even wicked men wage war to maintain the peace of their own circle, and wish that, if possible, all men belonged to them, that all men and things might serve but one head, and might, either through love or fear, yield themselves to peace with him! It is thus that pride in its perversity apes God. It abhors equality with other men under Him; but, instead of His rule, it seeks to impose a rule of its own upon its equals. It abhors, that is to say, the just peace of God, and loves its own unjust peace; but it cannot help loving peace of one kind or other. For there is no vice so clean contrary to nature that it obliterates even the faintest traces of nature.
He, then, who prefers what is right to what is wrong, and what is well-ordered to what is perverted, sees that the peace of unjust men is not worthy to be called peace in comparison with the peace of the just. And yet even what is perverted must of necessity be in harmony with, and in dependence on, and in some part of the order of things, for otherwise it would have no existence at all.…(chapter 12)
Order and justice are the stuff of peace
The peace of the body then consists in the duly proportioned arrangement of its parts. The peace of the irrational soul is the harmonious repose of the appetites, and that of the rational soul the harmony of knowledge and action. The peace of body and soul is the well-ordered and harmonious life and health of the living creature. Peace between man and God is the well-ordered obedience of faith to eternal law. Peace between man and man is well-ordered concord. Domestic peace is the well-ordered concord between those of the family who rule and those who obey. Civil peace is a similar concord among the citizens. The peace of the celestial city is the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. The peace of all things is the tranquillity of order. Order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place.
And hence, though the miserable, in so far as they are such, do certainly not enjoy peace, but are severed from that tranquillity of order in which there is no disturbance, nevertheless, inasmuch as they are deservedly and justly, miserable, they are by their very misery connected with order. They are not, indeed, conjoined with the blessed, but they are disjoined from them by the law of order. And though they are disquieted, their circumstances are notwithstanding adjusted to them, and consequently they have some tranquillity of order, and therefore some peace. But they are wretched because, although not wholly miserable, they are not in that place where any mixture of misery is impossible. They would, however, be more wretched if they had not that peace which arises from being in harmony with the natural order of things. When they suffer, their peace is in so far disturbed; but their peace continues in so far as they do not suffer, and in so far as their nature continues to exist.
As, then, there may be life without pain, while there cannot be pain without some kind of life, so there may be peace without war, but there cannot be war without some kind of peace, because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other…..
God, then, the most wise Creator and most just Ordainer of all natures, who placed the human race upon earth as its greatest ornament, imparted to men some good things adapted to this life, to wit, temporal peace, such as we can enjoy in this life from health and safety and human fellowship, and all things needful for the preservation and recovery of this peace, such as the objects which are accommodated to our outward senses, light, night, the air, and waters suitable for us, and everything the body requires to sustain, shelter, heal, or beautify it: and all under this most equitable condition. that every man who made a good use of these advantages suited to the peace of this mortal condition, should receive ampler and better blessings, namely, the peace of immortality, accompanied by glory and honour in an endless life made fit for the enjoyment of God and of one another in God; but that he who used the present blessings badly should both lose them and should not receive the others. (Chapter 13)
The order of love brings peace
….God teaches him two chief commandments, the love of God and the love of our neighbor,--and as in these precepts a man finds three things he has to love,--God, himself, and his neighbor,--and that he who loves God loves himself thereby, it follows that he must endeavor to get his neighbor to love God, since he is ordered to love his neighbor as himself. He ought to make this endeavor in behalf of his wife, his children, his household, all within his reach, even as he would wish his neighbor to do the same for him if he needed it; and consequently he will be at peace, or in well-ordered concord, with all men, as far as in him lies. And this is the order of this concord, that a man, in the first place, injure no one, and, in the second, do good to every one he can reach. Primarily, therefore, his own household are his care, for the law of nature and of society gives him readier access to them and greater opportunity of serving them. And hence the apostle says, "Now, if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."(1) This is the origin of domestic peace or the well-ordered concord of those in the family who rule and those who obey. For they who care for the rest rule,--the husband the wife, the parents the children, the masters the servants; and they who are cared for obey,--the women their husbands, the children their parents, the servants their masters. But in the family of the just man who lives by faith and is as yet a pilgrim journeying on to the celestial city, even those who rule serve those whom they seem to command; for they rule not from a love of power, but from a sense of the duty they owe to others--not because they are proud of authority, but because they love mercy. (Chapter 14)
City of God Book 19, chs 12-14
Gratian Decretum (c 1240)
In what are known as his Decretum (full title Concordia discordantium canonum), Gratian brings together nearly 4000 extracts from the canons of church councils, the writings of church fathers, papal letters, plus his own comments on them. There is uncertainty about Gratian’s own identity – monk? bishop? law teacher? - and about possible interpolations into his original text.
It is beyond dispute, however, that he collates previous thinking in the church regarding war.
Aquinas Summa Theologiae (c 1270)
Peace involves real effort, and is compatible with differences of view
Peace requires more than communal concord; for even one person’s heart can be divided, with desires at war with one another – the flesh lusting against the spirit – seeking incompatible objects. Concord harmonizes different people’s desires; peace also harmonizes one and the same person’s desires. All desire is desire of peace, a desire to enjoy what we desire tranquilly and without hindrance; and that is how Augustine defines peace: the tranquillity of order. To be in concord with another against one’s will is not peace, and men wage war to break up such concords and arrive at a more perfect peace and acceptable peace.But just as we can desirer true and false goods, so we can seek true or false peace. True peace may be perfect or imperfect: perfect peace is the enjoyment of God in whom all desires are fulflled, the ultimate goal of reasoning creatures; but only imperfect peace can be had in this world, in which, even if the innermost heart of man rests in God, all sorts of obstacles outside and inside disturb our peace. Peace then involves two kinds of harmony: order among one’s own desires, and harmony of those desires with other people’s. Charity causes both kinds of harmony, unifying all our desires in the love of God with our whole heart, and making us want to fulfil our fellowman’s will as if it were our own. There is nothing to stop people with charity having different opinions, yet being at peace; for opinions are mental matters prior to the desires that peace harmonizes. Nor will dissension over trivial matters, arising from such differences of opinion, destroy peace, as long as there is agreement on vital issues. For though such dissension is incompatible with the perfect peace in which all truth will be known and all desire fulfilled, it is compatible with the imperfect peace of this life. When related actions issue from an agent, following one another, then they are actions of one virtue, not several; just as in the bodily world fire melts things and vaporizes them with one and the same heat. So peace and joy are both effects of charity's love of God and fellowman.
Summa Theologiae 29:1-4
question: what are the conditions and qualities of peace?