Friends,

I gave up my car (one of two in my family) for the first Gulf War. It felt like we were killing people for oil, and I didn't want my car contributing to the need for oil. I walked to work, and struggled with how to explain to the people who gave me a ride what was going on.

It felt so small an action. And it felt so necessary to do something and I didn't know what else to do.

-Liz

Just War Doctrine

The earliest Christians did not join the military. Reasoning included the commandment to not kill, the fact that the Roman Army persecuted Christians, and the general separation from Roman cultural life. Some quoted what is now Matthew 26:52: "Put your sward back into its place for all who take the sword will die by the sword". Soldiers did join the Christians, giving up their career, or waiting til their deathbed for baptism.

By the second century the separation from society was less important, Origen defends Christians lack of military time by serving the community in other ways. There were enough Christians serving by 299 that Diocletian could try to purge them from the military as part of his systemic persecution.

By the time of Constantine Christians were prevalent enough among the Roman troops that he could credit the faith for winning his battles. In the fifth century Saint Augustine described why it was okay for Christians to engage in war, and in the 13th century Thomas Aquinas developed our Just War Doctrine. The theological arguments, which I have not read, are in Summa Theologicae. (If you are wondering, the crusades are explained as self-defense against violent muslims.)

Although a few protestant reformers were pacifists, much of Europe was engulfed in war as part of the reformation. Theologians called it self-defense, resistance to tyranny, and as a force to protect "true" faith. The point is, Christians do not have a long history of being the moral voice when it comes to war.

Still, Just War Doctrine is a start. It begins with who can engage in war--only nations may wage war. Private individuals do not have the right to initiate armed conflict, and nations cannot attack civilians. Of course the question of what is a military target--certainly munitions storage, even if guarded by civilians, but what about food supplies, train lines, airports? And when terrorists are involved, what is appropriate when they are intentionally located among civilians?

Just Wars must have a just cause. This includes self-defense, and defense of allies. In recent history many arguments are made that it is self-defense to attack a nation you believe is about to attack. These arguments are used to allow war to end weapons of mass destruction or development of a nuclear weapon, although this is quite an expansion of this criteria. Some how we have turned the discussion from "was there an imminent threat?" to "is there really evidence of the threat." Other moral principals include the presumption of innocence; we mostly seem to set that aside when it comes to war.

Just war theory allows for "responding to past wrongs" but draws the line against revenge. An equally fine line is drawn by insisting that war must only be started with good intentions. It must not be for political gain, nor for self-interest, but must be for justice, to protect the oppressed, or to bring about a larger peace. I think of the efforts to describe the war in Afghanistan as defense of women's rights, when that had not been the catalyst for the invasion.

A Just War is required to have a reasonable possibility of success. This is an area where the United States has failed repeatedly. We simply cannot imagine that we are not able to win whatever it is that we start. After each war with unclear goals, there are some who will argue that we just didn't try hard enough. And so we are sitting now in Venezuela and Iran without any idea what success will look like, and yet assurances that we will succeed.

Thus a Just War has a goal, an achievable goal, and the goal must be proportional to the original cause. As you can see, if there wasn't a clear cause, and there isn't a clear goal, then there is no way to measure proportionality. If someone takes some of our land, we have just cause to take it back, but not to take more. Thus the situation in Ukraine seems clear, in most other wars of today, it seems muddy. It is Just War Doctrine that has lead past presidents to make the case to the nation as to what is the cause and the goal of wars we have started or joined.

What we are left with, then, in our local congregations, is the question of whether this war at this time is just. Should we, as children of God, be in favor of, or opposed to, this particular war. We take into account the explanations, or non-explanations provided from our leadership. We listen to the people in our congregations. We ask questions about practicality, goals, proportionality.

In the end we pray for peace. We take actions to try to ask our government to engage only in Just Wars. We support organizations that care for those who suffer as a result of wars.

Did the newest war come up in your worship this Sunday? Reply to this email to let me know what's happening. ​
​

Meg Christian and her song Drops of Water. Can we slowly change the world?

Episcopal News Service on the US attack on Iran.

Please forward this email to others who might be interested. If you got this from someone else, use the button below to subscribe to the free Act! Be Church Now email newsletter.