What Constitutes a "Just War?"
What Constitutes a "Just Robbery?"
What Constitutes a "Just Rape?"
-
David Rutledge: As
a pacifist, how do you evaluate
the just war tradition?
Stanley
Hauerwas: I’m certainly
willing always to join serious
just war thinkers in trying to
think through what the
implications of being a just
warrior should be. But if you take
the war on Iraq: why is America
able to even imagine going to war
in Iraq? It’s because we can. We’ve
got all this unbelievable military
power, so we can envision it,
because we have the capacity for
it. Now, the question is: did you
get the capacity to wage that kind
of war on just war considerations?
Is the United States’ foreign
policy a just war foreign policy?
Is the United States’ military
preparedness based on just war
considerations? No way! They’re
based on presuppositions, that you’d
better have as much military might
as you can, in a world of anarchy,
because the one with the most
weapons at the end, wins.
Now,
if just war people were more
serious about raising questions
about the implications of what
just war would commit them to –
for example, the war on terrorism
could not possibly be a just war.
I don’t even think it’s a war,
I mean that’s a metaphorical use
of the word “war” that comes
from Americans’ views of – you
know, the “war on drugs”, the
“war on crime” – I mean, it’s
just crap. Because what they need
to think about is: just war is
always about a political end, that
you need to declare, so your enemy
will know how they can resign and
surrender. And so if you’re
about annihilating your enemy, as
we were in World War II – that
is, we fought it for unconditional
surrender – you can’t fight a
just war for unconditional
surrender, because you’re not
trying to destroy your enemy, you’re
only trying to stop your enemy
from doing the wrong that you
declared the war for. I mean,
there can’t be a just war
against terrorism, because you don’t
even know who the enemy is, and
you get to keep changing it, and
the presumption that a just war
should be in response to
aggression: well, in what way is
Iraq really threatening America?
That hasn’t been shown at all.
What Iraq threatens is American
imperial hegemony in the world.
How is that a criterion for just
war?
|
|
|
After Christ's death on the Cross, no war is just. No war that
the United States has engaged in for the last 250 years has been
justified:
Would
Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?
Arguments about "Just War Theory" only scratch the
surface of some of the bigger issues we face in the quest for peace.
Much of the "Just War Theory" depends on an unBiblical
interpretation of Romans 13. We have examined this doctrinal
pantheon here:
www.Romans13.com
The errors found in most teaching about Romans 13 come from a
misunderstanding of "the sword" and the function of what
we call "capital punishment" in the Old Testament. We
have examined these errors here:
www.GodandtheDeathPenalty.com
|| summary
All these errors ultimately spring from a failure to take
Biblical teachings on vengeance
seriously.
Kevin Craig is the founder of a non-profit tax-exempt
educational organization called "Vine
& Fig Tree." The name is taken from the
Old Testament prophet Micah, who told us of God's will that we
"beat swords into plowshares"
so that everyone could dwell safely under his vine
and fig tree. You can read the complete prophecy and get a
summary of all VFT websites here:
www.VFTonline.com
Kevin Craig was personally tutored by R.J.
Rushdoony and Greg
Bahnsen. He passed the California Bar Exam, but was denied a
license to practice law because America is now officially an
atheistic nation, and Christians who are committed to following
Christ's Sermon on the Mount have been held to be ineligible to
become attorneys. This ridiculous-sounding claim is documented
here:
http://i.am/not-a-lawyer
A deposition from that case, explaining how the author became a
pacifist, is here:
http://KevinCraig.us/pacifist.htm
The verses quoted in that deposition constitute a "prima
facie case" for pacifism. An
anthropologist from Mars, here to study the human race,
specializing in the teachings and influence of Jesus Christ, would
see immediately that Christ and the Bible advocate pacifism.
Christ did not defend
Himself against attack, and we are to follow "in His
steps" (1
Peter 2:18-24). "Thou shalt not
kill" and "love your enemies" are clear
commands. Elizabeth Flower, of the University of Pennsylvania,
writing in The
Dictionary of the History of Ideas
,
observes,
The perplexing issue is why such straightforward and
unambiguous teaching came to be ignored, or at least taken as a
"counsel of perfection" impossible of realization in
this world. In any case, . . . Christians began to accommodate
to the social realities of civil government, military service,
taxation, etc.; and then to develop their own political power.
Yet the literal directives of the Sermon [on the Mount] were
time-resistant and Christian pacifism has not lacked for bold
and uncompromising advocates in such early Church Fathers as
Clement, Justin, and above all Origen, in sects such as the
Quakers, Schwenkenfelders, and Doukhobors, and in such modern
proponents as Leo Tolstoy, Jacques Maritain, and A.J. Muste. . .
. Yet historical Christianity generally compromised its pacifist
commitments.
"Just War Theory" is one such accommodation to
"social realities." It is an attempt to escape the clear
teaching of Christ and the Scripture.
We are currently creating a comprehensive examination of
"Just War Theory," but until that resource is complete,
please consider the following:
We oppose the "Just War Theory" on Calvinistic
and Reconstructionist
grounds, not from the perspective of "sects such as the
Quakers, Schwenkenfelders, and Doukhobors."
For Further Reading: Swords into
Plowshares