On just war

[Fenris]

Can someone please explain to me the topic of "just war" in Christianity? Input from those who served is especially welcome.

[The Parson]

Are you asking about the term, justifiable war???

[Athanasius]

Can someone please explain to me the topic of "just war" in Christianity? Input from those who served is especially welcome.

At its most basic it's what it sounds like: the suggestion that there are conditions that if satisfied, can make a war just, as in, justified, justifiable, etc.

[Not Worthy]

Can someone please explain to me the topic of "just war" in Christianity? Input from those who served is especially welcome.

Never heard that there is a concept named or called "Just War" in Christianity. The only "Just " war is a spiritual one that occurs as a result of the spread of the gospel (Mat 10:34-36), but it's not a physical war. The first and the last "just" war was when Israel invaded Canaan. I think the Catholic church may have (probably did?) come up with a (non-Biblical) concept of "Just" war in order to institute the crusades. But it's not a Biblical (and therefore not a Christian) concept.

The next "Just war" will take place when Christ returns and defeats the beast. So the defeat of Jericho (7 priests blowing 7 trumpets for 7 days and the 7th day the walls coming down at the sounding of the 7th trumpet, the 7th time they marched around the city) will be either a type of the Messianic kingdom to come, or perhaps the ultimate fulfillment of what was begun when God called Abraham, or both, depending on how you want to interpret Biblical prophecy.

[agnostic]

Can someone please explain to me the topic of "just war" in Christianity?

As far as I understand, the idea is that military force is absolutely necessary -- mostly self defense, but sometimes to defend others -- and that the military must follow strict rules of conduct.

It's meant to prevent military force before all possible alternative options have been exhausted (diplomacy, economic sanctions, arbitration from other parties), to rule out military force for selfish gain (gold, oil, territory, pride), and to minimize abuse of power once the use of military force is in motion (war crimes, excessive retaliation).

Is the approach justified, is the goal justified, and is the conduct justified.

But I don't know if this is an exclusively "Christian" question, unless the question becomes, "Is violence permitted in Christianity?"

And the answers to that are pretty evenly split. Jesus apparently taught a pacifist ethic, but how contextual was that? Was it pacifism for an individual's situation, but he would have been in favor of fighting back on a national scale? Was fighting back against a religious oppressor forbidden but fighting back against a political oppressor was permitted? (A distinction of categories which didn't really exist at the time. Politics and war were both expressions of religion basically everywhere.) Was it because he expected the end times to happen soon, so he condemned all forms of violence because he trusted God would take care of it? ("Vengeance is mine, I will repay.")

[Fenris]

But I don't know if this is an exclusively "Christian" question, unless the question becomes, "Is violence permitted in Christianity?"

It's a Christian question because Christianity views pacifism as an ideal, in a way that say Judaism or Islam does not. At least, in the present age. In the messianic era obviously things will be different.

[agnostic]

In my opinion (which probably isn't welcome, because, well)...

The early Jesus movement believed the end of the world was going to happen in their lifetime. They taught absolute pacifism because they expected God would avenge them in the final judgment. They didn't anticipate the world spinning on for another twenty centuries, and all the religious and political developments. The very idea their apocalyptic group would grow so large they would rule governments that rise and fall over ages was not supposed to happen. The end of the world was supposed to happen, with its transformation into a new creation where no such conflicts would ever arise.

In my mind, this means there isn't -- and can't be -- a definitive answer to a "Christian" approach to whether war is ever justified, or how it should be conducted.

[Fenris]

In my opinion (which probably isn't welcome, because, well)...

The early Jesus movement believed the end of the world was going to happen in their lifetime. They taught absolute pacifism because they expected God would avenge them in the final judgment.

Or they thought that God would do the fighting or them.

In my mind, this means there isn't -- and can't be -- a definitive answer to a "Christian" approach to whether war is ever justified, or how it should be conducted.

Perhaps not, but I like to hear opinions.

[Not Worthy]

In my opinion (which probably isn't welcome, because, well)...

The early Jesus movement believed the end of the world was going to happen in their lifetime. They taught absolute pacifism because they expected God would avenge them in the final judgment.

Or they thought that God would do the fighting or them.

In my mind, this means there isn't -- and can't be -- a definitive answer to a "Christian" approach to whether war is ever justified, or how it should be conducted.

Perhaps not, but I like to hear opinions.

IMO there is no such thing as a just religious war (physical war) that Christians can engage in. God is the judge. But if the state goes to war and a Christian is required through conscription by his govt to fight, there is nothing morally wrong about it. Nor is there anything morally wrong about a Christian volunteering to fight if he believes the war his state has gotten into is necessary and justified.

Politics is temporal and Christians understand that in that the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, we are not of this world, but we are in this world in that the Kingdom of Christ is in the world. There is no way that we can remain neutral on all political and social matters, which are all temporal (abortion, gay marriage etc etc). War is likewise temporal and there is no command on Christians not to fight, as long as it's not in a jihad type of thing (which the Crusades were).

[Athanasius]

Perhaps not, but I like to hear opinions.

My own view, which is my own view, is that just as violence is sometimes justified, so too is war. This doesn't mean that war (or violence) is glorious, commendable, or anything other than regrettable. This would be viewed through the lens of the 'least worst option'. So, such a war would be justified relative to the state of affairs that would be should things continue.

And actually, I would go so far as to say that there are times where pacifism is unjust. There are plenty of examples but the easiest is something like: fighting is justified to stop genocide, and pacifism is unjustified in the face of such evil. Or, do you watch as your wife and daughters are raped or do you intervene or die trying? Pacifism is a great ideal - well, no evil is the better ideal - but as we live in a fallen world, we sometimes find ourselves in situations where even the best course of action is otherwise undesirable.

[RabbiKnife]

Just war... hmmmm... there was this guy named Augustine... and another guy named Aquinas...

They wrote about the concept of just war extensively...

We don’t have to make this up from whole cloth...

[Athanasius]

Just war... hmmmm... there was this guy named Augustine... and another guy named Aquinas...

They wrote about the concept of just war extensively...

We don’t have to make this up from whole cloth...

Don't forget Cicero, the more ancient of the two.

[greenonions]

Jesus commands us to love our enemies, so war doesn't seem to fit. But then there's this Bible verse too:

Psalm 82:3 “Defend the weak, the poor, and the fatherless.
    Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and needy.
    Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.”

I don't see how war can be avoided if we need to rescue people from the hand of the wicked. However, this justification has been abused by wicked people to start military campaigns too (e.g. to free the 3.5 million Germans under oppression in Czechoslovakia in 1938). No government is perfect so there are bound to be injustices in another country to be "rectified by war".

As for the pacificist position, it is interesting to note that when Islamic armies conquered the Middle East, the Church of the East was still able to survive and flourish.

[RabbiKnife]

Romans 13 is the classic defense for the theory of just war.

The command to "love our enemies" is a personal command, not a national or political command.

Jesus also said "blessed are the peacemakers."  Peace is always made, never accepted or kept.

There hasn't been a real war since WWII.  The purpose of war is to break things and kill people, so quickly and so harshly that the one's being killed and having their things broken begs for peace.

Today, "war" is merely another means of economic subjugation, not consistent with the theory of just war.

[Fenris]

Romans 13 is the classic defense for the theory of just war.

The command to "love our enemies" is a personal command, not a national or political command.

I like this way of looking at the matter. It's one thing to deal with matters in your personal life and another entirely to deal with them on the level of a country.