Understanding how Just War fits into the Christian tradition
Martin D asked if he was right in his understanding that Just War theory "was being formulated during the rise of a Christianity that was itself becoming imperial and should therefore be understood in that context as apologetics for and rationalization of attaining power by force.
I will endeavor to answer Martin's question and to address, more broadly, the explanation for how we came to undertake an unjust war (by the standards of Christian Just War Theory) in the name of "Christianity".
To do so requires reviewing a bit of late classical history. Bear with me.
The origins of Just War Theory lie in the writings of Augustine of Hippo. Augustine was a Roman, but a colonial Roman. He was born in what is now Algeria and spent most of his life in North Africa.
He was profoundly interested in the question of how one could reconcile the duties of being a Christian with those of being a Roman Citizen. Much of his writing addresses the necessity for Christians to obey the secular law of the secular state so long as they don't directly compromise Christian doctrine.
As a North African who rose in the ranks of the Roman system (he eventually garnered the equivalency of a full professorship in Latin Rhetoric at the Roman university in Milan), he was impressed with the institutions of the Roman state. But this was not a time of great Roman imperial expansion.
Quite the contrary. When, at the beginning of the fifth century A.D. Rome was sacked, Augustine was at the height of his fame as the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa.
Confronted with the dissolution of the Roman Empire, he was constrained to construct a philosophical framework wherein his Church could survive the challenges facing both Rome and the Christians. At the center of his argument, Augustine maintained that those subject to Roman rulers must obey them unless they commanded something against a Divine Law.
This is where Just War Theory emerges. For Augustine war was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.
The only reason for waging a war would be to defend the nation's peace against serious injury. He wrote, "'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.'"
The intention of the state in declaring war was crucial for Augustine. He maintained that "the passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, a hostile and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
Augustine emphasized the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war.
He said "we do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."
It may seem odd in 2005, when war-mongering seems to be associated with the "Christian Right" that the foundations of Just War doctrine are embedded in the history of the Church.
The seeming paradox becomes more understandable when one recognizes that all of the modern liturgical churches (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Episcopalians, etc) actively apply Just War theory in their view of the world, and all of these liturgical churches officially found that invading Iraq did not meet the test.
It is the non-liturgical churches for whom two millennia of church history and theology have relatively little import when set against the literal interpretation of the Bible (the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals, the Charismatic) who, in almost every instance ignored Just War theory and rushed to support President Bush in his march to war.
The Blue/Red divide in America is not unrelated to the divide between the liturgical and non liturgical churches in America. And herein is at least a part of the explanation for how a nation can make unjust war in the name of "Christianity".
John Stuart Blackton
It is the non-liturgical churches for whom two millennia of church history and theology have relatively little import when set against the literal interpretation of the Bible (the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals, the Charismatic) who, in almost every instance ignored Just War theory and rushed to support President Bush in his march to war.
Allow me to posit a favorite thought inspired by that.
I see great irony in this, because the one-on-one-with God of non-liturgical faiths (including a lot of Islam) might, in a simply theoretical approach, be seen as a follow-through on the individualism of the Enlightenment, no? No more hierarchy telling you what to think. It's just you and God.
Early this year an article in the New York Times that presented the analysis that Pentecostalism was the fastest growing religion in the world. (Note the link to the chart, I found it helpful.) The facts as to "fastest growing" are debatable, of course, but certainly its very popular. (I even see the evidence in my own heavily immigrant neighborhood in the Bronx.)
In one way, raised as a Roman Catholic (Vatican II reforms happened around the time of my first communion,) I see this as "progress" of individualism, especially as it regards its popularity in the 3rd world and Latin America. It's an "up yours" to the papacy, at the Vatican, they know that. In a way, it fits with Post Modern philosophy?
The results of the "power of the people" without "checks and balances" is never as predictable as many would like to think.
November 26, 2005 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser
It is part of the problem with Platonism in any of its guises. Augustine of Hippo. like Descartes centuries later, was a Platonist. The Platonist model is about personal exploration of the mind in order to find truth. As the act of an individual it can be a powerful rejection of the senses in order to find the Ideal plain of exists.
However, Platonism never lent itself to a collective search for truth. As a mass movement it is prone to totalitarianism. You can see in the writings of many of the fascists and other writer in Europe after WWI who advocate violence as the Platonic act necessary for the collective search for the truth. In this version the leaders know the Truth and they impart it to their followers who armed with the truth seek to imposed it on the ignorant.
December 3, 2005 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most people who have studied Augustine would be prepared to accept Daniel Gree's description of him as a Christian Platonist. Augustine may, indeed, have been among the most influential of Christian Platonists.
The thought of Augustine and of Augustinians often arouses uneasiness, and sometimes downright hostility, as it has in Daniel Gree. This reaction is strongest among those whose worldview has been influenced by Greek humanism.
Augustine, it must be admitted, takes a very dark view of the present state (and future destiny) of the great majority of mankind. So dark a view, in fact, that his pessimism about man becomes a pessimism about God.
Both the Platonist and the Christian ways of thinking have had in them from their beginnings, in the Dialogues of Plato and the New Testament respectively, important tensions and variations of outlook.
But the tensions between Christian and Platonist thought are never between completely inconsistent positions. The variations between them are only within certain limits; hence, the philosophic traditions of liturgical Christianity and the thought of St. Augustine and of Augustinians often pose significant concerns for secular Platonists.
Augustine's doctrine of the massa perditionis places central and intense emphasis on inherited and personal guilt and sin, and involves an insistence that God, for utterly mysterious reasons, selects from the mass of men only a limited number for salvation from the deplorable present state.
While I share some of his historical appreciation for the Hellenic/Christian dimensions of Augustine, I don't share Daniel G's sense that one can draw an unbroken line from Plato through Augustine to modern fascism.
Modern totalitarians do, indeed, sometimes use a perverted sort of neo-neo-Platonistic reasoning. But, by no means does this make fascist philosophy an inevitable outcome for Platonism.
Some readers of this blog will no doubt think about the link to the Jewish Platonists who emerged from the Vienna Circle in the first third of the 20th Century and in particular of their disciple Leo Strauss who helped to give us Paul Wolfowitz.
The link is real, but also deceptive.
Paul Wolfowtiz would not, I suspect, have prospered academically at the Roman University of Milan where Augustine was a professor of Latin Rhetoric.
Paul fits more comfortably in the company of St Donald of the Potomac than with St Augustine of Hippo.
John Stuart Blackton
December 3, 2005 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually while I found a the Confessions a bit contradictory. A man demonstrating a total lack of humility while urging humility on other I do not find Augustine a cause of unease any more than Plato does. I was responding to Artappraiser locating the problem of the nonliturgical churchs in the Enlightenments individuality.
However, Socrates, Philo of Alexandria, Augustine and Descrates as well as Henri Bergson a neo-Platonist of the early 20th Century all make it clear that Truth is in some sense an individual quest. In many respects the Church plays the role for Augustine that Socrates does for Theatetus in Plato's dialogue of that name and Descartes urges everyone to play for themselves. It is an exploration within the mind for Truth.
The danger is when this becomes a collective action. When the truth is be found and known collectively. Since it is not at all clear how such a truth can be communicated it has all the makings for totalitarism, the elite who knows what is truth teaching and imposing it on the many who are ignorant.
December 3, 2005 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS I hope I made it clear I agree with you totally that there is no straight line from Augustine to fascism. Descrates both a devout Christian and a Platonist ran into a problem with the Church precisely because his Platonism was so individualistic in finding the Truth, including the existence of God, that there was no room for the Church.
You don't need to reach the 20th century to find Jewish Platonists. As I imagine you know Philo of Alexandria, often known as Philo the Jew, is often believed to be the source of Augustines Platonism.
December 3, 2005 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
as they will soon scroll off to page 2 of the "My Blog" section:
The Criteria for Just War - Suitable grist for Post-Thanksgiving
By John Stuart Blackton
Nov 25, 2005
Is It a Just War or Was It a Mistake?
By Martin D
Nov 26, 2005
November 26, 2005 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the non-liturgical churches for whom two millennia of church history and theology have relatively little import when set against the literal interpretation of the Bible (the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals, the Charismatic) who, in almost every instance ignored Just War theory and rushed to support President Bush in his march to war.
I think some of the problem with both the liturgical and non liturgical churches support/ nonsupport for various political and ethical philosophies can best be understood if one is able to distinquish the religion of Christianity from the faith. The religion is an extention of Greek philosophy, nothing more or less. If one wishes to understand the jargon of the Christian religion, then one must become familiar with the philosophy of Greece and Rome prevalent at the time its' inception, circa 150 AD, which was formalized by the school of Alexandria. The religion is decidedly younger than the faith.
It is one of the main things that causes such a disjunct in the minds of other faiths and non believers who have taken some time to at least read the Christian Greek Scriptures, and those who claim to adhere to its' tenets. This only compounds the generally poor translations of the Bible into other languages.
The most obvious thing about the just war doctrine is its' late advent, which leaves it a little short of the two millenium that you ascribe to it. It is in fact, like many other doctrines, not found in any Biblical passages, so as with all other doctrines appended to the faith, it may be or not be adhered to by any group of Christians depending on their whims and fancies of the moment irrespective of the teachings of the Christ, or other theological teachings and understanding of other churches.
The problem of a just war is one of philosophy, not Christianity. The teachings of Christ and the Apostles leave no room for war in the Christian life, in our century or any other. The deficit of philosophy is its' inability to rationalize love, which is the underlying emotion of the faith, and so it is in opposition to the faith, albeit the foundation of the religion. This is is the working out of the parable of the wheat and the tares. Those of the faith must bear the Cross of those of the religion, and our worst enemies are indeed members of our own household.
November 26, 2005 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the Institute of American Values' letter was quite influential across many domains. Note the signatorees.
http://www.americanvalues.org/html/wwff.html
November 28, 2005 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
sdanielles, thanks for the link.
While it is the right of the signatories to express their opinions and views on the subject, as of course it is with all subjects, there are some underlying principles of the faith that cannot be ignored, I believe.
- The teachings of the Christ, cannot be superceded or super imposed upon by the teachings of man. No doctrine of the Apostles or prophets can be properly interpreted by those of the faith in such a way as to contradict the teachings and doctrines of the Christ.
- No teaching subsequent to the Apostles can overide or suborne the teachings of the Apostles, whose teaching properly interpreted, amplified and clarified the teachings and doctrines of the Christ.
The Institute for American Values does not speak for Christ, nor would I share communion with any of the signatories without them recanting their previous statement to which you linked.I cannot condemn them, because they are judged by their own words and deeds, just as we all are. But we of the faith must be careful not to become condemned ourselves for that which we approve of, substituting our judgements for those of God through Christ. In fact I do not judge anyone whatsoever. I am under obligation to keep myself free from sins, but not you, or they, or anyone else. I can only warn and urge others to do so, for their own well being. Faith is not the possession of all people however, and these I do not condemn either.
I would only ask those of the religion whether it is more righteous in their eyes to obey God or man as ruler of man? Let each one decide for their ownselves, and so too, prepare themselves to meet their God.
November 28, 2005 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the non-liturgical churches for whom two millennia of church history and theology have relatively little import when set against the literal interpretation of the Bible (the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals, the Charismatic) who, in almost every instance ignored Just War theory and rushed to support President Bush in his march to war.
That may oversimplify the matter. One (not the only) obvious counter-example is the Quakers, a "classic" non-liturgical Christian group who not only don't support just war theory (with its limitations on war) but don't support war at all.
The non-liturgical churches might better be understood--virtually by definition--as having much less corporate (i.e. ecclesiastical hierarchy) control of their ideologies. The other side of the same coin is that the non-liturgical churches tend to emphasize much more local or even individual autonomy in matters of belief. That makes them, as a group, tend to be more resonant to their local political environments.
So, for example, many pentecostal churches in white upper middle class suburbs are pro-Iraq war, whereas the same churches in black communities are not. Similarly, denominations like Southern Baptists--who at their outset (slavery issues notwithstanding) had some roots in populist progressivism in the South--used to reflect some range of sentiments on war. But by the second half of the twentieth century, as their members became part of the local political and economic establishments, anti-war sentiments tended to recede from their self-consciousness.
In any case, this diary raises a further interesting question: will we expect the liturgical (sometimes called "mainstream") churches to lead the growing revulsion against the Iraq war, or the non-liturgical ones? The answer turns on whether a historic just war tradition of restraint--but not absolute prohibition--on war can be effective in moving masses of American public opinion. Alternatively, the diffuse and uncontrolled non-liturgical congregations--while they would, by definition, never act in concert--might give rise to stronger and more viable mutations of antiwar sentiment. It's a close call, and not at all obvious, in my opinion.
December 2, 2005 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wilderwood makes some very sophisticated points about the admittedly simplistic dichtomy I set up between the liturgial church position on just war and its general absence in the non-liturgical denominations.
Yes, indeed, the Peace Churches (not only Quakers, but also Mennonites and other northern European dissenter churches) represent a distinctive and important anti-war tradition that falls outside my dichotomy and outside the classical Just War framework.
And, yes, white non-liturgicals and black non-liturgicals have very different political centers of gravity.
Finally, are the mainstream Anglicans and Presbyterians with their 1500 year-old Augustinian ideas really up to leading a political revolution? or are they trop fainéant?
A very legitimate question.
I would love to see all of these questions out in the mainstream of public debate. The right-wing Christian monopoly on the issue is most unfortunate.
Thanks, Wilderwood.
John Stuart Blackton
December 2, 2005 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is I who thank you for raising the issue.
How to get it in the sphere of consciousness of the churches, never mind the larger body politic?
Horribile dictu, neither of these traditions seems at present to have enough internal discomfort to energize a serious theological debate. So when Sunni Iraq goes up in flames as we retreat, neither the guilt-ridden handwringing (i.e. "where was the voice of the churches, any churches?") nor the prophetic pronouncements about the social injustice of it all will have arrived soon enough to be the least bit credible. It' a little like the Democratic presidential candidates are at risk from their votes for the war, as in: "no prowar voters who have not repented publicly in dust and ashes need apply for the nomination--and not just any public backing off the war will do, mind you, we'll rule on these confessions on a case-by-case basis." So also no priest or prophet, or the churches they lead, need proclaim anything now for the first time. Nobody will listen, still less believe--and for good reason.
I guess the only good news is that it's an old story:
". . . in those days [and in some of the same lands] there was [also] a great famine of the hearing of the word." And yet remnants have survived.
But where is the remnant today? Or who are they?
December 2, 2005 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think if this thread is going to move in any real positive direction that we will first need to define the terms that we are going to use, since the liturgical/non litergical definitions aren't accurate. While only three or four of us are involved it may be alright to ascribe our common definition to these terms, it will be impossible to later restate the conclussions of the discussion using these very terms, especially to the Christian community. Liturgy has to do with the Eucharist and public worship of a Church. Of necessity there are liturgical and non liturgical aspects of any one individual's faith, and religion.
If, as I think, we are discussing hierarchical and non-hierarchial churches then we need to reframe the discussion along these lines, not only for clarity amongst ourselves but among any who happen to drop by.
In my original response I tried to differentiate between the Christian faith and Christian religion because it is an important distinction of terms. Faith is an individual possesion, while religion is a corporate one.
It also should be noted that one cannot change a religion from the outside, unless the full political power of the state is used to coerce that religion's leadership, such as has occurred throughout history to produce that which we now confront in our own times. The religious leadership, having broken the faith, then subournes layity with their authority, usually backed up with the power of the state.
As has been noted, it is a hard thing for even the hierarchial churches to enforce their own doctrines, and it is a question as to whether the Pope's objections to the American invasion of Iraq had much influence on the American Catholic layman's position on it, or if it was even considered by them in their decision making process altogether. Augustines Just War doctrine, I am fairly confident, was lost on the majority of them at any rate, as was the fact that the 500 pounders falling on Iraqi cities would indiscriminately kill and maim Christian and Islamic innocents.
War is a political and economic decision, which may or may not be supported by religions of whatever stripe, but it is contrary to the Christian faith under any and all guises as enumerated by the doctines of Christ and the Apostles . There may be a Just War Doctrine in the Christian religion, but it is contrary to the Scripture that establishes the Doctrine of the Faith.
To counter any Christian religious doctrines one would have to use the philosophical tools of the originator of that doctrine while drawing on the doctrine of the faith to do so. In a nutshell one would have to port the doctrine of the faith to the religion, using the tools of the religion. The problem with this is that the doctrines of the faith reject the political and economic realities that we live in, and contradict the doctrines of the religion.
The secularist is left with manipulating the politics of the state to manipulate the religions that manipulates the layity, in conjunction with all the other political tools of manipulation, including the press and economic policies and practices. The human secularist are indeed correct in their summation of religion, it is a tool of the state.
For those of the faith then there is wrestling with all of these powers, principalities and authorities, and why I am here, speaking to you in specific, but in general to my enemies in the gate.
December 2, 2005 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
BKL writes "I think if this thread is going to move in any real positive direction that we will first need to define the terms that we are going to use, since the liturgical/non litergical definitions aren't accurate."
As I am using these names, they are simply term-of-art.
The church community uses these terms and generally accepts the division of who is and who isn't liturgical. There isn't any moral virtue to being one or the other. If a demonination's services always have an agnus dei and a "fraction hymn" no matter which particular church you attend, then they are liturgical in the tradecraft sense of the word.
A "liturgical church" conducts its services by a strict, prescribed liturgy -- a formal structure or order of worship, which has been passed down from tradition.
For me the discinction has utility when discussion the historical and formal aspects of Christian Just War theory because that doctrine was formed in, and passed down through, the liturgical tradition.
But a pious and pacifist Hindu who has no connection to the Christian liturgical tradition has as much claim for the spiritual validity of his religious views about war as does the Presbyterian.
At the level of individual moral understanding, BKL is absolutely correct in saying that "faith is an individual possesion, while religion is a corporate one."
The reason I find the "corporate" part interesting and important is that one set of "companies" in the "Christian Corporation" is actively advancing the war in Iraq while another set of "companies" in the "Christian Corporation" is actively opposing the war in Iraq.
I happen to be an Anglican and my Bishop (Bishop Chane of the Washington Diocese) makes a point of regularly demonstrating against the war in his full (very liturgical) regalia.
His act is both individual and corporate.
My old Anglican chaplain at Yale, William Sloan Coffin, was not a Bishop, but he used the double corporate elements of the Church and Yale to advance his opposition to the Vietnam war.
BKL is probably right in worrying that the corporate efforts aren't always very effective, but they are not without significance.
Many American presidents have sought to get a Just War "OK" from the liturgical churches. Even Poppy Bush did this for the first Gulf War.
But the liturgical churches of the United States met, one by one, in the run-up to this Iraq war and formally voted that it was not a Just War. They with-held the liturgical "get out of jail free" card from George W Bush.
This didn't stop the war, but it will, in the fullness of time, play a part in how history judges W and his war.
Why do I bother with this subject? It isn't going to stop W. It isn't going to bring the troops home in six months.
But I think that it does matter that the oldest and most established threads of the Christian community have, in some corporate way, rejected this war while the newest, and least established threads of the Christain community (the fundamentalists) have embraced it.
Most of all, I would like to have ordinary Americans better understand that this is contested ground.
Christian doesn't have to mean right-wing. and Christian doesn't have to mean pro-war.
I don't have great hopes that I will succeed in bringing this dialogue into the mainstream, but it is worth a shot.
And I appreciate the small, brave band who have engaged with me on this. Your disagreements are as heart-warming as your agreement. Because you, also, take the question seriously.
Thanks.
John Stuart Blackton
December 2, 2005 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to JSB and other posters.
You add dimension and depth to my view of the political. I read, and sometimes re-read, carefully. [Oh that I could absorb the understanding of my uncle who is steeped in philosopy and the classics. I would better understand your thinking. Plus in years of passionate family discussions I would be better armed.]
Definitions/explanations are much appreciated. I recognize they get in the way of the points each is making so adding them to a post in the manner of an explanatory footnote would help me.
As to the role of the corporate church I find that I occupy a position that is logically indefensible and yet fits my morality. I applaud the corporate church leaders and entities when they are public advocate for policies and positions with which I agree. When I disagree with a position I argue that religion is private and should not be used to advance a policy or politican.
December 3, 2005 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud the corporate church leaders and entities when they are public advocate for policies and positions with which I agree. When I disagree with a position I argue that religion is private and should not be used to advance a policy or politican.
LOL! Ain't it the truth! (I am always surprised that some missed the email that said religion wasn't meant to be logical and objective....)
December 3, 2005 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
ArtA - do you know how to change the order of posts within a thread (numerical, as posted)? For certain threads I need dates, for others the order of nested posts/replies is better.
December 3, 2005 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
go to "My Preferences" and choose "Comments." Your choices are all in the drop-down boxes there, including "ignore ratings" and different chronologies. You would have to change it each time you wanted something different.
December 3, 2005 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
We seem to have a core of TPM readers who really do care about Just War and would like to recapture (from the fundamentalist right-wing churches) some space for an internationalist and tolerant Christian voice on the issue of War.
What do we need to do to widen the circle of participants?
I'm a total neophyte in posting/blogging. I was invited to TPM as a book reviewer went from that to starting a discussion about the use of White Phosphorus in Iraq which morphed into a discussion about Just War.
I suppose that these discussions rise and fall all the time - three days of passionate debate drifting off into eternal silence.
If any of the participants has a sense for what it would take to widen the discussion, please feel free to try.
Thanks for all your participation,
John Stuart Blackton
December 4, 2005 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
First off thanks for the effort to even bring it to the table. I could remark that it proves your point of being a novice, since to bring a positive view of any religion to any internet discussion has for years been a sure fire road to oblivion. That is of course changing as more and more people discover the internet.
The religiously tolerant are in the unenviable position now of being between a rock rock and a hard place. I am reminded of a haggada inwhich two rabbi are having a discussion with a third, and so one request an opinion on a matter of law and the other wants to hear a pretty legend. When he speaks on the law he notices he is offending the one, so he begins to speak on a legend and the other becomes offended. He then remarks that he is like a man with two wives, one old, the other young. The one plucks his grey hair to make him appear young, the other plucks his black hair to make him appear old. For the time being, the religiously tolerant will have to become accustomed to being bald. Toleration is one of the most precious rarities on the net.
You may have noticed that as a religious topic varies more toward philosophy that it will attract more philosophers, who are inherently non-religious, and so the discussion invariably degrades along the centuries old lines of demarcation between faith and reason. Theology, in my opinion, is like a bridge that tries to span the gap without a firm anchor on either side of the chasm.
Many years ago no one knew how to make money off the internet, and so there was some concern as to how to make it viable as commercial endeavor. Fortunately pornogrphers where not limited by the geeks, and developed a rather good business model that showed other commercial developers how to do it. ( As a snide aside, the MSM seems to have developed a knack for spewing pornography without figuring out how to make any money at it, however.)
I think that there are two or three ways that you can go about getting a tolerant viewpoint out into the mainstream, one is by starting your own blog, or submitting papers that do so to other sites that share your position on various issues. Another is to write and post here at TPMCafe, which has already spawned some blogs that are starting to be noticed by the community at large, NickDoe's Anonymous Liberal being one that springs to mind.
Juan Cole has very good scholatic blog that you might want to emulate, and by all means email those people whose blogs you admire and ask them for input and advice. Maybe even Josh will help out. I think that whoever you ask is going to be inclined to help you out with it.
December 4, 2005 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
BKL, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions.
My sense is that I am not cut out for the world of blogging. There seem to be too many angry people out there.
I may be too old to learn new tricks. I've had three incarnations as:
* Soldier
* Diplomat
&
* Professor
I may stick to print and lectures where I am somewhat comfortable, but make an occasional post on other's blogs when it seems worthwhile.
I must say that doing this thread has been fun.
Thanks,
John Stuart Blackton
December 4, 2005 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
JSB - I appreciate calm, reason and learning. The interaction forces me to re-examine my thinking.
If it is not too late to offer suggestions, my thoughts:
- Your writing is in and of itself a way to draw in participants who want to respond in the manner you establish.
- Attracting an audience and maintaining some continuity would be easier if the Cafe had a table on philosophy, religion (not sure what the title should be). The link to the practical (connnections with other aspects of society and vice versa) is a draw to at least me.
- Readers who enjoy your writing can take the initiative to draw in other posters with like interests.
[May not be practical since I for one suggested to a contributor of comments to Steve Clemons to come here to write longer pieces (sapere aude). I tried to "recruit" others with my comments in other threads. Only a few, but there may be a better way to "recruit"]
- In the blog world I read the person who also combines the practical with the deeper thinking is Andrew Sullivan. If he finds your writing of interest how about links from him to you?
December 13, 2005 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The active participants in this thread are clearly familiar with the elements of classical Christain Just War doctrine.
For newcomers, let me review the bidding,
The concept of Just War Theory has its roots in 5th Century Christianity when the Church was finding ways to reconcile itself to the realities of the Roman Empire.
Although it moved gradually into the sphere of humanistic philosophy and ultimately into international law, the roots of Just War are religious.
It is useful, therefore, to start with the religious formulation, because it has been with us for a millennium-and-a-half, and it is so deeply woven into the fabric of notions of Western Civilization
The original Christian tests for going to war, and for the conduct of a war justly entered into, can be simplified to these:
1. Right authority
War can only be waged by a legitimate authority. At the time Augustine of Hippo first wrote these principles he meant either a Prince a King.
2. Just cause
A just cause avenges a wrong. Or protects the innocent.
3. Right intention
A right intention is to be held by those waging war. (eg this might be read today to mean Peace, not land or oil) . This links with the concept of Discrimination below.
4. Last Resort
The genuine prospect of of imminent attack
If the decision go to war passes these tests, the conduct of the war is just only if it adheres to these:
1.. Proportionality
War can only be fought by legitimate means. Means must be proportional.
2.. Discrimination
Respect for the immunity of the innocent and non-combatants. And in keeping with the prior notion of Right Intention: Showing mercy in victory. Somber regret.
3.. Reasonable hope for success
The debate about the Administration's foundations for going to war, what the Church called Jus Ad Bellum , seems to be taking on new life in Washington.
The debate about our conduct of the war, what Church doctrine terms Jus in Bello is what has animated the discussion about the recent use of Whote Phosphorous in Fallujah.
December 2, 2005 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not quite complete nor quite right, especially the very mistaken notion that "just cause" could somehow include vengenace. From the US Bishops' document:
- Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;
- Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
- Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
- Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose;
- Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
- Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved;
- Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
"These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force."Second, the just-war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict:
December 3, 2005 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marcel writes "This is not quite complete nor quite right" and he proposed an alternate "menu" compiled recently by the American council of Catholic Bishops.
Yes, indeed, Marcel, in the 1500 years since Augustine there have been literally thousands of these Just War "menus" drawn up - each reflecting the style and language of its period.
The one in my post was offered as a "simplified" version of the original (1500 year old) version.
This is a subject I know very well. I used to teach it when I was a professor at the National War College and I often brought in the some of the most distinquished American religious scholars on Just War Theory to expand upon what I had taught. Each of them had an interesting, and different, spin on the subject.
Rest assured, there is no final and authoritative version of all of this. And do remember that in Middle Ages, during which this doctrine enjoyed much of its active intellectual development, was an era when vengeance was not as alien as it is in modern liturgical church theology.
There is a core of thought that runs through the 1500 year evolution and, at the same time, there as been much addition and evolution in the Just War Tradition.
But what stands out is that our current president is not attached to any of the intellectual traditions of liturgical Christianity & it certainly shows!
John Stuart Blackton
December 3, 2005 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. And I completely support your attempt to mainstream this debate. I challenged an audience conservative Catholics on precisely this in a public lecture last fall, since just war has a much more normative effect in those circles (and a few bishops incredibly labelled the Iraq war just).
The Catholics (which I am not) do seem to have the "center" on what just war theory is, and i think it is important to have some set of consensus criteria. Not final, but somehow normative. The move from "love" as principle in Augustine to "common good" in Aquinas is an important shift, since the criteria cannot function as a checklist, but only to conceptually control the conversation. Eg, I would still maintain that "probability of success" must go in the ad bellum set, as it is an assessment that needs to be made before the war (and yes, in deciding when to give up).
I'm less concerned with the President (who seems quite cynical on this point) than with the Christians who support him in the war without facing up to the dissonance between their positions and the traditions in which they live. The more "low church" one is, the more directly NT arguments come into play, and the nearer one is led to pacifism.
What I do strongly contest is that "vengeance" has any place in just war theory at all, except as one of the evils the doctrine was designed to avoid. I don't see it in any of the major players of the past, and certainly not today.From whom do you get the association between "just cause" and "avenges a wrong"?
December 3, 2005 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to have to open this thread up a little, primarily because I am more an Arian Fundamentalist, and so I have to look at and understand any Greek influences on Christianity from an entirely different perspective than those who are Trinitarians, and as such more steeped in the admixture of the Greek Philosophy and Christian traditions.
First of all I think I must judge the Just War Doctrine of Augustine of Hippo with the fruitage of the doctrine. One can not study the tree without noting its' seed. I may be wrong here, as it has been awhile since I read Will Durant's Story of Civilization, but as I recall the doctrine originated when Rome in general, and Carthage and Hippo in particular, were being conquered by the Visigoth and Vandals, both of whom were Arian Christian people. Nor can I overlook Augustines diatribes against the Donatists, and his advocacy of force against them. In Augustine and his doctrines then, and again I could be wrong, I see the confluence of the Imperial politics, Theological disputations, and the failure of both Christianity and philosophy to reform the heart of such an august man as Augustine and many of the Patriarchs, whose teachings and activities seem more to deny the teachings and doctrines of the Christ as expounded in the Scriptures.
I bring these points up, because as a relatively unschooled Christian, other than by my continued reading after High School of various works, I remain in the main unimpressed with the adulteration of Christianity and Philosophy with each other.
When one looks at this subject from my point of view, then one sees where the Just War Doctrine has had very little influence on either Arian or Trinitarian Christians in their pursuit of power, and wealth. In a grand effort to philosophise the tree, Christian theology has lost not only sight of the forest, but the physical tree as well.
One could build a very good argument against the "Christian Nation" crowd using the Just War Doctrine, since it is debatable if the American People have ever fought such a war. On could also use the history of Western civilization to debate whether it ever really was Christian, except in name, just as well. That history reveals a church that has all the philosophical underpinnings of a religion, without having any of its' physical substance. It is Christianity in all its' theological and philosophical glory, and as hollow as a brass bell, usefull for clanging and not much more.
Religion is a tool of the state, and we live in a sophisticated state, wherein divide and conquer is as important in a democracy as in any war. That some Christians would argue this way, and others would argue another reaffirms my contention. There may be a million Christians in America, but there is no such religion, except in the minds of the people.
December 3, 2005 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink