Pacifism & Just War Theory

Mark 12:31 NASB states that "you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment." Yet, while Jesus commanded his people to love one another, there have been many a discussion and debate among Christians as to if Jesus really meant what he said. This conflict among Christians has stemmed from the concepts known as Pacifism and the Just War theory. The former can be expressed as a total renunciation of war thereby agreeing with Mark 12:31, while the latter is a justification for why wars are fought. Each respective side believes that they are doing what is right and just. However, if Mark 12:31 is correct in its application, then is it not better to have peace than war.

Pacifism

Turner (1978) argued that against war noting that Christian people must adhere to the joyful obedience of the gospel and have a blameless and sinful life (145). This was essentially Jesus' point in prescribing the commandment for man's ills and is the foundation of the Christian faith - that each individual proclaiming Christ as savior must have a meek and humble spirit to withstand the wiles of the devil and turn the other cheek. Turner (1978) further added that any argument towards war by Christian is an individual who has justified themselves rather than allowing Christ to do so through sanctification (146). The rationale for those Christians who believe war is necessary is that Christian people must defend themselves against the world by any means necessary. Moreover, "it is an act of love [to] confidently kill, rob and pillage the enemy" (Turner 146) when needed. Pacifism does not ascribe to such an interpretation of the commandments of Jesus. Its flourishing is centered on operating in the "simple application of love" (Turner 147) and that God will render his justice against the wrongdoings and misdeeds of man on the Day of Judgment.

Kopel (2013) similarly echoed Turner (1978) in his analysis of Pacifism and its theoretical structure. With the evolution of man comes the potential for war despite the basis for Pacifism. Even though there is potential for war in the minds of some Christians because of an ever-evolving world, there is reason to wholeheartedly believe that individuals can be peaceful and that war should be a last resort to the cruelty that exists or is observed in the world. Furthermore, it is God who must serve justice for the continual violence that happens in the world. Pope John Paul in his 1995 Evangelium Vitae specifically stated that to kill another is a present and everlasting sin because man was formed and is in the image of God (1758-1761). So basically, the argument is that because man is created in the image of God that war is unneeded and unnecessary. There is reason to believe that to be the case. If Christians are serious about contributing and assisting others to believe in the God that they believe in, then war is not the answer. While that statement may sound cliché, this is the thinking that Christians must have if they are to employ the commandments of Jesus Christ.

The issue at hand is where did non-pacifists obtain such justification for war? In the revised edition of G.H.C. Macgregor's The New Testament Basis of Pacifism, it stated that individuals who call themselves Christians and believe in peaceful dealings do not necessarily repudiate all utilizations of force but universally understand that the basic tenets of Christian ethics are to lead by example and to follow in the illustrations from Jesus in his teachings. Those who are non-pacifists have come up with their own interpretation of the ways and teachings of Jesus and identified "exercises of force" (12) as evidence that war is justified. The New Testament does not order man to have wars nor does it promulgate a necessity for war in dealings with man. If Christians are to adhere to the non-pacifist thoughts, then that means a blatant and overt ignorance of the scripture and what it says. In 2 Chronicles 20:17, it states that Christians should "stand still and see the salvation of the Lord on [their] behalf" (NASB). The Lord will take care of the wrongdoings in accordance with his righteousness. Christians are not to fight battles but put their faith in God.

Macgregor (2012) continued that scriptural posture by stating that Jesus never taught his followers to use violence (19) and that those who consider war just primarily center their thoughts based on Jesus's saying that Christians would "hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the ends" (Matthew 24:6 NASB). Non-pacifists have taken that scripture to mean that Jesus was for war and that justification can be made for having wars. The scripture does not make such a presentation. Jesus was merely acknowledging that wars would take place, not green lighting Christians to be warmongers.

Clough (2007) stated that scholars and intellectuals in the Catholic and Christian arenas have continually debated the issue of pacifism and whether it is mandated by scripture. He noted that one scholar, Lisa Cahill, categorized two separate pacifist positions: 1) Christians who believe that scripture mandates pacifism and 2) those who only participate in the pacifist belief in identification with their fellow Christian (4-5). These two distinctions offer a glimpse into the pacifism argument as the former denotes that Christians are in effect following Jesus' thinking on the subject of war per the context of the New Testament, while the latter suggests that these Christians have weaved their positions on pacifism on the mere foundation that others like them believe it is morally and ethically abhorrent to participate in war.

While written in the late 1970s, Turner (1978) echoed a similar argument as Clough (2007) in that there are only two types of pacifists and those Christians that argue for war are doing so out of denial and ignorance of the New Testament teachings. "We do not in this day and age deal with the problems of the wars and murders of the Old Testament" (149). Yet this is the mindset of Christians who want war or justify it. Although the Bible is replete with Pacifist content regarding why war is unnecessary and a sin, there are still many discussions and debates regarding why war is just and necessary.

Just War Theory

The Catholics and Christians who believe in war do so based on the just war theory. The just war theory has two beliefs: that individuals must have the right to go to war (a cause) and that those who participate in war, must conduct themselves in accordance with distinction and clarity by having the mindset that the war is in proportion to the act that was committed that began the war in the first place (Childress 427-428). The argument here is that war is needed to abolish the evils that the devil has inflicted upon society and restore paradise in society.

The New Testament does not directly nor explicitly provide any teaching about war. It, however, emphasizes the need for a civil government that the citizens observe as being authoritative and having the capacity to perform the necessary duties if needed. Just War theorists note that pacifists claim that Jesus forbids war in the scripture. They contend that Jesus in John 10:35 stated that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (NASB). Consequently, the basis for the teachings of Jesus were steeped in Old Testament theology, which gives credence to the justification of war. Furthermore, in Matthew 22:29 NASB, Jesus informed Christians that they are "mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."

Just War theorists have promoted that this means that it is the duty of Christians to follow what Jesus meant - and what he meant was to follow the entire scripture as an authority rather than what he was teaching. In the presented rebuttal against Pacifism, Just War theorists offer conjecture that pacifists are ruled by their emotions and that God is only concerned with an individual loving thy neighbor as thyself (Boettner). However, Just War theorists propose that pacifists are ignoring the totality of God - both his mercy and justice in that John 3:16 NASB foretells that "whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life," denoting that one's belief in Him is the catalyst of whether His justice will be executed or not.

There are several areas in the Bible that those in favor of war use to show forth that they are doing what God would want them to do. Joshua 8:1-29, could be interpreted as God informing man to exercise in war when God states "take all the people of war with you and arise [...] stretch out the javelin that is in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your hand" (NASB). It is important however to put that scripture in its proper context, which those Christians who believe in war do not do. The Just War theory reasons that war is legitimately right and morally correct per Jesus. The Christians who draw considerations for war argue that going into war is a way of "defending human rights" and "having right intentions for the advancement of good and the avoidance of evil" (Williams Jr & Caldwell 310, 312). Finally, Just War theorists offer to confer that the Pacifist viewpoint is that Jesus was weak and in turn, that opens a variety of avenues of spiritual bondage for the Christian people and thus, violence is often necessary to thwart the physical, mental and spiritual bondage. Force is to be used because it is based on an individual defending what they unequivocally believe in or believe to be correct and perfect per the scriptural teachings of Jesus Christ (Boettner). However, this contention is centered on the belief that war is justified and necessary rather than unmistakably following the creed set forth by Jesus in the New Testament.

Why the Just War Theory Does Not Work?

While the Just War theory is reasonable in its application given that the Old Testament does indeed have violence in it, there are too many other scriptures in the Bible to acknowledge that violence or war is the way to bring about social justice. McCarthy (2003) examined the just war theory and reasoned that it is "a piece of phony morality to contend that war is just" (1.1). McCarthy goes on to say that all just war theories are based in a "fanciful theological house of cars that will continue to be blown down" (1.2) on the basis that they cannot be justified, that these individuals are oblivious to the humaneness of man, and that those who believe that war is the answer exhibit mental constructs that "reflect absolutely nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels" (1.3).

The just war theory is derived from the fact and belief that some Christians feel they must do so operating under the will of God and because God called for war if it is just. But, 1 John 4:20 NASB asks, "if someone says 'I love God' and hates his brother, he is a liar, for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." So then how can just war theorists suggest that war is just based on ridding the world of its ills and doing what God has instructed them to do when the scripture does not purport such thoughts? There is no rationale for the war period if an individual is adhering to the scripture. Thus, what McCarthy (2003) described is correct – just war theories are formed on the foundation of ignoring what Jesus taught. It is man acting as God rather than following God.

Although just war theorists believe that they are ethically and morally following the tenets of the scripture, the reasoning is not based on logic. Hays (1996) argued that certain prophets in the Gospel such as Paul addressed the issue of Christian ethics and what is right, but that Paul did not singlehandedly provide a Christian connotation for what is right only a "motivation to do what is right" (17). This, of course, leaves the discussion of whether war is just or not to the Christian individual. There is not a clear distinction then between what can be perceived as ethical and right in the eyes of a Christian - hence, the debate. Is there a solution to the continuing debate between whether war is or is not the answer?

Hays (1996) expanded on the ethical argument by stating that each respective Christian does indeed have a distinctive voice (187). This means that the debate between the just war theorists and the Pacifists will continue because individuals are given free will. Yet, it can be argued that if an individual is truly a Christian, then he or she will exercise what Jesus taught, which was to love thy neighbor as thyself. This ideal does not lend itself to war no matter how justified an individual believes they are in going to war. Moreover, McCarthy (2003) conveyed that just war theorists are simply overriding the teachings of Jesus. He writes that:

one would think from these overrides of Jesus' teaching that Cicero and/or Augustine is 'the Messiah, the Christ, the living God" Is there not more than a hint of creeping idolatry in Christian Just War Theories - a mere human understanding superseding the infallible teaching of God Incarnate? Is there not more than a whiff of Gnosticism here - an Illuminati who claim knowledge of a divine truth, which overrides the expressed teachings of Jesus. There is something more than unwholesome going on when men present themselves as official teachers of what Jesus taught (1.3 – 1.4).

To McCarthy's (2003) point, individuals who ascribe to the just war theories wholeheartedly believe that they are doing right by God irrespective of whether Jesus taught that war was ethically and morally just. McCarthy (2003) goes on to state that the just war theories are an utter disregard with reality and that it is as aforementioned, a methodical presentation on the process of man acting like God rather than allowing God to perform what He stated he would perform. He writes:

Christian Just War Theories are today what they always have been, simply one of the accoutrements of war. Does the Son of God come down from heaven so His followers can create hell on earth with a clear conscience? Does it not take an elephantine indifference to the Divinity of Jesus to lead people in His name to where Jesus never would have led them? When Jesus says, "Follow Me" He never, never means, "Follow Me" in committing homicidal violence. If Jesus is nonviolent, then to follow him is to live and die nonviolently. One does not follow Bonnie and Clyde by being nonviolent. So why would one think he or she is following Jesus by planning, engaging in, or justifying homicidal violence. When Jesus says to His disciplines, "Pick up your cross and follow Me," He is talking about picking up the cross as He picked up the cross - nonviolently, returning good for evil, praying for persecutors, loving enemies unto death. There is not an iota of support in the life or teaching of Jesus for suggesting that a Christian can follow Him by picking up a sword [and fighting his fellow man] (1.6).

There then is no rational justification for war by any means if anyone claims to be Christian. War was and is an abomination against God in that man is exercising his free will to fight his fellow man and giving in to his flesh rather than the spirit. Additionally, the just war theories are expressed as something holy and righteous when it is diametrically opposed to anything holy. So, if the just war theory is not based on rational logic as many intellectuals have argued, why it is given any weight among Catholic and Christian circles?

It is difficult to identify outright why the Just War theory was ever given any authority among those that follow God. Given that everyone has their own interpretation of the scriptures and what Jesus taught, that could be a definitive rationale for the theory. While Pacifism is more aligned with the Biblical text that is also a theoretical interpretation of what Jesus meant and taught. Thus, the religious puzzle cannot be solved fully. The discussions and debates over who is right and who is wrong will be endless in this case, even though Pacifism adheres closer to the Bible than the Just War theory.

It is essential to note that Pacifism, while more closely aligned with the scripture does not argue that those who believe that God will execute His judgment are in any way, shape or form – weak but is simply a philosophical way of thinking and living with the individual understanding that man does not get to play God or operate as God, but it is God himself who extends the needed consequences associated with the cruel and evil actions of man. Therefore, the Just War theory does not work because it is a quick solution to continuing problems, while Pacifism is a long-term solution in that the book of Revelation if believed by Christians to be true, states how God will execute his judgment on man for "He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31).

Works Cited

Boettner, Lorraine. The Christian Attitude toward War. 3rd. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1985. Print.

Childress, James F. "Just-War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of Their Criteria." Theological Studies 39.3 (1978): 427-445. Print.

Clough, David. Online posting. Understanding Pacifisms: A Typology. 2007. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. < http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/134169/1/Clough-Understanding%20Pacifisms%20070719%20%20-%20%20A.pdf>.

Hays, Richard. The moral vision of the new testament. New York, NY: HarperOne, 1996. Print.

Kopel, David B. "Evolving Christian Attitudes Towards Personal and National Self-Defense." Connecticut Law Review 45.5 (2013): 1709-1771. Print.

Macgreggor, G H. The new testament basis of pacifism. Revised. London, UK: The Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2012. Print.

McCarthy, Emmanuel C. Christian just war theory: the logic of deceit. Wilmington, DE: Center for Christian Nonviolence, 2003. Print.

Turner, Geoffrey E. "The Necessity of Christian Pacifism." Churchman 92.2 (1978): 144-154. Print.

Williams, Jr., Robert E., and Dan Caldwell. "JusPostBellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace." International Studies Perspectives 7 (2006): 309-320. Print.