The Origin and Definition of Christian Just War Theory Research Paper

Introduction

As a rule, war is perceived as a social, political and economic catastrophe that profoundly affects the lives of many innocent people. In most cases, this clash between nations is a cruel way of resolving conflicts.

This is why diplomats representing various countries attempt to avoid violent confrontations between nations at any costs. Sometimes, they even make concessions that eventually compromise their ethical principles and integrity.

Nevertheless, there are situations, when it is not permissible to avoid this military conflict because in this way, political leaders can only endanger the lives of many people.

This paper is aimed at examining the principles of just war theory, which postulates that sometimes that military conflict can be called ethical if it meets certain criteria. Overall, it is possible to argue that sometimes war is the only way to stop injustice or aggression that can be orchestrated by a certain state.

More importantly, people, who attempt to avoid this violation, can face severe consequences in the future. This is the main thesis that should be advanced. In order to illustrate this argument, one should focus on various aspects. In particular, it is necessary to examine Biblical evidence, which can justify the use of force.

The Old and New Testaments can show leaders how to evaluate the moral aspects of a military conflict. Much attention should be paid to Christian theory of just war.

Furthermore, one should examine historical cases showing that sometimes it is irrational to avoid the use of military force at any cost.

Finally, this paper should present the discussion regarding the relevance of this issue to contemporary societies. These are the main questions that should be examined in greater detail.

The origin and definition of Christian just war theory

At first, one should examine the key principles of Christian just war theory which was introduced during the Early Middle Ages. Political scientists who attempt to examine various aspects of military confrontation have often used this framework.

Theologians Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas formulated the principles of the doctrine¹. These theologians attempted to describe the situations when the use of force could be justified from an ethical viewpoint.

For instance, Thomas Aquinas believed that a military conflict should not be driven by self-gain since this motive can undermine the ethical principles that Christians must practice. Moreover, its central motive of war has to be the restoration of justice and peace².

This is one of the main aspects that can be identified. Thomas Aquinas further asserted that just war was supposed to be supported by a well-instituted authority that represented the common good in the form of peace, which was a true end of man that is God.

In addition, Augustine argued that peace was supposed to be the central motive in any circumstances where there was violence.

Additionally, one should pay close attention to the ideas of Augustine of Hippo. In his opinion, it is unethical to promote peacefulness if a person knows that this strategy will result in the suffering of innocent people³.

Augustine Hippo asserted that it was possible for a Christian to become a soldier and at the same time serve God as well as his nation honorably. He also argued that people were not supposed to revert to violence immediately, though God had given the sword to the government of any nation for a justifiable reason.

Hence, Christians as part of the government were entitled to aid in the protection of peace while punishing wickedness. Augustine Hippo, further asserted that, the defense of one’s life as well as that of others could be seen as a necessity in circumstances were it could be authorized by a legitimate authority.

He further admonished that Christians had no choice but only to comply with their political masters while ensuring that they executed their war duty with the highest degree of justice as may be required. Thus, the views of these theologians lay the foundations of Christian just war theory.

Certainly, in the course of history, they have often been misapplied. For example, one can mention numerous crusades launched during the middle Ages⁴. The School of Salamanca also supported just war.

Those who supported the school believed that a state was supposed to use war for the aim of preventing greater evil from taking place. The school also argued that the use of diplomatic agreements were necessary before the commencement of any war.

Some of the examples given by the school as it pertains to just war included;

1. war used in self-defense provided that there was reasonable possibility of success;
2. that preventive war was used in order to deter a tyrant who was ready to attack;
3. war was just if it was used in punishing a guilty enemy;
4. moral limits must be ensured even after war starts, such as by ensuring that innocent people are not attacked;
5. that all other obligatory options as relates to dialogue and negotiations must be undertaken before a state engages in war;
6. the people of any nation have the right of deposing its government in the event that it was waging an unjust war.

Moreover, in the first half of the twentieth century, propagandists justified violence by arguing that some nations had been superior to others. Therefore, one should be very careful when saying that a certain war is just. However, the views expressed by Thomas Aquinas and Augustine still remain valid in many situations.

This is one of the main arguments that can be put forward. Furthermore, it is vital to examine the definition of just war, which can be derived from this theory.

Overall, the just war can be described as a provoked use of military force that is aimed at responding to or preventing cruelty, wrongdoing or other forms of injustice that can threaten innocent people.

This is one of the ways in which this term can be interpreted. Moreover, this military confrontation has to meet the following standards:

1. the right cause such as the need to defend innocent people;
2. lack of opportunities for peaceful resolution of a conflict;
3. proportionality⁵.

The third criterion means that the adverse effects of this war must not outweigh the improvements that it is expected to bring.

This theory is based on Christian philosophy in reference to the evil of taking human life, that nations are bestowed with the duty of defending justice as well as defending their citizens and that the protection of human life as well as defending moral values may require the use of both force and violence.

The just theory gives specifications in the passing of judgments as it pertains to engaging in war as well as providing conditions on which the war should be fought.

The attributes of just war should be considered because they indicate that political leaders should provide sufficient reasons for starting any military confrontation.

Just War Criterion

There are two criterions found in this theory. The first set involves establishing the right of going to war while the second establishes the right conduct within the specific war. The right to go to war was referred to as Jus ad bellum in Latin. This set comprises of several factors that emphasizes on the right of engaging into war.

The first factor is just because that clarifies on the reason behind the engagement in war, it needed to be just, and it could not be merely for punishing wrong doers or rather for the recapture of seized items. This was because innocent lives would be exposed to danger and the proper intervention would be to protect such lives.

The second factor is comparative justice, which holds that even though there may be rights and wrongs on all the sides of the conflict, in order to overcome any assumptions on the use of force, the sufferings of one party because of injustice, must outweigh those of the other party.

The third factor is the competent authority. This criterion holds that, war would only be waged by duly constituted authorities in the public domain.

Justice distinction by systems was important in determining circumstances under which political would initiate just war. A system that undermined the process of justice could not guarantee genuine process of passing judgments regarding just war.

The fourth factor is the right intention. Based on this factor, force would only be used in a true and just cause and mainly for the intended purpose.

The correction of wrongs suffered by states may be considered a right intention. On the other hand, the maintenance of economies and material gains attainment may not be viewed as right intention.

The fifth factor is proportionality. The factor argues that the benefits to be derived from the use of war must almost be of the same amount in relation to the expected evils. Based on the factor, in instances where disproportionate measures were to be used in attaining success, then force would not be applicable.

The last factor is the last resort. This factor holds the view that force must only be applied after all other alternatives of initiating peace have been vigorously tried and failed, or rather the available alternatives may not be practical.

Care must be taken to ensure that opponents of a conflict are not using tactics that are not made to yield meaningful concessions.

The second criteria of the just war theory involves the right conduct within the war. It is also referred to as the Jus in bello in Latin. This criterion explains the way in which combatants should act in the event that war has begun.

The criterion uses a number of factors such as proportionality, distinction, military necessity and fair treatment. The concept of distinction is used to govern the conduct of just war.

The concept holds that, only enemy combatants must be targeted by the acts of war rather than non-combatants who find themselves in confusing circumstances. Distinction concept does not allow combatants to apply such actions that may result to losses of innocent civilians.

Combatants are also not allowed to attack after enemy combatants have surrendered. The sole purpose of any attack must be directed to the defeat of an enemy. The initiated attack must be a legitimate objective of the military.

In addition, the civilians and together with their property must not suffer damages that are exceeding the benefits anticipated by the military. The main aim of this principle is to reduce the number of deaths and destructions that occur in the war place.

The fair treatment principle argues that combatants needed to treat prisoners of war with fairness. It holds that enemy combatants who have already surrendered or rather who are captured need not be tortured or mistreated since they did not pose any threat.

Combatants are not allowed to use any method warfare or weapons that may be considered evil such as the use of weapons whose effects are uncontrollable, the forcing of enemy combatants to fight against one another and the use of mass rape.

Ending of War

Several theorists proposed a third category within just war theory in the recent past concerning justice after the war. Orend Brian, Bass Gary and Lasiello Louis proposed Jus post bellum. Justice after war would be brought using reconstruction and other peace trials. Regarding the maintenance of justice in ending war,

Orend proposed the following principles. Firstly, he argued that there was supposed to be just cause for its termination. He argues that a nation could terminate war in the event that there was reasonable vindication of the earlier violated rights and in case that the aggressor was willing to negotiate the terms of surrendering.

The use of compensations, rehabilitation and giving a formal apology may constitute surrender. Additionally, a nation could terminate war in the event that they realize that the goals of the war would not be attained or rather it could only be achieved by the use of excessive force.

Secondly, a state must only terminate war with the solitary goal of attaining the right intention.

Thirdly, Orend argues that discrimination may be applied in differentiating military and political combatants and civilians.

Lastly, there must be a legitimate authority on both sides of the war for the peace deal to be successfully implemented.

The concept of just war in the Bible

It should be kept in mind that the idea of just war is not directly mentioned in the Bible. This text does not include an explicit argument regarding the ethical justification of violence and the use of military force.

Nevertheless, there are several examples indicating that military conflict is an inseparable component of human history.

This issue is explored in the Old and New Testaments. One can say that in many cases, God sometimes commands the acts of violence and coercion.

First, much attention should be paid to the Plagues of Egypt, which are described in the Book of Exodus. The punishment was supposed to make the Pharaoh release Jews from captivity⁶. One should bear in mind that at the beginning, God attempted to avoid the victimization of innocent people.

For instance, Egyptians had to face such punishments of locust, hail, or darkness. Moreover, the death of first-born children was the last plague or the last method of forcing the Pharaoh to free the Jews.

This example is important for this discussion because it suggests that violence can sometimes be the means of preventing injustice⁶. However, this coercion should be the means that can be adopted only if there are no other alternatives.

To a great extent, these actions can also be described as the Biblical conception of a just war. There are other examples military acts commanded by God.

For instance, one can mention the fall of Jericho in Josh. 6:21. However, they do not quite comply with the standards of just war theory because these conquests were driven primarily by self-interest, rather than the struggle with evil⁶. Therefore, one should keep in mind that Christian theory of just war does not always comply with the examples provided in the Old Testament. This is one of the key points that should be made.

One should also focus on the way in which the theme of just war is explored in the New Testament. Sometimes, people argue that Jesus Christ advocated pacifism and avoidance of confrontation. Yet, this assumption is not quite accurate.

Additionally, it is possible to refer to the famous words of Jesus who said in the Mathew 10:34, ‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’. This phrase has been interpreted in many ways. Sometimes, it can be perceived as the open provocation of violence⁷.

Yet, such an interpretation does not take account the context of this quote. One of the possible explanations is that it is not permissible for a person to tolerate or accept evil. More likely, such an attitude will lead to the compromise of one’s moral principles. To a great extent, this behavior is self-destructive.

Apart from that, one should mention that Jesus also recognizes the person’s right to self-defense⁷. For instance, it is possible to examine the following quote from Luke. 22:36.

‘Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one’.

This indicates how Jesus acknowledges the use of legitimate force. It suggests that a person has a right to oppose injustice⁷. However, at the same time, the New Testaments contains several passages, which show that a person should not perceive violence as the only way of resolving disagreements.

For example, one can mention the Sermon, which took place on the Mount during which Jesus set very high moral standards for an individual. On the mountain, Jesus said that in the event that an individual struck on your right cheek, you should turn him the other in return⁸.

In addition, Jesus used the Beatitudes in telling people that those who were peacemakers were blessed. Overall, Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo later elaborated these principles⁷. This is one of the details that should be considered.

In broader terms, Christians are not allowed to love violence, they are supposed to promote peace always, and at the same time, they should be slow while resulting to the use of force. Additionally, they are not supposed to be afraid in using force when it is needed. The theory further holds that all evil must always be checked⁸.

In the Bible, in the book of Eccles. 3:3, the Old Testament gives an acknowledgement that there was a time to kill. The Israelites were commanded by God in several occasions to apply force in order to ensure maximum protection of their countries.

In spite of this, the achievement of peace was the solitary goal behind such actions. Hence, the attainment of peace was an important goal, but in instances where it was impossible to achieve it without force, then force must be used instead.

The psalmists, also urges individuals to live with each other as brothers while maintaining peace. New Testament in several instances also acknowledges the use of force. In Luke 3: 14, John the Baptist, acknowledged that the Roman soldiers could keep their job of enforcing peace in Rome.

Overall, one should not assume that Bible promotes unrestricted violence. This text also contains a system of checks and balances that are supposed to prevent a person from committing injustice in the course of military confrontation. Any war that is supposed to be just has to comply with certain ethical principles.

For instance, one should refer to the famous commandment an eye for an eye⁹. Traditionally, this principle implies that a punishment should not exceed the crime of a person. In other words, the retribution is supposed to be the standard of proportionality.

This argument can also be applied to a military conflict and the use of force. To some degree, this principle is of great relevance to modern political leaders. As a rule, they strive to ensure the military action should be proportionate to the possible risks that are posed by an enemy state.

In particular, they should safeguard non-combatants against possible dangers. These examples are vital for better understanding of this question because they suggest that the Bible can indeed offer moral justification for war.

However, this text also shows that a person has to have some solid reasons in order to inflict violence against other people. This is the main issues that should not be overlooked by modern policy-makers who believe that violent confrontation is the only possible way of addressing current problems¹⁰.

The relevance of Biblical arguments to the modern world

The principles of Christian war theory and Biblical arguments can be applied to modern communities, which can be affected by geopolitical and economic conflicts. It is important to remember that the preservation of peace can be viewed as a common duty and a common good.

This is one of the opinions expressed by people who believe that different states can eventually reconcile their interests by join their efforts⁸. The reference to this concept can be found in the New Testament.

For example, the Epistle of Barnabas contains the following quote, ‘Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but rather instead to seek the common good’⁹.

People who belong to the Catholic Church often use this argument¹⁰. This quote implies that it is impermissible for an individual to remain indifferent to the wrongdoings that can be committed in the outside world.

As a rule, this indifference can imperil the long-term interests of a person or even the entire community. In many cases, this principle can be applied to international politics. For instance, the work of many international organizations is supposed to avert the risks of violence committed against innocent people.

Very often, military intervention is the only way in which countries can cope with this challenging task. Therefore, one can argue that sometimes the ability to use force is critical for the preservation of peace.

Certainly, one can say that modern societies as well as international relations are driven mostly by self-interest, rather than common good. In fact, it may sometimes be irrational to expect the government of a country to work for the interests of other nations.

The objection means that the ethical principles postulated in the Bible can only be proclaimed but not practiced. Similarly, it is possible to argue that economic interests, rather than the need to restore justice or save innocent people drive the so-called just wars.

This critique should not be disregarded since it shows how political leaders can misuse the principles of just war theory. Nevertheless, this limitation does not mean that the idea of just war is completely unfounded. This is one of the key aspects that should be taken into consideration.

The theory of just war and its applications in the course of history

Moreover, it is important to mention historical cases indicating that sometimes-military conflict was practically unavoidable. Just war was well applied during World War 1. This happened in the 1917, when President Wilson Woodrow of US waged war against Germany.

It was then that the US Catholic head, Cardinal Gibbons James of Baltimore issued a letter to all Catholics urging them to support the war.

William Manning, the New York’s Episcopal bishop argued that Jesus Christ was in support of peace and every American would rather face war than seeing the country’s flag lowered with dishonor.

William then argued that it would be of practical benefit for the country, if all men in the country underwent a universal military training. There were situations when the governments of various countries attempted to ignore aggression.

Such a strategy is often described as ostrich policy, which means that people are unwilling to recognize a problem as well as the need for action. The key issue is that this policy eventually results in a war but its consequences eventually prove to be much more severe than it was expected.

The most eloquent example of this phenomenon is World War II, which was partly caused by the fact that the political leaders representing European nations attempted to appease the Third Reich¹¹.

Additionally, they even signed various treaties with this country. They hoped that this approach would be the safest one. Yet, they forgot that such appeasement could be perceived as a sign of weakness or lack of preparedness.

Later when the Allies struggled against the Nazis, they believed that this war had been just. At that point, they were fighting against a regime that was ready to kill millions of people in order to attain its goals.

This is one of the main issues that should not be overlooked. This case continues to attract the attention of people who study the underlying causes of wars and their ethical aspects. It is usually used to justify a preventive war.

There are recent examples indicating that military intervention can be justified from an ethical viewpoint. For instance, it is possible to refer to Rwandan Genocide which originated from the internal hostilities within a country¹².

The main problem is that international organizations were reluctant to intervene even though international leaders knew about the eminent danger. They preferred to believe that the conflict could be resolved without any external intervention. However, this unwillingness to act led to the death of many innocent people.

In this context, the international intervention cannot be described as war because under such circumstances, peacekeepers are mostly concerned with the need to save civilian population¹³. However, in order to do it, they sometimes have to use military force.

These historical examples show that military confrontation can sometimes be the only way of protecting the safety of people. Moreover, sometimes the avoiding of war can be immoral. This issue is still important for politicians and diplomats who determine which course of action is most appropriate.

The principle of proportionality and asymmetrical warfare

One should take into consideration that the just war should meet certain criteria. They were described in the previous sections of this paper. At first, one should note that the expected benefits of this military intervention should be equal to the anticipated adverse effects¹³.

For instance, it is permissible to start a war provided that it can result even in greater dangers for innocent people¹⁴. As it has been said before, this use of force should not exceed the possible threat posed by the opponent.

This is one of the reasons why military leaders have to make sure that the lives of civilians are not imperiled. Surely, it is possible to say that this principle is often violated even at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Such skepticism can be accepted only to some extent.

However, in the course of the last fifty years, the principles of warfare have changed, since nowadays military leaders take at least some effort to protect non-combatants. This is one of the main aspects that can be identified¹⁵.

Another issue that is closely discussed by politicians and military commanders is asymmetrical warfare. This term is applied to the conflict between opponents who differ in terms of military power and techniques. For example, one can mention the war between the Israeli Army and Hamas.

Under such conditions, a country, which is more advanced in terms of technology or weaponry, is responsible for making sure that the civilian population is safeguarded against possible risks. Provided that, this government does not attempt to attain this objective, their war is not considered to be just¹⁵.

One can say that just war theory continues to be debated by many political leaders nowadays. At this time, this question can be even more important because many countries possess weapons of mass destruction.

Conclusion

Overall, this discussion indicates that the principles of just war theory continue to attract the interests of policy-makers, military leaders, economists as well as theologians.

The examples provided in this paper indicate that war can sometimes be justified from an ethical viewpoint, especially if there is no other method for stopping cruelty, injustice, or even annihilation of many people.

This argument can be derived from various religious texts such as the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, there are historical cases, which suggest that war should be the lesser of two evils.

Under certain circumstances, it is unethical to avoid confrontation at any cost because this policy can bring disastrous consequences such as greater casualties among civilians and soldiers.

Nevertheless, it is vital to make sure the war is driven by just cause, rather than by prejudice or self-interest. This is the main precaution that should be taken.

Bibliography

Barnes, Rudolph. Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Bell, Daniel. Just War as Christian Discipleship: Recentering the Tradition in the Church Rather than the State. London: Scott Sterling, 2009.

Brueggermann, Watler. Journey to the Common Good. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.

Brunschot, Erin. Risk balance and security. London: Sage Publications, 2007.

Cadoux, C. John. The Early Christian Attitude toward War. New York: Gordon Press Publishers, 1978.

Corbin-Reuschling, Wyndy. Reviving Evangelical Ethics. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008. ISBN: 9781587431890.

Gardam, Judith. Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States. London: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

Geisler, Norman. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. ISBN: 9780801038792.

Fiala, Andrew. The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.

Hand, Stephen. Catholic Voices in a World on Fire. New York: Lulu, 2005.

Kaiser, Walter. C. What Does the Lord Require? A Guide for Preaching and Teaching Biblical Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. ISBN: 9780801036361.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The crusades: a history. London: Yale University Press, 2005.

Stevenson, William. Christian Love and Just War: Moral Paradox and Political Life in St. Augustine and His Modern Interpreters. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987.

Swetland, Kenneth. L. Facing Messy Staff in the Church: Case Studies for Pastors and Congregations. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005. ISBN: 9780825436963.

Wilkens, Steve. Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethic: An Introduction to Theories of Right and Wrong. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011. ISBN: 9780830839360.

Footnotes

¹ Daniel Bell, Just War as Christian Discipleship: Recentering the Tradition in the Church rather than the State (London: Scott Sterling, 2009), 3.

² William Stevenson, Christian Love and Just War: Moral Paradox and Political Life in St. Augustine

And His Modern Interpreters (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987), 5.

³ Jonathan Riley-Smith, The crusades: a history. London: Yale University Press, 2005, 10.

⁴ Judith Gardam. Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States. (London: Cambridge, University Press, 2004), 9.

⁵ Andrew Fiala, The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), 12.

⁶ Rudolph Barnes. Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium (New York:

Routledge, 2013), 22.

⁷ Steve Wilkens, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethic: An Introduction to Theories of Right and Wrong. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011, 8.

⁸ Kenneth Swetland. L. Facing Messy Staff in the Church: Case Studies for Pastors and Congregations. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005, 22.

⁹ John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude Toward War (New York: Gordon Press Publishers, 1978), 10.

¹⁰ Watler Brueggermann, Journey to the Common Good (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 10.

Bar. 2:11.

¹¹ Stephen Hand, Catholic Voices in a World on Fire (New York: Lulu, 2005), 50.

¹² Erin Brunschot, Risk balance and security, (London: Sage Publications, 2007), 89.

¹³ Kaiser Walter. C. What Does the Lord Require? A Guide for Preaching and Teaching Biblical Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009, 13.

¹⁴ Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010, 7.

¹⁵Wyndy Corbin-Reuschling, Reviving Evangelical Ethics. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008, 17.