Just War Theory and Christian Attitude towards Peace and Conflict Introduction - Essay Example

Just war theory and Christian attitude towards peace and conflict Introduction In the history of mankind, war has remained one of the major events that has existed and occurred in a number of times as compared to any other activity. The development of Christian values and beliefs have been seen to be at odds with the aggressive nature of war as it attacks life, affects the security, subsistence, peace and liberty of people. Despite the negative attitude towards war, the just war theory has been developed among Christians to mean that war can be morally justified under certain circumstances. The theory of just war has attracted varied opinion from different groups of people and Christians with the pacifists argue that war cannot be just but the realist believe that moral concepts in Christianity cannot be applied to the concepts of war or foreign policies in a country (Williams, Cian and Anthony 123). Christian attitude towards war, peace and military intervention has been evaluated based on the just war theory, an application that has seen widespread application in the recent past. For example, when the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 terror attack, the theory of just war was used to support this course of military action. The use of just war to evaluate the attitude and beliefs of Christian towards military aggression today is based on a false perception, which fails to understand that the time the theory was formulated was characterized by a different political and strategic milieu compared to today. This paper will provide a description of the theory of just war from a modern world and modern war perspective to distinctively evaluate how the theory of just way portrays the attitude and belief of Christians towards war and military aggression (Charles 590). Historical development of just war theory Different writers who have attempted to conceptualise its meaning and application in war and peace have changed the original meaning of the concept of just war severally through history. War can be approached through three different lenses, which are covered under the principle of just war theory, all of which can have an impact on the direction of the warfare. First, one can simply say that any act of war or aggression towards the enemy is wrong and unjustified in any way (Williams, Cian and Anthony 123). Secondly, an individual can opt to undertake the moral obligations he/she has towards the government including a call to engage in warfare with the neighbours. In this case, the attitude of the person involved towards war is not exemplified as the process of war itself has been decided by a different person, in this case the government which are approaches covered under the principles of fascism, Machiavellianism and also realism. In the third response to war, one can aptly say yes as a way of describing this way as holly and the inner desire of God for them to be discharged as is the case. This is basis of the concept of just way and Christians have used a number of biblical events to demonstrate how God sent his prophets and judges to fight the enemies in justified course of actions (Charles 590). the wars that Joshua fought in the old testaments and the subsequent aggression of the Israelites towards the Palestinians constitutes what Christians refer to as the just wars within the bible. Muslims and other revolutionary and terrorist groups within the religion have for long used the jihad notion to fight perceived enemies, arguing that they are engaging in justified warfare. Some military actions have been taken because the prevailing conditions dictate them and during such actions, neither the rights of those involved nor the situation of the casualties can be used to categorise the war as just or not. It is the reason for the war, the main agenda behind the war and the long term benefits of winning this war that makes Christian attitudes towards it remain stable and the theory of just war be applied to it. Among Christians, an attitude towards war has been adopted that has been discussed in different ecumenical and theological discourse, describing the attitude and perception of mainstream Christians towards war and aggression. To them, war may be right or wrong but it remains an evil in any vase which can be taken as unavoidable worth pursuing (Charles 590). This notion aptly describes the complete attitude of Christians towards war, a position that is argued to be neutral and not supportive or opposed to war itself. This view remains the stated view of all major mainstream Christian churches and beliefs with the roman Catholics; it has not been incorporated in any creed but is a dominant teaching in the faith. For the Lutheran adherents, it is covered under the Augsburg confession while others have the same creed on the Westminster confession. The Protestants and the Anglican Church followers have captured this attitude towards war in the thirty-nine articles that guide its faithful on how to make an informed decision on matters of war and external aggression towards the enemy (Williams, Cian and Anthony 123). Criteria of the just war theory Within the doctrine of just war, a general presumption against war is developed that argues that war should not be initiated under any circumstance unless all the criteria captured under the jus ad bellum are fulfilled. Once all these criteria are fulfilled, a war can be fought in a just way before the eyes of Christians and this implies that the end, no matter the result will also remain just. In this section, the criteria of just war of the just de bellum will be discussed and the extent to which the fulfilment of each affect the attitude and belief of Christians towards war evaluated (Meisels 330). Just cause Jus ad bellum are Latin words to refer to any reason, factor or excuse that can be used to justify war and aggression towards an independent entity like a country. In this case, a just cause must exist for war to be justified against a country that may include the use of war to correct grave, public harm and approaches to defend against the unjust. In most cases, war is initiated to defend the unarmed from the merciless actions of others, which leads to mass violation of their basic rights like in the case of genocide. The criteria of just cause has been used to describe the attitude of Christians towards modern day war as nations have engaged in aggressive actions against others to correct the progressive abuse of human rights (Williams, Cian and Anthony 123). In 2011, the regime of Muammar Gadhafi was under siege following a whirlwind Arab revolt that had been initiated in Tunisia leading to the removal of the Tunisian leader. Gaddafi with the aid of his forces adopted an aggressive response towards the unarmed protestors, killing, maiming and injuring most of them en masse. Western countries under the auspice of NATO initiated assault against the pro-Gadhafi army with the aim of protecting civilian casualty and eliminating the possibility of genocide. Though Arab and Muslim countries castigated this move, the Christian leaders remained silent, a show of their support of these actions in line with the just war theory under the just cause criteria (Meisels 329). Legitimate authority The initiation of war must seek to serve public and overall interest of people in a county and not just aimed at settling personal scores or serving private interests of individuals in government. Based on these criteria, only the duly constituted powerful people at the highest hierarchy of government with the burden of deciding weighty matters like war are allowed to make such a decision within the public domain. Based on these criteria therefore, the use of private armies to conduct war cannot be supported in any way as it violates the public trust and makes the course of way look like a private engagement with private interests and motivation (Taslaman and Feryal 12). Before war can be initiated, a public declaration must be made which highlights the aims of the war and reasons as to why it must be fought. In 2003, President George Bush of the United States made a public declaration of an impending war on Iraq unless Saddam Hussein, then leader of the country, surrender and hand over power. The reason given for this action which enabled some section of the Christian leadership to support the course of the war as just, was that Hussein was supporting al Qaeda, the terror group that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the US (Meisels 329). Right intention War must only be waged based on a just cause without basing it on tribal and ethnic hatred, the need for revenge and wanton killing in the name of making a political statement. Christians cannot support any war initiated to enable a country make material gains and grab power from other people as it has no basis of achieving peace and stability in a region. In any war, the ultimate goal must remain reconciliation, peace, and the restoration of justice. The lukewarm Christian reception of two gulf wars fought by the United States was as a result of lack of clear intention of bringing reconciliation and developing justice instrument for the country (Taslaman and Feryal 12). Before the troops were sent to Iraq, economic and political analysts gave a mixed picture of the intention of the war and this influenced the view and attitude of the Christians towards the war. Before some analysts, the rich oil reserve in Iraq was the motivation behind the war and the possibility of reconciling the warring tribes was minimal. This led to the criticism of the war from different Christian levels including religious leaders in the United States who believed the intention of the war was not right. Under these criteria, soldiers must act with decorum and humility without acts of arrogance and self-righteousness as was clearly demonstrated by the United States soldiers during the war. For example, when a video of US soldiers peeing on the dead bodies of afghan militants went viral, the attitude of the Christians towards the war was brought to the surface as they castigated these actions and the war in totality (Lacewing 136). The jus in bello criteria describes the actions of soldiers during war and how such actions must remain respectful of the victims, the civilians and the prisoners of war. During war, the theory of just war dictates that aggression must only be directed towards the enemy combatant and not the innocent civilians. Attacks must only be done on legitimate political, military and industrial installations that will result into the disarmament of those involved in actual combatant without killing or injuring the civilians caught up in the fight. Christians do not support intentional attack on prisoners, innocent civilian factories and homes as this leads to collateral damage that cannot be justified (Williams, Cian and Anthony 123). During the Second World War, the United States went against the theory of just war when it used an atrocious weapon against japan. By attacking the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki using atomic bombs, the United States action led to the death and injury of innocent civilians and the destruction of private properties. For a war to be considered just before the eyes of Christians, no horrendous weapon like chemical and biological weapon should be used which will result into a genocide-like casualty level. The use of treachery among civilians is not supported as it result into the murdering of innocent civilians as the soldiers have infiltrated them and disguised their looks to deceive the enemy. As a result, the attitude of Christians towards war is influenced by the actions before, during and after war and how those engaged in combat treat each other and the enemies (Tompkins, Patrick and Craig 24). Christian and biblical perspective to war Different theological discussions have used the bible to demonstrate the legality of the just war theory and the basis of its application in analysing wars today. According to the bible, every single human being was created in God’s own image and therefore an intrinsic reflection of His worth and dignity. However, the actions of man have been filled with sin and rebellion against the mercies of God and this has led to the development of heinous acts such as war, genocide and terrorism against man (Crawford 16). The bible highlight the fact the human governments are ordained by God and is therefore created to maintain peace, justice and dignity of the people within the territory. To maintain peace and enforce the dignity of the people that have elected the government, the right to self-defines using force is guaranteed especially against aggressors (Lacewing 136). The church has a moral obligation to participate in the process of nation building based on just and peaceful human coexistence. Such basic tenets of families and the society are disturbed and affected during war that leads to the violation of the basic human rights and dignity. Due to this essential position played by the church in a nation, their participation in warfare through taking a stand for or against is guaranteed. However, a position during war can only be taken through the support of the just theory once all the criteria for just war have been adhered to (Crawford 19). Among Christians, the question of why God allow war and suffering to befall its people has remained controversial and partly unanswered due to the complexities involved. biblically, God has used wars and rebellion to assert his authority and influence on the people and this highlights the importance of war in the lives of Christians. As a result, Christians cannot continue to demonize war but must develop a clear and biblical basis to develop a position during war. According to theologians today, God permit war amongst us as a way of making us feels the impacts of our sins and to repent and follow his ways. During way, people perceived to be ‘innocent’ suffer, as they are unable to protect themselves against the armed aggression of those participating in the war. Based on this argument, war is viewed by the Christian lens as being just and the process and the actions of those involved may be the only parameter to evaluate whether to support it or not (Lacewing 136). Through war, God aim to enable man see the actual position and role of sin in their lives as during the time of peace, people tend to think lightly of sin and their sinful ways. As a result, peace brings optimism within the human nature despite their negative and sinful actions before the eyes of God. Just like during the time of the Israelites in the Old Testament, God uses war to bring the attention of people to their sinful acts. Through war that is justified, Christians are forced to examined the foundation of their life and the actions within human nature that are detrimental enough to lead us to human and property destruction (Williams and Caldwell 312). During the time of peace, man fails to recognize the selfishness, bitterness, jealousy and malice in their heart and do not therefore speak ill of them. As a result, God reveals the sinful actions that man turns a blind eye to during peace to them by allowing war to progress. Based on this theory of just war, whatever man refuses to be offered by the hand of love is forced to take through a medium of affliction. In the Old Testament, the suffering and struggles of the Israelites is mostly described as they cried for the mercies of the Lord (Walzer 928). Through their suffering in the wilderness and in the hands of the enemies, the Israelites learnt the purpose of war before God and the reason why God allows war to prevail upon us. Based on these biblical references, no war is considered unjust before the eyes of the Lord as He allows it to progress to enable man understand the grave consequences of their sins. If man cannot grasp the essence of appreciating his love, affection and care for us during peace, tranquillity and happiness, God allows war in our midst to force us into accepting his power through suffering and self-destruction (Lacewing 136). Influence of just war theory on Christian perception and attitude of modern day wars In the recent past, different wars have been fought pitying different countries with significant Christian and Muslim following which has led to the use of just theory in the argument for and against the wars. The development of this theory was based on traditional wars fought and the beginning of after Christ century when the current warring weapons and strategies were absent. However, its use has extended to modern day as Christians have been forced into a situation where their support or opposition for a given war is needed (Williams and Caldwell 312). The United States has participated directly and indirectly in a number of wars, supported by the United Kingdom and other countries who are NATO members. Most of these conflicts have raised the just war theory questions among Christians in the two countries and beyond, especially among the Roman Catholics (Patterson 123). Following the 2001 terrorist attacks on the US soil, the just war perspective was ubiquitous and frame based on the desire of the terrorists to kill thousands of non-combatant civilians in the United States. These actions of the terror groups went against the just war criteria during war that advocates for non-attack on non-combatant civilians in the country. These actions were therefore evil before the religious leaders and classified under the unjustified acts of aggression against a country. The moral assertion of the right to defend the people and their properties was used by the United States to initiate attacks against the passive enemy (Crawford 16). In line with the jus ad bellum principle, the acts of war against the perceived terrorist was the last resort as the bush administration first requested the Taliban regime to turn over the al Qaeda leadership following the attack. When the leadership of the country failed to act in good faith and turn in the aggressors, the United States attacked the country as a way of developing defines mechanism against the Taliban supported al-Qaida. However, Christians and their leaders have been blamed for taking the ‘blame America first’ stance that has been sympathetic to the fight against terrorism. These calls for the development of the hard just war theory that makes a presumption against injustice and disorder as opposed to against war. This point of view assumes that war is tragic but inevitable approach in fighting illogical aggressors like terrorist groups (Patterson 127). According to an article published by the family research council, Keith Pavlischek argues that in the foundation of just war in relation to modern day conflicts and wars, the government has a mandate to pursue justice, order and peace and any element working against attaining the three must be subjected to the realms of war. All governments according to biblical teachings are ordained by God and are thus granted with the power to protect their people against aggressive invasion by foreign elements and terror groups. These are the provisions of the theological teachings as captured by the bible and supported by the criteria of the just war theory. As a result, a modern day government is justified to use coercive and lethal force in the process of accomplishing the mandate bestowed upon it by the people and ordained by God (Patterson 123). Christian army chaplains and the just war theory The participation of Christians in war has for been controversial with pacifist arguing that war cannot be justified and the Christian belief has no place in armed conflict and acts of aggression. However, in modern day armies, chaplains have a role to play which further demonstrate their attitude towards war and peace in line with the just war theory. A redeemer of humanity, pacifist argues that Christ lived a life reflective of His argument against war and the use of war to justify actions within a nation (Tompkins, Patrick and Craig 24). As such, they argue that Christians cannot redeem themselves through war, but rather follow the approaches adopted by Christ himself to bring justice and peace to the world. However, the role of chaplains in armies today reflects a different position from that adopted by the pacifist and is more inclined towards the views of the realists (Walzer 928). The presence of chaplains demonstrate the support of the mainstream Christian faiths of war, as Catholics, protestants and other evangelical churches today have their representatives in the army who are sent to combat fields to provide spiritual support to the soldiers as they assist in the righting process. Why send chaplains to a course you don’t support or that goes against your teachings and beliefs in the first place? The decision to send the chaplains demonstrates the prevalence of the just war theory among Christians who believe that peace and justice can be achieved using just war (Patterson 123). Historically, the early churches supported the use of force especially during the Constantine times as a way of protecting the state from was condemned to extinction. The use of war among Christians as a way of spreading belief and countering the spread of other forms of worships also betrays the arguments presented by the pacifists. If the Christians engaged other faithful like the Muslims during the historical times to protect their beliefs from the threat of extinction, the same principle of just war that was applied then can be used today. After the Constantine era, writers and Christian preachers have continued to use war metaphors to emphasise their points and demonstrate their faith, an action that demonstrate their attitude towards war and aggressive actions (Walzer 928). Conclusion The development of the just war theory and doctrine has been used to guide Christian approach to war and armed conflict in modern day world. In most instances, Christian actions are guided by the desire to promote peace, justice and eliminate acts of aggression. However, in line with the criteria of the just war doctrines, war can be justified as long as the rights of the non-combatants are not violated (Tompkins, Patrick and Craig 24). The principle of just war has been used significantly in the analysis of Christian’s responses towards war in modern day world. One example where the response of Christians has been criticized and supported using the just war doctrine is the war of terror fought by the united states against the Taliban and Iraq. Works cited Charles, Daryl. Just-war moral reflection, the Christian and the civil society. Journal of the evangelical theological society, 48.3(2005), 589-608. Print. Crawford, Neta. Just war theory and the US counterterror war. Just war theory, 1:1(2003), 5-24. Print. Lacewing, Michael. Just war theory. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. Meisels, Tamar. "Fighting For Independence: What Can Just War Theory Learn From Civil Conflict?" Social Theory & Practice 40.2 (2014): 304-326 Patterson, Eric. Just war in the 21st century: reconceptualising just war theory after September 11. International politics, 42(2005), 116-134. Print. Taslaman, Caner, and Feryal Taslaman. "Contemporary Just War Theory: Paul Ramsey And Michael Walzer." Journal of Academic Studies 15.59 (2013): 1-20. Tompkins, Daniel P., Patrick A. Messina, and Craig J. N. De Paulo. Augustinian Just War Theory and The Wars In Afghanistan And Iraq: Confessions, Contentions, And The Lust For Power. New York: Peter Lang, 2011. Print. Walzer, Michael. The triumph of just war theory and the dangers of success. International justice, war crimes and terrorism, 2002, 925-944. Williams, John, Cian ODriscoll, and Anthony F. Lang. Just War: Authority, Tradition, And Practice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013. Print. Williams, Robert and Caldwell, Dan. Jus Post Bellum: just war theory and the principle of just peace. International studies perspectives, 7(2006), 309-320. Read More