Can Christians support a "just war" in a conflict?

[Ken]

Can non-resistant Christians support the use and distribution of bullet protection and "air-defense systems"? If so, are any devices exempt from this?

Bullet protection sounds acceptable, but I'd need to know the details. Air defense means shooting down planes, greatly endangering those on the planes, so is unacceptable.

In the Ukraine context it is entirely a defense against unmanned missiles and drones. There are no Russian planes flying over Ukrainian cities.

[Josh]

Can non-resistant Christians support the use and distribution of bullet protection and "air-defense systems"? If so, are any devices exempt from this?

How would you consider my Christian courage if I walked around in a bulletproof defence and I had an anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back of my truck (for taking out drones)?

[Ernie]

Can non-resistant Christians support the use and distribution of bullet protection and "air-defense systems"? If so, are any devices exempt from this?

How would you consider my Christian courage if I walked around in a bulletproof defence and I had an anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back of my truck (for taking out drones)?

Assuming you were in a dangerous part of Ukraine, lending aid and spreading the Gospel, I would consider you fortunate to have such protection.

[Josh]

Can non-resistant Christians support the use and distribution of bullet protection and "air-defense systems"? If so, are any devices exempt from this?

How would you consider my Christian courage if I walked around in a bulletproof defence and I had an anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back of my truck (for taking out drones)?

Assuming you were in a dangerous part of Ukraine, lending aid and spreading the Gospel, I would consider you fortunate to have such protection.

That’s interesting. What if I was just there engaging in business and seeking a profit by, for example, employing Ukrainian computer programmers?

[Ken]

How would you consider my Christian courage if I walked around in a bulletproof defence and I had an anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back of my truck (for taking out drones)?

Assuming you were in a dangerous part of Ukraine, lending aid and spreading the Gospel, I would consider you fortunate to have such protection.

That’s interesting. What if I was just there engaging in business and seeking a profit by, for example, employing Ukrainian computer programmers?

Do Ukrainian businessmen (or Americans doing business in Ukraine) have any less right to go about their business and engage in commerce without being bombed than people in any other country like the US?

[Josh]

Assuming you were in a dangerous part of Ukraine, lending aid and spreading the Gospel, I would consider you fortunate to have such protection.

That’s interesting. What if I was just there engaging in business and seeking a profit by, for example, employing Ukrainian computer programmers?

Do Ukrainian businessmen (or Americans doing business in Ukraine) have any less right to go about their business and engage in commerce without being bombed than people in any other country like the US?

Well, I asked the question of Ernie, because he seemed to imply my moral authority to drive around with an anti-aircraft battery in my car was dependent on whether or not I was driving around to lend aid or spread the gospel. But I would like to be sure that is what he was saying.

I also never even said I was in Ukraine. Here's all I said in my hypothetical:

How would you consider my Christian courage if I walked around in a bulletproof defence and I had an anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back of my truck (for taking out drones)?

There are places in America more dangerous than some places in the Ukraine. Since certain people seem to have a bias about who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are in various conflicts in Eastern Europe, perhaps we should confine our discussion to what is moral at home in our own communities.

[Ernie]

How would you consider my Christian courage if I walked around in a bulletproof defence and I had an anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back of my truck (for taking out drones)?

Assuming you were in a dangerous part of Ukraine, lending aid and spreading the Gospel, I would consider you fortunate to have such protection.

That’s interesting. What if I was just there engaging in business and seeking a profit by, for example, employing Ukrainian computer programmers?

Yes, that would also be fine, IMO. I was simply trying to distinguish those who are in Ukraine on a political, or military, or laying up treasure on earth mission vs. those who are there for good purposes that align with NT teaching.

[Ken]

There seems to be at least three separate issues being conflated or confused here in this discussion.

First with respect to Just War theory. My understanding is that it is mostly involved in the actions of the state rather than individuals. For example, do states have an obligation, right, or responsibility to defend their citizens from attack? And if they do so, what obligations do they have with respect to HOW they respond to aggression? So in the case of Ukraine, the first question is: Does Ukraine have the moral right to defend itself and its citizens from attack. And the second question is, what obligation does Ukraine have to follow moral codes of conduct in defending itself? I think most people would agree that Ukraine does indeed have the right to defend itself and its citizens from attack, and perhaps a responsibility to do so. And also that Ukraine has an obligation to do so following the moral rules of war such as they have been defined over the years. For example, not targeting civilians, not torturing and killing prisoners, not looting and raping civilians, etc. Under just war theory, a nation engaged in a "just war" can quickly turn that war unjust if they use unjust tactics.

Under this calculus we can separately explore whether Russia is engaged in a "just war" against Ukraine and whether it is using just means in its war. And then whether Ukraine is engaged in a "just war" defense against Russian aggression. And whether Ukraine is using just means to do so. It might be one single war. But the actions of each side need to be separately analyzed.

An entirely separate and second question is what should be the role of Christians when their state is engaged in war. This is generally where Anabaptist non-resistance and conscientious objection comes in. For a Kingdom Christian, whether or not their state is engaged in a "just war" is a separate question from whether or not they as a Christian should participate in such a war as a combatant or otherwise. It is perfectly consistent with scripture to accept that a state may wield force and violence through its police and military while believing that Christians should participate in that "worldly sphere". For example, Kingdom Christians might believe it is entirely necessary, moral and just for a state to have a police force but also believe it is immoral for them personally to serve as armed police officers.

A third and separate question is what is meant by "support". If your nation is involved in an existential war such as Ukraine is involved in today, then virtually everyone in society is involved at some level. It isn't just the few combat soldiers who are the at the tip of the spear so to speak. Everyone's taxes go to the war effort. All agricultural production is marshalled for the war effort. All emergency and health care workers are engaged to some extent in the war effort whether they are firefighters, EMTs, surgeons, nurses, etc. Everyone involved in construction trades, transportation, railroads, etc. is involved in the war effort. Even teachers are involved in the war effort to the extent that they teach civil defense against air-raids and to the extent that the school curriculum is designed to teach skills that have any military application from computers and robotics (drones) to geometry (artillery fire targeting) to physical fitness.

I would suggest that it is virtually impossible to live in a society engaged in total war such as Ukraine today or the United States during WW2 or the Civil War and not participate in the war effort at some level. And where one draws the line is ultimately somewhat arbitrary. Some people draw the line at killing but are fine with serving in non-combatant roles. Some draw the line at wearing a uniform and being involved in the military in any role. Some draw the line at paying taxes and resist even that. During WW2 for example. my grandfather had a farm in the Willamette Valley where they grew ryegrass in the 1930s (grass seed for lawns) but shifted to corn and wheat and other food production during the war. This was no doubt due to the rise in food prices during the war and probably the drop in grass seed prices. But one could also argue that shifting one's farm production was supporting the societal war effort. He just drew his line in a different place than others. From the best I can discern, his line was at wearing a uniform and serving in the armed forces in any role. But he didn't object to civilian efforts like, for example, war rationing or paying war taxes or growing crops that might be used by the military to feed soldiers.

[nett]

Does Ukraine have the moral right to defend itself and its citizens from attack. And the second question is, what obligation does Ukraine have to follow moral codes of conduct in defending itself? I think most people would agree that Ukraine does indeed have the right to defend itself and its citizens from attack, and perhaps a responsibility to do so.

I don't agree with this stance. If the Ukraine has a right to defend itself violently, then Russia has just as much of a "right" or even a responsibility to invade The Ukraine if if feels threatened by NATO, Ukrainian action in the Donbas, or Zelensky dancing around in high heels.

Just because most people have swallowed the liberal nonsense that comprises the non-aggression principle, doesn't mean it's right, or that the Bible teaches it.

[Bootstrap]

Does Ukraine have the moral right to defend itself and its citizens from attack. And the second question is, what obligation does Ukraine have to follow moral codes of conduct in defending itself? I think most people would agree that Ukraine does indeed have the right to defend itself and its citizens from attack, and perhaps a responsibility to do so.

I don't agree with this stance. If the Ukraine has a right to defend itself violently, then Russia has just as much of a "right" or even a responsibility to invade The Ukraine if if feels threatened by NATO, Ukrainian action in the Donbas, or Zelensky dancing around in high heels.

If you "feel" threatened? That's a pretty low bar.

Russia, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, and Nicaragua agree with you. In yesterday's vote in the United Nations, no other country opposed a resolution that condemned Russia's invasion. 143 voted in favor. 35 abstained.