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

[Bootstrap]

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.

Your Bible says that a country can invade another country whenever it says it feels threatened? Can you please tell me where it says that?

Do you think the world is freer or safer when countries just go ahead and do that? Do you think this is something that Christians should support in order to be peacemakers? Please support your position from the Bible, preferably centering what Jesus said and taught.

[Josh]

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.

Your Bible says that a country can invade another country whenever it says it feels threatened? Can you please tell me where it says that?

Do you think the world is freer or safer when countries just go ahead and do that? Do you think this is something that Christians should support in order to be peacemakers? Please support your position from the Bible, preferably centering what Jesus said and taught.

Boot,

Do you subscribe to Just War doctrine, or not?

I believe as Christians we shouldn’t kill other people, regardless of any justifications we can come up with in our minds. That precludes Christians being part of any “just war”.

[Bootstrap]

Boot,

Do you subscribe to Just War doctrine, or not?

No. I have probably answered this question dozens of times now.

For instance, earlier in this thread:

Here's my view.

In general, non-resistant Christians should not pretend we are the ones who know what Caesar should do with the sword. Romans 13 says God has given Caesar the sword, it does not put us in charge of telling him how to use it.

While "just war theory" doesn't tell us that a war is right, it does give very useful guidelines for saying a war is plainly wrong. I am happy to speak out against wars that are plainly wrong, speaking out against military imperialism when one country invades another, speaking out against torture and targeting civilians. I am generally silent about countries that seem to be defending themselves against attack. I think I'm in over my head if I try to talk about what military alliances should or should not do, that's really up to Caesar, not up to me. I'm also in over my head if I try to know whether air defense systems would be appropriate. When God gave Caesar the sword, he didn't ask me what kind of sword Caesar should use. So there are a WHOLE lot of questions where I choose to be silent.

Every war has victims. I am ready to help refugees, give money to those who know how to help, pray for the victims. Really, I think that's where the Kingdom of God focus should be. The Kingdom of God's answers are often answers to very different questions.

[Ken]

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.

Your Bible says that a country can invade another country whenever it says it feels threatened? Can you please tell me where it says that?

Do you think the world is freer or safer when countries just go ahead and do that? Do you think this is something that Christians should support in order to be peacemakers? Please support your position from the Bible, preferably centering what Jesus said and taught.

Boot,

Do you subscribe to Just War doctrine, or not?

I believe as Christians we shouldn’t kill other people, regardless of any justifications we can come up with in our minds. That precludes Christians being part of any “just war”.

Just war theory (which is about states) and pacifism or Christian non-resistance (which is about individuals) are two completely separate things. One can easily believe in just war theory while simultaneously believing that Christians should not engage in it.

Just like one can believe in the existence and necessity of armed police forces while believing that Christians should not bear arms. Do you believe in defunding the police? Do you believe in an anarchist world with no state? If you support the existence of armed police forces, then you are making essentially the same moral calculation as just war theory.

[Ken]

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.

Nonsense. You cannot defend Russia's actions under any conceivable application of just war theory. Not the Russian decision to engage in war to being with. And not the Russian conduct in the war since it has begun.

[Bootstrap]

Just war theory (which is about states) and pacifism or Christian non-resistance (which is about individuals) are two completely separate things. One can easily believe in just war theory while simultaneously believing that Christians should not engage in it.

All war is bad. I can't kill anyone.

One consistent approach is to simply say all war is horrible, we will pray for the victims and find ways to help. That's consistent and pure and simple.

The opposite extreme is also consistent, but kind of terrible. It says that war is justified, might makes right, and winning is what matters. That's consistent and immoral.

If we are to talk about the morality of war at all, on what grounds? Are some wars more moral than others? Can one side of a war be more moral than the other side? Suppose one country drops nuclear bombs on all population centers in another country, rapes and enslaves all the women, and kills all the children. Is that worse than UN peacekeepers in a demilitarized zone? I think it probably is. And I think even pacifist Christians like me wind up discussing the blatant immorality of some wars. So ... on what moral grounds?

[Bootstrap]

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.

Nonsense. You cannot defend Russia's actions under any conceivable application of just war theory. Not the Russian decision to engage in war to being with. And not the Russian conduct in the war since it has begun.

He isn't appealing to just war theory. He is saying that Russia can invade if it "feels" threatened. I'm guessing he doesn't actually believe that, he was probably writing quickly and without much thought.

[Ken]

Just war theory (which is about states) and pacifism or Christian non-resistance (which is about individuals) are two completely separate things. One can easily believe in just war theory while simultaneously believing that Christians should not engage in it.

All war is bad. I can't kill anyone.

One consistent approach is to simply say all war is horrible, we will pray for the victims and find ways to help. That's consistent and pure and simple.

The opposite extreme is also consistent, but kind of terrible. It says that war is justified, might makes right, and winning is what matters. That's consistent and immoral.

If we are to talk about the morality of war at all, on what grounds? Are some wars more moral than others? Can one side of a war be more moral than the other side? Suppose one country drops nuclear bombs on all population centers in another country, rapes and enslaves all the women, and kills all the children. Is that worse than UN peacekeepers in a demilitarized zone? I think it probably is. And I think even pacifist Christians like me wind up discussing the blatant immorality of some wars. So ... on what moral grounds?

It isn't that simple.

One primary purpose of creating a state or government is so that the state has a monopoly on violence. Absent a state we are essentially in a condition of anarchy with "every man for himself" and the constant necessity to defend oneself and family/clan using violence. By providing the state with a monopoly on violence (police, armies, etc.) we hope to live a more peaceful existence.

The existence of states are clearly Biblical. The Old Testament is essentially the history of the nation state of Israel in its various ancient forms. The New Testament is more universal but clearly recognizes the existence and authority of states in verses such as Romans 13.

The existence of evil at the individual human level (or human nature if you will) is what makes states necessary and police forces necessary. The existence of evil at the state or national level is what makes armies necessary.

World War 2 was the most destructive and horrible war in human history. After World War 2 the nations of the world constructed various institutions such as the United Nations to prevent that sort of cataclysm from ever happening again. And the nations of western Europe also formed the military alliance of NATO to ensure the peace and provide for collective defense.

Here is a thought exercise. Do you think the past 75 years of European history since 1945 were made LESS violent or MORE violent as a result of NATO. Or to put it another way, did the building of NATO armies lead to MORE war or LESS war? One could make arguments either way. But one could make the argument that preparing for war has made it less likely rather than more likely. Other than the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s and the current invasion of Ukraine, Europe has been a remarkably peaceful place for the past 75 years which is in utter contrast to the rest of European history.

I believe war should always be a last resort. And that most wars are not remotely justifiable. However, defending your people against a genocidal invader is probably one of the exceptions. War is evil, but it isn't necessarily the most evil human endeavor. There are worse evils in the world than fighting a war. Genocide is one of them.

[Josh]

Just war theory (which is about states) and pacifism or Christian non-resistance (which is about individuals) are two completely separate things. One can easily believe in just war theory while simultaneously believing that Christians should not engage in it.

Ken, just war theory was created and promoted by Augustine and the Catholic church in order that Christians could figure out if they should engage in a war or not. It is entirely part of Christian ethics and morality.

If one doesn't believe Christians should engage in war, then one, by definition, does not believe in just war, either. This is probably one of the most significant distinctions between Catholics and Anabaptists, and indeed is one of the areas I would say I disagree the most with Augustine.

[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.

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

Like I said, I'm aware this is orthodox liberalism, but that has nothing to do with the Bible, or natural law.