Mennonites and War

[barnhart]

Bootstrap, when my grandfather's grandfather was a young man, a large army invaded and marched into his region burning houses, barns and mills, shooting livestock and leaving them in the field, stealing horses and food like cured meat and butter. The government raised a defense force to repel them and my ancestor was recruited by force to serve in the defensive forces.

In your world view should my great, great grandfather serve?

[Soloist]

Boot, you should ask your chatgpt how your position agrees or disagrees with Just war theory

feed it your post word for word

[Bootstrap]

I can hazard a guess that if Ukraine had surrendered from the beginning, many many lives would have been spared. Does not Jesus basically say in parable to count your foe to see if you may actually stand?

Instead, anger built, and now we have two nations bitter foes seeking total destruction.

In the Ukraine thread, I often got the sense there was more energy spent urging Ukraine to surrender than saying Russia should never have invaded.

That’s starting from the wrong moral footing.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is asking our opinion, of course — but too often, it feels like some people look for ways to blame the policeman instead of the criminal.

[Bootstrap]

Boot, you should ask your chatgpt how your position agrees or disagrees with Just war theory

feed it your post word for word

Sure. I fed it these two posts:

viewtopic.php?p=279901#p279901

viewtopic.php?p=279907#p279907

This is what it said:

Where Bootstrap’s View Agrees with Just War Theory

1. Moral Distinction Between Aggressor and Defender – You affirm that the side initiating unjust aggression bears the greater moral burden. This echoes jus ad bellum in Just War theory, which requires a just cause — often defined as defending against aggression.
2. Legitimate Authority in Restraining Evil – You accept that the State (“Caesar”) has a God-given responsibility to restrain evil, per Romans 13. Just War theory also insists that only legitimate authorities can wage war, ideally for the sake of justice and peace.
3. War as a Tragic Necessity, Not a Good in Itself – You stress that all war is destructive, even if sometimes unavoidable. Just War theory similarly treats war as a last resort, not an inherently good action.

Where Bootstrap’s View Differs from Just War Theory

1. Two Standards: Caesar vs. Disciples – You hold a dual ethic: disciples of Christ do not take up the sword, but you do not condemn the State for doing so in its role. Just War theory traditionally applies a single moral standard to both rulers and, historically, to Christian soldiers — allowing them to fight if the cause and conduct meet just war criteria.
2. Prophetic Priority Over Policy Criteria – Your focus is on denouncing the aggressor and calling nations to account, in line with the Old Testament prophetic model. Just War theory is more procedural — laying out conditions (jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus post bellum) that must be met for war to be justifiable. You don’t engage in those point-by-point calculations.
3. Skepticism Toward “Just” as a Label for War – You reject the idea that war can be truly “just,” even if the cause is defensive, and you resist blessing wars in God’s name. Just War theory assumes some wars can be genuinely just if they meet its conditions.
4. Refusal to Personally Participate in Violence – You hold a personal commitment to nonviolence as a disciple of Jesus. Just War theory traditionally allows (and at times expects) Christians to participate in just wars.

Summary
Bootstrap’s stance shares Just War theory’s moral distinction between aggression and defense, and the belief that states have a legitimate role in restraining evil. But it diverges in being more prophetic than procedural, in applying a two-kingdom ethic (one standard for the State, another for Christ’s disciples), and in resisting the idea that any war is truly “just” in God’s eyes — even when defensive.

Table:

Code: Select all

Bootstrap’s View                               Just War Theory
---------------------------------------------------------------
States may restrain evil; disciples do not     Same moral standard applies to rulers
use violence                                   and Christian soldiers

Focus is prophetic — call out aggressors       Procedural — tests wars by jus ad bellum,
and hold nations accountable                   jus in bello, jus post bellum criteria

Skeptical that any war can be truly “just”     Holds that some wars can be just if criteria met

Personal nonviolence as a disciple of Jesus    Allows/encourages Christian participation
                                               in just wars

[Soloist]

perhaps that will help you understand why others would see you embracing just war theory?

[Bootstrap]

Bootstrap, when my grandfather's grandfather was a young man, a large army invaded and marched into his region burning houses, barns and mills, shooting livestock and leaving them in the field, stealing horses and food like cured meat and butter. The government raised a defense force to repel them and my ancestor was recruited by force to serve in the defensive forces.

In your world view should my great, great grandfather serve?

I do not believe that Christians should serve in the military, period.

[Bootstrap]

perhaps that will help you understand why others would see you embracing just war theory?

It also helps me say that they are wrong to do so, if you read the whole thing carefully. It's pretty clear that the GPT summary sees important differences.

Where Bootstrap’s View Differs from Just War Theory

1. Two Standards: Caesar vs. Disciples – You hold a dual ethic: disciples of Christ do not take up the sword, but you do not condemn the State for doing so in its role. Just War theory traditionally applies a single moral standard to both rulers and, historically, to Christian soldiers — allowing them to fight if the cause and conduct meet just war criteria.
2. Prophetic Priority Over Policy Criteria – Your focus is on denouncing the aggressor and calling nations to account, in line with the Old Testament prophetic model. Just War theory is more procedural — laying out conditions (jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus post bellum) that must be met for war to be justifiable. You don’t engage in those point-by-point calculations.
3. Skepticism Toward “Just” as a Label for War – You reject the idea that war can be truly “just,” even if the cause is defensive, and you resist blessing wars in God’s name. Just War theory assumes some wars can be genuinely just if they meet its conditions.
4. Refusal to Personally Participate in Violence – You hold a personal commitment to nonviolence as a disciple of Jesus. Just War theory traditionally allows (and at times expects) Christians to participate in just wars.

I don't think you have two standards, you expect the same of Caesar as of a Christian? Aside from that, do we agree?

FWIW, which of these do you disagree with, and why?

Where Bootstrap’s View Agrees with Just War Theory

1. Moral Distinction Between Aggressor and Defender – You affirm that the side initiating unjust aggression bears the greater moral burden. This echoes jus ad bellum in Just War theory, which requires a just cause — often defined as defending against aggression.
2. Legitimate Authority in Restraining Evil – You accept that the State (“Caesar”) has a God-given responsibility to restrain evil, per Romans 13. Just War theory also insists that only legitimate authorities can wage war, ideally for the sake of justice and peace.
3. War as a Tragic Necessity, Not a Good in Itself – You stress that all war is destructive, even if sometimes unavoidable. Just War theory similarly treats war as a last resort, not an inherently good action.

Is there no moral difference at all between the rapist and the policeman? Didn't Jeremiah and other prophets weigh in on this?

[Soloist]

perhaps that will help you understand why others would see you embracing just war theory?

It also helps me say that they are wrong to do so, if you read the whole thing carefully. It's pretty clear that the GPT summary sees important differences.

FWIW, which of these do you disagree with, and why?

How Their View Parallels Augustine
Even though they deny being a “just war” advocate, their logic overlaps heavily with Augustine’s framework:

Moral distinction between aggressor and defender
Augustine’s just cause requirement says war is justified to repel aggression. Their “defense ≠ aggression” point is basically that same principle.

Legitimate authority
They appeal to Romans 13 — Caesar has God’s mandate to wield the sword. Augustine used exactly this text to justify the ruler’s right to wage war for peace and justice.

Right intention
They frame the defender as morally superior because their goal is to stop harm, not dominate — which is essentially Augustine’s right intention criterion.

Accountability for unjust wars
Augustine: rulers answer to God for starting or conducting wars unjustly.
Them: nations that wage unjust wars are accountable for their harm.

Where They Diverge
Personal vs. institutional role
They claim a personal refusal to fight (“my calling as a disciple is different”), which is more in line with Christian pacifist traditions. Augustine would allow a Christian to fight in a just war.

Prophetic framing
Their grounding is in OT prophetic condemnation of aggression, rather than Augustine’s natural law / civic order framing. It’s a different rhetorical style and biblical emphasis.

Moral supremacy of the defender
Augustine held that defense is just, but not necessarily morally pure — a just defender could still commit wrongs. This person’s “moral supremacy” claim edges into something stronger than Augustine would normally say.

Bottom line
They can deny the “just war” label, but their argument essentially applies three of Augustine’s central just war criteria — just cause, legitimate authority, right intention — just with a pacifist personal ethic layered on top.

It’s almost a “soft just war” position: they won’t fight themselves, but they affirm that the state can and should fight if attacked, and that doing so is morally better than not resisting.

[Soloist]

I can hazard a guess that if Ukraine had surrendered from the beginning, many many lives would have been spared. Does not Jesus basically say in parable to count your foe to see if you may actually stand?

Instead, anger built, and now we have two nations bitter foes seeking total destruction.

In the Ukraine thread, I often got the sense there was more energy spent urging Ukraine to surrender than saying Russia should never have invaded.

That’s starting from the wrong moral footing.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is asking our opinion, of course — but too often, it feels like some people look for ways to blame the policeman instead of the criminal.

No its not starting from the wrong moral footing. Its detaching government right to rule from morality.

[Bootstrap]

Bottom line
They can deny the “just war” label, but their argument essentially applies three of Augustine’s central just war criteria — just cause, legitimate authority, right intention — just with a pacifist personal ethic layered on top.

It’s almost a “soft just war” position: they won’t fight themselves, but they affirm that the state can and should fight if attacked, and that doing so is morally better than not resisting.

Out of curiosity — what model and prompt did you use for your run? ChatGPT can be wrong… or so I’ve heard. ;->

I used this prompt, with the bodies of both messages, and ChatGPT 5.0:

How does Bootstrap’s view here agree with and disagree with Just War Theory?

And as you saw, I got rather different results. And different pronouns - am I a "them" now?

I’ve read the ChatGPT summary you posted. I can see why it highlights areas of overlap, and I don’t disagree that there are points in common — especially the moral distinction between aggressor and defender, and the idea that rulers are accountable to God for unjust wars.

But from my own ChatGPT run, the differences still stand out: the two-kingdom ethic (one standard for Caesar, another for disciples), my refusal to personally take up the sword, a prophetic priority over procedural “just war” criteria, skepticism toward calling any war truly “just,” and a refusal to bless wars in God’s name. Those aren’t just word choices — they reflect a different way of framing the whole question. It's a Two Kingdom approach. I'm not trying to play "My ChatGPT is better than your ChatGPT" here, I'm looking at the things that are central to my position as I have expressed it here.

That said, I’m not interested in wrangling over labels. The more important question for me is whether what I’ve described is faithful to Scripture, and I’m convinced it is.