Mennonites and War

[Ken]

If an army general operates his army according to generally accepted standards of chivalry, fighting only defensive battles, no matter how successful he is, can you imagine our Lord saying "come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom"?

I'm not sure chivalry and defensiveness are the right criteria for determining whether a military action is a just one. Chivalry basically just refers to acting with respect or honor towards the opposing military. And defensive battles isn't any sort of criteria. One can and should launch all kinds of offensive actions in the course of a defensive war. War isn't standing around waiting until you get shot at before engaging. It is about surprise and maneuver as well. Arguably bringing a war to a faster end through sophisticated tactics is more humane than letting it drag on and on and on because you only engage in ineffective static defensive battles.

Modern international humanitarian law basically has 5 principles for determining if a military action is just or legal.

Necessity: Is war a legitimate defensive one and are the individual actions within that war necessary for achieving that objective? So, for example, a war may be militarily necessary to defend a country from invasion, but blowing up churches or civilian infrastructure isn't necessary for achieving that objective.

Distinction: Are the combatants distinguishing between military targets and protected civilians? Bombing or massacring (or otherwise mistreating) civilians violates that principle. As does destroying civilian infrastructure for no legitimate military purpose. So blowing up a civilian railway bridge might have a legitimate military purpose. But blowing up a civilian hospital or school would not.

Proportionality: Is the action proportional to the military objective? Blowing up an entire city to destroy some military target on the edge of town would not be proportional.

Humanity: This principle prohibits weapons or actions that cause injury of suffering that is disproportionate to their military utility. This principle led to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, for example.

Honor: This is what you are calling chivalry. It is about treating opponents with respect, not mistreating prisoners of war or killing troops who have surrendered. That sort of thing.

Arguably the combatants in the current Ukrainian and Gaza conflicts are violating multiple of these principles if not all of them.

Likewise, war is not the only public action that can result in the death or suffering of others. Is there a moral difference between a politician who choses to cut off medical care for vulnerable sick people knowing that his actions will result in death and suffering. Versus a general who engages in a battle that also results in death and suffering? I'm not so sure.

[ken_sylvania]

If an army general operates his army according to generally accepted standards of chivalry, fighting only defensive battles, no matter how successful he is, can you imagine our Lord saying "come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom"?

I'm not sure chivalry and defensiveness are the right criteria for determining whether a military action is a just one. Chivalry basically just refers to acting with respect or honor towards the opposing military. And defensive battles isn't any sort of criteria. One can and should launch all kinds of offensive actions in the course of a defensive war. War isn't standing around waiting until you get shot at before engaging. It is about surprise and maneuver as well. Arguably bringing a war to a faster end through sophisticated tactics is more humane than letting it drag on and on and on because you only engage in ineffective static defensive battles.

Modern international humanitarian law basically has 5 principles for determining if a military action is just or legal.

Necessity: Is war a legitimate defensive one and are the individual actions within that war necessary for achieving that objective? So, for example, a war may be militarily necessary to defend a country from invasion, but blowing up churches or civilian infrastructure isn't necessary for achieving that objective.

Distinction: Are the combatants distinguishing between military targets and protected civilians? Bombing or massacring (or otherwise mistreating) civilians violates that principle. As does destroying civilian infrastructure for no legitimate military purpose. So blowing up a civilian railway bridge might have a legitimate military purpose. But blowing up a civilian hospital or school would not.

Proportionality: Is the action proportional to the military objective? Blowing up an entire city to destroy some military target on the edge of town would not be proportional.

Humanity: This principle prohibits weapons or actions that cause injury of suffering that is disproportionate to their military utility. This principle led to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, for example.

Honor: This is what you are calling chivalry. It is about treating opponents with respect, not mistreating prisoners of war or killing troops who have surrendered. That sort of thing.

Arguably the combatants in the current Ukrainian and Gaza conflicts are violating multiple of these principles if not all of them.

Likewise, war is not the only public action that can result in the death or suffering of others. Is there a moral difference between a politician who choses to cut off medical care for vulnerable sick people knowing that his actions will result in death and suffering. Versus a general who engages in a battle that also results in death and suffering? I'm not so sure.

For that matter I don't know of any war in history that has been conducted completely in accordance with those five principles. But my point was, even the most upright military general in the world, I don't see how he inherits the kingdom of heaven unless he repents.

[Ken]

If an army general operates his army according to generally accepted standards of chivalry, fighting only defensive battles, no matter how successful he is, can you imagine our Lord saying "come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom"?

I'm not sure chivalry and defensiveness are the right criteria for determining whether a military action is a just one. Chivalry basically just refers to acting with respect or honor towards the opposing military. And defensive battles isn't any sort of criteria. One can and should launch all kinds of offensive actions in the course of a defensive war. War isn't standing around waiting until you get shot at before engaging. It is about surprise and maneuver as well. Arguably bringing a war to a faster end through sophisticated tactics is more humane than letting it drag on and on and on because you only engage in ineffective static defensive battles.

Modern international humanitarian law basically has 5 principles for determining if a military action is just or legal.

Necessity: Is war a legitimate defensive one and are the individual actions within that war necessary for achieving that objective? So, for example, a war may be militarily necessary to defend a country from invasion, but blowing up churches or civilian infrastructure isn't necessary for achieving that objective.

Distinction: Are the combatants distinguishing between military targets and protected civilians? Bombing or massacring (or otherwise mistreating) civilians violates that principle. As does destroying civilian infrastructure for no legitimate military purpose. So blowing up a civilian railway bridge might have a legitimate military purpose. But blowing up a civilian hospital or school would not.

Proportionality: Is the action proportional to the military objective? Blowing up an entire city to destroy some military target on the edge of town would not be proportional.

Humanity: This principle prohibits weapons or actions that cause injury of suffering that is disproportionate to their military utility. This principle led to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, for example.

Honor: This is what you are calling chivalry. It is about treating opponents with respect, not mistreating prisoners of war or killing troops who have surrendered. That sort of thing.

Arguably the combatants in the current Ukrainian and Gaza conflicts are violating multiple of these principles if not all of them.

Likewise, war is not the only public action that can result in the death or suffering of others. Is there a moral difference between a politician who choses to cut off medical care for vulnerable sick people knowing that his actions will result in death and suffering. Versus a general who engages in a battle that also results in death and suffering? I'm not so sure.

For that matter I don't know of any war in history that has been conducted completely in accordance with those five principles. But my point was, even the most upright military general in the world, I don't see how he inherits the kingdom of heaven unless he repents.

That may be true.

But millions of service members in uniform have conducted themselves according to those principles both during war and peace.

Nations, corporations, and armies don't have souls. But people do.

And as for repentance? Every one of us probably sins in some manner every day and every week. My 85 year old mother probably takes sinful pride in her flower garden and she no doubt gossips with her sister and friends. Is there anything in the teachings of Jesus that suggests we are graded on a curve here?

[Neto]

I see Scripture speaking of sins such as lying, murdering (and killing, for those who think there is a difference), etc. as results of not having submitting to God's rule. That is the sin that indicates a rejection of the offer of salvation, which is provided through Jesus' death and resurrection.

Can a murderer go to heaven? It depends on whether he or she has then repented and submitted to God. (And, it is then also assumed that the murderer will stop murdering.) If I thought a murderer could not repent and be saved (by the same grace and 'amount of grace') as that by which I was also saved - that he was already doomed to hell, then I would have had no reason to continue treating the young man I mentioned previously with compassion by still presenting the news of God's grace to him (and by putting my arm around him). As I said, the one he had murdered was gone, and I could not bring him back, (He was a believer, so he was already saved.), but I hoped to help him make the decision to repent, and be saved himself. (Only God can tell if he has done that, but from what I've seen of his life since then I do believe that he has.)

[Bootstrap]

Ken, I think this comes down to what you mean by morally acceptable. Is it morally acceptable for a policeman to use deadly force to stop a rape in progress? I could not do that as a Christian — my allegiance to Christ’s kingdom means I reject killing — but I also would not try to stop the policeman from doing it, and if I saw the woman thanking him afterward, I wouldn’t step in to tell her he was wrong. I wouldn't say killing someone was the right thing to do either, I would basically hold my tongue. And that's the reason I am not giving you a direct answer to your question.

That’s how I see Ukraine’s defense in the realm of Caesar. In the Kingdom of the World, states bear the sword to restrain evil — that’s part of their God-given role (Romans 13). In the Kingdom of Christ, disciples don’t take up the sword — that’s our calling. So in Caesar’s realm, an act may be “morally acceptable” for the State in fulfilling its role, while still not being permissible for a follower of Jesus.

So my question back to you is: when you ask if something is morally acceptable, do you mean acceptable for Caesar in his God-given role, or acceptable for disciples of Christ? Those are two different standards, and I think Romans 13 forces that distinction. I realize you interpret Romans 13 differently, but I’m explaining my understanding here.

While I understand you wouldn't fight, and this is more of a theoretical discussion as it really doesn't effect us, how do you see your distinction in regard to Just War theory? do you see a difference? or do you accept the basic concept of Just war?
My impression is that you believe in what Augustine actually taught on Just war but I'd like to clarify how you see that teaching in regard to this. Augustine wasn't just giving justification for "christians" fighting but a moral teaching for nations waging war in general.

Soloist, all war is bad — it destroys lives and communities. The cause of war is aggression: rulers seeking to take what isn’t theirs, to dominate, exploit, or impose their will by force. That’s what the Old Testament prophets condemned, and that’s the model I follow. But saying aggression and defense are morally equivalent isn’t logically or biblically coherent. Defense is not the cause of war — it’s often what prevents it. Places with no effective police or military are rarely safe; look at Haiti, where the collapse of law enforcement has left whole neighborhoods under gang rule. I think that's the reality behind Romans 13. God uses Caesar's sword to restrain evil.

Most wars involve atrocities on both sides, but that doesn’t make all sides the same. Saying so is like claiming a policeman stopping a rape is no different from the rapist — it erases the moral difference and gives the aggressor a free pass. In war, the side that initiates unjust aggression bears the greater moral burden. Of course, each side is responsible for its own moral wrongs, but that does not mean they are equal.

Romans 13 says the State bears the sword to restrain evil in its own realm. My calling as a disciple is different — I don’t take up the sword — but I acknowledge Caesar’s God-given responsibility, and that unjust wars violate it. When nations ignore those limits, they’re accountable for the harm they cause. I’m not justifying war — I’m calling out and speaking against the worst kinds of aggression.

[JohnH]

I’m confused here, Boot. Are you arguing for an Augustinian standard of just war, or something else?

[Bootstrap]

I’m confused here, Boot. Are you arguing for an Augustinian standard of just war, or something else?

Something else. The best way to understand what I'm arguing for is probably to focus on what I am writing and ask questions if something is unclear. It may not fall neatly in the categories you are thinking of.

I’m not arguing for an Augustinian “just war” standard. I have problems with the phrase itself — war never seems truly just, even when it feels unavoidable. All war is destructive and rooted in aggression, but the moral burden falls most heavily on the side that initiates it.

If I’m an Old Testament prophet, who am I going to speak out against? The aggressor — the ruler who attacks without cause, inflicts unnecessary suffering, and ignores God’s standards. That’s my model, and I think some of that prophetic role continues in the New Testament. My aim isn’t to justify war, but to call out and speak against the worst kinds of aggression.

Of course, the party that was attacked can also commit atrocities, and they bear that blame. “Which side is better” is often the wrong question, because each side must take responsibility for its own actions — and that question rarely brings moral clarity. Hamas bears responsibility for October 7th; Israel bears responsibility for atrocities committed since then. Both also bear responsibility for wrongs committed against the other before October 7th. The goal is not to declare one side 100% innocent, but to shine a light on all atrocities.

To me, Augustine too often found ways to justify wars that should have been hard to justify, and I think it’s wrong for the Church to bless wars. But it’s also wrong for the Kingdom of God to pretend there’s no moral difference between a policeman and a rapist — in war, as in that analogy, the one initiating unjust aggression carries the greater moral weight.

[Soloist]

If I’m an Old Testament prophet, who am I going to speak out against? The aggressor — the ruler who attacks without cause, inflicts unnecessary suffering, and ignores God’s standards. That’s my model, and I think some of that prophetic role continues in the New Testament. My aim isn’t to justify war, but to call out and speak against the worst kinds of aggression.

Jeremiah wants to speak to you…

[Bootstrap]

If I’m an Old Testament prophet, who am I going to speak out against? The aggressor — the ruler who attacks without cause, inflicts unnecessary suffering, and ignores God’s standards. That’s my model, and I think some of that prophetic role continues in the New Testament. My aim isn’t to justify war, but to call out and speak against the worst kinds of aggression.

Jeremiah wants to speak to you…

Yeah, he left me a voice mail this morning. Imagine my surprise!

He said:

Jeremiah 22:3–5 — “Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow… But if you do not obey… this house will become a ruin.”
Jeremiah 21:12 — “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed.”
Jeremiah 23:1–2 — “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!”
Jeremiah 50:31–32 (addressing Babylon) — “I am against you, arrogant one… your day has come, the time for you to be punished.”

Said these are still worth repeating — and that I should pass the message along.

When Jeremiah speaks, I want to listen.

[Soloist]

If I’m an Old Testament prophet, who am I going to speak out against? The aggressor — the ruler who attacks without cause, inflicts unnecessary suffering, and ignores God’s standards. That’s my model, and I think some of that prophetic role continues in the New Testament. My aim isn’t to justify war, but to call out and speak against the worst kinds of aggression.

Jeremiah wants to speak to you…

Yeah, he left me a voice mail this morning. He said:

Jeremiah 22:3–5 — “Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow… But if you do not obey… this house will become a ruin.”

Jeremiah 21:12 — “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed.”

Jeremiah 23:1–2 — “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!”

Jeremiah 50:31–32 (addressing Babylon) — “I am against you, arrogant one… your day has come, the time for you to be punished.”

Said these are still worth repeating — and that I should pass the message along.

He also said

Jeremiah 21:9–10 He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence: but he that goeth out, and falleth to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey.
For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.

Jeremiah 38:2-3 Thus saith the LORD, He that remaineth in this city shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans shall live; for he shall have his life for a prey, and shall live.
3 Thus saith the LORD, This city shall surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon's army, which shall take it.

Jeremiah 38:17-18 Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire; and thou shalt live, and thine house:
But if thou wilt not go forth to the king of Babylon's princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand.

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.