Tough Issues: What About War?

Dr. Jim Wilson, January 6, 2008
Text: Isaiah 2:1-5; Matthew 2:1-12

In Book Three of Tolstoy’s epic, WAR AND PEACE, the hero, Pierre Bezukhov, arrives a the battlefield of Borodino to find that the “fog of war” has descended, obscuring everything he had expected to be clear. He can distinguish no order, no patterns of battle, all is chaos. He could not, Count Bezukhov admits, “even distinguish our troops from the enemy’s.” “The fog of war” image has been employed often in literature to express the chaotic uncertainty of combat. One only has to recall the gut-wrenching opening scenes of the film, “Saving Private Ryan,” to confront this ancient truth. Even in the most brilliantly planned military actions, contingency and chaos soon become king. Such is the nature of war.

I would suggest that the image of the “fog of war” has another possible related meaning. I would take the image a step further and apply it to the ethical and theological discussion concerning war. That too often seems “foggy” at best. Some would argue that war---this armed conflict between nations---is beyond moral or theological discourse; that war is about national self interest, not morality or theology.

That is clearly not the position of the United Methodist Church or, for that matter, most Christian communities. The statement on War and Peace in our Social Principles maintains that both are subject to ethical and theological scrutiny. The opening sentence makes that clear: “We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ.” In what follows, the Church makes a number of statements about war both in terms of its appropriateness and its conduct. While the UMC is not an historic “peace church,” such as the Quakers and Mennonites, we clearly are strong advocates for peace. Yet, pronouncements seldom resolve complex issues. These statements are no different. They paint with a broad brush. But in our discussion of an ethical and theological response to war, the “devil is in the details,” as we say. This is why war is a “tough issue.” Christians struggle with and disagree about the details.

Be that as it may, the war against terrorism, in general, and the war in Iraq, in particular, has revived the discussion of how we, as Christians, respond. And this war is more difficult, foggier, than others, precisely because the enemy is not a defined state. Nevertheless, with the 2008 Presidential Campaign now in full swing, we will hear much about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. How will we respond? What will we have to say? Hopefully, today’s sermon will set a framework for your thinking through your response. It certainly will not answer all the questions. But maybe it will lift at least some of the fog. To begin, turn with me to our lessons for this morning.

Both lessons express the theme of this Day of Epiphany. Epiphany marks the time of the Church’s proclamation of the manifestation of Christ Jesus, not just for Israel, but for the whole world. The coming of the Wise Men or Magi symbolizes the nations, the Gentile World, coming to Christ Jesus to receive the gift of salvation. The Isaiah passage has a similar theme. It presents a vision of the nations coming to the “mountain of the Lord,” that is Zion or Jerusalem, to be instructed by Yahweh in his ways. Yahweh, the Lord, is presented not only as a teacher, but also as judge, one who arbitrates disputes among the nations. When Yahweh’s ways are learned and the disputes are settled, a reign of universal peace is ushered in; swords become plowshares, spears become pruning hooks, and “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” I remember standing in the lobby of the United Nations building in New York City several years ago, reading this passage which is mounted on the wall. The words grabbed a hold of me, the vision made an indelible impression on my heart. It is a vision of peace, the end of war, probably at the end of history. Yet it is the direction history is meant to move. Both texts have an implicit political thrust, speaking of salvation as peace among the nations, affirming that “war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ.” With this biblical and doctrinal background in hand, let’s explore how we can engage in a conversation, what John Wesley called “conferencing,” about a faithful response to war. Perhaps we can lift the fog a bit.

A quick review of history suggests that there are four main approaches to this relationship between theology and ethics and war. The first is what is usually referred to as Realism. Realism holds that war is about a nation’s self interest, matters of security, power and influence, economics, not about ethics or theology. This is the “my country right or wrong” stance. I don’t think Realism is helpful in lifting the fog. As second approach is that of the Crusade, the Holy War, the Jihad, which maintains that our side is so righteous, so godly and the other side so wrong, so evil that the only choice is to eliminate the infidels. I believe we have seen and heard enough of this thought and where it leads. It is not helpful for our conversation. A third approach is that of pacifism. Pacifism argues that war can never be justified morally or theologically. It is simply wrong, always wrong. While pacifism is a legitimate, recognized Christian response to war, I believe it presents a number of question marks ethically. For instance pacifists often argue that violence only tends to beget more violence. That may very well be true but in more than one way. If violence is not met with resistance, even armed resistance, my hunch is more violence will be invited. I don’t think Al-Qaeda responds very well to passivity. The risk is even more harm, more destruction. Yet, pacifism should be a part of the conversation.

Now let’s turn to the fourth approach. This approach is referred to as the “Just War Theory.” I believe this approach, while not without difficulties, provides a helpful frame work for our conversation. It is a potential “fog lifter.” The Just War Theory traces its origins to the Hebrew Scriptures. Later it was given shape by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Michael Walzer and Paul Ramsey are two contemporary proponents. Unlike Realism, the Just War Theory argues that war can and must be governed by ethics and theology. Unlike the Crusade or Jihad approach, the Just War Theory contains criteria that prevents or, at least makes less likely, arrogant self righteousness. Unlike Pacifism, the Just War Theory maintains that there are situations when it is more ethical to respond with armed strength than to be passive. World War 2 is the oft cited example. Dealing with the apocalyptic terrorists of our day may be another. Aggression, says the Just War Theory, must be countered. However, the response must be just, carefully measured. Theological thinking and ethical criteria must guide the response. For me, I think that is essential for a response that claims to be Christian. I believe our United Methodist Social Principles reflect a Just War Theory influence.

“What specifically is the Just War approach?” you may ask. Quite simply the Just War Theory consists of seven criteria to measure the “justness” of a response. First, the cause itself must be just. This means it must be a response to armed aggression. Second, the war must be declared by a proper authority; that is by a properly constituted, politically responsible body, not by individuals. No “Charley Wilson’s War”! Third, the war must have the probably of success. In other words, a war should not be undertaken if there is no likelihood of a successful outcome. Fourth, the war should be a last resort; a choice made after all sincere efforts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted. Fifth, the war should have a just intent. This means that the war’s objective must be peace and reconciliation, not the unlimited destruction of the enemy state. Sixth, there must be proportionality which means the potential good brought about by the war outweighs the harm in terms cost and destruction to both sides, and the means used must be in proportion to the end in mind, the just intent. Seventh and finally, there should be discrimination for noncombatants. Simply put, this means that military actions should not be waged in ways that directly intend to take the lives of civilians.

Seven criteria---just cause, proper authority just intent, last resort, probability of success, proportionality, and protection for noncombatants---constitute the framework of the Just War Theory. Let me offer a challenge. What if you were to take these seven criteria and apply them to the War in Iraq? I believe you would have an ethical and theological framework for a conversation about war, a conversation that brings your faith in Jesus Christ into engagement with the realities of our world. It also would help you sort out the positions of the Presidential candidates.

Would we all come to the same conclusions? Not likely! But that is not important. Having the conversation is. Unless, of course, you prefer the fog. The One who comes to us in Christ Jesus to bring salvation to the whole world, the One who will reign in peace, a peace where swords are beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and no one learns war any more, calls us to walk in the light of that vision. What can you and I do? We can walk in the light and witness to God’s vision. It is a matter of living the faith. Well, I hope it is somewhat less foggy for you! Thanks be to God! Amen!