So, it’s beginning to feel like the 15th century. Emperors beefing with popes over some deep theology that has immediate real world consequences. Now in 700 words, I’m not going to really solve anything. Nor when Emperors and Popes are yelling at each other does a parish pastor have much standing. But I do think it is worth trying to think through something in writing. There is a long Christian history of teaching that comes under the title “Just War” which goes back to Augustine. There is also just as long a history of magistrates ignoring it.
First, let’s look at the most compact form of that teaching possible. It is from paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Like Luther’s small catechism, and like all classical catechisms, is structured around: The Creed, The Sacraments, The Law, and Prayer. Paragraph 2309 on Just War is from the section on the law, subsection on the Fifth Commandment (“Thou Shall Not Kill”), further subsection on Jesus’ teaching “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” As a Lutheran, setting this in the section on the law, would tell us: 1) This is how God intends things to be (Civil Use), 2) It shows us where we sin (Religious Use), and 3) It sets for the Christian Life a standard for sanctification. Let me quote this paragraph in full.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; – there must be serious prospects of success; – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Now let’s summarize. 1) There is no such thing as a just war of aggression. 2) Even if you are aggressed against, there must be a serious cause (“lasting, grave and certain”). 3) It must be a last resort (“all other means…impractical or ineffective”). 4) Probability of success. 5) What is typically called proportionality. (“not produce evils and disorders greater than the evil to be eliminated”).
This is a Mark Brown conclusion, yours may certainly and probably does differ, but using that as a grading scale, probably WW2 and the First Gulf War are the only ones that pass the test. It is the line on proportionality that is probably most easily crossed. For example, saying that we will destroy an entire civilization probably crosses that line. But that moves into what I think is something truly new in Just War theory, the reality of nuclear weapons. Since WW2 increasing number of states have had the ability to destroy all life on the planet, or if not all life to make the Roman’s “salting the earth” look like child’s play. In the current conflict, if you get past the aggression line with the reasoning that Iran has been attacking “The Great Satan” and “The Little Satan” by proxies and other means for decades, you still hit the 2nd line. Has anything Iran done to us crossed the “lasting, grave and certain” line? The threat of a state getting a nuclear weapon definitely crosses that line.
And that might be where the last sentence is the wisest. “The evaluation of these conditions…belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good.” One gets the feeling that the Pope doesn’t trust the prudential judgement of the current President, or his ability to see the common good. The current President returns the distrust in rejecting the Pope’s reasonability in seeing the common good. A common conservative critique of progressive answers, fine intentions but guaranteed to hurt everyone.
Now as you can see from that entire summary discussion, the biblical text beyond the 5th commandment hasn’t entered into it at all. Just War doctrine is a philosophical argument. And it is largely persuasive. I wish this is how the nations of the earth ruled themselves. But the Bible itself is grittier. Jesus himself seems more realist.
“But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. (Matt. 20:25 ESV)” It is just a statement of fact. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. That is how this fallen world often works. And in fact, if you read Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2:13ff, the apostles tend to think that this is probably for the good of the world. They say to obey the rulers. If the rulers are terrible and you can’t follow them for the sake of Christ, and they strike you, it is not a call to rebellion, but to rejoice in your sufferings for the sake of Christ. Those rulers are present for God’s reasons. Even if we don’t know them.
Jesus then continues, “It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matt. 20:26-28 ESV)” This old world and the church just operate by different rules. States are not judged by individual morality. You, me, everyone who desires to follow Christ, must pick up this cross. We are strangers in this world or as Peter would call us “elect exiles.”
You can see why Anabaptists usually don’t vote and never hold office. They view any such authority as incompatible with the Christian life. The standard reply of the church was “no, the wheat and weeds together.” Often referencing John the Baptist’s advice to the solider, “Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” (Lk. 3:14 ESV)” If there was someone who was going to say “separate yourselves” you’d imagine the Baptist would be it. But he does not. His advice is don’t abuse the office but carry out your duties.
The Bible’s ultimate answer is that we await the return of the King. There is one who will rule justly. Right now he sits at the right hand of the Father. And one day shall return in power and great glory. Until then, “the kingdom suffers violence, and the violent bear it away (Matthew 11:12).”