Rusty Benson
AFA Journal associate editor
Editor’s note: For a summary of the Just War Theory, see 3/2003, AFA Journal.
April 2003 – If the recent huge anti-war rallies are any indication – and surely they are – free speech is alive and well across the nation. Advocacy groups, particularly those who oppose a war with Iraq, are exercising fully their First Amendment rights by loudly promoting their distinctive perspectives through ads, slogans, speeches, demonstrations and Internet sites.
In contrast to the public blast of emotion and rhetoric, the difficult principled issues of when and how modern day war is justified are being hashed out largely by Christian theologians and ethicists.
Give peace a chance
United For Peace describes itself as “a new national campaign that brings together a broad range of organizations throughout the United States to help coordinate our work against a U.S. war on Iraq.” Touting the slogan “Unite for peace and justice and say NO! to war,” the organization’s Web Site (www.unitedforpeace.org) lists over 150 groups working against a war with Iraq.
One of those groups, Socialist Party USA, claims that the war on terrorism is really “all about providing political cover for the right-wing Republican agenda: tax cuts for the rich, more public resources given away to big corporations, more government spying on citizens, stamping out labor unions.”
Black Voices for Peace is using its opposition to war with Iraq to equate the “denial of human rights and human needs in this country” with terrorism.
The liberal National Council of Churches (NCC) sponsored a TV commercial in which Bishop Melvin Talbert, the ecumenical officer for the United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops, claims that a war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “violates God’s law.” NCC has a long history of advocating “20th-century Protestant liberalism,” according to Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy. Tooley is critical of the NCC’s 30-second highly emotional ad because it demands “that fidelity to Jesus means opposition to any U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein.”
Artists United to Win Without War offered an open letter to President Bush in the form of a newspaper ad. Largely comprised of Hollywood celebrities, the group’s ad states: “We reject the doctrine – a reversal of long-held American tradition – that our country alone has the right to launch first-strike attacks.”
Such conjecture may make good ad copy, but for the most part the outraged Hollywood crowd has added little more than personal opinions and emotion to the war debate. For example, Associated Press quotes actor Martin Sheen: “I think [President Bush would] like to hand his father Saddam Hussein’s head and win his approval for what happened after the Gulf War.”
Singer Sheryl Crow offered this insight: “I think war is based on greed and there’s huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving problems. The best way to solve problems is not to have enemies.”
Though actors, quasi-religious groups and opportunists may grab more than their share of media attention, critical Christian thinkers on both sides of the debate – some of whom have consulted with the White House – are doing the difficult work of assessing the current situation. Most are appealing to the Just War Theory, Christianity’s historic view on war. But don’t expect to see these Christian ethicists on TV talk shows.
A Just War? No.
Not all Christians subscribe to the Just War tradition – the set of principles gleaned from the interpretations of Bible passages that touch on war. (These include Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8; Matthew 5:44; 24:6-7; Acts 10:1-23; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:2; and 1 Peter 2: 13-17.) Historically, the spectrum of responses has run from pacifism to the “God wills it!” attitude of the Crusades.
However, the Just War Theory, which in addition to Scripture leans heavily on the writings of Church Fathers such as Augustine, Calvin, and Aquinas, has been the mainstream view of Christendom. Because it is not a strict ethical framework, the principles themselves are open to broad interpretation. But most Christian thinkers see their value in pointing to the right questions and thus helping to focus debate on the relevant problems.
In its “Statement on Iraq,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees that the government of Iraq must “cease its internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and destroy all such existing weapons.”
But in applying the principles of the Just War Theory, the bishops “find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of grave nature.” The following is a summary of their thinking:
1. Just cause. The bishops express deep concern over expanding “traditional limits on just cause to include preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction.”
2. Legitimate authority. If force against the government of Iraq is used, a U.S. decision alone is not adequate to satisfy this principle, according to the bishops. They would also require a “broad consensus within our nation” and that any action take place “within the framework of the United Nations….”
3. Probability of success and proportionality. The bishops state their concern that the use of force may “produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” They point to “unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq, but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East.”
4. Norm governing the conduct of war. In assessing “whether ‘collateral damage’ is proportionate,” the Catholic leaders encourage those responsible for making national security decisions to remember that “the lives of Iraqi men, women, and children should be valued as we would the lives of members of our own family and citizens of our own country.”
A Just War? Yes.
On the other hand, an October letter to President Bush from a group of notable evangelical leaders states: “…we believe that your stated policies concerning Saddam Hussein and his headlong pursuit and development of biochemical nuclear weapons of mass destruction are prudent and fall well within the time-honored criteria of Just War Theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.” Signers of the letter were Dr. Richard D. Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Dr. Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries; Dr. Bill Bright, founder/chairman of Campus Crusade for Christ International; Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc.; and Dr. Carl D. Herbster, president of American Association of Christian Schools.
Following is a summary of the group’s application of the Just War criteria to the current conflict with the government of Iraq.
1. Just cause. The group does not see action against Iraq as preemptive. Agreeing with President Bush’s address to the United Nations on September 12, 2001, they cite incidents in which Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and Iran, fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel and committed mass murder against Iranians and Kurds. “Disarming and neutralizing Saddam Hussein is to defend freedom and freedom-loving people from state-sponsored terror and death,” the letter says.
2. Just intent. This qualification is met, according to the evangelical group, since the strategic goal of U.S. military action, as stated by the president, is limited to the “political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.” In other words, “our nation does not intend to destroy, conquer or exploit Iraq.”
3. Last resort. This group believes that to delay action against Saddam Hussein “in forcing the regime’s compliance would be reckless irresponsibility in the face of grave and growing danger.” Their letter claims that for over a decade Saddam Hussein has ignored UN Security Council resolutions, and broken “virtually every agreement into which he has entered,” while continuing to “develop the weapons of mass destruction which he will use to terrorize the world community of nations.”
4. Legitimate authority. The group affirms that although UN approval would be helpful, the U.S. government is the only necessary “authorizing vehicle” to satisfy this qualification of just war.
5. Limited goals and reasonable expectation of success. The President’s stated goals for disarming Saddam Hussein, destroying his weapons of mass destruction and liberating the Iraqi people, “more than meet the criteria,” the letter states.
6. Noncombatant immunity. The group is confident that strategic and technical efforts will be made to minimize “noncombatant casualties.”
7. Proportionality. The letter raises the question: “Will the human cost of the armed conflict to both sides be proportionate to the stated objectives and goals?” The evangelical group answers the question of proportionality, stating that the cost of not dealing with this threat will only succeed in greatly increasing the cost in human lives and suffering when an even more heavily armed and dangerous Saddam Hussein must be confronted at some date in the not-too-distant future.”
Right questions, right answers
Thoughtful Christians can disagree and still make an important contribution to the debate about war. And through the debate, the Church has the opportunity to guide others in asking the right questions. Hopefully, for some, wrestling with the right questions about war will lead to a revelation about the Prince of Peace. And He is always the right answer. 
Just War debate Internet resources
• Full Statement on Iraq from Catholic Bishops: www.usccb.org
For more about what Christians are saying about possible war with Iraq in light of just war criteria:
• www.christianitytoday.com
• www.desiringgod.org
