We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

The Kingdom, Just War Theory, and Ukraine

140304072348-04-ukraine-0304-horizontal-galleryHistory textbooks often read like surveys of how countries handled war with other nations. The stuff between the conflicts reads like precursors and aftermath to the history-making actions of war. Now we observe the rising tension between Russia and Ukraine along with other world leaders as they try to determine how to respond. Sadly, church history also reads like God’s people have been full participants in the ups and downs of war, as if it is the church’s duty to join forces with the “just” side. If we determine that a war is just, then Christians have the right and even the duty to support it. This is the common way we have been taught in the Christian church to think about war. However, we don’t often think about where this line of reasoning originates, and rarely do we ever question its validity. Here are some thoughts about this from Greg:

For the first three centuries of the church, Christians understood that it was their Kingdom duty to follow Jesus’ example of forgoing the use of violence and expressing God’s self-sacrificial love toward enemies. Unfortunately, this mindset was the first thing we lost when the Church acquired political power in the fourth century. Because many leaders viewed this political power as a blessing from God rather than a temptation from the enemy, Jesus’ refusal to use coercive power had to be radically rethought.

Augustine employed his formidable intellectual skills toward this end. He speculated that Jesus’ decision to suffer unjustly rather than use coercive force was not intended to be a permanent example for all Christians to follow. Rather, he reasoned, Jesus had to suffer and die unjustly because he was the Savior, and his suffering and death were necessary in order for us to be freed from the devil and reconciled to God. Now that this has been accomplished, however, and now that God (allegedly) had given Christians the power of the sword, it was not only permissible for Christians to use violence when the cause was “just”, they had a responsibility before God to do so.

This was the beginning of what’s called the ‘just war’ tradition within Christendom.

Now, we could at this point debate the relative merits of various versions of just war theory as applied to nations. Under what circumstances is a country justified in going to war? What warfare tactics are justified once a nation is involved in war? Some would even want to debate how various just war theories might be applied to a nation’s war on crime inside its own borders.

I have no problem with people applying just war theory in these ways. Since the New Testament assumes the kingdoms of the world will rely on the power of the sword, it may (or may not) be helpful to debate what constitutes a just use of the sword. There’s no inconsistency in a person holding that following Jesus entails that one should never engage in violence while also believing that there may be circumstances in which, as a last resort, nations may be justified in going to war.

My issues with just war theory arise when people follow Augustine’s lead and think it has something to say about how Kingdom people respond to enemies. For, contrary to Augustine, the New Testament is as clear as it can be that Kingdom people are called to follow Jesus’ example of sacrificing themselves for enemies rather than resorting to violence to resist or conquer them.

Jesus’ willingness to suffer out of love for his enemies rather than use coercive force against them is consistently identified in the New Testament as the ultimate expression of God’s love and the ultimate means by which the Powers are defeated. It’s what Calvary is all about. And so, the willingness of Kingdom people to suffer out of love for our enemies rather than use coercive force against them must still be considered the ultimate expression of God’s love.

Related Reading

Take America (& the World) Back for God?

Kai Schreiber via Compfight Recently Missio Alliance has hosted a series of posts entitled “Christianity and Violence.” Since Greg has written quite a lot on this topic from the point of view of pacifism, we thought it timely to weigh in on this topic. The following excerpt is quoted from his chapter, “Taking America Back…

Why Did Jesus Command His Disciples to Arm Themselves With Swords? (podcast)

In this episode Greg looks at the command in Luke 22 to buy a sword. Episode 46 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0046.mp3

The Case for Annihilationism

Annihilationism is the view that whoever and whatever cannot be redeemed by God is ultimately put out of existence. Sentient beings do not suffer eternally, as the traditional view of hell teaches. While I am not completely convinced of this position, I think it is worthy of serious consideration. In this essay I will present…

Topics:

The Cruciform Center Part 1: How Matthew, Mark and Luke Reveal a Cruciform God

In the previous series of posts I’ve argued that a merely “Christocentric” approach to God is too general, as can be shown by the widely different conceptions of God people arrive at, despite their claim to be “Christocentric.”  The confession that Jesus reveals what God is like is simply too abstract, for it leaves too…

Scientific Support for the Open View

If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction. What follows are two more “pointers” to the view that the future is at least partly open (indefinite, composed of possibilities). I’ll first consider an argument from quantum physics, followed by a pragmatic argument regarding what we ordinarily assume to…

On the Language of “Revolution”

Nick Thompson via Compfight Question: The banner of your website and the thrust of much of your teaching focuses on “revolution.” While I can see a radical call in some of the sayings of Jesus, especially if he were addressing upper-middle class North Americans, I wonder if attaching revolutionary language to his teaching seems a…