We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. 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

Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge to God

A historic overview and critical assessment Abstract: The traditional Christian view that God foreknows the future exclusively in terms of what will and will not come to pass is partially rooted in two ancient Hellenistic philosophical assumptions. Hellenistic philosophers universally assumed that propositions asserting’ x will occur’ contradict propositions asserting’ x will not occur’ and…

What Kind of God Did Jesus Reveal?

The ReKnew Manifesto exists to encourage believers and skeptics alike to re-think things they thought they already knew – hence our name, Re-Knew. I am currently working through the theology of the Manifesto in a series of posts that began a couple of months ago. Over the last few posts, we have been looking at the…

Five Brief Philosophical Arguments for the Open View

Introduction I believe that sound philosophical arguments support the open view in which God doesn’t foreknow the future free decisions of humans. My main reasons for holding this view are biblical and theological, but since truth is one we should expect that the truths of Scripture and the truths of reason will arrive at the…

The “Third Way”: Seeing God’s Beauty in the Depth of Scripture’s Violent Portraits of God

A publishing house recently sent me an advance copy of a book written by a well known scholar on the topic of the non-violent God revealed in Jesus, asking me to endorse it. (Publishing protocol stipulates that endorsers not critique a book before it’s released, so I will not mention the name of the author…

Sermon 7/22/12: The Shadow of the Cross

In his sermon this past Sunday, Greg continued his fleshing out thoughts from the previous week on how he reconciles the violent, disturbing portraits of God in the Old Testament with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ on the Cross. He answers a question raised by several in response to last week’s sermon: Did God actually engage…

The Cross in the Mirror

For those who are just tuning in, we are in the midst of a series that is fleshing out the theology of The ReKnew Manifesto. So far I’ve argued that the cross is the definitive revelation of God and that it should therefore be the centerpiece of our hermeneutic (interpretation of the Bible) as well…