Justifying a Just War…?
here’s a thought I had a few days ago…
…rough and unexamined, off the top of my head.
your thoughts/critiques?
“The Kingdom of God is the only state that will endure eternally. Thus, any war undertaken by any other state to preserve itself is unjust because that state will not endure anyway. The only kingdom we can justly defend is the Kingdom of God, and the final, decisive battle for that kingdom was fought at the Cross. We already won. Thus, any war we undertake to preserve the kingdom of God is also unjust.”
* this does not include, obviously, wars fought to protect the powerless (if that has ever actually happened).
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Jr, this is a very interesting approach to a case for Christian pascifism. Some additional premises are required though. Maybe consider:
1. If person S performs action A where A defends state R and R is a perishable state (i.e. is not eternal, wil not endure), then A is an unjust action.
2. If person S performs action A where A helps to perserve kingdom K and K has already won the battle/war, then A is an unjust action.
What do you think? Would these be fair adendums?
Dan,
I agree with you there - however, there is a difference between God directly telling you to go to war and trying to make a case for a war where God is silent on the subject. The vast majority of wars fall under this second category. What do you do there? Plus, the Kingdom of God was initiated by Jesus on earth, so what JR says only really applies after that and not before.
You would definitely have to establish that only wars fought for enduring states can possibly be just. I don’t know the in’s and out’s of just war theory, so I don’t know if that is an essential component or not.
I do like the second element of your thought. Given that the only kingdom worth defending is the Kingdom of God, then no violent action is justified because the kingdom of God does not need physical defense.
In all of this, I keep coming to my citizenship. Where does it truely lie? Can I have a dual citizenship? Can I serve two masters (The American Empire and the Empire of God)? Or do I consider the relationship between the two as follows: America : Kingdom of God :: Missouri : America?Â
I was reading some martyrdom accounts from the 2-4th centuries and before some cats were placed on the frying chair, they said to the Roman authorities that they will not bow to Ceasar and the Roman Gods because they are citizens in the kingdom of God. However, they pay their taxes and obey the laws because they recognize that the Roman empire is under God’s authority. I wonder if we can take the same approach.
Using citizenship language is dangerous here in america because of our idol of patriotism. I know I am weary of using this language even round my family for fear of … something…. shaming? dismissal? As such, I wonder what laguage will help people see without turning them off right off the bat. (Or do we need to be worried about such things?)