Over at Faith and Theology there has been a vigorous discussion after Ben invited nominations for the 'Worst Theological Invention Ever'. Everyone loves a gripe, me included!
Several of the contributors nominated Just War theory, with one of them actually noting a link between those who hold JW and those who hold to Penal Substitution.
This is just tendentious, and a bad reading of even the pacificist tradition. As Miroslav Volf points out in Exclusion and Embrace, many of the strongest pacificists in Christianity - in the early church and in the radical reformation - have also held to a vigorous account of the divine wrath against sin and sinners, and the need for a substitionary sin-bearer. It is precisely this account that enables there to be a meaningful pacificism.
Which leads me to a further observation: there are two types of pacificism. There is the one I have just described, which, though I think it has weaknesses, is orthodox and ancient (though it is a minority report). The other rests on a doctrine of God that is frankly novel, reading out of an ontology of God's peace that is exegetically and theologically unconvincing (in my opinion), owing more to Foucault than anything. Or at least, to put it less combatitively, if pacificism rests on such a doctrine of God then there are really two very different conceptions of the nature of God at play.
Christendom has also come under attack (again!), as if one could make meaningfully sweeping generalisations about a millenia of thought about this era in the history of the church! Christendom had its bad fruit, certainly, as it had its wonderful benefits for humankind and for the gospel; and I am not yet urging a return to it (as if I could) out of some Christian nostalgia: but the flaw was not in the idea of Christendom itself - at least not as it properly and accurately described.
7 comments:
As Miroslav Volf points out in Exclusion and Embrace, many of the strongest pacificists in Christianity - in the early church and in the radical reformation - have also held to a vigorous account of the divine wrath against sin and sinners, and the need for a substitionary sin-bearer. It is precisely this account that enables there to be a meaningful pacificism.
This is a very important point: Leave room for the wrath of God (Rom 12.19).
has anyone defended Just War?
Nope, but then I wouldn't either, not as it stands. I don't think that the just war/pacifist alternative is all there is to say.
No you wouldn't defend it because it really is the worst theological invention or no because it is flawed?
Do expand?
In terms of the former there must be an argument that Just War has helped in terms of giving some framework to moral decisions -that helps people think through the ethics of the Gulf War versus World War II
No you wouldn't defend it because it really is the worst theological invention or no because it is flawed?
Do expand?
In terms of the former there must be an argument that Just War has helped in terms of giving some framework to moral decisions -that helps people think through the ethics of the Gulf War versus World War II
No, it certainly isn't the worst theological invention! It seems to me that only God justifies, so the idea that there could ever be a just war, even only in theory, is a dangerous one. It implies a kind of human justification of our ownw actions. War exists - needs to exist, ethically - in the kind of shadow-lands of terrible possibilities that we might countenance, with its impossible calculations of good and evil and so on. Even the waging of a so-called just war like WWII is so tarnished by rephrensible and appalling actions (the bombing of Dresden for example) that calling it 'just' becomes a rather moot point. We may discern that forceful action is necessary in a given situation, and do our best to consider it with due care (which the just war tradition does aid us in, granted), but the nature of action in the world is such that we can never justify it - only act as we may and accept the consequences that follow. Actually Bonhoeffer is helpful here, because he is proof that pacificism is ultimately untenable, but he does not resort either to some just war theory in order to satisfy in his own conscience the attempt to kill Hitler. He acts but acts without seeking to self-justify...
I hereby label this position the 'owl' position: neither hawk, nor dove, the owl is a symbol of wisdom!
I guess it depends what we mean by just war. I must admit I've not got round to examining its roots to the original -but as it is explained in modern terms I'm not sure your criticism would hold because I've never heard it used to claim that humans have an abiity to justify over God or that all actions in that war will be just and attrocities excused -just wars must stil abide by the Geneva convention.
The "just war" issue for World War Two is essentially about was the decision to go to war a right decision -were governments justified in doing so. In that respect -how I've heard it argued today is an expression that war is not good but in limited circumstances we are justified in taking the decision to go to war.
If that's not what the theologians have meant by it then maybe modern (pre Blair/Bush) politicians have been more sensible and God honouring than the churchmen
Post a Comment