Like you, I have real problems with Christians who are complacent about war and violence. While there are probably very few who are actively 'pro war' the vast majority of Christians are silent on this isue, probably because they feel there is nothing they can do. Unfortunately, governments mistake this silence for approval!

I'll probably be writing something about war on my other blog soon as I seem to be in a run of posts on related subjects. You should develop this, we need to work hard to counter the 'theology of war' arguements.

Derek

 

Ok, well I guess the way I'd try and explain the concept of just war, is that maybe sometimes it's justified to go to war to prevent the greater evil which will happen to other people if you do nothing, and sometimes war is the only way to stop it. The most obvious example would be Hitler invading other countries, and killing large sections of the population. The only way to stop him was war really, he wasn't interested in diplomacy.

It's a difficult dilemma, and I think maybe you have to judge each situation on its own merits, depending on the relative suffering of intervening by going to war and intervening. Cos the duty to 'love your neighbour' applies not just to the people you go to war against, but also to the people they are persecuting, not just those we engage with, but those we chose not to engage with.

It's a matter of interpretation how you apply that to any particular situation, but I guess that's how I think about it.

But yeah, I think it's definitely something we have to think about, not just ignore.
 

The idea  of the so-called 'just war' was developed by Augustine in the 5th century in order to justify his violent supression of the Donatist heresy. It was therefore a failure since theological diggerences cannot be settled by force. Modern war isvery different from the hand-to-hand combat of that day. it was very rare for inocent non-combatants to be killed as weapons were very low tech and civilians were often given safe passage out of a war zone.

As for Hitler, this example is always cited but in fact the road to war was not inevitable when it began in 1933. There were several opportunities for the other nations of Europe to stand up to Hitler, most notably when his troops crossed the Rhine to re-enter the disputed territory of the western Rhineland. European nations deliberately ignored what Hitler was doing even though they were warned and had intelligence reports to prove it because the memory of WW1 was still fresh and they feared Hitler's response if they mounted too much diplomatic pressure. In truth he would have backed down because he had gambled on just such a weak response. Failures of diplomacy don't justify war, they justify better and more robust diplomacy. One more thing to think about here is the way Germany was treated at the end of WW1 - the complete humiliation of Germany as a nation and the massive reparations payments imposed on the country became the breeding ground for ecconomic and social decline and bitterness towards those who had imposed the conditions.

If this sounds harsh it isn't meant to be, it's just an indication that even though people readily admit that history repeats itself we still don't learn the lessons!

 

Don't worry, I won't take it harshly, I think healthy debate is a good thing. Please don't think that I'm saying that I think I'm definitely right and you're definitely wrong, just that there are valid points to be made for both sides of the debate (though reducing it to a two side debate maybe over-simplifies it), and that it's not a morally black and white issue.

And yes, I totally agree, theological dispute won't be solved by fighting, or indeed any ideological dispute really. The means to propogate the ideas might be, but that's a different question entirely.

 

Yes the Versailles Treaty was harsh on Germany, but the economic consequences probably wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't for the prevailing economic climate in the world at the time. I certainly agree that stronger diplomacratic pressure should have been exerted on Hitler to try and prevent a war, but if this was not backed up by the credible possibility of military force then I'm not sure how effective pressure it would have been on him.

 

Hey Amanda, thanks for you're response - you're right about good, healthy debate, it's definitely a worthwhile pursuit especially on issues such as this one which is, as you said, not as black and white as it seems though it's good to aim for the 'ideal' of complete absence of war if at all possible. I think WW2 is definitely a unique example where war, as far as the French and British were concerned, was very definitely a final resort. Sadly the vast majority of violent conflicts since then have probably been caused by short-sighted and narrow-minded foreign policy - the latest debacle in Iraq being one of the more obvious examples!

Since you're studying Law I'd be interested to know when war is actually legal and whether or not the declaration of a state of war actually changes other precedents and legal frameworks such as human rights? (If you don't want to leave a long answer here then you can e-mail me if you like)

Sorry Lucy, this debate is taking over your blog!!
Derek

 

I totally agree with you're views about war being wrong....but there is stuff in Isaiah where God tells the people to claim back their land

I found this which has a load of passages marked out that are interesting to look at www.umc-gbcs.org/atf/cf/%7B325AB72F-313E-4CC3-BB1A-EF0A52968A8D%7D/WAR.pdf 

It is a really tough one to call, personally i could never justify killing someone to myself....unless their intention was to kill me...but that is kind of what war is about? I really don't know. But what i do know is their is only one who's the right to judge that call and that is God.