JUST WAR AND THE WAR IN IRAQ

Lesson 2: The Christian Tradition (October 14, 1990)

Background Materials: Pacifist Tradition

Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536): A contemporary of Machiavelli, Erasmus' abhorrence of war was total and he is perhaps best known for his statement, "War is sweet to those who know it not."

• "Some princes deceive themselves that any war is certainly a just one and that they have a just cause for going to war. We will not attempt to discuss whether war is ever just; but who does not think his own cause just? Among such great and changing vicissitudes of human events, among so many treaties and agreements which are now entered into, now rescinded, who can lack a pretext of war? But the pontifical laws do not disapprove of war. Augustine approves of it in some instances, and St. Bernard praises some soldiers. But Christ himself and Peter and Paul everywhere teach the opposite. Why is their authority less with us than that of Augustine and Bernard? Augustine in one or two places does not disapprove of war, the whole philosophy of Christ teaches against it. There is no place in which the aposfies do not condemn it; and in how many places do those very holy fathers, by whom, to the satisfaction of some, war has been approved in one or two places, condemn and abhor it? Why do we slur over all these matters and fasten upon that which helps our sins?" (The Education of a Christian Prince)
• "But what will be safe, they say, if no one maintains his rights? ... But what is safe anywhere while everyone is maintaining his rights to the last ditch? We see wars arise from wars, wars following wars, and no end or limit to the upheaval. It is certainly obvious that nothing is accomplished by these means." (Ibid.)

Jonathan Dymond (1796 - 1828): Dymond's writings are the standard references for the Society of Friends and other pacifist groups. His collection of essays, called Dymond on War for short, analyzes from a Christian perspective almost every argument for and against war. Below is one short excerpt addressing only the most common justification for violence, self-defense.

• "The lawfulness of defensive war is commonly simplified to The Right of Self Defense. That the instinct of self-preservation is an instinct of nature is clearthat, because it is an instinct of nature, we have a right to kill other men, is not clear. The fallacy of the whole argument appears to consist in this, that it assumes that an instinct of nature is a law of paramount authority. God has implanted in the human system various propensities or instincts, of which the purposes are wise. These propensities tend in their own nature to abuse; and when gratified or followed to excess, they become subversive of the purposes of the wisdom which implanted them, and destructive of the welfare of mankind. He has therefore instituted a superior law, sanctioned by his immediate authority: by this law, we are required to regulate these propensities. The question therefore is, not whether the instinct of self-preservation is implanted by nature, but whether Christianity has restricted its operation. ...
• "The establishment of this position is, indeed, the great object of the present inquiry. What are the dispositions and actions to which the instinct of self-preservation prompts, but actions and dispositions which Christianity forbids? They are non-forbearance, resistance, retaliation of injuries. The truth is, that it is to defense that the peaceable precepts of Christianity are directed. Offense appears not to have even suggested itself. It is 'Resist not evil'; it is "Overcome evil with good'; it is 'Do good to them that hate you'; it is 'Love your enemies'; it is 'Render not evil for evil'; it is 'Whoso smiteth thee on one cheek.' All this supposes previous offence, or injury, or violence; and it is then that forbearance is enjoined.
• "The case of an assassin will doubtless be brought against me. I shall be asked Suppose a ruffian breaks into your house, and rushes into your room with his arm lifted to murder you, do you not believe that Christianity allows you to kill him? This is the last refuge of my cause; my answer to it is explicitI do not believe it. ..." (An Enquiry into the Accordancy of War with the Principles of Christianity)

Hutterites, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Quakers and other Christian Peace Movements. There are writings, too numerous to easily summarize, within these various movements, all of which extol the requirement of Christian "non-resistance." Although the doctrines that support these vary, I think the excerpts below give the flavor of these philosophies.

• "For the conscience hath been set free and is reserved for God alone, that he and no human being may be Lord of the same and rule over, teach and direct it withersoever it pleaseth him. Therefore wherever the government presumeth to lay hands upon the conscience and control the faith of man, there it is robbing God of what is his. Therefore it is wrong to obey it in this. ... Now since Christ, the Prince of Peace, hath prepared and won for himself a kingdom, that is a Church, through his own blood; in this same kingdom all worldly warfare hath an end, as was promised ... . Therefore a Christian neither wages war nor wields the worldly sword to practice vengeance ... . For, since we are Christ's disciples, we must show forth the nature of him who, though he could, indeed, have done so, repaid not evil with evil. But though he might well have done this, he did not himself and would not permit others to do so. Therefore he said to Peter, 'Put up thy sword into its place.' Here one can see how our King setteth out with a powerful host against his enemy; how he defeateth the enemy and how he taketh vengeance; in that he taketh Maichus' ear, that had been struck off, and putteth it on again. And he who did this saith, 'Whosoever will be my disciple, let him take his cross upon him and follow me."' (Peter Ridemann (1506 - 1556), Account of Our Religion, Doctrine and Faith, Given by Peter Ridemann of the Brothers whom Men Call Hutterians)
• "[As to whetherj a Christian may or should employ the sword against the wicked for the defense and protection of the good, or for the sake of love. Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so we shall fmd rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken adultery, not that one should stone her according to the law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such [an attitude] we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban [on violence]." (The Schleitheim Confession, composed for Anabaptists in 1527.)
• "That the spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ nor for kingdoms of this world. ... And the cause of these our sufferings is not for any evil, but for things relating to the worship of our God and in obedience to his requirings. For which cause we shall freely give up our bodies a sacrifice, rather than disobey the Lord." (George Fox, A Declaration from the harmless and innocent people of God, called Quakers..., presented to the King Upon the 21st day of the 11th month, 1660).

[OR: Use the "Back" button of your browser to return to your document.]

11/11/2001