JUST WAR AND THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

Lesson 4: The War Against Terrorism (December 9, 2001)

LESSON OUTLINE

Here I stand: Unless I am convinced by imminent reason or by the testimony of Holy Scripture, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. (Martin Luther, 1521).

Review:

• If one's goal is to avoid suffering and establish peace, it is not always clear that non-war is preferable to war.
• Biblical view of war is not as clear as we might like. Nevertheless, the New Testament strongly supports the view that killing is wrong and is abhorrent to God, and that we are called upon to love our enemies.
• If there are circumstances where war is appropriate, the war would have to be initiated and fought in accordance with Christian principles. Over the centuries, these principles have been collected into the "just war" criteria.
• Both in theory and in practice (as seen last week), the just war criteria, if fairly analyzed and applied, would be formidable impediments to most wars.
• The role of the church is be a spokesman for God, to encourage believers to follow the lawful dictates of its country, while at the same time not to be "nationalistic" or to encourage obedience of decisions clearly contrary to Christian principles.

Today, we will consider the "war" against terrorism.

NOTE: I hope that we will have a special "guest speaker" for this lesson: 2LT Clifford Kazmarek. Cliff is a recent graduate of West Point, is in training (OBC-Airborne-Ranger) at Fort Benning, and is quite a thoughtful Christian. He will share with us some of the military viewpoint that he's learned and heard on some of the just war issues we will be discussing.

1. Ground rules. We will try to work out the Christian view.

• DISCUSSION: How are "Christian ethics" different than secular ethics, or Jewish ethics, or Buddhist ethics? Give some examples of acts that a good Christian considers wrong, but a good atheist does not. [Complicated question -- Christian ethics mainly differ in attitude and method. One key difference -- Christian ethics are divinely oriented. The only question is, what does God want? Does not matter if the answer to that is old fashioned, new fangled, impractical, expensive, or anything else.]
• PERSONAL VIEW: Committing oneself to do God's will raises the issue of knowing God's will, and the frequent comment that God's will is too obscure or uncertain. There is a problem in this regard, but I do not believe that the problem is as significant as is claimed. People don't seem to do very good at abiding by God's wishes even when the commandment is perfectly clear. The real problem most of us have is not in knowing God's will, but in doing God's will, and the "uncertainty" in God's directive is often just an excuse.

Therefore, for today, for purposes of analyzing our position in the war against terrorism:

• GROUND RULE NUMBER ONE: It is God's will only that we seek.
• GROUND RULE NUMBER TWO: If, humbly and with open and loving heart and mind, you believe you know God's will, stick to it! "Unless I am convinced by imminent reason or the testimony of Holy Scripture, ... my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise."

2. The war against terrorism.

• DISCUSSION: "Terrorism" raises the question of the "asymetric response." No group would be foolish enough to stand toe-to-toe with with the U.S. and trade conventional weapons. The only way to fight a war against the United States effectively is to fight asymetrically: we use jet fighters, they use jet liners; we use tanks, they use car bombs. What does this say about how this fight is or is not "war" in the conventional sense of the word?
• DISCUSSION: Answer each of the following using only sound Christian thinking.
  

  Criterion	Met?	Discussion
  Legitimacy	[ ]	Was the war initiated by a legitimate authority? Can the United States act unilaterally? What is the role of the United Nations? Who is the "enemy"? Can you have a "war" against entities other than nations? If we're going to fight terrorism broadly, we cannot stop at al-Quaida alone. So what is the "Christian" thing to do?
  Intent	[ ]	Is the intent of the war to promote peace?
  Exhaustion	[ ]	Have we exhausted all possibilites? Why not pursue a "police" action and merely "arrest" the "perpetrators"? So what if it takes a long time? Have we exhausted all means of discussion, negotiation, economic pressure, and other actions short of military action?
  Potentiality	[ ]	Can we "win" this war? What does "winning" mean against such an enemy?
  Reluctance	[ ]	Are we doing this with a sense of reluctance and regret? What does our current patriotic fervor say about our reluctance?
  Proportionality	[ ]	Are we properly limiting the damage that we do? How tolerant should we be of "collateral damage"? How does the good that we hope to accomplish affect the amount of collateral damage that we tolerate?
  Moderation	[ ]	Are we waging this war in the most moderate way possible? With respect to military action, how far can we go? Can we remove the Taliban government? Can we assassinate Omar? Judging from the war against the USSR, the enemy can be expected to engage in unspeakable acts of butchery; what do we do then? how do we respond?
  Discrimination	[ ]	Are we properly limiting this war to the "enemy"? Who are the noncombatants in this fight? Even if you can justify "war" against terrorists when harbored by a recalcitrant state (which makes law enforcement impractical), how about hunting down terrorists in states who are nominally opposed to terrorism, but who in fact do little or nothing to dispose of the terrorists in their midsts? Do we invade such states?
  Restoration	[ ]	What must we do while we fight the war to be sure that we establish a just and lasting peace? The whole issue of conflict in the Middle East is complicated by Israel. Does creating a just and lasting peace mean we must address this issue?

Bottom Line: Where are you? Are the criteria met? Do you believe it is a just and proper thing for Christians to fight a bloody and violent war against these people?

3. Conclusion:

In general -- Killing is abhorrent to God, and organized, state-coordinated killing is particularly so. Maybe there are circumstances where God will tolerate killing in order to prevent greater harm, but such circumstances are likely to be very rare, and the preconditions very demanding. Must always, always, always remember this. Human history is a shameful recital of blatant butchery and Christians must always, always, always be a voice against this. [Is this clear enough?]

At the same time, there may come a time, when the most loving thing a person can do is stand up against aggression and give his life as an act of charity for the sake of the weak and oppressed. [I don't know of a better way to determine if such circumstances are present than through thoughtful, prayerful consideration of the just war criteria.]

[To Topic List] [Return to Skip Kazmarek's Home Page]

11/24/01