Where these now stand, however, owes much to the fact that in the Cold War era of super-power armed confrontation, much of the attention of Christian ethics studies was focused on the issues surrounding nuclear weapons and their use. And the severity of the test to which these ethics have been put by such questions have left the Just War principles sidelined to some extent, although nothing more suitable has replaced them. Ignorance of these principles, and a failure to develop them has left us, in the meantime, in a fragmenting world, in a situation where the only ethic seem to be an unhealthy 'might is right' pragmatism dependent on the wisdom and semi-enlightened self-interest of the USA and her principle allies to dictate when and where force is used by the more developed nations to protect the innocent and to promote peace and justice throughout the world, while the rest can 'go hang'.
In contrast, the principles or criteria for the Just War, dependent as they are on the absolute truth Christianity claims for itself, have an abiding and universal application, which is hard for any ethical system to refute other than from a wholly pacifist position (and we shall briefly examine the case of Christian pacifism). The application of these principles do need constantly to be re-examined unashamedly from a Christian perspective so that their universal relevance can be applied to the realities of contemporary situations. This is the burden of the argument here.
One current issue on which there has been little useful guidance available is how communities and the international community should react when faced with a call to support or resist what may appear to be unjust governments - unjust towards those over whom they have power. The traditional Just War approach, depending as it does on the proper authority, etc., for resorting to the use of force in inter-state conflict, seems to fail at the first hurdle. Yet the question facing governments and military leaders, typically in Africa, and the unstable populations in some parts of post-Communist eastern Europe, is more often the ethical dilemma of how they should approach internal struggles within their own borders, rather than considering solely the ethics of external wars. The 1968 uprising in Czechoslovakia; the turmoil of the break up of Yugoslavia, with the secession of Slovenia and Croatia in 1992; and the continuing chaos in Bosnia and Kosovo highlight the problem. In Africa, the recent desperate story of Rwanda and Burundi; the continuing struggle by the Sudanese People's Liberation Army to establish the "New Sudan" -- at least in the south of that country -- in the face of what they see as fundamentally hostile Islamic government in Khartoum shows the importance of this question in that region also.
Further afield, the East Timorese situation and the potential for further break up of Indonesia, are current issues, as are the claims for self determination of the Kurdish people of eastern Turkey and northern Iraq. The same question is posed nearer to home in the confrontations of the Basques in northern Spain, and of the republican/nationalist movement in Northern Ireland.
In the area of war and peace, Bonhoeffer famously describes the traditional approaches of the pacifists as "rusty swords", powerless against the evils of Nazism, to be replaced by the "sharp swords" of wisdom and simplicity rather than ethical principles. This approach also considers the teaching of Jesus as recognising the permissive understanding by God of the human condition, over against the perfect will of God. In other words, Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of heaven, which he himself ushered in, and expounded on in 'the Sermon on the Mount' (Matthew Chs. 5 to 8), "does not", as Reinhold Niebuhr expresses it, "...deal with immediate human problems. It is directed solely to our relationship with God. It is therefore absolutist...and impossible to practise now."
In summary, then, the purpose of Christian ethics in this as in most contexts is to enable the Christian to seek individually and collectively, by the work of the Holy Spirit, to know the mind of Christ. Christian ethics is not about what Jesus would do - Jesus is not a tax collector, nor a housewife; nor a lorry driver, nor a prime minister, and neither is he a soldier - but for Christians in these roles, born again with Christ, Christian ethics seeks to know how Jesus wants each person to behave in the situations they face.
The development of Christian thinking about no-resistance and resistance from the patristic era to the nuclear age
Because the application of ethics must relate to the questions of the day, it is important to rehearse, even in a most cursory way, the development over time of Christian arguments for pacifism and for the use of force, focusing on those themes that resonate with or chime against the questions around violent resistance today.
The arguments do not change much, but the emphasis reflects the world into which ethics have to speak. Although the early church was distinctly pacifist, Origen did admit to some wars having a righteous cause. Terullian agreed that war was commanded in the Old Testament; but he declared in relation to Matthew 26:52: "The Lord, in subsequently disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier."
But after the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine, when Christianity became the religion of the state, a new standard was set, and Ambrose and Augustine "...justified the full participation of Christians in war, and sought to distinguish between 'just' and 'unjust' wars." Augustine reasoned that Matthew 5:39 was about the inward disposition of individual Christians, and asked, "What is the evil in war?" answering, not death, but that the evil lies in "...love of violence, revengeful cruelty,..." and the like. This reversal of interpretation of a particular text typifies the whole war-peace debate.
As Thomas Aquinas formalised Augustine's criteria for war, setting three principles for a Just War, the debate continued -- through the so-called 'holy wars' of the crusades and into the Reformation. The principles began to get lost, however, with the rise of the European powers and the spread of colonialism, much of which was driven by economic greed, sometimes justified by the desire to evangelise godless peoples, in spite of protestations from some the likes of the Spanish Theologian Francisco de Vitoria (an ethical struggle epitomised in the film 'The Mission'). Then, at the beginning of 'the Enlightenment', the voice of Christian ethics seemed to be drowned by the moral philosophers such as Locke.
Little more was heard of the Just War debate until after the First World War. There the horrible scale of the slaughter, in an age when mass communication could bring it to world wide attention, resulted in an upsurge in pacifism. For many Christians, GCH Macgregor, in his influential 1937 book, "The New Testament Basis of Pacifism", brought the Christian argument full circle. This was countered at the same time as the rise of Nazi Germany heightened the awareness of the need for 'good men to do something' (contra Socrates: "All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing."). The Just War principles realised a new lease of life, for a while, and even an inherent pacifist like Dietrich Bonhoeffer was converted to the cause of actively supporting the use of force against Hitler.
After World War 2, with the advent of nuclear weapons, the debate raged once more. The pacifist arguments of Macgregor received full impetus, but were countered by the memories of the awfulness of Nazism. On balance the Just Warriors seem to have an edge at present over the Pacifists. The Gulf War (although strongly opposed by the pacifists) was justified quite strongly on the principles of the Just War as we shall see, and attracted widespread support. This, it seems, represents more or less the status quo. The focus of the recent peace/war debate among Christians has been on the nuclear issue, on wars of intervention (Vietnam), and to some extent on liberation theology with its emphasis on justice for the poor. A few have tried to widen the debate to consider the ethics of rebellion in the context of unjust rule. But, amid the noise of the nuclear pacifism debate, there has not been much opportunity for these voices to be heard. It is time to try again.
It is necessary, then, in the new conditions being explored here, to revisit the arguments for non-violent resistance. But, since the Just War criteria will be used as the starting point for considering "Justified Resistance" later, the current understanding of the Just War principles are set out here. (The list is based on that in the 1995 IVP New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology.)
Just Cause - the unjustified Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait in August 1990 gave just cause.
Just Intention - the intention of the United Nations forces under American leadership to free Kuwait and to deter Iraq from similar adventures was also just.
Last Resort - yes, as the prolonged and genuine search for a diplomatic solution was exhausted.
Proper Authority-- yes, on the sanction of the United Nations resolutions.
Limited Ends - the freeing of Kuwait was achieved. There was no retributive follow up of the fleeing Iraqi Republic Guard through Basra, nor was there any 'march to Baghdad'.
Proportionality - the scale of Operation Desert Storm, including the air attacks against the Iraqi infrastructure, were proportionate to the original aggression, and necessary for the successful outcome of the operation.
Protection of Non-combatants - yes, as far as possible within the limits of weapon capabilities and by selection of suitable military targets.
Reasonable Chance of Success - yes.
It is sad to relate that Operation Desert Fox, begun at the end of last year in response to Iraqi resistance to the UN weapons inspection regime palpably fails this same test.
However, from this short summary of Just War in relation to conventional war, it should be clear that war must never be undertaken lightly. Those, like Bonhoeffer, who were driven away from a pacifist position by the evil nature and practices of the Nazi regime, emphasised that war is always embarked on at the limited condition (Grenzfall) of Christian ethics. And, although there are those, besides pacifists, who reject the Just War criteria as inadequate for today, there is no real alternative. As criteria for conventional war they have a universal application, and, when strictly applied, they do at least give a proper recognition of the evils of war. They must also inhibit states from lightly committing themselves to such a course.
To draw some guiding principles at this stage, first, most can agree that the Christian is called to live the kingdom life as far as he/she is able, in his/her individual case - there is to be no personal seeking of revenge, etc., and the law of love must predominate in all personal attitudes and actions. The case of corporate responsibility is different, and this is where the disagreement lies. Through each of these test areas, the tension is evident between the 'perfectionist', who seeks to live the corporate life of Jesus' new kingdom in every detail now, however impractical, and the 'realist' who looks at the world as it is, and concludes that the kingdom is only a theoretical possibility; it lies in the eternal future, and what matters is living life now. As often is the case the answer may lie between the extremes, and so some reconciliation is possible.
The problem for the perfectionist is that there is a critical need to balance the scriptural guidance on the law of love with the scriptural implications of the fullness of God's kingdom, held in the same category as his righteousness and justice (Matthew 6:33: 'But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness...' and Romans 14:17: 'For the kingdom of God is...righteousness and pace and joy in the Holy Spirit.'). Equally, as many point out, that although killing must always be a partial denial of love, when God reconciled the world to himself on the cross, the violence of Christ's death was effective in bringing justice to humankind, and indeed characterises the righteousness of the kingdom of God, demonstrating what Juergen Moltmann calls "divine power in weakness". Further, Moltmann urges that love sometimes requires the use of force as "the responsible action of love". Although those like Jacques Ellul may say, "...the means of freedom are means that rule out violence, hatred and lying", many others conclude (often reluctantly) that the highest moral values may at times best be served by force or the threat of force. Although the use of violence will always test the law of love, and must surely be a last resort, it is difficult to see that the peace and justice of God's kingdom for which Christians pray daily in the Lord's Prayer can always be obtained without being prepared to use violence. Niebuhr summed it up thus: "It is up to the pacifists to demonstrate that the evil of war is greater than the evil it seeks to destroy."
The question of state use of force may be answered for many by the foregoing, but the challenge today so often comes in different forms.
The liberation theology which emerged in South America proclaimed the cause of the oppressed, with differing views as to how that cause should be championed; but elsewhere, with the exception of the anti-apartheid stand of the majority of the churches in the world against the government of South Africa, the attitude of the Christian on these matters has been little voiced and less heard. Where there have been coups, uprisings and revolts there has often been a wringing of hands by the world at large, and an extreme reluctance to get involved, until the scale of the violence and bloodshed reaches a stage when 'something must be done' (particularly if the violence impinges too closely on the sensitivities of powerful nations - but there is often a sense of it being a little conflict far away). When action is judged necessary, the United Nations or one of the regional organisations for promoting peace and security may become involved. Otherwise, there is a tendency to deplore the far-off act of rebellion (or its suppression), but, if the rebellion succeeds, then the international community will give proper recognition to the new regime in due course - ex post facto recognition - as in Bangladesh, Uganda and Croatia, for example. If it fails, as in Biafra, the status quo is upheld. The cynic and the desperate could be excused for concluding that the only ethic that prevails is 'might is right'.
For the Christian and the Church facing potential civil conflict within their own land, or caught in the midst of such conflict, they are forced to confront the questions about what the will of God is, what to do, and how to act. As things stand they may find so little to comfort them or to guide them that the only solution is either to avoid the question perhaps by keeping their head down until the situation is resolved, or by running away from the struggle, or by going with the flow (on either side, depending on the accidents of cause, faction or geography). None of these courses, without justification, will bring glory to God or further the establishment of his kingdom. The Christian must take a positive stand either by non-resistance or by resistance, so that the voice of God may be heard.
Neither question produces a clear answer in pacifist writing. But on the question of whether it matters that non-violent resistance does not generally work, the constant refrain is that non-violent resistance witnesses to the kingdom of God, and that anyway in this sort of situation violent resistance does not work either. Ellul, although not a complete pacifist, for example, claims with some justification that states founded by violence can only maintain themselves in power through violence. He also highlights the sorry history of successful revolutions which subsequently "have all brought a strengthening of authority." The arguments are inconclusive. The relevant lesson, however, for all Christians is that violent resistance at the very least carries significant dangers, and is itself no guarantee of a peaceful and just successor to the defeated oppressor state.
As the previous analysis demonstrates, there are clearly a great number of difficulties of interpretation, so before trying to draw some conclusions, it is worth looking briefly at one example of insurrection - Dietrich Bonhoeffer's part in the conspiracy to kill Hitler. We shall also touch briefly on aspects of Latin American liberation theology and the involvement of Christians in the struggle for justice and democracy in South Africa.
Bonhoeffer and the plot to kill Hitler. In Nazi Germany Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a remarkable and Godly young pastor with a keen insight into the kingdom of God, was dragged from a pacifist position to reluctant, but convinced, participation in the unsuccessful plot to kill Hitler, when confronted with the stark evils of Nazism in Hitler's Germany. He asks in his second draft Catechism (1936), 'How should a Christian conduct himself in war?' and he answers, 'Here there is no clear command of God. The Christian can never bless war and weapon. The Christian must never take part in an unjust war. If the Christian is called to take up the sword he will daily call to God for forgiveness of the sin and for peace.'
Bonhoeffer justified his resistance and his active participation in the tyrannicide because of Hitler's "gross misrule". This was his 'just cause'. His intention was equally just: along with his co-conspirators it was to end Nazi rule. But, lacking vociferous passive resistance, it cannot be truly said to have been a last resort unless they regarded such resistance as pointless. Neither did they really open proper channels of communication, and they seemed to lack competent authority. There was no 'legitimate' government in exile. Furthermore, such as the emphasis on minimum force, the level of force proposed was probably inadequate to end the war and Nazi rule, even if Hitler had been assassinated. The ambivalence over Bonhoeffer's commitment to the plot was demonstrated in the reported conversation between himself and on co-conspirator who asked (because of his place on Hitler's staff) if he might shoot Hitler. Bonhoeffer replied that he might, but the right question (which he did not ask, and which Bonhoeffer did not answer) was whether he should.
Bonhoeffer and nearly all his courageous fellow conspirators paid for their treachery with their lives, and nothing was changed. It is easy with hindsight to criticise, but this case shows the weakness of the pacifist turned conspirator who failed to embrace the logic of violence. (4)
Because liberation theology has been so much in the van of radical reform in Latin America it is worth considering what it might have to say in the context of violent resistance as a whole. Radical liberation theology is focused on setting 'the poor' free from oppression and 'institutional violence'. It is closely liked with Marxist ideology, and takes a view that theology starts not from God, but from the human situation, where commitment to liberation from oppression is the first step. Also, while not calling explicitly for violent revolution, the imperatives of liberation make violence implicit where non violent means fail to achieve radical reform. But it should be noted that the proponents of liberation theology rule out the existence of universal propositions to guide ethical action. For them Just War criteria therefore do not and can not give liberation theology any grounds for "just revolution" nor can Just War provide a "theology of revolution". There is no room here to explore the full argument, but it is safe for those seeking to apply Just War arguments to insurrection to put aside the lessons from liberation theology for the present.
Even so John de Gruchy in the forward to the Kairos Document talks of the South African theology for freedom as identified "clearly with liberation theology's methodology and commitment."
South Africa. The success of opposition and resistance to the injustice and tyranny of the white South African regime and its policy of apartheid resulting in the establishment of democratic rule in 1995 without the blood bath many feared is a truly remarkable story, from which many lessons may be learned. The unlawful nature of the regime (in spite of that regime's appeals to Romans 13 for legitimacy) was widely but belatedly recognised by the churches within that country and outside. The Africa National Conference (ANC), which had for some time been protesting against the regime, formed a military wing to provide direction to and restriction on frustrated militants, but with little effect other than increasing the repressive measures taken by the regime.
By the 1980s the South African Council of Churches (SACC) turned to action - first, with a call to prayer; second, with a call to non-violent action. The call to prayer, for 'a new and just order in this land', on 16th June 1985, the 9th anniversary of the Soweto massacre, by a conference of the SACC caused a storm. There were accusations from the Government and in the media that the call was for prayer for the violent overthrow of the regime. The second step, in September 1985, with the publishing of the Kairos document by a number of South African theologians and black pastors, called on the churches to cease to be the mediators between the oppressor and the oppressed and to 'participate in the struggle for liberation and a just society.' This called for civil disobedience rather than for violent resistance. In the end, the call to prayer, the involvement of the Church (working to contain violence, but warning that it cannot be contained while apartheid exists), and international pressure,a alongside the ANC as government in exile worked to bring democracy to that land in a relatively peaceful way.
As Christians seek to know more about the character of God, they note the tension in scripture over the interpretation of the kingdom of God - between the now and the not yet, and they may conclude that, desirable though the kingdom life may be in all its fullness, it lies beyond the attainable in certain areas, particularly where Christians are confronted with real evil, when physical action beyond spiritual warfare may be required. One must admit always that the pure pacifist, and those who follow the path of non-violent resistance are not necessarily wrong, and one should be grateful that they will always act as a restraint on those who more readily turn to violence. One must also, however, judge that in some circumstances forceful resistance may indeed be the will of God, even if some are called to pacifism. At the same time, it should be emphasised, if resort to force between states under Just War criteria always lies on the ethical borderline, to use force in resistance to an unjust regime lies even more very narrowly on the ethical borderline; the principles, therefore, which guide the Just War must be even more closely scrutinised if they are applied here - principles developed as a first line of defence both against hasty action or an excuse for supine inaction.
A new debate is required -- one which is strong and vigorous. Perhaps this paper may help in this, and that the voice of Christian ethics may clearly be heard in this area, setting out again down the path of proclaiming the truth in action. The question how a Christian should act who finds him/herself in a position of power or authority, (however humble - a soldier with a gun is in that position) within an unjust regime, have not been addressed; nor has the debate started over the whole question of just cause in secessionist struggles; but the guidelines below form a starting point in all these cases too, and for those who might espouse the revolution of radical liberation theology. All Christian action is the responsibility of the individual to do what is right for him/her under God. But we must take corporate responsibility also, seeking clarification through the prayers and guidance of others, to proclaim the hard truths in each situation, and being prepared to act accordingly. Bear in mind, however, the principle: "In all probability the use of force is wrong, unless it is more wrong not to use force."
The cases of East Timor, South Sudan and Kosovo test the proposition. The conclusion is the vital need for the Christian Church and for all democracies to be active in taking a lead in international efforts to seek and insistence on pursuing the way of justice, equality and reconciliation worldwide. This must include energetic diplomatic activity and properly authorised sanctions, including the use of force in support of, or in opposition to armed insurrection in accordance with these criteria. Equally it is vital that the world (particularly organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, the Organisation for African Unity, the World Council of Churches etc.) faces up to the reality of evil, oppressive regimes, and takes appropriate action - not just in the case where their own interests are threatened.
As the 17th century English poet, John Donne, puts it:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore do not send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Application of these criteria may help to reach some right decisions for the good of all mankind, and to the glory of God.
(2) The US Catholic Bishop's 1983 pastoral letter on war and peace, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response recognises the case for 'just revolution', but has great difficulty in identifying the competent authority to legitimise such action.
(3) Even if they were allowed to do so. In fact the UN Charter does not technically allow such judgements, although in practice their statements can give a degree of Authority to freedom struggles (as in the case of SWAPO in Namibia).
(4) It must also be noted that Bonhoeffer played his conspiratorial role from a somewhat dubious position in the Abwehr - Hitler's secret service.
(5) The term 'radical' coined here denotes the liberation theology stance of the 1970s/1980s before the collapse of communism and more recent developments in liberation theology.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]