Just War Criteria

I assume you've looked up or know the Just War criteria, but I was looking around and found the list on Wikipedia to be a helpful summary of the Just War positions. Also, if you get a chance, you might pick up Yoder's "When War is Unjust". It's supposed to be really good, and deals with the fact that Just War theory was first developed under a monarchy and if/how Just War theory can/does operate in a Democracy.

Here's the Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

Is Just War Credible?

Check out this link:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=107

It's to an article by John Howard Yoder on Just War credibility and the Persian Gulf war.  He asks some good questions.

In Response to Friday night

So, I will write further about Rom. 13 and Rev. 19, but in our conversation on Friday night it seemed as though you ended up saying that since Christ gave the State authority, and Christ never specifically said don't kill, that Christians "have the right" to kill other people if they are in the military, even if it is not a "just war", since they are under the State's authority and when they do so they are being submissive to the State.

(For the sake of furthering discussion, I am going to assume in this next argument that "just war" is permissible, even though I do not believe that it is)

So here's my thoughts:
In Exodus 20, God gives the 10 commandments, the sixth of which says, "Thou shalt not kill (i.e. murder)."

And if my statement stands that when a war is not "just", it is not a "war" but is really just a group of people killing another group of people for their government, or to put it another way, it is just state sponsored terrorism.

And the Bible says do not murder, or kill people unjustly.

Then the Bible says we should not take part in an unjust war.

And so, this means (at the very least) that when Christ said love your enemies, He was echoing the earlier commandment of God not to murder people. So when the State tells Christians that they need to go to war to be good citizens, if the war is not just, then we should not go. And if we do go, then we are placing the State in a place of higher authority than that of Christ, and we are sinning against Him.

I think that this satisfies your "paradox" (of how do we obey Christ and love our enemies, while at the same time we stay in submission to the State when it tells us to kill their enemies). I don't believe it is a paradox. The OT tells us not to commit murder (while allowing the possibility of "just war"), and Christ tells us to love our enemies. So if the State tells us something different, then it is going against Christ and stepping over its authority, and so is not to be obeyed in this situation.

God Ordained War (outside of the OT)

Romans 13:1-6-Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Revelation 19:11-21-I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great.”
19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

If these passages are taken separately they may produce interpretations which may lead to a pacifist conclusion, however together I would argue that they point in yet another direction. In Revelation we see that Jesus Christ himself is leading an army to war (the apocalyptic language does not draw a perfect picture of exactly how this is going to take place, however it can safely be argued that the idea here is one of war). Therefore, it must be permissible for Christians to participate in war, at least with Christ. If it were not for the Romans passage, I may agree that this participation is only permissible when being lead by Christ, however the Romans passage does exist. In Romans, the state (governing authorities) is given not just the authority but the mandate to go to war in order to bring about justice. Also in this passage Christians are commanded to be submissive to the state. It is possible that this submission would include participating in war. When these two passages are put side by side it becomes clear that God not only allows war but that in some instances he ordains war. If God ordains war, and ordains the state to carry out war, I do not see a problem with a Christian, in allegiance to Christ, submitting to the state and joining in war to bring about justice.

Starting Point

Theology must be practical, if theology cannot be practiced it is meaningless. As to the issue at hand, our determination of whether or not Christians are permitted to take part in war and the killing of others includes the problem of "is it okay for me to do/be such-and-such." In this case the such-and-such is a practical application of the greater question. If I were to agree that in no instance are Christians permitted to take part in war and the killing of others, I would then have to ask this question. It is my opinion that these questions must be answered as the "larger question" is being answered.

Can Christians be police officers?

I think that to begin with this question, before addressing the larger question of, "Are Christians to take part in war, violence and killing others?" is to put the cart before the horse. I don't believe that the place to start when determining what one believes about God is, "is it okay for me to do/be such-and-such?" My ability or inability to be a police officer should not determine what I believe about God or what He says. I am afraid that an answer to this question, before it is determined what the role of the Christian and the State and the Christian and violence are, would keep us from addressing the larger question of what and who Christ has called the church to be.

Quotes from some early church fathers

Athenagoras (177-180)
How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And
when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to
God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard
the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to
kill it. (A Plea for the Christians, 35)

Justin Martyr (d. 165)
writings (153-160?) martyred
And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human
kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those
who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses.
For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to
escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not
concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid. (I Apology, 11)
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall
rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall
not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And that it did so come to pass, we can convince
you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking:
but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God;
and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also,
that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.

Tatians (164) - Address to the Greeks, sect. XI
I do not want to be a king: I do not wish to be rich: I decline military service: I hate fornication.

What then can we do?

It is wonderful to say that we only need to stand back and pray, as a matter of fact this is the easy route. I would gratefully only stand back and pray. However, I do not believe this is always the correct the thing to do. Yes, Jesus dealt with absolute evil by giving up his life and resurrecting, but this act subverted evil. Giving up my life will not always subvert evil; when it will, put my head on the chopping block.

The question I ask is when do Christians have the liberty in joining with the State to stop or at least hinder radical evil? Do Christians have the liberty to join with the State to stop and even kill a force for radical evil such as Hitler? I would argue that Christians do have this liberty. I do not think it is our responsibility to be completely separate from the State. Our allegiance is first to God but we do have the liberty of being citizens of States, as Paul was a citizen of Rome. If Christians do not have the liberty to join with the State to stop or slow evil how far is this to be taken? If it is not permissible for Christians to join the State militarilly it would not be permissible for them to join the State civilly either. No Christian would have the liberty to be a police officer, if they did not have the liberty to be an army officer. For both police and army officers at times are called to end the lives of others for the greater good. If we were to carry this to its end, we as Christians would not have the liberty to pay taxes to the State (which Christ allows) for the state will use our resources for hiring these officers. How can one be a citizen of a State and not have the liberty to be a part of that state?

How does the Church deal with radical evil?

What is the role the church should play in dealing with people like Hitler? Is it the role of Christians to come alongside the State (wherever in the world that government is) and pick up the sword to kill and make war against those who commit radical evil. I would pose that this is not the role that Christians are to play. When God dealt with the most radical evil this world has ever known, Satan, the Devil, it was not by killing him, or destroying him flat out, it was by allowing radical evil to kill His Son. God dealt with evil by allowing it to do it's worst to His Chosen One, and then by raising Jesus from the dead. He dealt with the worst evil could do by defeating death when He resurrected His Son.
If Jesus is our example, in life and in death, how far are we willing to go with it? Jesus told His disciples to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. Did he then make a caveat and say that you don't have to pray for them or love them when the State says that they need you to kill "the enemy?" Where is our allegiance? If Christ didn't want us to kill for the Kingdom of God, but instead to be willing to lay down our lives for the Kingdom, then I fail to see why He would be an advocate for His followers to kill for a government that rejects Him and His ways, and that is fallen, corrupt and will not last.