Just War and Modern Warfare (Part 2)
Last week, we discussed the focus of scripture and the church fathers on Christian behavior during war and how that, influenced also by classical philosophy, the church fathers extrapolated a general doctrine of just war to guide Christian rulers. This eventually gave rise to a broader principles about the justification and conduct of war that continue to inform modern decisions. There is very little disagreement about that doctrine, even between Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump, who disagreed publicly over the Iranian War. Rather, their point of disagreement is the application of the doctrine and whether U.S. actions qualify as a just war.
Complicating the modern debate about Iran are issues in modern warfare that make traditional understanding of just war difficult to apply. At the same time, we should remind ourselves that while theologians and politicians can and do disagree about whether certain wars are unjust, Christians are commanded both to promote peace and protect lives, and what’s most important is for individual believers to balance these commands within the context of modern warfare.
The Doctrine of Just War
The Bible actually says very little about warfare and instead focuses primarily on personal ethics. The modern doctrine of just war derives mainly from Ambrose and Augustine, who expanded on the personal guidance given in the Bible to develop rules to guide Christian rulers. It is from the church fathers that the Roman Catholic Church developed its doctrine on war, which is outlined in Catechism No. 2309. The principles of war are divided into jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and some modern scholars also include jus post bellum.
Jus ad bellum discusses the right and authority to go to war. Its principles include:
Competent authority – Only a proper authority may wage war, not individuals, businesses, or rebels. The actions of cartels or dictators who achieved power illegally or through crime are unjust by their lack of authority. Some include deception in war or actions hidden from the public, though of course plans must remain secret for most wars to be successful.
Probability of success – The goals of a war must be achievable or else authorities cause worse violence without resolving a situation, which is unjust. Some argue, therefore, that the objectives and parameters of the war must be clearly stated, though again it is unwise to always state plans and limits.
Last resort – All other means of putting an end to a conflict must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. Efforts to use negotiations, diplomacy, economic pressure, embargoes, or public pressure should be used before military action and given up only when shown to be ineffective.
Just cause – the cause must be just and not personal, such as for vengeance. Innocent life must be in danger, and the threat of damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
Jus in bello addresses right behavior during war. Its principles include:
Distinction – The aggressor in a war must distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and take actions to prevent the unjust killing or destruction of property of those who are not participating in the war. Thus, it’s illegal to target civilian areas or to automatically treat civilians as spies or military personnel.
Proportionality – Combatants must use only the amount of force necessary to eliminate a threat. Destroying a society and culture or peoples or continuing war after surrender is forbidden.
Necessity – Powers should avoid targets with no military value, whose destruction is not necessary to bring opponents to surrender. This minimizes harm to civilians and civilian property.
Fair treatment of prisoners – Once the enemy surrenders, prisoners must be treated mercifully. Torture, rape, slavery or even general mistreatment is forbidden. This is also a tenet of the Geneva Conventions.
Just means of war – Combatants must not use evil means of war, such as poisonous gases, nuclear weapons, or mines because they target a general population including civilians.
Jus post bellum is a new category proposed by some theologians and scholars. It targets justice after a war, such as reconstruction, environmental remediation, conditions of peace, care of refugees, and even war trials or reparations. Its purpose is to help restore conquered nations to the international community and prevent suffering.Problems Applying the Just War Doctrine
Problems Applying the Just War Doctrine
Despite there being very little scriptural basis for the doctrine just war, there is in fact very little disagreement among most Christians about the content of the doctrine. If Christians follow the guidance of scripture for individuals, they will follow the doctrine of just war when making political decisions. The major exceptions to those who embrace the doctrine are the small number of pacifists who believe Christ’s commands to turn the other cheek and not live by the sword make participating in war under any circumstances improper. Of course, pacifism ignores the reality that warfare sometimes becomes necessary to stop evil men, which is what Augustine argued. In many cases, peaceful resistance or civil disobedience can actually result in greater harm to more people. It may make pacifists feel better, but it has the opposite effect of their stated goal.
Where most people disagree about just war, then, is the application of it to real-world circumstances, which is a political and not a theological decision. This is where the public dispute between the pope and president comes into focus. Of course as the leader of the world’s largest religion, Pope Leo has the obligation to seek the doctrine’s enforcement and the right to guide his followers in its proper application. President Trump has the obligation to protect the U.S. population and the right to apply the doctrine in a way that does so. What is clear is that, despite their disagreements, they agree on the content of the doctrine.
The pope naturally has taken a traditional approach to war in seeing preemptive action as an unprovoked attack. The president, as with many modern national leaders, argues that modern warfare introduces problems that make it difficult to maintain the traditional application of the doctrine.
For example, the Catholic Church has traditionally interpreted any preemptive strikes as violating the principle of last resort, but what do you do when waiting until another country starts a war leads to sure destruction? In the case of Iran, the president argued that not acting would have placed nuclear weapons in the hands of people who believe they have an obligation to usher in the end of the world. In terms of risk assessment, the severity of destroying humanity outweighs the likelihood that Iran would actually attack, even if the pope believes this outcome unlikely.
Another question that complicates the doctrine of just war is how Christians are to treat a cold war or war of attrition? Iran has been at war with the West for decades using proxies to kill Americans and other people throughout the world. Should the U.S. simply accept these losses indefinitely and turn the other cheek? What about protecting their victims? The same can be said of Hamas and Israel. Both Iran and Hamas have averred to destroy Israel and the U.S., and they have spent years trying to. Is war justified to stop such attacks?
A third issue is whether or not to accept attacks on civilian infrastructure used by military forces, which violates the principles of distinction and necessity. Yet Iran and Hamas use civilians as shields to protect their own warmongering. Is it not proper, then, to consider them legitimate military targets? Should the U.S. or Israel allow other powers to conduct war with impunity in order to follow these principles?
Such issues increasingly make the application of just war doctrine difficult. Of course, even when nations disagree about the application of just war doctrine, it doesn’t speak to the wisdom or practicality of war. In a democratic system, people tire quickly of foreign wars. Nor does it address differences of opinions about its political justification. Many condemn Trump for acting without a declaration of war, but his supporters believe he is acting within the framework of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. People hold varying positions about these issues apart from whether a war is just or is being justly prosecuted from a theological standpoint.
Back to the Individual
How to apply the just war doctrine is, therefore, primarily a practical political problem, not a theological one. The more important aspect of just war doctrine, and the focus of scripture, is the conduct of individual Christians whether they are leading armies or in the trenches. It is here, primarily, that the statements of the pope have been misapplied for political purposes.
The pope stated publicly that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.” This is not only unhelpful but theologically indefensible. Were this true, God would not have heard the prayers of the great men of the Bible, the soldiers landing on Normandy while fighting Nazism, or George Washington while praying for help against British tyranny. Many Protestants point to the fact that John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles never condemned soldiers for doing their duty fighting in wars despite numerous interactions with centurions, temple guards, and soldiers. Rather, they taught them to have faith, live righteously, and treat others mercifully whether they serve or not.
Some are already taking the pope’s comments to justify a return to the post-Vietnam era of condemning soldiers for going to war. Previous generations often condemned and sometimes even committed violence against those who serve. Today, people are already exacting violence against law enforcement. Soldiers are also sometimes mistreated by pacifists, a trend that is only likely to grow. The pope no doubt doesn’t mean his statement to be taken this way and would agree that those who serve in war under proper authority without evil intent are not themselves condemned.
In the end, politicians and religious leaders may disagree about the justification of individual wars. Such decisions are political, and wars quickly become unpopular among Christian populations. From a theological position, however, Christian efforts should focus less on judging political actions about going to war and more on personal behavior and attitudes, which is what the Bible actually addresses. Individually, we should guard our hearts against wicked anger and vengeance, be merciful to those who are not resisting, and protect the innocent. We should also, as John the Baptist said unto the soldiers, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats, and be content with your wages” (Lk. 3:14). If we have an opportunity to prevent violence and live peaceably with others (Rom. 12:8), we should do so. This is as much as the Bible commands. The rest of the doctrine of just war is a matter of application.
