By Garry J. Moes

 

Russia’s recent war of aggression and indiscriminate violence in Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s frequent threats of escalation with nuclear weapons, along with the past 20-plus years of wars on terror, North Korea’s provocations, China’s military build-up, Western powers pouring money and material into the Ukrainian defense efforts, and Western globalist neo-cons once again beating the drums of warfare — all these developments have the world on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

 

The prospect of World War III is being discussed almost daily as its outbreak seems increasingly imminent.

 

In light of all this, it is time once again to examine the ancient tenets of Just War.

 

As one pair of authors described the dilemma a few years ago, “According to Scripture, [Christians] are to obey and honor governmental authorities as the agent of God; they are to support the government with their taxes and acknowledge the prerogative of government to use force in fulfilling its responsibilities of protecting the innocent and punishing the evil” (Keith B. Payne & Karl I. Payne, A Just Defense: the Use of Force, Nuclear Weapons & Our Conscience. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1989, p. 37)

 

Just War Doctrine is a set of principles which were developed historically from Scripture’s broad counsel concerning the origin, nature and role of civil government, and the Christian’s civic duties and responsibilities. Payne and Payne, broadly summarized the key points of Scripture’s position as follows:

 

1. Scripture teaches that government authorities have been established by God (Romans 13:1-2).

2. Scripture teaches that government is responsible to use necessary force to defend the innocent, reward good behavior, and punish evil behavior (Romans 13:3-4; I Peter 2:13-14).

3. Scripture teaches that Christians are required to support government in carrying out its divinely mandated responsibilities (Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, I Timothy 2:1-2, I Peter 2:13-17, Matthew 22:21, Acts 25:10-11).

4. Yet, governmental authorities are human, with human imperfections and the potential to drift toward selfishness, evil, and corruption (Romans 1-3).

 

These authors go on to note, regarding the dilemma which Christians may face when their nation considers going to war, overtly or by proxy:

 

Because governments are administered by humans, there is always the possibility that governments will use force for evil ends: to support such actions would be inconsistent with Christian conscience. Consequently, the Christian must be aware of governmental policies concerning the use of force — supporting those that are legitimate and opposing those that are not. (Ibid., p. 38)

 

The historic tenets of Just War were designed to answer that question of legitimacy. Biblical law and the interpretations of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas; Reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others; and Philosophers, such as Hugo Grotius, have given at least eight primary tenets. Although there are variations and corollaries, these eight tenets may be summarized as follows:

 

1. Just Cause. Just war doctrine rules out the use of warfare for strictly “religious” reasons, for territorial conquest, the advancement of political ideology, revenge and all other causes save defense. This does not mean that a war may not include an offensive component, even a pre-emptive one, but it does mean that the initiation of warfare may not be for aggressive purposes. In any event, military actions, both on the defense and offense, must have as their only purpose the turning back of unlawful or criminal aggression.

2. Just Intent. “The objective of a just use of force must always be the restoration and protection of the innocent” (Payne & Payne, p. 42). The declared intent of the defenders must be to turn back the criminal expropriation of territory and property, criminal killing of innocent non-combatants, and to render the criminal aggressor sufficiently disarmed to prevent repetition of his criminal acts.

3. Last Resort. War is not justified if other means of resolving criminally inspired conduct are available.

4. A Formal Declaration. This tenet addresses the need to avoid war as a personal or partisan vendetta of a single powerful ruler or like-minded group of oligarchs. It is to ensure a deliberative approach to the determination of just cause and just intent and to ensure the employment of broader wisdom in pursuit of peaceful alternatives.

5. Limited Objectives. “Since the purpose of a just war is peace, … the total destruction of a country’s political and economic institutions is not a legitimate objective of a just war” (Payne & Payne, p. 42).

6. Proportional Means. Under this tenet, a just war would have to be one where the weaponry or degree of force were limited to what is necessary to meet the limited objective, halt the aggression, and secure a just peace. Total warfare or “scorched earth” tactics are outlawed. Here modern weapons of mass devastation, because of their incredibly destructive capabilities, by definition push the limits of justness. It takes special effort for modern warriors with just cause, intent, and authorization to keep within the restrictions of this tenet. Almost any application of modern nuclear weaponry, for example, can have results which may go beyond the immediate need. On the other hand, much of modern tactical weaponry makes “precision war” more possible.

7. Non-combatant Immunity. The use of force should discriminate between combatants and civilians. This requires little explanation.

8. A Reasonable Hope for Success. This tenet, again, is based in the underlying premise that war must be aimed at securing peace, rather than war for the sake of violence against an enemy. To attempt war on a foolhardy scale knowing that many will die in a lost cause is cynical at best and otherwise murderous or suicidal, and therefore sinful.

 

War, of course, is a result of sin in the world. But when justly waged, it is actually a recognition of the fallen nature of man, whose need for regeneration is underscored. In the meantime, a fallen world requires duly constituted civil authority to establish peace and order, to punish evil doers, and promote the free exercise of righteousness.

 

War is, to say the least, a ghastly evil. I did not say, war is wrong. The waging of war is often highly necessary and even dutiful. For a sovereign state or federation of sovereign states the waging of war is oftentimes the only resort that remains, to guard the paths of justice, to promote the interests of God-given liberty and, paradoxical as it may seem, to conserve the blessings of true peace. The waging of war upon just and necessary occasion is no more wrong than is the execution of judgment upon the violation of civil righteousness within a particular municipality or nation. But war is a ghastly evil that is always of consequence of sin.

 

It is an inexpressible comfort in these days of upheaval and turmoil to know that all events, great and small, are embraced in God’s sovereign providence. He has not resigned the reins of government. Present history is not moving toward chaos. It is moving in the grand drama of God’s plan and purpose to the accomplishment of his holy designs and to the vindication of his glory. (John Murray, “God and the War,” National Republic Magazine, Washington, D.C., December 1942 and January 1943, reproduced in Collected Writings of John Murray: 1: The Claims of Truth, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976, pp. 344-355)

​