Tuesday, March 3, 2020

The other way to lose a war


Rod Dreher comments on the U.S. deal with the Taliban to withdraw, at long last, from Afghanistan.  He writes: “The Taliban whipped… the United States… We simply could not prevail.  The richest and most powerful nation in the world could not beat these SOBs.”  Well, that’s obviously not true in the usual sense of words like “whipped” and “beat.”  Suppose you effortlessly beat me to a bloody pulp and I fall to the ground, desperately panting for air and barely conscious.  You put your boot on my neck and demand that I cry “Uncle.”  I refuse, despite your repeated kicks to the gut, and after fifteen minutes or so of this you get bored and walk away.  It would be quite absurd if, wiping the blood off my face and pulling myself up to my wobbling knees, I proudly exclaim: “Did you see how I whipped that guy?”

But of course, I know what Dreher means, and he’s not wrong.  One way to lose a war is militarily.  The U.S. did not lose the war in Afghanistan in that sense.  Indeed, it’s very hard for the U.S. to lose wars in that sense.  The other way to lose a war, however, is to define “victory” in so ambitious – and ultimately non-military – a way that military success becomes irrelevant.  If you establish before our fistfight begins that you will only count yourself to have defeated me if you get me to say the word “Uncle,” then as long as I refuse to do that, you will have lost, no matter how badly you beat me up and indeed even if you kill me.

The trouble with the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is that “victory” was widely conceived of on the World War II model – unconditional surrender followed by the radical reconstruction of the enemy’s social, political, and economic orders along the victor’s preferred lines.  Elizabeth Anscombe famously argued (in her essay “Mr. Truman’s Degree”) that that was not a reasonable standard even in the case of World War II.  It was certainly not a reasonable standard in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  Those should have been conceived of from the start as punitive strikes rather than Wilsonian crusades.  Replacing the wicked leaders of these countries was justifiable in principle, but the goal should have been “something less bad” rather than an approximation of American capitalist liberal democracy.

Some critics like to chalk up prolonged American engagement in places like Afghanistan and Iraq to warmongering or realpolitik or some other sinister motivation.  In my opinion, that is the reverse of the truth.  The fault of those who advocate such engagement isn’t worldly cynicism, but otherworldly idealism.

Here we might draw a comparison with the problem Anscombe was addressing.  She rightly condemned as intrinsically evil the World War II policy of massacring civilian populations so as to compel enemy governments to capitulate.  But she also laid the blame for this policy at the feet of an attitude that is also evil, but is widely regarded as good: pacifism.  The pacifist foolishly condemns all killing as such, and therefore all war as unjust.  This is an error, and a grave one because it is utterly impracticable, and trying to implement it would lead to the widespread oppression and killing of the innocent. 

When pacifism is widely admired, however, those who nevertheless reject it as impracticable conclude that doing what is good is impracticable and that it is practically unavoidable to do evil.  That is to say, they conclude that all killing is wrong but that we nevertheless have to do this sort of wrong in order to resist oppressors and killers.  And then the sky is the limit.  Such people will go on to conclude that if killing enormous numbers of innocent people is necessary in order to realize some aim they judge to be good (such as securing the unconditional surrender of the enemy) then this is what should be done.  Hence Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

In Anscombe’s view, then, pacifism thereby leads to more rather than less killing of the innocent.  It is held up as a noble ideal when in fact it is simply a grave moral error that has obscene unintended consequences.  The correct attitude is to recognize the natural law principle that it is only the intentional killing of the innocent, rather than all killing as such, that is morally wrong, and then to formulate principles to guide us in determining the conditions under which the killing of evildoers is called for, the means by which this might legitimately be done, the circumstances when risk of unintended civilian deaths can be justified by double effect, and so forth.  That is what traditional just war theory does. 

Now, what I want to suggest is that there is an analogous error in too much modern American thinking about matters of war.  The idea seems to be that war is such an obscenity that only a grandiose end can justify it.  On this view, merely repelling an aggressor or deterring his future evildoing is not good enough.  The endgame must always involve tyrants being overthrown, oppression banished, happy voters standing in queue, children dancing in the streets, etc.  Hence, when we see that some particular war is indeed necessary, the tendency is to try to turn it into a World War II style liberation and reconstruction.

Part of the problem with this is that realizing a grandiose end tends to require far more killing than is necessary for a more limited aim – and the more unrealistic and therefore unattainable the grandiose end is, the more ultimately pointless is the killing.  Another problem is that even a crushing military victory comes to seem ultimately like a defeat as long as the grandiose end remains unrealized.  Hence military engagement becomes interminable.  “If we leave before the job is done [i.e. the enemy’s country looks more like an American-style democracy and market economy] it will all have been for nothing!”

The pacifist would outlaw all war, whereas the Wilsonian would pursue “war to end all wars.”  The first is utopian about means, the second is utopian about ends.  And both only end up making wars more common and longer and bloodier than they need to be. 

76 comments:

  1. 1- The Pax Dei prohibited fighting on Sundays, Feast days, Fridays, etc, until there were only 80 days in the year one could fight. This lasted some 200 years between 1027 and the 1200's.

    2- The Pax Dei was effective because there was a populace who feared God and the Church had power, but also because the concept of Just War I think was prevalent.

    3- a Just War calls for restraint while preserving the military option. The nature of a Just War has eluded me but I've always been fascinated by the concept. What is a Just War response to 9/11? Probably strategic airstrikes against specific military targets: A symmetrical response of some kind.

    4- Is Just War similarly idealistic insofar as it is ill defined? I think Just War requires Casus Belli in fact (vs in theory). Politics requires a contrived Casus Belli, made popular by the Romans who hated offensive wars so framed everything as defensive and so fought wars very often. Is the contrivance of Casus Belli a symptom of our political system or simply human nature to want revenge?

    Thought provoking article, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Contrived casus belli have been around in nearly all times and all societies, except for those that actively approved war of conquest "because we can". The phenomenon comes both from political greed (greed of rulers to extend their rule or to make a mark), economic greed (they have what we ought to have), or from fear (if we don't act quickly, they will act in a way that harms us). Maybe for additional reasons, but this covers a great many of the cases. (Even revenge is often contrived into fear.) You can't get rid of the potential for contrived casus belli until you get rid of greed and fear.

      Just War theory merely put a specific name to something that is fundamental to there being separate societies: to fight on the national level requires due reason. That "due reason" is the casus belli. It's not a figment of the theory.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Well, I am not sure why pacifism would lead to the widespread oppression and killing of the innocent.
      I think the key phrase here is 'trying to implement it'. But what exactly is 'trying to implement pacifism'?
      Obviously, true pacifism does not entail implementing itself by means of violence of any sort.
      So, implementing pacifism would, I guess, be done by setting the right example. N
      ow, suppose everybody followed this example and everybody became a pacifist, how would this lead to 'the widespread oppression and killing of the innocent'?

      Delete
    2. But surely the point is not everyone will? Pacifism means we are defenceless against wrongs doers who don't give up violence, and can't defend innocents against such people. That's what I took Dr. Feser to mean.

      Delete
    3. Jeremy

      Of course it is highly improbable that everyone will become a pacifist. But it is also highly unlikely that everyone will recognize the natural law principle that it is only the intentional killing of the innocent, rather than all killing as such, that is morally wrong.
      In any case, I don't think it is a matter of rejecting pacifism because it is impractical. It's a matter of accepting pacifism unless a situation arises in which it is untenable to maintain complete and unconditional pacifism.
      I really don't see how the jump from this to "the sky is the limit" can be justified.
      It seems like rhetoric to me.

      Delete
    4. It is however far more likely that most people (including most government and military leaders) will recognize the principles of Just War than pacifism. There are modern proponents of Just War that are well respected (Michael Walzer, for instance) and it is not nearly as utopian an idea as pacifism is. We know there have been many moments in history where Just War principles have influenced leaders and helped diminish damage and death. Pacifism, on the other hand, has a much less impressive track record, so to speak.

      Another issue is that as war is bound to happen for all sorts of reasons, at least Just War can help keep it in check. Pacifism, with its unilateral denunciation of *all* forms of war, runs the (very serious) risk of unwillingly legitimizing chaotic, immoral wars as part of the "real world", "war is hell" mentality. "If all war is unacceptable, and it's all evil anyway, let's not waste time with jus in bello and jus ad bellum, we're already here anyway".

      So from a purely pragmatic and historical perspective, we can say that Just War *does* work, and it does help constrain the actions of States and warring parties. The very fact we have international courts and institutions dedicated to punishing war crimes and keep rules in conflicts is a testament to the legacy of Just War and its principles. How disastrous it would be if all we had was the pacifist's denunciation of "all war" and "all violence", get military leaders rolling their eyes and watch the carnage that follows in the inevitable wars.

      Delete
    5. Atno

      I am not sure that it's far more likely that most people will recognize the principles of Just War. Every war has at least two parties. Which one of those parties fights a Just War?

      As for 'utopian'. I guess if you are faced with a dilemma, the more difficult option always seems a bit utopian. Does that mean we should not at least do our very best to reach the utopia or at least to get as cose to it as possible.
      War is a much easier way, I agree,and unfortunately you are probably right that most governments and military leaders often opt for the easier way rather than for the more difficult way of trying to avoid war.

      I also agree that it is a good thing we have international courts and institutions that keep rules in conflicts. If a war is truly inevitable, it's better that some rules are followed. It's also better, if someoen really wants to have a abortion, that it is at least possible to do so under hygienic circumstances.
      But does that make abortion OK?

      Delete
    6. Anscombe of course does not think that the argument against pacifism is that it can lead to bad things. If it were the only defensible position, then that would not matter, just as it does not matter that horrible consequences could follow from refusing to murder the innocent. I think she is just interested in pointing out the gravity of the question of pacifism. I think she was just reflecting on the attitudes of her colleagues who generally esteemed pacifism yet would not join her in protesting the honorary degree of a man who dropped the atomic bomb on millions of people in order to intimidate a government into surrendering. It's not merely rhetorical, but it is not the philosophical argument against pacifism either.

      The supposition that everyone might become pacifists is just irrelevant. When we are considering consequences what matters is the actual world.

      If everyone followed just war theory, there would not be any war either. But following just war theory is not predicated on any hope that people will behave that way.

      Delete
    7. I had a response, but blogspot ate it. Greg basically said what I was going to anyway, but better.

      I will say that I find reading Jesus in a pacifist light - as in universal and immediate pacifism - strikes me as almost Gnostic. I can think that Jesus would advocate something that would bring society crashing down. There's a real tension between the world and the Church, but that seems a complete opposition.

      Delete
    8. Of course it is highly improbable that everyone will become a pacifist. But it is also highly unlikely that everyone will recognize the natural law principle that it is only the intentional killing of the innocent, rather than all killing as such, that is morally wrong.

      Walter, I think that on the plane of actual events, actual history and actual behavior, you find clear evidence for there being a significant set of people who hold, on the one hand, a theory of pacifism, that all war is morally wrong (though they may hold it with poor understanding of it), and when faced with an actual need to "do something" about undue threats, they choose to accept war. In those people, one can find plenty of cases of them actually saying "war is wrong, but we must do a wrong here, so we might as well mop the floor with our enemy and finish the war with the fewest damage to ourselves possible." I am not saying they are reasonable when they say this, I am just reporting the kind of arguments I have myself seen. These people would seem to be somewhat likely to accept or even encourage dropping atom bombs on cities in order to "force" the enemy to surrender, when the alternative options for carrying out war look much more daunting.

      Delete
    9. Jeremy said: “Pacifism means we are defenceless against wrongs doers who don't give up violence, and can't defend innocents against such people.”

      From a pacifist’s perspective, it is not about “what works” or “what is practical” in terms of the consequences within this temporary short-term world, but about trusting in Jesus and the earliest Christians (ie faithfulness in accordance to their understanding/interpretation of the relevant teachings of the New Testament on non-violence and on leaving vengeance to God), and trusting that God in the end/eschaton will bring about Justice to right all wrongs and destroy all evil in the long-term (ie in the world to come after the general resurrection).

      If the criteria to evaluate Pacifism is “what works” and “undesirable consequences of Pacifism” (such as the possible consequence of evil people taking over the world if all good people are pacifists), then pacifism would be what really works from an eternal or long-term perspective, even if meanwhile evil beings would inflict sufferings and death on all the innocent or good people in this short-term temporary world.

      A possible Christian pacifist view is that Jesus’ teaching is meant for individuals who want to deny themselves and follow him to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God; it is not meant for people and institutions (eg military institutions) that follows worldly wisdom. Just as the Apostle Paul said in his letters to the Roman Christians, these worldly institutions would be used by God as a means to execute part of God’s justice on evildoers. There will always be worldly people and worldly institutions around for God to use to execute God’s justice before the time of the General Resurrection.

      A Christian Pacifist does not necessarily “leave the innocent neighbours at the mercy of criminals”. A pacifist can manifest his pacifism by stepping in between his neighbours and the criminals to defend his neighbour not by killing/harming the criminals with gun or whatever lethal weapon, but through various other means, including instant prayer for both the criminals’ well-being and the neighbours’ temporal/physical safety, and stand ready to offer himself as a sacrifice, witnessing powerfully (and faithfully) in words and action to the Gospel-values and Gospel-perspective proclaimed by his Lord. This is loving enemies and loving neighbours in PRACTICAL TERMS.

      Such pacifistic actions do not guarantee immediate success and in the end both the pacifist and his neighbours could end up being killed by the criminals. But the goal is not success from a myopic short-term view from worldly-wisdom perspective, but success from a long-term eternal perspective.

      Even if the pacifist’s refusal to kill/harm the criminals and his non-violent actions resulted in the failure of his attempt to save the neighbours from physical death, it does not mean the pacifist’s action is unwise or unloving, just as God’s “non-intervention” to answer the prayer to prevent the criminals from killing the neighbours does not mean God’s “non-intervention” is unwise or unloving.

      How can Christians in holding political power practise pacifism? The pacifist can that the early Christians, in being consistent with their insistence on faithfulness to Jesus’ non-violent teachings, would likely tell Christians who have acquired political power to use that power in a way that would not involve killing/harming people physically, and if that is not possible, then the Christian should abandon that political power. The pacifist can add: “As Jesus warned, discipleship comes with great cost and self-denial, and that few would walk on his narrow way that leads to life, while many will walk on the broad and easy way which ends in destruction.”

      I am not advocating pacifism, but simply laying out some thoughts of how Christian pacifists may respond.

      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    10. As I said, that sounds nearly Gnostic to me. Society would literally fall apart, and pretty swiftly, if we attempted this as a guiding social principle. I can't believe that Jesus would or did advocate a moral position that would be so radically at odds with basic social cohesion any time this side of the Second Coming. And before anyone says that Christians do believe in an opposition between the Church and the world, I don't think that means in so fundamental a sense. That's rather what Gnostics believe, or at least some of them.

      Delete
    11. I get the pacifist theory - which reasonable laid out quite nicely above. My objection is that it does not seem to be what the earliest Christians seem to have thought about the matter. There is, most critically, St. Paul in Romans 13 which upholds the use of force by the authorities. Right after Paul sets forth the very Jesus-based "love your enemy", (Romans 12) he then says that the prince bears the sword as God's servant. There are other passages as well that seem to uphold the authorities' use of force. There is no mention in the Bible of the earliest Christians (say, the Apostles, in the Epistles and Acts) telling soldiers to stop being soldiers. Rather, the advice to them is "do not extort" and be content with your pay.

      Because parents have a clear role in using force and punishment to teach, train, and raise their children to ensure they learn about and submit themselves to the good of the family, and natural law prescribes a similar role for the state regarding the common good, it is clearly part of the natural law that states have the duty to use force to restrain lawlessness. And since the Gospels can indeed be read as compatible with that natural law, and this is indeed the way the Fathers of the Church read the NT*, we are on very good ground indeed to accept state use of force for the common good, and reject pacifism.

      *I note that while there were a few Fathers who sounded like pacifists, there was a clear development of doctrine on the issue and pretty much all of them from about 350 onwards are CLEAR that the state may use force, rather, the state has the duty to do so in some situations.

      Delete
    12. Hi Jeremy,

      “I can't believe that Jesus would or did advocate a moral position that would be so radically at odds with basic social cohesion any time this side of the Second Coming.”

      Your approach is basically along the line of:
      a. You view non-violence/non-retaliation as undesirable (it will lead to collapse of society etc)
      b. You believe Jesus would not have taught something undesirable
      c. Therefore you believe Jesus would not have taught non-violence/non-retaliation.

      This is a wrong approach to determine what Jesus taught. The proper approach is to use a historical-critical exegetical approach to first determine what were the actual teachings of Jesus as reflected in the relevant text in the earliest Gospels (which happened to be the three Sypnotic Gospels in the New Testament). And then after that you can proceed to evaluate Jesus’ teachings as to whether or not they are undesirable or bad or impractical for the society, base on your standard or criteria of evaluation. You can then agree or disagree with his teachings.

      There is a broad scholarly consensus that Jesus taught his followers to practice non-violence and non-retaliation towards even enemies who persecute them unjustly. When enemies made unjust demands or treated them unjustly, his followers were expected to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile, instead of offering resistance to an evil person. In the words of Jesus in GMatthew: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ [ie justice] But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two... love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven... For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” While worldly wisdom preaches justice, Jesus expected his followers to be much better than that and be distinguished from that by not resisting their enemies but instead to love them in real actions.

      In addition, this was how the early church interpreted Jesus as well, and interpreted that it entails non-killing of enemies even in war. Below is only a small sample of a larger collection of similar messages from the early church:

      “Christ nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, NO MATTER HOW WICKED. For He did not consider it to be in accord with His laws to allow the killing of any individual whomever…For [Christian] laws do not allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when it was their fate to be slain as sheep.” Origen, ANF IV.467

      “Before God it is unlawful for a just person either to engage in warfare, since warfare is injustice itself, or to judge anyone guilty of a capital charge, since it makes no difference whether you put someone to death by word or by sword—it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited.”
      - Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, 6:20,16, in PL 6 (ANF 7:186-88, 181)

      “We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.” Justin Martyr, (ANF) I.176

      “We used to be filled with war…now all of us [Christians] have, throughout the whole earth, changed our warlike weapons. We have changed our swords into plowshares, and our spears into farming implements.” Justin Martyr, ANF I.254

      (to be continued)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    13. Hi Jeremy,

      continuation from above:

      “How will a Christian man participate in war? It is true that soldiers came to John [the Baptist] and received the instructions for conduct. It is true also that a centurion believed. Nevertheless, the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every solider.”
      - Tertullian (ANF, III. 73)

      “Is it lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? Will the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? Will he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment.”
      -Tertullian (ANF III.100)

      “[The Christian] considers it unlawful not only to commit slaughter himself, but to be present with those who do it.” - Lactantius, ANF VII. 169

      After AD170 we started to have evidence of Christians serving in Roman military. But see this below:

      “...in The Apostolic Tradition (c.200), Hippolytus addresses the issue of Christians serving in the military. He disallows Christians to enlist in the military, claiming that any Christian who did this “despises God” (Apostolic Tradition, 16). At the same time, Hippolytus allows soldiers who converted after joining the military to remain in it, but only if these soldiers are able to serve in a capacity that didn’t require them to kill and that didn’t require them to engage in idolatry.”
      - Biblical scholar Gregory Boyd

      Among the extant writings we have from the early church (before AD312), it seems that we do not have any text that directly or explicitly justifies a Christian to kill enemies in war whether it was a just or unjust war, while on the other hand, we have numerous text from a diversity of authors that directly and explicitly argued against the killing of enemies by Christians even in the context of a Christian discharging his duties as a soldier. If he could not avoid killing in that vocation, then he is expected to leave that vocation.

      Thus the pacifist has the advantage of
      (1) Jesus’ teachings on non-violence and non-retaliation towards enemies in the Gospels,
      (2) Teachings on non-violence and non-retaliation towards enemies in other parts of the taught in other parts of New Testament
      (3) New Testament teaching that vengeance and justice belongs to God and not to the Christian
      (4) The early church’s predominant position against any killing of enemies by Christians even in the context of war (presumingly they are less likely to have misunderstood Jesus’ teachings which they have inherited from the Apostles, since they were not too far away in time from the Apostles’ period)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    14. Hi Jeremy,

      On a separate matter, you mentioned about Gnosticism and treated it as a teaching about an opposition between kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. No, Gnosticism is not about that. Instead, in Gnosticism, The opposition is between the material and the non-material (spiritual).

      Opposition between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world is a strand of thought inside the New Testament. For example,

      “Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4.4).

      “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.” (1 John 2.15-17)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    15. Hi Jeremy,

      You said: “Society would literally fall apart, and pretty swiftly, if we attempted this as a guiding social principle.”

      What you said resembled what, during the early church period, the anti-Christian Celsius said when he criticized Christians for being pacifistic:

      “A staunch patriot and leading representative of Roman bureaucracy, Celsus rejected Christianity in large part due to its nonviolent stance. Repeatedly attacking Christians for their refusal to fight in defense of the Roman Empire, Celsus sneered that if everyone behaved like the church, the emperor would be virtually isolated, and the empire would soon be conquered by the unruliest and fiercest barbarians.”
      [We know Celsus’ criticism becuse he was quoted by Origen, in Contra Celsum, 8:68-73, in PG 11 (ANF 4:665-68).]

      Your argument is almost as fallacious as “if everyone is to become a Roman Catholic priest, monk or nun, then the whole human generation would perish in less than a hundred years; so such priesthood/monkhood/nunhood is not good for the human race.”

      This world and its nations and societies would not collapse even if Jesus’ non-violence and non-retaliation teaching entails pacifism because:

      1. Most of the people, whether Christians or non-Christians, would not want to walk Jesus’ “narrow way”. As Jesus said in GMatthew and GLuke, few would walk his narrow way that leads to life, while many will walk the broad and easy way that leads to destruction. As Jesus warned, many would call him “Lord, Lord” and would have done many miracles such as healings and exorcisms IN HIS NAME but would be surprised on judgment day to discover that they will be rejected by him. Hence there will still be many who would maintain institutions like the police and the military; societies and nations would be kept going instead of falling apart. As the Apostle Paul said in one of his extant letters, such institutions would be used by God to execute partial justice now on evildoers. (analogy to these institutions being used by God: Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus is used by God to accomplish his greater plan but that does not mean Judas’ betrayal is itself good; so we cannot conclude that such institutions are good merely because they are used by God to restrain/lessen evil.)

      2. Jesus’ teachings is meant for those individuals who are willing to bear the cost of discipleship and deny themselves; it is not meant for teaching how a nation/institution/society-at-large should function. This means in some situations, a follower of Jesus may have to resign from a job if the nature of the job conflicts with Jesus’ teachings.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    16. But isn't that the same issue, basically? Now you are making a complete division between the Church and the rest of society, as if the Church didn't have a universal mission, didn't come to spread its word to all society, and didn't have the basis of a full social philosophy and morality. This to me, speaking perhaps a little crudely, has a Gnostic ring to it. As I said above, I'm aware of the New Testament's contrasts of the Church and the world, but I don't think that is meant in complete terms. Gnosticism was actually multifarious, and I am aware I am using it somewhat crudely. But I also think that the idea of the Church of the elite entirely separate from the world has Gnostic forebears as well. Not just that, but I think that the idea of the total separation of the Church and the world has much in common with the separation of the spiritual and the material: the former was held by many Gnostics as a consequence of the latter. Anyway, I was really using Gnostic partly as an analogy, to emphasise what seemed to me a suspicion quality in claiming Jesus and the early Church taught pacifism.

      Delete
    17. I'm obviously accepting a orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus and his message. I am not discounting the approach of secular Biblical scholarship, but I am also not necessarily accepting it as the last word on all points.

      I'm making assumptions like Jesus' message to us was as social, corporeal beings who must live on this earth together; that he didn't despise the material entirely, it being in fact his good creation; that his moral message speaks to us as full human beings, including social beings; that his message was to all mankind; etc.

      If contemporary Biblical scholarship portrays Jesus as contrary to what I take to be the understanding of the universal Church throughout most of its history, so much the worse for that scholarship.

      Delete

    18. Hi Tony,

      The early church’s teaching on non-evaluation and non-violence in the first two or three hundred years is more important than the later church’s teachings because the earlier community can be presumed to have lesser distortion and lesser misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Generally, the longer the period a message is passed down, the higher the risk of distortion. And generally, the longer the period has passed, the higher the risk of corruption in teaching and in behaviour, especially when comfort, security and power comes to Christians from the time of Emperor Constantine onwards. (Aside: The persecuted can easily become the persecutor once power is given to the former.)

      Within the first two or three hundred years, there is virtually no text among the extant documents that unambiguously justifies a Christian to kill enemies even in war, while IN CONTRAST, there is plenty of text among the extant documents written by a DIVERSITY OF AUTHORS that unambiguously forbid any such killing, both in war and non-war situations.

      Most importantly, all the various text in the New Testament that directly and UNAMBIGUOUSLY addresses the issue of how a faithful follower of Jesus should deal with enemy entails non-killing of enemies, but instead to turn the other cheek, to walk the extra mile, to pray for their well-being, and that they should leave the concern about justice/vengeance in the hands of God. Those text asserted that the role of justice/vengeance does not belong to Jesus’ followers.

      (to be continued)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    19. Hi Tony,

      (continued)

      Romans 13 is to be read together with Romans 12.

      Romans 12 explains the NECESSARY and NORMATIVE role of the Christian. It forbids Christians to retaliate against enemies. It teaches Christains that their role is to accept injustice done to them by their enemies, while at the same time to love their enemies and do good in return for the injustice they get from their enemies. Romans 12 tells Christians that their role of achieving justice and vengeance does not belong to them. It belongs to God and God will certainly execute justice in due time.

      The natural implicit question raised would be: “Does that mean evildoers will have the freedom to do all the evil they want?”

      Roman 13 then explains the CONTINGENT role of the state institution: it is carrying out justice and punishing the evildoers (on behalf of God). Christians, doing good, should this not fear those institutions but should submit to them and SUPPORT THEM BY PAYING TAX for the state to carry out that contingent role (this submission is not unconditional, but conditional upon the condition that it does not make the Christian personally doing things that would contradict the teachings of Jesus).

      We should be reminded that Romans 12.2 tells Christians ‘not be conformed to this age’. The worldly authorities fill the contingent role of vengeance/justice. Christians should not conform to that pattern of vengeance/justice but should instead, in contrast to vengeance, do good to enemies despite suffering injustice from those enemies as elaborated in Romans 12.

      From the Old Testament we understand that often God used CONTINGENT evil institutions (eg Babylonian King) to accomplish his plans and purposes and such evil institutions are described in the Old Testament as “God’s servant”. The institutional authority described in Romans 13 are also contingently established and used by God to carry out God’s justice in punishing and restraining evildoers. Hence an institutional authority being “set up” to be used by God does not mean that Christians should conform to the pattern of that contingent institutional authority.

      The end result of Romans 12 and 13 together is that Christians can continue to meet evil with good (Romans 12:20-21), with full confidence that God will deal with the issue of justice and vengeance and restraining of evil, and God is partly dealing with such issues through the establishment and use of contingent institutional authority that punishes evil doers (as elaborated in Romans 13).

      Romans 12’s teaching on non-retaliation is sustained by a belief in divine vengeance/justice which is partially executed via contingent institutional authority in Romans 13.

      Pacificism per se does not require the pacifist not to support the state such as via paying tax. It can mean what the early church meant: refusal to take up jobs of the state that requires the Christian to kill another person, while still supporting the state via taxes and prayers.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    20. Hi Tony,

      In case you question who will operate those institutions if Christians do not personally do it when the jobs require killing:

      1. Most of the people, whether Christians or non-Christians, would not want to walk Jesus’ “narrow way”. As Jesus said in GMatthew and GLuke, few would walk his narrow way that leads to life, while many will walk the broad and easy way that leads to destruction. As Jesus warned, many would call him “Lord, Lord” and would have done many miracles such as healings and exorcisms IN HIS NAME but would be surprised on judgment day to discover that they will be rejected by him. Hence there will still be many who would maintain institutions like the police and the military; societies and nations would be kept going instead of falling apart. As the Apostle Paul said in one of his extant letters, such institutions would be used by God to execute partial justice now on evildoers. (analogy to these institutions being used by God: Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus is used by God to accomplish his greater plan but that does not mean Judas’ betrayal is itself good; so we cannot conclude that such institutions are good merely because they are used by God to restrain/lessen evil.)

      2. Jesus’ teachings is meant for those individuals who are willing to bear the cost of discipleship and deny themselves; it is not meant for teaching how a nation/institution/society-at-large should function. This means in some situations, a follower of Jesus may have to resign from a job if the nature of the job conflicts with Jesus’ teachings.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    21. Hi Jeremy,

      What I have described (which may not be my position!) does not make a complete division between the Kingdom of God (which is not necessarily the “Church”) and the kingdom of this world. And also, it is not that Jesus’ message is not meant for spreading to all of the society and all of the world.

      Jesus’ message is for every individual in all of the society/world who is willing to count the cost, deny himself, take up the cross and follow him to lead a life manifesting values that are often radically different from the wisdom of this world (eg “Blessed are the poor; woe are the rich”, “sell your possessions and give to the poor”, “walk another extra mile” when you are unjustly forced to go one mile etc).

      Every Christian is to support the worldly institutions by rendering to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar. So a Christian is involved in both kingdoms at the same time, not-isolating himself in one.

      But the end result may be what Jesus described as “Few would walk the Narrow Way that leads to life; Many would walk the Broad and Easy Way that leads to destruction”.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui




      Delete
    22. Hi Jeremy,

      How would you respond to

      (1) Jesus’ instruction on non-retaliation and turning the other cheek?
      (presumably it is for every Christian in whatever jobs)

      (2) Apostles’ teaching of non-retaliation and that vengeance/justice belongs to God and not to Christians?
      (presumably it is also for every Christian regardless of his jobs)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    23. I would say these weren't meant as immediate and universal teachings. Jesus didn't mean that police and soldiers, for example, shouldn't do their jobs, even if they are Christians.

      I'm not sure I understand your response about the Church and the world. Above, you seemed to be saying that the Christian position demands a section of society that isn't Christian. If that is so, that seems to me to create a complete division between the world and the Church and to imply Christianity doesn't have a full social philosophy and morality, at least in the sense it cannot speak to a functioning, fully Christian society. I don't see how the fact that Christians rely on non-Christians and pay their taxes gets around these facts. Heck, there's almost a kind of hypocrisy in the view that Christians should be pacifists but rely for basic order and social cohesion on non-Christians willing to use force to ensure them.

      Delete
    24. The early church’s teaching on non-evaluation and non-violence in the first two or three hundred years is more important than the later church’s teachings because the earlier community can be presumed to have lesser distortion and lesser misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

      Johannes, it's a nice-sounding theory, but it fails to recognize the Catholic position on all of this. First, that when you talk about the "earliest" Christians, you can't discount the Apostles themselves. In the record we have of their actions, we have some evidence that they did not think all use of force is forbidden. First, because they themselves invoked it (e.g. Peter calling down punishment on Ananias and Sapphira). And in their direct instructions to soldiers, they did not say "leave your profession" or "stop all violence", but "do not extort". There are other passages as well.

      Secondly, the Catholic position is that Christ's teachings may be made more clear, more explicit, through time, with development of doctrine. Hence in ambiguous areas, the earlier teachings by some are resolved with greater clarity later on. The Church has, in this matter, developed by clarifying the seemingly, apparently in-conflict parts of the NT to explain that use of force is not allowed some times and is allowed other times. I am not denying the parts that say "turn the other cheek" and "do good to those who hate you", it's that there are OTHER parts that say something else. The Fathers, over time, grasped more clearly how to take these parts with those parts and make them cohere into a fitting whole. This is development of doctrine. The pacifist position, while it has always been arguable, has also always relied on an incomplete picture of the NT - and this is why the Church eventually rejected that position.

      Generally, the longer the period a message is passed down, the higher the risk of distortion. And generally, the longer the period has passed, the higher the risk of corruption in teaching and in behaviour, especially when comfort, security and power comes to Christians from the time of Emperor Constantine onwards.

      Naturally, you theory here will be rejected by Catholics; it may apply to secular movements, false religions, and error-bound churches, but it will not apply to the Church to whom Christ promised His protection and the Holy Spirit - not to the Church as a whole, though persons within it can be corrupted, certainly.

      Effectively, Johannes, you have laid out half the reason why it is that thorough-going pacifists are not also fully-conforming Catholics - the part of the argument that the Catholic Church eventually moved beyond, because it was incomplete.

      Delete
    25. Hi Tony,

      The argument that the Roman Catholic Church’s position that “Christians can legitimately kill people in some situations” must be true because “according to the Roman Catholic Church, God would prevent Roman Catholic Church from any error in its teaching” is a stance base on faith, and is applicable only to those who already have that “faith-stance”. It is somewhat like someone saying “The Qur’an says it contains no errors and therefore when the Qur’an teaches that Jesus was not crucified, it must be true.”

      It is begging the question when used against
      a) people who do not subscribe to that faith-stance, or
      b) people who are looking for non question-begging reasons/evidence for the position that “Christians can legitimately kill people in some situations”

      Therefore I suggest that we focus only on your non question-begging reasons which will be covered in the my next comment below.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    26. Hi Tony,

      You wrote:
      “when you talk about the "earliest" Christians, you can't discount the Apostles themselves. In the record we have of their actions, we have some evidence that they did not think all use of force is forbidden. First, because they themselves invoked it (e.g. Peter calling down punishment on Ananias and Sapphira). And in their direct instructions to soldiers, they did not say "leave your profession" or "stop all violence", but "do not extort". There are other passages as well.” and you also wrote earlier: “There is no mention in the Bible of the earliest Christians (say, the Apostles, in the Epistles and Acts) telling soldiers to stop being soldiers. Rather, the advice to them is "do not extort" and be content with your pay.”

      I did not discount the Apostles’ actions and words. There is simply no action and no words from the Apostles that is inconsistent with the specific pacifist position that “Christians are taught by Jesus and Apostles that the way to treat enemies is non-retaliation and return their evil with good treatment, and hence killing enemies contradicts that teaching”.

      What you mentioned failed to count against the above mentioned pacifist position because:

      1. It is factually wrong to say or imply that the Apostles gave instructions to soldiers “do not extort and be content with your pay”. This instruction was not given by the Apostles (not by Jesus either). It was given by John the Baptist before Jesus began his public ministry. You can find that incident in the Gospels. No whereas in the New Testament can you find such an instruction. Jesus’ teachings on non-retaliation and love for enemies would be more authoritative than the teaching of John the Baptist.

      2. To use “there is no record of the Apostles telling soldiers to stop killing people” as an argument would suffer from these problems:

      a. It is an argument from silence and this silence is consistent with both the pacifist position and the just-killing position. There were probably important things that happened in the Apostles’ lives that were not recorded in the extant documents we have and hence we cannot say whether or not they told certain soldiers that they should stop killing people.

      b. The teaching on non-retaliation and loving the enemies was only part of a whole package of teachings on what it meant to live as members of the Christian movement and not a piecemeal isolated teaching meant for people who expressed no interest to join that movement. Hence it was natural for a Apostles not giving it as a stand-alone advice to any soldier they encountered, such as those soldiers guarding the prison of Peter or Paul.

      (to be continued)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    27. Hi Tony,

      (continue from above)

      c. Within the New Testament, there is only one text where a soldier (and his household) joined the Christian movement. [Just-killing proponents love to use this text.] It is the text in Acts of the Apostles about Peter baptizing the centurion Cornelius. There was no recorded explicit instruction of Peter telling Cornelius that he should not kill anyone anymore after that baptism. The pacifists can point out various errors in your attempt to use this incident to argue against the pacifist position:

      c(i) This is an argument from silence which normally would not qualify as an evidence. In our context, such argument from silence/ignorance is even more so an inadmissible evidence because we do have very explicit teachings both in the Gospels and in the letters of apostles that instructed Christians on non-retaliation and loving the enemies. What is not recorded does not mean it did not happen. The next point shows that it might indeed have happened.

      c(ii) Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Tradition mentioned that after his conversion, Cornelius left the Roman military and accompanied Peter to preach the Gospel. We do not know why did he leave the military. It might be precisely because, through subsequent instructions (eg over the next few days) on what living as a Christian means, Cornelius realized that he could no longer kill enemies but should love them and treat them well even if they were very wicked. If so, then it was natural for Cornelius to see the incompatibility between his military job (eg if it required him to kill people) and his new identity as a Christian, and thus left the military.

      c(iii) In addition, I came across biblical scholars who published works on Acts of the Apostles pointing out that Cornelius might have been no longer in military service when he met Peter because Acts said Cornelius belong to the Italian military contingent, and during that period the Italian contingent was not stationed very very far away from Caesaria. If Cornelius was still active in his military contingent, he would be living in his military quarter instead of Caesaria. Acts reported that Cornelius was living at his house in Caesaria with his household. Furthermore, Cornelius was described in Acts as a devout God-fearer which means he believed and worshipped Yahweh except that he was uncircumcised and therefore still a Gentile, which would make it inconsistent for him to still serve as a Centurion which at that time would require him to participate in paganistic worship of other deities. All these add up to a real possibility that he was retired from military service by then. If so, then he would no longer be in a vocation that involved killing people by the time Peter met him.

      c(iv) The upshot of all these is that this is a case which supports neither sides on the issue whether or not Christians can kill another person in some circumstances such as in warfare.

      (to be continued)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    28. Hi Tony,

      (continue from above)

      3. It is factually wrong for you to claim that “Peter calling down punishment on Ananias and Sapphira”. What Peter said regarding Ananias is only this: “.. “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it.” Peter did not “call down punishment on Ananias and Sapphira.” He simply, perhaps inspired by the Holy Spirit, described what was happening. The text (even the text on Sapphira) did not present Peter as calling God to bring down punishment on them.

      4. Now, even if the Apostles were to call God to bring down justice upon someone, that is perfectly a Pacifist position that teaches “Vengeance/Justice belongs to God alone” while “Christians are forbidden to kill or execute any vengeance/justice on enemies”.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    29. Hi Tony,

      I made an important typo error on the part about Cornelius. The corrected info is: The Italian Contingent which Cornelius belonged was stationed very very far from Caesaria. (instead of “not stationed very very far from Caesaria”)

      Amended:
      c(iii) In addition, I came across biblical scholars who published works on Acts of the Apostles pointing out that Cornelius might have been no longer in military service when he met Peter because Acts said Cornelius belong to the Italian military contingent, and during that period the Italian contingent was stationed very very far away from Caesaria. If Cornelius was still active in his military contingent, he would be living in his military quarter instead of Caesaria. Acts reported that Cornelius was living at his house in Caesaria with his household. Furthermore, Cornelius was described in Acts as a devout God-fearer which means he believed and worshipped Yahweh except that he was uncircumcised and therefore still a Gentile, which would make it inconsistent for him to still serve as a Centurion which at that time would require him to participate in paganistic worship of other deities. All these add up to a real possibility that he was retired from military service by then. If so, then he would no longer be in a vocation that involved killing people by the time Peter met him.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui



      Delete
    30. Hi Tony,

      In summary, the pacifist argument against your position is:

      1. There is a lack of any unambiguous teaching/action from Jesus and his Apostles that justifies a serious Christian to kill enemies in any exceptional situation.

      2. In contrast, there are unambiguous teachings/actions from Jesus and his Apostles that required a serious Christian to love his enemies by non-retaliation, turning the other cheek, going an extra mile, giving enemies drink and food if they are thirty and hungry etc.

      3. There is the unambiguous teaching in the New Testament that Vengeance/Justice belongs to God and not to Christians.

      4. The above three points are further supplemented by the lack of unambiguous teaching from the Early Church Fathers/Writers that justifies any killing in warfare.

      5. In contrast, there are many text written by a diversity of Early Church Fathers/Writers that forbid Christians from killing of enemies, even in the context of warfare.

      The nett effect of the above is:
      the early church would believe that Christians should not take up jobs that involved killing people.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete

    31. Hi Tony & Jeremy,

      From the above comments, we have seen an argument used against Christian pacifism is along the line of: “In the New Testament, there is no mention of Jesus (or Peter etc) telling any military personnel to stop killing people, therefore Jesus would approve a Christian killing people in the context of his duties as a professional killer, such as in the military.”

      The following two paragraphs, written by a biblical scholar, expressed well an error with the above line of reasoning:

      “This line of reasoning is misguided, in my opinion. First, this is an argument from silence. One could use this line of reasoning to argue that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament were not opposed to a good many things we know they were in fact opposed to. For example, Jesus didn’t rebuke the Samaritan women who had been divorced five times and was presently living with a man who was not her husband (Jn 4:16-8). Does this mean that Jesus condoned divorce, remarriage, and co-habitation outside of wedlock? Nor did Jesus rebuke the tax collectors and prostitutes he regularly fellowshipped with (Lk 5:29-30; 15:1). Does this imply that the religious authorities were correct in surmising that Jesus had no objection to these occupational choices (Lk 7:34)? James even praised the faith of Rahab without saying a word about the sinfulness of her career as a prostitute (Ja 2:25). I doubt anyone would want to argue that this implies that James thought prostitution was compatible with the Christian faith?”

      “The truth is that we can only infer what a person believes by what they actually say, not by what they fail to say, and what Jesus and the New Testament authors UNIFORMLY say about violence is that it is forbidden for followers of Jesus. It is simply ILLEGITIMATE TO OVERTURN OR QUALIFY THIS CLEAR AND CONSISTENT TEACHING WITH AN ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE.”

      (emphasis mine)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    32. So what is ambiguous should be interpreted in the light of what is unambiguous.

      Or at least, what is ambiguous should not be used as an argument to water-down or modify what is unambiguous and unqualified.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    33. But this doesn't really answer my misgivings. It still seems to rely on Christ teaching pacifism as an immediate and universal moral. But the arguments you have given don't to me to really assuage my qualms. That the Christian has to rely on those who aren't Christian for basic social cohesion seems to me to smack of the very Gnosticism I was talking about. That seems to be hard to square with the idea of a full Christian social philosophy and with the idea of Christ as the maker and lord of all human nature.

      Delete
    34. Can't we actually take something from the fact Christ and ten Apostles don't demand pacifism explicitly. It is after all an uncommon belief. Surely if they did they would be explicit about it and not leave it to such guesses? They indeed talk of the role of the state, not only not enjoining pacifism, but, in at least Paul's case, its wielding the sword. Given that the idea of the Church as a parasite on unbelievers - as somehow relying on their protection, yet condemning the very basis of it - seems ridiculous, I just don't see how one can conclude that is likely what Christ taught.

      I think we should remember that the Church in the First Century was expecting the immediate return of Christ and in the later Second and Third Centuries was a persecuted minority. This no doubt is some explanation why the early Fathers were hesitant to endorse serving in the Roman army. When the Church was in a socially better position, this resistance died relatively quickly.

      Delete
    35. That should be twelve Apostles of course.

      Delete
    36. Hi Jeremy,

      You have asked a very good and important question in one of your earlier comments. You asked whether the pacifist system I described entails that the church has no message or moral philosophy for the world or the society on how it should function. It is now time to address that question.

      The church does not have a social ethic;
      the church IS THE SOCIAL ETHIC.

      What do I mean?

      The church, by living out Jesus’ value-system, DEMONSTRATES to the world what it means to live as God’s intended kind of society. Such a Jesus-modelled society would be both a FORETASTE of, and a POINTER to, the future kingdom of peace and love.

      In such a sense, the church does not have a social ethic but instead, THE CHURCH IS THE SOCIAL ETHIC.
      (if the church lives in faithfulness to Jesus’ teachings)

      The church, by living faithfully to Jesus’ value system, bears witness to the kind of social model possible for those that have been transformed by the story of Jesus.

      The message to the world lies in precisely by the church being the faithful church.

      That would bear witness to the Kingdom of Peace/Love. This bearing witness is not done simply in words, but more importantly, in actual faithful manifestation of the Kingdom of Peace/Love in the world through concretely showing how non-retaliation, loving the enemies, trusting God in matters of justice instead of take justice into their own hands.

      So the most important task of the church is to be the church by the faithful demonstration to the world this alternative model of a society, where the ethos is love, including love for our enemies. The church is truly a church when it, AS A SOCIAL ENTITY, demonstrates or manifests in real life the value system of Jesus.

      By being that kind of social entity or community we see that the church helps the world understand what it means to be the world as God’s good creation.  For the world has no way of really knowing such a world can exist, without the church pointing to the reality of God’s kingdom through the church’s CONCRETE manifestation of such a social system, where outsiders can observe that even the THREAT OF DEATH is not an obstacle to living out Jesus’ values (eg RATHER HAVE OUR WHOLE FAMILY/COMMUNITY BE KILLED BY OUR ENEMIES THAN FOR US TO KILL OUR ENEMIES VIA “JUST-WAR OR JUST-KILLING”).

      Again: RATHER HAVE OUR WHOLE FAMILY/COMMUNITY BE KILLED BY OUR ENEMIES THAN FOR US TO KILL OUR ENEMIES VIA “JUST-WAR OR JUST-KILLING”.

      When the church is concretely living this way, the church IS THE SOCIAL ETHIC.

      (to continue)


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    37. Hi Jeremy,

      (continue from above)

      Let me end the above comment by borrowing and modifying the words of one great contemporary theologian cum Christian ethicist within the tradition of virtue-ethics:

      “For the church to be the church, therefore, is not anti-world, but rather an attempt to show what the world is meant to be as God’s good creation.”

      “Therefore calling for the church to be the church is not a self-righteous attempt to flee from the world’s problems; rather it is a call for the church to be a community which tries to develop the resources to stand within the world actively witnessing to the peaceable kingdom through how it lives and deals IN A DIFFERENT WAY with evil and sufferings. The gospel is a political gospel.  Christians are engaged in politics, but it is a politics of the kingdom that reveals the insufficiency of all politics based on coercion and falsehood and finds the true source of power in servanthood rather than dominion…The church therefore is a polity like any other, but it is also unlike any other insofar as it is formed by a people who are able to exist in the world without resorting to coercion.”

      “The church must learn time and time again that its task is first and foremost not to make the world the kingdom, but to be faithful to the kingdom by showing to the world what it means to be a community of peace/love.  Thus we are required to be patient and never lose hope. God did not send Jesus here 2000 years ago to rule creation through coercion, but through a cross.  As Christians, therefore, we seek not so much to “be effective base on worldly wisdom” but to be faithful witness through living out our social model – we, thus, cannot do that which promises ‘results’ when using the means of retaliation, violence or killing.”


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete


    38. Hi Jeremy,

      Now on to your next great question.

      Once you understood the rationale in the above comment, then you can better understand the following reply to you next implied question which was along the line of:
      “Are Christian pacifists relying on others to do the dirty work of killing and using violence/retaliation against wicked people and thus reap the benefit of safety and security from such dirty works of other? Are Christian pacifists freeloaders?”

      A rational Christian pacifist’s reply would be:

      No, Christian pacifists are not expecting others to provide safety and protection by them doing the works of killing and retaliating against wicked people.

      Christian pacifists wish others would not do such “dirty works” but instead would wish others (individuals and societies) embrace Jesus and his teachings to practise non-retaliation and love towards even towards enemies. Christian pacifists would be prepared and prefer to be harmed or killed by wicked people rather than having non-Christians to retaliate and kill wicked people.

      Any security or safety that Christian pacifists HAPPENED to benefit from is incidental, from how the non-Christian institutions happened to organise and conduct themselves in a way that is not Christlike. Retaliation and vengeance by humans directed at other humans is unChristlike.

      What Christian pacifists rely on is God, not other institutions, for their security and safety. And they see that true security and safety ultimately is not about temporal security in this world, but eternal safety in the hands of God. So they would choose faithfulness over compromise, and hence if they encounter a situation such that the only way to get temporal safety for their families is to kill wicked people, they would rather die than to kill wicked people. This is BEARING WITNESS to the alternative social model build upon Jesus’ instructions and his real life example on the cross (which included loving the enemies and non-retaliation).

      The church is doing the greatest service to the wider world not conforming to the worldly wisdom of retaliation and vengeance/justice, but by being the faithful church exemplifying Jesus’ radical teachings, for that points the world CONCRETELY to the radical but true way that leads to true life from an eternal kingdom perspective.

      Only then the church is the light of the world.

      This is not cowardness but courage.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui


      Delete
    39. But now you just seem to be admitting that pacifism will likely have these consequences, but are now embracing them as showing the commitment to Christ's message. I simply don't see how it could be Christ's message, though, so it is begging the question to assume it is. Saying Christians are to live a social ethic seems to me to largely just be playing with words. Of course that's true. But the point is whether that ethic to be lived is an immediate and universal pacifism. I deny that. It so unworkable that it cannot be Christ's message if we imagine that Christ was teaching an ethic for all men and for a fully Christian society. Again your position seems to be Christians should accept a position that is so radically at odds with social cohesion that it would bring society crashing down nearly immediately if applied on a society wide scale. So we seem to be back to a complete (Gnostic-esque) separation between the Church and the world.

      That it is Christ-like to always - and emphasis on that - refrain from force is what we are disputing. Christ himself did not. Both Testaments seem to show God ordaining and supporting human governance. No where is it expressly said that all government force is wrong. What we have to do is interpret Jesus' teaching on turning the other cheek, etc., in line with the Scripture as a whole and what is consistent with our understanding of God and his relationship to man and the world. A Gnostic-like position that would condemn any Christian society to immediate anarchy and dissolution, doesn't seem the way to that to me, which is likely why the Church has never taught this.

      Delete
    40. Hi Jeremy,

      I interpret you to have these two objections:
      1. A society living out non-retaliation and love towards enemies would necessarily collapse.
      2. Jesus’ teaching on non-retaliation and love towards enemies is not meant for immediate or uniform application.

      1. You should not assume that a Christian society would necessarily collapse if it lives out the ethics of “non-retaliation and loving the enemies”. The early churches had lived out that ethics in precisely that way, and they did not collapse in the first 300 years despite the fierce persecutions during that period. Those social groups survived as social groups despite living out that ethics. We must also not forget that God exists and is souvereign over this world and it would not be a surprise if God ensures the survival of at least a remnant who lives faithfully in a pacifist manner, if indeed Jesus’ teaching is supposed to be applied in that manner.

      2. The first two generations of the early church had direct consultations with the Apostles and the direct disciples of the Apostles, on various practical and theological issues. This would be the oral apostolic traditions which would include issues not fully elaborated, or addressed, in the written letters of the Apostles. The early Christians would check with the Apostles or at least the people whom had direct contact with and received first hand teachings from the Apostles, to ask about the correct ethics on some practical issues. These teachings were passed down orally from one generation to the next. Such a practice of CONSULTATION is mentioned in a document written by Irenaeus around AD185:

      “Suppose there arose a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches, with which the apostles held constant interaction and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” - Irenaeus.

      Since a diversity of Early Church Fathers/Writers, from around AD100 to AD300, unambiguously wrote in a large amount of text, that a Christian is forbidden to kill, even he serves as a soldier in the Roman army, that should be most likely how the Apostles and their direct disciples would have applied the teaching of non-retaliation and loving enemies.

      This is especially significant when there exists no text in that first 300 years that sang a different tune on this issue.

      There exists no text, among the large amount of extant text, that justified any Christian to kill in any situation, even in the context of a Christian soldier during war.

      If the different leaders/writers in different churches in different locations had instead left to themselves to work out what Jesus’ non-retaliation and love towards enemies mean in the context of a Christian serving as a soldier, then chances is we would have different answers, with one church leader saying that a Christian can kill in the context of fighting as a soldier, while another church leader from another location saying otherwise. But this was not the case!

      The answer from all these different writers from different geographical locations is uniform: a Christian is not to kill in any situation, even if he serves as a soldier in the Roman army.

      So we have a strong and uniform oral apostolic tradition that understood Jesus’ non-retaliation and loving enemies IS TO BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AND TO CHRISTIANS IN ALL CONTEXT.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    41. Hi Jeremy,

      In the Apistoe Paul’s letter to the Christians in Rome, he mentioned:

      “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse...Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. ‘But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
      (inside Romans chapter 12)

      The diversity of leaders/writers between AD100 to AD300 understood the above to be immediately and uniformly applicable to all Christians in all context.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    42. My objections aren't summed up by those points. They are essentially the same as Greg's below. That society will collapse is important not UST for itself, but because I take it Christ would not teach an ethic that was so at odds with our social, material natures and put the Church entirely at odds with the world.

      On your first response, it seems to be clearly fallacious. When I said society, I meant the whole society - in the context of the early Church that was the Roman empire. You are now referring to the early Christians as a society in themselves. Obviously the use here of society is analogous, but not identical.

      As for the second response, I simply reject it. I don't think there is any direct evidence that the early Church or Apostles or Christ outright condemned the Roman state or the right of the state to enforce order through force. They were persecuted by the Romans, so might not wish Christians to be part of it, but we need an extra step to show that they advocated an immediate and universal pacifism. We don't have evidence for that. If they believed this, why didn't they say it directly? Why did they beat around the bush so much?

      Delete
    43. Reasonable,
      "the early churches had lived out that ethics in precisely that way, and they did not collapse in the first 300 years despite the fierce persecutions during that period"
      There was no such thing as Islam in that period, nor the modern weapons of war.

      Many men have sought to rule the world. They were stopped by force of arms, not by pacifism.

      Pacifism only works when the ruling power has a base of decency. That is why Gandhi and Martin Luther King were successful in their pacifist tactics, because at base the British and American public have empathy for the suffering of others.

      Alexander, Romans, Mongols, Muhammad, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler...pacifism gets you killed with those sorts of people because sociopaths do not have empathy.

      The stated goal of Isis was to take over the world and convert the whole planet to Islam by the traditional method, submit or be killed. It seemed ridiculous that such a small and weak group would seek global conquest but they had a set of holy books directing them to do just that.

      I am sure you are aware of World War Two. If the Axis had not been stopped by force of arms they would have literally taken over the world.

      Yes, the message of Jesus was peace and love, so they killed him too.

      Sociopaths just are not like you and the majority of Christians, they are not motivated by peace, love, or empathy. They are profoundly selfish, greedy, egotistical, callous, and destructive.

      Sorry johannes, you seem to have a good heart, but history has shown that in a world with powerful dictators peace through strength is the only way to live in peace and freedom.

      Delete
    44. You would know all about sociopaths.

      Go away.

      Delete
    45. I cannot read this entire glut of argumentation from Johannes. Too much. Let me just note two things that show me this is not an argument worth pursuing: First, Johannes put words in my mouth:

      “according to the Roman Catholic Church, God would prevent Roman Catholic Church from any error in its teaching”

      I didn't say that, I don't think it, and it's not what the Catholic Church teaches. If you are going to put actual quote marks around such words, you have an obligation to get them right. Secondly, it is clearly erroneous to claim that the entire record from the early Fathers censures the use of force. Lanctantius himself (cited by Johannes) actually approves the use of force by the authorities (see Treatise on the Anger of God, 17), and pretending that there is no ambiguity in the treatment by the early Church is just exactly what I pointed out was wrong about the pacifist treatment of the NT.

      Jeremy, did you notice that he went from

      I am not advocating pacifism, but simply laying out some thoughts of how Christian pacifists may respond

      to vociferously and at very great length advocating pacifism.

      Delete
    46. May I also point out that, at least by the late 2nd C, there undoubtedly were Christians serving in the legions.

      This is outside my main interest, but I do know a few points:

      1. Until the 19th C, the kind of uniform military organization and practice was unknown. Sure the Romans had a very sophisticated army organization. They also had a degree of control by army commanders that is unthinkable today. Until the telegraph, everyone did.

      There is no reason to believe that EVERY legionary would have to participate in exactly the normal rites that other legions demanded.

      2. Added to that, Rome employed growing numbers of auxilia - not strictly legions. Again, the way these were handled was dependent on local conditions.
      ________

      I will also point out that, to argue that there were no such Christians in the Roman army at earlier times would be to use the very argument from silence which was above derided. (Actually, arguments from silence are not per se to be dismissed out of hand. The situation is analogous to what Ed says about the fallacy of composition. Sometimes it works.)

      Delete
    47. Tony,

      Yes, I noticed that. I'd be interested in hearing how Johannes himself avoids affirming pacifism, if the case from the early Church is as strong as he claims.

      Delete
    48. Hi Tony and Jeremy,

      Just say this first as a “just in case”, to reduce the risk of the discussion going down to hill to involve personal attacks of motives etc:

      So far all that I have said is to defend Christian pacifism from what I viewed as attacks base on an insufficient appreciation of the force of Christian pacifism’s reasonings. I am still not advocating Christian Pacifism because I am not claiming that only Christian Pacifism is correct and ought to be adopted by all Christians; I am not claiming all other positions are wrong. I do that for other matters too. For example, while I do not believe in Buddhism, I defend Buddhism when Christians “attack” Buddhism base on a misconception or caricature or lack of sufficient understanding of the force of Buddhism.

      Let us focus on the reasonings themselves without pulling in the interlocutors’ personal circumstances.

      I am not advocating Christian pacifism but drawing out its reasonings to defend against attacks that seems to lack sufficient understanding of its depths.

      I will find time to respond to the various points raised in these past few days.

      But meanwhile I just respond to one point first raised by Tony about Lanctantius.

      First, do remember what I have been saying was (I quote myself from one of my above comments):

      “The diversity of leaders/writers between AD100 to AD300 understood the above to be immediately and uniformly applicable to all Christians in all context.”

      The period AD100 to AD300 is important. The Lanctantius before AD312 did not permit Christian soldiers to kill. Only some time after AD312, when he was engaged to become a tutor of Enperor Constantine’s son, then do we see him producing writings that contradicted the pre-AD300 Lanctantius.

      It is thus true that “The diversity of leaders/writers between AD100 to AD300 understood the above to be immediately and uniformly applicable to all Christians in all context.”

      Let me quote from a Roman Catholic academic on this:

      “Historians concur that from the time of Jesus until the reign of Constantine in 313 AD, THE EARLY CHURCH WAS PACIFIST. There is some evidence, from roughly 180 AD onward, of sporadic Christian participation in military professions, BUT UNTIL 300 AD CHRISTIAN BISHOPS, THEOLOGIANS, AND WRITERS WERE UNITED IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF VIOLENCE, KILLING, AND MILITARY SERVICE.” (emphasis mine)
      - Lysaught, M. Therese. Christian Traditions of Peace: Just War and Pacifism. Catechist Magazine, : 50-54, 2003.
      (Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, Institute of Pastoral Studies: Faculty Publications and Other Works.)

      I will find time to address other points in other days.

      Cheers!
      johannes hui



      Delete
    49. Hi George,

      Your arguments are addressing a straw-man. I did not reasoned that way.

      For example, you said “I will also point out that, to argue that there were no such Christians in the Roman army at earlier times would be to use the very argument from silence which was above derided.”

      I did not make such a claim. Please quote me if u think I made such a claim.

      You also said: “Actually, arguments from silence are not per se to be dismissed out of hand. The situation is analogous to what Ed says about the fallacy of composition. Sometimes it works.”

      I did not simply dismisssed it out of hand. I provided reasons why such silence is inadmissible as evidence within the context of what we were discussing. For example, I used the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Tradition which said that after conversion, Cornelius resigned from the military and followed/accompanied Peter to preach the Gospel to show what seemed to have happened in “the silence of Acts of the Apostle” about whether or not Cornelius was taught that his military job is inconsistent with being a follower of Jesus. His resignation might be precisely because of him being taught about Jesus’ ethics on loving enemies as being inconsistent with killing of enemies. So this silence is equally consistent with either position (be it pacifism or justifiable killing). So that was why I urged that we should not build a position from such ambiguous silence when there exists many other unambiguous teachings from a diversity of writers/leaders of the Early Church (AD100 to AD300) that taught the non-killing of enemies in any circumstances.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
  3. Pacifists have in their advantage

    (a) the apparent non-violent teachings of Jesus (“do not resist the evil person but turn the other cheek” etc) combined with other parts of the New Testament advocating the idea that “vengeance belongs to God and so do not revenge but leave it to God”,

    and

    (b) almost all of the early church’s (before AD313) extant writings discouraged Christians joining military vocations that involved killing other human beings and one reason they provided was that such killing contradicts Jesus’ teaching.

    So from a pacifist’s perspective, it is not about “what works” or “what is practical” in terms of the consequences within this temporary short-term world, but about trusting in Jesus and the earliest Christians (ie faithfulness in accordance to their understanding/interpretation of the relevant teachings), and trusting that God in the end/eschaton will bring about Justice to right all wrongs and destroy all evil in the long-term (ie in the world to come after the general resurrection).

    So if the criteria to evaluate Pacifism is “what works” and “undesirable consequences of Pacifism” (such as the possible consequence of evil people taking over the world if all good people are pacifists), then pacifism would be what really works from an eternal or long-term perspective, even if meanwhile evil beings would inflict sufferings and death on all the innocent or good people in this short-term temporary world.

    I am not advocating pacifism, but simply laying out some thoughts. Does anyone have any thought to share on this?


    Cheers!
    johannes hui

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the standard reply to this line of thought is that it is well and good to turn the other cheek when it is your own cheek you are turning, and not so good when you are trying to organize a society in which people are kept safe. This line of thought would also tell against, for instance, having any institution of police. It is not obvious to me that anything Jesus said requires us to leave our neighbors at the mercy of criminals.

      Part of the thing about early Christian authors and the New Testament is that it is as though they don't even envision that their readers will ever be in political power. There are obvious reasons for that, namely that their readers did not have much political power, and those who did were generally giving it up in becoming Christians. So there is a big theoretical question about what Christians should do when they get power. People often write as though it is obvious what the political consequences of the Gospel should be, but I think that's just hot air. That's certainly not to say that the Gospels are irrelevant for answering that question, but it's simply not obvious.

      There are also more proof-texty things to say but I'll leave it at that.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Greg for your sharing.

      Regarding your first paragraph:

      1a) A Christian pacifist can say that Jesus’ teaching is meant for individuals who want to deny themselves and follow him to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God; it is not meant for people and institutions that follows worldly wisdom. Just as the Apostle Paul said in his letters to the Roman Christians, these worldly institutions would be used by God as a means to execute part of God’s justice on evildoers. (analogy: Judas Iscariot’s sinful act of betrayal was used by God to execute the greater plan of God; there will always be worldly people and worldly institutions around for God to use to execute God’s justice before the time of the General Resurrection.)

      1b) A Pacifist does not “leave neighbours at the mercy of criminals”. A pacifist steps in between his neighbours and the criminals to defend his neighbour not by killing/harming the criminals with gun or whatever lethal weapon, but through various other means, including instant prayer for both the criminals’ well-being and the neighbours’ temporal/physical safety, and stand ready to offer himself as a sacrifice, witnessing powerfully (and faithfully) in words and action to the Gospel-values and Gospel-perspective proclaimed by his Lord. This is loving enemies and loving neighbours in PRACTICAL TERMS.

      1c) Such pacifistic actions do not guarantee immediate success and in the end both the pacifist and his neighbours could end up being killed by the criminals. But the goal is not success from a myopic short-term view from worldly-wisdom perspective, but success from a long-term eternal perspective.

      1d) Even if the pacifist’s refusal to kill/harm the criminals resulted in the failure of his attempt to save the neighbours from physical death, it does not mean the pacifist’s action is unwise or unloving, just as God’s “non-intervention” to answer the prayer to prevent the criminals from killing the neighbours does not mean God’s “non-intervention” is unwise or unloving.


      Regarding your second paragraph:

      The pacifist can say that the early Christians, in being consistent with their insistence on faithfulness to Jesus’ non-violent teachings, would likely tell Christians who have acquired political power to use that power in a way that would not involve killing/harming people physically, and if that is not possible, then the Christian should abandon that political power. The pacifist can add: “As Jesus warned, discipleship comes with great cost and self-denial, and that few would walk on his narrow way that leads to life, while many will walk on the broad and easy way which ends in destruction.”


      Regarding your third paragraph:

      To interpret the Christian pacifist charitably: the pacifist is not using proof-texting in his argument. It is after using a historical-critical exegetical approach then the Christian pacifist says that Jesus taught non-violence, and other parts of the New Testament taught that vengeance (the Greek word apparently does not refer to the narrow meaning of revenge but a broader meaning of achieving justice from an unjust situation suffered by others or self) belongs to God and not us Christians.


      Cheers!
      johannes hui

      Delete
    3. A Christian pacifist can say that Jesus’ teaching is meant for individuals who want to deny themselves and follow him to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God; it is not meant for people and institutions that follows worldly wisdom.

      I think this divide is contrary to the Gospel. Those who follow worldly wisdom are precisely whom Jesus is calling to a higher wisdom. He is not proposing his way as an optional ideal for those who (in your word) "want" to take it up. It's for everyone. And if a just, loving Christian community is possible, it should not (as someone else noted above in reply to you) free ride on a pagan civilization's performing the tasks it finds reprehensible. Such a policy is dishonest and moralistic.

      I have no reply for the suggestion that Christians could adequately protect their neighbors through prayer and other forms of witness. I just think that this is a form of idealism that is actually falsified by much of human experience. God arranges matters so that all things work for the good, but however one is to understand that, it can't be understood as encouraging a form of stoicism wherein one is indifferent to worldly affairs. Christians are supposed to sanctify the world. They are not supposed to abscond from it.

      In reference to your repeated claims in another discussion about what is ambiguous, what unambiguous, in the Gospels, I don't think Jesus unambiguously condemns soldiery, nor is it obvious that "turn the other cheek" or "do not act from vengeance" are even prima facie in conflict with a policeman's duty.

      Delete
  4. I do wonder whether the recent agreement is just a rehash of Vietnam 1973. The US signs a treaty with the "bad guys", withdraws its troops. The "bad guys" then soon afterwards break the treaty, and win a complete victory in a couple of years. The only difference seems to be that in 1973 it was a few months before the North Vietnamese launched their offensive, while today it seems to have just been a few days.

    Just makes me wonder what the whole point of this adventure was. (Which possibly was Ed's point).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've always had some questions about Anscombe's position.

    1. She seems, in citing the DP as valid only for murder, to rule out treason and desertion. Have I missed something?

    2. Though early on she seems to think otherwise, there is, later, an emphasis on nuclear weapons as somehow inherently worse than conventional ones. That is, not just potentially more harmful, likely as that no doubt is. I have never seen how Hiroshima was worse than Dresden or Tokyo, just because the weapon was new and shocking. Also, in fact there are purely military uses, albeit ones not actually employed. But dropping one on an enemy armor division, or a task force, would seem no worse, per se, than any other way of destroying it.

    3. I am surprised that she seems unaware that population bombing was a standard goal of a bomber force, going back to WWI. It was expected to be far more decisive than it was. The Brits were surprised that the Germans didn't in fact devastate London. Part of the problem was that everyone overrated the panic in London in WWI bombing raids. Had they bothered to look at Paris, they'd have seen a more measured reaction. But after all, Paris had been previously bombarded (by artillery, in 1871) in the memory of many still alive. Londoners were unusual in their believe that it couldn't happen to them.

    4. I rarely see mentioned that there was a 3rd option to bring Japan down. We could have blockaded them into a state of total starvation. We had already achieved that to a large degree, and had the wherewithal to extend it completely. Of course, this assumes a policy of unconditional surrender. But that was in the cards. It's fair enough to criticize it (and I'd agree) but I don't see how, as a matter of fact, it was to be avoided. We'd reached the end of a process going back to the Napoleonic Wars, and exacerbated by the failure to do so in 1918. Leaders were convinced that last had led to WWII, a view express at the time of Versailles.

    Admittedly, only ##1 and 2 are actually philosophical, strictly speaking. But I've never been convinced you can deal rationally with moral questions in isolation from the accepted mores of a society. Yes, by all means condemn those evil practices they embrace (all societies do that; the errors just crop up in different places.) But it's unrealistic to think you can actually sweep the board clean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not seen any relatively reasonable theory arguing that DP is morally licit only for murder. Not one that takes into account the wide range of goods and evils and our limitations on punishing well.

      Quite right on the moral licitness of using atom bombs on a task force at sea. It's just a case of a more effective weapon.

      As for blockading Japan: one reason we didn't want to is that we were nearly desperate to end the war before Russia got actually involved. We didn't want Russia to get its sticky fingers into the East the way it did in Eastern Europe. That doesn't prove that ending the war quickly was morally obligatory, but given the 2 generations that suffered under Soviet rule elsewhere, in hindsight it was a valid concern. Personally, I would like to see an intelligent moral analysis of siege / blockade warfare, what I have seen so far is pretty puerile.

      Delete
    2. Interestingly, I remember reading somewhere that it was the Soviet threat that actually figured more strongly in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. At least, that is what was discussed more in the Imperial Council prior to the surrender decision. The fear was that the Soviets would overthrow the emperor.

      Delete
    3. Personally, I would like to see an intelligent moral analysis of siege / blockade warfare, what I have seen so far is pretty puerile.

      I have seen blockade attacked on moral grounds. The Germans did so in WWI (and after). Oddly, I have never seen these people discuss sieges along with that.

      We won't find blockade discussed in the Middle Ages, as the technology simply wasn't there until the 18th C. But sieges have been going on forever. I don't recall St Thomas - or anyone else - discussing it.

      Delete
    4. What is the difference between killing the innocent with a bomb and killing them slowly through starvation? It seems to me that a blockade strategy that starves people to death indiscriminately is no better than exploding them with a nuclear weapon.

      Delete
  6. Reminds me when people say that the war on drugs has failed. What are the conditions for victory or failure? If victory can only be declared when zero people illegally take drugs, then yes, that war will probably fail!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The aim of the war in Iraq was probably more just the elimination of a strong state there, plus the encouragement of Sunni extremism (for some reason this seems to be what comes with American foreign policy initiative these days). So it's probably a "victory", though it doesn't feel like it as nobody in Iraq wants to see the United States Army there now. The mess they've left behind is nothing to be proud of.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now, what I want to suggest is that there is an analogous error in too much modern American thinking about matters of war. The idea seems to be that war is such an obscenity that only a grandiose end can justify it. On this view, merely repelling an aggressor or deterring his future evildoing is not good enough. The endgame must always involve tyrants being overthrown, oppression banished, happy voters standing in queue, children dancing in the streets, etc. Hence, when we see that some particular war is indeed necessary, the tendency is to try to turn it into a World War II style liberation and reconstruction.

    C. S. Lewis said something similar in (I think) his Reflections on the Psalms. The old-school patriotic warrior may have believed that his country's cause was just, but it was still his country's cause that he was fighting for, not the cause of justice per se. Now, however, every war is portrayed as some kind of great cosmic struggle of good against evil, making compromise impossible and any outcome other than total victory unacceptable.

    -- The original Mr. X

    ReplyDelete
  9. One thing I noticed when we got involved in Afghanistan is that no one mentioned the Second Afghan War. The First, yes, but not the Second.

    I suspect the reason is that the British won, and did so largely because their "victory conditions" amounted to getting rid of Sher Ali. (That and the fact that Frederick Roberts may be the most underrated general ever.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, dropping the bomb on Japan and indiscriminately killing civilians is morally wrong, but drafting young males and sending them into an invasion of the island to be tank fodder is morally acceptable? Why? (I'm asking a question, I'm not arguing a conclusion)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thoughts on my own question: Perhaps military personnel are morally acceptable targets because they have training for military conflict. This is certainly true in past centuries when, if you wished to defeat an opponent, you had to find the kahunas to meet him face to face and try to beat him with a club. But in modern warfare with technologically advanced weapons, specialized training seems to matter little when soldiers can be killed with little chance of fighting back.

      Delete
    2. Actually, in modern warfare training matters every bit as much as ever. For Japan - of which we have been speaking - the inability to replace the highly trained pilots, sailors, and soldiers, was as big a problem as the shortage of oil.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I agree, but I'm just saying that as technology increases, "training" as a moral justification for only targeting combatants seems to decrease. If you have a nuclear bomb dropped on you, it doesn't matter if you're special ops superstar or an invalid. Given that, what is the reasoning behind the teaching that it is immoral to indiscriminately target non-combatants, but morally acceptable to target combatants? Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just asking.

      Delete
    4. @TN
      It is always evil to kill the innocent, including the paradigmatically innocent infants "aborted by bomb" as some have come to say.
      The definition of combatants is certainly important in conducting war, but first establishing that murdering children is never morally acceptable is more important.
      I don't see training as any necessary condition, because the man rushing me with a knife could be a navy seal or an incompetent rube, I can still defend myself. I also wouldn't necessarily be against treating as combatants those materially supporting the enemy military in a munitions factory, for example, as a combatant.

      Delete
    5. Michael,
      "It is always evil to kill the innocent"
      "murdering children is never morally acceptable"
      Then god is evil.

      God murdered humanity in the flood.
      God murdered in Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, and across Israel.

      God, by your words, did what is never morally acceptable, yet you call him god. What does that say about you?

      Delete
    6. @ Michael Humphreys

      Murdering anybody not guilty of a capital crime is never morally acceptable whether born or unborn. I still don't see why,under the stipulations I gave above, it is unacceptable to indiscriminately kill civilians, but acceptable to draft people and then kill them.

      Delete
    7. @TN
      I'm still not sure where you are finding a sort of moral equivalence between killing the innocent and sending men into battle that causes you to pose the question in such a way.
      If I understand your stipulation it seems to me that choosing to invade when there is a certainty of failure and the death of all your soldiers with no chance of advancement is not morally acceptable. It is also not clear that that was the case for a land invasion of Japan.

      Delete
    8. @ Michael Humphreys

      Bottom line: why is it immoral to kill civilians, but not immoral to draft 18 year olds and kill them?

      Delete
  11. A big thanks to Dr Oselumen i never believe that there still exist a real death spell caster after all this years of disappointment from the enormous spammers on the Internet who go about scamming people, until i was opportune to meet Dr Oselumen a real spell caster, through a close friend called Jennifer who Dr oselumen had helped before, when i contacted him with his email via droselumen@gmail.com i explain how my ex have been giving me problem in my marriage, she never allowed me a moment of peace, and i need to end it by killing her, and i don't want to make use of assassin because it will be risky so i needed to do it in a spiritual way that's why i decided to contact him, he assured me not to worry as i have contacted the right person at the right time, i co-operated with him and in less than a week my ex was dead, she slept and never woke up all thanks to Dr Oselumen indeed he's really a humble man. you can contact dr oselumen for any death spell, such as to kill your superior in the office and take his or her place, death spell to kill your father and inherit his wealth ,death spell to kill anyone who have scammed you in the past ,spell for increase in salaries, spell for promotion at the office, spell to get your ex lover back, if things is not working well in your life then you need to contact him now via Email droselumen@gmail.com call or add him on whatsapp +2348054265852.

    ReplyDelete