“A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace” (Eccl. 3:8).
“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force” (Matthew 11:12, ESV).
Bonhoeffer was acutely aware of the theology that had been shaped by the church for almost 2,000 years. Much scholarship had been conducted to chronicle the martyrdom of saints.
What has not been widely chronicled is the force exacted by the early church to protect itself. None other than the most august of early theologians than Augustine himself formulated a theology of Just War. It was further developed by the pre-eminent Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas. Two seminal works in the 17th century spilled out from England across the European continent that challenged the divine right of kings and put them on notice that state authority only extended to what was sanctioned by God in His Word – George Buchannen’s De Jure Apud Scotos, and Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex (Buchanan, 1689; Rutherford, 1644). Any exercise of rulership beyond that sanctioned by the Bible was rebellion against God and tyranny. In addition, the winds of democracy were blowing across the continent, sweeping aside the notions that monarchs and oligarchs had unrestrained power to do what they want.
Bonhoeffer was acutely aware that Just War theology had been an ethical standard for warfare for almost two-thousand years. Not only had it been subscribed to by Catholics, but framed by protestants as well. The Westminster Confession of Faith, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Francois Turrettini would have already been codified and widely known (Assembly, 1981/1855, 23:2, WLC Q. 136; Calvin, 1970, Bk. 4, Sec. 11-12; Luther, 2002/1528; Turrettini, 1992/1685, Top. 11, Q. 17). Since that time, this has further been re-framed by top Reformed and Evangelical theologians (Dabney, 1972, Lect. 33, Q7; Hodge, 2014, Pt. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 10; Murray, 1957, pp. 178-179).
Yet before sabre rattlers clank their swords, consider that Augustine lived through the ransacking of Rome by the Visigoths about fifteen years prior to completing The City of God where they pillaged, burned, and stole everything of value in Rome. He was acutely aware of the carnage of war and yet still lamented that a callous view of war was itself unjust and could not predicate starting one. He wrote, “For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be a matter of grief to man because it is man’s wrong-doing. Let everyone, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling” (Augustine, 1985, Ch. 7, para. last).
In effect, the Just War theory holds to eight propositions. This foundation has been developed over centuries. To be a Just War, Augustine states, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly” (Augustine, 419, p. 550). The summation of the theory is as follows:
The cause and intention of a war must be just. The Westminster divines in the Large Catechism wrote that taking lives of others was a violation of the 6th commandment except in instances of “public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense” (WLC, Q. 136). Charles Hodge asserted, “It is conceded that wars undertaken to gratify the ambition, cupidity, or resentment of rulers or people, are unchristian and wicked. It is also conceded that the vast majority of the wars which have desolated the world have been unjustifiable in the sight of God and man. Nevertheless it does not follow from this that war in all cases is to be condemned” (Hodge, 2014, Bk. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 10 ). He then goes on to list those exceptions that would warrant a just war. Augustine wrote, “The desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, the lust for dominating, and similar things – these are what are justly blamed in wars” (Augustine, 400, Ch. 74). Aquinas wrote, “… it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk II, Sec. 2, Q. 40, A. 1).
The war must have limited objectives that are just in the eyes of God. This includes protecting the innocent who are threatened or restoring order in the society. Wars of conquest or wars to “spread democracy” are thus unjust (Augustine, 1985, Ch. 10)
There must be a right to intervene with violence. “In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary… a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk II, Sec. 2, Q. 40, A. 1).
There must be a declaration of war by lawful authorities. Aquinas wrote, “…it makes a great difference by which causes and under which authorities men undertake the wars that must be waged. The natural order, which is suited to the peace of mortal things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader, and also that, in the executing of military commands, soldiers serve peace and the common well-being. In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged …” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk II, Sec. 2, Q. 40, A. 1).
War is the last resort. Even if a nation has a just cause and a right to intervene, it must not engage in warfare unless it is the last resort. An appeal must first be made to right before recourse is made to might.
A war is just only if it is entered into with a probability of success. Not all just causes can be successfully prosecuted. It is unjust to ask for vain sacrifice.
A just war is one where the cost that is to be incurred is not thought to be a greater evil than that which is to be remedied.
The means of a just war must be both discriminative and proportional. A just war is one which carefully distinguishes civilians from combatants. The violence used must only be sufficient to restore the peace that has been destroyed by the aggressor. Aquinas wrote, “Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists … it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk. II, Sec. 2, Q. 31, A. 3).
Consider the aggressors themselves. Like Bonhoeffer, it seems like an easy decision to kill Hitler in his mania. Pull the trigger now and ask for forgiveness later, if warranted.
However, what about situations that are not so clear? What if the assailant believes like today’s cultural Marxists, that logic and reason is a part of the Western patriarchy and should be rejected? What if they have been duped into this sinister faith through socialization. If so, isn’t trying to reason with them a fool’s errand – casting pearls before swine? Would it be God’s will, if effective, to treat them as a parent would a petulant child? What if by exerting force you were keeping them from a greater judgment and protecting those who would inevitably be harmed by them?
What if they are socio-paths? What if they have a mental injury to their frontal cortex as to turn them from a mild-mannered person to a raging and dangerous person? Is it not right and just to exert force to inhibit them from acting out nefarious intents? Wouldn’t it be similar to tying down a heroin addict while he is going through withdrawals?
20th century Christian apologetics has used logic as its stock-and-trade. Those methods were forged in a modernistic world, but it effectiveness increasingly diminishes as postmodernism becomes more prominent.
Clearly, it has little to no effect on those aligned with cultural Marxism. The pagans burning down cities, shouting down patrons, accosting the elderly on the streets, and shooting police officers are not going to engage in an intellectual thrust and parry.
Yet, because of the Inquisitions and other abuses by the church, protestants in particular are very averse to anything that smatters of ecclesiastical power. If history has taught us anything, church and state relations are fraught with dangers. As such, there has not developed a theology, much less an apologetic method, for the use of force.
A well-worn axiom of evangelicalism is, “You cannot force anyone to believe.” One only needs to look at the conversions under Constantine to see that those kinds of conversions do not end well.
At the same time, the Bible conveys that the church’s power is distinct and separate from that of the state. It is more powerful than all of the weaponry of the modern state. It exercises the power of God, within the confines of that authorized by Jesus Christ, through the agency of the Holy Spirit.
When this is framed in this manner, it is natural for Christians to revert into a pietist mode, where all of this is occurring in human affections and beliefs. By our constant socialization of “separation of church and state” to mean that religion is separate from the marketplace of ideas, secular pursuits, and civil government, we hermetically seal it from our rightful place as ambassadors for Christ.
When Paul, in II Corinthians 5:20, was calling us to serve as his ambassadors, he was not referring to a 21st century idea of ambassadorship. During his day, the legati were Roman ambassadors sent into a foreign land after they had been conquered. It was their job to declare the terms of conquest and secure obedience to Rome.
In effect, he is commissioning us as ambassadors of His kingdom, which has conquered the rulers of this world. Our message is clear, “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (II Cor. 5:20). He is King of kings, Lord of lords – here are the terms of His conquest.
The Bible also spells out that earthly powers are given to reward the good and punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). As such, it loses its legitimacy in exercising power once it transgresses those restraints. It is now in opposition to God’s will as opposed to being obedient to it. On the other hand, their appointment is by God otherwise they would not have that authority in the first place. So we should honor them as they are doing their legitimately appointed duties. Resistance to that authority should not be done for light or transient reasons.
Sources
Alinsky, S. D. (1989). Rules for radicals: A practical primer for realistic radicals. Vintage.
Aquinas, T. (2012). Summa theologica. Authentic Media Inc.
Assembly, W. (1981/1855). The Westminster confession of faith. Free Presbyterian Publications.
Augustine. (400). Contra Faustum (Vol. XXII). New Advent.
Augustine. (1985). The city of God: On Christian doctrine. Franklin Library.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.
Bauer, W., Arndt, W. F., & Gingrich, F. W. (1957). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. University of Chicago Press.
Buchanan, G. (1689). De jure regni apud Scotos. Or, A dialogue, concerning the due priviledge of government in the kingdom of Scotland. Printed for R. Baldwin.
Calvin, J. (1970). Institutes of the Christian religion (F. L. Battles, Trans.). The Westminster Press.
Cochrane, A. C. (1962). The church’s confession under Hitler. Westminster Press.
Dabney, R. L. (1972). Lectures in systematic theology. Zondervan.
Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). John Hopkins University Press.
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Epistemology and postmodern resistance. Knowledge in a social world, 3-40.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper.
Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve.
Hodge, C. (2014). Systematic theology. Ravenio Books.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1980/1892). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 5). Eerdmans.
Kioupkiolis, A., & Katsambekis, G. (2016). Radical democracy and collective movements today: The biopolitics of the multitude versus the hegemony of the people. Routledge.
Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St Matthew’ Gospel (Vol. 1). Augsburg Publishing House.
Lewis, C. S. (2001). Mere christianity. Zondervan.
Luther, M. (2002/1528). On war against the Turk. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror1.htm
Lyotard, J.-F. (1993). The postmodern explained: correspondence, 1982-1985. U of Minnesota Press.
Maher, B., & Charles, L. (2008). Religulous. Lionsgate.
Metaxas, E. (2010). Bonhoeffer: Pastor, martyr, prophet, spy. Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: aspects of biblical ethics. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Nietzsche, F. W. (2004). Ecce homo: How one becomes what one is (T. Wayne, Trans.). Algora Publishing.
Rutherford, S. (1644). Lex, Rex. Sprinkle Publications.
Schaeffer, F. A. (1968). The God who is there; speaking historic Christianity into the twentieth century. Inter-varsity Press.
Turrettini, F. (1992/1685). Institutes of elenctic theology. Puritan & Reformed Publishers.
Vattimo, G. (1988). The end of modernity: Nihilism and hermeneutics in post-modern culture.
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations (3d ed.). Macmillan.