Christian Views On War

Front 1

Christian Pacifism

Back 1

Total Pacifism for Everyone. All Violence is evil and illegitimate. Even the state is not justified in using force, or at least in using deadly force. Christians may not ever be part of the state, because states do (immorally) commit acts of violence.

[This is the position of (among many others) Myron Augsburger, Robert Clouse, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Thomas More, Erasmus, John Colet, and many of the Quakers and of the Anabaptist tradition i.e. Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, etc.]

Front 2

“Biblical” Nonresistance

Back 2

Total Pacifism for the Church, But Not For the State. Christians should not be members of the State, who may rightly use force, i.e. police and soldiers. Thus, what is acceptable for the unbeliever, who is the minister of the state, is not acceptable for the believer. Believers may serve in the state as long as they are not directly committing acts of violence. Christians may participate in war, but only as non-combatants.

[This is the position of Herman Hoyt, and many others of the Anabaptist tradition i.e. Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, etc.]

Front 3

Secular Philosophical Pacifism

Back 3

Personally being opposed, for secular philosophical reasons, to participating in war, but being willing to let or even support the state conducting a war.

Front 4

Secular Political Pacifism

Back 4

Pacifism based on secular humanist ideologies such as Marxism. Both Marxism and Anarchism’s attempts at sabotage, subversion, and sedition must be disavowed and repudiated by Christians.

Front 5

Unbiblical Religious Pacifist Utopianism

Back 5

Assumes that Biblical eschatology is false; instead, man will create his own utopia through his own goodness by practicing an ideology of social gospel.

Front 6

Defensive War [A just war theory]

Back 6

Christians, as well as unbelievers, may fight a defensive war if their homeland is attacked.

[This is the theory of Arthur F. Holmes, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and of most Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox.]

Front 7

Preventive War [A just war theory]

Back 7

Christians may engage in war to stop an attack before it happens or to correct some outrageous injustice.

[This is the theory of Harold O. J. Brown and many other Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.]

Front 8

May Christians rebel?

Back 8

Yes: If the state does not live up to its Romans 13 job description (to reward good and punish evil), it may be violently overthrown by its citizens, be they believers or not. This is the position held by the Huguenots & Rembert Carter.

No: Even extremely unjust and evil states may not be overthrown by their own citizens, be these citizens believers or not. This is because unjust rulers are still the Lord’s anointed, and, like King Saul, must not be killed or violently deposed.

Front 9

game of “chicken”

Back 9

signaling via an irrevocable commitment

Front 10

“trip wire/line in the sand” or a “self-hostage”

Back 10

i.e. 20,000 US troops on the Korean border are militarily insignificant but they are there as self-hostages in order prove that they are a credible and real trip wire that would trigger a US military response to an invasion by North Korea, probably nuking North Korea.

Front 11

non-lethal use of force

Back 11

Christians who believe in just war theory obviously believe that the use of non-lethal force is acceptable, and perhaps even preferable to lethal force, when possible.

[Therefore, this question is really more of a question for pacifist of all varieties, or for people who at least want to keep the use of lethal force to a minimum, looking direct and immediate outcomes as opposed to deterrence in “the shadow of the future”.]

Front 12

Why was Mohandas Ghandi successful with non-violent resistance?

Back 12

Ghandi very effectively used the general strike to create massive pressure against The Raj, particularly financial pressure, so that the British could not raise enough taxes to cover their expenditures in ruling India, especially given the fact that the British Empire as a whole (worldwide) was always a net financial loss.

[Sidenote: The General Strike is usually THE most effective form of non-violence, bar none, because of its financial implications. But, the more diverse the population, and the more brutal the regime, the harder it is to effectively coordinate a general strike.]

Front 13

How did Apartheid end?

Back 13

Apartheid ended in 1993, and a non-racial democracy was then established. Why was this transition relatively non-violent? Everyone at the time was afraid of a HORRENDOUS racial blood bath that would end holocaust.

Front 14

pacted transition

Back 14

all sides make a pact (contract) that they will share power in a specific way in return for certain protections and privileges for the former rulers in order to bribe them into giving up control of the country.

Front 15

“civil right”

Back 15

an entitlement given by some civil law.

Front 16

human right

Back 16

entitlement based on the virtue of being a human, which has certain “natural rights” or “God-given rights” which are “inalienable”.

Front 17

Historical legacy of bitterness

Back 17

keeps ethnic groups, religious groups, etc. from uniting against a repressive government, and occasionally from forming alliances against aggressive countries

[these create = alliance constraints]

Front 18

What is the relationship between non-violent action and unified populations?

Back 18

b. Non-violent action is unlikely to be successful within a country unless the population is quite unified. Therefore, the more diverse the population in term of race, ethnicity, and religion, the less likely the population will be able to unite against an oppressive regime or an internationally aggressive regime.

Front 19

“cross-cutting reticulation”

Back 19

Joseph Rothschild coined this term... meaning that religions do not correspond with ethnicity, but rather they cross-cut ethnicity

Front 20

Classical realists Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr

Back 20

Christian theorists who also called for Christians to make a distinction between personally turning the other cheek and having foreign policy of turning the other cheek, saying that such a foreign policy would be suicidal