Eden Newsletter - Spring 2003

War - What is it good for?

By Julian Hardyman

Dear Friends,

I had originally intended that in the evening service on 23 March, we would take a look at the subject of war, both in general and in relation to the present international situation. The pace of events has gathered steam recently and has been a constant concern for any thinking person. I therefore thought it might be worth sharing some preliminary reflections now.

We are very right to be concerned. The prospect of war is always a serious one. If the worst predictions about this war are realised, thousands of ordinary Iraqis will suffer appallingly and the West could be priming decades of militant anti-Western activity. Equally, the worst predictions of the consequences of Saddam Hussein remaining in power with weapons of mass destruction are terrifying: We will, we are told, face the horror of Iraqi-armed terrorists bringing small but lethal quantities of potent radioactive (or chemical or biological) material to contaminate a major Western city.

As we hold our Bibles in one hand and our newspapers in the other, let us recall some very basic biblical principles.

First, wars should not surprise us. 'You will hear of wars and rumours of wars' Jesus said in . The Lord himself predicted war. We do not live in a safe world. Violent, armed, international conflict may be expected.

Second, wars should not alarm us unduly. Jesus goes on 'but see to it that you are not alarmed.' (Matthew 24:6b). That is not to say that we should be casual or unconcerned about war. But we can be sure that the outbreak of a war will not mean that God's plan for us or our world has failed.

Third, wars are one piece of evidence that this world is coming to an end. 'Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom….. All these are the beginning of the birth-pains.' (). We must be wary not to say that any one war is proof that the return of Christ is near. Many have made that mistake and we should not follow their path. Another war in the Middle East does not mean that Jesus will come soon. But war is part of the pain of the created order which precedes that return and should make us think about the reality of his second coming.

You might be tempted to think that the cumulative effect of these points is to make us detached and resigned to war breaking out. But that is not Jesus' intention. He is simply reassuring us that war is not a surprise for God and his plan.

Let's come now to the morality of war. Some Christians are very clear that force and violence are as wrong for nations as they are for individuals. Building on the command to love our neighbours and Jesus' specific prohibition of retaliation (), Christian pacifism has consistently refused to endorse war or participate in it. That pacifist viewpoint has a long and noble history and deserves our respect.

Majority Christian opinion however, has tended towards some version of 'just war theory'. Given certain criteria and certain situations, it argues, war may be ethically permissible - or even the best thing to do. The case for this is built on the role of the state which Paul outlines in Romans 13. If the state is entitled and even mandated to protect its citizens by punishing crime with force (), it is by extension permitted to use force to protect them from outside threat too.

What are the circumstances where this is permissible?

The only just cause is defence against violent aggression. Ideological differences, territorial ambition, economic advantage are not legitimate causes. Provocatively, this would disallow the use of war simply to promote democracy. That, it is argued, is going beyond our brief.
The only just intention is to restore a just peace to friend and foe alike. There must be a concern for those one is fighting against.
The use of military force must be a last resort after negotiations and every other approach has been tried and failed.

It seems to me that these principles are prudent ones, rooted in biblical concerns. If one accepts that war is permitted, then it is vital that there are constraints on when and how war is fought. For not all wars are just. Also, just war theory insists that the conduct of war must be regulated ethically too and that 'total war' is not a moral option. For not all just wars are fought justly. In particular the conduct of war should be such that:

The war is for limited ends - to repel aggression and redress injustice.
The means must be proportional to the offence. No sledgehammers to crack nuts. No nuclear strikes to avenge small incursions.
Non-combatants should be kept immune from intentional and direct attack.
Combat should not be prolonged when there is not a reasonable hope of success within these limits.

These are stringent criteria. It is worth pausing to consider how the Allies, who were undoubtedly fighting a just war against Hitler, may have stepped over the boundaries of just means at times in World War Two.

But we must return to Iraq. Is there a legitimate cause for a war against Saddam? If we are convinced that there is, will it be fought justly? If you are a pacifist, then your answer is clear and there is no argument. You will want to oppose the war in every proper way you can and encourage others to do so too.

But what about those who do regard war as a Christian option in principle? Well it might not be a bad exercise to go through the two lists above and test what we have seen and heard against them.

The case for war is being made on the basis of a presumed intention on Saddam's part to engage in violent aggression. Are we convinced by that presumption? If so, is the proven intention a just cause for war? Is the threat of such horrific terrorist activity against our cities so great as to warrant a pre-emptive attack?
Is the intention of the war to restore peace to both sides? Is there an element of revenge. of economic self-interest or domestic political gain that sullies the purity of the intention?
Is war now the last resort? Have all other options really been exhausted?

As to the conduct of the war, we should be asking:

Is it for limited ends? Or is there a bigger agenda?
Is the means being proposed proportional to the offence?
What about the risk to civilians and non-combatants? Are you convinced that every effort will be made to minimise these?
Finally, are there proper time limits being proposed, or may a protracted combat ensue without reasonable hope of success?

As Christians we may well have other specific concerns - concerns for the Christian minority in Iraq who may well suffer persecution if we attack their country. Concerns for the cause of the gospel throughout the Arab and Muslim world if this is perceived as a Christian-Muslim war. Concerns for the sheer cost of the military hardware the West is now investing in when there is so much need in the world. Concerns about the role of international policeman for the US-British alliance and how ethical duty can be disentangled from self-interest.

Those of us who are British are represented by a government that came to office promising an ethical foreign policy. That intention was right and laudable. It has had some successes, as our friends in Sierra Leone point out. There, a British military presence has been the cornerstone of a new stability for a country racked with civil war. Arguably, intervention in Kosovo helped to bring about the fall of President Milosevic. Are we convinced by the case for war with Iraq?

I am tempted to say - 'let the reader decide!', not by mere instinct or gut feeling but by working through the criteria set out above. I am sure there will be a multiplicity of opinion in the church and I am not at all sure that is a bad thing. However there is something we can all agree on: we should pray. We pray for 'kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives' (). We pray that war may not happen so that we may live peaceful lives. We pray that if war does happen, it will result in not only Americans and Brits but Iraqis being able to live peaceful lives.

With best wishes,

Julian