Just Once

The laws of the United States provide an alternative to combat for the person who believes that all war is wrong. For our purposes, anyone who is convinced that as a follower of Jesus Christ, he or she should never take part in the violence of war may be excused from that "duty." This is to say, the laws provide for the pacifist conscientious objector. It is an altogether different situation for the person, Christian or otherwise, who adheres to the just war tradition. The person who holds that war may be morally justified under specific and limited circumstances has no legal recourse if, in fact, he or she determines that any given war fails to meet Just War criteria. Such a person will either participate in the military or face criminal prosecution. It matters not to the law that one's Christian faith may have something to say about the unjust nature of a conflict and that one is being asked to fight against religious principles. There is no legal provision for a selective conscientious objection to wars of the United States.

Most Christians in the USA, however, hold to precisely that view. Most claim not to be pacifists (despite the fact that the earliest Christians appear to have been almost universally pacifist), but rather Christians in this nation are almost all "just warriors" -- holding the position that if the nation's conflicts meet the criteria of a just war they may participate righteously.

That surely raises a serious practical question. When do the nation's wars not meet the criteria? When was the last time we saw conservative, "pro-America" Christians come to the conclusion that any armed conflict of the United States was "unjust"? When did we last hear evangelical leaders cry out against war? Oh, sure, we heard whines sounding eerily similar to just war rhetoric when Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to divert attention from Monica-gate (though I suspect the real reason conservatives were upset was not the reckless use of force, but their inability to keep the nation's attention on the President's cigar collection). The point is, those who claim to be faithful to the Bible, who claim to follow the Prince of Peace, almost never find their own nation's wars unjustified. It is impossible to believe that all our armed conflicts have been a last resort -- and that is to name but one of the criteria for a just war. Yet evangelical Christians almost never protest against let alone refuse to take part in this nation's wars. They rally, wear ribbons, fly flags, preach sermons and enlist by the thousands. What we almost never hear is serious reflection from evangelical leaders on when Christians cannot participate in the war plans of the nation.

If the tradition which claims that war may be justified does not also admit that it could be unjustified, the affirmation is not morally serious. A Christian who prepares the case for a justified war without being equally prepared for the negative case has not soberly weighed the prima facie presumption that any violence is wrong until the case for an exception has been made. We honor the moral seriousness of the nonpacifist Christian when we spell out the criteria by which the credibility of that seriousness must be judged. (John Howard Yoder, When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking, p. 82).

Two things I am waiting to see. I am waiting to see one single war waged by the US that is judged unjust by my "Just War" friends, and then I want to see a Church exploring Scripture and Tradition to determine what it means to follow the Crucified God in light of that judgment. When I see that -- just once -- it will be easier to take Just War tradition more seriously.