The problem with the notion of "just war" is not just how it has been misused to justify wars that did not live up to the meaning or intent of the term -- but that "just" in this case is often taken to mean "unsinful" or "moral."

While Augustine of Hippo is often brought up with this issue, Basil of Caesarea ought to be as well. He acknowledged that gospel perfection requires us to follow Jesus Christ's ethic of nonviolence, the norm set by the Lord himself. But he also recognized that we live in a sinful world where sometimes we are put between a rock and a hard place, where we must choose the lesser of two sins, such as going to war versus standing by and watching the slaughter of innocent and defenseless people. Nonetheless, he still saw war in and of itself as immoral, and required soldiers returning from a defensive war to do penance for sin by refraining from communion for three years, because "their hands are not clean." In doing so, he dealt with the reality of a broken, fallen world without justifying it and without losing sight of the maximalism of the gospel and the eschatological perfection of God's kingdom.

Many centuries later, Dietrich Bonhoeffer seemed to come to the same conclusion. He never described his plot against Hitler as "just." He rather honestly and bluntly admitted it was a sin, but given the circumstances, it was the lesser of two sins confronting him (the other being doing nothing and letting Hitler wreak more evil in the world) -- and he said he would have to do penance, stand in God's judgment and hope for his forgiveness in the wake of it.

The problem with how "just war" is commonly taken is that once "just" is taken to mean "unsinful" or "moral" vis-a-vis the gospel of Jesus Christ, the notions of admitting the sinfulness of war itself and doing penance for it afterwards get laid by the wayside, opening the path for self-justification and a sense of getting off "scot-free" -- no guilt, no foul. For that very reason, Christians very much need the witness of pacifists and conscientious objectors, to remind how us when we are at war, however defensive and unavoidable, we are still not living up to the gospel perfection of Jesus Christ -- and thus may be moved to repentance.

where we must choose the lesser of two sins, such as going to war versus standing by and watching the slaughter of innocent and defenseless people.

This is really BS (NB: that's not directed at you, Gregory!).

Maybe in the Middle Ages there wasn't such a vast discrepancy between "take action" and "go to war", but in the 21st century, "going to war" means systematic, mechanized, electronic and TOTAL violence on a scale that Augustine or Aquinas couldn't have imagined (where even the "David" kills Goliath by means of a high-explosive triggered by a cell-phone, as in today's IEDs).

No, to posit "go to war" or "do nothing" is the EPITOME of the false dichotomy, designed to PUSH the ill-informed (of Gandhi, King, and nonviolent ACTION throughout history, and especially in the last hundred years) towards unthinking passivity towards government's (and/or terrorists') war-making plans&programs.

We are NOT "between a (War) rock and a (Do Nothing) hard place", and it's (past!) time to Speak Up to Power that would insist that we "must choose the lesser of two sins" and OBEY their war-making designs.

JC Fisher

No offense taken, JC. I realize you're addressing ideas and words, not persons.

I actually agree with you more than my words perhaps conveyed.

I cringe when I hear "Christian just war theory" being bandied about today, because what I hear behind it is: "See, there's no sin in it! 'Just' means it's moral, so we're fine and dandy in God's eyes."

That's why the witness of Basil of Caesarea and Dietrich Bonhoeffer is so important. They remind us, even in cases of self-defense or protection of the defenseless and the innocent: "No, it's still a sin; your hands are not clean. You've fallen short of Jesus Christ's ethic of nonviolence and nonretaliation, so you stand in God's judgment and need to repent." They do not allow us the "easy out" many assume "Christian just war theory" to be.

For that reason, I think Hauerwas is wrong to say "pacifism simply cannot and should not be, even for Christians, a normative stance." That ignores the fact that Jesus *did* set nonviolence and nonretaliation as a norm of behavior for his followers, a mark of God's reign. There's no getting around that. Would Jesus Christ have laid down something for us that he did expect us, or thought it was impossible for us, to do?

That's precisely *why* we Christians *need* pacifists and conscientious objectors, to remind us that Christ's gospel does indeed expect nonviolence and nonretaliation of us, even when we fall short of it, willingly or unwillingly. They too do not allow us the "easy out" many assume "Christian just war theory" to be.

Hippolytus of Rome counted soldiering among the objectionable professions a person had to quit before being baptized a Christian. Martin of Tours was a conscientious objector who countered accusations of cowardice by offering to stand weaponless on the front lines after his baptism. Boris and Gleb of Kiev laid down their swords and their lives rather than shed blood for their throne and spark a civil war. Francis of Assisi refused to own property or bear arms, sagely noting that having property often led to having to defend it from those who wanted to take it away. Such saintly examples cannot be swept under the carpet. They're faithful to the nonviolent Christ who refused to retaliate.

You bring up the very good point that warfare has changed greatly from ancient and medieval times to our own. Not only has technology made it possible to wage war far more remotely and impersonally now -- there has also been a chilling shift in how civilians and noncombatants, once considered "off limits," are now viewed during it in the "need" to "shock and awe" our way to "victory." Those developments certainly give pause as to how, or if, Augustine of Hippo's musings about "just war" can be applied in the modern world.

Of course the Church ought to "speak to power," side with mercy and justice, and always point out that Jesus calls his followers to nonviolence and nonretaliation. Sometimes it has done so, and sometimes it has failed, though God always seems to raise up at least a few saints in each generation to foil our ignoring it. (In addition to Gandhi and King, whom you brought up, I'd add Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day and Roger of Taize as recent prophetic voices "crying in the wilderness.") Sometimes the Church does a good job of raising its prophetic voice, and sometimes it succumbs to self-imposed laryngitis. One of the things I admire about the Episcopal Church is that it tries hard now to do the former rather than the latter, even though its efforts bring it much publicized grief.