THE ETHICS OF WAR: THREE CHRISTIAN APPROACHES (Part 1)

I. INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS

A. When I was telling a seminary friend of mine that I was teaching a course on "The Ethics of War," he asked me, "Why? We're not at war right now." But you see, I'm being sneaky here. Though the specific interests of this course will be how Christians have and should approach the reality of warfare and conflict, the greater purpose of this study is to provide an inductive introduction to Christian Ethics. The topic of war is merely our case study. So my hope for the next three weeks is that we will not only gain a deeper and greater appreciation for the complexity of how Christians should approach war, but more importantly, that we will gain a greater appreciation about how we in the Church should go about making and implementing all sorts of ethical decisions in our lives beyond the scope of war.

B. So we begin our study by first asking the question, "What is Christian Ethics anyway?" Christian Ethics is our attempt in the Church to determine which behavior is right or wrong in the eyes of God and to implement these decisions in our daily lives. The underlying assumption of all Christian Ethics it that believing and doing are two sides of the same coin. But to live out the Christian faith, one needs to know what standards of morality to follow, one needs to know the difference between right and wrong in the eyes of God. Yet since we are not God, how do we know what is right or wrong? Who decides what is right or wrong? What sources of authority do we appeal to in order to determine right from wrong? By what means do we seek to establish in our lives and in the world what is right? These are the questions of Christian Ethics.

C. One of the most difficult tasks in Christian Ethics is to determine which sources of authority we as Christians use in making ethical decisions. The following is a list of the four most common sources of authority. Though they are broad in nature, they do encompass many of the problems and issues we as Christians encounter when making ethical decisions. These sources can generally be labelled Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

1. Scripture is the primary source of ethical authority for Protestants, but even so, there are many questions that are
not easily answerable when we as Christians use the Bible to make ethical decisions. For example:

a. Is all of Bible equally authoritative, or do we appeal to a canon within a canon (10 Comm., Ser. on Mount, Golden Rule, Greatest Comm.)?

b. How do we reconcile the occasional discrepancy of viewpoints within Scripture (such as the Bible's perspective on the role of women in the Church)?

c. How do we bridge the cultural and time gap between the world of the Bible and our world (issues such as slavery and polygamy would be considered immoral practices by modern Christian standards, yet the Bible does not really oppose these practices, they were practices standard in many ancient cultures)?

d. Are our issues synonymous with Biblical issues? Not always (abortion, the death penalty, etc., are very controversial among Christians in our day – not say in the time of the Bible; in fact, the most important ethical issue that Paul deals with in his 1 Corinthians is whether or not it is ethical for Christians to eat meat sacrificed to pagan idols)

2. By the Tradition, we are referring both to the tradition(s) of the Church and the State. By Church tradition, we mean the role of creeds, confessions, church councils, theologians, etc., in our decision-making process. By State tradition, we mean the role of the Constitution, government, civil authorities, etc., in our decision-making process. Though these two traditions (Church and State) seem quite separate, Christians are always interacting with both when making ethical decisions. Protestants have generally relegated the importance of tradition secondary to Scripture, but in reality, there are some ethical issues in which the traditions of Church and State have had more of an impact on our positions than the Bible (warfare may very well be one of them).

3. The role of Reason in ethics is a by-product of the 18th century Enlightenment, we tend to believe in the power of the human mind to establish truth logically. Therefore, many Christians tend to make ethical decisions based on reason or common sense. Further, the role of Reason also incorporates the findings of modern science. Again, our use of modern-science to make ethical decisions is a result of the fact that we are children of the modern world, children of the Enlightenment. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the theory of natural law, a theory which is integral to appeals to reason for ethics. Natural law is the theory that moral awareness and knowledge of right and wrong are implanted within all human beings by God (separates us from other animals). It's a theory that predates the Bible, but it can be found in parts of the Bible – refer to the following examples to see the role of natural law in the Bible.

i. Jewish wisdom literature (Proverbs, Job, etc.; see also Jer.31:31-34)

ii. New Testament: "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts" (Rom.2:14-15a). I have also attached a copy of the preamble to the Declaration Independence at the end of this document. Refer to it to see how the theory of natural law has managed to play a role in our national identity.

4. To claim that Christians appeal to Experience in making ethical decisions is a controversial thing to do. Traditionally, Protestants have been cautious about claiming that our personal experiences have any effect on what we believe or how we live. Due to the insights of the modern social sciences and the influence of feminist and liberation theology, more and more Christians are beginning to understand that what we believe is "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of God can and does depend to some extent on our personal and cultural experience. Gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc., all affect the way we make ethical decisions. For example, there are many Christians in the U.S. who support capital punishment (though there are also many who do not). Why do many American Christians believe capital punishment is an ethical practice? Is it because Jesus teaches that it is, or the apostle Paul? Actually, you will not find any explicit warrant in Scripture for capital punishment. The truth is, capital punishment in America is as much a cultural practice as it is anything else. There are Christians from many parts of the world who are stunned that any Christian could support capital punishment. Yet in America, though we may disagree with such Christians, few of us our shocked that there are people who oppose or endorse capital punishment in the Church. Our American cultural identity causes American Christians to view this issue very differently than Christians in Africa, or South America, and so on...

THE ETHICS OF WARFARE (PART II)

I. BASIC DEFINITIONS OF THE THREE APPROACHES TO WARFARE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

A. The following delineate the basic approaches to warfare that have existed in the history of the Church. I list these for you now to give you basic, working definitions of each.

1. Holy War: God calls Christians to fight wars against evil doers who threaten God's laws and God's rule in this world. Christians who fight in wars do so under the auspices of the Church, not the state.

2. Pacifism: God calls Christians to refrain from using violence at all costs, even in the midst of suffering and injustice. It is never appropriate for Christians to engage in warfare.

3. Just War Theory: God calls Christians in some circumstances to participate in war if it is the only way to restrain evil and spare innocent people from suffering and injustice. Christians who fight in wars do so under the auspices of the state, not the Church.

All three approaches seek to establish peace! These approaches differ not in their goal, but in how to achieve the goal.

B. We will use the same format to talk about each approach. We will begin by listing the basic components of each from their respective Christian perspectives. Then we will list the Scripture passages that are referred to by advocates of each position (you may disagree with the way these passages are interpreted, but I do want you to see which passages are still used by each of these positions). Third, I will give you a general overview of the history of each approach in the history of Christianity. This history will not be incredibly in-depth – it will only hit the highlights. Refer to my bibliography at the end if you want to read more about the history part. Finally, I will mention some general strengths and weaknesses of each approach, or at least the strengths and weaknesses that proponents and opponents of each approach utilize.

II. HOLY WAR

A. Components of the Holy War

1. God has ordained the Church to root out all evil in the world. The Church must engage in war whenever it encounters peoples it considers evil (because the Church is the instrument of good). Therefore, war is initiated by the Church, not the State.

2. War involves the utter destruction of the enemy, possibly including civilians. The belief here is that the enemy is not simply evil for what he/she does, the enemy is evil for who he/she is.

3. The means of war are unrestrained - the Church can invoke whatever tactics necessary to defeat the enemy (no rules when opposing the forces of evil).

B. Scripture Passages:

1. The Conquest of Canaan (Deut.7:1-2; 13:15-16; Joshua 8:18-24)

2. Israelites vs. Amalekites (1 Sam.14:35)

3. "I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt.10:34)

Much of the rhetoric surrounding crusades and holy wars in the history of the Church has been derived from the conquest of the Holy Land in the Old Testament.

C. The History of Holy War in the Church

1. Though the number of full-fledged holy wars have been few in the Church's history, elements of holy war can be found in many wars throughout Church history.

2. Holy War predates the Church, and finds its best example in the conquest of Canaan and the "purification" of that land. Holy War subsides with the rise of the monarchy. Returns briefly under the Maccabees and endorsed by the Zealots of Jesus' day.

3. Since the early Church was primarily pacifist, and the established gov't of Rome lent itself to just war after Constantine's conversion, we don't see holy wars invoked until the Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries, when the Church fills the power vacuum in the Western world.

a. The Medieval Church was in the habit of establishing peace in Europe through laws which prohibited conflict during holy days and holy seasons (Advent, Fridays, Sundays). The Church took on this role due to the political power vacuum of the Middle Ages. For most of the Middle Ages, the Church, not the State, wielded most of the political power.

b. From this, it was only one step further for the Church to establish peace by initiating the wars themselves, which is the origin of the Crusade against the Moslems.

4. The holy wars "abroad" against the Moslems were imported into the West to deal with heresy. The Inquisition was an example of a holy war focused on enemies within the Church.

5. The 16th century Protestant Reformation witnesses a resurgence of just war, but some theologians believe that the Reformed tradition actually contained elements of holy war as well.

a. John Calvin in particular developed his doctrine of election and predestination in a way that supported elements of a theocracy. Protestants were the new Israel, the new chosen people, according to Calvin. From this assumption, it was only one step further to conclude that the new chosen people were to be God's instrument of peace and righteousness on earth, ensuring that the institutions of the world gave glory to God. Thus, Calvin believed that the Church and the state should work together to defend the honor of God and to guard against heresy at all costs.

b. Still, Calvin's theocracy did not conform neatly to holy war. He loathed rebellion and anarchy, and he believed that only the magistrates, not the Church, had the ordained right to engage in war.

6. The Puritans of New England (Calvinists) resorted to the holy war approach in their fight against the native peoples. Led by fiery preachers, these Puritans viewed themselves as the new Israel who were called to take possession of the new Promised Land. They referred to the native peoples as "Amalekites". Interestingly, the Puritan holy war against the natives was limited to those conflicts (and ultimately adopted in a fascinating way in the program of westward expansion in the 19th century known as Manifest Destiny). In battles between the Puritans and other European peoples, they followed much more of a just war approach.

9. Much of the rhetoric surrounding WWI both from England and America instilled a sense of a "crusade" against Germany's "evil empire." Though there was initially much opposition to U.S. involvement, when the U.S. finally did intervene, many church leaders appealed to apocalyptic imagery to rally Americans behind this war so that America could inaugurate the new Jerusalem worldwide (holy war mentality becomes foreign policy after Manifest Destiny). Remember, that Wilson's motto for this war (once the U.S. became involved) was that "we" should "make the world safe for democracy." Wilson was a staunch Presbyterian, and he truly believed that the U.S. was a chosen nation called by God to spread democracy throughout the world.

10. A case could be made that the holy war mentality was found in WWII as well, particularly in the case of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations by both the Axis and the Allies (Germans bombed London and Rotterdam, the Allies bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki). Such attacks on civilians (non-military, non-government officials) are considered by some to be more characteristic of holy war than just war.

11. Since WWII, the holy war mentality found a place in the Cold War (intervention in Vietnam; Reagan called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire) and in the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq in the Persian Gulf (both sides considered the other to be the perpetrator of the greatest evils).

D. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Holy War

1. Strengths:

a. upholds the conviction that God is actively at work in the affairs of human history helping the Church work for the triumph of good over evil

b. it does not take the problem of evil lightly

c. some biblical passages uphold the notion of holy war

2. Weaknesses:

a. ignores or fails to take seriously Scripture passages which speak of God's love and grace towards enemies and the love that we as Christians are to have towards one's enemies (see Matt.5:44-45) (Love of God takes precedence replaces altogether love of enemy)

b. promotes self-righteousness and a simplistic understanding of morality, failing to realize that the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, is not always an easy one to make, and that sin's power grips us all (see Rom.3:23)

c. wrongly assumes that a crusade will eliminate all evil and bring about a lasting, godly peace (only God can do that)

d. does not distinguish between the military and political forces which oppose the cause of "good" and the common people of a country are not responsible for such decisions – the civilians tend to get demonized along with the military and political leaders

III. PACIFISM

A. Components of Pacifism

1. God calls the Church to avoid violence and warfare at all costs

2. self-sacrifice and voluntary suffering serve the goal of peace better than violence (violence creates more violence)

3. the life and teachings of Jesus take precedence over other Biblical witnesses; Jesus' voluntary suffering and martyrdom reflect the authentic demands of the Gospel that Christians are called to follow

B. Scripture passages:

1. Prophets call often for peace and counsel against battling Israel's enemies (Isa.2:4; Isa.30-31, 39, 53; Jer.29:5-7; Micah 4:3-4)

2. Sermon on the Mount ("blessed are peacemakers and merciful and the persecuted"; do not be angry; do not resist an evildoer and turn the other cheek; love your enemies and persecutors – see Matthew 5)

3. The general narratives of Jesus' life, suffering and death, all of which portray Jesus as one who resisted urging or using violence and remained nonviolent even when physically attacked

4. The Book of Acts and its accounts of the first martyrs (Stephen in 7:54-60; James, the brother of John, in 12:1-5)

5. Revelation - urges Christians to distance themselves from the powers and principalities of this world and views the ultimate act of discipleship martyrdom; assumes that God will take care of evildoers on God's own terms (see Rev.6:9-11; 12:10-12; 20:4-6)

C. The History of Pacifism in the Church

1. The world of the Old Testament (OT) knows little of what we think of as pacifism. Even the prophetic texts urging the people of Israel to uphold peace are not appeals to pacifism. Rather, they are theological pronouncements urging Israel to trust in God's power in the face of their enemies instead of trusting in their own military power. In fact, peace in the OT always comes about through God's efforts, not human efforts – even hopes of a coming Messiah were hopes sometimes built on assumptions that the Messiah would achieve peace through military action.

2. Pacifism as a school of thought developed with the Greeks before the time of the NT, though some Jews adhered to it as well. The Essenes were the most renowned Jewish sect for their pacifism.

3. The life and teachings of Jesus and the NT church all reflect an adherence to pacifism, though there are not really any specific injunctions against war from these sources.

4. The early Church, until the time of Constantine's "conversion" in 313 CE, embraced pacifism with a passion. The reasons for the early Church's rejection of military service and warfare are as follows:

a. the life and teachings of Jesus contradicted the endorsement of warfare

b. the death and resurrection of Jesus was the ultimate victory over sin and evil; there was no need to engage in earthly battles for earthly goods when the ultimate battle between good and evil had already been fought on Good Friday and won on Easter Sunday

c. pagan rituals and sacrifices to Roman gods were cultural rituals associated with military service; Christians did not want to associate themselves with such idolatrous activities
There does seem to be a minor debate over whether or not a Christian could serve in the Roman military in the early church. Until 180 CE, there is no evidence that any Christian served in the military. After this time period, we have more Christian theologians explicitly condemning war, perhaps indicating that military service was becoming an issue with some Christians.

5. After Constantine, pacifism disappears as the established Christian view of war (and is replaced by just war).

6. The Middle Ages witnesses the resurgence of pacifism among smaller sects, including the Waldensians (13th century), and the followers of John Wycliffe (14th century):

7. Just prior to the Reformation, the Renaissance gave birth to one influential pacifist: Erasmus of Rotterdam. Though in theory he advocated just war, in practice, he was a pacifist, because he believed that there had never really been a war that was "just," a war in which the goal and ends were justified. Erasmus believed that most wars did not seek to establish peace and justice but sought to maintain petty claims over power and wealth.

8. The Reformation witnessed one major pacifist group: the Anabaptists (ancestors of the Mennonites). Anabaptists believed that true Christians renounce the world, including governing powers (which belonged to the kingdom of the world), and live in the true kingdom (the kingdom of Christ). True Christians cannot use force or violence, and true Christians could not serve as magistrates (radical idea in the 16th century).

9. The Quakers of the 17th century were the most prominent pacifist group. Yet there pacifism was different than what one normally thinks of. They believed that war is a possibility, and that magistrates could invoke it, but that Christians should not participate in war (though Quakers believed that Christians who did were still Christians). Thus, they believed both in a just war on the part of the gov't and peace on the part of the Christian, yet for the Quaker, pacifism was always the ideal. Quakers were in the minority (in England and American colonies), yet influenced ruling magistrates to respect their right to conscientious objection from war (which exists today in our country).

10. The 18th century Enlightenment witnesses a general backlash against war, particularly wars of religion. Philosophers like Emmanuel Kant and Jean Rousseau led the attack against warfare, though it is debatable that either were truly pacifist.

11. With a few major exceptions (U.S. Civil War, the Crimean War,etc.) the 19th century was a period of relative peace worldwide. Tolstoy the greatest pacifist of the century, basing his pacifist views on the self-sacrifice and teaching of Jesus. For those supporting war, nationalism dictated one's views towards war more than religion.

12. WWI did bring an end to worldwide sentiments of peace, but the aftermath of the war witnessed once more a resurgence of pacifism. Many Christians began to believe that WWI was the "war to end all wars." The horror and destruction of WWI and the strong peace movements that followed gave rise to the League of Nations. The period between WWI and WWII also witnessed one of the most famous pacifists in history: Gandhi, who based his pacifism in part on the life and teachings of Jesus.

13. The pacifist sentiment in the Church even existed in the U.S. on the eve of WWII – many Americans did not want to get involved in the war.

14. After WWII and the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, peace movements gained momentum again, and some argue that they kept that momentum through Vietnam. However, the peace movement in Vietnam was not necessarily led by the Church (a role reversal).

15. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. (though not necessarily a war) was primarily pacifist and nonviolent, and its pacifism was based on strong Christian principles. Some consider it to be the most influential and powerful pacifist movement in history. The Civil Rights movement resisted some pockets of the population who called for a more violent revolution.

D. Strengths and Weaknesses of Pacifism

1. Strengths:

a. strong Scriptural support, particularly in the NT and the life and teachings of Jesus

b. much more visionary and creative than other approaches; reminds us that our options against injustice and violence are more than some believe

c. at times, it can be more effective in establishing peace (MLK, Jr., may have even lost support from sympathetic whites had he urged violence)

d. it reminds us of the great cost of violence to our world, from the brutal loss of human life to property destruction to a cultural perpetuation of the cycle of violence

2. Weaknesses:

a. fails to take into account the scope of human sin and self-interest which is at work in the world and naively assumes that true peace in a sinful world is possible

b. there is a danger that tyranny and injustice are promoted over war; as a result, tyranny can grow uncontested and in the long run create more destruction and violence if it is not halted by war (Nazi Germany a good example)

c. Are there more ways to express Christian love than through self-sacrifice and non-violence? Does the love that Jesus calls Christians to embrace encourage us to prevent the suffering of our neighbors at all costs? (The Gospel calls us to self-sacrifice, but does it call us to sacrifice others?)

d. Does failure to act against perpetrators of evil make us participants in that evil to some extent?

THE ETHICS OF WAR: THREE CHRISTIAN APPROACHES (Part 3)

I. JUST WAR THEORY

A. Components of the Just War Theory

1. God ordains the State to lead the Church and society into war as a last resort in order to achieve peace and restrain evil. The Church can advise and/or challenge the state concerning the engagement of war, but it cannot make decisions for a people to go to war.

2. War is sometimes a necessity because all people (individuals and nations) are sinful and are prone to injustice and self-interest. Without war, sinful interests will go uncurbed and injustice and suffering will ultimately prevail.

3. The reasons for going to war must be justifiable, with the purpose of protecting innocent people from attack, restoring human rights, to defend/establish a just political order. Most defensive wars are just, and some pre-emptive strikes can be just under one of the above circumstances.

4. The good to be accomplished must exceed the atrocities which arise from war (the ends must justify the means). Along these lines, the means of achieving peace in war must not be excessive – no wanton violence, looting, civilian massacres, etc. Therefore, Christians are to uphold a code of conduct with the enemy so as to prevent excessive violence.

5. The goals of the war must have a reasonable chance to be met.

6. The Christian sentiment in war must be love of enemy, not vengeance and hatred for the enemy.

B. Scripture passages (neither text deals explicitly with war):

1. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." - a vague exhortation to give some allegiance to the government (Mark 12:17)

2. "Let every person be subject to the governing powers..." - Paul understands that governments are divinely ordained (Rom.13:1-6)

C. The History of the Just War Theory in the Church

1. The foundation of just war is found not in the Bible but in Greek philosophy:

a. Plato argued for the use of war in order to restore peace, and he believed that certain rules should be followed in warfare, including no pillaging, plundering, or causing innocents to suffer (women and children) – only the minimum amount of violence could be used.

b. Aristotle first coined the phrase "just war," again with the assumption that war was a last resort to achieve the goal of peace.

c. Cicero further argued that just wars could only be conducted under the authority of the state. Individuals must be willing to give their lives for the state (better for individuals to die than the state). Purpose of a just war was the pax romana, and this peace was best achieved by integrating enemies into the Roman Empire.

2. Since the Early Church was staunchly pacifist, Christianity did not adopt the just war concept until after the time of Constantine. As the official religion of the Roman Empire, it simply accepted the just war of the Roman Empire as its own official approach to warfare.

3. Ambrose is the first Christian theologian to take the theory of just war and interpret it from a Christian perspective. His two primary contributions:

a. the conduct of war must be just, with respect and mercy being shown to the enemy

b. monks and priests must abstain from war, their duty is to fix their thoughts on the soul over the body, on peace instead of war

4. Augustine, a student of Ambrose, built greatly on his theology of just war, and much of the contemporary Christian arguments for just war depend upon Augustine's foundation. He believed war was inevitable because the peace and justice promoted by Jesus were impossible to attain in this fallen world. Therefore, it is the duty of the Church to endorse war under certain circumstances in order to direct the world towards the ideal of the kingdom. The following are the basic tenets of Augustine's just war theory:

a. the intent must be just - peace

b. the disposition must be just - love

c. the auspices must be just - the divinely-ordained state

d. the conduct must be just - good faith with enemy

e. clergy and monks forbidden to engage in war

f. justice must be on the side of the Church only – there cannot be just causes for war on both sides of the conflict

5. Thomas Aquinas made a very controversial contribution to the just war theory by addressing the question: Is it ethical for peasants and commoners to revolt against tyrants? Thomas and the Medieval Church said "no," only state authorities could attack such tyrants. The reasoning was again based on natural law, that it went against the natural order of divinely-ordained governments to support revolutions and anarchy.

6. The Reformation gave birth to another great proponent of just war (second only to Augustine): Martin Luther. Luther's just war theory hinges on his understanding of the relationship between Church and state:

a. Kingdom of the world: God instituted the state after the fall in order to restrain sin, evil, and chaos. The state is ordained by God to use whatever means necessary to restrain evil, and the Church should respect this divine right. War was a last resort, and it should be used to defend property/territory and to keep anarchy and lawlessness in check. Luther believed further that peasants and commoners could not wage war on tyrannical governments (it was not "natural" to do so). Rebellion and anarchy were feared greatly by the Reformers.

b. Kingdom of God: This kingdom included only Christians, and it's purposes through the Church were to tend to spiritual matters.

7. Both Catholic and Lutheran authorities utilized the just war often through the time of the Enlightenment. By the time of the Enlightenment, war had lost its strictly religious overtones and resorted to more over political motivations. Wars during this period were often invoked in the cause of "justice" (American and French Revolutions), but the religious rhetoric is not nearly as strong. "Freedom" becomes the battle cry for these wars, which was an Enlightenment concept. In fact, the two revolutions turned Luther and the medieval tradition of just war on its head by supporting the attack of "commoners" on the ordained political powers.

8. Most 20th century American wars have fit rather neatly into the just war tradition.

a. WWI and WWII both had just causes (prevent evil, protect human rights, defend against attack in case of Pearl Harbor) and were endorsed by mainstream Christianity in America.

b. U.S. involvement in Vietnam was justified by some on two accounts: a) threat of the spread of Communism b) the supposed "attack" on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin – both of these causes for war could fit a just war theory (protection of human rights and defense against enemy attacks)

D. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Just War Theory

1. Strengths:

a. takes into account the power of sin which grips all peoples and nations, and seeks to restrain the harmful effects of sin upon the world

b. acknowledges the moral perplexity of war and upholds the reality that any solution to conflict and injustice will result in some degree of evil consequences (which is why just war advocates ask does the good to be accomplished outweigh the evil committed?)

c. seeks to provide immediate relief for the victims of war who are suffering from oppression and injustice – such an act is among the highest priorities of just war

2. Weaknesses:

a. weak Scriptural support in general

b. does not take the demands of Jesus' life and teachings seriously enough (classic pacifist criticism)

c. because the state and not the Church is ordained to initiate war, does this view create the risk of the Church following the lead of the state without critically engaging and occasionally challenging in the state's motivations for war? Though this theory seeks to challenges tyrants, is it possible that it could support a tyrant because of its understanding of the divinely-ordained state?

d. how do we decide what is just and unjust, moral and immoral; the issue of moral perplexity is not only a strength, it can be a weakness as well

e. does this theory take seriously enough the power and potential of non-violence (as displayed in the civil rights movement, for example?)

Bibliography
I have only two books listed here. Though I referred to many more books in preparing this series, I found these two to be the most helpful. Allen's book tackles the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in a clear, approachable manner. Bainton's book, though a bit dated, provides an excellent overview of the history of how Christians have approached warfare. Unfortunately, Bainton's book is out-of-print. I found both of these books at Baylor University's library, if you are interested in reading more about this topic.

Allen, Joseph L. War: A Primer for Christians. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.

Bainton, Roland. Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (I don't have the publisher's name or the date)

Declaration of Independence (Appendix A)
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...