empty rhetoric

As I mentioned earlier, Adam Dada and I have agreed to a blog-debate on Just War Theory, the philosophical and theological framework that describes the morality or immorality of war. In a specific sense, it references the the Augustinian doctrine of the same name, however, in modern context, it usually encompasses the whole discipline of judging war moral or immoral based on ethical standards.

Adam’s first post can be found here. I would advise reading it in its entirety before proceeding– Adam’s civil and articulate arguments will contextualize my response.

To begin, let me express delight that I have encountered another Preterist in the wild– individuals who hold to this particular theological belief are quite rare in my experience, even among Reformed Christians, which is how I would describe myself. (I don’t blame Adam for mistaking me for a Dispensationalist, after all, I went to college at one of the foremost Dispensationalist theological institutions. Suffice it to say, during the course of 4 years working on a minor in Biblical Studies, my professors and I had several disagreements).

Nonetheless, all of this is somewhat secondary to my response to Adam, who makes, I believe, the following arguments against the doctrine, which seems to fall along these lines:

1. The Bible makes prescriptions against non-violence
2. Some verses that seem to justify the use of force (i.e., “at time for war”) are part of the “Old Covenant, which is no longer applies.
   1. It thus follows that prescriptions against violence (i.e. “turn the other cheek”) over-rule any seeming justification or command for violence
3. Modern warfare violates Augustinian Just War tenets anyway

It is worth noting that Adam graciously notes that (3) is somewhat outside the scope of our debate, but I would like to include it. Nevertheless, I will get to that after I address the first few points, which I think can also be answered– moreover, from a Reformed/Preterist perspective.

As a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, I adhere (mostly) to a series of principles outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a concise and theoretically scripturally-based expression of Reformed Doctrine. In regards to the larger issue of the morality or immorality of war (and thus, to the notion of “Just War Theory” in a broad sense), the document sets up a theological basis for what is called the “civil magistrate“– in essence, the government. The relevant quote is below:

I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The Biblical support for this position is by no means small, including Romans 13:1, which seems to support the notion that government has been given a right to execute acts of violence (at least, when interpreted in a more literalist fashion):

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

As you can see, this is primarily a question of context– many of the passages that Adam quotes against violence were prescribed in a personal sense– one individual against another. The larger context of the state’s responsibility and morals is an entirely different question. I would posit that the above passage quite clearly supports the notion that the government has been given the right to execute violence against “evildoers”– the question is thus what group falls into that category.

Which brings us to point 3. For reference, lets look at Augustine’s 4 points, which seek, I think, to narrow the moral confines of war from simply “permissible” to a certain set of rules governing the ethical execution of it:

1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Since the notion of the United States’ invasion of Iraq remains the most controversial act of violence in recent memory, let me apply the following reason to it in order to make the case that it is justifiable under these four tenents.

Firstly, the notion that the Ba’athis regime in Iraq had been “lasting, grave, and certain” to the “community of nations” that is both the West in general and the Middle East as a whole was thus: Iraq had destabilized the region on multiple occasions and showed no signs of stopping. At the time, evidence that they were actively pursuing the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction was not bulletproof, but reasonable. Indeed, beyond this much over-emphasized issue, Iraq had already inflicted grave harm on its neighbors, in both the Iran-Iraq war (in which, I might add, the United States played a pragmatic and decidedly ignoble role) and in more recent incidents, including the use of chemical weapons against ethnic minority groups. Saddam Hussein actively encouraged terrorism in Israel, and had attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush after the end of his Presidency. Much of Iraq’s threat to the world was funded by the largest corruption scheme in history: the Oil-for-Food program.

Secondly, 12 years of diplomatic negotiations had failed to alleviate the fears of the international community. Economic sanctions had been easily circumvented via the aformentioned Oil-for-Food scandal, and were only serving to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians every month (more, I might add, than die each month in the wake of the “surge”). Even Bill Clinton’s low-intensity strikes against Iraq, which sought to end the need for war had proven ineffective. Iraq fired on U.S. military personnel every day for 12 years. (And thus, it was Iraq that chose the path of force, not the West).

The third criteria is problematic, in that many conservatives would point to the enormous military success of the Iraq campaign, which is all but undeniable, while opponents of the war would point to its aftermath, the success of which is quite obviously in peril. I would suggest that the obvious ability of Coalition Forces to defeat the forces of Iraq in the conventional conflict as evidence enough to satisfy this condition.

The fourth criteria is likewise problematic. The ensuing chaos in the wake of the Iraq war would seem to rule out any hope that the United States could meet this condition, however, let me suggest that the Iraq war has been one of the most humane carried out in human history in that never has there been a military force more willing to sacrifice its own soldiers in the name of reducing collateral damage. (Much of the criticism that is heaped on the U.S. military for the unavoidable casualties among innocents is actually due to the fact that those pointing it out at every turn disagree with the initial justifications for war, not the methods themselves. Many of the same individuals do not see a problem with much of the fighting in, for example, WWII, which was quite clearly magnitudes of order more brutal and indiscriminate than the campaign in Iraq because they agree with its justifications). I would also point out that the “surge” has proven surprisingly successful, and that it is successful because of its humane approach to fighting insurgents.

Thus, I conclude that not only is war morally-justified as an action of the state, but that the actions of the United States in Iraq are justified by it.

Check back for more posts– Adam is up next, and given that his previous post showed such shrewd and civil language, I expect he will respond with an amazing degree of intelligence– enough so that I should have a difficult time countering his arguments.