Our sermon this Sunday was an exposition of classic just war theory. (Our priest said at the Lent discussion over coffee that if he'd had time he'd have talked about the Christian pacifist tradition as well.) Ius ad bellum (morality in going to war) has six traditional criteria that all have to be met (*); unsurprisingly, our priest didn't think any recent declaration of war met even half of them.
He didn't think the criteria of ius in bello (morality while waging war) were being met either.
(*) Just cause; legitimate authority to declare war; last resort; just intention, to seek peace once achieved; the harm and destruction caused must be less than the wrong inflicted; reasonable prospect of success.
Yes. I think Just War Theory is a more useful criterion for determining the morality of waging a given war than is the Sermon on the Mount.
I'd say the Sermon on the Mount presents the ideal that Christians should aim for in their life, and in the life of the Church. The reality is that we won't achieve that, as there will always be interpersonal conflicts within the Church (and, indeed, individuals can find themselves conflicted and not at peace with themselves) where being a peacemaker is going to be beyond human ability. An unachievable ideal this side of the fulfilment of the Kingdom is still a good thing to have, constantly calling us to do better.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
Just War Theory is an attempt at such an extrapolation from Biblical themes to how nations conduct themselves, and tries to bridge the gap between the ideals of how individual Christian communities conduct themselves and how a nation fulfils roles that are not the same as Christian communities (eg: a Christian community may put peaceful living above all else, even when that makes them victims of violence by others, which was of course the experience of many early Christians as they were martyred for their faith; but a nation where not everyone shares that ideal of self-sacrifice would have a requirement to protect the poor and the weak, and hence have need to use force for policing and criminal justice and to protect the people of the nation from other nations should they be aggressive). We can still say that all war is evil, but Just War Theory gives nations a get out of the lesser of two evils.
* I use the phrase carefully, because the alternative phrase "Christian nation" a) carries an enormous amount of unhelpful baggage, and b) is (IMO) incompatible with the core Christian teaching of the NT, which is concerned with a Kingdom of Heaven/God that is not of this world but in this world transcending political boundaries of individual nations. Not that "nations claiming Christian heritage" is really all that much better, and is a phrase that also has it's problems, I just couldn't come up with a better shorthand for an extensive essay while I wrote this.
Of course he still has support: the support of the millions who see him as their role model in the laissez-faire world of corruption and depravity of which they dream. It is working handsomely for the 6 January insurrectionists and for the otherwise unemployable now on the ICE payroll.
You might say.
I think you are talking about MAGA (America First) supporters like me. CNN reports 9/10 in support.
And that’s his base. While I identify with the Republican brand, I no longer support the RNC as they have proven themselves ineffective, beholden to special interests and weak. But MAGA?
In ship’s terms— I’m fully on board. Deal with it.
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
I'd say the Sermon on the Mount presents the ideal that Christians should aim for in their life, and in the life of the Church. The reality is that we won't achieve that, as there will always be interpersonal conflicts within the Church (and, indeed, individuals can find themselves conflicted and not at peace with themselves) where being a peacemaker is going to be beyond human ability. An unachievable ideal this side of the fulfilment of the Kingdom is still a good thing to have, constantly calling us to do better.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
Just War Theory is an attempt at such an extrapolation from Biblical themes to how nations conduct themselves, and tries to bridge the gap between the ideals of how individual Christian communities conduct themselves and how a nation fulfils roles that are not the same as Christian communities (eg: a Christian community may put peaceful living above all else, even when that makes them victims of violence by others, which was of course the experience of many early Christians as they were martyred for their faith; but a nation where not everyone shares that ideal of self-sacrifice would have a requirement to protect the poor and the weak, and hence have need to use force for policing and criminal justice and to protect the people of the nation from other nations should they be aggressive). We can still say that all war is evil, but Just War Theory gives nations a get out of the lesser of two evils.
* I use the phrase carefully, because the alternative phrase "Christian nation" a) carries an enormous amount of unhelpful baggage, and b) is (IMO) incompatible with the corYes, I'd broadlye Christian teaching of the NT, which is concerned with a Kingdom of Heaven/God that is not of this world but in this world transcending political boundaries of individual nations. Not that "nations claiming Christian heritage" is really all that much better, and is a phrase that also has it's problems, I just couldn't come up with a better shorthand for an extensive essay while I wrote this.
Yes, that's a fair conclusion, But one would have to add in the caveat that 'Just War Theory' is too often used as a fig-leaf to make wars which are not just seem to be at least 'justified'.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
When considering national governments in light of NT teaching, I think I tend to think in terms of Jesus’s regular comparisons of the “kingdom of this world” and the “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of heaven,” as well as his instruction that we pray for God’s kingdom to come. In that context, the question for me is one of whether by supporting x that the government is doing or by opposing y that the government is doing, I am praying and working for the coming of the kingdom of God or whether I’m on the side of the kingdom of this world.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
When considering national governments in light of NT teaching, I think I tend to think in terms of Jesus’s regular comparisons of the “kingdoms of this world” and “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven,” as well as his instruction that we pray for God’s kingdom to come. In that context, the question for me is one of whether by supporting x that the government is doing or by opposing y that the government is doing, I am praying and working for the coming of the kingdom of God or whether I’m on the side of the kingdoms of this world.
Of course he still has support: the support of the millions who see him as their role model in the laissez-faire world of corruption and depravity of which they dream. It is working handsomely for the 6 January insurrectionists and for the otherwise unemployable now on the ICE payroll.
You might say.
I think you are talking about MAGA (America First) supporters like me. CNN reports 9/10 in support.
And that’s his base. While I identify with the Republican brand, I no longer support the RNC as they have proven themselves ineffective, beholden to special interests and weak. But MAGA?
In ship’s terms— I’m fully on board. Deal with it.
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
You guys have done so well.
Don't worry - it'll all turn out OK in the end. After all, Trump has been anointed by God, presumably to be the Saviour of America, and to bring about not only Armageddon, but also the Second Coming of Jesus.
Of course he still has support: the support of the millions who see him as their role model in the laissez-faire world of corruption and depravity of which they dream. It is working handsomely for the 6 January insurrectionists and for the otherwise unemployable now on the ICE payroll.
You might say.
I think you are talking about MAGA (America First) supporters like me. CNN reports 9/10 in support.
And that’s his base. While I identify with the Republican brand, I no longer support the RNC as they have proven themselves ineffective, beholden to special interests and weak. But MAGA?
In ship’s terms— I’m fully on board. Deal with it.
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
You guys have done so well.
Don't worry - it'll all turn out OK in the end. After all, Trump has been anointed by God, presumably to be the Saviour of America, and to bring about not only Armageddon, but also the Second Coming of Jesus.
So I'm told.
Trump as almost convinced me there is a Satan that does try our souls (as in Job).
A literal interpretation of Revelation, complete with a literal Antichrist, is seeming more plausible.
It’s certainly occurred to me. I don’t know if there will be a literal individual who will be the Antichrist, or if it’s symbolic of various things (which could certainly fit with the direction some things are going in), but I think Trump is simply too stupid to actually be the Antichrist. He’s pretty beastly, though, but even then I don’t think he’s the Great Beast. And that’s even of those parts are describing specific events that are to come, rather than just an “Antichrist spirit” (in the sense of an attitude of cruelty and hatred, which seems to be around a lot sadly).
The thing that worries me, that I never thought of before Trump, is that, well, nobody ever ruled out a stupid Antichrist. In fact, it would be strangely fitting for a species that was dumb enough to trust the devil in the first place. (And how embarrassing if we meet other intelligent beings in the kingdom of God, to have to explain just how our world came to an end! "Well, there was this guy...")
Comments
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
Just War Theory is an attempt at such an extrapolation from Biblical themes to how nations conduct themselves, and tries to bridge the gap between the ideals of how individual Christian communities conduct themselves and how a nation fulfils roles that are not the same as Christian communities (eg: a Christian community may put peaceful living above all else, even when that makes them victims of violence by others, which was of course the experience of many early Christians as they were martyred for their faith; but a nation where not everyone shares that ideal of self-sacrifice would have a requirement to protect the poor and the weak, and hence have need to use force for policing and criminal justice and to protect the people of the nation from other nations should they be aggressive). We can still say that all war is evil, but Just War Theory gives nations a get out of the lesser of two evils.
* I use the phrase carefully, because the alternative phrase "Christian nation" a) carries an enormous amount of unhelpful baggage, and b) is (IMO) incompatible with the core Christian teaching of the NT, which is concerned with a Kingdom of Heaven/God that is not of this world but in this world transcending political boundaries of individual nations. Not that "nations claiming Christian heritage" is really all that much better, and is a phrase that also has it's problems, I just couldn't come up with a better shorthand for an extensive essay while I wrote this.
@Mr E
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
You guys have done so well.
Yes, that's a fair conclusion, But one would have to add in the caveat that 'Just War Theory' is too often used as a fig-leaf to make wars which are not just seem to be at least 'justified'.
Don't worry - it'll all turn out OK in the end. After all, Trump has been anointed by God, presumably to be the Saviour of America, and to bring about not only Armageddon, but also the Second Coming of Jesus.
So I'm told.
Trump as almost convinced me there is a Satan that does try our souls (as in Job).
It’s certainly occurred to me. I don’t know if there will be a literal individual who will be the Antichrist, or if it’s symbolic of various things (which could certainly fit with the direction some things are going in), but I think Trump is simply too stupid to actually be the Antichrist. He’s pretty beastly, though, but even then I don’t think he’s the Great Beast. And that’s even of those parts are describing specific events that are to come, rather than just an “Antichrist spirit” (in the sense of an attitude of cruelty and hatred, which seems to be around a lot sadly).
That idea has occurred to me as well, but I think things can be explained by sadder (what it says about humanity) and simpler things…
You need to purge before you can cleanse.