I would tend to disagree with Dr. Clark about that being in error. Not only are Quakers and the other Peace Churces pacifist in nature, many other denominations have strong pacifist movements woithin them. However, I am well aware of Just War, and why his attitude is apparently held by most Christians.
Part of the problem, going back to Augustine, is trying to put a particular war into the cubbyholes Just War provides us with. Here's a part of just one of many discussions of Just War relative to Iraq from the Lutheran viewpoint:
http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1202<...>
"Noko: The ‘just war’ criteria were established as a framework for thinking through the problems of international relations, given the reality of sin and the perennial conflicts that plague the human community.
According to just-war theory, a decision to use violent force should be based on, among others, the principles of ‘just cause,’ ‘right intention,’ ‘legitimate authority,’ ‘last resort’ and ‘proportionality.’ According to Luther, only the defense of one’s own country could constitute ‘just cause’ for warfare, and wars of aggression or prevention were clearly excluded. According to the principle of ‘right intention,’ only the intention of restoring the peace and the prior order could justify a war. The goal of completely destroying an enemy, or a religious basis for war, would not constitute ‘right intention.’ ‘Legitimate authority’ requires the decision to apply military means to be taken by a duly constituted governmental authority (generally interpreted as including the United Nations in the modern international setting). War must be the ‘last resort,’ and can only be contemplated once all peaceful means of dealing with the conflict and for re-establishing the earlier conditions have been exhausted. And the military means and methods used, and the resulting human suffering and cost, must be ‘proportional’ to the objective.
These criteria seem especially relevant in adjudicating the ethical appropriateness of a pre-emptive war against Iraq - an offensive (rather than defensive) military action, which would be devastating to those directly affected, and likely to lead to further political instability in the region if not the world as a whole. Significantly, these criteria require those contemplating war to scrutinize carefully their own motives, and to be forthcoming about their own interests, rather than focusing primarily on the suspected motives of others.
It should also be emphasized in the current context that these criteria were designed to constrain the resort to war, rather than to provide a framework for the ethical justification of military actions.
In any event, it must be said that the just-war tradition has been increasingly questioned by advocates of peace. The continuing appropriateness and relevance of just-war theory in the age of weapons of mass destruction and of international terrorism is open to question. This issue should be reflected on by the churches, especially those such as the Lutheran churches that have integrated just-war theory into their theology.
The question that confronts us today is whether war, in and of itself, can ever be just or serve the interests of justice or God’s design. I confess that personally I do not believe so.
Even in the Old Testament, where many stories seem to describe situations in which military solutions have been imposed in the pursuit of God’s design, a closer examination shows that military action never provided a permanent solution. Behind these biblical stories is the message that military and political power, and the solutions they achieve, are not lasting; what is permanent is justice, love and reconciliation."
<...>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
