As the possibility for a US led war in Iraq began to gain momentum, Christians began staking out positions. Some Christians defended the call for war and other Christians rejected the call for war.
Below I examine how believers of the same community of faith came to defend and reject the war in Iraq. How did they justify their positions?
I’ll look at two prominent Christian figures: Richard Land, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Conference, and, Stanley Hauerwas, professor of theological ethics at Duke University Divinity School. These two Christian men took two opposing positions on the war, with Land supporting and Hauerwas rejecting.
Analysis
How did Land justify the war?
In “The Time Has Arrived: Bush Policy on Iraq Meets Just War Criteria,” Richard Land combines the “just war” tradition and Romans 13 to justify the US intervention in Iraq in February 2003.
Land argued that “just war” had seven criteria and the US-Bush led war in Iraq met all of them.
The war in Iraq is defensive. The war in Iraq is based on just intent. The war in Iraq is a last resort. The US government is a legitimate authority able to launch this war in Iraq. There is a reasonable expectation of success in waging war in Iraq. The US government will try to minimize noncombatant casualties. The cost of the war in Iraq is proportionate to the benefit.
To conclude this section with Land’s own words:
Conducting war in a just manner is an act of Christian love that seeks to accomplish the divinely ordained duty of the state: to punish and restrain evil and to protect and reward good. The Bush administration’s policy vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein fits well within the framework of Just War theory.
Next, let’s move on to Stanley Hauerwas who opposed the war in Iraq. He published an editorial in Time magazine entitled: “No, this war would not be moral.” How did he justify his stance against the war?
In the editorial, Hauerwas argued that the war in Iraq is not a legitimate war in terms of the “just war” tradition precisely because President Bush has justified the war by appealing to “evil.” For Christians, the problem of “evil” is dealt with by God. “Evil” is neither the province of the state nor the president, so the war in Iraq is not justified.
To close this section with Hauerwas’ own words:
That the world is dangerous should not be surprising news to Christians who are told at the beginning of Lent that we are dust. If Christians could remember that we have not been created to live forever, we might be able to help ourselves and our non-Christian brothers and sisters to speak more modestly and, thus, more truthfully and save ourselves from the alleged necessity of war against "evil."
Concluding Discussion
Both Christian men appealed to the “just war” theory to support and account for their positions on the war in Iraq. That they both appeal to the “just war” theory is a sign that we should perhaps question the unquestioned value of the “just war” theory as a mode of justifying violence and war. For emerging believers, what is the status of the “just war” theory? How should we relate to it?
Also, there is a key difference in the two ways the men deployed the “just war” theory. Land can be seen to have used the “just war” theory in a Constantininan strategy. That is, Land used the “just war” theory to legitimate the imperial state to act in God’s name, as did Constantine and his supporting Bishops. Hauerwas, critically, did not. He deployed the “just war” theory against the Constantininan strategy, as a way of de-legitimating the assertion that the war was an act of Christian love and divinely inspired violence.
Re: How (Some) Christians Defended and Rejected the War in Iraq
Interesting post.
Honestly, I see truth in both of the opposing views, but I’m not sure which one I necessarily agree with when it comes to the war in Iraq. I warn, also, I have never heard of those two guys before your post.
Land’s position would seem to require an analysis of the justness of and intentions behind the war, but should not religion, to some degree, be absent from this analysis in the first place? However, that does not seem to be at the heart of the issue in Romans 13. It does not seem like Paul is encouraging his audience to evaluate the authority or justness of the political leaders in power (in fact, it seems to be the opposite), but rather to accept them for what they are, and be obedient to them as long as it does not conflict with God’s covenant. I think if we are going to examine Romans 13 any further, however, the imperial Roman context should be taken into careful consideration, and then questions should be asked about whether what Paul says is still relevant to our own context; Josephus would be an interesting figure to investigate, considering his loyalty to Rome.
As for Hauerwas, he makes a good point. It is dangerous to get religion mixed up in politics when it comes to war, in my opinion. This is one reason I don’t particularly care for George Bush; he seems to think he is fighting in a holy war inspired by God. However, I wouldn’t say his argument is, as you presented it, very great or complete. Just because one leader characterizes the enemy as “evil” does not necessarily invalidate the other causes and needs for war; injustice and threat is injustice and threat whether you characterize the enemy as “evil” or not. On the other hand, fighting just for perceiving the enemy as “evil” (especially from a theological perspective) is extremely dangerous (e.g. the Crusades). Whether one characterizes the enemy as “evil” or not, the nation still needs good, well thought out philosophical, strategic, just, national, protective, and constitutional reasons for war (reasons our country strives or should strive to consider when war is pondered). Did we have good reasons for going to war with Irag or did we do it just for the sake of battling what we perceive as “evil” (the significance of Hauerwas’ argument relying on the latter)? Don’t ask me; I’m not a politician. Against Hauerwas, moreover, it is precisely Paul’s argument in Romans 13 that God has appointed leaders to deal with “evil” (kakos) in the present (though they do not always do so), whether we chose to agree with those leaders or Paul’s opinion of them or not. However, I think we need to take what Paul says in Romans 13 as his own opinion, influenced by his own context.
Perhaps an interesting question to ask is: how should Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies affect the Christian faced with war?
P.S. I don’t know much about the “just war” theory, so maybe my comments are flawed from the start. Being young and for most of my life uninvolved with politics and news in general, I take my opinion on matters such as this lightly. However, I felt inclined to respond, and I think I need to start getting involved with other Christian issues than theology.