← Thinking Fellows
Loading summary
Transcript81 lines
- [00:00]
Adam Francisco
Foreign.
- [00:19]
Caleb Keith
Hello and welcome to the Thinking Fellows podcast. My name is Caleb Keith. Today I am joined by Adam Francisco and Bruce Hillman. We are talking about Just War. This was a Adam idea. So down the line here I'm going to let him introduce it. But very briefly I could let people know how Adam and I's funny conversation went about this, which was he said we should do an episode on Just War. And I said something like, yeah, I think, you know, we did that before, but the last time we did that we had Caleb Kargis on the show. And Adam said, oh yeah, that was probably seven or eight years ago. Which is this happens to us a lot where we'll sit down, somebody will suggest a topic and you'll go, no, I mean we did that before and it was like nearly a decade ago. So this is definitely one of those. I'm sure we have lots of listeners who have not heard that episode or heard us talk about that topic before. And obviously war is in the news. So it's, it's time to talk about just war. An appropriate time to talk about just war. But before we do that, the thank you fellows is part of the 1517 podcast network of shows and part of the 1517 family of content. You can go to 1517. Org to see everything we do there. That includes blogs basically every single day of the week, except on weekends. We also have preaching helps for pastors, that is articles that cover lectionary readings throughout the year following the three year lectionary. And they're just kind of helpful ways to get you thinking about the text or read the text alongside of you, pick up some themes. They're written by some great guys, including some college professors and seminary professors and then just pastors with a lot of experience over at Craft of preaching. So that's 1517.org there. And then we also have a YouTube channel and videos coming out multiple times a week. Go to 15:17 on YouTube and subscribe today if you haven't. We cover a lot of the same topics that we do here on the Thinking Fellows, but in shorter versions and sometimes covering questions or statements that we didn't quite get to on these podcasts. So you can go check that out over there as well as some other mixed in content like videos from our conferences. We do some article recaps with Kelsey and a bunch more. So go check that out there. Okay, Adam, just War. Any particular reason that this came up besides the, the conflict in Iran? Iran, Iran. What's the.
- [03:08]
Adam Francisco
The land of the Aryans. That's what Iran means.
- [03:11]
Caleb Keith
Oh, so what? I mean we haven't done it in seven or eight years. But just think it's a good time to talk about it. Just because people are thinking about war again or conflict or however it goes.
- [03:23]
Adam Francisco
Yeah. But you know, for, for me there's this additional element in that having, you know, though it's. I've not done a whole lot in this arena for several years now I'm starting to get back into it is the issue of Islam which has a
- [03:44]
Bruce Hillman
view,
- [03:47]
Adam Francisco
how does it put in the. What are called the hadith, the traditions related to Muhammad that didn't make their way into the Quran. You can think of them that way, but that are binding on the Muslim community worldwide. Says that the struggle to advance the cause of Islam, the jihad. Right. Is perennial or perpetual until the last day or the day of Judgment. So in addition to the stuff that's going on for me and thinking about just the challenge that Islam poses theological and otherwise to Christianity and Western civilization, I'm always wondering or always thinking and I go back and forth depending on what day of the week it is and whether I've been eating healthy or not or something like that, you know, on what constitutes a can preemptive wars, you know, for example, with the war with Iran or preemptive wars with any sort of like rising Islamist inspired state, can they be justified and so on. Because in my historical work, you know, you know, a lot of my dissertation was on Luther's thinking about, on Islam and the Quran, but especially in light of the rise of the Ottoman Turks or the advance of the Ottoman Turks into Central Europe. So that, that's why. But I think especially at this moment, the war in Iran are the US and it's, it's. I don't know, I don't know if this is accurate, but it seems like we've turned away from what was a short lived non aggress, non aggression or non interventionist policy or that was the promise of the current administration to a much more assertive. It almost looks like an imperial policy which if you're wanting to be an empire, then start acting like one. And that seems to be what we're doing at the moment. So I don't want to lay down my political cards too much, but I just did it.
- [05:49]
Caleb Keith
So yeah, you just went for it.
- [05:53]
Adam Francisco
But it is behind it all is this ethical question, you know, can Christians. We had an episode what two, three months ago on lethal force. Can Christians use lethal force? I think is how we framed it because in the New Testament There is a little bit of. It's certainly not a contradiction. There is a tension. Jesus seems like a pacifist in many ways. Not always, but in many ways. And yet Paul in Romans 13 acknowledges the authority of the state to wield the sword. So Christians have been debating this and what this means in terms of like the Christian disposition or the Christian ethic ever since the very beginning in fact. So that's a perennial question in Christianity.
- [06:43]
Caleb Keith
There's an interesting tension here for me. I mean that has to do with like if a war, you know, the distinction between a just war and the government's ability to and authority to start wars or engage in wars or even if it's not quote, just according to a Christian ethics. So that, you know, the authority to kill rightly has been given to the government both sort of domestically in your, in your presence, the death penalty or even what we talked about when it came to Christians in self defense, we talked about that, you know, laws in your country may vary and that, you know, there could be a justified use of self defense in a particular country. That's illegal then, right? And the government has the authority to, I mean to do that, to try a crime for a just homicide. I think the same thing kind of applies to war, which is a Christian can come up with or we can come up with a framework by which we can kind of determine or externally look at wars and say, you know, there's a good ethical justification. Or a Christian could say yes, it is right to engage in war over this for these reasons, but that the government has the authority to engage in war sort of fourth commandment issues, whether or not I find it personally just they have the authority to do that. And then what my ability to do anything about if I find that the government is engaging in an unjust war or the United States has engaged in an unjust war, or where you live if you're a Christian living in a non Christian land. So Adam, for your example, if you're a Christian living in an Islamic land, how much does your personal or even your objective from your faith perspective of what makes a war a conflict just even matter if you have, if you're a Christian living in an Islamic Lemony of no influence over it, you're sort of then philosophically pontificating about whether a war is just or not, but you have no influence over it in America. I think one of the reasons Christians talk about this or engage or why it's important to think about this is in theory we would believe that we have some influence over this by the officials that we elect and sort of promises that they make during those elections. Sort of like you mentioned, there were in this last sweeping, in the last set of elections, whether you voted for people or not. One of the big promises was no new wars. Right? That was one of the big promises. So Americans believe they exert some influence over that or even in the way our government is set up, which is executive powers to engage in ballistic conflict, or however they want to phrase that are limited until Congress has to. Or theoretically limited. They haven't really been limited in my lifetime, but are theoretically limited until Congress is meant to get involved and declare war, which then you would theoretically feel like you have some influence over again, because those people, those members of Congress represent you. And you are supposed to have channels to talking to those representatives, whether that's mail, email, phone calls, whatever. You're supposed to have channels to do that. So you would have some influence over that. So I also think that doesn't affect whether or not a conflict is just. I find, you know, that we can talk about an episode about there's some objective. There is objective truth here about things being just or unjust or things being good or bad or evil or lawful or whatever. But that also the authority and your ability to do anything about that is very limited, depending on where you live in the world, what you are. And so I think it would be interesting to say, is there something about just war that is helpful even when you have no influence over the war, as sort of a side question that we answer in this episode?
- [11:24]
Adam Francisco
Yeah, I mean, the snark or the snarky person in me, which is maybe I just am a snarky person, would say, yeah, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. But, you know, historically, and I know Bruce being the Augustine scholar among us, I don't know how much you've dabbled in Augustine's theory of just war. But for Christians, for 2,000 years, it's been something they've had to wrestle with for. And I think it's with Augustine and the rise or the fusion is probably too strong of a term. But, you know, church and state after the conversion of Constantine, and then by the end of the fourth century, Christians find themselves, themselves in a very different position in terms of their influence in politics. Because now the Roman Empire in the fourth and subsequent centuries is Christianized in a way. But before that, for 300 years, there's depending on where and how you look at it, there's a lot of restlessness among Christians over the question whether, whether a Christian can serve in the roman army. The first hundred, 200 years of Christianity, by and large, I think it's, you know, Christians are like absolutely not. Because then you're, you're going to be compelled to do things that are sinful, unethical and so on. But then you start to see in the third and fourth century, at least in the not so much the history of ideas, but what we might call, for lack of a better term, social history of Christianity in the early days, you see a lot more representation of Christians in the Roman army before the conversion of Constantine. And then, then at that point the question is like how much how in can Christians be in military service? And finally you get to Augustine in the late fourth, early fifth century. When did he die? Was it like 430 AD or AD 430. Bruce yeah,
- [13:30]
Bruce Hillman
well Rome had been sacked so yeah, he died shortly after that.
- [13:36]
Adam Francisco
So he's going to have to Augustine and he's going to set in a way the agenda for Christians all the way up until the collapse of Christendom, whenever that happened, over whether or not what guidelines should there be for Christian civilization or governments that are at least trying to be Christian governments or informed by Christian teachings, How should they think about whether or not they should go to war and their conduct in war? And you see that up to and through and well past the Reformation. But then when you get into the Enlightenment, things change quite radically. Where the way Lou Marcus, who was at our apologetics conference a couple weeks ago, put it in one of his books, he says that around the time of the Enlightenment, so we're talking late 17th or at least early 18th century, Christians started letting non Christians do their thinking for them when it came to politics, ethics and statecraft and things of that nature. So to your question, Caleb the reason why I say no is because we don't live in a Christian world where thinkers are really or where statesmen and politicians are really concerned about Christian doctrine or Christian ethics for good or for ill. That's a totally different issue. However, I do think it's important for the individual Christian in thinking about how all in they're going to be even in things. And I don't really get so worked up over well I guess I probably did if I paid attention but I would if I paid attention know like how all in should you be on this war, in this war with Iran, should you be like sending memes to your friends boasting about how we're just like destroying the infrastructure in Iran, although it was announced this morning that we're going to stop for a while to give Iran the chance to come to the table, the negotiating table. So it does matter in terms of the, you know, the Christian intellectual life. That's probably all I needed to say rather than that monologue.
- [15:54]
Caleb Keith
But no, no, no, I, I do think it's an important question because of what you, what you said at the beginning of your monologue, which is this. The theorizing about just for, you know, begins its prominence in Christian thinking and writing when Christianity is part of the system of governance, right? And there are Christian rulers and Christian princes and Christian government. And so then it is important, which is, you know, not only is this a question of can Christians fight in the army or whatever it may be, be involved in some conflict, but then are the actions of your Christian rulers Christian? Right. That's the, that's sort of the question that we don't have to answer today, right? Because like, of what you said, which is we've separated that. So then the question is, even if your president is a Christian, are his actions judged by that or they or they judged by the constitution? And more frequently, first they would be judged by this, you know, separate document, constitution, as to whether he has authority or legitimacy to do it rather than Christian.
- [17:10]
Adam Francisco
And I would like to add, though, I think I maybe, I don't know if I overstated it, but that people in government are still asking the question. There's some deliberation over whether this is just whether we should be doing it, how we should be doing it and so on is a testament to our Christian heritage. To be sure, it's not like in the Enlightenment, you know, Christendom slowly winds down. Right. But it's not like Christianity doesn't have its influence. It absolutely does. And Tom Holland's book Dominion is sort of like the masterpiece in demonstrating how even though we live in an age that is increasingly, what do they call it, de Christianizing, they're still in the realm of ethics and politics and so on. But we live in a de Christianizing world, or a world that is dechristianizing, but even so that we deliberate over whether or not something is just or right and so on, is a testament to the Christian influence on our civilization, at least in the realm of politics and ethics. You know, so it's still like, you know, I don't want to. We're not politicians here, none of us, even me. It's been over two decades since I've had a security clearance. So we have Zero access to the intelligence that our government has concerning the threat Iran poses on, you know, Israel or the United States or what have you. So I would be. I would not. I would be very cautious. And, you know, and who cares what Adam thinks anyway? I'm sitting in my basement, you know, But I. I don't know that, you know, that there are conversations about whether they should, you know, whether. Whether war should be conducted or not, though, I think is a good thing.
- [19:12]
Bruce Hillman
So can I just add some clarity to just, broadly speaking, the kind of intent behind just work? Because there might be some confusion here. So real briefly, the history of this is sort of. Augustine is the first one to come up with this. And generally speaking, scholars kind of name three criteria or three rules that he came up with, although that's really selling Augustine short. This was nothing systematized. He did not sit down and develop a just war theory. So you have to kind of piece together a bunch of things he says, and you get those three principles. But what Aquinas will do is Aquinas will take Augustine's stuff as well as other things that have been written in the interval between him and Thomas, and he will be the first really systematizes. In other words, Thomas sits down and actually does develop a just war theory as a systematized theory. And Thomas is at pains to say it's not Christian, meaning that any government should follow this. So it's not just for Christian rulers, and it's not even. It's not even really foundationally based on Christian principles. Because Thomas grounds just war theory in natural law, he doesn't ground it in revelation, and he's at pains to say such. So, for example, Thomas says that war is a material evil. And what he means by that is that, you know, our bodies are physical bodies and they die, and they die in war. And there's real suffering and actual, like, it's a. It's an evil we experience apart from religious or philosophical ideas of evil. Like, everyone who's been involved in war and its consequences is like, yeah, this is evil.
- [20:55]
Caleb Keith
It's like saying, like, war can be just, but war can't be good. You know?
- [21:01]
Bruce Hillman
Exactly. And for Thomas, then the arguments for just war essentially are based in natural law. And revelation comes in when the question becomes, okay, in light of this natural law that we all know, how should a Christian behave? So he does go down that road. But essentially he builds off Augustine's three points, which is, first of all, to have a just war. The kind of three classic criteria are it can only be done by a sovereign, meaning the due and proper leader or leaders of a country or nation. So people in the country cannot ever declare war. And it be just. You need to have the sovereign or the prime minister or the president or the Congress or the king or whoever they have to. And Aquinas says this is just natural order. You've put this person in charge to make these decisions. So anyone else who's trying to make these decisions on behalf of the country is in a rebellious. And that's not good for order.
- [22:13]
Caleb Keith
And so I'm gonna like intermittently stop you and I'll let you keep going because I think there's some interesting things here. So like if an individual does an act of war and says it's just war, that's what we today would call terrorism, essentially. Right.
- [22:27]
Adam Francisco
If.
- [22:27]
Caleb Keith
If I go and commit an act of war on a foreign government, power people or whatever neighboring in the name of my country or in the name of a cause, that's terrorism.
- [22:39]
Bruce Hillman
Yep. The second criteria is you have to have a just cause. Now they give lots of examples of what a just cause is, but of course this is where you give a little more interpretive room than the first. The first one's pretty clear cut. The second one is less so. But a just cause essentially all boils down to charity, the old word charity. So in other words, you just cause as such.
- [23:07]
Adam Francisco
If
- [23:10]
Bruce Hillman
something was evil, was done to your country and you are seeking retribution. Now retribution means equal paying back from what was done to you. So for example, I want more land, so I'm just going to invade and take. It is not a just cause.
- [23:29]
Caleb Keith
Right.
- [23:29]
Bruce Hillman
But they hit the towers on 9, 11. Just cause. So there's a sense that if something's been extracted from the country, the second reason is a defense. If someone is put in harm's way, if the country is put in harm's way, the country of course can defend itself. It can do that. And then sometimes there's other ones that are sort of listed. Usually the, the last one that's kind of listed is to, to bring about a greater peace. So you might enter a war to help stop the war from going on. Like the United States might enter World War II because by them entering it, World War II will last less longer. And that might be a just cause for war, because in the end, what Augustine and Aquinas agree with is that you only go to war ever. This is kind of the trump card of just war theory to bring about greater peace. You can never go to war. It can never be a just war for any other reason than the seeking of peace. So sometimes people are like, why do Christians have a just war theory? Aren't they? Like, why wouldn't they have a peace theory? Just war theory is a peace theory. It's just a peace theory that understands that sometimes in order to achieve peace, you need to have war. And so it's seeking to limit this sort of way that war can happen. For example, Augustine says you always have to be on guard against blood libido, which is bloodlust. Like just kings who are arrogant and they just want to invade somebody. They want to take over more land, or they want to test out their new military technology, or they just make up all these reasons. So what just worth doing is experiencing
- [25:04]
Caleb Keith
a lot of restraint, not naming certain American politicians when you say that.
- [25:11]
Bruce Hillman
So it's trying to build a framework that says, yeah, it's a necessary evil to go to war, but let's, let's make sure that we, we, we think through this because the consequences are so great. And then the last of the third points, that's usually that are the classic three points is the right intention. And this really comes, this is where Augustine spends most of his time. I don't think Aquinas spends as much time on this one. But for Gustinus, the most important, which is what is actually, what is actually in your heart in, in regards to, for those who have to make this decision, what's actually in your heart. Like, are you, do you, like, your enemy should not be seen as someone who needs to be destroyed? Which sounds oxymoronic. Like, because they're your enemy and you're willing to go to war, shouldn't you want to destroy them? But actually the goal always is to bring about peace. So if you have to destroy them to bring about peace, okay, that's one thing. But if your intention isn't to bring about peace, but is to destroy them or to punish them, or to extract resources from them or anything like that, or to increase your power or to, you know, get election victory, whatever. We could name all these other reasons, right? That would not be a just war because the intention should always come down to somehow bringing about a greater peace. So those are the three classic ones. On top of that, Aquinas goes into a bunch of other things which we don't have to go into. But just to give you an example, like Augustine will say, once you're engaged in war, there's sort of, he doesn't use this term, but there's rules of engagement that Also make the war just or unjust. So, for example, you can't break your promises. It becomes an unjust war at that point. So, for example, if, if someone surrenders, they put a white flag up and then you say, okay, you can cross over here so we can talk about this. And on their way over, you shoot them that you've, you're no longer engaged in a just war. And Aquinas gives a similar example to that. In other words, whatever promises you make to the enemy, you have to keep them. But then Aquinas says, which is interesting, as part of these rules of engagement, you can deceive the enemy. You just can't break your promises. So, for example, let's say the enemy has a scouting party and they're going, they're up on the ridge and they're looking over into your territory because they want to invade. And they see all these bushes and trees and everything else, and they see this one area that's like, there's no trees and bushes. And they go, okay, we're gonna, we're gonna plan an assault, we're gonna do a charge and we're gonna go right through there. And what they don't know is that hiding behind all those trees, because they're not real trees, you've just cut down branches and you've set up a trap. Aquinus is like, that's perfectly fine. Like, they read into your deceit. You, you were actively trying to deceive them and they read into this seat and that's fine. But you didn't make a promise and break it. You didn't say, I'm not going to ever try to ambush you. So it can get messy. And obviously as time goes on and people are thinking through these theories, it gets ever more complex. The last thing I'll just say, which is interesting, that both Aquinas and the whole Christian just war theory, actually Aquinas and Augustine, all of them kind of agree on this, is that clergy cannot commit violence in a just war. So if your clergy are involved in a war, ordained clergy, they can be in the war, they can help, but they represent a spiritual side of things, so they should not take up arms. And the reason for this is interesting, Adam sort of alluded to it earlier with the early church. And that's because at least for Augustine and Aquinas, Christians cannot engage even in self defense. Like they would have to be killed. They can't defend themselves. It's not a just act. So a soldier in just war theory, if you're commissioned into the army. The soldier can fight even if they're a Christian. But as an individual Christian who witnesses about Christ, Augustine says, well, if someone's going to kill you, you have to basically let them kill you. You probably won't, but then you'll be sinning because you have to turn the other cheek. You have to take the sword away. Like what Peter did. They just list all these examples. So that was a real problem for the early church, as Adam said, joining the military. That wasn't clear by Augustine's time. It's clear you can join the military, but you can't engage in violence as an individual citizen. The other big issue with joining the military in the early church was you'd have to perform pagan sacrifices. And that was the thing they were really worried about.
- [30:05]
Adam Francisco
They're like, no, no, no, no, no,
- [30:07]
Bruce Hillman
I can't do that.
- [30:07]
Adam Francisco
Yeah, a lot of people, folks say that in the early church, everybody's a pacifist because nobody joined the military or they left the military when they converted and so on. And the studies in this actually say it's a lot more complicated. And the real issue is what you're obligated to do as a service member. That's an anachronism. That's what they're really saying for a pinch of incense because it would compete with your loyalty to Christ. But quick question, Bruce. So you mentioned Augustine and Aquinas saying that for. Was it the ordained, like chaplains, if you will.
- [30:42]
Bruce Hillman
Yeah, they didn't have chaplains. He just. Aquinas just says the clergy. He just says the clergy.
- [30:46]
Adam Francisco
The clergy have to. They cannot defend themselves. But what, What. Okay, that makes sense.
- [30:53]
Bruce Hillman
No, no, what if. Sorry, go ahead. They can't. Yeah, they can't fight.
- [30:57]
Adam Francisco
Okay, yeah, that's. That makes sense. But, but for the, the Christian bearing witness to Christ as a Christian, a little Christ, as Luther would call all baptized people in circumstances. I know this is getting too nuanced, casuistry and so on, but if you're in a context where, yeah, you're most likely going to get killed, but so too are the people around you, aren't you called to defend your neighbor for Augustine?
- [31:30]
Bruce Hillman
Only if you are in the military. If you're not in the military, then Christians should never take up individually violence. Now that's an extreme view. Right. And it's not the view that all Christians hold even slightly past Augustine's time period. But yeah, he's pretty. The irony of Augustine is he is a huge, massive pacifist when it comes to the individual. And he is completely okay with soldiers and sovereigns engaging in violent warfare if it's just. But he's at pains to separate those two orders, if you will, because he's very afraid. I think this is my interpretation now. I think he's very afraid that individuals will always find a cause to engage in violence. Remember, he sees these games all the time, these gladiatorial games where there's violence all the time. He's always bothered by them. He always talks about how people go in for this bloodlust and they love to watch people being killed in the games. So there's some of his context here is just raw violence, unnecessary violence that he's seeing all the time. And he's trying to remove that from the individual's freedom of choice. And he's saying, well, if it's in a right ordered place, you can do it, but not in this sphere.
- [32:48]
Caleb Keith
So not with Augustine, because it's, it's later, but in some of the early church too, is that so much of the violence that gets theorized about is specifically against Christians for the gospel. So then you're in this thing we talked about in the self defense episode as well, which is the distinction between like protecting your life and the life of your neighbor against a generic type of violence. Somebody breaking into your house, taking things and then raping and killing or whatever these things are, and somebody persecuting you for your faith and a Christian then, you know, having to be this deliberate, you know, between am I being persecuted and I'm being killed for the gospel or am I being killed just because I'm the most, you know, immediate human to this, to this attacker. So there's a definitely interesting distinction too, because when we talked in that episode, you know, most of the early church is pretty on board with you. You don't kill your persecutors in return, your religious persecutors in return. And so you know, that distinction from then, you know, self defense of your neighbor over, I don't know, bodily goods or a just cause for self defense, which, as you said, Augustine's afraid that everybody will find a just cause, but a truly just cause for self defense. And is difficult
- [34:24]
Adam Francisco
this,
- [34:27]
Caleb Keith
this topic. I guess it seems important to me not just because of whatever's going on in the US but to revisit occasionally, sort of going back to that statement about, you know, war can be just but not good because in the, in a sense, war will always, you know, scripture is pretty clear about this. War will continue to happen until the return of Christ, you know, we have.
- [34:53]
Adam Francisco
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
- [34:55]
Caleb Keith
Right.
- [34:56]
Adam Francisco
The quote that's usually attributed to the ancients, whether it's. I've seen Plato or Thucydides, and I don't know, some say it's actually a modern thing, but that's the perennial issue.
- [35:11]
Bruce Hillman
Caleb, an example of what you just said might be, strictly speaking, and I'm not saying this is right, in fact, I'm saying this is a great debate point, but strictly speaking, under just war theory, I think most classic just war theorists would say that the Iran war is a just war because it meets the criteria of what Iran has done to the United States through its proxies and other stuff to go to war. But it would also say that the American Revolution was not a just war. So you can debate whether that's right or wrong.
- [35:42]
Caleb Keith
Wouldn't be a just war.
- [35:44]
Bruce Hillman
You could debate whether that's right or wrong. Right. But I'm just saying. So the theory is. Is. Isn't perfect, right? Because you can say, well, we were under tyranny and we needed to. But they would go. That's not just where you. It wasn't the right. It wasn't a sovereign, and you didn't have a just cause. You didn't have enough of a just cause, and your intention wasn't.
- [36:02]
Caleb Keith
It's also right. I would say just war theory has some limits as to what you can. I mean, maybe not limits on describing what is just, but basically the formation of any new nation would always be unjust. So the American Revolution would fall into this. The taking of any land as long as that land is in. So if you look at the globe now, basically all the land on the planet is in possession of some country or government body. You can't form a new nation without violence or without an act of insurrection against another or current government or whatever.
- [36:36]
Bruce Hillman
Well, you could have countries like in Commonwealth countries, right, where the other. The dominant country gives them their freedom.
- [36:43]
Caleb Keith
Yeah, sure. Outside of like a gift of land, Right. Like the formation of a new country is essentially impossible. Or even in situations where a gift of land might cause conflict with other neighboring nations or peoples or whatever. And so I do find you could
- [37:00]
Bruce Hillman
have an emancipation thing though, too, right, where, like, hypothetically speaking, like, the US Goes in, they get rid of the Iranian regime because it's a just war to get rid of that regime. But then they form a new nation, an independent nation. They emancipate. So there are. There is room to play. But yes, it's much, much Harder to form a new nation under the just war theory.
- [37:20]
Caleb Keith
Yeah. You know, and revolution of. From an unjust government becomes very difficult. I also see one thing I'm sort of afraid of in modern politics, which is you said that war is always at the ends of peace. Like. Right. That's always. This is. This occurred to me. I had a conversation with my children about war that had to do with. That was essentially we should desire peace so that you don't go to war unnecessarily. And this, you know, one of my kids asked why we were going to war with Iran instead of China because they've heard that China is our enemy on the news or in TV or on podcasts or whatever. Right. So why would you. And they've never heard the word Iran before. So then all of a sudden they're like, well, I thought we had an enemy over here. Why don't we should go to war with them? Is what one of my children said. I said, no, no, no, no. You should desire peace at all costs before you go to war with anybody. You should always attempt negotiation, whatever you can attempt to have peace. But what I am afraid is that Americans, particularly American politicians or any of us, might do is exchange the word peace for democracy, which is something I've heard time and time again. Right. Like how many conflicts or regime changes or whatever it may be, are at the behest of democracy and democracy.
- [38:42]
Adam Francisco
Making democracy for democracy.
- [38:44]
Caleb Keith
Yes.
- [38:45]
Adam Francisco
As we approach the end of history.
- [38:47]
Caleb Keith
Yeah. That, I fear, is what some people will hear when we go, well, of course we can justify this. We're bringing peace to the Middle east by bringing democracy to this regime or to this nation or to these oppressed people. And so you can hear that as well. Or that, for instance, the United States is always doing something. Just if we can say that we're bringing peace to another country that doesn't have peace, even if it doesn't affect the United States. And this is what happens when you have these global powers like the United States, China, Russia, some other emerging powers, some old powers that used to be more global, that are now more dependent on us or other countries as well, which is if we can like, then look over the whole planet and say, well, there's unrest in this location. If we use our military force to create peace in this location, that doesn't affect. Just theoretically doesn't affect our people, our neighbors. There's no outcome that benefits Americans or their neighbors. It's just for the sake of peace in this country. Is it just to do then in some faraway place that Augustine can't even imagine because he doesn't have satellites and F22s and aircraft carriers and submarines and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons that then complicate the situation because it's like, well, I could find a regime that is doing very unjust things to its people and maybe I have the power to produce peace there. Is that a war that we should engage in might be different than is violence against an evil regime, just in some sort of ethical sense as well.
- [40:27]
Adam Francisco
It was maybe, you know, this rhetoric about democracy, a lot of it. I mean, I know. So I don't know how old you were at the time, Caleb, but in the, in the wake of September 11, 2001, that was a lot of the, at least the rhetoric. I was six for the invasion of Iraq. But I'm convinced that more and more that is just more political rhetoric to get people excited or supportive of the war. Like think of the issue with Iran. I don't know what to think of it because I've not been tracking Iran for 20 years. But it's always been sort of like on the periphery of my radar and thinking about the Muslim majority world. And it represents and has represented a pretty grave threat through. You referred to them as proxies, but, you know, organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, they're, you know, they're intelligence agents that, you know, because we don't have access to the intel, there is some open source stuff. Sarah Adams has a, you know, former CIA who's gone private, has been tracking this stuff there. Iran does represent a significant threat, not just to Israel. You know, that's neither here nor there to me, but to the United States. And I don't think the current war, now what going on three weeks is really about us making it safe for democracy or anything like that. It is at the same time, though, an attempt to, it seems, change the regime there because the regime is so extreme in terms of its ideology, at least rhetorically, but in reality that I think a case can't. And I'm not taking sides on any of this, but a case certainly could be made that this, this is absolutely just. Especially given the, the, the nuclear issue. Whether or not they were. What, what's. There's all these memes going around like the. They're 30 days away from weaponizing.
- [42:33]
Caleb Keith
I mean, since 1993, Israel has been coming to the. So there's that saying this.
- [42:38]
Adam Francisco
Yeah, but they have been pursuing absolutely the enrichment of uranium. For what purposes? Is it just for energy? Probably not given the ideology of 12 or Shiism, which is the state ideology of Iran, which does suggest that you can force the Hidden Imam, this messianic figure, to return to usher in a global Islamic caliphate. I mean, I know those are just words, but it is that's. They really do believe that the Ayatollah, just the title Ayatollah. So like each individual verse in the Quran is an ayat and you add Allah after it, you get ayatollah. So like, that particular person is seen as somebody who. It's like the Prophet, the living prophet in Mormonism, you know, they discern Allah's will. That's a real dangerous thing, especially when you have access to nuclear weapons or bio even. I don't know if it's worse, but just as horrific as biochemical weapons. So the, the issue, like what I'm seeing in the media, which, you know, I'm increasingly not watching because it's just chaotic and silly and superficial, but is people taking sides, people who have zero access to information taking sides on the issue. And whether it's. They're not framing it in terms of just war, but in terms of whether or not America should be involved in this and so on and so forth.
- [44:15]
Caleb Keith
I will.
- [44:15]
Adam Francisco
Much more complicated and dangerous issue than we even are aware of.
- [44:20]
Caleb Keith
I will say, Adam, to like push back a little bit now we're going to be doing like I ran back and forth. No, but is. I do think it is difficult for people, especially when we talk about just war theory, to say that the keys to knowing whether or not this was just are locked behind classified intel information that with your eyes, with your ability to empirically observe what's happening or your lack of ability to empirically observe what's happening, you, the American people will never know if this was a just war or not. Because even with retrospect, you'll never have all the information because only the government gets to have or certain, not even the government, but like certain people with. With access to information will have all the information. Now, I think in just war theory, this actually kind of works to Bruce's point, which is that the sovereign is the one who gets to call these shots, which is to say it actually doesn't require that the people know that a war is just for war to be. Just because a sovereign can't have all the information that be bothersome to us, the people who are governed for political reasons or for lots of different reasons. But that also as much as Islam is sort of globally a threat and has an eschatology that requires conflict and power and benefits from this. And we would, as Christians say, sort of demonic or is threatening other religions in the region also. And practitioners of those religions, some of them in the US Government, also have eschatologies that require conflict in the Middle east or potentially lead to conflict in the Middle east, including some forms of Christian Zionism and setting up the temple in Jerusalem. That, for instance, defense of Israel goes beyond it being a political ally of the United States and becomes a religious issue that there are there, there is a religious extremism that has that piece of land as essential to its plans in a fringe or sort of erroneous view of Christian eschatology, as well as Mormonism has eschatology that envisions plans for the Middle east as well as some sects of Judaism. So, yes, we might be able to say Islam is particularly bad, but that it has eschatological ends. For war is not unique when it comes to the Middle East. And so that whole thing always is dangerous because it means that any conflict in the Middle east and all of these conflicts in my life potentially become religious conflicts across three or four different types of religion. And then you have these sort of long lasting effects past the wars. So besides that, I always think the question is interesting. This has nothing, I sort of do with the objectivity of the justice behind a war. But I think personally for people, I do find that the question, for instance, would you be willing to. To fight and die for this conflict or have your sons fight and die for this conflict adds an additional level to the justice. You have to be really sure it's just, or that it's good or that it has some beneficial ends to be able to answer that question affirmative, outside of some form of cowardice where people just answer no to that question always, would you be willing to, you know, be shipped off to Iran and die for this or to have your sons die for this cause? Is it, Is it that just. Is it that whatever I always think is an interesting question for Christians because as Bruce said, this question first begins in natural law and natural revelation and not biblical revelation. And so asking that question, is it revealed to you that this cause would be good for you and your country or your countrymen, or be essential for you? And asking it in the personal, would you be willing to fight for this seems important.
- [48:47]
Bruce Hillman
Can I just add two things on that? One, I would just say that if you ask that question, because Aquinas does talk about this, although he doesn't say that exact question, but, but Aquinas says you, you, you can't ask that question. That's not for you to ask the sovereign. It is your duty as a soldier to go where the sovereign tells you to go. So even if the sovereign, Aquinas says is involved in an unjust war, you still have to go as the soldier because it is just for you to do your duty.
- [49:18]
Caleb Keith
Oh, I think that's true. That's actually not what I'm reporting. I think if you get drafted or if you are in military service, you have to. The government has. That's fourth commandment stuff right there, pretty plain and simple. They have the authority to do wars that you don't think are just. They have that authority or that you wouldn't even like or something like that. My question is, and I get that for Augustine Aquinas, the entire ancient world, you would never place yourself in the sovereign because you're just a little plebe down here who has no effect over what the sovereign does. But in a world that has that nasty word that I already used, democracy, or can envision that any person could be elected to power. I could be elected to Congress, or you could be elected to president or something that asking questions like this would I find this conflict so just that if I had the choice, I would be involved in it or engage in it or whatever.
- [50:15]
Bruce Hillman
Well, yeah, if you were elected, you would, then you would then be the sovereign, right? You would be part of that.
- [50:20]
Caleb Keith
Yes.
- [50:21]
Bruce Hillman
But the second thing I was gonna say, and this is interesting, so this morning, by happenstance, I was watching a video on Business Insider of what it's like to command a nuclear power submarine. They had a, they had a ex commander on. And he was just. It was like this documentary and he was just. This is all the stuff I can tell you, you know, about what it's like and everything from like life aboard the boat to actually like what he has to do in his command and everything else. And the question was posed to him, well, why did you join? Like, why did you join the Naval Academy and do all this? And he said, honestly, I joined because of the existential strait of the Soviet Union. Like, I, I wanted to fight the Soviets. I believed in like democracy and I believed in America. And I believed that we were the good guys. And, you know, I wanted to be a part of that. And I was very passionate about that. And that kind of got me through my whole career. He said, it's much harder nowadays because if you're in command now, you have this whole diverse crew, you know, which he thinks is an asset because it's a lot of different ideas on the boat, which he particularly liked. But he said that also creates challenges. And he said it's not as clear to the. Like, even to the commander of the boat, but definitely not to the crew, like always what they're fighting for. And he thinks that that's much harder for military service people now because it was very easy then. It was just, well, they're the Soviets and they're bad. And so he said, of course they're going to do their duty. They rise up and always do their duty. But commanders have this added. And this was his opinion, of course, commanders have this added thing now, which is keeping morale up in a way that he felt like when he was in command wasn't as big of a deal because it was just the Cold War and it was easy. So to your earlier point, Caleb, about like, peace equaling democracy, I completely agree, but I also see if you don't put a face to what you mean by peace, it becomes very hard to execute war. Well, because everybody's sort of.
- [52:30]
Caleb Keith
They need to know what they're fighting for.
- [52:32]
Bruce Hillman
They need to know what they're fighting for, and they need to know that what they're fighting for to them is just, you know, like, I mean, Adam, you've actually been there and done some of this, so please correct me if any of this sounds off, because I don't. I'm not speaking for the military or anything. I'm just speaking for what this one guy said, and it's just his opinion. But I, I thought it was a profound point. Like there needs. There needs to be a face to the justice that not only makes you risk your life, but, like, be away from your family and like, you're gonna lose your friends and maybe your own life. Like, that needs to be very simple in some ways. Like, it just needs to be. What do you think, Adam?
- [53:15]
Adam Francisco
I. Yes.
- [53:17]
Bruce Hillman
Okay. I didn't know.
- [53:20]
Caleb Keith
Yeah.
- [53:20]
Adam Francisco
I think that we have a tendency to overthink things, especially as we're think talking about this just war, the just war theory in Christianity and applying it to, like, the issue of Iran or any other issue for the person involved in that, they're not thinking this deeply. They're. They are, like you said, Bruce, they're. They're mostly thinking about doing a job for a very particular purpose, whether it's to defend their buddies or to defend their homeland, whether, like, there's a. I forget the, The. The comedian. This is going back years and years ago. Who made this comment. I won't mention his name, because I think he's been canceled for some reason or said something about. He made some comment about people, this is in the wake of September 11th, going off to, to fight the Taliban or Al Qaeda or whatever. And he goes. And they, they think they're defending, they think they're defending freedom. And then he giggled. You know, everybody's giggling in the audience. I remember thinking, I mean, how else are you going to get people motivated to go and do things like that unless you use that sort of rhetoric? You know, whether it's. And it's. You can really overthink it and say, in the case of, like, Iran right now, what does Iran have to do with us? You know, really, I mean, apart from these, you know, these, these alleged sleeper cells in the United states, something like 1400 of them, we're told. And, you know, and other things that have happened over the, the decades since the Iranian Revolution. 79. What would motivate, let's say a submarine sailor to want to be involved in, like, launching a, like a torpedo and sinking a Iranian naval vessel? It's not going to be like some fancy just war. No.
- [55:20]
Caleb Keith
It's going to be this badass to blow up a boat.
- [55:23]
Adam Francisco
Yeah, yeah. So it's those sorts of things. I think that's which. Was that what you were kind of talking about, Bruce?
- [55:28]
Bruce Hillman
Yeah, I was just saying that, you know, there's this, there's this like the just war that applies to the sovereign, right. Like, that we've been talking about is sort of the sovereign needs to take their time and be for peace and all that kind of stuff. But Cable was mentioning a sort of, if I could say it, like a personal just war theory, like one that isn't part of the formal theory but is still an important question to ask, like, if I'm going to go die or my kids are going to go die in this war, like, don't I don't. I also need to consider whether it's, it's just to hell with what the sovereign thinks. Like, it's, it's important to me. And I was just saying in that regard, like, it needs, it needs to be. You need to put a face on your cause. Otherwise, like, you almost have to use the rhetoric. Otherwise. It's almost to your point earlier, Adam. Like, you don't have all the intelligence. You don't have. Like, how are you ever going to be able to know if it's just or not? You just need to believe in something higher at some point and just either trust the government is Somewhat telling you the truth that they're absolutely not. I don't know what else, I don't know what else you could do. To answer the question Caleb asked the
- [56:36]
Caleb Keith
I would say the shortcoming of just war theory is that I do think it's actually the shortcoming that we ended on last time with self defense, which is you'll, you can engage in a just war or be a soldier fighting in an army that is engaging in just war or whatever and be saved, be forgiven of your sins, but not because the war was just. Does that make sense? Like a just war does not justify the sinner or just war does not make the United States a righteous Christian nation or whatever it may be. It has no making effect creative power on those who engage in this kind of thing. The only thing that actually justifies the sinner or makes one actually righteous is the declared righteousness of Jesus Christ. War exists because of sin. And the government was given the authority of the law to curb sin through force, to limit the effects of sin through force, to put restraints on it, through death. That's a power it possesses. That's pretty clear even in the most simple parts of the Lutheran confessions. For instance, in the large catechism talking about the fifth commandment. I think it's a correct interpretation of what you find in Scripture too about you shall not murder. And even the fourth commandment when it comes to this promise that you should live long on the earth and the authority of parents then to the government or of us to the government to then use death as a mechanism of enforcing limits on human behavior. I think that's true. But that at the same time means death. It means the death of sometimes innocent lives. It certainly means the death of lives on both sides in most conflicts, even when it's very one sided. And it only is caused by, or should be caused by the threat of death and harm and starvation or theft or whatever these other things are. And so its necessity is not good either. It's a necessity. The necessity for government to wield the sword is because of sin as well. So that to me is just sort of a limit on how much you praise war, even if you find it's just, or how much you would engage in war, even if it's just, which is, you know, that's a hard balance because patriotism, morale, all of that is important. As Bruce said, you can't just have like a really solemn population fighting an effective war. That's sort of ridiculous. But I also think it means that Christians for political and personal Reasons can fall on different sides of a war that meets the criteria of just war theory. So for instance, I think, as you guys said, you could look at this conflict in Iran and go, well, it meets the criteria for just war theory if it's carried out in this way and our behavior is such in these things. But that Christian Americans could have different political opinions as to whether we're engaging in this, should be engaging in this conflict or not. Just because it's just war doesn't mean we should always be engaging in the conflict if it meets a criteria for just war. I don't know if you guys agree
- [60:15]
Bruce Hillman
with that or not, but I mean, some of the common criticisms of just war, three, one of them you just mentioned, which is that the criteria isn't really stable, it's up to a lot of interpretation. And so it ends up just being a hoop to jump through to end up justifying in most cases what you want to do anyway. So that's a major criticism. Another major criticism of it is that it actually does the opposite of what it intends. So like Aquinas says another criteria for just war. I didn't talk about this one because it's rare, but it would be like if God ordained it. So for instance, in the Old Testament, Aquinas says when God says to go to war, it's a just war because God said to do it. Now Aquinas is kind of mum and doesn't really think like someone has a divine access to do that, although maybe with the Crusades and stuff like that, he would be more on board like that. That's truly a holy war. I don't know enough Aquinas to know about that, but I know he does say that if it's God ordains it, then it's a just war. But another criticism of the just war theory is that it does the opposite of what it says. So essentially it makes something right and righteous that may not be and therefore gives you occasion to do it more often. Right? So from an Islamic perspective, like if you believe that God is telling you to engage in violent jihad, like, then you're justified under a just war theory, and that means you can justify it more often. If you can continue to say that God is ordaining it as just one example. But even apart from the sort of theocratic rubber stamp on it, some theorists, you know, who disagree with it say it just it. It basically allows someone to sleep at night and engage in more wars if they meet, if they can tick certain boxes. So it's a Very controversial thing in history. It's still used today. I mean, West Point still teaches parts of just war theory to their students. It's not, not. It's not extinct or irrelevant in any way, but it's certainly not perfect. I don't know what else we really have to work with though. And I think that's maybe why it's stuck around so much.
- [62:31]
Adam Francisco
You know, I was thinking when. So in the 16th century when, when the, the Turks make their way up the. The plains of Hungary towards Vienna, Luther's forced to think about how to. Whether or not Germany, northern Germany, Saxony in particular, should encourage or whether the elector should send troops down to help Charles V and his army in defending Germany from Ottoman invasion. And Luther in this work called On War against the Turks, basically offers a, you know, his support of a defensive war against the war, this war of aggression and expansion. And he gets into. He doesn't systematize any sort of just war theory, but he's working from a just war theory. But he's only doing that because of the. That particular occasion, you know, and Luther can be. A couple years prior he wrote a work, probably one of the more. When it comes to the issue of war for Christians, probably this is the most important question is whether or how Luther titled the tract was whether a soldier too can be saved. You know, going back to Caleb's earlier point about that a individual can be involved in some horrendous things like what takes place in kinetic warfare and still be confident of their salvation not because of what they've done or like how serious or they are in their vocation or whether they've checked the boxes themselves in their mind that they're part of some sort of just cause, but because of what Christ did for them. But by and large, when Luke, when Luther's thinking about. And he's not a systematician like, like Thomas Aquinas was, but when he's thinking about just war, it's always in. He's like the adage goes, you know, Luther's an occasional theologian. You know, he's always speaking to the occasion. And that's, that's probably, you know, Bruce, in your comments about how just war theory is like not stable. That's it. I mean, I was kind of not giggling thinking, yeah, that's, that's like a big problem with it. It's just constant, you know, it's. It's constant just talk. It's mouth noise from theoreticians until the particular occasion arises where you've got to think seriously about whether it's just to do something like declare war, engage in, in combat with a, with an enemy nation. And so while just war theory can be notoriously frustrating and all over the place again, Bruce, like you said at West Point Naval Academy and elsewhere, they still teach it because it's, it's important so that wars are not thought about lightly. So that wars are not thought about unattached from the ethics of war or perhaps even the, I mean, I don't know. This is maybe going to stretch the theology of war. Thank goodness people are still thinking about that that are involved in those vocations that actually where war might and combat might have to be pursued lest we become like the pagans, if you will, who will just go into war willy nilly. So anyway, that's my, I mean my last two cents I'm going to offer for the day because we're closing in on time.
- [66:06]
Caleb Keith
Yeah, we've got a little long, but I definitely agree with that, Adam. I think for people, I mean we've mentioned it on the show before, so I think that's good. But I actually think for people just kind of considering these, these things, there's a couple things I would go read if you have time and you think about this or whatever. What Adam just suggested on Can Soldiers to be Saved is excellent. It's in Luther's works. Adam. Is it outside of Luther's works anywhere? Like published as a smaller.
- [66:40]
Adam Francisco
It is. It's in some anthologies.
- [66:42]
Caleb Keith
Okay. I'll try to find the most accessible version for people and put it in the links. I think it's one of the excellent points is I would like to close on which is, and I think we have to close on when we deal with topics like this like we did in the past as well, which is the difference between just or right or lawful and justification and true righteousness. Because I do think that's the temptation. It can help you decide how to navigate this world. It can be a good mechanism for navigating this, for sleeping at night, for being confident in what you're engaged in or what your vocation is at a particular moment, judging or whether or not a call is divine and good. But it does not justify you, does not make you righteous. A justified home defense or self defense. Homicide and self defense is justified, but does not make you righteous. A just war is justified by these criteria, but does not make you or your nation abstractly righteous. Only the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins truly makes you right with God, gives you the peace of God as well, and ultimate peace, the promise that you will be raised from the dead and live in new life. So we appreciate your time listening to this episode. Go and check out those other resources from 1517 and subscribe to the show if you haven't already. We appreciate your time and we will catch you next week. Bye.
- [68:35]
Adam Francisco
Sam.