Brian Rice Professor Timothy Simpson PHI 3930 3 August 2011 War: An Archaic Solution to Ever-changing Problems Blessed

are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God (New International Version, Matthew 5:9). God created man, and for man, God created woman. Man and woman had children. One child became jealous of the other, and killed him. War was born. We, as a species, have been fighting and killing each other ever since. Why? War is a physical display of ignorance, and while Cain might not have been intelligent enough to find peaceful alternatives to settling his differences with Able, todays man most certainly is. Not only are we smart enough to find other ways, we are completely capable in all aspects We are just not willing. There have been countless writings on t he subjects of war, peace, just war, and pacifism. Many steps have been taken to justify the killing of other human beings. Some justification has been granted through the use of the Bible. Thes e excuses range from the fairly innocuous basis that, God used war in the Bible, so there must be certain circumstances in which he would condone it now, to the extreme claim that God sanctifies this war as holy. The latter of the two is much more fanatical, self-serving, and dangerous. Over the next several pages, I plan to look at a few of these evaluations of the institution of war, and show that peace is possible as long as there is a true mutual

Rice 2 desire between the would-be warring factions to find a peaceful alternative. I will begin with a look at Dr. Lee Griffiths, The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God, which shows that the just war criterion of proportionality is woefully neglected, especially by United States foreign policy. Next, I will show, using Dr. Robert Drinans essay, Is Pacifism the Only Option Left for Christians, that pacifism is the only truly Christian way. As no argument is complete without looking at both sides, I will present thoughts taken from an interview that I conducted with retired pastor, Dr. Walt Fowler, and finally, I will discuss points taken from several of Augustines writings that declare, Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace (To Count Boniface 62-63). Each of these men brings valuable insight to the table, and their points will not be taken lightly. I feel it safe to say, that in todays world of nuclear arms and smart bombs, we are a society which is smarter than the bombs we possess; and therefore, are capable of finding better ways to solve complicated world issues than by simply destroying each other. The way of the past, and unfortunately the present, is war. This has been mostly effective for thousands of years in that it produces a winner and a loser: to the victor go the spoils, and to the loser well, death. The question of war and peace is not one of effectiveness; because certainly, if one country defeats another, it gains the power to dictate policy and wins. The question is, Is war the most moral and ethical solution to the problems at hand? It is doubtful that

Rice 3 this can ever be answered in the affirmative as there are always alternatives to both large and small scale violence. Dr. Lee Griffith is currently a psychology professor at Anderson University in Anderson, Indiana. He strives to apply Christian values to all of his instruction and for the same reasons, to his stance as a pacifist. In his book, The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God, Dr. Griffith argues that it is important to note that war is state-sponsored terror, adhering to the idea that terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence to intimidate or coerce a person, group of people, or nation for political reasons. War is terrorism; terrorism is war. Dr. Griffith says, The actions of governments have always produced body counts that are exponentially higher than those of the most brutal terrorist organizations (Griffith 77). One of the principles of the just war theory states that it is morally reprehensible to fight a largely inproportionate war, yet it seems almost to be the main policy of the United States to be militarily and therefore destructively superior to our enemies. We are the only country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons against another, producing a body count of over 250,000. It was not that we could not negotiate other, less catastrophic solutions, but that we would not. We would only accept unconditional surrender, which Japan was (understandably) not prepared to offer (Griffith 81). For this reason, not only did we violate the rule of proportionality, but also the rule of last resort. As long as aerial bombings are our preferred method of attack, we cannot be in the right; because, as Dr. Griffith says, No matter the smartness of bombs, protracted aerial bombardment is simply impossible without taking a high toll of human life (Griffith 78).

Rice 4 Dr. Griffith says, The world is not ripe for conquest. The world is ripe for metanoia [Greek for change of heart, repentance] and redemption (Griffith 76). The lay of the land is already established. Each country has its borders defined, and no country should encroach on the borders of another through military force for nationalistic gain. Dr. Griffith is arguing that instead, more powerful nations should be reaching out to weaker nations who are suffering and helping them to end their suffering through humanitarian aid, not trying to take their land or resources through aggressive military dominance. He encourages us to be messengers of love and peace, showing compassion to impoverished lands. This would be a much more positive and moral approach that will bring love and peace in return. If violence begets violence, then does peace not beget peace? I believe that Dr. Griffiths stance is a strong, morally ba sed Christian one. The light/dark, truth/lie, life/death imagery of the Go spel of John notwithstanding, the Gospels do not portray Jesus as a messiah who takes his stand with the forces of righteousness to do battle with evil. Rather, Jesus abandons the righteous in favor of sinners and the capacity for metanoia that he discerns among them. (Griffith 75-76) Jesus Christ was the original and supreme pacifist, and the primary goal of Christians should be to be as Christ-like as possible. The God of the Old Testament supported war, and used it to free the Israelites from Egyptian enslavement, but even the titles in the Bible show that war was the old way Older than the New Testament, in which Jesus pacifistically preaches a message of peace and kindness to our fellow man. As the old idiom says, You can catch more flies with honey

Rice 5 than with vinegar. This is just as effective on the worldwide scale. Treating people and countries ethically, and helping them where they are in need will do much mor e in the way of swaying them to our ideas than dropping bombs on them. Dr. Robert Drinan was a Jesuit Catholic priest who spoke against the Cold War and Vietnam. He was a strong pacifist opposed to both nuclear and traditional war alike who felt that waging war is against basic Christian principles. In his essay, Is Pacifism the Only Option Left for Christians, he places importance on the fact that Every dictionary definition of pacifist, however, stresses that the term has always been restricted to the use of military force (Drinan 318). This is important because it still allows the use of police-like precision strikes on individual targets, like the one used to kill Osama bin Laden earlier this year. More on this later. Dr. Drinan explains that the Christians of the first three centuries constitute, by their lives and by their achievements, the greatest proof in all history that a nonviolent war of love is infinitely more powerful than the sword and is incapable of being destroyed by any armed conflict (Drinan 320). Not only was Christ a proponent of peace, but so were the early Christians, who, through their peaceful refusal to deny Christ even in the face of torture and death, caused Constantine to recognize that Christianity could not be exterminated (Drinin 320). Large groups of peaceful, like-minded individuals have proven time and time again that they can cause change for whatever the cause without ever lifting a finger to violence. Dr. Drinan wrote this piece while enduring the terror instilled by the Cold War due to the ever-present threat of a world-ending nuclear exchange between

Rice 6 Russia and the United States. According to Dr. Drinan, even if the just war theory were complete in its requirements for making war (and hes not rea dy to admit they are), he says that the policy has no place in a nuclear world. He says, The immorality of atomic warfare has been unequivocally condemned by Vatican II, and all conventional wars which might be waged in the modern world can hardly pass muster under the various requirements of the theory of the just war (Drinan 320321). He argues that all wars can be, and have been justified to some extent of the just war theory, but none of them meet all seven of the required criteria for waging a just war. Adding to the argument against war, Dr. Drinan points out that war fo rces participants to violate Gods Sixth Commandment to Moses: Thou shat not kill (Drinan 324). He is not only placing this conviction on the trigger -pullers; however, he says the state forces all taxpayers to contribute to the killing, whether they want to or not. According to Drinan, The Christian in America who is opposed to all modern wars is required to pay federal taxes of which approximately 60 percent goes for some type of military preparedness (Drinan 321). That number has undoubtedly changed, but considering the national budget problems we have seen in recent weeks, I am quite sure that as a pacifist and a taxpayer who is strongly opposed to all war, a good portion of m y tax dollars are still supporting it. Dr. Drinan has several great propositions to swaying the typical American response from one of war to one of peace, but I feel he has listed the most important as number 1. Reeducation of Young Americans (Drinan 328). We live in a pro -war society that makes war profitable for private entrepreneurs who develop weapons,

Rice 7 and sell them not only here at home, but also abroad to people who could very well be our enemies one day (Dr. Drinans second proposition). To go back to his first though, if we start educating the next generation on how to be good citizens of the world, instead of sheep following a corrupt, warmongering government, they can make a change and peace will be possible. If we teach them to find the reasons people want to fight instead of just responding to violence with violence, then they can treat the problems at the sources through compassionate humanitarian actions , instead of perpetuating a warring culture. To be fair, it is important that we look at this from the just war point of view also, and to ensure that the proponents of just war have their concerns met. Otherwise, there would be no strong argument for pacifism. I interviewed Dr. Walt Fowler for this paper. He is now retired, but was the Senior Pastor of Oak Level Baptist Church in Ocoee, Florida for 37 years, and was glad to help. Prior to earning his theology degree, Dr. Fowler was drafted into the Army during the Korean War, but was not deployed. He readily admits that the just war theory could use some improvement, but until that happens, [he] support[s] the theory as it is (Fowler). He feels that America should meet each of the criterion of the just war theory before waging war. Dr. Fowler disagrees with the idea that World War II (or any other war) deserves the title of The Good War, and says, I don't think any war is good. WAR IS HELL. I think, however war is sometimes necessary to overcome evil. In the Bible God often used war to combat evil (Fowler).

Rice 8 Dr. Fowler and I also discussed the draft, and if he would be in s upport of its activation today: I am very much in favor of the draft, and would be very much in favor of seeing it reinstated I also feel strongly about the draft because across the years I have seen military service make men when nothing else could (Fowler). My personal relationship with Dr. Fowler, Brother Walt to me, goes back to my infancy; long before I can remember, he knew me. Considering that he watched me grow up before I left for 10 years of voluntary service in the Navy as a non-combatant, I could not help but think that regardless of my thoughts on war and peace today, I would not be who I am without the structure and discipline I received through my service. I am sure there are plenty of others who he could refer to , but there is no doubt that I would be one of his examples. The training that the military provides in the way of professionalism, leadership, and self-discipline are likely unmatched through any other system, and are very useful life skills, but that the training is all geared to war is unfortunate. If there was a draft to turn citizens into better people without preparing them to fight, I too would be all for it. I am going to end where just war theory began, with Augustine (354 -430 AD). Augustine was no stranger to war, and ultimately died at the hands of the Vandals during their attack on Carthage (Augustine 61). Augustine argued that one can s erve in the military and still please God, but only if war is being waged to bring peace. To Augustine, all men prefer peace, but are willing to fight for what their version of the best peace is. He says, For every man seeks peace by waging war, but no ma n seeks war by making peace. For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in

Rice 9 which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into peace a peace that suits them better (Peace and Natural Law 72). I would not argue with Augustines theory that men only make war in search of peace, but I would argue that war is not the necessary response. I believe that through negotiation, discourse, and compromise, all problems can be solved peacefully. The problem is when one side or the ot her (or both) refuse to negotiate or compromise because they feel themselves to be in a position of superiority over their opponent. If we accept that ALL men truly are created equal, and that none is better than another, we can begin to come to peaceful solutions. If one is superior, it is only by the things that he (or a state) possesses, and if he has enough to be superior over his brother, it is more his responsibility to extend a helping hand and teach his brother how he got to where he is. Beating hi m through violence does not help his brother become anything; it only leads to his destruction. If, however, the brother is satisfied with his lot, and is not harming others, he should be left alone. He should not have resources stolen or ideologies forced upon him. If he is harming others, then precision police action should be taken against him. If he is the leader of a nation, then still, precision police action should be taken to remove him from power. This does not mean carpet bombing his palaces and t he cities that house them. Osama bin Laden was a terrible man who absolutely needed to be removed from his seat of power. The way this was finally accomplished was just, and set a precedence for the way in which despots should be neutralized. This is much preferred to the option of killing thousands while trying to get just a few bad guys.

Rice 10 War is not a Christian institution. It is a hum an answer to problems from a platform of ignorance. In modern society, we are much more advanced in our thinking, reasoning, and philosophy than Augustine was. He did the best he could with his limited tools, but we now know other ways to address social problems. We are a hated country throughout the world. It does not have to be this way. If we focus on the reasons people hate us, and address those reasons by helping them where they are hurting, they will not want to fight us. Dogs are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds So are people. We know that war works, but that does not mean it is right. We should not just be looking for ways to be better or more morally right than others, but for ways to be the best that we can be. We should hold ourselves to the highest possible ethical standards. If we do the right thing, the world will look on us with smiling faces and tha nk us for our kind and giving nature. The Bible tells us, A man reaps what he sows (Galatians 6:7). War begets war, peace begets peace. We need to make sure we are planting the right seeds.

Rice 11 Works Cited Augustine. "To Count Boniface." War and Christian Ethics. Ed. Arthur Frank. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1975. 61-63. Print. Augustine. "Peace and Natural Law." War and Christian Ethics. Ed. Arthur Frank. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1975. 71-83. Print. Drinan, Robert. " Is Pacifism the Only Option Left for Christians ." War and Christian Ethics. Ed. Arthur Frank. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1975. 319 340. Print. Fowler, Walt. "Re: [Just War Theory] Interview Questions. Message to the author. 29 Jul. 2011. E-mail. Griffith, Lee. The war on terrorism and the terror of God . Eerdmans Pub Co, Print. The Student Bible: New International Version . Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1996. Print. 2002.