Blessed Are the Peacemakers

Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding

By Lisa Sowle Cahill

1517 Media

Copyright © 2019 Fortress Press, an imprint of 1517 Media
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-5064-3165-9

Contents

Preface, vii,
1. From Just War and Pacifism to Peacebuilding An Introduction, 1,
2. JesusThe Reality of God’s Reign and the Possibility of Peace, 37,
3. Early Christian Pacifism Tertullian and Origen, 71,
4. Augustine and the Beginnings of Christian Just War Theory, 91,
5. War and the Common Good Aquinas and the Just War Tradition, 139,
6. Reformation Interpretations of Just War Luther and Calvin, 173,
7. War in God’s Name Crusaders, Joan of Arc, and Puritan Revolutionaries, 213,
8. A Witness for the Kingdom Humanist, Anabaptist, and Quaker Pacifists, 247,
9. From Just War and Pacifism to Peacebuilding, 283,
10. Peacebuilding A Practical Strategy of Hope, 325,
Index, 365,

CHAPTER 1

From Just War and Pacifism to Peacebuilding An Introduction

The dual aim of this book is to offer a critical historical understanding of the Christian traditions of pacifism and just war and to illustrate the promise of a newer approach sometimes called “peacebuilding.” While pacifists prioritize conformity to the nonviolent Jesus of the gospels, just war theorists maintain that Christians should and can take responsibility for the just ordering of social life, even if force is required to do so. Like pacifists, peacebuilders take their primary inspiration from the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, but they especially stress the fact that he inaugurates God’s reign and renews all creation, making it possible to transform social injustices. Like Christian just war theorists, they are committed to social justice but seek alternatives to armed force that are constructive, bridge-building, and politically effective.

Where peacebuilders differ from just war theory is that they give almost exclusive priority to the positive and nonviolent cultivation of peace, rather than to delineating exceptional situations where violence might be justified. Where peacebuilders differ from pacifists is that peacebuilding as a movement and theology brings together partners who disagree on whether some extreme violations of human dignity might make killing to protect the innocent acceptable from a Christian point of view. However — again unlike just war theorists and pacifists — debates about whether violence is forbidden or permitted in extreme situations are not central to how most peacebuilders define their project. The main reason is that they are most concerned about practical results in immediate situations where loss of life is imminent or ongoing. An implied reason is that even when moral analysis is not up to the task of sorting out complex and ambiguous exchanges of violence, specific practical interventions can work. The primary concern of peacebuilders is to create, highlight, and implement concrete alternatives to violence, strategies that can and do transform conflict situations. They aim to do so in a comprehensive, sustainable process that goes beyond conflicts to a just and peaceful society.

The longstanding contention between just war theory and pacifism is part of a deeper, enduring problem in Christian ethics: even though the gospels offer us Jesus’s inauguration of God’s reign, Christ as redeemer, resurrection life, and inspiration by the Spirit, it seems difficult if not impossible to change the broken conditions of history, eradicate injustice, and establish new patterns of individual and social life. The power of sin is strong. Therefore, Augustine referred to political life and government as full of “miserable necessities” that make it impossible to achieve any true peace in this world. Dominant forms of just war theory and pacifism deny that Christian social action can substantially reorder the world’s sinful character or the corrupt nature of government and politics. Pacifists (typically) see nonviolence as possible within the church but not as a realistic social goal. Just war theorists (typically) take for granted that force must be countered by force, conceding that Christian agents of justice will always need access to this tool — and will use it frequently. Yet contemporary theorists on both sides are moving closer together, partly because both envision longer-term social goals. Just war thinkers put renewed emphasis on peace as the motive and purpose of war. “Stringent” or “restrictive” just war theory stresses the truly exceptional nature of justified force, relative to efforts to keep and sustain peace. Meanwhile some pacifists believe that nonviolence can make inroads in public policy, or even that it may be possible to abolish war; while others limit the concept to show that it is contingent on historical circumstances (e.g., “nuclear pacifism”) or to indicate that its basic presumption of nonviolence is not exceptionlessly absolute (e.g., “realistic pacifism”).

Peacebuilders draw from both these camps, insofar as partners with different convictions about the ultimate justifiability of violence can work together to transform conflicts nonviolently. Peacebuilders take seriously the inbreaking power of salvation in historical communities, and do not limit this power to the church. They not only see Christians as agents of social justice but also are convinced that, despite risks and setbacks, nonviolent strategies can and will be effective in avoiding, reducing, and ending conflicts, as well as in fostering the building of just and peaceful societies.

The real prospects that Christian ethics has for moving societies toward peaceful coexistence should — at least to some degree — be measured against social-scientific assessments of the propensity of human beings to violence and of the likelihood that this propensity can be restrained and mutual respect enhanced. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have long shown that while competition for resources, xenophobia, and aggression are part of our evolutionary heritage, they do not completely define us. Human beings are also capable of empathy, altruism, and forming social norms and patterns of behavior so that violence is avoided.

Anthropologist Douglas Fry argues, in relation to war, that war is less likely when six conditions obtain: an overarching social identity including potentially competitive groups, interconnections among subgroups, interdependence concerning basic survival needs, values that explicitly reject war and reward peaceableness, symbols and rituals that reinforce peace, and superordinate institutions that negotiate and manage conflict. As illustrations, Fry offers case studies of tribes from the Upper Xingu River basin of Brazil, the Iroquois Confederacy of Upstate New York, and the European Union. Not surprisingly, Fry finds that it is easier to maintain peace within associations of interdependent groups than among those with no common history or interests. Nevertheless, the existence of social systems free of war demonstrates that it is possible for human beings to create such systems, and it begins to show what is necessary to do so.

Christian approaches to the ethics of war and peace differ on the likelihood of creating peaceful societies and relations among societies, as well as on the continuing need to use violence in the restraint of violence. But they all agree not only that peace is to some degree a human possibility but also that Christians must be committed to peace — and that the historical potential for peaceful human relations has been heightened in Jesus Christ.

All are in some way accountable to the joyful experience of Jesus Christ as the one who unites us to the mysterious, loving, and glorious God in whom we “live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Eschatologically, this God renews all creation (Rom 8:21–23), affecting present existence, and entrusting to humans now “the ministry of reconciliation” in a suffering world (2 Cor 5:17–21). Renewal in Christ is not merely personal, for salvation creates a new community. Jesus announces the “gospel” with a corporate and political metaphor, “the reign of God” (Mark 1:14).

This signifies that salvation is membership in a community united in love of God and neighbor, forgiveness, reconciliation, and hospitality toward the stranger, the sinner, and the oppressed (Mark 2:13–17; 12:40–41; Matt 5:38–48; 11:19; 22:28–29; Luke 7:34; 10:27; John 13:34). “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt 5:44–45). From the standpoint of the teaching and ministry of Jesus, his nonresistant and forgiving death on a cross, and the witness of his first followers, it is indisputable that peace and reconciliation are essential to the Christian way of life and definitive of Christian ethics. The following chapters will show a variety of responses to the question how great an effect the Christian way of life can have on the larger society. But there is no question that the gospel establishes a peaceful community of faith. How to live out the normative commitment to peace not only within the church, but also in broader social relationships, is interpreted in a diversity of ways.

In fact, the first Christians were, for the most part, pacifists. They renounced violence, refused participation in roles that involved killing (such as military service) and accepted martyrdom as the potential cost of faithfulness to Christ. The repudiation of all violence has always been a strong strand in Christian belief and practice. Nevertheless, from the fourth century onward, Christianity also developed a tradition of “just war,” in which violence and killing are seen as acceptable or even as mandated, in order to protect the innocent “neighbor,” defend against unjust aggression, preserve the common good, and uphold a social order in which peace and justice may flourish. While neither early Christian pacifists nor just war thinkers had much confidence in the socially reformative role of the church, pacifists responded by saying that Christians must accept the consequences of nonconformity. Just war thinkers thought that Christians had a responsibility to use available means, including armed force, to reduce societal violence and secure as just an order as possible.

In a book debating the respective merits of these two approaches, David Clough and Brian Stiltner conclude that Christian pacifism is perennially attractive and worthy because “it points to a kind of faithful Christian discipleship that witnesses to the new ordering of the reign of God.” Yet the just war tradition represents, positively, “the attempt of Christians to come to terms with what it means to love their neighbor, protect the widow and orphan, and recognize God’s providential ordering of human affairs through political authority.”

Proponents of peacebuilding agree that God orders human affairs through political authority, but they have an expansive view of politics and authority as involving “on the ground” efforts by people in communities where the effects of war and violence are most acutely felt. They are also convinced that dignity, rights, and human security are best served by replacing cycles of violence with relations of trust. Moreover, they believe that their efforts can bring significant changes in societies beyond the church. Peacebuilders concur that disciples are faithful when they witness to a new ordering of reality; they also believe that faithfulness challenges and changes personal and structural injustice.

Pacifism, just war, and peacebuilding are not pure “types” that have existed in the same way across history. Just as in any other sphere of social ethics, the Christian vocation to build peace and defend the innocent takes practical shape within specific contexts that vary geographically and over time. Historical communities and experiences shape Christian theology and ethics, even as theological proposals simultaneously enlighten and organize practical life.

The contemporary stage is set for analysis of war and peace by the two world wars of the past century, the Cold War and its nuclear threat, and the continuing realities of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear proliferation), terrorism, revolution, ethnic and religious conflict, and the armed confrontation of nation-states around the globe. Newer developments are the emergence of intrastate conflict as an even more deadly threat than international wars; the growth of transnational terror networks; justifications of “humanitarian intervention” across national borders; and the rise of interreligious peacebuilding movements, working with nonreligious entities to end violence and stabilize societies on just and participatory terms.

Conditions specific to the beginning of the present century allowed peacebuilding to emerge as a viable alternative to traditional forms of pacifism and just war. Among these are the relative ineffectiveness of both just war and pacifism in ending conflict and securing the conditions of cooperative social living; the end of colonialism, the rise of democracies, and empowerment of previously marginal or oppressed groups; the decentralization of national and international governance; the emergence of communications networks that foster the growth of political and social movements; and the reinvigoration of religious identities with immense social power and reach.

In the twenty-first century, religious peacebuilding is a response to the use of just war criteria to validate questionable uses of military force (2003 US-led invasion of Iraq); the failure of formal cessation of hostilities to bring actual peace and social reconstruction (Israel– Palestine); ethnic and religious conflicts and genocides (East Africa and the Balkans); the likelihood that smoldering tensions will eventually break out into cycles of insurgency and civil conflict (Syria); and the realization that lasting peace requires the transformation of attitudes and relationships, as well as the rebuilding of civil society (South Africa). A Peace Studies Institute defines peacebuilding as

the development of constructive personal, group, and political relationships across ethnic, religious, class, national, and racial boundaries. It aims to resolve injustice in nonviolent ways and to transform the structural conditions that generate deadly conflict. Peacebuilding can include conflict prevention; conflict management; conflict resolution and transformation, and post-conflict reconciliation.

Peacebuilding is a family of practices, embodied in a network of activists responding to the threat or reality of direct violence, and corroborated and supported by midlevel, national, regional, and global policies and institutions. Its theological interpretation builds upon its practical successes and limits. For example, introducing a book on the theology of peacebuilding, the Nigerian Catholic bishop John Onaiyekan shares that he has long worked to overcome ethnic divisions in the church and society that lead to societal violence. He understands his ministerial role as prophet, priest, and king (servant leader) to require mediating conflicts and being a guide to peace and reconciliation. His experience has convinced him not only that “peacebuilding is the normal work of the church of Jesus Christ,” but also that the church must build bridges internationally and with other social entities, for peacebuilding is “always global.”

In the twenty-first century, Christian just war thinkers and pacifists are achieving consensus on the urgency of avoiding and reducing political violence through practical and flexible initiatives. Christian peacebuilders make such initiatives their defining concern, seeing them as integral to Christian discipleship.

JUST WAR IN OUTLINE

Just war theory is often presented as a set of coherent criteria, justified on both religious and philosophical grounds, to be applied prospectively to determine the morality of a given military engagement. Just war theory aims to supply a cogent ethical framework both to justify and to limit war. Historically, however, just war criteria have not represented in any direct or simple way an objective and impartial theory. Rather, just war theory has been developed from the perspectives and politics of elites within powerful empires or nations, who have the capacity to wield military violence. Christian just war thinkers envision that violence used on behalf of justice can be accommodated within a Christian way of life. Augustine and Aquinas, the primary Christian formulators of just war theory, lived in eras that offered Christians opportunities to assume political and military roles. They encouraged Christians to consider whether the customary tools of civil government could be bent to the ends of Christian ethics, especially given the depth of sin in the world.

Just war theory is most useful and effective as a guide for national and international leadership, but this very setting is also an inevitable source of bias. Government officials and their advisors propose that violence can be used proportionately and successfully to pursue political ends. Just war theory aims then to cultivate and to express a moral and political consensus among decision-makers and their publics about how to validate, restrict, and restrain war’s destructive powers, harnessing them to positive outcomes. Yet just war theory is less sensitive than pacifism and peacebuilding to the partiality of its viewpoint, to the prima facie clash of violence and the way of Jesus Christ, and to the profound and lasting effects of violence on combatants and societies.

This is why John Courtney Murray, one of the foremost midcentury Catholic proponents of just war theory — whose definition of just war theory as condemning, limiting, and “humanizing” war as far as possible is frequently cited — also grants that the paradox involved in trying to fit violence into the order of justice “is heightened when this effort takes place at the interior of the Christian religion of love.”

Augustine, one of the earliest and certainly the most influential of Christian theorists of war, makes peace the main reason to go to war and qualifies pursuit of war by saying that it must be approved by a lawful authority and guided by an intention of love. Yet he also regards punishment of offenders, as such, as a valid motivating factor. Several centuries later, Thomas Aquinas — most important for the Roman Catholic tradition — reiterates this basic framework on the assumption that war is prima facie an offense against charity. Yet war can be justified in certain circumstances, under certain criteria. Aquinas names these as just cause (defense of the “common weal”), right intention, and legitimate authority. In modern times, these criteria have been developed and expanded and are usually regarded as falling into two categories: jus ad bellum and jus in bello (right to go to war and right in war). Jus ad bellum includes defense of the common good, right intention, and legitimate authority — as well as last resort, reasonable hope of success, and proportion. Defense of the peace or common good is today read to mean self-defense or defense of an ally, and it has been extended to “humanitarian intervention” aiming to protect civilian populations across national borders. In 2004, the United Nations recognized “the responsibility to protect” (R2P), an evolution of the concept of humanitarian intervention, as an international obligation. R2P refers protection of innocent civilians to the international community, in cases where states are unable or unwilling to protect human rights. The recognition of R2P was prompted by international failures in Rwanda and Bosnia, thus establishing that national sovereignty is not supreme in cases of gross violations of human dignity.

(Continues…)Excerpted from Blessed Are the Peacemakers by Lisa Sowle Cahill. Copyright © 2019 Fortress Press, an imprint of 1517 Media. Excerpted by permission of 1517 Media.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.