As you know, there is a crisis going on in Syria (CNN has a good overview of the situation) and this past weekend, President Obama informed the nation that "after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets... if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing...if we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?" Today, the news has come that many Congressional leaders are backing the President's call for Congressional support of any military action.
So what is the Christian response to all of this?
You have perhaps heard of Just War Theory, and it's been getting a lot of media attention lately (just Google "just war theory syria" if you want some examples). After my last sermon, someone remarked that they were surprised that I didn't talk about the situation in Syria. The reason why I didn't is because I write my sermons on Wednesdays, and unless there is an issue that is too large to ignore, I don't make major changes to the sermon after it has been written and edited. Syria is indeed an big issue, just not enough to throw a sermon aside and start over. This person though was asking out of a desire to try to understand this situation from the view of a faithful Christian. And so I want to take this opportunity to have that conversation here.
Just War Theory:
This work of ethics and theology seeks to answer the question- "May a Christian ever justifiably take part in violence?" The first formal writings on the topic date back to the 4th century with St. Augustine of Hippo, drawing on older Roman traditions, as well as those found in the Hebrew Bible. Through time (and the Crusades) the question has been reconsidered. There are actually two sorts of Just War Theory- the rules for deciding to go to war, and the rules to be observed during war. Here I'm going to focus on the former, and they include:
CS Lewis:
Lewis of course knew of war, living in England during World Wars I and II. He wrote that "War creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it...we are mistaken when we compare war with 'normal' life. Life has never been normal." This might appear to be a bit fatalistic, but it speaks to our reality. What has been happening in Syria is nothing new. The use of chemical weapons might be a new development, but it is just a step in the escalation of the violence. Since 2001, war has become "normal." We are growing weary of it, but as Lewis seems to be suggesting, it very may always be normal and peace may be the oddity.
Stanley Hauerwas:
The Huffington Post recently quoted him as saying "You could say the U.S. can justify the intervention because stability is part of our foreign policy in order to maintain ourselves as the premier country in the world. So it’s smart to intervene. But there’s no moral justification...I just don’t know how intervention fits under “just war” categories. Syria isn’t attacking the United States...If the U.S. intervenes, we just reinforce the presumption, which is true, that we’re an imperial power...The language of intervention and no-intervention is meaningless. America has hundreds of military bases around the world. We’ve intervened. The question is what are the limits of American intervention? Right now there doesn’t seem to be any. President Obama is clearly worried about being involved in an intervention in Syria you can’t get out of. I appreciate that. But America is everywhere...The just war tradition is based on a series of arguments to be tested before using force against another population. Legitimate and competent authorities must logically argue that the use of force will end or limit the suffering of a people and these forceful actions are the last options after all diplomatic, social, political, and economic measures have been exhausted." Hauerwas seems to be casting some doubt on the idea of a "just war."
William Galston (of the Brookings Institution):
"For the Assad regime, there’s no middle ground; if it doesn’t prevail militarily, it will disappear. So it’s reasonable to conclude that if we do nothing, nothing will change, and the slaughter of civilians will continue indefinitely. If we can act effectively to protect innocent human life, we have an obligation do so — unless the costs to us are prohibitive (and there’s no reason to suppose they must be). We failed that test in Rwanda but met it in the Balkans. We do not know whether the options we now have will prove effective, but that uncertainty does not justify doing nothing." Galston is giving voice to what makes many of us uneasy, we don't know the ramifications of our actions, or inactions. This is a very difficult situation. The rebels aren't saints and we don't know what sort of allies they may or may not turn out to be. The United States doesn't have the best record when it comes to arming people in our best interests (see: Hussein, Saddam). If we do nothing, more people will be killed. If we act, we will certainly kill people, nor will we be any closer to ending the conflict. We might be able to discourage the future use of chemical weapons, but that doesn't seem to fit the conditions of Just War Theory. Using political, social, or economic pressures may not work in this situation as well, especially since Iran (and to a lesser extent Russia and China) is reluctant to boycott or place sanctions on their neighbor. Few international conflicts are simple, but this one is rather complex.
H. Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr:
These brothers wrote letters on military intervention in the Sino-Japenese conflict of the 1930s. They are well worth your time reading- Must We Do Nothing? and The Grace of Doing Nothing. In The Grace of Doing Nothing, H. Richard Niebuhr gives voice to what I'm sure many of us are feeling over this conflict 80 years later- "we are eager to do something constructive; but there is nothing constructive, it seems, that we can do...The problem we face is often that of choice between various kinds of inactivity rather than of choice between action and inaction." He notes that certain types of inactivity are actually productive, or at least understandable (such as pessimism, self-interest, or conservative beliefs). He argues though that inactivity that is caused by frustration (due to being a self-avowed pacifist) often leads to "either his own forcible entry into the conflict, despite his scruples, or in apoplexy." There is another way to do nothing though- "while it does nothing, it knows that something is being done, something which is divine both in its threat and in its promise." He says further, "...radical Christianity knows that nothing constructive can be done by interference, but that something very constructive can be done in preparation for the future." He concludes by writing "The inactivity of radical Christianity is not the inactivity of those who call evil good: it is the inaction of those who do not judge their neighbors because they cannot fool themselves into a sense of superior righteousness. It is not the inactivity of a resigned patience, but of a patience that is full of hope and is based on faith. It is not the inactivity of the noncombatant, for it knows that there are no noncombatants, that everyone is involved, that China is being crucified (though the term is very inaccurate) by our sins and those of the whole world. It is not the inactivity of the merciless, for works of mercy must be performed though they are only palliates to ease present pain while the process of healing depends on deeper, more actual and urgent forces. But if there is no God, of if God is up in heaven and not in time itself, it is a very foolish inactivity."
His brother, Reinhold Niebuhr responds in Must We Do Nothing. He notes that his brother takes Jesus commandment to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" literally, meaning that none of us are able to act. The fact that we are sinful is not up for debate in his rebuttal. He though argues that we are not to take Jesus' words literally, because if we do so "we will never be able to act." Because we are broken, we can then never offer act to assist or save another, which he finds to be a problematic resolution. His issue is "What makes my brother's eschatology impossible for me is that he identifies everything that is occurring in history (the drift toward disaster, another world war and possibly a revolution) with the counsels of God, and then suddenly, by a leap of faith, comes to the conclusion that the same God uses brutalities and forces, against which man must maintain conscientious scruples, will finally establish an ideal society in which pure love will reign." His point is that "as long as the world of man remains a place where nature and God, the real and the ideal, meet, human progress will depend upon the judicious use of the forces of nature in the service of the ideal."
Theirs is an interesting debate. And I would agree with H. Richard Niebuhr in that God will remain sovereign and prayer is the most powerful thing that we can do. I would highly commend you all to join with millions of Christians around the world at the Pope's urging to pray and fast on September 7 for peace in Syria. But Reinhold Niebuhr makes valid points regarding the cost of inactivity.
Pope Francis:
"War brings on war! Violence brings on violence," and "The world needs to see gestures of peace and hear words of hope and of peace." For those of us who are not policy makers, UN ambassadors, or military leaders, perhaps this is our response. We need more peace and hope in our world. I attended an Episcopal preschool, and while I don't remember many things from those early years of my life, I remember the lyrics we sang in chapel- "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me."
I can't solve the crisis in Syria, nor can you. You can't influence the President's decision, nor can I. But we are not powerless. We can pray for those being killed, injured, or dehumanized. We can pray for God to soften the hearts of the aggressors on both sides. We can yearn for a day when we beat swords into plowshares. And we can live the peace we wish to see in the world. How we act towards our neighbors and those people we meet in the midst of life likely won't have a direct effect on the Syrian conflict, but they will bring us closer to the Kingdom of God being a reality on earth as it is in Heaven. And that is powerful.
Conclusion:
On some issues, I do think some conclusions are preferable to others on the grounds of coherent and consistent theology; this is not one of those issues. There is no "perfect" solution to an armed conflict. We will certainly pay a price for military action, and there will be a different cost for inaction. Are the prices equal? What do you think? I am not in favor of a "slap on the wrist" military strike to try to prohibit the future use of chemical weapons. America's credibility doesn't meet the conditions for a just war. Furthermore, Just War Theory begs us to consider if entering a conflict will leave the situation better than we found it. And I am nowhere near convinced that entering into the long conflict in Syria in a sustained way will result in a better outcome than if we sit this one out.
That being said, it deeply pains me to know of the atrocities and violence that are happening in Syria, with or without chemical weapons being used. There is nothing I want more than for this conflict to be over. But I'm not convinced that a missile strike(s) is the answer. And I'm certainly not advocating for a more robust military answer.
I agree with President Obama when he says "We all know there are no easy options...I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons." I agree that we must respond, but I disagree with the President (and many people on all sides of the political aisle) that military action is the only response. The day we presume that violence is the only solution is a sad one for America. As I said earlier, I don't know what the answer is. Is this a Just War? Classically, no; it simply doesn't meet the conditions. Is military action the right thing to do? I'm not sure. But I do know that come September 7 (and before and after, too) I'll be praying for peace, especially in Syria, but also in my community, in my church, in my life, and in my soul. Because I agree with Pope Francis when he says that "war brings on war," and so I hope that it is just as true that "peace brings on peace."
So what is the Christian response to all of this?
You have perhaps heard of Just War Theory, and it's been getting a lot of media attention lately (just Google "just war theory syria" if you want some examples). After my last sermon, someone remarked that they were surprised that I didn't talk about the situation in Syria. The reason why I didn't is because I write my sermons on Wednesdays, and unless there is an issue that is too large to ignore, I don't make major changes to the sermon after it has been written and edited. Syria is indeed an big issue, just not enough to throw a sermon aside and start over. This person though was asking out of a desire to try to understand this situation from the view of a faithful Christian. And so I want to take this opportunity to have that conversation here.
Just War Theory:
This work of ethics and theology seeks to answer the question- "May a Christian ever justifiably take part in violence?" The first formal writings on the topic date back to the 4th century with St. Augustine of Hippo, drawing on older Roman traditions, as well as those found in the Hebrew Bible. Through time (and the Crusades) the question has been reconsidered. There are actually two sorts of Just War Theory- the rules for deciding to go to war, and the rules to be observed during war. Here I'm going to focus on the former, and they include:
- Just cause: traditionaly defined solely as the protection of innocent life (not just bodily, but also poor living conditions can be cited as a "just cause"). This does not "trump" the other conditions.
- Just authority: needs to be representative of the people, not vigilante justice
- Right intention: ends must justify the means; you have to be trying to protect innocent life
- Last resort: remembering that life is sacred and destroying it should be avoided at all costs; you have tried all other non-violent means of solving the issue
- Probability of success: it has been said that it is "better to be a martyr than to enter into violence that only leads to more death." Will these actions lead to a resolution of the conflict?
- Proportionality: the good to achieve must be greater than the evil inflicted. Non-combatant fatalities is one of the many issues considered here.
Thomas Aquinas discusses many of these points in his Summa Theologica if you'd like to read them in their context.
Before making any sort of statements on Syria and Just War, I'd like to consider what some others (who are much more well-versed on the topic) have said considering war and peace-
St. Augustine of Hippo:
St. Augustine writes in The City of God about the two cities- the earlthy and the heavenly. He is writing during a time when war (fall of Rome) is on the horizon. He notes that in the earthly city, we are moved by self-interest, but in the heavenly city we are moved by love (and care fortoehrs). There is an innate tension between these two cities, and we do live in the earthly city, though are call is heavenward. But at the end of the day, we must chose where we place our citizenship. In the city of God? Or the city of man?CS Lewis:
Lewis of course knew of war, living in England during World Wars I and II. He wrote that "War creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it...we are mistaken when we compare war with 'normal' life. Life has never been normal." This might appear to be a bit fatalistic, but it speaks to our reality. What has been happening in Syria is nothing new. The use of chemical weapons might be a new development, but it is just a step in the escalation of the violence. Since 2001, war has become "normal." We are growing weary of it, but as Lewis seems to be suggesting, it very may always be normal and peace may be the oddity.
Stanley Hauerwas:
The Huffington Post recently quoted him as saying "You could say the U.S. can justify the intervention because stability is part of our foreign policy in order to maintain ourselves as the premier country in the world. So it’s smart to intervene. But there’s no moral justification...I just don’t know how intervention fits under “just war” categories. Syria isn’t attacking the United States...If the U.S. intervenes, we just reinforce the presumption, which is true, that we’re an imperial power...The language of intervention and no-intervention is meaningless. America has hundreds of military bases around the world. We’ve intervened. The question is what are the limits of American intervention? Right now there doesn’t seem to be any. President Obama is clearly worried about being involved in an intervention in Syria you can’t get out of. I appreciate that. But America is everywhere...The just war tradition is based on a series of arguments to be tested before using force against another population. Legitimate and competent authorities must logically argue that the use of force will end or limit the suffering of a people and these forceful actions are the last options after all diplomatic, social, political, and economic measures have been exhausted." Hauerwas seems to be casting some doubt on the idea of a "just war."
William Galston (of the Brookings Institution):
"For the Assad regime, there’s no middle ground; if it doesn’t prevail militarily, it will disappear. So it’s reasonable to conclude that if we do nothing, nothing will change, and the slaughter of civilians will continue indefinitely. If we can act effectively to protect innocent human life, we have an obligation do so — unless the costs to us are prohibitive (and there’s no reason to suppose they must be). We failed that test in Rwanda but met it in the Balkans. We do not know whether the options we now have will prove effective, but that uncertainty does not justify doing nothing." Galston is giving voice to what makes many of us uneasy, we don't know the ramifications of our actions, or inactions. This is a very difficult situation. The rebels aren't saints and we don't know what sort of allies they may or may not turn out to be. The United States doesn't have the best record when it comes to arming people in our best interests (see: Hussein, Saddam). If we do nothing, more people will be killed. If we act, we will certainly kill people, nor will we be any closer to ending the conflict. We might be able to discourage the future use of chemical weapons, but that doesn't seem to fit the conditions of Just War Theory. Using political, social, or economic pressures may not work in this situation as well, especially since Iran (and to a lesser extent Russia and China) is reluctant to boycott or place sanctions on their neighbor. Few international conflicts are simple, but this one is rather complex.
H. Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr:
These brothers wrote letters on military intervention in the Sino-Japenese conflict of the 1930s. They are well worth your time reading- Must We Do Nothing? and The Grace of Doing Nothing. In The Grace of Doing Nothing, H. Richard Niebuhr gives voice to what I'm sure many of us are feeling over this conflict 80 years later- "we are eager to do something constructive; but there is nothing constructive, it seems, that we can do...The problem we face is often that of choice between various kinds of inactivity rather than of choice between action and inaction." He notes that certain types of inactivity are actually productive, or at least understandable (such as pessimism, self-interest, or conservative beliefs). He argues though that inactivity that is caused by frustration (due to being a self-avowed pacifist) often leads to "either his own forcible entry into the conflict, despite his scruples, or in apoplexy." There is another way to do nothing though- "while it does nothing, it knows that something is being done, something which is divine both in its threat and in its promise." He says further, "...radical Christianity knows that nothing constructive can be done by interference, but that something very constructive can be done in preparation for the future." He concludes by writing "The inactivity of radical Christianity is not the inactivity of those who call evil good: it is the inaction of those who do not judge their neighbors because they cannot fool themselves into a sense of superior righteousness. It is not the inactivity of a resigned patience, but of a patience that is full of hope and is based on faith. It is not the inactivity of the noncombatant, for it knows that there are no noncombatants, that everyone is involved, that China is being crucified (though the term is very inaccurate) by our sins and those of the whole world. It is not the inactivity of the merciless, for works of mercy must be performed though they are only palliates to ease present pain while the process of healing depends on deeper, more actual and urgent forces. But if there is no God, of if God is up in heaven and not in time itself, it is a very foolish inactivity."
His brother, Reinhold Niebuhr responds in Must We Do Nothing. He notes that his brother takes Jesus commandment to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" literally, meaning that none of us are able to act. The fact that we are sinful is not up for debate in his rebuttal. He though argues that we are not to take Jesus' words literally, because if we do so "we will never be able to act." Because we are broken, we can then never offer act to assist or save another, which he finds to be a problematic resolution. His issue is "What makes my brother's eschatology impossible for me is that he identifies everything that is occurring in history (the drift toward disaster, another world war and possibly a revolution) with the counsels of God, and then suddenly, by a leap of faith, comes to the conclusion that the same God uses brutalities and forces, against which man must maintain conscientious scruples, will finally establish an ideal society in which pure love will reign." His point is that "as long as the world of man remains a place where nature and God, the real and the ideal, meet, human progress will depend upon the judicious use of the forces of nature in the service of the ideal."
Theirs is an interesting debate. And I would agree with H. Richard Niebuhr in that God will remain sovereign and prayer is the most powerful thing that we can do. I would highly commend you all to join with millions of Christians around the world at the Pope's urging to pray and fast on September 7 for peace in Syria. But Reinhold Niebuhr makes valid points regarding the cost of inactivity.
Pope Francis:
"War brings on war! Violence brings on violence," and "The world needs to see gestures of peace and hear words of hope and of peace." For those of us who are not policy makers, UN ambassadors, or military leaders, perhaps this is our response. We need more peace and hope in our world. I attended an Episcopal preschool, and while I don't remember many things from those early years of my life, I remember the lyrics we sang in chapel- "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me."
I can't solve the crisis in Syria, nor can you. You can't influence the President's decision, nor can I. But we are not powerless. We can pray for those being killed, injured, or dehumanized. We can pray for God to soften the hearts of the aggressors on both sides. We can yearn for a day when we beat swords into plowshares. And we can live the peace we wish to see in the world. How we act towards our neighbors and those people we meet in the midst of life likely won't have a direct effect on the Syrian conflict, but they will bring us closer to the Kingdom of God being a reality on earth as it is in Heaven. And that is powerful.
Conclusion:
On some issues, I do think some conclusions are preferable to others on the grounds of coherent and consistent theology; this is not one of those issues. There is no "perfect" solution to an armed conflict. We will certainly pay a price for military action, and there will be a different cost for inaction. Are the prices equal? What do you think? I am not in favor of a "slap on the wrist" military strike to try to prohibit the future use of chemical weapons. America's credibility doesn't meet the conditions for a just war. Furthermore, Just War Theory begs us to consider if entering a conflict will leave the situation better than we found it. And I am nowhere near convinced that entering into the long conflict in Syria in a sustained way will result in a better outcome than if we sit this one out.
That being said, it deeply pains me to know of the atrocities and violence that are happening in Syria, with or without chemical weapons being used. There is nothing I want more than for this conflict to be over. But I'm not convinced that a missile strike(s) is the answer. And I'm certainly not advocating for a more robust military answer.
I agree with President Obama when he says "We all know there are no easy options...I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons." I agree that we must respond, but I disagree with the President (and many people on all sides of the political aisle) that military action is the only response. The day we presume that violence is the only solution is a sad one for America. As I said earlier, I don't know what the answer is. Is this a Just War? Classically, no; it simply doesn't meet the conditions. Is military action the right thing to do? I'm not sure. But I do know that come September 7 (and before and after, too) I'll be praying for peace, especially in Syria, but also in my community, in my church, in my life, and in my soul. Because I agree with Pope Francis when he says that "war brings on war," and so I hope that it is just as true that "peace brings on peace."
