Rector’s Reflections
Thursday 17th October 2024
Christians and the Ethics of War
In yesterday’s reflections, I wrote about three Christian values which can be particularly relevant to discussions about the ethics of war: forgiveness, humility and trust in God. I mentioned briefly a fourth value, justice, and I wish to share some further thoughts on this subject in today’s reflections.
For many Christians, issues around peace-making are often intimately connected with issues around justice. It is not enough merely to seek peace: one must strive for peace with justice. The values of “peace” and “justice” are seen to belong together. Why might this be so?
In part, it is a recognition of the reality around human behaviour. When human beings feel a sense of injustice, this can easily lead into armed conflict, especially when a sense of injustice is shared by large sections of a community or even by a nation as a whole. A prolonged sense of injustice can not only cause conflicts to start, but it can also prolong conflicts, and even re-ignite conflicts years after the signing of a peace treaty. An example of this is what happened in the years following the Treaties which ended the 1st World War. There were many in Germany who felt that the peace treaties perpetuated and even exacerbated injustice, and there were some who saw the necessity of a second war to enable the Germa people to right the wrongs of an unjust peace. In such circumstances, the objective rights and wrongs of the situation were neither here nor there. What mattered is how people were feeling. If people feel that they are suffering from an injustice, that feeling needs to be recognised for what it is. A plan can then be made to try and work out how the issues can be addressed, preferably in a peaceful manner. But the longer a sense of injustice is downplayed or even ignored, the more dangerous the situation becomes. And there are plenty of people who will be only too willing to exploit a sense of injustice for their own selfish ends.
But it is not only a question of how people feel. Objectively, justice matters. It matters to individuals, and it matters to God, that rights are respected. We should not tolerate obvious injustice, and any peace which perpetuates significant injustice could be considered to be a false peace. Such a peace may well bring the fighting to an end, but at what cost? Such a peace may be the result of exhaustion or a pragmatic compromise between the warring parties. But it could argued that from a moral point of view, such a peace is a false peace which comes at too high a cost. What of all the sacrifices which have been made before the point when the peace is signed? If a war is being fought over a vital principle, what does it mean if this principle is then compromised?
This of course raises the question: who is to decide whether a peace is “true” or false”? Nations typically leave the answers to such questions in the hands of their leaders. But what if the leaders disagree among themselves? This happened in England in May 1940. Should the English Government make peace with the all-conquering Germany? If so, would such a peace be a “true” peace or a “false” peace? In many ways, it made sense to make peace. But Churchill disagreed. Churchill felt that a peace with Nazi Germany would be a “false” peace, and his view won out. But it was a brave decision to take. Who could predict how things would turn out?
These sorts of questions are nothing new. Back in the 6th century BC, the inhabitants in and around Jerusalem were under attack from a much better equipped enemy. Some leaders were calling for peace. But the Prophet Jeremiah took a different view: peace with the enemy would be no peace at all. They were seeking a false peace, and so Jeremiah denounced them in the following terms: “they have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying “Peace, peace”, where there is no peace. (Jeremiah chapter 8, verse 11). Of course, this was only Jeremiah’s view. He was confident that the peace in question was a false peace. But others would have disagreed. And how was the average inhabitant of Jerusalem to decide between the two views?
It is not always easy to apply the concept of justice to the details of any particular conflict. There will inevitably be differences of opinion. There will be similarly differences of opinion over the justice or otherwise of any particular peace settlement. But many Christians would argue that an ethics of war and peace cannot be separated from a consideration of deeper questions of justice. Peace and Justice really do go together.