I suggest the latter is the key difference between us. “Christian” for you means “the presence or will of Christ” qua Jesus’ words, or at most the NT; whereas for us, the will of Christ is revealed in all of Scripture.

Please limit your comments to two or three errors in order to give others a chance to hone their skills.

Please be kind. Though Mitchell is young and undoubtedly a product of government schools, he seems sincere. And if sincere, he may be teachable.

It is most interesting to see the use of the term: “Christian Just War Theory.”

On what basis are the above principles reckoned “Christian”?

Since ‘Christian’ necessitates/presumes the presence or will of Christ, I am wondering to which of Christ’s teaching/s the JWT conforms?

For my recollection of Jesus’ teachings disappoints handsomely: not once did I read where He declared war; of any human fabrication.

Jesus’ presence on earth was a sign of spiritual warfare. His presence among us thus sounded the death knell for satan, which soundly indicates to me that His (Jesus’) war was one of spiritual proportions, with scope and implications far exceeding mortal affairs and the realm in which war, (as humans understand it), is fought by humans.

Thus, Jesus’ coming can be interpreted as an initiating pulse to actively engage in spiritual warfare. This war is not fought with weapons fashioned by human pride and arrogance. Rather, as Paul says, “3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” (2 Corinthians 10:3,4). AND~

“…with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left.” (2 Corinthians 6:7).

Then perhaps it can be fathomed that the only Christian just war is one that is spiritual? Since it is the only one supported by orthodox (ie., universally applicable/universally perceived) Christian doctrine.

–Mitchell

* Do you think that those Reformed Christians who view the war as just think that it was just because they think that America is sinless?

No, but that distracts from the point. If their often myopic application of Just War principle re: Iraq was applied to this country with equal vigor, then they should be calling out from the public square for some nation more righteous than us to invade us. We, as a once Christian nation (as defined by our previous public laws and treaties), are more culpable then a Muslim nation as well. Again, I think they enjoy the sport and the distraction it provides.

* Do you think that those Reformed Christians who view the war as just think that America is not ripe for judgment from God for its sins?

If they do think we are ripe for judgment then again, why aren’t they applying their view of “just” war to ourselves and openly calling for some foreign power to invade us and put a stop to the mass murder of the children of this country? After all, in early 2003 we were told of those Iraqis crying out for our help and that they’d be cheering us in the streets when we arrived. I’m waiting to greet in the streets the invading army which comes to shut down the mass murder of America’s children. Meanwhile, with all generation IV tactical war issues aside, we’d do good to consider if the consequences of Achan’s sin (Joshua 7) may be what we are seeing applied in our day to the grinding halt of our “mighty” military in Iraq. By public law, we have far too many accursed things among us.

* If America were as righteous as humanly possible, would that change your outlook on the war?

If America were as “righteous as humanly possible” there wouldn’t be this war in Iraq.

I think the answer to each of those questions is “no.”

But, to be frank, I have not seen any Reformed apology (defense) for the war. So perhaps this is all academic.

Not academic at all. Real continental and presbyterian reformed young men are joining up and going off to this unjust war with the consent of their fathers and elders. These young men are seen as those coming from a nation whose foreign policy has for decades created, funded and aggravated these tinderboxes.

-Turretinfan

PDorr

Perhaps you have thought this through better than I have. My rationale for suggesting identification of the appropriate remedies for unjust war is because not all crimes are treated the same in the Law.

Crimes of murder, rape, and kidnapping (at least two – and quite often all three – of which arguably happen in most unjust wars) are properly remedied by death of the criminal, not restitution/restoration.

Crimes of mayhem (also virtually always occuring in an unjust war) are remedied by corresponding retribution.

It seems to be that only crimes of theft, willful negligence are remedied by restitution (which is not simple restoration).

Assuming there is such a thing as an unjust war – the two subsequent questions are:
* is an unjust war also a crime?
* what is the appropriate remedy for the crime?

You seem to view unjust war as analogous – at least for remedial purposes – to theft. It certainly seems to be an important question to me, but perhaps you have a more thoughtful (than my own) reason for excluding discussion of remedies from the basics.

Would you also exclude the discussion of remedies from a more complete discussion of unjust war theory?

-Turretinfan

Restoration is indeed necessary when a crime has been committed. I don’t think this needs to be included in our theory of just war, though.

And, yes, it is restoration. My proposals are not at all meant to be a Versailles-style reprisal for real or perceived wrongs.

Obviously you have only billed this as “the Basics.” Nevertheless, I have an enhancement proposal, should you consider racheting the article up to the next notch.

I notice that in the comments on another post, you describe some proposals for remedying an unjust war.

Clearly you’ve given some thought to how we should go about remedying what you very strongly believe is an unjust war.

A complete theory of just war would, I submit also include a “remedies,” section. It appears that your proposed remedies are designed to equate to restitution.

Perhaps, for this “basics” level discussion, a single concept:

B) A nation that engages in unjust war against another nation should restore the offended-against nation as nearly as possible to its original condition.

might be fitting as an addition to the prohibition in what would be (A) (i.e.(1)-(7)). That, of course, assumes that your intent was to apply a principle of restoration and not to try to parallel the punishments meted out to Germany by the nations that defeated it.

-Turretinfan