For our God we thank you the love of the Father and giving sending His Son to be our Savior the love of our Savior in going to the cross The love that the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts We pray that we may respond to your redemptive love in obedience to our Savior's commandment That we love one another as he has loved us. We pray that that Truth may penetrate the very depths of our being Particularly as our thoughts are drawn to Dispassion and resurrection this week We ask that we may be redoing in our spirits that we may serve our Savior Effectively It with us in this class as we think through the issues that way upon us socially that we may have insight that we may be faithful Disciples that you have called us to be in our generation. We ask for Jesus. Say amen Now the two topics for today on the death penalty and just war tradition are under our heading the state in God's design And these are two issues that not only are perennial but really are current and we need to think through about them The modern crusade against the death penalty has traced to this work by bicario in 1764 notice the heart of his argument Capital punishment to was allowable in times of unrest to to prevent a revolution But in normal peaceful circumstances. It's only justified as deterrence to crime That that argument continues that if we have capital punishment It's only as a last resort for the protection of society under Revolutionary circumstances But otherwise since deterrence has not empirically proven to correlate with the death penalty The argument is that under peaceful circumstances it should be abolished that's from a book um The church is speak on capital punishment. This is a series. I want just to to note that This series on various ethical issues the home the church is speak on homosexuality the church is speak on abortion any of these contemporary issues that it's been worked through is very helpfully brought to together in this series and you know you can learn a lot from seeing the churches the way in which they describe the problem and develop it um The Kate in this country the the cause of for the abolishment of capital punishment was championed by Clarence Darrell on the grounds of social determinism that Has as its correlative denial of personal moral responsibility that was his defense in the famous load case um And uh we reject that uh Social determinist argument it still crops up from time to time um But they're better arguments in the 50s and 60s they are it summarized in the National Council of Churchist position 1968 on the abolition of the death penalty that you have in the readings for this section of the course 10 uh Reasons for taking the position for Abolition abolition of the death penalty and they are Reasons that have to be reckoned with their serious reasons that need to be taken into consideration It still did not lead to its abolition in America though it has been abolished in Europe when I was in Ukraine Uh, Ukraine made the decision to abolish the death penalty Which was a condition for their joining the European Union could not be a member of that union unless they abolished the death penalty So in Europe this I don't have the date but it it It has been abolished throughout Europe There's a kind of prophetic statement In Milton as the 1980s draw to a close the debate over capital punishment in America has waned someday in the not-too-distant future The debate over capital punishment will be renewed It awaits only a new incident or a new insight to bring it to the fore When that occurs the churches will have an asset that did not have when the Chessman case first Effectively raised the issue That he that was a man who was convicted of kidnapping in 1948 executed in 1960 and the churches in that period reviewed the issue of capital punishment and there is the strong consensus among the churches as we'll see But it didn't produce a consensus in society and particularly the crime wave began to rise in the 70s public opinion Posts were very strong and favor of the death penalty now that the crime weight has gone back down uh Yeah public opinion pose began to change it also So we need to look at it in terms of principle issues But I I think that I think that this is the time where Circumstances and developments have forced us to take a look at the the death penalty again I think that over the next decade You will see renewed interest in the question of whether the death penalty should be abolished Uh, in this country as it has been in Europe But to look at the Protestant churches and won't go through these but you can see how Many churches in the 50s and 60s uh Went on record in favoring the abolition of the death penalty There were those who argued for its retention Uh, I've given you the National Association of Evangelical Statement um Along with the NCC um National Association of Evangelicals held that it to it ought to be retained for premeditated capital crimes They didn't specify the first degree murder would be the capital crime for which that uh the death penalty should be retained But the basic argument is in the third paragraph of that statement if no crime is considered serious enough to warrant capital punishment Then the gravity of the most atrocious crime is diminished accordingly follows then that the attitude of criminals will be effective From a biblical perspective if capital punishment is eliminated The value of human life is reduced and the respect for life is correspondingly eroded And that's the heart of their argument Then unless you have the death penalty for the most atrocious crime taking a human life Uh, this seems it seems to indicate that they're thinking that as uniquely Um, deserving of the death penalty Uh, if you eliminate it the value of human life is reduced And respect for life eroded and they're thinking in terms of the effect of that on the mind of the of the potential criminal Well, that's the argument and we need to we need to examine that uh The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod Uh, in 76 typical position that the capital punishment is right but not mandatory It's something that the state has authority to do but is not required to do that that depends upon judgment In the christian reform church in 1981 Took the position that it is an exceptional circumstances Uh, permissible. I quoted from the christian reform referral page two Uh, capital punishment should not pertain to the routine administration of justice But only to those exceptional instances Of such administration as a call forth by a substantial threat to the foundation and structure of a free and responsible democratic society and thus to the safety and welfare of the people In other words, although they defend the the idea of capital punishment as just Still they're unwilling to apply it Except where there is the foundation and structure of a free and responsible democratic society and thus safety and welfare To the people they Although the ground of Of the capital punishment in the christian reformed understanding is Retributive justice and on apply retributive justice except in circumstances of grave threat to the society as a whole then it would be justified Otherwise, uh, not and uh in that second paragraph they They uh sometimes they give their rational that Sometimes it may be divinely sanctioned and in society's best interests It's not desirable the capital punishment be routinely inflicted upon persons Uh guilty of murder in the first degree only under exceptional circumstances should the state resort to capital punishment So it retains the right to capital punishment, but would apply it only Where the very foundations of society as a state refusing to give up the penalty altogether Uh, but uh going back to the idea that it's only when it's Absolutely necessary for the protection of the society Do you institute it now the Roman Catholic Church was moving in that same direction? I think they've gone beyond the pope is gone beyond that but there will uh Was a convergence in the Roman Catholic Church and the christian reformed up position And the catechism the Catholic Church 1994 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and protect public order and say Public authority must limit itself to those means Because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and a more conformity to the dignity of the human person Okay If bloodless means are sufficient So they leave open the possibility of in extreme cases the death penalty being applied but only as a last resort measure And the popes in cyclically bengalicum even gallium d-tie the gospel of life Pope said Punishment ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity in other words When it would not when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society Today however as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system such cases are very rare if not practically non-existence You see the convergence of the christian reform And the Roman Catholic position in that regard Then Pope John Paul The second in his visit last year to st. Louis in January Took a more Absolutious position against capital punishment This was in the trans-world dome And he had been applauded Throughout his message But when he got when he said this the audience sat on its hands They weren't prepared for it what Pope said was The dignity of human life must never be taken away even in the case of someone who has done great evil Notice the absoluteness of that the dignity of human life must never be taken away And This form the basis for his call for a consensus to end the death penalty which is both Cruel and unnecessary Now that some people's heads went back when the Pope said that because that went beyond his 1995 encyclical Certainly goes beyond the catechism of 1994 and the Pope My comment is the Pope thus stated his opposition to the death penalty with an absoluteness Formerly reserved for innocent human life For example, his encyclical donum d tie the gift of life 1987 God alone is the lord of life from its beginning until it's end No one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being The catechism of the catholic church uses x is 237 To interpret the commandment you shall not kill quote the deliberate murder of an innocent person Is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being And on the specific issue of capital punishment The catechism points out that the traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well founded The right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malifactors by means of penalties Commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding in cases of extreme gravity the death penalty So the Pope is moved to the tradition along What's authoritative in the Roman Catholic Church is what is revealed in scripture and tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium and so I wrote to a Newhouse On on this after the post visit new house was here during that visit ask him about this and he he said that this is a development of doctrine and It the the catechism the Catholic Church is in revision on this point. He says it's already been done in the Latin edition So I think that we have seen well just in In the 90s the Roman Catholic Church changed from his traditional position to a more absolute position On the question of human life the one thing about the Pope statement. It's a little bit Perplexing he says the dignity of human life must never be taken away um Does he mean that the human life which is in which is in trend has us in transit dignity must never be taken away I think that's his point But in any case he says the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary Before they had said it's it's it's legitimate and under extreme cases May still be necessary, but now the um the Pope has
Is moving the doctrine along and um the Archbishop regali and others have Have joined the move to abolish the death penalty on the basis of the Pope's leadership So we're in that situation where we re-examine this question. Yes
Well, I question this this is the way it
I question that this really fits with the development of doctrine theory because the this contradicts something that went before Development of doctrine traditionally has been expanding On what's there before but not in conflict with what before but going beyond what that goes before If this is the way a doctrine can is that this is a development of doctrine Then also the ordination of women is a development of doctrine the approval of homosexuality is a development of doctrine there if If it if the church can in effect contradict what it said before Then you have a very different understanding of development of doctrine now um I don't know of any but I'm not that familiar with with this there was thought to be a precedent um In in human type V type which was the in cyclical on contraception the bishops recommended the contraception be allowed The pope appointed a a a commission to study the issue of a contraception and the recommendation of the bishops were That under certain circumstances not only natural family planning but also the use of contraceptives that are not a board of the patient Is is allowable That I don't know if that would have been a that would have been a change in practice um I don't know that it would have been a change in doctrine Uh, but any it would have been a it would have been a contradiction in terms of practice and the question is how how how you you regard that um um The argument was that uh that the church has spoken on this and it can't change it will lose its credibility if it speaks on this so it's the The infallibility of the church conditioned its approach on that issue but it hasn't has an on this issue So it somewhat depends upon the issue in terms of the way that this develop now. I'm not um Right here to lecture the Roman Catholic church or but but we do pay a tent you have to pay attention to them and I think it's important to to um examine the grounds on which um Folks argue against the death penalty and our christian regale basically argued on the basis of the sermon on the mount That we should abolish the death penalty. I think that that's a mistake. Yes Well strictly speaking Well strictly speaking What is infallible is when the Pope speaks ex-Cathedra in terms of defining dogma and he's only done that three times So that there are you know There it's a very limited the assumption of very the maclit conception the bodily assumption of Mary Or doctrines that are or defined at an esoteric Catholic belief when it comes to ethical issues there is it's argued More flexibility than they are with the dogmas because But that's challenged within the Roman Catholic church Roman Catholics themselves debate this issue And so I we we are observers But we have to pay attention because of our our joint efforts and especially pro-life in society. Yes well, it's It's a puzzle as to how they can revise a catechism. I mean they they went with the same Vatican catechism for You know nearly 450 years and then they issue this catechism and now according to new houses is under revision that does seem A little you you'd have think that after after they were thought it all through if they're going to Issue the catechism which is definitive That it would have it would have included this new thinking on the death penalty So I don't know I at the time I wrote to the post dispatch to try to you know set the record straight But that that Peace that I wrote was never published It may be because I titled it is the Pope Catholic and that That might not probably undercut my credibility, but anyway I had the documentation Well, anyway Let's we need to look at the scriptures. We need to look at the scriptures So my second second point is the biblical warrant for capital punishment and
Genesis 4 verses 13 to 15
By the way in that piece. I did a special appreciation for John Paul the second. He is courageous. He's done a lot He's done a lot of things that are are laudable And I don't want to minimize that at all but On this issue it did seem to me that there's
Changing the tradition Genesis 4 13 to 15
Followed the murder of April by king
Cain's complaint Cain said to the Lord my punishment is more than I can bear Today you are driving me from the land and I will be hidden from your presence I will be a restless wanderer on the earth and whoever finds me will kill me But the Lord said to him not so if anyone kills Cain He will suffer vengeance seven times over then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him
I'm Murray's comment on this but I'm my exegetical Insights here or I'm dependent on Murray in his principles of Kanda Murray said life is so sacred That even the life of the murderer is to be respected. There is a dignity human life Even when we when we give the ultimate punishment and take it away Because it's been forfeited by human sin It's it's recognizing that that's that's a human life. It's it's holding persons responsible and so it Even the life of the murderer is to be respected and so you Do all you can to bring them to repentance and respect even tenetant criminals However are subject to the death the penalty But um, it's not to be wantonly or ruthlessly taken away crime is not to be punished by crime Life of the murder is not to be taken in the way of violence or thirst for blood after the pattern the murder is on crime You know, this is a sober judicial Matter Gordon Clark's observation. I think we should keep in mind God's dealing with Cain indicates that it is not absolutely necessary to execute every murderer God didn't pose exile on Cain and and held his life To be sacred So that it was not wantonly to be taken away Genesis 9 6 of course is the key Biblical text following the flood How the Lord does says
Well, we'll begin with verse four But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it and for your lifeblood I will share and for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting I will demand an accounting from every animal and from each man too I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed or in the image of God as God made man Now the the flood did not purge the human heart of evil and protective institutions are erected after the flood to curb the violence To which human beings are prone so that the operations of grace Can go forward As Murray notes the cheap emphasis of the passage is on the punitive that is on retributive justice God holds Human beings accountable for taking a human light and so it's a matter of Justice that the death penalty is imposed in this text Retribution is a dictate of justice support from any accessory considerations Murray goes on to say nevertheless there is without doubt in this passage the underlying Forge of the safeguards by which the life of man is to be protected The retributive sanctions have the effect of discouraging and inhibiting evasions upon the sanctity of man's life In other words the ground is not deterrence The ground is retributive justice So it's right to do it even if it doesn't deter But the underlying assumption is that by affirming the respect for human life by holding human beings accountable When they take it that that has the effect of enhancing the sanctity of life So retributive justice is right in and of itself, but the reason for retributive justice Is the sanctity of life and by showing By willing to go to the ultimate punishment it that shows What the value that human life has before God That sometimes argued By man shall his blood be shed could be either a statement of fact Or a command so far as the construction and Hebrew is concerned If it's a statement of fact the idea is that retribution will eventually overtake the murderer in the course of event You so what you read Violence reprines all who take the sword will perish by the sword But I think that the context points to its being a command
And the three reasons that are there I think are are sufficient To establish that that this is not just a prob a proverbial saying Like those who take the sword will perish by the sword. This is a requirement of accountability and the Through the means that God establishes In government for that to be taken well what about the perpetuity of this this principle especially in light of verse 4 Which says that we're not the meet meet with blood in it um That's frequently argued against taking this as a perpetual commandment because it's a condition well the ground of Prohibition of blood is later given in reference to the atonement Leviticus 1711 the life of the flesh is in the blood and I've given it on all to present the blood laws of the Old Testament Have reference to the atonement when when the atonement is fulfilled though ceremonial laws that forbade blood In terms of the diet Go go the way of all the dietary laws for their symbolic reference Where as the rationale given for the death penalty is perpetually relevant and so it has permanent validity It to note the uniqueness here. It's the most extreme crime We're talking about premeditated murder as in the case of Kane's murder of Abel Kane that was premeditated Kane says to Abel Let's go out into the field You know that wasn't just asking Abel to go with him for a walk Kane had his murder in mind um It's first degree murder premeditated murder fully responsible And in the nature of the case irremeable so it brings forth that That warrant and the rationale is that man is made in the image of God It's this particular crime that distinguishes the death penalty from the other penalties In the mosaic law I think that those were unique to the theocracy This is the as the special
Discipline of the the professed people of God as a nation Whereas this one is before Israel is established as a nation is addressed more generally To all those to humanity as as such So the death penalty for premeditated murder Is is unique as a matter of fact that
William Penn in the great act of 1682 Limited the death penalty to premeditated murder So this this I that if that was a that was over against some multiple death penalties in in Britain at the time um Penn limited it to premeditated murder and I think that You can only make a case for the death penalty in the case Vibblically in the case of premeditated murder Now Romans 13 for is the other key text
Is this that this establishes the who has the right to inflict the death penalty or to exact the death penalty um It's this civil magistrate for he is God's servant to do you good But if you do wrong be afraid for he does not bear the sword for nothing Notice he is God's servant An agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong doer So the idea is that capital punishment is just retribution for the crime of premeditative murder It bears witness to the fact here's my point It bears witness to the fact that we live in a moral universe and that man is accountable to God Uh, who is authorized to act thus in the name of God? Well, it's the civil magistrate that is authorized to act in the name of God But in so doing it's the sort of A pen ultimate Judgment that shows that do we we need to take human life seriously um because of it belongs to God And the sword is more than the sword here stands for of coercion or the forcible restraint of evil but it carries with it to that extreme form of um the culminating principle of punitive authority and I've given some other verses to um To take a look at there So I think that within the scriptures the death penalty for there is warrant for the death penalty administered by the state in cases of premeditated murder On the grounds of man's creation of this being just punishment For the taking of human life grounded on human beings being created in the image of God And it is expresses of God's Wrath toward that to extreme crime Now contemporary to turn to contemporary some thoughts on contemporary application um quoting again Gordon Clark God gave the right of capital punishment to human governments He intended it to be used wisely and justly But he intended it to be used
I think that the state cannot surrender the right to the state cannot surrender the right to capital punishment Uh to simply say that it's it's cruel and unnecessary and ought to be abolished goes beyond what can be defended Biblically but it is possible to ask this comes from the Christian reform report If punishment is once grounded on the principle of retribution cannot the kind quality and quantity of it be accommodated To the ends of deterrence societal protection and rehabilitation in other words can not we still Say that yes human beings who willfully take human life or worthy of death But for these other considerations we mitigate the death penalty according to our circumstances I think that that is an argument that needs to be taken seriously, but I approach it a different way I noticed that the Old Testament erected Structural safeguards Lest innocent blood be shed That needs to ring in our ears
There's biblical warrant for the death penalty, but in the Old Testament it's in the context of Structural safeguards less Innocent blood be shed Well, but why because that's an absolute contradictory of why you have the death penalty the first place No death penalty is when innocent blood has been willfully shed If you don't have the structural safeguards with respect to the death penalty you undermine the very purpose the whole rationale So it's necessary I go back to garden garden Clark statement God intended to be used wisely and justly Christian reform are arguing that let's use it wisely In terms of we may need to have it for the ultimate protection of society But we can accommodate our actual use of it to those other ends for which government is established I focus on it needing to be used justly And one of the provisions of one of the structural safeguards of the Old Testament were the cities of refuge Numbers 35 that was a very important element Numbers 35 is not the only reference that appears in in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the Pentateau And that gives us that gives us a key of what the way we need to approach it I think that justice demands consistency impartiality Do process and proof of guilt If if there's biblical warrant for the death penalty on the grounds of Retributive justice But unless it is administered justly you undercut the whole rationale for it and in contemporary American society it's not applied consistently You know, it's it's It's a role of the dice as to whether Prosecutor will will seek to death penalty It is it's not administered impartially And particularly with respect to do process the the kind of adversarial system that we have is unequal it's out of balance because Prosecutors are well trained
Highly paid not as highly paid as they could make in private practice, but they are they are uh There whereas the the defendant is at at
Characteristically does not have lawyers that are up to that same standard if we are to have the adversarial system Then the adversaries ought to be equal If for there to be due process now Colorado Has worked toward that in in Colorado They have a system whereby The where they pursue the death penalty and they do but only rarely But they ensure that there is an equal adversarial relationship But the prosecutor knows that to pursue the death penalty he is going to face the toughest opposition that's available Now that's the way it should be Okay, if we can't balance of that Then uh, I think that we should abolish the death penalty if it's not going to if we don't really give people do process if we only give them nominal do process and For proof of guilt Uh, we do run the risk of executing innocent persons under our system uh, Furman versus Georgia was the famous Supreme Court case that forced a relook at the death penalty and an extensive study Examined these cases found over 400 wrongful convictions About two dozen executions of innocent persons But more recently and most disturbingly just last year 25 persons on Death row in Illinois 13 were demonstrated to be innocent by DNAF That's in the land of Lincoln If they're more people more innocent people than guilty people on death row and that's that's proven Then something is really wrong with our system the governor was right to call moratorium until that can be assorted through So it it it forces us to the realization. I mean the strongest argument in my mind against The strongest argument for the abolition of the death penalty is the liability of innocent people Being killed and there's no recourse when that happens that that is an irrevocable And when we think we have the well, this is the best system in the world We have the best judicial system in the world and then you have a situation that it's not just um in Illinois It's also in Missouri that a At the Person on death row a couple of years ago was executed even though his lawyer was guilty of gross misconduct with respecting him And the man himself was borderline retarded now. There is a move that at least You in Missouri. We don't have the death penalty for persons who are retarded You know, but in Illinois the fact that you have that many people and and this this came about I've got a book on call at the public library With the title actual innocence that goes into these cases It was a journalism class at Northwestern University and it took on these things and they got to the evidence that was available and It is something is radically radically wrong. I think that um It's a scandal and We have to remember that all those biblical warrant for the death penalties only warranted when it is justly administered And I haven't fully concluded whether there is the possibility that being justly administered in our society But clearly it's not justly administered At the present time and if that cannot be corrected Then I think that for the sake of Less than innocent blood be shed, which is the whole point of having the death penalty We really need to take another look at it and not be so quick to support it Because it has biblical warrant remember it's biblically warranted Presupposing or assuming a just administration and I think that um That we need to take a good hard look at it I we are often accused Those of us who are anti-abortion of being inconsistent if we're pro death penalty I think that that's not an inconsistency. It's it's this the seamless Argument seamless web of life the pope is now lent his support to I think we should resist that but I think that there are other reasons for being opposed to the death penalty and You know, I think that there's There's much more injustice on the side of Of the number of abortions that we have in this country if if credibility is at stake in terms of being of Pro-life Then what are we gaining by insisting on the death penalty when there are all these problems with just administration? It should not be the issue that is a rallying point. I think for conservatives Yes, sir Yes Well, god responsible uh, I would think of the whole society if it's if it's a system that the society talks If we tolerate a system where more people are convicted More people are innocent Than guilty that we have convicted. There's something wrong with the structures of our society the whole when innocent blood is shed um In the in in a judicial way There those who are particularly involved in the um judicial system through careless prosecution through inadequate defense uh, they're more immediate responsibility, but I think that the The lord calls us responsible for these structural safeguards less innocent blood be shed It's the same with respect to abortion, you know, we we all are involved in In that issue. I think that those who protest relieve themselves of Of culpability and those who protest the unjust administration of the death penalty all that so but um god holds god holds us responsible But they're they're conflicting statistics on deterrence as a matter of fact deterrence is impossible to prove Because you don't know who is deterred You're only working with a statistical thing and the murder rate It doesn't go down. You don't know how high it would have been had there not been capital funding So you really can't prove it empirically one way or or the other that's why I think we should Not use deterrence as a part of the argument to either way, but I think that um I think that the the value of human life which we say the death penalty is for is undercut By unjust administration and we would we would Be more affirming of the sanctity of life If we did if we didn't have it as of as the Christian Reform Church says as routine I don't think the state can ever give up it absolutely And so that there might how to work that out in terms of where it is Where it is necessary To have it Whether it can be a abolished, but then when to if society begins to float out of control Reinstituted. I don't know. I haven't thought enough about it, but I know at present moment we have a um We we reach this sort of the crisis moment in terms of our approach on this issue. We need to take a good hard look at it And it it is it is typically last paragraph the death penalty is actually administered falls predictably on the numbers of minority races Now the whole justice system does and so this is not unique to capital punishment The capital punishment is irrevocable and when we need to look at the whole thing in terms of It's relation to minorities. Yes, Jeff Okay, um Let me let me address that issue in connection with our next topic Today, it is relevant. I'm not putting you off. It's a good question and I think I can do it Answer answer that question as we look at
Whoops By the way um Last year that was the question on the final Um the question you at yes, I gave I gave the newspaper account of regales argument It was reported in the post dispatch and asked the students to respond to it
I mean that's the that's the kind of thing is the really makes a good example quite did that was so current and I got
Unfortunate doing all those papers away. Otherwise, I'd probably have a better answer if I looked at it Anyway on the issue of justifiable warfare Westminster confession Second paragraph of chapter 23 It makes the point It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate And they may lawfully now under the New Testament wage war upon just and necessary occasion
Uh So come on the basis of Romans 13 We say God has ordained the state for the forcible restraint of evil Even to the extent of the sword And the necessary defense of innocent life From violent assault now the the domestic Function of the state in maintaining law and order Is more generally accepted than the right of the state to conduct warfare But the difference is clearly relative not absolute If the state is mandated to protect human life with the sword Then in principle War under certain well-defined well-defined conditions Is an extension of the police function of the state
Now I think that so we're looking for what are those well-defined conditions Under which warfare may be justifiable I think a careful reading of Genesis 14 The oldest war narrative in the biblical record Careful reading of Genesis 14 is illuminated Um See the position PCA position paper in the original Readings that I handed out where that's developed Um the PCA position paper Christian responsibility in the nuclear age But what we observed in that report is that every essential component of the later just war tradition Is illustrated in Genesis 14 You know just go through it You'll see that it all it all fits Of course, we're we're reading those back into them having a list that we understand But when you you can see that they they are the importance of Genesis 14 is at the end of this uh War record Abraham is blessed by Melchizedek for his conduct Okay, so that there is there's sanction of divine blessing upon Warfare that was Limited and for the right purposes with the right intent with right authority and all of those things so Genesis 14 is Because it's not just an account that that doesn't say What God's attitude is ported you have the blessing of Melchizedek on Abraham for his accomplishment with his Small standing army for 118 men And he allied himself with the other city states at that that time But doesn't the sermon on the mount require Christians to be pacifists Now here's the argument that we use both with respect to the state on the death penalty and when it comes to what's an extension of that is The just war tradition In the post-constantinian era beginning with Augustine
uh theologians distinguish between private citizens To whom the Lord commits us to non-violence and Public authorities Including Christians when they become public authorities Who are authorized to use limited violence And I think that the it's the correlation I think the best argument on on this is the correlation between Romans 12 uh 14 to 21 and Romans 13 1 to 7 Romans 12 14 to 21 um is Expanding upon The principle of love Bless those who persecute you bless do not curse rejoice with those who Rejoice mourn with those who mourn live in harmony with one another do not be proud Do not repay anyone evil for evil Careful to do what is right in the size of everybody If it's possible for us depends on you live it peace with everyone do not take revenge my friends But leave room for God's wrath or it is written in his mind to avenge I will repay says the Lord Verse 21 do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good now. That is what I would say is the um Epistolary supplement to the sermon on the mount Okay, that's you you go through that passage and it it's an it's an echo of the Sermon on the Mount Paul the Sermon on the Mount is Is expanding out love and uh and so um Paul picks up on those and for for Christians It spans it in in the same way But what he says about give place to the wrath of God is then picked up in Romans 13 Vengeance his mind I will repay says the Lord God is the one who avenges Wrath and then you go to the Romans 13 and there you find that the state is the Avenger That's what the state is for So it's the it's the difference between what the the Lord requires of us as his people as individuals and in the church And what God requires of the civil magistrate which Christians may be under if they are called to that office um when we are in the office of the civil magistrate Then we act as as Christians in terms of the ordinance that God has given and the ordinance of the magistrate is to execute wrath For the defense of those that are good at to punish evil in our pride in our capacity is as Members of the body of Christ. That's not a role and as privates citizens we are committed to non-violence, but as public authorities We have the responsibility of limited violence So the the um the Christian just war tradition is distinguished not only from the pacifist tradition But also from the holy war tradition which doesn't really need much justification The holy war tradition led to the crusades. It also led Cromwell into a mistaken Conquest of of Northern Ireland that tend to this day that Situation is problematic um Yeah, it The Christian just war tradition it is to be distinguished from blind obedience to authority From war hysteria From militarism There's a distinct Christian attitude toward war For Augustine Lothal war was a social form of love for our neighbor Okay, justice is one of the forms of love The state is commissioned to do public justice and it is equipped with the power of the sword in order to effect public justice and When Christians are called to that office then they have that as their their calling Christians pursue it um as the social form of neighbor love A love for neighbors threatened by violence by aggression by tyranny For Augustine legitimize the use of military force when you have to choose between The perpetrator of injustice and the victims of injustice then you you choose to Side with the victims and even if the do so requires the use of armed force against the the aggressor Now that was first developed by Augustine was expanded by Thomas Aquinas And various other authors through the 17th century by the end of the 17th century It's fairly Well complete in in terms of what just work criteria are and um, we distinguish between What in Latin is just a bellum What what justifies going to war and use or use in bellow What is just conduct in war the just conduct of of war And there's no standard list, but what I've derived You know, there's a is a comprehensive list as far as I can tell
represents All components of the tradition I would put there five items on this side of the The thing the conditions for going to war what is just justifiable and going to war And then there are two additional conditions. I'll number them six and seven that have to do with just conduct in war Now let me review these uh these briefly for you the first the first of these
Is legitimate authority That derives from what we've just been talking about It's not for individuals to avenge themselves It's not even for groups of people to band together to avenge themselves God has ordained a thawcrates He's ordained magistrates And if the war must be declared or executed by a legitimate authority That's ought to be presupposed in the argument, but we need to
Express it specifically The second component is that It's necessary that your cause for going to war to be just by just cause is meant A cause that is sufficient to Warrant war as a proportionate response. I think it's important to put that way It's a cause sufficient to justify war as a Proportionate response. That's that's um, no, it's not just any In fraction But it is something that warrants war In response to it and there are we ought to divide this between an a and a b And a point a would be As a matter of defense this is more obvious That uh When there's armed attack Against the peaceful people Really their defense requires no special justification if you're if you're attacked it's uh you really have no option But to defend it yourselves. So so there's a a difference between um The rationale for defensive war Not really there's so much dealt with in the just work tradition, but assume Until except until recently when defense against the authoritarian aggression or defense against aggression Was thought to be the only justification for war. I think that's a little too Too simplistic. There is a passage on In judges judges 1828 that illustrates Judges 18 to 28 That illustrates the um The difficulty of um the people sometimes face uh These are the Danites who are on a rampage And uh they go to the city of uh and um they attack them with the sword. Layish is the city Verse 28 there was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from sight and had no Relationship with anyone else. You know, it's a kind of a sad Situation that they're out there and the Danites just roll over and uh Of plunder them kill them plunder them um they if they had been Uh Folks nearby they could have formed an alliance for that defense. So others may join in the defense of those who are under armed aggression um
I think that we should um Also think in terms of causes which would justify Going on the offense Norm mostly the just war tradition um causes developed around This response to various in injurious uh actions in fringements of rights and so forth. So The idea was what would justify war for the restoration of rights or a vinging uh evil Would it because those who would it Yeah, I could uh groups after the event um lined up to attack the Danites for what they did to layish as a matter of the vinging Uh the layers those kinds of questions uh um get involved defensive war is not problematic It's when offensive war is it requires more rigorous analysis of the conditions Uh Third deck Category is right intention
And uh, this is especially important for for Christians um, there's both an objective Intention Your objective intention is peace. That's uh the ultimate reason why you go to to war is to establish the conditions of of justice and peace Uh, your subjective intention In other words it's peace not porn to not expanding your borders The um the goal is peace the subjective intention is Is love of justice not hatred of the enemy But it's love of justice you it's uh you're you're not uh Often war hysteria stirs up passions of hatred against the enemy, but that's not a part of the Just war tradition. There is then Uh Because war is so horrific in terms of the violence that just produces it ought to be last resort Uh when negotiated settlement is impossible non deadly forces ineffective And there's no available alternative
And then uh you you have to all even with that You have to consider probable success
You're talking largely about Going on uh going to war in order to uh Restore rights infringement of rights or um something When it is a matter of Of defense from an aggressor, you know you this this This a criterion isn't so uh Necessary. I mean you you don't have an option It's more the the idea of probable success Uh You know Sometimes it's taken into account would be better to surrender or to To fight against all odds. That's a question You have to ask some Sometimes but in terms of offensive nature of war um This should be a criterion. Yes, Michael
Uh, no that is something that has developed over time in terms of what we've specified Is the criterion which we will go towards when our national interest is at stake And I think that uh we need to question that in terms of uh that as a principle And uh particular in terms of humanitarian intervention National interests would be in my judgment to limiting a concept for a a nation in terms of the traditional just war War theory and we need to talk about that. I uh i'll come back to that um i have to come back to that next time The the two other the two other things that uh in terms of of the conduct of war I'll go over these next time, but it's the principle of discrimination That is you attack the threat and you spare the innocent attack the threat spare the innocent and the the um Principle of proportionality
Okay, you don't do more damage than is absolutely necessary You know that to achieve your your objective. It's a tactical situation. Well there with these um And these are the seven features. They do figure in in the way in which we Debate about to war in terms of Congress uh i Know with the um the um The Vietnam War was subject to all these criteria and we looked at them when the Gulf War I remember listening Uh laid into the night to the radio broadcasts of the debate in the house and senate On that and you know these these issues you know that was these issues same thing with respect to Kosovo You know great agonizing over whether Whether these criteria fit with the war in Kosovo now we've been there about a year I want to come back to Kosovo and the idea of humanitarian intervention as uh as a um Just cause that's the that's the issue Before the nations at the moment whether humanitarian intervention uh, you know after Somalia and Bosnia and Rwanda and Kosovo you know what do we Is um is The only national interest you know, it's only a national interest what you just let Rwanda Gold you know millions and millions of people How do we balance uh, how do we balance this thing? I'll have to say something about that um Well, it will be now next Thursday