War and Peace: When Just War meets the Beatitudes

 

The dilemma of war and peace has plagued humanity since the dawn of history. One pillar of the debate came from Augustine, whose Just War Theory mapped out the foundation on which Christians for years to come would judge the morality of war; on the other side stands the Beatitudes, preached by Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount, and forming the pacifist core of Christianity. The two may seem like direct opposites, but we see from history that the streams of thought are engaged in dialogue throughout the years. In this article, I will explore such moments of dialogue and the tensions that grew from it, reflecting upon how we, as Christians in the modern age, should respond to the moral argument between violence and peace.

Augustine lived during the late Roman Empire, a time when social unrest and barbarian invasions were a fact of life. Augustine believed that even though Christians should pursue peace, the choice of war can be inevitable in extreme circumstances, when justice and order are at stake. In exploring the justifications for war, we must first examine several key principles. First, a just cause is the foundation on which a war can be started – wars should only be pursued for the purposes of defending against invasion, punishing sin, or protecting the innocent. Second, wars can only be pursued by a legitimate authority, which is a country or a legitimate regime – this ensures that wars are fought for legitimate reasons, and not for personal quarrels. Third is the right intention of war, which states that the ultimate purpose of war should be that of restoring peace and justice, and not revenge or expansion – this ensures military actions are conducted with high moral standards. Fourth, the principle of last resort tells us that war should be the least favoured method of resolving conflict. We must first exhaust all peaceful means before engaging in war. Fifth, the principle of proportionality guides us in minimising the harm of war in proportion to the advantages it brings. And lastly, noncombatant immunity grants us the responsibility to ensure innocent civilians are not harmed during an armed conflict.

These principles shed light on Christianity’s wish for peace in situations where cruelty is inescapable in the complexities of reality. Augustine stressed that war, by itself, is not virtuous, but in circumstances where a greater good can be achieved (for example, in stopping a great evil), one must engage with matching violence as a necessary evil.

All these principles are good and well on paper, but putting them to practice has proved to be difficult. It is common to see both sides of a war using them to justify their own actions, and seldom are mutual decisions formed from the same principle. In every war, each side would successfully formulate a ‘just’ cause for war, and the theories of Just War quickly descends into becoming tools for rationalising and propagandising violence. The principles are also often vague in practice, and their interpretation is left in the hands of the powerful.

Augustine, proponent of Just War Theory.

The pacifism of the Beatitudes: from internal change to social implementation

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proclaimed, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.’ The Beatitudes are not just a guide for our own personal spiritual formation, it is a set of morality that completely revolutionises our worldly presumptions. First, humility and meekness are the foundation stones. Jesus asks us to recognise our own limitations, and stop being self-righteous. By doing so, we start to listen to others, and in patience, we find the truth. Second, when facing the injustice and pain of the world, we ought to mourn and have mercy. When we are pained, we ought to respond to hatred with mercy, and let love and understanding replace conflict. At the same time, gentleness and patience are essential. We are taught to face conflicts with persevering non-violence, refusing to meet it with more violence, and instead showing a higher wisdom and courage. Next, our thirst for righteousness moves us to also persevere in this pursuit, but we must do so with humility, shunning the arrogance of a self-righteous man. Lastly, the call to be peacemakers moves us to be proactive participants of society, in advocating for reconciliation and fellowship – even in the face of persecution, we should be steadfast in our faith. The Beatitudes teaches us to lead a sincere and honest life. It teaches a pacifism that is the opposite of passive escapism, rather, it calls us to act and be responsible for the long-term future. It is a moral framework that grants us power in facing social challenges, leading us towards a brighter path.

Pacifism is often derided as unrealistic, and some may even deem it as an ‘extreme’ moral stance. Many non-violent movements in human history – e.g. Gandhi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King – have proved the power of pacifism. It is not a summary refusal against violence, but rather, a choice of prioritising non-violence, dialogue, and forgiveness even in the direst of circumstances. Even in the face of failure and sacrifices, pacifists insist on responding to hatred with love and humility. Such actions are the embodiment of the Beatitudes.

Gandhi (1869-1948) chose non-violent resistance as the method of leading India to its independence.

Mandela (1918-2013) initially organised military resistance, but later advocated for ethnic reconciliation, and for forgiveness instead of hatred. © John Mathew Smith 2001

Archbishop Tutu (1931-2021), Nobel Peace Prize winner, fought against South African Apartheid with non-violent means. (UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré)

Martin Luther King (1929-1968) advocated for non-violent civil disobedience as a means to fight for the rights of African-Americans.

The great point of contention between the two lies in their differing perspectives on ‘violence’. Just War Theory posits that in extreme circumstances, violence becomes a necessary evil; whereas the Beatitudes teaches that even in the face of evil, our response should not be violence. Such is the dilemma of Christian morality: we are simultaneously taught to seek righteousness, and to love and forgive as Christ did.

In practice, the ‘feasibility’ of Just War Theory is limited – the realities of war are often too complex for anyone to truly and fully justify it with Just War. The battlefield is a no man’s land of gray areas, and both sides of a conflict can and will justify their own actions. Compared to this, even though the Beatitudes and its pacifism sounds idealistic to us, it nonetheless presents a possibility of fundamentally rethinking violence, redirecting our attention to an inward transformation. Just War Theory often focuses on the ‘immediate’, seeking to arrive at a swift solution to the evil already present; where the Beatitudes focuses on the ‘long-term’, seeking to bring about changes via generational perseverance and patience that ultimately leads to true peace. Thus it is required of pacifists to act as ‘sowers’: they may not be able to see the fruits of their labour within their own lifetimes, and yet they sow the seeds of peace nonetheless. This difference in the time-frame of perspectives is the deciding factor of why the proponents of Just War and the Beatitudes would arrive at different conclusions when facing the reality presented to them.

Just War Theory emphasises the legitimacy and responsibilities of the country and the regime, and the individual is relegated under this framework to be a follower and executioner of orders; in comparison, the Beatitudes emphasises the personal conscience and actions of each individual, making peace the responsibility of each and every human being. True peace must begin from the hearts of men, and from this seed, grow into the peace of families, of the community, of the country, and finally, of the world.

Pacifism is not a passive refusal, but rather a proactive participation. The Beatitudes form a blueprint for what should be done and how should it be done. In navigating the complexities of our modern world, our first step is to self-reflect. We are asked to acknowledge our own limitations and ignorance, and to learn to listen to others, waiting patiently for wisdom. When facing conflicts, proactive pursuit of reconciliation is essential. Rather than seeking vengeance, we should be seeking dialogue and reconciliation, so that we could turn away from divisions and start rebuilding bridges. Long-term planning is also crucial. We are asked to approach peace with the perspective of generations, shunning the temptation of a quick fix, because true peace can only be built with time and patience. Also essential is our proactive participation of community affairs: we ought to contribute to the constructs of peace, for example education, medicine, and social justice, so that public welfare can reach more of the needy, and our society as a whole will benefit from the commonweal. When wronged, we respond with forgiveness and mercy, breaking the cycle of hatred, replacing in its stead understanding and mending. These actions change not just the individual, but transforms the whole society, allowing us to walk towards a better future.

How should a pacifist respond to extreme cases of violence, like ethnic cleansing or terrorism? These are the greatest challenges to the pacifist. Defensive violence may be inevitable in such situations, but a pacifist should still choose non-violence as his first choice. When violence is used with no other option, he should constantly weigh the consequences and limitations of his actions. In having resource to violence, he should strictly observe such principles as proportionality and noncombatant immunity, and set his goal towards the resumption of peace. For true peace is not achieved by the cessation of war, but a deep transformation in the participating cultures and systems. Our modern world is far too ready to worship at the altar of violence as ‘immediate solutions’, neglecting the long-term benefit of peace. Pacifism asks us to reconsider and challenge the norms of our education, media, and economy. Pacifisms asks us to nurture a fertile ground of peace for our future generations.

Just War Theory must be revised so that only when ‘civilisation survival’ is at stake that we should consider violence justified. After wars, we must endeavour to rebuild culture, respect diverse differences, and seek to reach an international consensus; otherwise, war will only bring further hatred and division. The pacifism of the Beatitudes might be idealistic, but it is with such stubborn advocacy for non-violence that we could hope to break free of the vicious cycles of repaying blood with blood. Only then could humanity reach true reconciliation and communion with one another. Pacifists can only achieve this by generational effort, bearing the responsibility of peace in both the individual and the society as a whole. Even when facing failure and sacrifice, pacifists hold on to the belief that, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.’

UN resolution in 2007 marking 2 October (birthday of Gandhi) as International Day of Non-Violence. Depicted is a statue of non-violence at Landskrona, Sweden. ©Brödbaron