My attention was caught by a line near the beginning of Paul Rasor’s interesting article, “Prophetic nonviolence: Toward a Unitarian Universalist theology of war and peace” (UUWorld Spring Issue).“The just war tradition… originated in the Catholic Church during the fourth century CE.”
“Ah ha!” I thought, demonic, amateur-historian’s gleam in my eye. “What major, MAJOR event happened in fourth century Christianity that might have necessitated creation of a “Just War” theology? Why that’s when a conquering emperor adopted as his state religion a multifarious, once-Jewish sect grounded in egalitarian community, extreme social justice and absolute, radical abandonment of violence for nonresistance.”
In other words, that’s when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire, thus originating Christian orthodoxy. This included requiring all his soldiers to join the church. His… soldiers? Join a religion committed to nonviolence?
Huh?
Although his mom was Christian, Constantine himself didn’t seem to have been much of a believer. (For instance, he refused to be baptized until he was about to die.) It’s possible that, like a good pagan, he simply respected all possible gods. Once the Christian god helped him win the battle that made him emperor, he merely elevated that god’s worship. He didn’t seem to care about the details of the theology. He only demanded that there be one, unified set of beliefs, an “orthodoxy,” to be enforced by imperial law.
Except… As emperor of a huge, imperialist empire, he needed police, criminal prosecution, jails, capitol punishment, autocratic governors, laws that kept the rich rich and the poor poor - with ordered trade amongst them, and – most importantly – war. But these were aspects of social organization that Christians had traditionally stood against… (Although many offshoots had already moved from their radical roots into typical, patriarchal church organization - as witnessed by the spreading suppression of women within a century of Jesus’ death.)
Ergo the need to justify war.
Ahhhhh…..
As the teachings of Jesus were abandoned, a Christian “Just War theology” was born.
Footnote: There was then no “Catholic Church” (as in “Roman Catholic Church”) such as exists today. In the fourth century, members of the newly established, state church fought long and hard over exactly which of a multitude of beliefs would be called orthodox and which condemned as heresy. The center of church authority was also soon to reside, with the center of imperial power, in Constantinople. Although full of factions, orthodox Christianity had not yet split between Eastern Orthodox and Western Orthodox. …And there were lots of Popes.
* * *
You write: "As the teachings of Jesus were abandoned, a Christian “Just War theology” was born." -- I generally tend to agree with you, and a common criticism of just war theory is that while it has frequently been used to justify wars, it has almost never been used to stop a war from happening. Yet Paul Rasor takes a nicely nuanced view of just war theory in his article, and his central argument is fascinating. He states that pacifism and just war theory are often seen as in opposition to each other, but then he points out some interesting commonalities between the two traditions;-- from there, he works towards a coherent exposition of peacemaking, in part by co-opting some elements of just war theory. It's a sort of theological judo -- pulling someone in the direction they're already headed, but pulling them much farther than they are comfortable with.
ReplyDeleteI am also reminded of Dana Greeley's approach to pacifism -- Greeley was a prominent Unitarian Universalist minister of the mid-20th C. Greeley said that with the advent of the nuclear age, war becomes utterly immoral because with any possibility of nuclear war comes the possibility of killing huge numbers of innocent citizens. Thus Greeley co-opts one of the basic tenets of just war theory (war cannot involve innocent citizens) in service of complete pacifism.
I'm a pacifist who really takes the Sermon on the Mount seriously (blessed are the peacemakers indeed) -- so it's tempting for me to completely dismiss just war theory -- but under the influence of thinkers like Dana Greeley and Paul Rasor, I start to see how we can take just war theory and turn it on its war-loving proponents. So, for example, George Bush appealed to just war theory to justify his invasion of Iraq -- but with a good knowledge of just war theory, I am able to make a seriously damaging critique of Bush's justification by pointing out how he has violated most of the principles of just war theory. I'm sure he doesn't care, but it helps to discredit him to some of his supporters.
Paul is going to be presenting his argument at the UUA General Assembly in June. He is a very good speaker. It will be interesting to see if he adds anything to his article. It will be equally interesting to hear how he fields questions from both pacifists and just-war proponents. Let's hope the UUA Web site posts a video of the talk, so that those who can't go to Ft. Lauderdale can still listen/watch online.
And thanks for the post -- I like your connections between just war theory and Roman empire. (Now how about a post on the connections between modern empire and just war theory....)
Thanks Dan for your response, and for summing up Rasor's argument so succinctly. Interesting that he, you and I are all committed pacifists, yet can still find lots of differences in understanding.
ReplyDeleteI especially appreciate what you said about speaking to war justifiers in a language (Just War theory) that they understand... If you really want people to change, it does work best to start where they are.
If the empirical universe is an expression of the nature of God (or the Underlying Meaning of All or the Encompassing Something-or-Other or...), then there is one conclusion we can draw about that Great Whatever. It is wantonly, drunkenly, head-over-heals in love with diversity. ;-)
However, please don't take my pointing out the origin of Christian Just War theology as necessarily a disagreement with Paul's argument. I meant something more like: "Take a moment and consider the theological ancestry, and the originators' possible agendas. In that light, what nuances appear in the modern experience of these concepts?"
Like, for instance, seeing that religious folks have always been prone to "discover" "true" religious tenets just happen to meet their social needs... And we shouldn't consider ourselves free from this tendency. ;-)
But, though my ending line was a bit glib, I do believe it is true. Except the real, historical process by which orthodox Christianity developed a war-mongering, authoritarian, wealth&power supporting church from the teachings of the once-living Jesus was a very long, stumbling, contingent affair...
And even if the orthodox declared themselves victorious after 400 or 500 years... Well, they never could be. Because change rules (in human culture as in anything) and because heterodoxy is spontaneously generating (that ol' diversity-lovin' God at it again)...
Which may be why Turtulian (a 3rd century, proto-orthodox theologian) instructed good Xtians, "Do not think for you will think up heresies."
cheers.