A Summary of Friendship’s Position on War and Peace
Christians are exhorted to be peacemakers:
. . . We who claim his name must live peaceably ourselves, furnishing to the
world conspicuous examples of peace-loving, harmonious living, and must also
privately and publicly denounce war and strive to prevent it by prayer. . .
(Acts of Synod 1977, p. 558)
Friendship maintains that a
"just war" is possible and permissible,
i.e. that a legitimately constituted
government may use appropriate force to achieve the ends of justice and
freedom.
Friendship's position is
grounded in the view that the state is the bearer of the sword as taught in
Romans 13:4 and supported by the general analogy of scripture. A duly
constituted government may rightfully use force in the pursuit of justice
and freedom.
Friendship recognizes that
even though there are occasions and reasons when war may be justified, it
also recognizes that ("in the eyes of God") there are no completely or
purely just wars.
Friendship eschews both
pacifism and militarism.
With respect to militarism, all inclination—surely
all eagerness—to fight is thoroughly immoral and contrary both to the letter
and spirit of everything our Lord teaches.
Selective conscientious
objection is acceptable with respect to a specific war under very limited
conditions.
Uncertainty or doubt is not
sufficient ground for conscientious objection. When in doubt, one’s duty is
to obey one’s government.
The imperative "to obey
one’s government" is a generalization and not a universalization
("obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word" – Belgic
Confession, Article 36).
The principle of
proportionality leads Friendship to conclude that the widespread use of
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in a war renders such a war as
unjust.
Principles of a Just War
The "just war" tradition has been found extensively within the Christian
church even though it may be understood and articulated in different ways
within different communities. The following seven components are considered
necessary for judging a war as just:
Just Cause:
A just war can only be fought to redress
wrongs that have been committed. A first strike attack on a nation that
has committed no atrocities cannot be considered justice; that is
aggression.
Right Authority:
A just war can only be waged by a legitimate
authority. People, vigilantes, and terrorists do not wage just wars; only a
legitimate government is permitted to wage a war that can be considered
justified.
Right Intention:
A just war can only be fought with "right"
intentions. War is not justified to gain control of another nation, it's
assets or it's people. If the right intention for going to war is not
present, justice is not present.
Proportionality:
A just war must never allow the force used
to be disproportional to the need. Nations must be prohibited from using
force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the
wrongs that have been committed.
Last Resort:
A just war can only be waged as a last
resort, after reasonable attempts to bring justice have been exhausted.
Achieve Peace:
A just war can only be fought if the
ultimate goal is to re-establish peace. More specifically, war is not
justified if the situation in a country cannot be reasonably expected to
be better after the war than before.
Reasonable hope of success:
A just war can only be fought if there is a
reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless
cause are not morally justifiable.
Additionally, developments in warfare and weaponry lead to the following principle.
Discrimination:
A just war must employ weapons and tactics
that discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Innocent
civilians are never permissible targets of war, and war can only be just
if every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties.
