By anyone's account, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of war. Therefore, according to the Christian tradition, the United States has the authority to respond justly. What are the criteria for a just war?

1. A Just Cause. A just cause for the use of force exists whenever it is necessary either to repel an unjust attack, to retake something wrongly taken, or to punish evil.

2. Right Authority. This criterion focuses on an established, legitimate, and properly constituted authority using force for a "just cause."

3. Right Intention. This criterion stresses the end goal of the use of force.

4. Proportionate Means. As a criterion, this point centers on the just means in the use of force; it must be appropriate to the goal.

5. Last Resort. This criterion involves the legitimate government using all diplomatic and foreign policy resources, including economic sanctions, to promote justice. War is the final means.

6. Noncombatant Immunity. This is the most difficult criterion for the just war tradition. The military force used must be discriminant the moral principle that seeks to protect noncombatants in war by prohibiting them being intentionally targeted by military force.

A review of these criteria indicates that indeed the cause of America in this war on terrorism is a just one. Because of where the terrorist cells are located, the sixth criterion will prove the most difficult; the US must not intentionally seek to kill innocent civilians. Obviously, the terrorists last Tuesday did intentionally seek to kill innocent civilians. Their cause was hardly just.

See James P. Eckman, Christian Ethics in a Postmodern World,
pp.62-65.

Back to top

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE NATURE OF THE TERRORIST ENEMY

As historian David Kennedy has argued, unlike Pearl Harbor where the enemy was clear and their goal equally as clear, we have attacks now on civilian and symbolic targets by highly unconventional forces under the command of still unidentified parties with unknown ambitions. Whoever our adversaries are, their objectives are not measured in terms of geography, trade or any of the usual markers of political rivalry. "They seek not simply to destroy but to demoralize, not to seize territory but to sow chaos, not to conquer as much as to cripple and corrupt. They not only attack lives and property but our core values of personal liberty and an open society."

Our strategy in Word War II was to muster the nation's prodigious human, financial and industrial resources to defeat a known enemy. What happened last Tuesday was not with the deadly weapons of conventional warfare, but with commandeered commercial airliners, in the words of Kennedy, "the proud fruits of a technologically advanced and prosperous society." Against it our conventional arsenal is all but useless, and so are conventional definitions of victory. In World War II we utterly destroyed our adversaries and forced them to capitulate on our terms. What will victory look like in this "war"?

Quite frankly, the goal of this new, most unconventional warfare is to go where the terrorists are, where their sponsors are, where their supporters are, and kill them. As Ralph Peters has written, "These are men . . . who will not be persuaded, who will not abide by any agreements into which we might pressure them, and for whom our own lives have no value except as symbols to be attacked." You cannot "teach a lesson" to serious terrorists. Fighting terrorism will be a long, perhaps even endless, struggle. Witness modern day Israel!

Furthermore, this is not a conflict that is explained by root causes of poverty or deprivation. This is the epitome of a culture war, pitting a pan-Islamic movement of fundamentalist extremists against the modern world and its primary cultural engine, America, "the Great Satan." It is not a war against Islam per se. Rather, it is a war against a radical, Islamic subculture that cannot cope with openness, change, rule of law, democracy and individual rights. The world bin Laden envisions resembles that of the medieval caliphate that flourished after Mohammed's death. This twisted, depraved medievalism is as dangerous as the ideology of Nazism. It is the enemy of every major facet of the modern world, including biblical Christianity. It is a fight to the death!

Peters goes on, we must re-examine fundamental issues of how the world is organized. As I have said on this program many times, the modern nation-state is dying, especially in the 10-40 window. The terrorists do not recognize sovereign borders and we cannot either if we are serious about defeating terrorism. President Bush has made it clear that the US will not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor them. That means tribal, factional warlords like the Taliban are our targets. They do not have a constituted nation-state. They run Afghanistan like a warlord kingdom. They have destroyed a once beautiful, Asian nation. This is the nature of our terrorist enemy and "outside the box" strategies are needed if justice in this world is to prevail. It is ugly to contemplate but organized civilization has no choice. America needs resolve, determination, stamina and the long-haul perspective. If not, terrorism will continue to slowly destroy civilization rooted in the values of freedom and rule of law.

See David M. Kennedy, "Fighting an Elusive Enemy," New York Times (16 September 2001), Ralph Peters, "Will Our Resolve Last?," Wall Street Journal (14 September 2001) and John Leo, US News and World Report (24 September 2001), p. 47.

TOP

Back to top

THE JUDGMENT OF GOD PERSPECTIVE

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have both stirred quite a furor over recent comments following last Tuesday's tragedy. Both have in effect argued that groups like the ACLU, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters must bear some responsibility for the terrorist attacks because their actions have turned God's anger against America. Falwell said, "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." He defended his statements as theological, "not a legal statement." He concluded, "I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist," [but] America's "secular and anti- Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good." [Falwell has apologized for his comments, especially the manner in which he stated them. I have not heard that Robertson did apologize.]

Obviously, these are very provocative comments. Are they accurate? Is this the proper way to frame this tragedy? How should we think about these comments?

First of all, it is imperative that Falwell and Robertson not assume the position of an Old Testament prophet who speaks for God. Neither of them has the prophetic authority that a Jeremiah nor an Isaiah had. There is simply no way in which the culture or the church should accept their words as having the same level of authority as Scripture. Their words do not! Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to find scriptural authority for the claims they were making. No nation-state today is following God's moral law. All nation-states today are part of the thorough-going nature of human rebellion. You simply cannot draw maps and define degrees of human rebellion and therefore resulting judgment from God. If that were the case, all nations would be smoking cinders now!

Second, the United States of America is not in an unconditional covenantal relationship with Jehovah God as was Israel. There are not covenant blessings and curses that one finds in Deuteronomy applied to the US. We do not have that kind of covenant relationship with God. He has no covenant obligation to place a protective hedge around the United States. With Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, the New Covenant was introduced, which is an individual covenant between the individual believer and with God, through Jesus Christ. God has no covenantal obligation to the United States as He does with the people of Israel.

That covenantal relationship is defined by the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12 and repeated throughout the Old Testament. It has nothing to do with the United States. The only aspect that does touch America is the part that states, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." That remains binding on all people. From my perspective, that is why it is critical that the US support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of modern Israel. Any blessings or protection that the US has enjoyed is due to the presence of believers [i.e., the church] in the country who enjoy New Covenant blessings. God has no covenantal obligation to the nation-state of the United States. We must not confuse the two. To do so is to step outside of the Bible.

Finally, I find the words of Jesus in Luke 13:1-5 instructive. In this paragraph, Jesus is asked about the example of state terrorism where Pilate's soldiers massacred a group of Galilean Jews and their blood inadvertently was mixed with sacrificial blood. Also, he refers to a tragic accident where a tower in Siloam collapsed and 18 people were subsequently killed. In both tragedies, Jesus categorically argues that those who died were not more guilty than those who lived. For both tragedies as well, he exclaims, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." His point? The issue is not guilt; we are all guilty. The issue for reflection is, are you prepared to die?

God permitted these monstrous tragedies to happen in the United States for reasons we may never understand. But we must never confuse the relationship of the United States with Almighty God as identical with the covenantal relationship Israel enjoyed with God. Neither must we confuse the covenantal blessings/curses of Israel as applicable to the United States. They are not. Finally, as individuals, we must ask and answer the question, "am I prepared to die?" The massive tragedy of last Tuesday does raise profound theological questions. But in struggling through these questions, let's keep our eyes on truth, not some of the convolutions and distortions that Falwell and Robertson represent.

 

Back to top