"Concerning the Christians...we say that they have been taught not to defend themselves against their enemies, and because they have kept the laws which command gentleness and love to man [sic], on this account they have received from God that which they could not have succeeded in doing if they had been given the right to make war..." (Hornus p. 148)

Concrete efforts were also made to introduce such thinking into church discipline and into the systematic teaching of catechumens. An example of this is the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, a teaching of the Roman Church at the end of the second and beginning of the third centuries, and must be considered as "the source of primitive canonico-religious literature". (Hornus, p. 161). The following counsel can be found:

The soldier who is of inferior rank shall not kill anyone. If ordered to, he shall not carry out the order, nor shall he take the oath. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed. Anyone who has the power of the sword or the magistrate of a city who wears the purple, let him give it up or be dismissed. The catechumen or believer who wish to become soldiers shall be dismissed, because they have despised God. (Hornus, p.163)

The "Testament of Our Savior" (dating from a later period) affirms:

If a soldier desires to be received and instructed and wishes to submit to our law, let him give up his looting and violence, let him give up his slander, disobedience and folly, let him be content with his pay. Then, if he has given up this trade, let him be received; if not, let him be dismissed. (Hornus, p. 164)

It is clear that in addition to the opposition to the practice of idolatry within the Roman army, there was also an ethical aversion to the necessity of killing.

As time went on, this mistrust of military service became blurred, primarily for two reasons: 1) the conversion of the emperor Constantine and the fact that Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, and 2) the menace of foreign invasion and the end of the "Pax Romana". In a lapse of about two hundred years, one went from a situation in which a Christian could be excommunicated for having participated in military service to one in which only Christians could be part of the army.

It was in this difficult situation that Ambrose and Augustine began to theologically justify Christian use of violence under certain conditions, for they found themselves faced with a real dilemma: "either a Christian will observe the precept that he must abstain from all violence but fail his obligation to come to the aid of the victim of an unjust attack, or he will make his strength available to the victim of injustice and fail to keep the Gospel precept of nonviolence." (Joblin, p. 81)

The just war theory attempts to respond to this dilemma. There are several versions of this theology, each having different criteria. Nevertheless, there are two types of criteria which can be found in all of the versions. There is the "jus ad bellum", that is the criteria which help to know whether a war is just or not. (Is it declared by a legitimate authority? Is the cause just? Have all means of reconciliation been used?) And then there is the "jus in bello", the criteria concerning the manner in which a just war is waged. (The means must be proportional to the ends, the war must be able to be won, and the lives of the innocent must be spared etc.)

From a pacifist point of view, it is interesting to note that there are several presuppositions behind this theory. War is never seen as good, and is never glorified. When one resorts to using violence, it must be justifiable. In other words, the normal position for Christians is Christ's teaching of nonviolence. It is not nonviolence which must be justified, but rather violence. Those who want to use violence must be able to justify it with precise criteria.

In this respect, it is interesting to note that even after the acceptance of the just war theory, killing during war was still considered a sin. "As a sort of reminder of the early teaching, the Church continued to impose penance on those who killed a man in war, even in a just war, even in legitimate self-defense." (Hornus p.175) At the end of the fourth century, Basil required that "the soldier with unclean hands abstain from communion for three years". (Hornus p.171) It was forbidden for a priest to shed blood, and one who had been a soldier could not easily become a priest.

The second presupposition is that the just war theory implies that there is a capacity for ethical discernment on the part of Christians. The criteria of "jus in bello" (the way a war is waged once it has been declared just) imply that "the conscience is not linked to what the authorities declare as being in accordance with the interests of the city.....On the contrary, for the believer, the State is in the service of fulfilling the common good...according to God's plan." (Joblin p.96) In Luther's "Can soldiers be in a state of grace?" (1526) we find the following instruction:

Question: How should I act if my lord is wrong about going to war?

Response: If you are absolutely sure that he is wrong, you should fear and obey God rather than men [sic]....and you should not go to war nor serve, for in this case, you cannot have a good conscience before God." (Martin Luther, Oeuvres Tome IV, p.257)

The just war theory implies the right to selective conscientious objection. The interests of the prince or the nation do not automatically justify resorting to violence.

Several questions from a pacifist Christian perspective can be raised and asked of Christians from a just war tradition in the hope of establishing a dialogue which could be very important for today's Church.

First of all, there is the question concerning the theological interpretation of history. The evolution during the first three centuries of the Christian position on the use of violence has already been noted. Christian thought and practice moved from a position of rejecting military service and violence, which was more or less widespread, to accepting the possibility that Christians may kill in certain circumstances.

There are, however, several ways of interpreting this evolution. There is the "prophetic" reading of church history which sees a major shift (and major mistakes) with Constantine. Jacques Ellul goes so far as to call this shift the "subversion of Christianity". This means that the church had become unfaithful and in need of renewal.

A more "developmental" reading of church history would see such an evolution as the work of the Holy Spirit, a gradual process of the understanding of truth which was previously not apparent. As time went on and Christians made up the majority of the population, the Church needed to be politically responsible. What was possible (or perhaps necessary) for a small persecuted minority was no longer appropriate for a Church which had reached "adulthood".

Such a position assumes that "those who deliberately renounce all power and adopt a position of weakness in a society greatly risk not influencing its evolution and not being able to contain the violent impulses it undergoes". (Joblin, p.27) It is a question of choice between an "ethics of conviction" and an "ethics of responsibility".

Such questions are closely tied to the meaning of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. In some respects, Protestantism comes close to the "prophetic" reading of history. The reform had as its starting point the idea that it is possible for the Church to make mistakes, and that all that happens and is taught (called "tradition" in the Roman Catholic Church) is not necessarily in accordance with God's will. The principle of "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone) implied that there are criteria for measuring the evolution of doctrine and practice. The Church is not a self-justifying institution; it needs constant reformation.

The Church of the first centuries and the Middle Ages evolved in several other ways besides its position on the question of violence and nonviolence. During the period of time when Christianity became an official religion and took on the shape of a state or established church, church structures and theology also became more hierarchical and sacramental. The Reformation principles of "faith alone" and "Scripture alone" were directed against such an evolution. The reformers, for example, rejected the "mediator" function of priests and sacraments, affirming that these ideas and practices were not in accordance with scriptural revelation. Nevertheless, in relation to the question of violence, the Reformation did not consider it advisable to question the Constantinian synthesis. It founded national churches which were closely linked to the established civil authorities.

But, in the midst of the Reformation, there were those who wanted to go much further, those who claimed that infant baptism was not justified, and that the Church was too closely linked to the civil authorities. In fact, these radicals (called "Anabaptists") wanted, in the name of "sola scriptura", to challenge the Constantinian synthesis. Therefore, it is not surprising that they came to the same conclusion as the early Church, i.e., that Christians could not kill (even in the name of the civil authorities.)

Members of "free churches" or the "dissenting tradition" (Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals and many others) do not usually hesitate to question certain aspects of the "official" Reformation such as infant baptism and close church-state relationships. Why stop then with the question of violence? Without wanting to reject all the values of Western Christendom, is it not possible to consider that there is a connection between the development of the politically established church, infant baptism, hierarchy, and the militarization of the Church?

Along with Constantine, Theodosius and the establishment of Christianity came a new ethics. What formerly could have been asked of a believing and committed Christian could no longer be asked of the masses. Categories such as "responsibility" and "effectiveness" began to function as ethical criteria, claiming that Christians could not be indifferent to what was happening in the world. The Church had to influence the course of history in a positive manner even if it meant acting contrary to the Gospel teachings.

We are thus faced with a crucial question. What does it mean to want to influence the course of history? Since Constantine, Christians have adopted the criteria of political realism and effectiveness when evaluating the use of violence. It is claimed that nonviolence simply "does not work". The Christian must act realistically and responsibly. If Christians do not react - with violence if necessary -, there will no longer be justice or freedom.

One could, however, ask the question in another way. Is it the Church's task to act in such a manner that history goes in the right direction? A pacifist ethic would instead assert that in Jesus Christ we already know in which direction history is going. Evil has already been defeated. The world does not need our political realism and our calculated effectiveness. We tend to think that the political decisions of the nations of the world make history. Biblically speaking, this is not true. The significance of history is found in the lives of a people who were first called in Abraham, a people of peace and reconciliation who, in Christ, are to be a blessing to the nations. In this perspective, the task of the people is to first live and witness to the reality towards which history is moving, and not to play the tower of Babel game, i.e. to be a part of a divided and warring world. To witness means that our lives and the means used to reach a given end must correspond to the Kingdom which is already here but also still to come. Our concern for effectiveness must be measured in the light of Jesus Christ, knowing that in order to defeat evil, he had to suffer and die.

The question could be asked if political realism and effectiveness, in whose name so many wars have been justified, are truly realistic and effective. Is an ethics of responsibility really responsible? Can we truly know what effect our acts will have on subsequent events? If we want to speak of Christian social responsibility, there is already the example of Western Christendom, a period in which the kings and princes were Christian, a period in which the Church was responsible for the functioning of society, a period in which everyone said or thought they were "Christian". This was an era when the Church exercised responsibility and functioned according to the criteria of political realism. But what heritage did this experience leave? Certainly many positive things, this cannot be denied. But there were also the Crusades, the Inquisition, the wars of religion, opposition to tolerance and democracy, the twentieth century spectacle of the use of chemical and atomic weapons by "Christian" nations', and the almost total rejection of the Church by European masses who used to call themselves Christian.

After taking into account the question of the theological meaning of history, let us now look more directly at the just war theory. The first problem is the following. This tradition was able to function at times within Western Christendom during the Middle Ages. It is true that the Church often played a positive role in situations of war and violence through its efforts of negotiation, with threats of excommunication and with such institutions as "the Peace of God" and "the Truce of God". Nevertheless, throughout the centuries and particularly in modern times, Christians have tended to justify most wars most of the time, even when there were Christians on both sides. History has shown too often that those who speak of "just war" are trying to justify wars of national interest or ideology. Even the great theologian Karl Barth, whose theology allowed him to say no to Hitler was able, after a brilliant exposé on the theology of just war, to state:

...an attack against the independence, neutrality, and territorial integrity of the Swiss Confederation would fulfill, in my opinion, the conditions. This would be a case in which defense would be necessary and in order. I would speak and act in such a manner if the case arose. (Barth, La guerre et la paix, Les cahiers du renouveau, V, Labor et Fides, 1951,p.32)

If the theory of a just war is viable, it must mean that there are wars that should not be waged or wars that it would be better to lose. If the only way to win a war is to commit war crimes, it would be better to lose. Where, in history, are the wars when Christians said "no" in the name of a "just war" theory? Who is really "sectarian" - those who, in the name of Christ, refuse to kill, or those who, in the name of their respective nations, kill each other or prepare to do so with no qualms whatsoever?

Where in our churches and theological seminaries is the ethical discernment being taught which is necessary for Christians to tackle this question? Why do conscientious objectors have to justify themselves so often in Christian circles, but not those who accept without question going to war? In my youth, I heard it said that it was my Christian duty to go to Vietnam to fight communist atheism. This is no longer a "just war" theory but rather a "crusades" ideology.

No matter what is said, modern warfare seriously calls "just war" theology into question. How can one speak of war as being the last option in a world where the next war could be over before we even knew it began? The criteria of "jus in bello", the manner in which a war must be waged, often no longer apply. How do we seriously speak about the proportionality of means or the protection of the innocent, be it in Kosovo or Rwanda?

Christians are not usually in agreement with the kind of position that has been espoused in this article. But I can ask those who disagree to think seriously and honestly about their own just war tradition and take it to heart. Has the "just war" theory functioned in the past? If so, where, when and how? Can it work today? Even if all Christians don't accept "evangelical pacifism", what would it mean to take the just war theory seriously in today's world?

Neal Blough

Translation from the French: Janie Blough

Barth, Karl. "La Guerre et la Paix." Les Cahiers du Renouveau. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1951.

Ellul, Jacques. The Subversion of Christianity. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Friesen, Duane. Christian Peacemaking and International Conflict: A Realist Pacifist Perspective. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1986.

Guicherd, Catherine. L'Eglise catholique et la politique de défense au début des années 1980: Etude comparative des documents pastoraux des évêques français, allemands et américains sur la guerre et la paix. Paris: PUF, 1988.

Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom. London: SCM Press, 1984.

__________. Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985.

Hornus, Jean-Michel. It is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward War, Violence, and the State. Scottdale, Pennsylvania, Herald Press, 1980.

Joblin, Joseph. L'Eglise et la guerre: conscience violence, pouvoir. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1988.

Yoder, John Howard. What would you do?. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1983.

__________. When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.

Neal Blough came to France from the United States in 1975. He is the di-rector of the Paris Mennonite Center and professor of church history at the Faculté de Vaux sur Seine.

Mr. Blough is a member of the St. Maurice Mennonite Church. He is married and has three children.