🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Many Christians believe Israel's war against Hamas is a "just war" and that the state of Israel must exercise a right to self-defense in response to the atrocious attacks of October 7. Leaders encourage this thinking and support a binary choice of us-or-them, good-versus-evil, barbarians and monsters against the civilized and free. But such exercises in justifying violence entertain the wrong questions at the wrong time.
The suffering of innocent civilians is compounded by inadequate moral reflection. The violence and hostage-taking perpetrated against Israelis and internationals, the staggering Palestinian death toll in Gaza, and the detention of many in Israeli prisons without rights or trial are all deeply troubling. A zero-sum hostility is tightening its grip on the world, where each side's victory demands the other's total demise. All sides of the conflict have hardened their positions, dehumanized their enemy, and propagated a contagious radicalization spreading across the globe.
Christians have frequently turned to just war theory and pacifism to posit moral criteria in response to conflict. But they must remember that Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." The right questions at this critical time must be deeper ones that seek righteousness and justice to birth and sustain peace. We need a different paradigm befitting Christians called to be agents of reconciliation.
Just war theory originated in the fifth-century writings of Augustine. He and later Catholic scholars, like Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, delineated strict criteria for conflict, such as that all means to avoid war must be exhausted, innocent life preserved, and proportionality observed. These theorists clarified conditions necessary for a moral war, including a just cause, a legitimate sovereign authority, and just intent.
Pacifists, who abhor all violence, dare to question the state and, in the words of J. Daryl Charles, are "suspicious of the distortions of faith" and the "human tendency to rationalize violence." The pacifist voice is an important one but often fails to distinguish between the church and state. Ethics pertaining to small communities with shared moral codes face challenges when applied to large, diverse nation states.
Both traditions aim for lasting peace. Ideally, a just war posture leverages coercive power only to defend the weak and protect society. Pacifists hold that the costs of war are so high that other resolutions to conflict must be sought.
The Holy See has repeatedly questioned the merits of the war in Gaza. In a statement released on June 30, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Holy Land strongly condemned attempts to excuse the conflict in the name of just war theory, saying "our theological tradition must not be used in order to justify this violence." It stated that "neither the attacks by Hamas on October 7 nor Israel's devastating war in response satisfy the criteria for 'just war' according to Catholic doctrine."
Certainly, all humans desire the utopian ideal of a world without war. But our ethical theories pertaining to war are all too often misapplied and reactionary. Proponents neglect the desperate need for proactive, holistic peacemaking. This is especially difficult amid injustice, evil, and abuses of power. Modern economic engines, militarization, politics, and apocalypticism have caused a strange desire for and valorization of war.
The principle of "just peacemaking" redirects the moral conversation towards active pragmatics. Just peacemakers seek to intervene before a conflict erupts and search for pathways to peace. Proponents like Baptist theologian Glen Stassen seek to combine pacifism's commitment to nonviolent action with just war's dedication to justice. They aim to address root causes by promoting economic development and the advancement of human rights and religious liberty. This holistic approach also demands acknowledgment of injustice by all sides and seeks reconciliation between belligerents.
On a grassroots level, what does this look like? Programs like Combatants for Peace, which brings together former militants, foster bonds between Israelis and Palestinians formerly engaged in violence who lay down their weapons, forge relationships, and share their grief. Scholars and religious leaders, consistent with research, decry retributive violence as counterproductive, begetting more of what it seeks to eliminate. And many in the international community invest in schools, loans, and hospitals; signaling hope in Gaza to contrast the anguish of weaponry and bombs.
There is a better way forward in creating peace, rather than pondering the morality of violence. It starts with a sober look at the road that brought us here and, perhaps starting with those of us in the West, a confession of our culpability in injustice, hostility, and dehumanizing rhetoric. Just peacemaking is a daunting challenge but a moral imperative, especially for those who claim Jesus as their Lord and guide.
Dr. Scott Gustafson is the Ambassador Warren Clark Fellow with Churches for Middle East Peace. Rev. Dr. Mae Elise Cannon is the executive director of Churches for Middle East Peace.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
