Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC

How does this site work?



Stanley Hauerwas ABC Religion and Ethics 2 Sep 2013
Americans are a people born of war, and only war can sustain the belief that they are a people set apart. War is necessary to sustain their belief that they are worthy of the sacrifices of past wars.



Pacifists always bear the burden of proof. They do so because, as attractive as nonviolence may be, most assume that pacifism just will not work. You may want to keep a few pacifists around for reminding those burdened with running the world that what they sometimes have to do is a lesser evil, but pacifism simply cannot and should not be, even for Christians, a normative stance.

Nonviolence is assumed to be unworkable, or, to the extent it works at all, it does so only because it is parasitic on more determinative forms of order secured by violence. Those committed to nonviolence, in short, are not realistic. In contrast to pacifism, it is often assumed that just war reflection is "realistic." It is by no means clear, however, if advocates of just war have provided an adequate account of what kind of conditions are necessary for just war to be a realistic alternative for the military policy of a nation.

Just war in the Christian tradition

In the Christian tradition, realism is often thought to have begun with Augustine's account of the two cities, hardened into doctrine with Luther's two kingdoms, and given its most distinctive formulation in the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr. Thus Augustine is often identified as the Christian theologian who set the stage for the development of just war reflection that enables Christians to use violence in a limited way to secure tolerable order. It is assumed, therefore, that just war is set within the larger framework of a realist view of the world. With his customary rhetorical brilliance, Luther gave expression to the realist perspective, asking:

"If anyone attempted to rule the world by the gospel and to abolish all temporal law and the sword on the plea that all are baptized and Christian, and that, according to the gospel, there shall be among them no law or sword - or the need for either - pray tell me friend, what would he be doing? He would be loosing the ropes and chains of the savage wild beasts and letting them bite and mangle everyone, meanwhile insisting that they were harmless, tame, and gentle creatures; but I would have the proof in my wounds. Just so would the wicked under the name of Christian abuse evangelical freedom, carry on their rascality, and insist that they were Christians subject neither to law nor sword as some are already raving and ranting."

Luther is under no illusions. War is a plague, but it is a greater plague that war prevents. Of course, slaying and robbing do not seem the work of love, but, Luther says, "in truth even this is the work of love." Christians do not fight for themselves, but for their neighbour. So if they see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords, or princes, and find they are qualified they should offer their services and assume these positions. That "small lack of peace called war," according to Luther, "must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which would destroy everyone."

Reinhold Niebuhr understood himself to stand in this "realist" tradition. In 1940 in his "Open Letter (to Richard Roberts)," Niebuhr explains why he left the Fellowship of Reconciliation. He observes that he does not believe that "war is merely an 'incident' in history but is a final revelation of the very character of human history." According to Niebuhr, the Incarnation is not "redemption" from history as conflict because sinful egoism continues to express itself at every level of human life, making it impossible to overcome the contradictions of human history.

Niebuhr, therefore, accuses pacifists of failing to understand the Reformation doctrine of "justification by faith." From Niebuhr's perspective, pacifists are captured by a perfectionism that is more "deeply engulfed in illusion about human nature than the Catholic pretensions, against which the Reformation was a protest."

Just war theory as limit to state action

Paul Ramsey understood his attempt to recover just war as a theory of statecraft - that is, that war is justified because our task is first and foremost to seek justice, to be "an extension within the Christian realism of Reinhold Niebuhr." Ramsey saw, however, that there was more to be said about "justice in war than was articulated in Niebuhr's sense of the ambiguities of politics and his greater/lesser evil doctrine of the use of force." That "something more" Ramsey took to be the principle of discrimination, which requires that war be subject to political purpose through which war might be limited and conducted justly - that is, that non-combatants be protected.

Yet it is by no means clear if just war reflection can be yoked consistently to Niebuhrian realism. Augustine's and Luther's "realism" presupposed there was another city that at least could call into question state powers. For Niebuhr, realism names the development of states and an international nation-state system that cannot be challenged. Niebuhrian realism assumes that war is a permanent reality for the relation between states because no overriding authority exists that might make war analogous to the police function of the state. Therefore each political society has the right to wage war because it is assumed to do so is part of its divinely ordained work of preservation.

"Realism," therefore, names the reality that at the end of the day, in the world of international relations, the nations with the largest army get to determine what counts for "justice." To use Augustine or Luther to justify this understanding of "realism" is in effect to turn a description into a recommendation.

In an article entitled "Just War Theory and the Problem of International Politics," David Baer and Joseph Capizzi admirably try to show how just war requirements as developed by Ramsey can be reconciled with a realistic understanding of international relations. They argue that even though a certain pessimism surrounds a realistic account of international politics, that does not mean such a view of the world is necessarily amoral. To be sure, governments have the right to wage war because of their responsibility to a particular group of neighbours, but that does not mean that governments have a carte blanche to pursue every kind of interest.

"The same conception that permits government to wage war also restricts the conditions of legitimate war making ... Because each government is responsible for only a limited set of political goods, it must respect the legitimate jurisdiction of other governments."

But who is going to enforce the presumption that a government "must respect the legitimate jurisdiction of other governments"? Baer and Capizzi argue that Ramsey's understanding of just war as the expression of Christian love by a third party in defence of the innocent requires that advocates of just war should favour the establishment of international law and institutions to better regulate the conduct of states in pursuit of their self-interest. Yet Baer and Capizzi recognize that international agencies cannot be relied on because there is no way that such an agency can judge an individual government's understanding of just cause: "absent effective international institutions, warring governments are like Augustine's individual pondering self-defence, moved by the temptation of inordinate self-love."

Baer and Capizzi argue that a more adequate understanding of just war will combine a realist understanding of international politics with a commitment to international order by emphasizing the importance of just intention. This means that a war can be undertaken only if peace - understood as a concept for a more "embracing and stable order" - be the reason a state gives for going to war. The requirement that the intention for going to war be so understood is an expression of love for the enemy just to the extent that the lasting order be one that encompasses the interests of the enemy.

My first reaction to this suggestion is: And people say that pacifists are unrealistic? The idealism of such realist justifications of just war is nowhere better seen than in these attempts to fit just war considerations into the realist presuppositions that shape the behaviour of state actors.

The likes of Ramsey, Baer and Capizzi are to be commended for trying to recover just war as a theory of statecraft - that is, as an alternative to the use of just war as merely a check list to judge if a particular war satisfies enough of the criteria to be judged just. Yet by doing so, they have made clear the tensions between the institutions necessary for just war to be a reality and the presumptions that shape international affairs. For example:

  • What would an American foreign policy determined by just war principles look like?
  • What would a just war Pentagon look like?
  • What kind of virtues would the people of America have to have to sustain a just war foreign policy and Pentagon?
  • What kind of training do those in the military have to undergo in order to be willing to take casualties rather than conduct the war unjustly?
  • How would those with the patience necessary to insure that a war be a last resort be elected to office?

Those are the kind of questions that advocates of just war must address before they accuse pacifists of being "unrealistic."

Ultimately, I think the lack of realism about realism by American just war advocates has everything to do with their being American. In particular, American advocates of just war seem to presume that democratic societies place an inherent limit on war that more authoritarian societies are unable to do. While such a view is quite understandable, I would argue that democratic society - at least, the American version - is unable to set limits on war because it is democratic.


The unreality of war

Realism is used to dismiss pacifism and to underwrite some version of just war. But it is not at all clear that the conditions for the possibility of just war are compatible with realism. At least, it is not clear that just war considerations can be constitutive of the decision-making processes of governments that must assume that might makes right. Attempts to justify wars begun and fought on realist grounds in the name of just war only serve to hide the reality of war.

Yet war remains a reality. War not only remains a reality, war remains for Americans our most determinative moral reality. How do you get people who are taught they are free to follow their own interests to sacrifice themselves and their children in war? Democracies by their very nature seem to require that wars be fought in the name of ideals that make war self-justifying. Realists in the State Department and Pentagon may have no illusions about why American self-interest requires a war be fought, but Americans cannot fight a war as cynics. It may be that those who actually have to fight a war will - precisely because they have faced the reality of war - have no illusions about the reality of war. But those who would have them fight justify war using categories that require there be a "next war."

Pacifists are realists. Indeed, we have no reason to deny that the "realism" associated with Augustine, Luther and Niebuhr has much to teach us about how the world works. But that is why we do not trust those who would have us make sacrifices in the name of preserving a world at war. We believe a sacrifice has been made that has brought an end to the sacrifice of war.



That is why Christian realism requires the disavowal of war. Christians do not disavow war because it is often so horrible, but because war, in spite of its horror - or perhaps because it is so horrible - can be so morally compelling. That is why the church does not have an alternative to war. The church is the alternative to war. When Christians lose that reality - that is, the reality of the church as an alternative to the world's reality - we abandon the world to the unreality of war.

Stanley Hauerwas is Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University. His most recent books are War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity and Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir. He will be in Australia later this month to deliver the 2013 New College Lectures.

Comments (10)

Add your comment

  • Grumblebear :

    06 Sep 2013 10:27:26am

    from my understanding of history the "just war" theory came into being as Christians stated to gain power and own land.
    There is an apocraphal story I heard (If it can be historically verified I would be grateful!) that there was a Roman Legion in which many of the soldiers had converted to christianity. It became apparent as they then refused to take up their swords as they could not reconcile this with the command to Love their neighbour. They were then apparently put to death, apparently by crucifixion.
    Interventionist policys may also have risen from the "Love your Neighbour" approach. "If I love my neighbour I will also be obliged to do what is in his best interests" this was quoted to me by an influential Christian leader- of course this opens up a range of interventions including political and military.
    Dealing with violence has always been a tricky issue for Christians - Jesus words on balance strongly lean toward pacificsm. I tend to lean toward the approach that it is the last option to consider, There is an old jewish proverb which says something like - better to live with an uneasy peace than with war.

  • Wayne Lusvardi :

    05 Sep 2013 8:08:16am

    As always Stan Hauerwaus is stimulating if however circular in his reasoning.

    Hauerwaus seems totally ignorant of how Christianity came into being. Christianity was forged in a war -- as the Roman historian and propagandist Josephus called it -- the Jewish War. During one point in that war the Romans were driven from Jerusalem by the Jewish zealots. The Romans knew how to defeat nearly every other army but could not defeat an army comprised of religious zealots. So Herod's daughter Bernice, the ex-Jewish general turned Roman propagandist Josephus, and Tiberius Alexander wrote the early drafts to what we know as the Gospels to convert Jews or Judeans to a pacificistic religion of turning the other cheek, of loving your enemies (the Romans), and rendering taxes unto Caesar. There attempt at co-opting Judaism into a peaceful religion succeeded beyond any one's dreams. Ironically, it eventually became the religion of the Roman Empire.

    So back to Hauerwaus' call for "Christian Realism." Real Christian realism would have to acknowledge that it is a religion forged out of war, initially a propaganda attempt to co-opt Diaspora Jews to be peaceful and accept Roman rule, that paradoxically evolved into the religion of empire of the Romans. Much later Edward Gibbon wrote a classic series of books of how Christianity brought down the Roman Empire -- and in a sense he was right.

    So what does Christianity have to say to us today about the banging of war drums in Syria if it can't realistically admit to its own complicity in war? War is based on necessity, as Niccolo Machiavelli classically pointed out. Is there a necessity (a national interest) involved in hitting Syria with cruise missiles at minimum or arming it opponents? I don't know enough to know for sure, but my guess is that tilting the Syrian civil war to one side or the other would not be in the U.S.'s best interests. It sounds likes European nations and the U.S. sense that if Assad wins then its allies (Iran) will finally be able to expand their influence into the Mediterranean.

    Syria and its puppet master iran are the modern day zealots that use Islam to accomplish their political ends. This is the same dilemma the Romans faced. The solution, which succeeded wildly, was to supplant the religion of the Jews with a non-legalistic, pacificist religion. There is little chance that a religious co-optation of Muslim dictators in the Mideast is going to improve much of anything.

    The starting point of any "Christian Realism" when it comes to the issue of war is to acknowledge their origins in war.

      • Peter B :

        14 Sep 2013 12:22:25am

        Wayne Lusvardi said: "Hauerwaus seems totally ignorant of how Christianity came into being."

        I think he would not be the only person to not know the story you tell.


        In fact, the Romans captured Jerusalem after a siege of about six months. The Romans had no more difficulty with this siege than they did with other sieges. Yes, many of the Jewish defenders were Zealots, but many more were not, and before long many were starving.


        I would be very interested to hear the evidence for this. Many if not most of the epistles were written before the siege - so there's clear evidence of Christianity existing before it was "created" according to this theory.

  • Proud thinking Australian :

    03 Sep 2013 2:00:40pm

    Christ's directive to "Love your enemies" has never really been implemented by a modern or historic state with a christian identifying populace or any other religious or secular nation for that matter.

    Intervening in the ongoing Syrian civil war to "force" a cease-fire which is enforced would qualify as loving your enemies (baddies vs. baddies) shorten the war and reduce the body-count on both sides if done properly.
    Since we have some Jihad and gun loving ex-pats from South Western Sydney adding to the fray here it's the least we could to balance the ledger.

    Loving your enemies comes at a cost but isn't valueless if the civilian carnage slows to a standstill.
    I'd say trust Jesus at His word here and see what happens ~ in effect change history and obey the Prince of Peace. He's on the money.

  • Lynn Miller :

    03 Sep 2013 10:52:51am

    Stanley is of course correct is saying that "Americans are a people born of and in war, and only war can sustain our belief that we are a people set apart", but I can tell you from the perspective of a converted Mennonite who is also a 9-yr veteran of military service, with a standing military of our size, war is also now a necessity in American life. A military career only lasts 20 yrs or so, and so if you don't have a war every 10 yrs or less, you end up with a military force that has no combat experience and with weapons that have never been tested under combat conditions. The sad truth is that a "good defense" demands the occasional offense, i.e., war.

  • Hudson Godfrey :

    03 Sep 2013 12:30:27am

    You can never be quite sure what some people are arguing for, but I sincerely doubt Christianity has the monopoly on justice much less on pacifism.

    We find ourselves as I write in that space that lies between a provocation and a response when some importance might be given to considering the difference between pacifism and appeasement.

    Appeasement in the context I would invoke is not just the traditional cowardly attempt to avoid conflict. It should also be expanded to include the niggardly weaseling of those who lack the will to rise to any challenge that does not appeal to their own interests.

    A pacifist argument if it is to be made simply and plainly rejects violence, often equating it with the notion that two wrongs never make a right. On rare occasions however when to stand idle would be to fail to prevent injustice and defend human rights then surely case could be made for the moral rectitude of deterring the crossing of a bright line against the use of chemical weapons by marshalling a proportional response.

      • Stan Goff :

        04 Sep 2013 5:48:58am

        I can always rest assured that the first mention of "appeasement" will come from a man (in this case followed by 'weasel' and 'coward'). Jesus, I suppose, was appeasing when he told Peter to put away his sword.

          • Hudson Godfrey :

            04 Sep 2013 12:48:13pm

            I'm sure we could debate themes within Biblical accounts of Jesus' actions at length, but I don't see how this example makes a fair comparison with the current situation?

            When I say that "on rare occasions" we might construe a case for a just military action then I mean to acknowledge the principles of non-violence you seem to be endorsing. I just think that some things, like human rights, are so important that it disappoints me to hear people prevaricating about what's in it for us as if to say that the only justifications for mounting any defence against the use of chemical weapons must almost resemble a commercial transaction.

            If on the other hand we believe, for whatever reason, that we can answer the question, "who is my neighbour", then maybe we'll find that what is under attack is the prohibition we maintain against a brand of violence we can't always defend against by simply disengaging from.

              • Stan Goff :

                04 Sep 2013 10:18:40pm

                Well, at least we are talking Hudson. Here is to the hope that we share some premise that will prevent us talking past one another.

                I was not comparing Jesus and Peter in the garden with the plans to fire missiles at unseen Syrians from distant ships. I was referring to the gender-baiting in the use of words like appeasement, coward, and weasel... the schoolyard equivalent of a boy calling another boy a sissy.

                The reason I included the url is I have spelled out more on this de-recognition of such masculine tropes in political and religious discourse. This kind of talk is not gender-neutral, and my contention is that male formation by war, directly and indirectly, materially and ideologically, often goes unrecognized as Male and passes as merely common sense (and male social power - the kind Jesus rejected in his living example - is thus simultaneously concealed and reproduced).

                Your characterization of pacifism is a straw man. If I understand Hauerwas' pacifism, it has little to do with truisms like "two wrongs make a right," and more to do with eschatology - with believing the promises Jesus made. What Hauerwas is saying here is that this characterization of pacifists - that they are unrealistic, or *naive* - is a little ironic. Syria is a perfect case in point, given that we cannot know the actual outcomes of a punitive strike... and that "punitive" is probably a bad reason even by secular lights for firing missiles at people from ships. Hauerwas is rhetorically adopting the just-war standpoint.

                Here is a different take on the Parable of he Samaritan, by the way, one that doesn't make a whole people the neighbor so we need to kill some of them to "save" the rest (abstraction is a dangerous tool):


                What I haven't spelled out so far is American exceptionalism, which says that the US can (and should) intervene on behalf of human rights (one wonders why then we haven't intervened in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Israel, where human rights are trampled routinely by these "friendly" governments). I recall a few years back when Pres Rafael Correa of Ecuador demanded the removal of an American base, infuriating people in Washington, whereupon he agreed to allow the base in exchange for an Ecuadoran military base in Miami.

                One of Hauerwas' themes in the regard is that in the United States we have transitioned through a putative Christian nation to a nation favored by Providence to command others to a nation that is itself the principle object of our worship. An idol, that is.


                I appreciate your engagement, and I hope you recognize that neither Hauerwas nor his partisans (like me) are adopting a "what's in it for me" approach to US foreign

              • Hudson Godfrey :

                07 Sep 2013 2:23:36pm

                Sorry I took a couple of days to come back. I do agree it's better to converse openly then defend entrenched positions.

                On the subject of male tropes, I hear and mostly agree with you. I don't mean to use appeasement in a gender baiting sense though regrettably a better word express what I wanted to convey could not be found. The weakness I refer to isn't necessarily either gendered or one of simple cowardice. It is instead the willingness to write off other human beings because they're of a different tribe or out of sight and therefore out of mind. That's why I thought the example of the Samaritan to be so apt.

                Nor did I intend to set up a straw man against Hauerwas' eschatology. Since I don't particularly subscribe to any scriptural epistemology for pacifism it suffices for me to stick to what we ordinarily mean by the term; opposition to war and violence. So that I might on rare occasions be willing to recognise a brand of violence so egregious that something more than a passive opposition is called for.

                I'm also more inclined to think that Jesus' legacy is a message like that contained in the Samaritan's story, rather than a promise to intervene on the side of righteousness. It seems to recommend to me that we think of our fellow human beings in a less selfish light. Far from accusing pacifists, who believe in non-violent opposition, of that kind of selfishness, I'm just struggling to see how they mean to stop Assad from callously repeating these terrible acts of indiscriminate murder. I just don't think a shame offensive will work.

                So assuming that Assad is guilty if it hasn't already been satisfactorily confirmed, then perhaps you might still be willing to argue that he is also our neighbour. I don't know if that is what you're trying to get at here. It may be that you merely wish to offer consideration for those deluded supporters of his whose fault is not nearly as manifest. However, I think there's something to be said for a version of justice that might substitute what you referred to as "punishment" for deterrence when there's an attack that seems to require something be done to defend his victims.

                I'm more persuaded by the argument that there are plenty of other equally nasty governments who commit atrocities against people we may be overlooking here, and that the only apparent difference is manner of weapons that were used. Yet I see American hegemony as far more threatening than the kind of exceptionalism that takes exception to chemical weapons if it functions as means to exempt us all from their use. And thus like most people I am of two minds, inclined to avoid the kind of war that's motivated by covetous reasons, while so offended by the attacks themselves that I think we have to stand against those actions on the victims' side.

On the Wider Web

What We Can Learn from Meriam Ibrahim

Gabriel Said Reynolds, First Things

After her conviction in May, Meriam was given three days to embrace Islam and save her life. This would have been an easy choice to make, but Meriam refused, declaring: "I am a Christian and I will remain a Christian." Those who wonder whether heroic - and saintly - courage still exists can look to her.

What do we mean by "Islamist"?

Elizabeth Nugent, Washington Post

How can so many different political actors, ranging from non-state reform movements to political parties to revolutionary groups and militias, be subsumed under one adjective? Rather than being a product of imprecise language, the significant variation in the nature, tactics, and objectives of these groups suggests an ambiguity inherent in politicized Islam we often fail to recognize in contemporary debates about the subject.

Best of

The future of Halo

The future of Halo (ABC Technology and Games)



on Twitter for the latest Religion & Ethics updates.



Manage My Subscription

How Does this Site Work?
