JUST WAR PART 3: AQUINAS BUILDS
PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS SERIES:
JUST WAR PART 1: THE TIMES OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 2: THE THEORY OF AUGUSTINE
Augustine got the Just War ball rolling in the late 4th Century by outlining three kinds of wars he believed God's people can support. And his theories were not changed for the most part but instead grew in popularity among Catholics.
Then along came Thomas Aquinas 900 years later, in the 13th Century (1225-1274), to spearhead the next big evolution in Just War theory. The High Middle Ages in which Aquinas lived were more academic and systematic than the times of Augustine. So Aquinas felt the need to make Augustine's teachings more relevant to his culture and its modern situations and did so by systematizing them, setting definite criteria that must be met in order to justify a war.
He crafted three conditions, based on logic/pragmatism and not scripture, for deeming a war legitimate:
1. A just cause
2. A right intention
3. A declaration from a "legitimate authority"
Aquinas also made it clear that he and Augustine saw no glory in war and did not view war or violence as a "positive moral good"(1). "He made a presumption in favor of peace and held that one who wants to go to war had to be able to explain why the greater good demanded rupture of the peace."(2) A good explanation, a just war, were the exception and not the rule, not the majority of man's wars at the time - in Aquinas' thinking.
Just War theory began gaining massive theological authority among Catholics once Aquinas agreed with Augustine's basic premise on the justification of war and then added his own criteria on top of it. So much so that the opinions of these two men approached the status of dogma within the Church.
SOURCES:
1. George Weigel, Tranquilitas Ordinis (new York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p37
2. Air Power History, Vol.39, No.3, Fall 1992, p38. Copyright and published 1992 by the Air Force Historical Foundation
Picture Inset: 1476 St. Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli
Got thoughts? Post a comment below or discuss on my message-board.
JUST WAR PART 1: THE TIMES OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 2: THE THEORY OF AUGUSTINE
Augustine got the Just War ball rolling in the late 4th Century by outlining three kinds of wars he believed God's people can support. And his theories were not changed for the most part but instead grew in popularity among Catholics.Then along came Thomas Aquinas 900 years later, in the 13th Century (1225-1274), to spearhead the next big evolution in Just War theory. The High Middle Ages in which Aquinas lived were more academic and systematic than the times of Augustine. So Aquinas felt the need to make Augustine's teachings more relevant to his culture and its modern situations and did so by systematizing them, setting definite criteria that must be met in order to justify a war.
He crafted three conditions, based on logic/pragmatism and not scripture, for deeming a war legitimate:
1. A just cause
2. A right intention
3. A declaration from a "legitimate authority"
Aquinas also made it clear that he and Augustine saw no glory in war and did not view war or violence as a "positive moral good"(1). "He made a presumption in favor of peace and held that one who wants to go to war had to be able to explain why the greater good demanded rupture of the peace."(2) A good explanation, a just war, were the exception and not the rule, not the majority of man's wars at the time - in Aquinas' thinking.
Just War theory began gaining massive theological authority among Catholics once Aquinas agreed with Augustine's basic premise on the justification of war and then added his own criteria on top of it. So much so that the opinions of these two men approached the status of dogma within the Church.
SOURCES:
1. George Weigel, Tranquilitas Ordinis (new York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p37
2. Air Power History, Vol.39, No.3, Fall 1992, p38. Copyright and published 1992 by the Air Force Historical Foundation
Picture Inset: 1476 St. Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli
Got thoughts? Post a comment below or discuss on my message-board.
posted by Shaun Groves @ 8/09/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
i guess the problem with things is that they're open to twisting and false interpretation.
i'll think of WWII for example. . i shudder to think of what life would be like now if nobody took up the cause to fight against tyranny and genocide. .
I know we're back 'in the day' with this journey, but war is war, no matter when its fought and i think of WWII cuz my grandfather fought in it against the Nazis. . that's my frame of reference for war.
I completely understand. My father enlisted to fight two tours of duty in Vietnam. My uncles did the same. My great uncle served in the Pentagon under three presidents, was a four star general and bore the title President of Selective Service during Vietnam. In other words he administered and oversaw the draft. I could go on, but basically my family is full of honorable men who fought against oppression of various kinds in their times. My frame of reference is also informed by real life history.
At the same time I have to, I believe, frame my theology on ALL THINGS based FIRST upon scripture, second upon church history and the legacy of teachings from Church fathers and do so in community with other followers of the teachings of scripture - people lie you but, more importantly, people in my church and life every day.
If I were in two bad marriages in which I was neglected by my wives and belittled constantly as well it wouldn't be right for me to frame my theology on marriage and divorce based FIRST upon my experience in marriage. If I did that I might decide it is impractical for Malachi to say "God hates divorce" or for Jesus to say "submit" and "serve" and seemingly push for marriages to stay intact with little exception.
God's WORD is not discerned or taught with the goal of better fitting it to our circumstances or lifestyle. I think, as hard as it is for me to actually do, that I should approach scripture asking how I should be changed to fit it - no matter how peculiar or costly or impractical that fitting process may be for me.
I'm not accusing you of NOT approaching scripture in that way. I'm just telling my story, spurred on by yours. I'm realizing more and more just how hard it is for me to be a biblical Christian instead of a culturally skewed religious person. I have a new dedication to scripture's authority over me no matter what. And that's part of where these "studies" of Just War, materialism, nationalism, capitalism, salvation, the early church etc have come from.
Thanks, t.m.
I haven't talked about the earlier church fathers you brought up because they weren't directly credited with developing Just War theory. In fact, I think - but who am I - that Just War theory was a break with traditional church thought on war. From what I've read, which isn't all there is I'm sure, it seems this way.
I do think the Catholic church has mislead millions over the centuries - intentionally or not - into believing that the separation, the distance, between God and man can be bridged by doing good and not simply in believing/trusting in Christ who is the only good ever in existence in bodily form. It is Christ alone who saves. Meditating on the stations of the cross, for instance, will not remove depravity from the heart or make us perfect in God's view or eliminate earthly consequences and fall out from wrongs we commit here.
Luther realized this when we read the story of Abraham and the words in Genesis 15 "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Obedience comes from a genuine faith. Obedience does not lead to a genuine faith.
Evangelicals like me have also mislead millions and continue to do so by convincing people that belief is knowing. Belief is not knowing the facts of who Christ was and what He did and what' sin it for us. Belief in the old testament is communicated as "commit" - and means "to roll". All that separates us from God (sin) is rolled onto the arms of God: Christ. Our faith in God, given to us by God, rescues us from separation from God. So we are saved from ourselves and sin and separation but we are also saved FOR God. Knowing this results in obedience. A truly believing Christian lives a life whose general direction, whose dominant characteristic, is obedience to God and not disobedience. Faith without works is not faith - it is dead, in the words of James.
So evangelicals have created churches full of knowers who don't do and are therefore, according to the bible, not believers and surely not disciples of Jesus.
One church tends towards doing as a replacement or addition to faith. The other tends towards knowing without doing as a replacement for faith. If the Catholic Church is "apostate" then Baptist must surely be as well.
Thanks for the good thoughts. Let's come together to find the truth of what we are supposed to be and do and believe. Then we can better make invisible God visible in whichever church we attend.
SG
i was thinking of the crusades in particular when i thought of 'twisting' and 'false interpretation'. . truly.. . bad scene.
which you cover in your next instalment.
I am really, really desiring to be a biblical Christian overall. . I have been raised as a salvation army soldier. . but I realize that our 'orders and regulations', our doctrines, these are noble and are based on the biblical foundation - they are not a substitute for the Bible, nor are they treated as such. Unfortunately Army people tend to get too busy. . and often their studies can be neglected. Its an inherent danger for us. I know that it comes down to an essential, close to God, hearing his voice and reading his word kind of lifestyle that I must be living.
Thank you for sharing your family's military service heritage. .that is so special. I too admired my grandfather so much, he was part of the liberation of Holland. . he shook Eisenhower's hand when he shipped out! and he and his shipmates were given an inspirational talk by Winston Churchill himself as my grandfather made his way home, after being wounded.
I have always been more fascinated with war i think than the average woman my age. . its because i have a face to put on it. . i face i knew and loved. .
as for building my own theology, of course scripture, but i am really not there yet with church history, Shaun. I have been sheltered and have been schooled in completely different ways. . My organization (the S.A.) we don't call ourselves a denomination, we never did have time to be studying much church history, i think because our founders fought so much to save drunkards and prostitutes and children enslaved in work houses. . they once brought a huge group of 'scum' into a church in England. . to prove that all have need of God's salvation and that church was for all people -- he and his people were not welcome. That was it for Booth. . I suppose those early salvationists were more concerned with taking care of the widow and the orphan than they were in studying the history of an entity that excluded the neediest ones. They slaved in "Mile End Waste" in East London, they dove into gin palaces and whorehouses and they rescued countless people, they built safe factories and employed their converts, they removed the children from the work houses and put them in S.A. orphanages, they went where no respectable 'church people' would ever set foot. My heart just burns with fire when i read of my heritage. I sometimes wish that I could have lived then. . like any great spirit-filled movement, as the original visionaries die, the fire becomes succeedingly more dim as each generation passes. . but you know, there is a phoenix thing happening all over the S.A. world now. . especially in the deadest part of it, the Western world. . Tentmakers and radicals who live with crack addicts and get fleas from sleeping in run down hotels, who hold their Army weddings in alleys and who minister to junkies and punks and runwaways and pray 24/7/365 in the War Room, who take prophecy into the streets, this is the emerging Army. . it looks different from the Emergent Church. . its been likened to the fist of the body of Christ. . but very needed i think.
So, yeah, that's where my head is at with 'church history'. . . I cannot just ignore it, bite the hand that 'fed' the Army. . cuz after all we did spring from Wesleyan and Methodist roots. . so we're all in this together, right? Thanx for helping me to develop my knowledge and understanding.
Post a Comment
<< Home