More Just War Lies

https://issuesetc.org/2022/06/29/1802-just-war-dr-jonathan-shaw-6-29-22/

The fact that Jonathan Shaw is a retired military chaplain already discredits him and identifies him as one sold out to the military machine, and one that was willing to make endless compromises in order to do so. Military chaplains are not worthy of any regard or respect. They are to be rebuked.

That said, let's consider some of his points with regard to the Just War tradition.

Regarding whether Just War is a theory, tradition, or Biblical teaching, it should be clear to those who rightly prioritize the New Testament that it is an unbiblical concept that arose in syncretic fashion in the aftermath of the fourth-century Constantinian Shift. It was only when the Church embraced the Roman Empire that Christians began to think in these terms. In the Ante-Nicene period the doctrine did not exist and would have been reckoned as ridiculous and absurd, and rightly so.

As far as Shaw's 'wars of righteousness', this is to confuse Biblical terms and categories with that of the world. The only way the Scripture can be utilized in such an argument is to resort to Judaized hermeneutics and to turn to Old Testament Israel. At that point its typological, prophetic, and pedagogical purposes in Redemptive-History are divorced from its actions and these actions are used (out of context) as a justification for so-called righteous war in the New Covenant era. And yet divorced from their context and the Divine imperative associated with them, they were not righteous or holy wars – and could be labeled as genocidal. And many so-called Christian wars fall under that condemnation.

Shaw simply assumes the false Lutheran variety of the Two Kingdoms paradigm which is actually One Kingdom in Two Aspects. It's more nuanced than say the most crude forms of Dominionism or Integralism, but it is their close cousin nonetheless. If this paradigm is demonstrated to be false (which is the result when one examines it vis-à-vis the New Testament), his assumptions and line of argument fail all down the line.

His criteria for assessing the War in Ukraine are also lacking. Putin's claims of a Just War must be rejected prima facie. That said, the fact that the Ukrainians resisted the invasion does not belie Putin's claims concerning Russian security. From his standpoint they are occupying Russian territory and represent a threat by flirting with NATO. Without any context these discussions quickly lose their way. And, when one attempts to cast them in a Just War framework, the discussion is also quickly sidetracked. Lose the Just War conversation and simply discuss what is happening in actual terms. There is no moral angle to it. It's a case of evil powers clashing with evil powers and attempting to gain advantage on the game board.

Is Russia at fault for the invasion? Yes. Are they solely to blame for it? No. There is no 'just' party in this case. Every historical claim is ultimately based on theft and contrived narratives about nations.

As far as Russia aiming for civilian targets, this only intensified with the attack on the strategic Kerch Bridge at which point Moscow began to deliberately target energy infrastructure. But Shaw condemns himself. The United States has targeted infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and myriad civilians in its dozens of wars since the end of World War II and has rightly been accused of genocide in places like Vietnam and Iraq. By making a career in the military of this state, morally supporting it, and presumably taking a pension from it – we can safely say he has no standing or more accurately stands condemned by his own words no less.

At 4:30 he says The Ukraine War is a war of aggression but such aggressors can always justify their actions. Bush through his sundry lies tried to paint Iraq as the aggressor in 2003. Putin actually has more of a case to make – but it's more complicated as Ukraine specifically is not the aggressor but the accusation is rooted in the fact that it was becoming a base or platform for the most rapacious military power over the past seventy years – NATO. This doesn't justify Putin's actions, but Shaw's narrative is misleading at best – utterly deceptive at worst.

And again based on his own words the Iraqis were fully justified in killing American invaders during their war of aggression. Does he repent of being in the US military during this time when the US waged what even UN General-Secretary Kofi Annan called an illegal war?

How (at 5:00) did Christ refer to Just War? Shaw absurdly suggests that it goes back to Him. Contrary to Shaw, when Christ said it was permissible to pay taxes to Caesar, he specifically divorced the issues of the Kingdom (not just an aspect of it) from the realm of Caesar and his concern – the same point made by Paul in his Romans 12-13 argument. Both Christ and Paul contrast Christian ethics with the role and purpose of the state and its system. Shaw has dangerously and erroneously confused the two.

Christ did not sanction the acts of Tiberius any more than Paul did Nero. They were placed in that position by Providence and in service to a larger purpose. Their deeds were evil and bestial – Rome was a Beast after all as per Daniel and Revelation. That said, even Beasts serve a purpose in terms of keeping the world from falling into chaos. Shaw is hanging way too much on Christ's exchange with the Herodians – a result of his false and imposed pseudo-Two Kingdoms paradigm.  

At about 7:00 Wilken asks why should Christians begin with Christ when it comes to thinking about Just War?  Shaw attempts to answer but fails. The truth of the matter is that historically the proponents of the theory do not begin with Christ for he rejects its very assumptions. His message to the likes of Shaw is simple – they who take up the sword will perish by it.

In every case the advocates of this false doctrine turn to the Old Testament and necessarily divorce it from its Christocentric context. For in Christ the Old Testament is interpreted, and we find the wars and acts of ordered and celebrated violence were typological and thus no longer valid in the New Covenant wherein the Theocracy is not represented by a symbolic land but the Theocracy is now in Heaven where we are to set our affections, lay up treasures, and derive our ethics – hence our rejection of the source of all wars – the sin of mammonism with all its covetousness and pride. Christ as Judge is coming to be sure, but that role is not a mantle we're called to take up.

He's right at 8:00 that Earthly government exists to allow the Kingdom to flourish but by confusing the two or placing them under the one category (failing to distinguish between Providential Reign and Holy Realm), Shaw opens the door to Christians taking up the sword and selling themselves to the world's governments and in doing so (under the phony aegis of Vocation) they set aside their Christian calling and the ethical imperatives of Christ and the apostles.

Shaw errs in supposing (at 12:00) that our prayers are 'in support' of the state. We pray for rulers to essentially leave us alone. We seek peace and the flourishing of the city only insofar that its stability avoids chaos. We do not seek its flourishing in the sense of its victory in wars, its pursuit of idolatry and the like. That level of support has no warrant. Christians could pray for Bush to repent of his murder but they had no business (like Shaw) supporting him in his butchery and lies.

In connection to this, Shaw's words regarding soldiers have no basis in Scripture. John the Baptist's words have been overstated and divorced from what is essentially an Old Testament and covenantal context – a type of Temple soldier (and thus covenantally related) that has no parallel or equivalent in the New Covenant. As far as the Roman soldiers in the New Testament, the Centurion is praised in making a point to shame the Jews – his status is nowhere condoned or confirmed. And with Cornelius we don't know what happened after his conversion – tradition says he left the Roman legions.

Shaw's words at 13:00 are simply nonsense. You cannot love your neighbour by killing them. You can allow yourself to be killed to save your neighbour but killing is not loving your enemy. Augustine was desperately wrong at this point.

Shaw and those like him have erected a rival or parallel ethic to clear away New Testament imperatives. These imperatives are hated by them because their implications are too sweeping, too penetrating – it means Christians are not called to positions of power and status in society. It also condemns the Magisterial Reformation tradition of which Shaw is a part.

At 14:00 Wilken equates Just War with a Christian duty to which Shaw agrees. Where is this found in the New Testament? Where are Christians called to take up arms for the state? Where are the wars of the state considered just? Where are the criteria for this discussion to be found?

This is not a Biblical doctrine, it's a philosophical deduction, resulting from several inferences born not of Scriptural inquiry but infidelity cast in historical circumstance.

Subsequent to this, the discussion really goes off the rails because these concepts are wedded to 'duty' in the context of Western democracy. Why should I believe Western democracy to be valid or somehow more Christian? Why does this Enlightenment-born paradigm somehow get to make a greater claim on my Christian life and witness?

Whether congress controls the purse strings or not, or formally declares war or not, has nothing to do with believers living out New Testament Christianity within the borders of this bestial state. It does not legitimize or delegitimize the war.

I laughed out loud at 16:00 as Shaw believes the people have the final decision-making authority with the vote. He apparently isn't too familiar with American history. America frequently goes to war sans any kind of vote or referendum and in fact much of its modern history has been characterized by wars that are largely hidden from the public or rest upon completely deceitful narratives. America is fighting dozens of wars right now that most of the public knows nothing about. Think of US actions in Latin America during the Cold War and after, or earlier wars like in Laos for example – or the US funding and backing France in Vietnam prior to 1954?

Shaw's own career and affiliation belie his claims and make mockery of them.

The ruling class wages war as it sees fit. Democracy is something to be manipulated, not something that is real.

At 17:00 –To speak of the Reformation's wars and specifically The Thirty Years War in the context of Just War is to embrace absurdity. He laments the abandonment of Christian categories in the discussion. He cites the horrors of the Thirty Years War but apparently doesn't understand its implications. The idea of Just War in the context of religious conflict was reduced to absolutely absurdity by that bloodbath in particular. By the time it was done they were literally eating each other in what was one of the most revolting spectacles in Church History – certainly since the Crusades. The reason why the Christian context was abandoned was because it became absurd and meaningless – and rightly so.

There is no wisdom to be found in this discussion between Wilken and Shaw. It is so far removed from the New Testament, that it's hard to know where to even begin.

Just War is to ascribe righteousness to chaos and lawlessness. It is a doctrine born of Hell.