Just War Ethics Summary

1) In this week’s reading, Marshall explains several forms of Christian war ethics: just war theory, pacifism, just insurrection, and nonviolent resistance. Personally, I admire the pacifism and nonviolent resistance as it seeks to emulate Christ. Knocking a violent system of balance through opposing violence with non-violent forms of defense (p. 153) seems to me a more effective statement then even pacifism. However, as realist and as a member of a family with several military veterans I appreciate the construction of ethical parameters when engaging in war. But is it enough? I also appreciate that through the years the just war theory has been expanded to include new parameters for methods and reasoning among other points (p. 143-4). But is it enough?
2) A major dilemma in war is the

His discussion on the ethics of war is no different. However, his specific steps to achieve peace (love) between enemies (location 4513-24) are more important to me than the ethics of war. Not to let enmity be forced on us, recognizing the other person as human like us, and understanding the source of enmity is Moltamann’s basic prescription for moving forward in a loving fashion. Our failure to listen to the experiences of others continues to be a catalyst in formal war declarations. Our failure to acknowledge the abusive cycle of perpetrator and victim where the US, due to unethical policies in the Middle East, created a generation of victims which eventually led to a few victims advocating for terrorist actions such as 9/11. If we continue to respond to these early victims with hate and violence, we will raise a new generation of perpetrators and the cycle of abuse will continue. As Moltmann adds, this task to end violence through active, loving reconstruction of relationships cannot simply be a “best of intentions” scenario, but “it must be intelligent as well” (location