What do you think?
Rate this book
War: Four Christian Views
Should Christians ever go to war? If so, under what conditions? Here are four modern expressions of four classical views. Dr. Herman Hoyt (formerly of Grace Theological Seminary) explains the Biblical Nonresistance view. Christian Pacificism is discussed by Mennonite theologian Myron S. Augsburger. Arthur F. Holmes of Wheaton College explains the Just War view, and Preventive War is explained by Harold O. J. Brown, of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
5 people are currently reading
102 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 15, 2009
Following the usual format of the Four Christian Views series, each of the authors listed in the description above sets forth his case in turn, and each of the other three then get to critique it. Editor Clouse (a Christian historian who teaches at Indiana State) precedes the discussion with a helpful historical introduction. All of the authors base most of their argument on interpretations of the Bible, but also discuss historical perspectives and the development of Christian thought on the subject as well. (There is actually a later edition of this work, but I can only review the one that I read.)
Hoyt and Augsburger agree that Christians should not take part in war; they differ in that Augsburger views war as also sinful for non- Christians and therefore as illegitimate for governments to engage in at all. Whereas Hoyt views governments as legitimate bearers of "the sword," in the Apostle Paul's words, and would allow Christians to support a war effort in noncombatant positions, Augsburger calls for total noncooperation with any coercive use of state power, and for efforts to abolish it. This latter view is more logically consistent, but Hoyt's view takes Romans 13 more seriously and naturally; the internal contradictions embodied in the two positions constitute, in themselves, a strong argument against their basic common premise.
Holmes and Brown agree that the Old and New Testaments are ethically congruent with each other, not radically disconnected, and that if the operation of the sword in maintenance of order both through war and law enforcement is morally legitimate for the state, then it is not morally illegitimate for Christian citizens to take part in it. Holmes, however, holds to the application of traditional Christian "just war" theory (which is NOT an acceptance of all wars as automatically just!), under which war is a regretted last resort for the defense of the innocent against aggression, and must be waged by moral means, which preclude the deliberate slaughter of noncombatants, etc. (So, he points out uncompromisingly that nuclear war, for instance, can never be a just option, and recognizes the necessity of selective conscientious objection to unjust wars.) Brown, on the other hand, wants to innovate on the traditional theory by allowing "preemptive" strikes and "crusades" to eliminate "atrocities" in other countries. (His position preceded the enunciation of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war by decades, but is certainly relevant to it.) In practice, using this theory, any nation could be justified in launching any attack on another country, since imminent danger and atrocities can be very much in the eye, and definition, of the beholder. (The Japanese government viewed the Pearl Harbor attack as a legitimate exercise of "preemption," for instance.)
One weakness of the book is that none of the authors, including Holmes, address one of the key components of traditional just war teaching: that war must be legally declared as such, and by legitimate authority (which under the U.S. Constitution is the Congress). Very few military actions since World War II, on the part of any country, have met this criteria; they have mostly been, quite simply, illegal acts of violence illegitimately authorized (and usually immorally conducted, in subservience to the "total war" philosophy which Clouse traces from the Napoleonic Wars through its culmination in World War II). But despite this omission, this book is a good basic starting point for any reader who wants to reflect, from a Christian standpoint, on what our response to war and violence should be in a profoundly fallen world.
Hoyt and Augsburger agree that Christians should not take part in war; they differ in that Augsburger views war as also sinful for non- Christians and therefore as illegitimate for governments to engage in at all. Whereas Hoyt views governments as legitimate bearers of "the sword," in the Apostle Paul's words, and would allow Christians to support a war effort in noncombatant positions, Augsburger calls for total noncooperation with any coercive use of state power, and for efforts to abolish it. This latter view is more logically consistent, but Hoyt's view takes Romans 13 more seriously and naturally; the internal contradictions embodied in the two positions constitute, in themselves, a strong argument against their basic common premise.
Holmes and Brown agree that the Old and New Testaments are ethically congruent with each other, not radically disconnected, and that if the operation of the sword in maintenance of order both through war and law enforcement is morally legitimate for the state, then it is not morally illegitimate for Christian citizens to take part in it. Holmes, however, holds to the application of traditional Christian "just war" theory (which is NOT an acceptance of all wars as automatically just!), under which war is a regretted last resort for the defense of the innocent against aggression, and must be waged by moral means, which preclude the deliberate slaughter of noncombatants, etc. (So, he points out uncompromisingly that nuclear war, for instance, can never be a just option, and recognizes the necessity of selective conscientious objection to unjust wars.) Brown, on the other hand, wants to innovate on the traditional theory by allowing "preemptive" strikes and "crusades" to eliminate "atrocities" in other countries. (His position preceded the enunciation of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war by decades, but is certainly relevant to it.) In practice, using this theory, any nation could be justified in launching any attack on another country, since imminent danger and atrocities can be very much in the eye, and definition, of the beholder. (The Japanese government viewed the Pearl Harbor attack as a legitimate exercise of "preemption," for instance.)
One weakness of the book is that none of the authors, including Holmes, address one of the key components of traditional just war teaching: that war must be legally declared as such, and by legitimate authority (which under the U.S. Constitution is the Congress). Very few military actions since World War II, on the part of any country, have met this criteria; they have mostly been, quite simply, illegal acts of violence illegitimately authorized (and usually immorally conducted, in subservience to the "total war" philosophy which Clouse traces from the Napoleonic Wars through its culmination in World War II). But despite this omission, this book is a good basic starting point for any reader who wants to reflect, from a Christian standpoint, on what our response to war and violence should be in a profoundly fallen world.
September 22, 2011
I really liked the "idea" of this book: Four theologians with four different views espouse their take on war, then their counterparts have the chance to rebut them, with each view having a turn at convincing the others. The problem is that the book ends up feeling so detached from war itself, and so totally cerebral and unemotional. I can't imagine anyone who's just had their legs blown off finding much value in this book and saying, "Oh, that's why this happened: I'm the unwitting participant in a just war!"
Theologically speaking, I did really enjoy reading the pacifist and non-resistance views, because they are so contrary to the typical views of contemporary evangelical Christians. All the contributors handle themselves and one another very professionally, I'm just not sure that any of them achieve their objectives. Maybe that's the point: war is too complicated and awful to explain, justify, or even condemn completely. It's one of the terrible things that continue to happen in this world, and figuring war out is left in the hands of the victims and participants.
Theologically speaking, I did really enjoy reading the pacifist and non-resistance views, because they are so contrary to the typical views of contemporary evangelical Christians. All the contributors handle themselves and one another very professionally, I'm just not sure that any of them achieve their objectives. Maybe that's the point: war is too complicated and awful to explain, justify, or even condemn completely. It's one of the terrible things that continue to happen in this world, and figuring war out is left in the hands of the victims and participants.
January 2, 2014
War is evil and we ought to do everything possible to avoid it. Four Views explores Non-Resistant, Pacifism, Just War, and Preventative War. Each view has some strengths (and weaknesses) as each author makes their point. Holmes seems to waffle on the Just War Theory which I thought had the most merit as it appeals to Natural Theology. In the end even, Preventive War had strong points and the use of anecdotes brought the points home. The conclusions of Non Resistance and Pacifism did not seem to follow the premises which were rooted in a dispensational view of Scripture, though the call for restraint was strongest here. However, non-violence also means disarming the Police or not participating with the police. Interesting read for someone who wants to explore this topic further.
April 6, 2024
I was intrigued by the concept of this book with the use of four differing perspectives from four different authors to provide a truly broad understanding of the issue of Christianity and war. However I do feel that some authors responses were more developed than others with some arguments seeming unsupported and unclear. This does sadly diminish the quality of the book as a whole however the way each author criticises the other interpretations is very interesting and helpful for anyone hoping to produce a report on the topic.
March 16, 2014
Demonstrates the equanimity of Christians skeptical of war, and the just war and crusade positions are well thought-out. Each side gets to respond in turn to the view being presented. Illuminating, I think, even if you're not Christian.
October 28, 2019
An interesting read for the researcher seeking for more details related to the topic.
-a good book for the enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
-a good book for the enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
July 20, 2017
The unique format of this book, allowing each contributor to respond directly to the others' viewpoints, made this one of the more helpful books I have read on this subject.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews