A Reflection on the dreadful situation in Ukraine
The newspapers are full of vary careful analysis about the invasion of Ukraine. These are often very thoughtful and logically argued but almost always from the secular point of view. What I have tried to do below is undertake an analysis from the Christian point of view. Much of the content was delivered as an address given at last Sunday’s service at Michaelchurch.
As Lord Williams (past Archbishop of Canterbury) has pointed out Orthodox Christians recently celebrated Forgiveness Sunday, the day before the great Lent begins. Many such Christians would have expected to hear something regarding in Lord William’s words ‘the shocking-not to say blasphemous- absurdity of Orthodox Christians engaging at this season of all seasons, in indiscriminate killing of the innocent, insanely reckless attacks on nuclear facilities, the unashamed breach of ceasefire agreements and an attack on one of the most significant Holocaust memorials in Europe.” He then goes on to say that it is hard to believe that all the moral norms of warfare explored by Christians in both the Eastern and Western traditions from the earliest of ages have been forgotten. This week I will examine those moral norms and see if we can make any sense of the appalling situation in Ukraine and highlight the dilemma which faces us and NATO today.
Up to the 4th century, the Christian tradition was entirely one of pacifism, the justification for this being very succinctly summarised by Tertullian, a very influential Christian who lived around 200AD. Tertullian said “the Lord in subsequently disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier”. And of course, as many of you know, Christians were very heavily persecuted during this period. However, a very significant change took place when Constantine, the great Roman Emperor, in 312 converted to Christianity and permitted both Christianity and paganism to exist side by side. In 380 under Theodosius, Christianity became established as the official religion of the empire. This had two main effects at that time; first the persecutions ceased but, secondly, the church became so closely allied to the state that in any dispute that led to armed conflict, Christians were automatically involved – indeed in 416 you could not be a soldier unless you were a Christian.
So, from that time on there has been a debate in Christianity as to whether or not the Christian should or should not be a pacifist. Today the pacifist position is strongly represented by the Quakers and Anabaptists, and of course there are many in the main stream Christian Churches who would take the pacifist line.
Broadly the pacifists would argue that warfare has its roots in the fall of humanity and its subsequent sinfulness, the Old Testament prepares for the New Testament with its teaching of non-resistant love and pacifism, teaching which is summarised in the vitally important Sermon on the Mount. This teaching is further reinforced by Paul particularly, in Chapter 12 of his letter to the Romans.
However, the non-pacifists would argue that God as a warrior is basic to Jewish and Christian theology with God commanding war in the Old Testament, and honouring such military leaders as Moses and David. As an example here see chapter 7 of Deuteronomy, especially verse 2. However perhaps most importantly the non-pacifists would argue that Christian has a duty to both the achievement of the Kingdom of God on a personal level and to their State on a collective level – Paul’s letter to the Romans chapter 13 is relevant here. Christian ethics cannot be absolute in this fallen or sinful world and therefore Christians have to be realists trying to adhere to the Sermon on the Mount wherever possible but recognising that it cannot be fully lived out until the end of time.
So, where does all this leave us when it comes to dealing with the practical problem of the day with the current armed conflict in Ukraine and, more generally, the threat of terrorist attack almost anywhere in the world.
How to deal with conflict has as I have mentioned been debated almost since the beginning of Christianity and certainly since the time of Constantine, the Roman Emperor who closely aligned Christianity with the State. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and closer to our own time Archbishop Temple and Bishop Richard Harries have all written treatises on the subject of the Just War. This is not the occasion to examine their arguments in detail but a common thread running through the history of Christianity is the conflict between Good and Evil. It would take me far too long to go through all the development of this concept, so I will just summarise the situation as set out by Richard Harries. In essence the argument is that Christian should not get involved in War unless all the defined criteria are met.
The first criterion is that there must be lawful authority: and this, in fact, means authority at the highest possible level. The logic of this is that in disputes between lower authorities appeal can always be made to a higher one for a resolution without recourse to war.
Where there is no higher authority, as in a world composed only of nation states, the state has to be judge and jury in its own cause. In our world, however, there is the United Nations. However imperfect the UN may be, it is a crucial sign that we are groping our way towards a truly international authority. In the case of Ukraine, the UN has rules that the conflict is wholly out of order with the Evil being represented by Mr Putin, and the Good by 147 other countries, a few countries abstained and, if I remember correctly, just three sided with Putin.
Secondly, there must be just cause. Such a just cause could be to deal with such an obvious evil as Hitler’s invasions of the Sudetenland and Poland and other European Countries in an endeavour to create a purified German Empire. There is a parallel here where Mr Putin wants to re-create the old Soviet Union. I use the word Putin throughout because I would wish to emphasise that there is no problem with the Russian People.
Third, every effort must have been made to resolve the dispute first by peaceful means – with the intense diplomatic activity before the invasion especially by European representatives this has clearly been done.
Fourth, a judgment has to be made that the war will not unleash more evils than are already being endured. This is the big dilemma when it comes to intervening in a war where there is the possibility of the involvement of nuclear weapons.
Finally and Fifth, and arising out of the fourth criterion, there must be a reasonable chance of success. But if we are to evaluate success then the war aims must be crystal clear.
Although the Just War criteria were formulated by Christian thinkers in a Christian culture, they do in fact appeal to basic moral considerations shared by all human beings. It is this that accounts for the fact that they provided the basis for international law and the military law of most countries.
It is also clear that moral principles and political judgments are inextricably intertwined. Political and military judgments are also moral judgments and moral judgments cannot be separated from an assessment of the consequences of any proposed course of action.
The main task of the Churches at a time like this is to put forward and press these criteria, probing and testing whether or not they might be met. In the end political and military judgments have to be made and those who hold power have the awesome task of making them. Churchmen or Churchwomen do not hold power and do not have to make those decisions.
The question that remains is this: is there just cause for intervention? – The brutal, violent way of the Putin’s invasion is clearly evil as most would see it
So far we seem to be leading up to saying that we should intervene to try to stop any more killing by the invading force but then we come to the two most difficult criteria. Can we guarantee that intervention will not unleash more evils than are already being endured. And can we guarantee that there will be a reasonable chance of success and to be clear of that any government would need to have a very clear objective as the required outcome. NATO was set up as a defending force and if any NATO country were to be attacked then NATO would go to that country’s defence. However, it the country under attack is not a member, then should the greater force that is NATO intervene? So far it has provided weapons and ammunition to be used by Ukraine on the ground but has drawn the line at sending in fighter aircraft, the argument being that such aircraft could used to attack. Given that these aircraft would be flown by Ukrainians and used only over Ukraine then I feel that this aid would be little different from the previous weapons sent which were defined as lethal force.
This leaves us in the West with a terrible dilemma. The force invading Ukraine is clearly evil and must be resisted. The Ukrainian people are clearly suffering terribly and the country itself is suffering damage on a cataclysmic scale. Diplomatic attempts at a resolution have failed and under the Christian criteria set out earlier, intervention would be justified if only we could be confident that the fourth criterion – assured success – would be met. Would Putin risk putting the whole world in the greatest danger imaginable by using a nuclear weapon if NATO in defence of Ukraine? That is the dilemma being faced by the leaders of NATO?
This dilemma is being made even more difficult by the current round of ‘peace’ talks. Can we be sure that that Putin is willing to agree to a peaceful solution at this terribly late hour, ( and a peaceful solution is surely what we would all hope and pray for), or is Putin just stalling in order to reinforce and re-supply his resources?
Thus, the dilemma remains – should NATO intervene or not
What do you think?
Dr David Greenwood d.greenwood@uwtsd.ac.uk March 2022
Brislington Community News 