Five Reasons a "Just War Theology"
Isn't Faithful to the Gospel
by R.E. Slater
"Isn't it curious the Lord of Love
died at the hands of violence?"
"Even more curious, those hands
were the hands of those who preached God."
"Who then are we to be wary of?
The Message or the Messenger or both?"
- R.E. Slater
Preface
Let us first ask, as Christians, how did Jesus respond directly to violence when challenged?
“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
- Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:52)
Now let's widen the theological horizon a bit.... Rather than think that acts of peace are naïve idealism, let us instead imagine the telos - the deep direction - of divine history:
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
- The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 2:4)
Let us next consider how Isaiah's vision was to become embodied within the life of the early Christian Church after Jesus' death and resurrection:
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil… If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
- Paul the Apostle (Romans 12:17–21)
And finally, let us ask what kind of God is revealed in such a movement towards peace:
“God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”
- John the Apostle (1 John 4:16)
Introduction
Lately, the U.S. government has thought to educate the Catholic Church as to its theology. Ironically, this has often been the case throughout history as government challenge the church to behave itself and support its unloving actions.
So, in rare commentary on current political events, let me speak out to Vice President Vance's "Just War" theology vs the Pope's, "Love your fellow man" theology.
It began with Trump's recent refusal to listen to Pope Leo's comments to pursue peace. Next, super Trumpian surrogate J.D. Vance - who was attending at a "Turning Point" maga-rally - cautioned the Catholic Church to temper their speech to the United States' war against Iran.
Let us next call to memory that America's current pro-nationalist maga-administration has supported Israel's aggressive militaristic actions:
i) against Hamas in Gaza, where 2 million Palestinians were displaced (2023-2024)
ii) against Hezbollah in Lebanon displacing another million souls (March-April 20226A); and,
iii) attacked Iran from March 2026 to the present, displacing 3.2 million Iranians.
These actions serve as clear warning that the Maga-American Church's theology of justifying violence with God-speech are theologically in error on several major issues. But before reviewing these reasons, let us also acknowledge that the terrorist groups here mentioned are not without blame for their inhuman actions and leadership against their own people and the world at large.
And so, I would like to list below why all religions and religious theology should take heed to practice love, forgiveness, and mercy; and to learn, teach, and practice withdrawal from harm, hate, oppression, and violence.
Five Reasons Not to Preach a Just War Theology
“Where violence is justified, love is deferred;
yet the kingdom of God comes when love is chosen before necessity.”
A careful critique can be made without caricaturing the tradition. The just war theory—classically articulated by figures like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas—was an attempt to restrain violence, not celebrate it. Yet from a biblical and theological standpoint, several tensions remain difficult to reconcile.
First, there is a Christological tension. The ethical center of Christianity is not abstract principle but the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), Jesus does not merely regulate violence; he appears to radically displace it: “love your enemies,” “turn the other cheek,” “blessed are the peacemakers.” Just war theory, even in its most restrained form, reintroduces a framework in which enemy destruction can be morally justified. The critique here is not that war is messy, but that it reverses the direction of Jesus’ ethic - from enemy-love to enemy-legitimation.
Second, there is a kingdom-of-God versus kingdom-of-the-world problem. In texts like John 18:36, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world,” explicitly rejecting violent defense of his mission. Just war theory arose when Christianity moved from persecuted minority to imperial partner, particularly after Edict of Milan and under rulers like Constantine the Great. The critique is that just war theory may reflect the church accommodating itself to state power, rather than remaining a distinctive, countercultural witness. In this sense, the Christian Church risks becoming politically necessary but theologically compromised.
Third, there is an Old Testament versus New Testament hermeneutic tension. Just war reasoning often leans on Israel’s wars in the Hebrew Bible. Yet many Christian interpreters argue that these belong to a particular covenantal-historical moment steeped in cultural context, and cannot be considered a universal ethical norm. The life of Jesus reframes divine action away from territorial conquest toward self-giving reconciliation. If Christ is the fullest revelation of God’s character, then appealing to earlier violent paradigms may appear regressive rather than fulfilled.
Fourth, there is a practical moral erosion problem. Even if just war criteria (sic, "just cause, right intention, proportionality, last resort") are sound in theory, in practice they are almost always bent by political interests. Nations routinely declare their wars “just.” The result is that just war theory can function less as a restraint and more as a moral cover for violence. From a biblical-prophetic standpoint, this aligns uncomfortably with the critique of rulers who “call evil good” (Isaiah 5:20).
Finally, there is a theological anthropology issue. Christianity at its core emphasizes reconciliation, forgiveness, and the restoration of relationship (2 Corinthians 5:18–19). War, even when justified, fundamentally operates through destruction rather than restoration. A process-oriented or relational theology would argue that this contradicts the deeper trajectory of divine action, which moves toward healing the fabric of relations, not legitimating their rupture.
Taken together, these critiques are not merely that just war theory fails in application, but that it may be misaligned with the trajectory of the gospel itself. It attempts to make violence moral, whereas the New Testament vision seems to move toward making violence obsolete.
Conclusion
As counterpoint, defenders would argue that "violence" is a tragic necessity in a fallen world. However, this self-acknowledged critique must press a far sharper question:
Whether Christianity is called to manage the world as it is,
or to bear witness to what it is becoming -
even as Jesus, the apostles and prophets had done in sacred voice.
BibliographyPrimary Sources (Biblical Texts)
The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
The Holy Bible. New International Version (NIV).
Classical Just War Tradition
Augustine of Hippo. City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros., 1947. (See II–II, Q. 40: “Of War”)
Hugo Grotius. On the Law of War and Peace. Edited by Stephen C. Neff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Modern Just War Theory (Defenses and Developments)
Michael Walzer. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. 5th ed. New York: Basic Books, 2015.
Paul Ramsey. The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility. Lanham: University Press of America, 1983.
Jean Bethke Elshtain. Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2003.
Biblical and Theological Critiques of Violence
John Howard Yoder. The Politics of Jesus. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Stanley Hauerwas. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the New Testament. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996.
Walter Wink. Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003.
Historical and Contextual Studies
Roland H. Bainton. Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960.
Peter Leithart. Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010.
Process and Relational Theological Perspectives
Alfred North Whitehead. Process and Reality. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.
John B. Cobb Jr.. Christ in a Pluralistic Age. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.
Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki. The Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology. New York: Continuum, 1994.
Supplementary Ethical and Philosophical Reflections
Reinhold Niebuhr. Moral Man and Immoral Society. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Jacques Ellul. Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1991.
