But if everyone agrees that some measure of force is necessary, the discussion is really about degree. People in the anti-war movement make strong distinctions between war and law enforcement, but this may not be all that useful. Perhaps law enforcement on the scale that is required to bring down al Qaeda resembles war. Stripped to its essence, the question becomes: How much force is morally appropriate? Without the other arguments, qualifications, or issues, attitudes toward war come down to conviction.
At places like All Saints, most people’s moral and philosophical convictions are informed by Christian theology, which has some long-standing and competing traditions relating to the ethics of war. The oldest of these is pacifism, which has its roots in the Sermon on the Mount and the early practice of the church. But, at All Saints a and beyond, another strain of thought often invoked in response to the war in Afghanistan is the just-war doctrine. (The last major tradition is the Crusades, which, despite Bush‘s slip, is few people’s choice for spiritual guidance today.)
The concept of just war originated with St. Augustine in the fourth century, although Aristotle first used the term some time earlier. For St. Augustine, resorting to war as a necessary evil is acceptable when it deters greater evil and is pursued in the spirit of justice. St. Augustine set out specific criteria for such a just war, and since the first American bombs fell on Afghanistan over six weeks ago, religious scholars across the country have weighed in about whether America‘s New War is just; some say no, others yes. At All Saints, many of those resisting Ed Bacon’s outlook on the war voiced their opposition in these terms.
Charlie McBride believes there can be just wars, as does Tim Rutt, who said as much to Bacon at the forum on the war. The just war may be rare, they both say, but it can exist -- the classic example being the Second World War. Liberal clergy have theorized for some time, however, that the just-war doctrine is irrelevant. The section known as jus in bello -- rules during warfare -- requires immunity for noncombatants and forbids excessive force, and since these can‘t be guaranteed in the era of nuclear warfare, the argument goes, the doctrine is an anachronism. When I broached the subject with Rutt, he was skeptical. ”I don’t think the theory is invalid. And if it is outdated, what would come in its place?“
Bacon and Regas do have some ideas about that. They propose replacing the just-war theory, along with pacifism, with a new theology that has been developing as a ”third way“ for several years. The literature of this theological movement incorporates the language of conflict resolution in international relations; it places equal emphasis on confidence-building initiatives along with a serious look at the causes of conflict. Address roots, not symptoms. Regas believes that this is an approach that can avoid war. ”It may not sound realistic, but you can‘t reject new ideas out of hand. It is important to be both realistic and aspirational.“
The name of the synagogue where I talked with Steve Rohde was Kol Tikvah, which means ”voice of hope“ in Hebrew. It seemed fitting as I was sitting in the audience, because it occurred to me that the people I came there to see are motivated by a basic optimism about human nature. Whereas their critics see danger in the world and a need for protection, the people behind the anti-war movement view the threat of terrorism as a challenge to better ourselves. Right or wrong, theirs is a vision of human improvement. Scott Richardson, despite his own lingering reluctance to eschew war altogether, best expressed this affirmative spirit some days earlier: ”This can be the next step for humanity, as part of our moral evolution. Just as we’ve outgrown slavery, we can outgrow war.“
None of this addresses the many practical concerns left open by the anti-war movement. But for Bacon, Richardson, Regas and their many counterparts across Los Angeles, it is important to publicly proclaim peace, even if the details aren‘t ironed out. ”On an institutional level, we have an obligation,“ reflected Scott Richardson. ”A lot of us are living in confusion and have genuine ambivalence about this. But we are part of a much larger conversation, and if we start sounding like Pentagon analysts, then we’ve blown it. If the church isn‘t calling for peace, who will?“
