I recently spent time with a young graduate of one of the military academies. He is about to be commissioned and will soon head off for flight training to become an Army helicopter pilot. I have known his parents since before they were married, and I have known him since he was born. We talked a lot about survival training and combat. I was also glad to talk with him about the internal moral compass that is necessary for someone who is training to be a warrior to act justly and with righteousness. Some people believe that it is essential for Christians to be pacifists. That is not, however, a position that has been agreed to in the history of the Church. In fact, most of Church history has been shaped by Augustine’s principles on Just War, that military action should only be undertaken when it can be done within certain parameters.

It used to be the case that military members were well schooled in Just War Theory. In the last two or three decades there has been an excising of anything from a Christian perspective within the ranks of the U.S. military. The biggest problem this created was, once the agreed principles which formed Judeo-Christian foundations were dropped, they were replaced with a yawning void. Military members are still expected to act justly, but the mandate to do so does not rise from Scripture anymore, it is just supposed to automatically surface from some kind of inarticulate enlightenment. The current standards, however, are based on an attempt to be morally neutral and avoid judgment. The problem is that it is impossible to be morally neutral. Every decision is based on assumed moral content, even the ones that attempt to avoid it.

In conflicts in the church, we obviously should not have violent confrontations. We should recognize, however, that the principles of Just War still have relevance about how we go about engaging in conflict even when violence is not employed.

Principles of Just War (with comments on how they relate to other conflicts that do not involve violence in brackets):

A just war can only be waged as a last resort.
[This is a great reminder that there are a whole range of ways to address conflict. Conflict may well be unavoidable in many cases, but efforts must be made to achieve reconciliation where possible. It is critical to assess what the consequences of a trajectory is and where things will wind up. If the disagreement is over the color of hymn books, we need to realize that no one will forfeit their salvation for having a hymnal of the wrong color. Whether or not Jesus Christ is Lord is more important. Sadly, a significant number of contemporary conflicts involve either Christological heresies or Trinitarian heresies. Remember, a heresy is not just a mistake. It is a mistake of such gravity that if maintained it will lead a person (or people) away from the redeeming love of Christ. When that is the case, it cannot be accepted or overlooked. Nothing is so important that it is worth people losing their salvation. If that is in danger of happening, we must stand up, speak out, and deal with the issues. In the case of the Episcopal Church, we have no obligation to follow them away from the Cross of Christ. Of course they are free to do that (with devastating effect), but we don’t have to go with them to destruction.] 

All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
[For our purposes today, in Church conflict (since we are not using violence), it means that we should be as minimally disruptive as possible in conflict resolution.]

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
[A war is national, regional, or global conflict. In the case of the issues that are being battled in the Anglican Communion, some issues are not of eternal significance, others are. It is important, however, to maintain a relationship of accountability rather than “each one doing what is right in their own eyes.” In the case of North America, that is why clergy and congregations were so intent to come under the authority of Archbishops overseas when the structure here in North America went awry. Living under the authority of those Primates, led to the formation of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Doing so, meant that many lesser points of emphasis had to be released in order for scattered people to come together. That is one of the things that makes the formation of ACNA remarkable. Instead of splintering into individual groups of idiosyncratic practice, the choice was (and still is being) made to come together. As the church builds its unity in faith and practice, it grows in moral authority.]

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

[In the case of current conflicts, the “wrong” is teaching and practice that does not lead people to Christ. Redressing that injury requires articulating the Gospel and bringing people to faith in Christ within it.] 

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

[This is a place where there is a difference with military conflict. In spiritual conflict, the context is not only temporal, it must also be judged in terms of eternity. In military conflict, some soldiers offer their last measure of devotion, but that is in order to effect temporal victory. In the Church, we are called to witness faithfully even to death. Victory in those terms is not just measured temporally, it is also measured by fidelity to Christ. Christians who have been killed because of their faith have not failed, they have prevailed.]

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
[Again, for our purposes today, being as minimally disruptive as necessary in order to maintain the faith is called for.] 

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

[In Church conflict, even though violence is not being employed, people’s reputations and circumstances can be impacted. It is not righteous, for example, to seek to ruin an individual economically when there is a theological disagreement, neither are law suits filed by The Episcopal Church (TEC) against individual vestry members righteous.] 

While there are many examples of faithfulness, we need to learn how to stand up and present ideas and arguments righteously. That means being careful to speak the truth in love. Both truth and love are vitally important.

One of the great areas of tension in the Anglican Communion today is the “Indaba Process.” which is gathering people from around the world. It is supposed to be engaging conversation so that there can be resolution to conflict especially in the area of human sexuality. The problem with “Indaba” is that it is fundamentally dishonest. It is only being engaged in order to sway conservatives to adopt the liberal direction of the church. The structure of the meetings, speakers, venues, and resources are all set in motion to insure only one outcome. Conservative voices are so limited and muted that they only provide some window dressing. Conservative voices are never included in sufficient number to change the direction of the process. That is not conflict resolution engagement, it is shameful deception.

Sadly, we need to be as careful and meticulously faithful as soldiers are who go out onto the battlefield. Our hands must remain clean and our hearts pure. It is not easy, but it is the right thing to do.

Bishop Bill Atwood is Bishop of the International Diocese of the Anglican Church in North America and is a contributing author to the American Anglican Council.