April 13, 2026 • 39 mins
How should Christians think about war? How does the Biblical Framework of Just War help us understand how we should react to what is happening in the Ukraine, Iran, Israel and south Lebanon.
We go back to first principles drawing on the work of Augustine of Hippo Thomas Aquinas - asking when is it right to go to war — and how must war be conducted? And how do those principles evaluate what’s happening in today’s conflicts?
Joining us are:
- John McClean, Vice Principal of Christ College Sydney,
- Rob Smith, theologian and ethicist and
- Grant Dibden, Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force.
Together we explore how Just War thinking has shaped Western military ethics and whether it is quietly being sidelined.
Plus we examine what the Just War doctrine says about individuals conduct in war, in light of the controversy surrounding Australian Soldier Ben Roberts-Smith?
And how should Christians respond when the emotional weight of real-world conflict hits close
The Church Co
http://www.thechurchco.com is a website and app platform built specifically for churches.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_04 (00:37):
Today on the Pastor's Heart, evaluating
current conflict using theChristian doctrine of just war.
Our guests, ethical thinkers,John McLean and Rob Smith, along
with the Anglican bishop to theAustralian Defense Forces, Grant
Dibden.
St.
Augustine was the first majorChristian thinker to
systematically articulate thefoundations of the Christian
(00:58):
just war theory.
Augustine's pastoral theologybecame one of the main moral
foundations of Westerninternational law and military
ethics, even when secularleaders don't explicitly name
it.
There's been loads of opinionpieces on the current wars in
the Middle East and the Ukraineand other geopolitical
(01:19):
flashpoints.
But our task on the pastor'sheart today is to attempt to go
back to those first Christianprinciples on a major Christian
doctrine and then apply thoseChristian principles to the
modern world.
And of course, there's alsogoing to be application of this
principle to the controversysurrounding the Australian
soldier Ben Roberts Smith.
(01:41):
We're joined by John McLean.
He's the vice principal of thePresbyterians Christ College in
Sydney.
He teaches in Christian thought,focusing on systematic theology
and ethics.
Rob Smith is also with us.
Rob is an author, theologian,and ethicist, and has taught
many times on the just wartheory.
And Grant Dibdon is Anglicanbishop to the Australian Defence
(02:03):
Forces and has been involved inthe military for 46 years.
(02:25):
I think we might come to thosecontemporary stories, but
actually to start with Augustinein the la in the late fourth
century.
And uh John McLean, what is thedoctrine of just war?
SPEAKER_03 (02:36):
Okay, well that's a big question.
You mentioned Augustine.
But maybe just a little bit ofcontext is helpful as we think
about Augustine.
You said so late fourth century.
So the Roman Empire has onlybeen really open to Christianity
and then explicitly identifyingwith Christianity depends
exactly when you date it, butsince the fourth century.
(03:00):
So prior to the fourth century,largely Christians didn't
participate in the Roman Empire,in the Roman army.
SPEAKER_04 (03:09):
We're playing how much and we're arguing for
pacifism at that point.
SPEAKER_03 (03:14):
But as Christianity becomes uh very much part of the
empire, uh then Christians haveto think about this in a new
way.
Augustine himself, as aManichaean, early in his life,
was a pacifist.
Um, but again, as he becomes aChristian, recognizing the
realities that war is an evil,it's always bad for people, it's
(03:37):
never something to becelebrated.
But there are times when thissin and evil in the world
requires uh a responsible uhaction against that evil.
I mean, that's basically thequestion of just war that yeah,
when it's justified um in as aproper response to other
people's evil.
SPEAKER_04 (03:57):
And there's really two sides to the question.
There's um uh how to do the warand whether to do the war.
Um why don't we go we'll come toyou first on whether to go to
war.
SPEAKER_03 (04:08):
Yeah.
I mean, so for Augustine, it'sfirst of all just cause.
So um, you know, I mean, theobvious one is defense.
If if you're a nation that'sbeing attacked by um the your
neighbor or by some othernation, then your right to
defend yourself to yourself.
SPEAKER_04 (04:26):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (04:26):
Um but also, yeah, if people have um done done
other wrongs or or b perhaps, Imean, yeah, perhaps if there's
uh obvious wrongs going on insome other under some other
jurisdiction, it might be rightto intervene to try and to
self-defense to someone else, toa neighbour or friend.
Yeah, yeah.
(04:47):
Uh and then Augustine doesdifferentiate somewhat between
um cause and intent.
So he says not only should therebe a good reason to go to war,
and the kind of um precipitatingreason, but also uh you've got
to ask yourself what what'sreally motivating me, or the
ruler who's deciding to go towar has to decide um has to
(05:09):
reflect on you know what'sreally my goal here.
SPEAKER_04 (05:12):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (05:13):
And am I really being vindictive or spiteful or
or really trying to achieve someother ends and simply using the
the the proclaimed cause as umas a pre as a pre pretense for
for some other goal.
Yeah, other other things in thedoctrine?
I I mean I think for Augustinethey're the the big two cause um
(05:37):
and intent.
And then the other thingAugustine says is a little bit
is is it's it's only the rulerwho can make this decision.
Yeah.
It's not he doesn't ever thinkthat civil war, for instance, or
what we'd call terrorism couldbe just.
SPEAKER_00 (05:51):
You're nodding at that point, Rob Smith.
Yeah.
Oh that yes, this has a bit beena big uh consistent element of
just war theory from well evenpre-Augustine, but but certainly
uh going through Augustine,Aquinas, uh Calvin, um yeah,
right through to today.
So yeah, that's a key element.
SPEAKER_03 (06:08):
And that's Romans 13, right?
But it's the legitimateauthority that's making the
decision.
The magistrate has beenappointed with the with the
sword, and so they're the that'sthe person who can who can
conduct war.
SPEAKER_04 (06:20):
And I've read about a couple of others, um,
reasonable chance of success andproportionality.
Are they things that have beenadded later or um yeah?
SPEAKER_03 (06:28):
Yeah, yeah, which we can talk about, but I think they
they're they're really they'rereally 20th century
developments, those.
SPEAKER_04 (06:34):
Right, yeah.
Okay.
Now, Rob, uh we've heard fromJohn about um when it's right to
go to war.
What about uh just war theory,Christian just war theory in uh
how I should conduct myself inwar?
SPEAKER_00 (06:49):
Yeah, yeah.
Well it's Thomas Aquinas,really, who um systematizes not
just Augustine but a whole rangeof other thinkers, and he makes
these distinctions, if if youcan bear with a little bit of
Latin between uh uh just ad uhbellum, which is a just cause
for war, and then just in bello,which is just conduct in war.
(07:10):
Uh, and then he has a thirdcategory of uh just post uh
bellum, which is justconsequences or just outcomes.
Uh, but he is very clear thatyou can engage in war for a just
cause, but do it unjustly.
Uh, and so this is where umothers have brought in these
some of these ideas ofproportionality and again
(07:34):
intention is is key, uh, asAugustine pointed out.
Um but then other pragmaticconsiderations, so you know,
reasonable chance of success andall that sort of thing, come
come in to the picture.
Is this just a foolhardy uhexercise, you know, um
destructive exercise?
Um so yeah.
Now, in terms of how uh thenarmies conduct themselves in
(07:59):
war, clearly, um, well, there'sall kinds of potential for
mayhem and horror and brutalityand and uh criminality.
And so this is where uh over thecenturies, and as John said,
even in the 20th century,particularly, there's been a
whole lot more attention givento what exactly is just just
conduct in war?
How do we avoid the targeting ofnon-combatants, for example?
(08:23):
Uh what do we do with prisoners?
Um what about the question oftorture to extract vital
information?
All these sort of questions comeup.
Uh, what about the targeting ofcivilian infrastructure?
Um, yeah.
We've heard about bridgesrecently and and so on.
Is can this be justified or isthis just uh reckless um again,
(08:46):
um a war crime of some sort?
So there I uh I familiarizedmyself last night with what the
sort of current the standardthinking of what war crimes,
well what constitutes warcrimes.
There's sort of eleven uh uhthat uh people have nominated in
in the last century or more.
I've had to write them downbecause I couldn't keep them in
my head.
You know, you can keep aboutfive things in your head, but
(09:07):
eleven is too many.
But I'll just quickly runthrough them so you know what
that we're talking about.
So there's the intentionalkilling of civilians or
prisoners.
That's uh uh firstly, thenthere's secondly the torture or
inhumane treatment of prisoners,then there's the wanton
destruction of civilianproperty, um, yeah, again,
houses, uh bridges, hospitals,schools, uh taking of hostages
(09:30):
is number four.
And number five is the uhdestruction of protected
buildings, religious buildings,schools, hospitals, again,
things that are not militarytargets and so on.
Uh then you've got pillaging,looting, plundering of again,
civilian property, uh, rape andsexual violence, uh, number
eight, using child soldiers,number nine, uh unlawful
(09:52):
deportation or displacementwithout, again, without just
cause or uh people.
And then this last one is what'scalled perfidious conduct, um,
which is basically uh purportingto surrender, perhaps, but uh
but in fact having a uh a gun ora knife or something uh or a
suicide vest or something to toactually do damage to your uh
(10:15):
let's go to you, Grant Dibden,in your role as Bishop of the
Defence Force.
SPEAKER_04 (10:18):
Um I mean, we've been hearing the theologians
talk.
How has that actually landed inthinking amongst both
governments and military uhorganizations, those doctrines?
Yeah.
What's the journey been there?
SPEAKER_01 (10:32):
The uh the chaplains uh well, firstly, I'm on a
committee that uh will speak umuh to the chief of the defence
force and the chiefs of service.
We provide advice, um, and likethe chaplains do to all the
commanders, they'll provideadvice to them about uh some of
these things that are uh what iswhat is right.
Uh we might ask a question andhelp them to think about it
(10:53):
because it's the commanders uhwho make the decisions.
Uh and so we're an element aschaplains that we go in and sort
of say, look, boss, what's haveyou really thought about this?
Uh these are some ethicalconsiderations, these are what
you might want to consider, andwe'll be one element of all the
advice that they get before thecommanders make decisions.
(11:43):
So we can end up being uhprophetic voices uh to
commanders, um, and uh it's agreat uh place for us to be in.
SPEAKER_04 (11:52):
And I think we've got the situation really where
we've got, if you like, thetheology of Augustine and
Aquinas that has in some way oranother influenced the United
Nations and NATO in variouspolicies.
I mean, they've kind of had thetheology washed out, but the
principles are still there.
Is that your read, John McLean?
SPEAKER_03 (12:13):
Yeah, I mean, in in broad terms, yeah.
So there's the just war theoryhas been described as a a peace,
a realistic peace theory.
So it's actually not trying,it's not setting out to justify
war, it's actually setting outto limit war, and to say war is
an evil, but sometimes anecessary evil.
SPEAKER_04 (12:36):
And then my read is that um whereas our secular
countries may have abandonedChristian teaching on uh
abortion, euthanasia, sexuality,those kind of issues, actually,
many of our Western secularcountries are at least in theory
(12:57):
holding on to this principle ofChristian doctrine as the right
way to go.
Is is that a reasonable read,Rob?
SPEAKER_00 (13:04):
Yeah, yeah.
Uh as with human rights and anumber of other things we could
point to.
Um yes, it's uh there's a lot ofChristian ethics here, despite
the rejection of Christianmetaphysics.
Uh, and that's well, we thankGod for that.
We'd prefer to be integratedbetter, but uh it it's
something.
Um But can I just throw onething in?
(13:26):
Because we've kind of jumpedover the the in some sense the
elephant in the room, which isuh is it ever right to is there
ever a justification for war?
Um and of course there's a longpacifition, as we mentioned,
going back to the early churchand going through today.
And John's just just raised, Ithink, a very valid perspective
(13:47):
from my point of view, that thatjust war theory, rightly
understood, is almost what youmight say extreme pacifism.
Um it's it's a it's a way toachieve peace and to limit war.
Um, but theologically, if youask, well, what okay, we're not
just talking pragmatics here.
We what is the principle, thetheological principle behind
this?
It it is it's got to be uh loveof neighbor.
(14:10):
Uh that this if this is indeedthe best way for me to love my
neighbour, uh, you know, forexample, if someone was coming
to attack you and you weredefenseless and I had the
opportunity to defend you andand the power to defend you, I
would have a duty to defend you,right?
Yeah uh and to use necessaryforce to repel that attack.
And so there is a this that'sthe deepest, the theological
(14:34):
root of this uh doctrine isactually love of neighbour uh in
order to uh pro provideprotection, justice, and
ultimately peace.
Right.
SPEAKER_03 (14:43):
Which is then where the you know a just execution of
war comes in.
That this this is even seekingto work to try and articulate
how do you love your enemy, evenif your enemy has determined to
act violently against you as anation or as a society, how
could you act loving lovinglytowards them?
SPEAKER_04 (15:04):
And they're doing this stuff to me, but I still
want to actually recognise I'vegot to answer to the Almighty
and look to his heart.
That's right.
SPEAKER_03 (15:10):
Which might almost seem like a weird way to say how
am I going to love them, butthat it that's what Rob's
saying.
So it it's defending perhaps mycitizens, if I'm the you know,
thinking of as a nation,defending the citizens of my
nation or citizens of anothernation, but also doing it in a
way that inflicts as little harmas possible on others who'll be
(15:31):
affected, uh enemy combatantsand then non-combatants as well.
SPEAKER_04 (15:35):
So as you've tried to think about these principles,
and let why don't we just tryapplying them to the
Russia-Ukraine situation, wherewould you draw application or
observation um in that situationbased on the principles just
articulated?
SPEAKER_03 (15:50):
So, I mean, I would have thought Ukraine's defense
of itself is entirely justified.
Um whereas Russia's attack ofUkraine is is not justified.
It seems to be expansionary anduh um illegitimately
expansionary.
I realise there are somehistorical territorial disputes
(16:12):
between between Russia andUkraine, but I certainly where
Russia's moved to now and and inthis in this uh the last few
years, the the war that itstarted.
Um so I don't think that isjustified on the Russian side.
SPEAKER_04 (16:26):
And and I guess the Ukrainian position would be
driven by, I mean, or orpotentially at least arguably
driven by the the view of justwar that we've just talked
about, with defence as the keything.
Yeah.
I'm thinking the Russians, um, Imean, you've got the Russian
Orthodox Church, which to somedegree would be influenced by
the kind of Augustan Aquinasthinking, at least that we're
talking about, but that probablyhasn't got through to higher
(16:49):
management.
SPEAKER_03 (16:51):
And I'm honestly not sure how I mean the the the the
relationship between church andstate in Orthodox Christianity
is different to the WesternChristianity.
And if of course you nameAugustin Aquinas, they're
Western thinkers, not Easternthinkers.
Yeah.
I I'm I'm honestly just not surewhat to what extent it is in the
Eastern tradition.
So can we just go back to justanother kind of application of
(17:14):
dust war, I think, in theUkraine-Russia dispute, whatever
we make of these decisions, havebeen the decisions of uh NATO
and uh the US is part of NATO,of to what extent they support
Ukraine and in what ways.
That is, I think they are tryingthey do realize there's a risk
here.
(17:34):
If if NATO was, I mean, to goall in in defending Ukraine, it
could turn into a huge Europeanwar with Russia.
Yeah.
And so they're trying not not tohave that happen.
So they're balancing thatproportionality principle in
their Yes, that's right.
Well, it's proportionality, butit's it's it's probably more
likely outcomes, isn't it?
SPEAKER_04 (17:54):
Right, yes.
SPEAKER_03 (17:55):
Um and and so these are the real politics of war,
right?
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (17:59):
Grant Dibson, what are you thinking there?
Yeah, look, I think that's a avery um uh interesting point uh
that John's just made um aboutuh uh going into into the war
because one of the one of thethings of the later um uh
elements of just war theory isthe um uh the idea that it what
(18:19):
what is the level of probabilityof success?
Uh and so if you go into a warfrom uh the Russian aspect uh
with NATO, if NATO joins it inuh in full steam, uh then what
is the likelihood that thatwe'll get a good outcome?
What will well that wouldprobably go to World War III,
and there'd be this um massiveuh fight, and there's no
(18:42):
guarantees that it would comeout well.
And so, you know, we have to becareful in uh in joining that
sort of war.
And I think that's exactly whatNATO's doing.
They're looking at uh theprobability of success uh and
saying, look, I'm not sure thatthat that's going to be worth um
worth actually doing.
And so they're they're they'reholding back because they don't
want to go all in.
SPEAKER_04 (19:01):
I mean, if I pick up on that uh proportionality, uh
we're if I go over to the UnitedStates and and we think that um
uh I mean there is an argumentthat what happened in
Afghanistan was a just war, it'smore contested in the Iraq uh
war.
But um uh I mean the languagefrom the president this week of
(19:24):
you'll be blown to hell or wipeout a civilization.
Yeah.
Um I mean that's that's notfitting that paradigm at all.
Yeah.
Do you want to just state theobvious?
State the obvious.
SPEAKER_03 (19:39):
Well, I mean, the problem of course is, I mean,
this is not unique to thecurrent American president.
There can be a big gap betweenthe rhetoric of war and the
actual strategic goals.
So who knows?
But the rhetoric of completelydestroying a civilization, um
(20:01):
whatever exactly that was evenmeant to whatever exactly that
meant, um is not aboutproportionality.
No, it's not about preserving uhyou know observing these rules
of protecting non-combatants andprotecting not attacking
unnecessarily um civilianinfrastructure.
Yeah.
(20:22):
So this is what what Rob wassaying, that even if there is a
just cause, and you know, wecould think about is there a was
there initially a just cause forthe threat that Iran uh actually
was or at least seemed to be toIsrael and and and other places.
But but even if that is thecase, even if you if if that the
action's justified, that doesn'tmean that it justifies doing
(20:47):
whatever you want.
SPEAKER_00 (20:48):
No, that's that yeah, that sort of rhetoric is a
way of saying um all bets arerough, um you know, the the
rules of war just go out thewindow unless you, you know, uh
dance to our tune or respond bythe time we've uh you know
stipulated.
So yeah, it is I mean, we knowTrump loves to bluster and and
(21:10):
uh say things that then don'tnecessarily transfer into
action, but it's reckless it'sreckless speech.
Uh that's for sure.
SPEAKER_04 (21:19):
And I'm thinking uh it I mean yes, some observers
will say he'll speak and thennot follow through, and that's
been a repeated pattern, but heis actually educating people
about an acceptable behavior andsaying implying this is
acceptable behaviour in hisrhetoric, which uh I think I
(21:41):
mean if the doctrine of justjust war is fragile, do you
know, then actually it's taken amajor step backwards recently in
terms of public kind of even ageneration growing up not
knowing about it.
SPEAKER_00 (21:55):
Perhaps, yes.
Uh although the fact thatthere's been such pushback
against his comments suggeststhat uh that there's some
awareness out there in the in inthe public that that no, no,
this is this is not how you doit.
Uh and I think if anyone's ifanything's been damaged, it's
probably Trump's credibility.
But um but again, we'll we'llsee how that plays out.
(22:17):
You may be right, and there isan educational effect that uh
that kind of uh reckless speechhas, and so it's regrettable.
Um now, as many pointed out,well, we yeah, I mean this the
issue of I suppose Trump sayingexaggerated things and then not
following through.
Uh, but then there's whatAmerica actually does on the
(22:37):
ground, the way America'sconducted itself is very
different from the way in whichum well some of these statements
have been cast.
SPEAKER_04 (22:45):
Let's go to you, Grant.
What's your analysis then of howAmerica has conducted itself um
uh given the principles of justwar, not the rhetoric, but the
the conduct of this war so far?
SPEAKER_01 (22:57):
Aaron Ross Powell The Americans uh you know
they've they've held back uh toa certain extent.
They haven't um had a landinvasion.
Uh they're doing uh stuff fromthe air and of course things go
horribly wrong sometimes uh eventhere even with the most precise
um uh missiles that you havethey occasionally uh go offline
(23:18):
or they get hit and so we hadthat we had the bombing um of
the school uh right at the startand of course that was a
terrible thing uh very difficultfor people to um to control um
certainly I wouldn't havethought that it was in uh the
Americans' intention to doanything like that uh but these
uh these things happen in warsometimes and it's very very
(23:38):
difficult you can't be asprecise as you'd like to be
there is collateral damage uhand it's just a difficult thing
and I think that's what theAmericans have seen uh when
they've uh when these sort ofthings have happened.
SPEAKER_04 (23:50):
So I'm I'm guessing on that school for example it's
a question of we're assumingthat the intentionality to bomb
a children's school was notthere.
And yes it clearly wasn't how ajust war theory would say war
should be conducted, butcritical is the intentionality
question.
SPEAKER_00 (24:11):
Absolutely yeah there were always casualties of
war.
But yes it's a major moraldifference between intending to
blow up a school or notintending to blow up a school
but doing so accidentally.
SPEAKER_03 (24:22):
Yeah yeah but there is a moral duty not only to have
the right intention but to doall you can to seek to execute
that intention.
Yeah yeah yeah the intentionactually has to actually be your
intention.
SPEAKER_04 (24:35):
Yeah yes and I can't be care I I can't be careless on
that point.
That's right.
SPEAKER_03 (24:39):
But then as soon as we start talking about of course
you realise I mean this is whatGrant was saying that the
reality of any militaryoperation is so complex and so
uncontrollable in the outcomesthat the there's always these
risks of unforeseen, unexpectedundesired outcomes.
SPEAKER_04 (24:59):
So let's go to Israel and uh I mean I'm
imagining the Israelis would sayself-defense is where they would
start off in their thinking.
But do you want to just keepunpacking that?
SPEAKER_03 (25:11):
Yeah yeah I mean I think they would and and again I
mean this is probably wherewe're gonna have say we're not
experts in this or I certainlyam not and and um there's
there's well may well be umintelligence that they have that
we we don't have.
Yeah but I think I mean Israel'smajor concern with Iran w was
(25:33):
not I mean Iran obviously didhave missiles that it could in
itself could send but it wasreally Iran's support of proxies
especially Hezbollah um andother kind of terrorist proxies
that was really the the thecause bell I for I think is that
yeah that's certainly myunderstanding yeah uh I think
(25:53):
Israel saw a unique opportunityto as it were defang the let's
say the Iranian regime thatrather than again I the Iranian
people of course and the regimeare very two very different
things as we're very aware.
SPEAKER_00 (26:09):
But yes because Israel's been fighting a
multifront war for a decade umagainst proxies well Iranian
proxies uh Hezbollah HamasHouthis uh and so I think they
saw a a unique opportunity toyou might say uh this is where
um to introduce another um messycategory where a defensive war
(26:33):
can st you can have a preemptivedefensive war if you know what I
mean.
Um uh and so yeah people aresaying this is an unprovoked
attack well in one sense yes butin another sense no um uh um so
uh these yeah things are messy.
Certainly the Israelis wouldn'thave seen it as purely um uh
(26:54):
some sort of aggressive um provounprovoked move.
SPEAKER_03 (26:58):
And you and you have to recognise that terrorist
activities and uh non-uniformmilitary activities are already
outside of the whole frameworkthey're already outside of the
Geneva Convention and the rulesof war.
And and so that does make itdifficult for even nations that
(27:20):
want to preserve those rules towork out how do you respond.
And so one of the things we haveseen over the last few decades
is uh actually expandingpermissions um to attack
civilian uh targets say in US Iunderstand I understand US
military doctrine becausethey're responding to uh actors
(27:45):
who aren't who who mix civilianand and combatant roles you know
or you know yeah so all of thatjust becomes more and more
complex for working out how doyou set these rules and how do
you follow them.
SPEAKER_01 (27:58):
So well how do we apply oh Grant you were going to
say yes I just wanted to uh uhto make the point really that um
when uh you think about uh theIsraeli conflicts uh and so you
know as they're as they'rehaving a fight with uh Hezbollah
Hezbollah uh is not thelegitimate authority in terms of
a nation state that the just wartheory would really be um be
(28:21):
considering and so Hezbollah'sunder the uh Lebanese government
so you've got the complexity ofhow do you get the government to
to stop Hezbollah and can theydo that?
And Hezbollah's doing what itwants to do because it's an
Iranian proxy and then you'vegot uh the issues with Hamas uh
because uh you know that theydeliberately um put themselves
(28:42):
in amongst the civilianpopulation so how do you as uh
as Israelis defend yourself howdo you strike back when when
there's uh there's civilianinfrastructure everywhere
there's tunnels under schoolsthere's uh tunnels under
hospitals and then they're usingthese sort of things so it makes
it very very difficult uh for uhisrael to respond and and what
(29:04):
do you do how do you protectyour own your own people uh if
if this is the sort of enemythat you're facing and they're
they're they're not in uniformuh and it's just a very complex
uh and difficult thing uh to tryto figure out how would you
respond.
SPEAKER_03 (29:19):
And we're seeing it replicated now in Lebanon that
Lebanon a Lebanese population issuffering um through through
Israel's military response toHezbollah um and you you know
you were saying at the at thetop of the show that about that
young lady in tears at churchyesterday over a Lebanese church
(29:39):
being attacked.
SPEAKER_00 (29:40):
Understandable yeah yeah yeah the tragedy that you
know the horrors of war that thethe you know all the sayings you
know war is hell yeah yeahthey're all true uh it this is
just just ugly uh uh sinfuleffects uh as Augustine you know
you said yeah there would onlybe war there uh only is war
because there is sin um and uhand it yeah you we're right to
(30:04):
lament war and all that it uhentails uh and yet the just war
theory says there are still uhtimes when out of love we have
to engage in these horrible actsto try and prevent greater evil.
SPEAKER_04 (30:20):
So what would you say if you were the one of the
chaplains in the Israeli DefenceForce and you had an opportunity
for a prophetic word in the inthe way that uh Grant says he
has that office um in theAustralian Defence Force.
SPEAKER_03 (30:37):
I I I'm gonna say I don't know um because I think a
specific prophetic word requiresinsight and information that I
just I don't have sitting inAustralia.
I I do but there are stillprinciples of love my neighbour
standing behind again.
(31:04):
Yeah I I I just don't yeah I Idon't I don't I certainly don't
know enough to to be able to sayanything specifically.
SPEAKER_04 (31:11):
Let's go then to the controversy over um Ben Roberts
Smith so former Australiansoldier for those who are
engaging with us from overseasum and uh it's a b big story in
Australia at the moment um aboutto go on trial for um uh five
wartime offences um uh and so atthis point we're not thinking
(31:32):
whether to go to war we'rethinking right conduct in war
yeah and how how does that applyin in here's a close to home
situation in Rob.
SPEAKER_00 (31:45):
Well this is where we come back to uh well just
conduct in war and well what wehave at least uh by a large
degree are are war crimes uh andwell that he has certainly been
charged with war crimes.
Now he'll have his day in courtand and obviously want to defend
uh why he has done what he'sdone or ordered what he ordered
(32:09):
um and so we'll see how thatworks out.
But if he is guilty of what ishe is charged with, then he is
guilty of war crimes.
And so in one sense that that'sI guess what's to be determined.
Are the charges valid?
SPEAKER_04 (32:28):
How do you think this through um Cry?
SPEAKER_01 (32:32):
First thing we really need to say is that uh
Ben is uh continuing uh tomaintain his innocence and of
course he's entitled to thepresumption of uh of innocence
um until uh until it's provenotherwise in a court of law and
so we need to be careful that weum uh that we afford Ben that
that right uh we also aschaplains we would normally be
(32:55):
caring for uh anybody who's inthese sort of circumstances
because we're all about lovingour neighbor as we love
ourselves and so we want to beloving and caring for Ben uh as
he goes uh through these sort ofthings uh it's a difficult time
uh but we want to make sure uhalso one of the one of the
things is that's uh that's agood thing uh is that Australia
(33:18):
as a nation um uh is wanting toAustralia sorry uh the good
thing is that Australia as anation uh is a place that takes
these things very seriouslythere have been allegations made
by uh other members of thespecial forces uh and so they're
(33:39):
taken seriously and there's nopolitical interference uh in our
country uh we have the PrimeMinister saying that he's not
going to comment on it becauseit's before the courts a similar
sort of thing to the oppositionleader and of course um what we
what we uh disappointed at alittle bit is the um the way
that uh Ben was arrested uh itwas a public thing I don't think
(34:00):
it showed the respect that itshould have done for a person
who's a a war hero who'spresumed innocent uh it could
have been done more discreetlyand more carefully uh but you
know Ben will have his uh havehis time in court and I think
that's the right place for it toto take it to the right level of
um of of uh of what they need tocome to which is a um uh beyond
(34:23):
reasonable doubt the level ofproof uh that's the key thing
that they need to work throughand so it'll be interesting to
see um uh how that plays out incourt but it's a very difficult
time for Ben and we want to keephim in our prayers.
SPEAKER_04 (34:35):
And it does seem as though um I mean if we're saying
well we don't really knowoverseas where something's
happened and we're not reallysure about whether or not they
have done the right thing or rotwrong thing and we're holding
comment here we're also holdingcomment but we're saying there
should be a proper investigationand there should be a day in
court and we actually do want tosay these just war principles
(34:58):
matter.
SPEAKER_00 (34:59):
Yes.
And yeah yeah and Grant isexactly right he the presumption
of innocence is important in ourlegal system.
And I guess we'll wait and seewhat the case is he makes.
He may say I didn't do thesethings at all or yes I did do
these things but this is why Idid them and this is why they're
not war crimes.
Again to do with intention.
(35:21):
If I can just give an anecdote Isuppose just to take it away
from this current umconversation.
I remember visiting an a anelderly man towards the end of
his life in hospital and heconfessed something to me that
he never told anyone that in thewar he was ordered to execute a
stowaway on a ship who may wellhave been a spy but there were
(35:46):
they couldn't verify.
He might just have been acivilian trying to get away from
the war zone.
But there were certain thingsthat didn't add up and he was
commanded to execute this man,to shoot him which he did.
But it haunted him all his lifehad he forty years.
For forty years had he killed aninnocent man or had he actually
(36:08):
executed a uh a a German spy hedidn't know and obviously I
didn't know um but uh he was hisconscience was disturbed by you
know had he done the rightthing.
Now I said to him I thoughtactually under the circumstances
he had done the right thing evenif it turns out on the day of
judgment that the man was not infact a spy but a stowaway that
(36:31):
he was uh ordered to welleliminate that risk because it
was a real risk to the the ship.
So yeah that just takes it awayfrom the current discussion that
that that the thing terriblethings have happened in war that
and working out are are they warcrimes or are they ugly
(36:53):
necessities is is tricky.
SPEAKER_01 (36:58):
Grant why don't you close for us by leading in
prayer uh about some of thesecurrent conflicts in the light
of the principles we've talkedabout Lord and Heavenly Father
we do thank you and praise youthat you are the sovereign Lord
uh who's in control of allthings and Father we want to
bring our world to you Father uhit's a world where there's much
(37:19):
strife and much conflict aswe've talked about today Father
there's uh conflict in theMiddle East and Lord we we pray
that you would bring peace therewe pray that there'd be a
breakthrough in the negotiationsuh between um Iran and the
United States uh we pray thatthere would be uh peace brought
(37:40):
between Israel and uh uhHezbollah as they discuss with
Lebanon uh we pray that there'dbe peace brought with uh Hamas
and what's happening with thePalestinians Father um uh we
pray too for uh the otherconflicts around the world that
we've discussed with Ukraine andRussia Lord but there's uh more
conflicts as well in uh in Sudanand Myanmar for example and so
(38:02):
Lord we we pray that you wouldbring peace uh in these nations
and we pray particularly for uhthe chaplets who are involved
Lord that you would help uh themto be um uh encouraging that uh
be speaking your wordprophetically and be be working
through them Lord to both carefor the men and women under
their charge but also to be uhelements and people who are able
(38:24):
to bring uh and help to bringpeace like your word says uh in
in the in the Beatitudes Lordwhere where we're to be the
peacemakers that they're blessedand so father we pray that you
would uh bring peace throughoutthis world and we commit this
time to you now in Jesus' nameamen that is Grant Dibden the
Anglican bishop uh for theAustralian Defence Forces uh our
(38:46):
guests also have been JohnMcLean Vice Principal of the uh
Presbyterian Christ College inSydney uh a teacher in Christian
thought systematic theology andethics and of course Rob Smith
with us as well an authortheologian and ethicist who's
taught on this theory for quitea few years.
SPEAKER_04 (39:03):
My name is Dominic Steele.
Thanks for joining us on thePastor's Heart and we will look
forward to your company nextTuesday afternoon
Today on the Pastor's Heart, evaluating
current conflict using theChristian doctrine of just war.
Our guests, ethical thinkers,John McLean and Rob Smith, along
with the Anglican bishop to theAustralian Defense Forces, Grant
Dibden.
St.
Augustine was the first majorChristian thinker to
systematically articulate thefoundations of the Christian
(00:58):
just war theory.
Augustine's pastoral theologybecame one of the main moral
foundations of Westerninternational law and military
ethics, even when secularleaders don't explicitly name
it.
There's been loads of opinionpieces on the current wars in
the Middle East and the Ukraineand other geopolitical
(01:19):
flashpoints.
But our task on the pastor'sheart today is to attempt to go
back to those first Christianprinciples on a major Christian
doctrine and then apply thoseChristian principles to the
modern world.
And of course, there's alsogoing to be application of this
principle to the controversysurrounding the Australian
soldier Ben Roberts Smith.
(01:41):
We're joined by John McLean.
He's the vice principal of thePresbyterians Christ College in
Sydney.
He teaches in Christian thought,focusing on systematic theology
and ethics.
Rob Smith is also with us.
Rob is an author, theologian,and ethicist, and has taught
many times on the just wartheory.
And Grant Dibdon is Anglicanbishop to the Australian Defence
(02:03):
Forces and has been involved inthe military for 46 years.
(02:25):
I think we might come to thosecontemporary stories, but
actually to start with Augustinein the la in the late fourth
century.
And uh John McLean, what is thedoctrine of just war?
SPEAKER_03 (02:36):
Okay, well that's a big question.
You mentioned Augustine.
But maybe just a little bit ofcontext is helpful as we think
about Augustine.
You said so late fourth century.
So the Roman Empire has onlybeen really open to Christianity
and then explicitly identifyingwith Christianity depends
exactly when you date it, butsince the fourth century.
(03:00):
So prior to the fourth century,largely Christians didn't
participate in the Roman Empire,in the Roman army.
SPEAKER_04 (03:09):
We're playing how much and we're arguing for
pacifism at that point.
SPEAKER_03 (03:14):
But as Christianity becomes uh very much part of the
empire, uh then Christians haveto think about this in a new
way.
Augustine himself, as aManichaean, early in his life,
was a pacifist.
Um, but again, as he becomes aChristian, recognizing the
realities that war is an evil,it's always bad for people, it's
(03:37):
never something to becelebrated.
But there are times when thissin and evil in the world
requires uh a responsible uhaction against that evil.
I mean, that's basically thequestion of just war that yeah,
when it's justified um in as aproper response to other
people's evil.
SPEAKER_04 (03:57):
And there's really two sides to the question.
There's um uh how to do the warand whether to do the war.
Um why don't we go we'll come toyou first on whether to go to
war.
SPEAKER_03 (04:08):
Yeah.
I mean, so for Augustine, it'sfirst of all just cause.
So um, you know, I mean, theobvious one is defense.
If if you're a nation that'sbeing attacked by um the your
neighbor or by some othernation, then your right to
defend yourself to yourself.
SPEAKER_04 (04:26):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (04:26):
Um but also, yeah, if people have um done done
other wrongs or or b perhaps, Imean, yeah, perhaps if there's
uh obvious wrongs going on insome other under some other
jurisdiction, it might be rightto intervene to try and to
self-defense to someone else, toa neighbour or friend.
Yeah, yeah.
(04:47):
Uh and then Augustine doesdifferentiate somewhat between
um cause and intent.
So he says not only should therebe a good reason to go to war,
and the kind of um precipitatingreason, but also uh you've got
to ask yourself what what'sreally motivating me, or the
ruler who's deciding to go towar has to decide um has to
(05:09):
reflect on you know what'sreally my goal here.
SPEAKER_04 (05:12):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (05:13):
And am I really being vindictive or spiteful or
or really trying to achieve someother ends and simply using the
the the proclaimed cause as umas a pre as a pre pretense for
for some other goal.
Yeah, other other things in thedoctrine?
I I mean I think for Augustinethey're the the big two cause um
(05:37):
and intent.
And then the other thingAugustine says is a little bit
is is it's it's only the rulerwho can make this decision.
Yeah.
It's not he doesn't ever thinkthat civil war, for instance, or
what we'd call terrorism couldbe just.
SPEAKER_00 (05:51):
You're nodding at that point, Rob Smith.
Yeah.
Oh that yes, this has a bit beena big uh consistent element of
just war theory from well evenpre-Augustine, but but certainly
uh going through Augustine,Aquinas, uh Calvin, um yeah,
right through to today.
So yeah, that's a key element.
SPEAKER_03 (06:08):
And that's Romans 13, right?
But it's the legitimateauthority that's making the
decision.
The magistrate has beenappointed with the with the
sword, and so they're the that'sthe person who can who can
conduct war.
SPEAKER_04 (06:20):
And I've read about a couple of others, um,
reasonable chance of success andproportionality.
Are they things that have beenadded later or um yeah?
SPEAKER_03 (06:28):
Yeah, yeah, which we can talk about, but I think they
they're they're really they'rereally 20th century
developments, those.
SPEAKER_04 (06:34):
Right, yeah.
Okay.
Now, Rob, uh we've heard fromJohn about um when it's right to
go to war.
What about uh just war theory,Christian just war theory in uh
how I should conduct myself inwar?
SPEAKER_00 (06:49):
Yeah, yeah.
Well it's Thomas Aquinas,really, who um systematizes not
just Augustine but a whole rangeof other thinkers, and he makes
these distinctions, if if youcan bear with a little bit of
Latin between uh uh just ad uhbellum, which is a just cause
for war, and then just in bello,which is just conduct in war.
(07:10):
Uh, and then he has a thirdcategory of uh just post uh
bellum, which is justconsequences or just outcomes.
Uh, but he is very clear thatyou can engage in war for a just
cause, but do it unjustly.
Uh, and so this is where umothers have brought in these
some of these ideas ofproportionality and again
(07:34):
intention is is key, uh, asAugustine pointed out.
Um but then other pragmaticconsiderations, so you know,
reasonable chance of success andall that sort of thing, come
come in to the picture.
Is this just a foolhardy uhexercise, you know, um
destructive exercise?
Um so yeah.
Now, in terms of how uh thenarmies conduct themselves in
(07:59):
war, clearly, um, well, there'sall kinds of potential for
mayhem and horror and brutalityand and uh criminality.
And so this is where uh over thecenturies, and as John said,
even in the 20th century,particularly, there's been a
whole lot more attention givento what exactly is just just
conduct in war?
How do we avoid the targeting ofnon-combatants, for example?
(08:23):
Uh what do we do with prisoners?
Um what about the question oftorture to extract vital
information?
All these sort of questions comeup.
Uh, what about the targeting ofcivilian infrastructure?
Um, yeah.
We've heard about bridgesrecently and and so on.
Is can this be justified or isthis just uh reckless um again,
(08:46):
um a war crime of some sort?
So there I uh I familiarizedmyself last night with what the
sort of current the standardthinking of what war crimes,
well what constitutes warcrimes.
There's sort of eleven uh uhthat uh people have nominated in
in the last century or more.
I've had to write them downbecause I couldn't keep them in
my head.
You know, you can keep aboutfive things in your head, but
(09:07):
eleven is too many.
But I'll just quickly runthrough them so you know what
that we're talking about.
So there's the intentionalkilling of civilians or
prisoners.
That's uh uh firstly, thenthere's secondly the torture or
inhumane treatment of prisoners,then there's the wanton
destruction of civilianproperty, um, yeah, again,
houses, uh bridges, hospitals,schools, uh taking of hostages
(09:30):
is number four.
And number five is the uhdestruction of protected
buildings, religious buildings,schools, hospitals, again,
things that are not militarytargets and so on.
Uh then you've got pillaging,looting, plundering of again,
civilian property, uh, rape andsexual violence, uh, number
eight, using child soldiers,number nine, uh unlawful
(09:52):
deportation or displacementwithout, again, without just
cause or uh people.
And then this last one is what'scalled perfidious conduct, um,
which is basically uh purportingto surrender, perhaps, but uh
but in fact having a uh a gun ora knife or something uh or a
suicide vest or something to toactually do damage to your uh
(10:15):
let's go to you, Grant Dibden,in your role as Bishop of the
Defence Force.
SPEAKER_04 (10:18):
Um I mean, we've been hearing the theologians
talk.
How has that actually landed inthinking amongst both
governments and military uhorganizations, those doctrines?
Yeah.
What's the journey been there?
SPEAKER_01 (10:32):
The uh the chaplains uh well, firstly, I'm on a
committee that uh will speak umuh to the chief of the defence
force and the chiefs of service.
We provide advice, um, and likethe chaplains do to all the
commanders, they'll provideadvice to them about uh some of
these things that are uh what iswhat is right.
Uh we might ask a question andhelp them to think about it
(10:53):
because it's the commanders uhwho make the decisions.
Uh and so we're an element aschaplains that we go in and sort
of say, look, boss, what's haveyou really thought about this?
Uh these are some ethicalconsiderations, these are what
you might want to consider, andwe'll be one element of all the
advice that they get before thecommanders make decisions.
(11:43):
So we can end up being uhprophetic voices uh to
commanders, um, and uh it's agreat uh place for us to be in.
SPEAKER_04 (11:52):
And I think we've got the situation really where
we've got, if you like, thetheology of Augustine and
Aquinas that has in some way oranother influenced the United
Nations and NATO in variouspolicies.
I mean, they've kind of had thetheology washed out, but the
principles are still there.
Is that your read, John McLean?
SPEAKER_03 (12:13):
Yeah, I mean, in in broad terms, yeah.
So there's the just war theoryhas been described as a a peace,
a realistic peace theory.
So it's actually not trying,it's not setting out to justify
war, it's actually setting outto limit war, and to say war is
an evil, but sometimes anecessary evil.
SPEAKER_04 (12:36):
And then my read is that um whereas our secular
countries may have abandonedChristian teaching on uh
abortion, euthanasia, sexuality,those kind of issues, actually,
many of our Western secularcountries are at least in theory
(12:57):
holding on to this principle ofChristian doctrine as the right
way to go.
Is is that a reasonable read,Rob?
SPEAKER_00 (13:04):
Yeah, yeah.
Uh as with human rights and anumber of other things we could
point to.
Um yes, it's uh there's a lot ofChristian ethics here, despite
the rejection of Christianmetaphysics.
Uh, and that's well, we thankGod for that.
We'd prefer to be integratedbetter, but uh it it's
something.
Um But can I just throw onething in?
(13:26):
Because we've kind of jumpedover the the in some sense the
elephant in the room, which isuh is it ever right to is there
ever a justification for war?
Um and of course there's a longpacifition, as we mentioned,
going back to the early churchand going through today.
And John's just just raised, Ithink, a very valid perspective
(13:47):
from my point of view, that thatjust war theory, rightly
understood, is almost what youmight say extreme pacifism.
Um it's it's a it's a way toachieve peace and to limit war.
Um, but theologically, if youask, well, what okay, we're not
just talking pragmatics here.
We what is the principle, thetheological principle behind
this?
It it is it's got to be uh loveof neighbor.
(14:10):
Uh that this if this is indeedthe best way for me to love my
neighbour, uh, you know, forexample, if someone was coming
to attack you and you weredefenseless and I had the
opportunity to defend you andand the power to defend you, I
would have a duty to defend you,right?
Yeah uh and to use necessaryforce to repel that attack.
And so there is a this that'sthe deepest, the theological
(14:34):
root of this uh doctrine isactually love of neighbour uh in
order to uh pro provideprotection, justice, and
ultimately peace.
Right.
SPEAKER_03 (14:43):
Which is then where the you know a just execution of
war comes in.
That this this is even seekingto work to try and articulate
how do you love your enemy, evenif your enemy has determined to
act violently against you as anation or as a society, how
could you act loving lovinglytowards them?
SPEAKER_04 (15:04):
And they're doing this stuff to me, but I still
want to actually recognise I'vegot to answer to the Almighty
and look to his heart.
That's right.
SPEAKER_03 (15:10):
Which might almost seem like a weird way to say how
am I going to love them, butthat it that's what Rob's
saying.
So it it's defending perhaps mycitizens, if I'm the you know,
thinking of as a nation,defending the citizens of my
nation or citizens of anothernation, but also doing it in a
way that inflicts as little harmas possible on others who'll be
(15:31):
affected, uh enemy combatantsand then non-combatants as well.
SPEAKER_04 (15:35):
So as you've tried to think about these principles,
and let why don't we just tryapplying them to the
Russia-Ukraine situation, wherewould you draw application or
observation um in that situationbased on the principles just
articulated?
SPEAKER_03 (15:50):
So, I mean, I would have thought Ukraine's defense
of itself is entirely justified.
Um whereas Russia's attack ofUkraine is is not justified.
It seems to be expansionary anduh um illegitimately
expansionary.
I realise there are somehistorical territorial disputes
(16:12):
between between Russia andUkraine, but I certainly where
Russia's moved to now and and inthis in this uh the last few
years, the the war that itstarted.
Um so I don't think that isjustified on the Russian side.
SPEAKER_04 (16:26):
And and I guess the Ukrainian position would be
driven by, I mean, or orpotentially at least arguably
driven by the the view of justwar that we've just talked
about, with defence as the keything.
Yeah.
I'm thinking the Russians, um, Imean, you've got the Russian
Orthodox Church, which to somedegree would be influenced by
the kind of Augustan Aquinasthinking, at least that we're
talking about, but that probablyhasn't got through to higher
(16:49):
management.
SPEAKER_03 (16:51):
And I'm honestly not sure how I mean the the the the
relationship between church andstate in Orthodox Christianity
is different to the WesternChristianity.
And if of course you nameAugustin Aquinas, they're
Western thinkers, not Easternthinkers.
Yeah.
I I'm I'm honestly just not surewhat to what extent it is in the
Eastern tradition.
So can we just go back to justanother kind of application of
(17:14):
dust war, I think, in theUkraine-Russia dispute, whatever
we make of these decisions, havebeen the decisions of uh NATO
and uh the US is part of NATO,of to what extent they support
Ukraine and in what ways.
That is, I think they are tryingthey do realize there's a risk
here.
(17:34):
If if NATO was, I mean, to goall in in defending Ukraine, it
could turn into a huge Europeanwar with Russia.
Yeah.
And so they're trying not not tohave that happen.
So they're balancing thatproportionality principle in
their Yes, that's right.
Well, it's proportionality, butit's it's it's probably more
likely outcomes, isn't it?
SPEAKER_04 (17:54):
Right, yes.
SPEAKER_03 (17:55):
Um and and so these are the real politics of war,
right?
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (17:59):
Grant Dibson, what are you thinking there?
Yeah, look, I think that's a avery um uh interesting point uh
that John's just made um aboutuh uh going into into the war
because one of the one of thethings of the later um uh
elements of just war theory isthe um uh the idea that it what
(18:19):
what is the level of probabilityof success?
Uh and so if you go into a warfrom uh the Russian aspect uh
with NATO, if NATO joins it inuh in full steam, uh then what
is the likelihood that thatwe'll get a good outcome?
What will well that wouldprobably go to World War III,
and there'd be this um massiveuh fight, and there's no
(18:42):
guarantees that it would comeout well.
And so, you know, we have to becareful in uh in joining that
sort of war.
And I think that's exactly whatNATO's doing.
They're looking at uh theprobability of success uh and
saying, look, I'm not sure thatthat that's going to be worth um
worth actually doing.
And so they're they're they'reholding back because they don't
want to go all in.
SPEAKER_04 (19:01):
I mean, if I pick up on that uh proportionality, uh
we're if I go over to the UnitedStates and and we think that um
uh I mean there is an argumentthat what happened in
Afghanistan was a just war, it'smore contested in the Iraq uh
war.
But um uh I mean the languagefrom the president this week of
(19:24):
you'll be blown to hell or wipeout a civilization.
Yeah.
Um I mean that's that's notfitting that paradigm at all.
Yeah.
Do you want to just state theobvious?
State the obvious.
SPEAKER_03 (19:39):
Well, I mean, the problem of course is, I mean,
this is not unique to thecurrent American president.
There can be a big gap betweenthe rhetoric of war and the
actual strategic goals.
So who knows?
But the rhetoric of completelydestroying a civilization, um
(20:01):
whatever exactly that was evenmeant to whatever exactly that
meant, um is not aboutproportionality.
No, it's not about preserving uhyou know observing these rules
of protecting non-combatants andprotecting not attacking
unnecessarily um civilianinfrastructure.
Yeah.
(20:22):
So this is what what Rob wassaying, that even if there is a
just cause, and you know, wecould think about is there a was
there initially a just cause forthe threat that Iran uh actually
was or at least seemed to be toIsrael and and and other places.
But but even if that is thecase, even if you if if that the
action's justified, that doesn'tmean that it justifies doing
(20:47):
whatever you want.
SPEAKER_00 (20:48):
No, that's that yeah, that sort of rhetoric is a
way of saying um all bets arerough, um you know, the the
rules of war just go out thewindow unless you, you know, uh
dance to our tune or respond bythe time we've uh you know
stipulated.
So yeah, it is I mean, we knowTrump loves to bluster and and
(21:10):
uh say things that then don'tnecessarily transfer into
action, but it's reckless it'sreckless speech.
Uh that's for sure.
SPEAKER_04 (21:19):
And I'm thinking uh it I mean yes, some observers
will say he'll speak and thennot follow through, and that's
been a repeated pattern, but heis actually educating people
about an acceptable behavior andsaying implying this is
acceptable behaviour in hisrhetoric, which uh I think I
(21:41):
mean if the doctrine of justjust war is fragile, do you
know, then actually it's taken amajor step backwards recently in
terms of public kind of even ageneration growing up not
knowing about it.
SPEAKER_00 (21:55):
Perhaps, yes.
Uh although the fact thatthere's been such pushback
against his comments suggeststhat uh that there's some
awareness out there in the in inthe public that that no, no,
this is this is not how you doit.
Uh and I think if anyone's ifanything's been damaged, it's
probably Trump's credibility.
But um but again, we'll we'llsee how that plays out.
(22:17):
You may be right, and there isan educational effect that uh
that kind of uh reckless speechhas, and so it's regrettable.
Um now, as many pointed out,well, we yeah, I mean this the
issue of I suppose Trump sayingexaggerated things and then not
following through.
Uh, but then there's whatAmerica actually does on the
(22:37):
ground, the way America'sconducted itself is very
different from the way in whichum well some of these statements
have been cast.
SPEAKER_04 (22:45):
Let's go to you, Grant.
What's your analysis then of howAmerica has conducted itself um
uh given the principles of justwar, not the rhetoric, but the
the conduct of this war so far?
SPEAKER_01 (22:57):
Aaron Ross Powell The Americans uh you know
they've they've held back uh toa certain extent.
They haven't um had a landinvasion.
Uh they're doing uh stuff fromthe air and of course things go
horribly wrong sometimes uh eventhere even with the most precise
um uh missiles that you havethey occasionally uh go offline
(23:18):
or they get hit and so we hadthat we had the bombing um of
the school uh right at the startand of course that was a
terrible thing uh very difficultfor people to um to control um
certainly I wouldn't havethought that it was in uh the
Americans' intention to doanything like that uh but these
uh these things happen in warsometimes and it's very very
(23:38):
difficult you can't be asprecise as you'd like to be
there is collateral damage uhand it's just a difficult thing
and I think that's what theAmericans have seen uh when
they've uh when these sort ofthings have happened.
SPEAKER_04 (23:50):
So I'm I'm guessing on that school for example it's
a question of we're assumingthat the intentionality to bomb
a children's school was notthere.
And yes it clearly wasn't how ajust war theory would say war
should be conducted, butcritical is the intentionality
question.
SPEAKER_00 (24:11):
Absolutely yeah there were always casualties of
war.
But yes it's a major moraldifference between intending to
blow up a school or notintending to blow up a school
but doing so accidentally.
SPEAKER_03 (24:22):
Yeah yeah but there is a moral duty not only to have
the right intention but to doall you can to seek to execute
that intention.
Yeah yeah yeah the intentionactually has to actually be your
intention.
SPEAKER_04 (24:35):
Yeah yes and I can't be care I I can't be careless on
that point.
That's right.
SPEAKER_03 (24:39):
But then as soon as we start talking about of course
you realise I mean this is whatGrant was saying that the
reality of any militaryoperation is so complex and so
uncontrollable in the outcomesthat the there's always these
risks of unforeseen, unexpectedundesired outcomes.
SPEAKER_04 (24:59):
So let's go to Israel and uh I mean I'm
imagining the Israelis would sayself-defense is where they would
start off in their thinking.
But do you want to just keepunpacking that?
SPEAKER_03 (25:11):
Yeah yeah I mean I think they would and and again I
mean this is probably wherewe're gonna have say we're not
experts in this or I certainlyam not and and um there's
there's well may well be umintelligence that they have that
we we don't have.
Yeah but I think I mean Israel'smajor concern with Iran w was
(25:33):
not I mean Iran obviously didhave missiles that it could in
itself could send but it wasreally Iran's support of proxies
especially Hezbollah um andother kind of terrorist proxies
that was really the the thecause bell I for I think is that
yeah that's certainly myunderstanding yeah uh I think
(25:53):
Israel saw a unique opportunityto as it were defang the let's
say the Iranian regime thatrather than again I the Iranian
people of course and the regimeare very two very different
things as we're very aware.
SPEAKER_00 (26:09):
But yes because Israel's been fighting a
multifront war for a decade umagainst proxies well Iranian
proxies uh Hezbollah HamasHouthis uh and so I think they
saw a a unique opportunity toyou might say uh this is where
um to introduce another um messycategory where a defensive war
(26:33):
can st you can have a preemptivedefensive war if you know what I
mean.
Um uh and so yeah people aresaying this is an unprovoked
attack well in one sense yes butin another sense no um uh um so
uh these yeah things are messy.
Certainly the Israelis wouldn'thave seen it as purely um uh
(26:54):
some sort of aggressive um provounprovoked move.
SPEAKER_03 (26:58):
And you and you have to recognise that terrorist
activities and uh non-uniformmilitary activities are already
outside of the whole frameworkthey're already outside of the
Geneva Convention and the rulesof war.
And and so that does make itdifficult for even nations that
(27:20):
want to preserve those rules towork out how do you respond.
And so one of the things we haveseen over the last few decades
is uh actually expandingpermissions um to attack
civilian uh targets say in US Iunderstand I understand US
military doctrine becausethey're responding to uh actors
(27:45):
who aren't who who mix civilianand and combatant roles you know
or you know yeah so all of thatjust becomes more and more
complex for working out how doyou set these rules and how do
you follow them.
SPEAKER_01 (27:58):
So well how do we apply oh Grant you were going to
say yes I just wanted to uh uhto make the point really that um
when uh you think about uh theIsraeli conflicts uh and so you
know as they're as they'rehaving a fight with uh Hezbollah
Hezbollah uh is not thelegitimate authority in terms of
a nation state that the just wartheory would really be um be
(28:21):
considering and so Hezbollah'sunder the uh Lebanese government
so you've got the complexity ofhow do you get the government to
to stop Hezbollah and can theydo that?
And Hezbollah's doing what itwants to do because it's an
Iranian proxy and then you'vegot uh the issues with Hamas uh
because uh you know that theydeliberately um put themselves
(28:42):
in amongst the civilianpopulation so how do you as uh
as Israelis defend yourself howdo you strike back when when
there's uh there's civilianinfrastructure everywhere
there's tunnels under schoolsthere's uh tunnels under
hospitals and then they're usingthese sort of things so it makes
it very very difficult uh for uhisrael to respond and and what
(29:04):
do you do how do you protectyour own your own people uh if
if this is the sort of enemythat you're facing and they're
they're they're not in uniformuh and it's just a very complex
uh and difficult thing uh to tryto figure out how would you
respond.
SPEAKER_03 (29:19):
And we're seeing it replicated now in Lebanon that
Lebanon a Lebanese population issuffering um through through
Israel's military response toHezbollah um and you you know
you were saying at the at thetop of the show that about that
young lady in tears at churchyesterday over a Lebanese church
(29:39):
being attacked.
SPEAKER_00 (29:40):
Understandable yeah yeah yeah the tragedy that you
know the horrors of war that thethe you know all the sayings you
know war is hell yeah yeahthey're all true uh it this is
just just ugly uh uh sinfuleffects uh as Augustine you know
you said yeah there would onlybe war there uh only is war
because there is sin um and uhand it yeah you we're right to
(30:04):
lament war and all that it uhentails uh and yet the just war
theory says there are still uhtimes when out of love we have
to engage in these horrible actsto try and prevent greater evil.
SPEAKER_04 (30:20):
So what would you say if you were the one of the
chaplains in the Israeli DefenceForce and you had an opportunity
for a prophetic word in the inthe way that uh Grant says he
has that office um in theAustralian Defence Force.
SPEAKER_03 (30:37):
I I I'm gonna say I don't know um because I think a
specific prophetic word requiresinsight and information that I
just I don't have sitting inAustralia.
I I do but there are stillprinciples of love my neighbour
standing behind again.
(31:04):
Yeah I I I just don't yeah I Idon't I don't I certainly don't
know enough to to be able to sayanything specifically.
SPEAKER_04 (31:11):
Let's go then to the controversy over um Ben Roberts
Smith so former Australiansoldier for those who are
engaging with us from overseasum and uh it's a b big story in
Australia at the moment um aboutto go on trial for um uh five
wartime offences um uh and so atthis point we're not thinking
(31:32):
whether to go to war we'rethinking right conduct in war
yeah and how how does that applyin in here's a close to home
situation in Rob.
SPEAKER_00 (31:45):
Well this is where we come back to uh well just
conduct in war and well what wehave at least uh by a large
degree are are war crimes uh andwell that he has certainly been
charged with war crimes.
Now he'll have his day in courtand and obviously want to defend
uh why he has done what he'sdone or ordered what he ordered
(32:09):
um and so we'll see how thatworks out.
But if he is guilty of what ishe is charged with, then he is
guilty of war crimes.
And so in one sense that that'sI guess what's to be determined.
Are the charges valid?
SPEAKER_04 (32:28):
How do you think this through um Cry?
SPEAKER_01 (32:32):
First thing we really need to say is that uh
Ben is uh continuing uh tomaintain his innocence and of
course he's entitled to thepresumption of uh of innocence
um until uh until it's provenotherwise in a court of law and
so we need to be careful that weum uh that we afford Ben that
that right uh we also aschaplains we would normally be
(32:55):
caring for uh anybody who's inthese sort of circumstances
because we're all about lovingour neighbor as we love
ourselves and so we want to beloving and caring for Ben uh as
he goes uh through these sort ofthings uh it's a difficult time
uh but we want to make sure uhalso one of the one of the
things is that's uh that's agood thing uh is that Australia
(33:18):
as a nation um uh is wanting toAustralia sorry uh the good
thing is that Australia as anation uh is a place that takes
these things very seriouslythere have been allegations made
by uh other members of thespecial forces uh and so they're
(33:39):
taken seriously and there's nopolitical interference uh in our
country uh we have the PrimeMinister saying that he's not
going to comment on it becauseit's before the courts a similar
sort of thing to the oppositionleader and of course um what we
what we uh disappointed at alittle bit is the um the way
that uh Ben was arrested uh itwas a public thing I don't think
(34:00):
it showed the respect that itshould have done for a person
who's a a war hero who'spresumed innocent uh it could
have been done more discreetlyand more carefully uh but you
know Ben will have his uh havehis time in court and I think
that's the right place for it toto take it to the right level of
um of of uh of what they need tocome to which is a um uh beyond
(34:23):
reasonable doubt the level ofproof uh that's the key thing
that they need to work throughand so it'll be interesting to
see um uh how that plays out incourt but it's a very difficult
time for Ben and we want to keephim in our prayers.
SPEAKER_04 (34:35):
And it does seem as though um I mean if we're saying
well we don't really knowoverseas where something's
happened and we're not reallysure about whether or not they
have done the right thing or rotwrong thing and we're holding
comment here we're also holdingcomment but we're saying there
should be a proper investigationand there should be a day in
court and we actually do want tosay these just war principles
(34:58):
matter.
SPEAKER_00 (34:59):
Yes.
And yeah yeah and Grant isexactly right he the presumption
of innocence is important in ourlegal system.
And I guess we'll wait and seewhat the case is he makes.
He may say I didn't do thesethings at all or yes I did do
these things but this is why Idid them and this is why they're
not war crimes.
Again to do with intention.
(35:21):
If I can just give an anecdote Isuppose just to take it away
from this current umconversation.
I remember visiting an a anelderly man towards the end of
his life in hospital and heconfessed something to me that
he never told anyone that in thewar he was ordered to execute a
stowaway on a ship who may wellhave been a spy but there were
(35:46):
they couldn't verify.
He might just have been acivilian trying to get away from
the war zone.
But there were certain thingsthat didn't add up and he was
commanded to execute this man,to shoot him which he did.
But it haunted him all his lifehad he forty years.
For forty years had he killed aninnocent man or had he actually
(36:08):
executed a uh a a German spy hedidn't know and obviously I
didn't know um but uh he was hisconscience was disturbed by you
know had he done the rightthing.
Now I said to him I thoughtactually under the circumstances
he had done the right thing evenif it turns out on the day of
judgment that the man was not infact a spy but a stowaway that
(36:31):
he was uh ordered to welleliminate that risk because it
was a real risk to the the ship.
So yeah that just takes it awayfrom the current discussion that
that that the thing terriblethings have happened in war that
and working out are are they warcrimes or are they ugly
(36:53):
necessities is is tricky.
SPEAKER_01 (36:58):
Grant why don't you close for us by leading in
prayer uh about some of thesecurrent conflicts in the light
of the principles we've talkedabout Lord and Heavenly Father
we do thank you and praise youthat you are the sovereign Lord
uh who's in control of allthings and Father we want to
bring our world to you Father uhit's a world where there's much
(37:19):
strife and much conflict aswe've talked about today Father
there's uh conflict in theMiddle East and Lord we we pray
that you would bring peace therewe pray that there'd be a
breakthrough in the negotiationsuh between um Iran and the
United States uh we pray thatthere would be uh peace brought
(37:40):
between Israel and uh uhHezbollah as they discuss with
Lebanon uh we pray that there'dbe peace brought with uh Hamas
and what's happening with thePalestinians Father um uh we
pray too for uh the otherconflicts around the world that
we've discussed with Ukraine andRussia Lord but there's uh more
conflicts as well in uh in Sudanand Myanmar for example and so
(38:02):
Lord we we pray that you wouldbring peace uh in these nations
and we pray particularly for uhthe chaplets who are involved
Lord that you would help uh themto be um uh encouraging that uh
be speaking your wordprophetically and be be working
through them Lord to both carefor the men and women under
their charge but also to be uhelements and people who are able
(38:24):
to bring uh and help to bringpeace like your word says uh in
in the in the Beatitudes Lordwhere where we're to be the
peacemakers that they're blessedand so father we pray that you
would uh bring peace throughoutthis world and we commit this
time to you now in Jesus' nameamen that is Grant Dibden the
Anglican bishop uh for theAustralian Defence Forces uh our
(38:46):
guests also have been JohnMcLean Vice Principal of the uh
Presbyterian Christ College inSydney uh a teacher in Christian
thought systematic theology andethics and of course Rob Smith
with us as well an authortheologian and ethicist who's
taught on this theory for quitea few years.
SPEAKER_04 (39:03):
My name is Dominic Steele.
Thanks for joining us on thePastor's Heart and we will look
forward to your company nextTuesday afternoon
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.