Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 41.14 - 12 March 2007

Conscientious objector

by Meg Jenista, Staff Writer

Last quarter, in an all-too-familiar quest to avoid paper writing, I watched the news. Those of you who know me well will recognize the lengths of my scholastic avoidance when I say that I was watching FOX News, no less. I was drawn in by a story about Lt. Ehren Watada. This soldier’s story actively engages the principles debated at the 2006 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, as the Committee on War and Peace presented the conclusions of their study.

For those who, like myself before my foray into procrastination, don't know Lt. Watada’s story, here's the gist: Lt. Watada has served the Army since graduating college in 2003. Every report of his conduct as an officer and his ability as a leader has been exemplary. Upon discovering that his battalion was to be stationed in Iraq, Watada began to research the war in earnest and what he discovered was that, by all accounts, the war in Iraq is an illegitimate engagement. To put a theological term to it (although, to my knowledge, Watada has not) the war in Iraq is not a just war. Watada sought to be assigned in Afghanistan instead but was denied this request. At the time of the news story, he was facing a court martial and up to four years in prison as a result of his conscientious objector status.

The CRC is a denomination that, while allowing for pacifism, tends to align themselves with the theological position of Aquinas in Summa Theologicae, who postulates a Christian, just war theory. This theory states that “the principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.” As our denomination attempts to live out these principles, the Committee on War and Peace recommended that the Christian Reformed Church:

“Seek a means by which Christians serving in the U.S. military could lawfully be recognized as conscientious objectors to a particular conflict. Current U.S. laws on conscientious objection recognize only members of historically pacifist churches that object to participation in any conflict.”

As a woman who didn’t have to sign up for the draft on her eighteenth birthday, I must confess, I haven’t given the American military, or at least my obligations to it, much thought. Recently, however, standing under the shadow of our administration’s “War on Terror,” I’ve realized that, the way the system works now:

  1. An individual can claim a pacifist stance, meaning that no military engagement is ever justified according to their conscience. The Amish and Mennonites are perfect examples of this stance and many Mennonites have, as a result, taken on support positions in times of war, positions that allow them to sustain life rather than take it.
    These people are considered conscientious objectors and they can and must, therefore, opt out of all military service.

    or
  2. You can join the military and abdicate every personal, moral or religious conviction against the legitimacy of a particular conflict, submitting to enter into any engagement to which you are sent.

This is, then, a significant ethical dilemma for those who adhere to just war theory out of Christian obedience. We recognize that there may be some wars that fall within the Christian rubric of legitimate engagement. In these conflicts, there is no conscientious objection to serving. Take, for example, Watada's willingness be deployed to Afghanistan. On the other hand, if one holds a just war stance with integrity, it requires him/her to review each new war through the rubric of just war theory. Unfortunately, there is not, yet, a legitimate mechanism for honoring the integrity of just war theorists who conscientiously object to a particular engagement. Instead, these men and women may face a court martial and a potential jail sentence of up to 4 years.

Wrapping up the story on Lt. Watada, Ann Coulter said that anyone who thinks Lt. Watada is a hero is a tool of the wacky, liberal left. On the other hand, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has thrown his support behind Lt. Watada’s courageous stance. Currently, our denomination stands in the wide gap between these two thinkers, trying to decide which way to lean. Ann Coulter or Desmond Tutu? It's a bit of a no-brainer.