What do you think?
Rate this book
War: A Primer for Christians
Author Joseph L. Allen examines three major historic ways of thinking about war--each of which has its contemporary advocates, in terms of Scripture, Christian tradition, and human experience. After highlighting the strength and weaknesses of each approach, he offers a concluding chapter that suggests actions Christians might take as they face the troubling and persistent problem of war.
64 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1991
About the author
Joseph L. Allen
11 books1 followerJoseph L. Allen earned his Ph.D. from Brigham Young University in Ancient and Modern Scripture with an emphasis in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon. A popular teacher and lecturer, Dr. Allen served in the Church Educational System for 18 years. Joe and Rhoda have lived in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, Chihuahua, Mexico City, Guatemala City, and Spain while serving on Church assignments or pursuing business endeavors.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
February 9, 2018
Thoughts on Joseph L. Allen’s War: A Primer for Christians
In War: A Primer for Christians, Joseph L. Allen offers a thoughtful and informative analysis on three of the major schools of thought with regard to war in the Christian context. The first school, the Crusade approach, takes its name from the notorious excursions into the Holy Land first put into effect by Pope Urban II. Characteristic of the Crusade approach to conflict resolution is a war ethic that is by all means black-and-white. There are sheep and wolves, but no “inwardly… ravenous wolves” who come in “sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15).
The Crusade approach can be applied as a non-violent means of conflict resolution, but only if the situation demands its application and the Crusader focuses on possible solutions rather than exacerbations of the problem. Alas, many who adopt the Crusade approach become entangled within the weaves of their own moral paradigms and forget that other people’s convictions are often just as strong, if not stronger.
All have sinned, though, according to Paul’s letter to the Romans (3:10). Nobody is perfect, so what right does the Crusader have to judge another person (Matt. 7:1) or refuse to forgive their trespasses (Matt. 6:14)? “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matt. 7:2).
The second school, pacifism, has been made famous by churches like the Friends of God (often called the Quakers) and well-known civil rights activists, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, and Mahatma Gandhi. Many have cited the saying that one should turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:29) as scriptural evidence of the veracity of the pacifist outlook.
One either is or is not a pacifist. There is not a state of affairs where one can call oneself a pacifist by degrees. Moreover, there are two main arguments for pacifism: these are the pragmatic and witnessing arguments. The pragmatic argument states that pacifism always produces better results and that it is only because of humanity’s failure to adopt this general mindset that these results have not become more widespread. Some proponents of this argument include Richard Gregg, who has spoken of non-violence as “‘moral jiu-jutsu’” (Allen, 1991, Kindle Location 276) and those abovementioned civil rights activists.
On the other hand, the witnessing argument states that, regardless of the utility of non-violence, war is always antithetical the Christian way of life. Some proponents of witnessing pacifism include John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas. Some strengths of the pragmatic argument include its constant recognition that there are political alternatives to war as a means to an end, based on evidence of material and psychological costs. Nonetheless, the pragmatic argument is not without criticisms. Such may include ignorance or refusal to recognize the depth of human depravity, mistaken identification of nonresistance, as defined in the New Testament, with nonviolence, and by the same token a sense of complacency that arises as a natural outgrowth of these views in the face of tyranny.
Some strengths of the witnessing argument include its axiological and epistemological independence from questions of the utility of nonviolence, an acknowledgment of its own theological basis, and its conviction of the Christian lifestyle. Some issues with the witnessing argument include questions as to whether certain actions constitute Christian love and whether love should always deny the use of force.
For instance, just-war theorists argue that sometimes force is necessary. If, for example, one ally wrongly attacks or oppresses another, it would often prove necessary, according to the just-war theorists, for a stronger interlocutor to interpose and protect the oppressed rather than leave them undefended from the oppressor.
The final school of thought is just-war theory, which arose after the Romans ended their long persecution of the church in 312 C.E. First formulated by Saints Ambrose and Augustine, just-war theories are the most pragmatic of the three theories covered in this book. Although a major Christian ideal is to be a peacemaker (Matt. 5:9), Augustine believed that it is permissible to “wage war in a peaceable spirit to bring back the benefits of peace” (Allen, 1991, Kindle Location 449).
This book provides a no-nonsense introduction to the Christian ethics of conflict resolution. Allen did more than leave me with a desire to learn more. He has instilled in me a craving for answers to some of life’s most curious questions. The fact that life feeds off of other life may be interpreted by some as a prerequisite to validation of warfare, if not the vindication that certain wars are just.
I also felt as though the questions that the book posed were provided sufficient attention, but in terms of my appetite for truth, Allen left me hanging. On the positive side, Allen’s insights are challenges that none can afford to avoid. These challenges entail that an individual – soldier or civilian – put his or her views under the microscope, for the symbolic interactionist holds this truth to his scholarly advantage: our thoughts inspire our actions, which further contribute to our shared reality.
Alas, there are no hard and fast answers to any subject of debate, especially philosophy or theology. Indeed, I am tempted to concede to my long-time suspicion that all is not how it appears to be. The Hindus call this natural affront to certainty māyā, often envisioned as a goddess. The Catholic equivalent, “leap of faith,” also fits the bill. All knowledge is built on shaky foundations, but that does not negate its relevance to the Ultimate Truth. Each of us participates in our own symbolic reconstruction of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11). Insofar as it we construct our knowledge is tempered with modesty toward the heavens, our towers shall not fall and the tongues of mankind shall become less confused.
Work Cited
Allen, Joseph L. War: A Primer for Christians. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1991. Kindle File
The Holy Bible [NKJV]
In War: A Primer for Christians, Joseph L. Allen offers a thoughtful and informative analysis on three of the major schools of thought with regard to war in the Christian context. The first school, the Crusade approach, takes its name from the notorious excursions into the Holy Land first put into effect by Pope Urban II. Characteristic of the Crusade approach to conflict resolution is a war ethic that is by all means black-and-white. There are sheep and wolves, but no “inwardly… ravenous wolves” who come in “sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15).
The Crusade approach can be applied as a non-violent means of conflict resolution, but only if the situation demands its application and the Crusader focuses on possible solutions rather than exacerbations of the problem. Alas, many who adopt the Crusade approach become entangled within the weaves of their own moral paradigms and forget that other people’s convictions are often just as strong, if not stronger.
All have sinned, though, according to Paul’s letter to the Romans (3:10). Nobody is perfect, so what right does the Crusader have to judge another person (Matt. 7:1) or refuse to forgive their trespasses (Matt. 6:14)? “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matt. 7:2).
The second school, pacifism, has been made famous by churches like the Friends of God (often called the Quakers) and well-known civil rights activists, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, and Mahatma Gandhi. Many have cited the saying that one should turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:29) as scriptural evidence of the veracity of the pacifist outlook.
One either is or is not a pacifist. There is not a state of affairs where one can call oneself a pacifist by degrees. Moreover, there are two main arguments for pacifism: these are the pragmatic and witnessing arguments. The pragmatic argument states that pacifism always produces better results and that it is only because of humanity’s failure to adopt this general mindset that these results have not become more widespread. Some proponents of this argument include Richard Gregg, who has spoken of non-violence as “‘moral jiu-jutsu’” (Allen, 1991, Kindle Location 276) and those abovementioned civil rights activists.
On the other hand, the witnessing argument states that, regardless of the utility of non-violence, war is always antithetical the Christian way of life. Some proponents of witnessing pacifism include John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas. Some strengths of the pragmatic argument include its constant recognition that there are political alternatives to war as a means to an end, based on evidence of material and psychological costs. Nonetheless, the pragmatic argument is not without criticisms. Such may include ignorance or refusal to recognize the depth of human depravity, mistaken identification of nonresistance, as defined in the New Testament, with nonviolence, and by the same token a sense of complacency that arises as a natural outgrowth of these views in the face of tyranny.
Some strengths of the witnessing argument include its axiological and epistemological independence from questions of the utility of nonviolence, an acknowledgment of its own theological basis, and its conviction of the Christian lifestyle. Some issues with the witnessing argument include questions as to whether certain actions constitute Christian love and whether love should always deny the use of force.
For instance, just-war theorists argue that sometimes force is necessary. If, for example, one ally wrongly attacks or oppresses another, it would often prove necessary, according to the just-war theorists, for a stronger interlocutor to interpose and protect the oppressed rather than leave them undefended from the oppressor.
The final school of thought is just-war theory, which arose after the Romans ended their long persecution of the church in 312 C.E. First formulated by Saints Ambrose and Augustine, just-war theories are the most pragmatic of the three theories covered in this book. Although a major Christian ideal is to be a peacemaker (Matt. 5:9), Augustine believed that it is permissible to “wage war in a peaceable spirit to bring back the benefits of peace” (Allen, 1991, Kindle Location 449).
This book provides a no-nonsense introduction to the Christian ethics of conflict resolution. Allen did more than leave me with a desire to learn more. He has instilled in me a craving for answers to some of life’s most curious questions. The fact that life feeds off of other life may be interpreted by some as a prerequisite to validation of warfare, if not the vindication that certain wars are just.
I also felt as though the questions that the book posed were provided sufficient attention, but in terms of my appetite for truth, Allen left me hanging. On the positive side, Allen’s insights are challenges that none can afford to avoid. These challenges entail that an individual – soldier or civilian – put his or her views under the microscope, for the symbolic interactionist holds this truth to his scholarly advantage: our thoughts inspire our actions, which further contribute to our shared reality.
Alas, there are no hard and fast answers to any subject of debate, especially philosophy or theology. Indeed, I am tempted to concede to my long-time suspicion that all is not how it appears to be. The Hindus call this natural affront to certainty māyā, often envisioned as a goddess. The Catholic equivalent, “leap of faith,” also fits the bill. All knowledge is built on shaky foundations, but that does not negate its relevance to the Ultimate Truth. Each of us participates in our own symbolic reconstruction of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11). Insofar as it we construct our knowledge is tempered with modesty toward the heavens, our towers shall not fall and the tongues of mankind shall become less confused.
Work Cited
Allen, Joseph L. War: A Primer for Christians. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1991. Kindle File
The Holy Bible [NKJV]
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review