War: Four Christian Views [Paperback]

Robert G. Clouse (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 1991

Robert Clouse presents four different viewpoints on war: Herman Hoyt on biblical nonresistance, Myron Augsburger on Christian pacifism, Arthur Holmes on just war, and Harold O.J. Brown on preventive war.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Robert G. Clouse (Ph.D., University of Iowa) is professor of history at Indiana State University. --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

Product Details

• Paperback: 212 pages
• Publisher: Intervarsity Pr (April 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0830813098
• ISBN-13: 978-0830813094
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.4 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,789,347 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A good start for a Christian engaging this issue, December 2, 1999

By 

Robert Burns (Royal Oak, MI USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: War: Four Christian Views (Paperback)

Each of the four authors writes an essay defending his position, and then the other three respond, making for an interesting dialogue.

All four make compelling cases, partly because the New Testament does not directly address the issue of what a Christian or Christian community's response to war should be. The history of the Christian church will show how very differently popes, rulers, and Protestant communities viewed involvement in war.

Augsburger makes a compelling case for pacifism. What is attractive about pacifism is that it so brilliantly proclaims to the world a different way, the Way of Christ Himself who eschewed violence against those who mistreated him. The community then places its faith only in God for its protection. This position thus is naturally connected with the refusal to be politically involved, which it has historically accompanied in the Mennonite and other pacifist communites.

Hoyt says Christians can serve their country, but only in non-combat roles, as the Christian is bound not to perpetrate violence to another human. I must admit I was strongly attracted to this - and I'm sure this probably has reflected the views of many conscientious Christians once drafted. But this breaks down, because it sets up a double standard.

Holmes presents the classical doctrine of "just war". The problem with this is that a "just war" is hard to come by. Acting completely in accordance with it requires that no military forces attack territory or citizens belonging to the aggressor -- only retaking territory the enemy has taken -- thus being purely defensive. Reality tends to make conducting a "just war" impractical and unwise -- the Allies would have stopped at Germany's borders in World War II.

Brown defends the ideas of the "crusade" and the "preventive strike". This may sound offensive and did to me, but Brown is capable. But the problem lies in the Christian's justification of the particular crusade or strike. And, of course, how is this different from how the world conducts its warfare?

There are two fundametal realities that we confront as Christians facing war: One reality is that there are unscrupulous, evil, and aggressive rulers who need to be checked. The other is that war is an incredible evil and can do nothing but wreck the conscience -- which is especially troubling for the obedient Christian who knows that human life is made in the image of God. So how do we trust and obey God in the midst of war? The state "bears the sword"; can a Christian thus be part of such a state? If so, how should the state bear it?

I continue to struggle with the answers, but heartily recommend this to someone needing a beginning point on this.

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Essential thought-provoker for everyone, January 20, 2003

By 

Gontroppo "Music and Theology Lover" (Bathurst, NSW Australia) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: War: Four Christian Views (Paperback)

I think most Christians' views on war are determined largely by their culture and only secondarily by their understanding of the Bible. Many Christian people seem to be unaware of other views, or have dismissed them too quickly. I am disturbed by the enthusiasm for war amongst many Christian people, and would hope that Clouse's book might be a small corrective to this.

This topic is worthy of thinking through, because it relates to our understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and also to the character of the God who is revealed in the Bible.

The four writers each present persuasive cases. If this makes you uncertain about your previously held views, it will have been worth reading the book.

Highly recommended.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A Mismatched but Effective Discussion, February 20, 2008

By 

Stanford Gibson (Davis, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: War: Four Christian Views (Paperback)

This 4 views book is a lively, largely helpful discussion between interlocutors of varying ability championing positions of varying credibility. Since I found a distribution of skill and helpfulness in the essays and discussions, the easiest way to approach this is to review each of the authors separately.

Dr Hoyt is a dispensational seperationalist whose eschatology leads him to a position that Christians should be personally against violence but should not try to discourage their country's war effort and can even join it in a non-combatant role. The weakest position also happened to get the weakest defender. Dr Hoyt is a sincere old time Bible preacher with obvious passion for the things of God and the mission of the church...but he is not a skilled debater or a convincing author and is generally outmatched throughout the discussion. Augsburger briefly summarized the position in order to distinguish his from it and gave it a better treatment in 2 paragraphs.

Dr Augsburger is a much more formidable presence (perhaps the most formidable presence of the four) as the voice of pacifism and makes a stirring case for active non-violent intervention after the style of the cross and Dr King. I could not help wanting him to be right. And regardless of if he is, he does his job in championing the strict Sermon on the Mount ethic which any Christian has to come to terms with.

Dr Holmes, in his defense of the just war position, made the best use of the format. He was gracious but pointed in his comments. He stayed on message, effectively conveying a concise and immanently defendable thesis before we even got to his chapter. His defense of the just was accompanied by an appropriate denunciation of war and all its evils and a competent ethical stance of selecting a lesser evil. There is an issue of uncertainty of outcomes (e.g. will a `lesser evil' actually produce less evil) that was not fully dealt with, but Holmes message was coherent and well presented.

Dr Brown was an able proponent for a difficult position (crusade/preventative war) but was also a bit aggressive and condescending. He skillfully deconstructed his co-authors eschatologies to undermine their positions, which simultaneously provided a helpful service and left me unsettled. It was his flirtation with ad hominim calling Dr Augsburger dangerous and delusional that disappointed me the most. At the heart of his argument seems to be the idea that if defensive action is justified, preemptive action is justified on precisely the same criteria. It was more successful than I thought it had a chance of being. However, while he dealt briefly with the problem of imperfect future knowledge (how does one know that preemptive attack is necessary) he did not overcome the difficulties it poses for the equating of preemptive militarism with the reluctant acceptance of the evils of a just war. In the end Dr Brown did all right with a fundamentally flawed position

It also should be noted that it was written in `81 and the aftermath of Vietnam weighs heavily on the discussion. On the whole though, it is a worthwhile and timely book even 25+ years later.