Catholic Eucharist and Baptist Communion

The Lord’s Supper As a Means of Unification

With few exceptions, mostly all Protestant and Catholic denominations celebrate the Lord’s Supper in some form.  Yet despite this universal recognition there still exists extreme variance in terms of practice and theology across the spectrum of Christian faiths.  Some churches practice intinction, while others prefer to distribute and consume the elements separately.  In some faiths the Lord’s Supper is celebrated daily, while in others it is a weekly, monthly, or even quarterly practice.  Then perhaps the most significant area of dissonance concerns the variety of theologies concerning the presence of Christ at the table.  This variation creates an interesting point of dissonance between faiths, and yet the reality that mostly all denominations recognize the Lord’s Supper is a point of immense unity in a greatly divided Church. 

            With the unity of the Church as a high priority for serious followers of Christ, the common practice of the Lord’s Supper can be seen as a tool for unification amongst denominations of Christian faith.  Yet if unification is to occur, the variety of practices and theologies concerning the Lord’s Supper must be recognized and evaluated.  This variance may be healthy for denominations, as a diverse Church is likely to have diverse practices, but if unification is to occur then denominations must come to terms with these varieties.  The very nature of the communion table demands unification, and to use practices and theologies of the Lord’s Supper as tools for division is diametrically at odds with the spirit of the Lord’s Supper.

            Considering the importance of Christian unity, the purpose of this essay will be aimed at evaluating two of the most distinct approaches to the Lord’s Supper:  the Roman Catholic Eucharist and Baptist communion.  From practice, to frequency, to theology, these two faith groups exercise completely different approaches to the Lord’s Supper.  There seem to be both positive and negative impacts from each approach, and it is the intent of this essay to highlight some of these in an effort to critically evaluate the contributions of each and how these contributions might be appropriated within any Christian denomination.   

The Roman Catholic Eucharist

            In the Roman Catholic faith the Eucharist sacrifice is the high point of the mass.  Following the proclamation of the word and the presentation of the offerings, a prayer of thanksgiving and consecration is offered by the presiding priest before the congregation makes their way to the altar.  The elements are distributed separately, and consumption of the bread and wine is followed by a time of silent prayer and reflection.[1] With the exception of Holy Saturday, the Roman Catholic Eucharist is offered on a daily basis, making the sacrament accessible to every member of the Roman Catholic faith on every day of the year. 

            With such a high priority placed upon the Eucharist, as is made evident by both the priority of the Eucharist within the mass and the frequency with which it is celebrated, it should come as no surprise that Roman Catholics hold the Eucharist closely.  In a sense, the Eucharist is the repeated ritual of the Roman Catholic Church and as such is closed to those outside of the brotherhood.  If a Protestant were to participate in a Roman Catholic service, he or she would be denied access to the table.  In some cases a blessing is offered in lieu of the elements, but this is not always the case.  The Eucharist is therefore a means of unification within the Roman Catholic faith by means of exclusion.[2]      

            While the mechanics and frequency of the Eucharist sacrifice are important lines of comparison between Protestants and Catholics, it is the theology of the table that provides the most striking distinctions.  Certainly both practice and frequency are products of theology, but focusing specifically on the theology of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, a distinct and unique approach is recognized that sets the Roman Catholic Church apart from Protestant denominations.  To begin, the Roman Catholic faith recognizes the Eucharist as a human offering of bread and wine.  Benedictine monk Ghislain Lafont properly recognizes that, “We cannot come before God empty-handed, for we were created in order to give all to the point of death and resurrection.”[3] Yet, at the same time, this human offering is presented to and received by God Himself.  As a representation of Christ Himself, the priest intercedes on behalf of the congregation, offers the gifts of bread and wine, and presides over the sacrifice.  The priest’s action is in persona Christi, or representative of Christ, as “only Christ can act in the appropriate way in the presence of the Father”[4].  Viewed as both an offering and a sacrifice, the Eucharist is raised above all other sacraments as the “perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.”[5]

            Additionally, Roman Catholics hold to the belief of “transubstantiation”, or the idea that the elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine) are in the most real sense transformed into the body and blood of Christ.  This belief is confirmed by the Church Fathers, and is attributed to the action of the Holy Spirit[6].  So it is that through the mystery of the Eucharist the recipient not consumes the elements of bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ.  Considering this theology, it is only natural that such a high priority would be placed upon the Eucharist, and the priority and frequency previously noted are the natural product of such a high value placed upon the sacrament.

Baptist Communion

            Baptist communion is similar to the Roman Catholic Eucharist in limited fashion.  While the elements are the same (although some prefer grape juice as the appropriate “fruit of the vine”), the priority, frequency, and theology surrounding the table are far from similar.  It should also be acknowledged that there are a variety of practices even within the Baptist faith, and the following evaluation must be understood as a generality.

            In the Baptist faith, it is the proclamation of the word that takes priority over all else in communal worship.  This is in part due to the historical separation of Scripture and Tradition in Baptist circles, with the former being exalted and the latter minimized if not rejected completely.  The celebration of communion is considered an “ordinance”, and is to be recognized as a commandment from Christ to be recognized.  This terminology is preferred over the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist as a sacrament, and is thereby devoid of the high priority held in the Roman Catholic faith.

            Perhaps the most significant term surrounding Baptist communion is that of “remembrance”.  When brought together for communion, Baptists are recognizing and remembering Jesus’ last supper.  Certainly this remembrance is significant, but by taking away the sacramental nature of the meal, Baptists lower the priority of the celebration, and consequently the frequency.  In some Baptist churches communion is celebrated weekly, but it is also not uncommon for communion to be celebrated monthly, or even quarterly, often times in an evening service[7].  At these services, words of remembrance are uttered prior to an invitation.  Unlike the Roman Catholic faith, Baptists generally practice an open table, in which all baptized Christians are welcome to participate.  The elements are distributed separately, but often times the congregation consumes them in unity.  For example, the bread will be distributed to the entire congregation, and upon the instruction of the pastor all will eat at the same time.  Likewise, the wine is distributed and consumed in unison.  Both pastors and deacons preside over the table, but the congregation takes the elements rather than having them presented by the minister.  This ability to participate in the distribution is a product of the Baptist belief in the priesthood of all believers, and the individual is believed to be completely capable of participating in the process.[8]   

Evaluating the Roman Catholic Eucharist

            There are many components of the Roman Catholic Eucharist that are of immense value to all of Christianity and reflect the beauty of the Lord’s Supper.  The priority placed on the meal, a product of Roman Catholic theology, creates a humble and reverent atmosphere that is most certainly appropriate.  Even if the Lord’s Supper is a simple remembrance, it is a remembrance of Christ’s death and crucifixion that should not be taken lightly.  While there may be theological disagreements on the presence of Christ at the table, remembering Christ should always create an atmosphere of holy and humble reverence and recognition.  Additionally, by recognizing both the offertory and sacrificial nature of the supper, Roman Catholics present a fuller understanding of Christ’s final meal, and recognize the full scope of the crucifixion and the Christian response to Christ and the Father.

            While the closed table of Roman Catholicism does generate unity within Roman Catholic churches, the tragedy is that in doing so those outside are prevented from celebrating the Eucharist.  As a Christian institution, and one that initially created unity within a group as diverse as Protestants and Catholics, exclusion within Christianity seems to be at odds with the intent of the celebration.  If unity is to occur within Christianity, and “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”[9] is to exist, surely Christians of all denominations must be welcomed at the communion table.

            Finally, concerning the frequency of the Eucharistic celebration there are both advantages and disadvantages to the Roman Catholic approach.  With such a high, sacramental focus, it makes sense that the Eucharist would be offered daily.  Furthermore, in doing so the Roman Catholic faith has created an occasion for daily worship, a great advantage to those who follow Christ within the Christian community.  At the same time, by offering the Eucharist daily, the celebration of this most sacred sacrament runs the risk of becoming mundane.  However, considering that it is the Roman Catholic Church that holds the Eucharist in highest regard, this fear may be unwarranted.

Evaluation of Baptist Communion

            Certainly the most significant advantage to Baptist communion if the open table.  As previously discussed, the very nature of the Lord’s Supper calls for complete inclusion amongst Christians, and to deny access to the table is both contrary to the initial intent and detrimental to the unity of the Christian Church.  Viewing baptism as the initiation into the Christian faith, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is therefore the continued ritual practice of the community.  To deny access to communion denies the legitimacy of one’s baptism, and with a denomination that holds baptism in such high regard, it is appropriate that communion is accessible to all believers.  Additionally, while the celebration of the table suffers because of it, the prioritization of the word is certainly appropriate.  Of course the ideal would be that both word and table are held in the highest regard.

            The distribution of the elements is also significant.  In consuming both the bread and the wine as a community, the Baptist faith interestingly denies the individualism that is often prevalent within the denomination.  Celebrating communion therefore becomes more of a communal event, which is certainly appropriate.

            At the same time, Baptist communion does have its flaws.  In an effort to distance themselves from tradition many Baptists have consequently devalued the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.  Considering communion an ordinance does not necessarily devalue the meal, but relegating the celebration to a simple response to Christ’s command shifts the focus from the offertory and sacrificial nature of the supper.  Essentially an ordinance runs the risk of “going through the motions” and missing the importance behind the remembrance.  Responding to the Baptist theology of the Lord’s Supper as an ordinance, H. A. Renfree writes, “The Lord’s Supper has been described as a ‘memorial feast’.  It is that, but it may and should be more; to the honest seeker it may be a means of grace, a time when the Master draws very near.”[10]

Conclusion

            As has been presented, there are many advantages to both the Roman Catholic and Baptist approach to the Lord’s Supper.  Neither way is perfect, but both present great contributions and developed theologies that deserve attention.  The priority of the Lord’s Supper as well as the frequency with which it is celebrated says a lot about the theologies of these two perspective groups.  If unity is to occur, the theology behind the practice of both groups must be acknowledged, evaluated, and accepted.  There seems no need for a completely uniform practice, as there is certainly no uniform church, but the nature of the Lord’s Supper requires the acknowledgment of all Christians who celebrate the final supper of their Founder.

            The very term “communion” suggests the unity of those who participate.  By remembering Christ and celebrating the offering and sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper, Christians acknowledge the saving work of Christ for all humanity.  To deny access to the table is to deny the legitimacy of one’s faith, and if the Church is to ever be one, this cannot be the case.  Diversity of practice should be celebrated, considering that it is theologically sound, and the plethora of practices concerning the Lord’s Supper should be seen as an advantage to Christianity.  Furthermore, the simple fact that essentially all Christians participate in the Lord’s Supper in some form or fashion already creates a point of resonance amongst denominations, and provides an opportunity upon which to unite Christianity.  Perhaps the greatest celebration of the Lord’s Supper would be one in which Christians from all denominations gathered to celebrate and remember the Christ who instituted the meal, the Christ who prayed that His followers “be one, even as we (Father and Son) are one”.  Only when this unity is realized can an authentic celebration of the Lord’s Supper fully capture the communal nature intended at its institution. 

---

[1] Matthew Levy, Interview, 21 March 2013.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ghislain Lafont, Eucharist:  The Meal and the Word (Mahwah, NJ:  Paulist Press, 2008), p. 153.

[4] Robert Sokolowski, Eucharistic Presence:  A Study in the Theology of Disclosure (Washington, D.C.:  The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), p. 18.

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000), 1374.

[6] Ibid. 1375.

[7] Bill Coates, Interview, 22 March 2013.

[8] Barry D. Morrison, In Spirit and in Truth:  The Theology and Spirituality of the Lord’s Supper Within the Context of Worship in the Baptist Tradition (Ph.D. dissertation, Regis College, 1988), pp. 102-103.

[9] The Nicene Creed, Milestone Documents, Web. 22 March 2013 http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/nicene-creed/text.

[10] H.A. Renfree, “What Baptists Believe” (Baptist Union of Western Canada, n.d.).

Augustine and Platonism

Upon the path to conversion, the illustrious Augustine of Hippo encounters Platonic philosophy, which will prove to be of utmost importance in the shaping of this great theologian.  In his own words, Augustine credits this encounter as a divine appointment when he pens, “Therefore You brought in my way by means of a certain man… some books of the Platonists translated into Latin”^[1].  Having moved past Manichaeism, yet still finding himself reluctant to accept the Christian faith, Augustine finds a great deal of value in Platonic thought and, though he will ultimately critique Platonism on a number of points, accepts a number Platonic ideas which resonate strongly with Christianity.  It is this Platonism, though not necessarily the particulars of it, which is significantly important to the conversion of Augustine and ultimately shapes not only Augustine’s rhetoric, but his theology as well.

Writing in retrospect, Augustine provides what he sees as significant resonance between Christianity and Platonism, as well as limitations upon Platonism from a Christian perspective.  Though he does not claim to be a Platonist, Augustine does recognize Platonism as a step in his conversion.  Most significantly, Platonism points to the Supreme Being, or God as Augustine sees it.  Using 1 John chapter 1, Augustine claims that Platonism attests to the idea of the Word, or, the ultimate source of light.  From this source come all good things.  While humanity is not itself light, it does give testimony of the light.  This light created the world before all times and nothing exists that is not from the light.  On each of these points, Augustine finds Christian teaching in Platonic philosophy.  However, Platonism falls short in regards to the person of Christ. 

In his reading, Augustine finds no mention of the Word becoming flesh.  Although God’s creative endeavors are attested to by Platonic thought, there is no mention of His willing inhabitation with creation.  Platonism makes no mention of the sacrifice of the Son, much less the salvific implications of such a sacrifice.  Augustine reads that “[the son] was before all times and beyond all times and abides unchangeably, co-eternal with [God]”^[2], but finds no acknowledgement of this co-eternal son ever sparing his life for the creation.  Essentially, while Platonism is successful in recognizing the reality of a sole, unchanging, “just Ruler of the universe”^[3], the philosophy falls short on the existence of this Ruler in human form.

            One needs look no further than the rhetoric of Augustine to witness the familiarity and influence Augustine owes to Platonism.  However more importantly, as briefly attested to already, Platonism served a definitive role in the conversion of Augustine.  It is important to remember that Augustine is reflecting upon his journey towards Christianity, ultimately climaxing in his dramatic conversion.  Along this journey, Augustine’s interaction with Platonism played a pivotal role in establishing the idea of a divine creator who was unchanging, unalterable, and eternal.  Platonism was an alternative to Augustine’s rejection of the dualism he had encountered with Manichaeism, as well as a respected philosophy, of which Augustine held in high esteem.  Primarily however, Platonism was an encounter that Augustine attributed to the direction of God in his conversion and would ultimately serve as a segue from Greek philosophy to Christianity.  Repeatedly Augustine refers to his search to “discover other truths”^[4], and recounts realizations of thought, such as the move from the corruptible to the incorruptible in regards to the Divine Being.  In Platonism, Augustine encountered a philosophy that acknowledged the Divine Being that he was willing to accept and a truth that he would acknowledge, even after his conversion.  It was through this philosophy that Augustine was “called into [God’s] inheritance”^[5].  Although Platonism ultimately failed to acknowledge the truth of the incarnation, in acknowledging the truth of the Divine Being (in terms already established) Platonism opened Augustine to the reality of a god like that of John chapter 1 and the Christian faith.

            Similar to Clement of Alexandria and other notable Christian philosophers, Augustine was able to recognize the truth within Platonism while rejecting its limitations.  This recognition was not coincidental, for Augustine had been a part of both Platonism and Christianity.  Serving as a bridge towards Christianity, Platonism provided Augustine with essential ideas and philosophies about God, one that would usher him to his ultimate conversion.  These truths, while not complete, were steps in the conversion process and, as Augustine records, steps put in place by God Himself.  Therefore, it is not surprising that Augustine is both indebted and critical of Platonism.  The Platonic philosophy shaped Augustine and, as a tool used by God in the process of conversion, to Augustine held significant value and truth, even if this truth was incomplete.       

---

^[1] Augustine, 126.

^[2] Augustine, 127.

^[3] Augustine, 124.

^[4] Augustine, 120.

^[5] Augustine, 128.

The Just War Theory and Drone Strikes

Should Christians in American Support President Obama’s Drone Policy in Pakistan?

Background and Introduction

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration launched a series of targeted attacks against suspected Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, Yemen and, in June 2004, Pakistan.  By employing “predator drones”, the administration capitalized on technology that had been existent since World War I, but prior to 2001, was primarily used for surveillance.  Virtually every target has been a suspected terrorist or terrorist associate, however the death toll has affected countless civilians throughout the region.  Nek Muhammad, a Taliban commander, was the first to be targeted in Pakistan, a region that has experienced the brunt of United States drone attacks over the past twelve years.[1]

            A drone is an unmanned aircraft operated by remote control.  While these drones have been utilized in a number of locations, for several different purposes, the focus of this paper will be to look at the use of predator drones in the aforementioned country of Pakistan.  Drones vary in size and capability, but predator drones are primarily used to attack,  “the enemy”, by exploding on site and relaying a recorded video image via satellite, documenting the event and its success or failure.  These drones weigh upwards of 1,300 pounds, and can remain at a height of twenty-six thousand feet for nearly twenty-four hours at a time.  Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have utilized this technology as a means of fighting terror with systematic precision, and their usage in the Middle East has increased from 147 strikes as of 2002, to over 7,000 strikes recorded as of 2012.      

Statistics

            While the intent of these drones is to target terrorists in the region, their usage has not come without casualties.  According to an analysis of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, 337 CIA strikes have been launched within the country.  Although these strikes have killed anywhere from 1,487 to 2,595 militants, civilians and even children have been caught in the middle of these devastating attacks.  The analysis reports that somewhere between 188 and 315 “unknown” persons have been killed, and somewhere between 257 and 310 civilians have also lost their lives.  Statistically, upwards of 19% of drone strike killings are brought upon innocent civilians, although this percentage has declined significantly since 2004.[2]  Under the Bush administration, nearly 50 drone strikes occurred in Pakistan.  Since the inauguration of President Obama, these strikes have increased by more than 5 times that number, with 292 strikes occurring in the first three and a half years of President Obama’s first term.  Perhaps the most troubling statistic of all is the estimated 147 children that have been killed by these strikes since 2004.[3] Of course these statistics only reflect the death toll, neglecting injury, property, and emotional damage inflicted upon the people of Pakistan.

Just War Theory

According to the Just War Theory, seven criteria must be met in order for war to be justifiable.  These include:  Just Cause, Comparative Justice, Competent Authority, Right Intention, Probability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality.[4]  These criteria weigh the motivation, cost, and perceived result of violent activity against the enemy.  From a Christian perspective, the question must be asked:  Does the United State’s drone policy constitute a just war?

            In an article written for, Christianity Today, Paul F.M. Zahl writes, “…it is wrong to conduct war when one side in the fight does not see the mortal results.”[5]  Dr. Zahl articulates that drone strikes are unjust because they are a one-sided affair.  Considering Dr. Zahl’s position, it is difficult to even implement the Just War Theory, as a war requires two participants.  Nonetheless, this begs questions concerning Just Cause and Last Resort.  It is difficult to conclude that drone strikes are a last resort, when the enemy is not only in a distant country, but in a whole other hemisphere!

            Looking specifically at Comparative Justice, drone strikes become even more problematic.  According to this criterion, a war is only justifiable if the injustice on the side of the aggressor significantly outweighs the injustice committed against the recipient of the attack.  Considering the civilian casualties and human damage, as well as property damage, of Pakistani people, it is difficult to conclude that the injustice experienced by the United States significantly outweighs the injustice she is creating.  An article from the May 2010 edition of, The Christian Century, argues, “According to just war principles, it is better to risk the lives of one’s own combatants than the lives of enemy non-combatants.”[6] However, perhaps some might suggest that the entire War on Terror should be the basis out of which Comparative Justice should be evaluated.  Broadening the scope would certainly illustrate the tremendous cost American troops are willing to pay, but also opens to further discussion as to the loss of civilian and non-combatant lives.  In a June, 2007 essay, Dr. John Williams of Durham University writes, “Insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan may have done something to restore the vulnerability of Western troops, but even here the number of civilians being killed dwarfs the number of troops.”[7] Though the focus of this paper will continue to be on Pakistan, the argument that the war is broader than the drone strike policy is valid, yet lacking in that it fails to justify the loss of innocent lives, and remains questionable under the criterion of Comparative Justice.

Considering the criteria for just war, I confidently conclude that, though the drone strikes in Pakistan may be beneficial to our country, they are not justifiable under the Just War Theory, and thus should be opposed by Christians living within the United States.  The drone strikes against Pakistan violate at least three of the criteria under the Just War Theory, and therefore must be opposed by those who adhered to the theory.  While is impossible to estimate the potential victims of prevented terrorist strikes against the United States, and this should not be ignored, it is difficult to defend policies that remove all risk from the aggressor while levying heavy burdens upon the recipient, and most importantly the innocent.  While all Americans do not adhere to the Just War Theory, the theory is inline with Christian teaching and thus should be held in high regard within Christian communities.  If violated, Christians must seriously consider the moral implications of remaining silent.

Moral Norms

            In a 1983 letter, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops lays out a 339-article reflection on war and peace in the midst of the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union.  While the circumstances were different in 1983 than they are today, many of the principles of this letter apply directly to the current situation in Pakistan, such as the attempt to remove risk to the aggressor through the use of nuclear warfare.  Considering this overlap, it is important to note the priority of love in the bishops’ remarks.  Article 49 reads,

Most characteristic of Jesus' actions are those in which he showed his love. As he had commanded others, his love led him even to the giving of his own life to effect redemption. Jesus' message and his actions were dangerous ones in his time, and they led to his death - a cruel and viciously inflicted death, a criminal's death (Gal. 3:13).[8]

At the foundation of the Christian faith is a Savior exhibiting what Dr. Ellen Marshall terms, “unconditional love”.  In her book, Faith That Transforms Politics, Dr. Marshall writes, “I believe that Christians should engage politics with a love that risks not being reciprocated, an unconditional love for all, a love that makes no distinction between friend and enemy.”[9] Though problematic to self-preservation at times, the priority of love is consistent with Christian authorities ranging from Scripture, to Tradition, to Catholic and Protestant leaders, to the example of the Founder Himself.  For Christians discerning the moral implications of President Obama’s drone policy, the moral norm of love must be at the foundation of ethical discernment, and the innocent Pakistani people must be considered through the lens of Christian love. 

            A second moral norm that deserves the attention of Christians engaged in ethical decision-making is that of responsibility.  In conclusion to an essay entitled, The meaning of Responsibility, H. Richard Niebuhr poses the question, “To whom or what am I responsible and in what community of interaction am I myself?”[10] In answering this question, the Christian must consider to entities to which he or she is responsible:  God and the community.  Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan serves as a Biblical example of the appropriate response to both of these entities.  The parable reads, “Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.”[11] Additional instruction found in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis suggests that humanity is responsible for the care of the earth and all that is therein.[12]

            According to Niebuhr, human responsibility in response to God and the community is inseparable.  It is,” …to seek guidance for our activity as we decide, choose, commit ourselves, and otherwise bear the burden of our necessary human freedom.”[13] We find ourselves responsible to God through God’s commandments in Scripture, as well as responsible to the human community to which God has made us a part.  Like love, it is impossible to practice responsibility without a response to both God and the community.  This therefore begs the question, “Do we hold ourselves responsible for our brothers and sister in Pakistan and, how do we then exercise that responsibility?”

            Turning back to the Just War Theory, one can easily recognize the inseparability of love and responsibility within the criteria for just war.  To practice justice is therefore to incorporate love and responsibility in an effort to exercise all three in the global community to which we belong.  It is neither loving nor responsible to sacrifice the lives of innocent Pakistani citizens while violating such tenants as Just Cause, Last Resort, and Comparative Justice.  Justice cannot exist without love and responsibility, and these moral norms must be taken into account when discerning the ethical response of Christians in America.  That is to say that love and responsibility are necessary components, without which justice can never be achieved. 

Moral Evaluation

            After all of the statistics, theories, and norms have been evaluated, an answer to our moral question can be achieved and must then been implemented.  With high rates of civilian casualties, minimal risk, and the absence of moral norms such as love and responsibility, President Obama’s drone policy in no way falls under the criteria for a just war.  It thereby must be opposed by Christians in America, in an effort to minimize and eliminate the significant damage being done in Pakistan.  To affirm an unjust action of war is to reject the moral obligations that the Christian has voluntarily taken upon him or herself and is to authorize the exercise of injustice on behalf of our own country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has attempted to illustrate that President Obama’s drone policy does not meet the criteria for just war, ultimately causes catastrophic damage to innocent people, and thus must be opposed by Christians in America.  From an ethical standpoint, Christians in America have the obligation to oppose President Obama’s drone policy in Pakistan, and this obligation must be the responsibility of all Christians, and ecclesial leaders in particular.  At the same time, it is important to understand that the Just War Theory does not hold as much weight in some circles as it does in others.  Christians cannot expect non-Christians to hold to every particular of a Christian theory of war, though many of the tenants do reflect universal norms of ethics and morality.  At the same time, the criteria for just war under the Just War Theory seems congruent with Scripture and Church teachings, and thus should be valued and appropriated within Christian communities.  While Christians cannot expect all Americans to agree with this stance on President Obama’s drone policy in Pakistan, they must nonetheless voice their opposition to it, in the hopes that their voice may be heard and war may cease.

 Afterward

While I stand by the conclusions derived from my evaluation of U.S. drones strikes under the Just War Theory, there are two misconceptions that could be discerned from this paper.  I wish to avoid both.  The first is that this paper in someway undermines the work of the United States Armed Forces, and suggests that putting their lives at risk is a preferable alternative to drone strikes.  While I may not be in agreement with the CIA’s approach or the Administration’s policy on drone strikes, I do recognize that it is a preferable alternative to employing ground troops in these endeavors.  My suggestion is that, as a last resort, drone strikes could be justified, but at this juncture there is no imperative to issue such attacks.

            We live in a country that affords its citizens with freedoms and liberties absent in many parts of the world, and for this we should all be grateful.  Of course, as we all know, these freedoms and liberties would be impossible without the sacrifice of our soldiers and military personnel, and for that they deserve our utmost thanks and support.  While this paper serves as a critique of particular policies, it is in no way intended to critique the efforts of our brave men and women of the Armed Forces. 

            A second pitfall I would like to avoid is that of political party affiliation.  While the current administration receives the majority of my critique, as we live in a country governed by it, this is not a policy unique to President Obama or the Democrat party.  As mentioned, these strikes were first implemented under Republican president George Bush, and my critique of that administration’s approach would be the same.  This paper is not written from the perspective of a particular political party, but from that of a seminarian bound to the tenants of the Just War Theory.  Cheers!

Bibliography

Hoye, Monsignor Daniel F. The Challenge of Peace:  God’s Promise and Our Response.  United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington D.C. 3 May 1983. Reading.

"Just War Theory”.  [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-

10.  Retrieved 2010-03-16.

Marshall, Ellen Ott.  Christians in the Public Square.  Nashville, TN:  Abbington Press,

2008.

Niebuhr, Richard H.  The Meaning of Responsibility. 

“Remote-Control Warfare”.  The Christian Century.  May 18, 2010.

Stanford Law and NYU Law.  “Living Under Drones:  Death, Injury, and Trauma to

Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan.”  September 2012.  <http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf.  September 2012>.

"The Year of the Drone." http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones.  2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2012.

Williams, John. The Borders of a Just War. 2007.  SGIA Research Working Papers

Series

Zahl, Paul F. M.  “It’s an Unfair Fight”.  Christianity Today, August, 2011.   

---

[1] Stanford Law and NYU Law,  “Living Under Drones:  Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan,” September 2012  http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf.  September 2012.

[2] "The Year of the Drone," http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones,  2012.

Web.  8 Oct. 2012.

[3] “Living Under Drones”

[4] "Just War Theory”,  [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]", Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-10.

[5]Paul F. M. Zahl, “It’s an Unfair Fight”, Christianity Today, August, 2011, 64.   

[6] “Remote-Control Warfare”, The Christian Century, 7.  May 18, 2010, 7.

[7]  John Williams, The Borders of a Just War. 2007, SGIA Research Working Papers Series

[8] Monsignor Daniel F. Hoye, The Challenge of Peace:  God’s Promise and Our

Response, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington D.C. 3 May 1983.

[9] Ellen Ott Marshall, Christians in the Public Square (Nashville, TN:  Abbington Press, 2008) 3.

[10] Richard H. Niebuhr, The Meaning of Responsibility, 204.

[11] Lk.10:37, ESV.

[12] Gen. 1-2, ESV.

[13] Niebuhr, 195.