National Evil/State Criminality

INRODUCTION
Christian resistance to a national evil or state criminal activity has been tossed back and forth for years as to whether one should or not. The questions that surround the Christian ethical decision between resistance and pacifism are difficult to ponder especially in how to implement either of the two within Christianity.[1] This topic will be the central focus of this paper.
The point at which this topic came to its flashpoint was surrounding World War II and the dictator known as Hitler. This paper will take a look at the troubles surrounding the church and her theologians at the time and attempt to come to some understanding of how and why they reacted with resistance and pacifism. At the center of the discussion will be the dictator that ruled over Germany known as Adolf Hitler. More on Hitler’s evil will be discussed later.
For now, one must consider what it is that presents a government or regime in such a way that it becomes viewed as being evil. The word evil can be described as something or someone causing harm or bringing about a threatening crisis to a person or a people ending in sorrow or distress.[2]
Evil then, when applied to a leader, government or regime, could then be considered a national evil. State criminality on the other hand could be the actions taken by said state toward those individuals whom get in the way of the agenda set forth by the state and are punished despite their innocence. This was played out through the Nazi party during World War II through the killing of millions of Jews.
State criminality, however, could also not be associated with a dictatorship or government that is not evil in its intentions. A country that decides to ignore or break some of its own laws or even international laws can also be seen as state criminality.[3] For the National Socialists Party, Nazi Party, this problem was solved by merely changing their laws to reflect their own actions, thereby justifying themselves in their own eyes. This, however, did not satisfy the international community or the church at large as will be discussed in the following pages. The task at hand to explain the concept of evil as it is understood within a national mindset.
National evil comes about through a process by which a state, a body of government, takes on ideologies that when followed through to its logical end produce evil. This evil as described above not only brings harm to the nation but to its people. For the Nazi party its appeal came through its economic reform and programmatic content through parades and grand ceremonies which hid its irrational ideas about unconditional subordination.[4]
The unconditional subordination of all citizens led to the demise of the will of the people and life for the Jews.
PACIFISM
One of the first things to come to mind when thinking of pacifism is passively ignoring a person or circumstance that is in a position of power in order to avoid harm or retaliation of said person or government. Such is a common misconception of what pacifism is and its intentions toward society at large. Pacifism is also a means of resistance which is done without violence. Landauer describes it as, “the moral principle that the use of force is wrong for any reason. This applies to both the initiation of force, as well as defensive or retaliatory force.”[5]
There are many that come to mind that are seen as being pacifists, Martin Luther King Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer both are noted as being pacifists.
During World War II one of the first pacifists that come to the forefront of everyone’s mind is Dietrich Bonhoeffer as already stated.
Bonhoeffer in the early stages of his life was not accustomed to war. During his childhood, his parents had the perception of war as sometimes necessary but never really understood the impact that it had.[6] When Dietrich was eight and a half years old, his brother, Karl, was killed in WWI just two weeks after enlisting.[7] For Dietrich, this was a turning point for his views of war.
For Bonhoeffer, pacifism was more than just a means of ignoring war. Pacifism is also a means of conduct and a theory about the morality or ethic of war itself which is opposed to a Just War theory which will be considered later.[8]
As a backdrop to Bonhoeffer’s political actions, his theology played a crucial role in why he was hesitant to become involved in the political arena. The concept from Martin Luther’s distinction between religion and politics was the traditional view for most that ascribed to the Lutheran Church.[9]
Pacifism then creates a struggle within the individual, as it did for Bonhoeffer, whereas ethics become the focal point of what is right in God’s eyes as well as with the church or what is wrong. Ethical decisions then become the foundation of what matters most when considering what actions to take in regards to a national evil. Coming up against the cold reality of considering how one’s actions will affect the future is not an easy task. Seeing the consequences and how they will affect others is a part of the process of making sound ethical decisions.[10] In Bonhoeffer’s case it became a struggle between his Christian ethics and the state criminality.
During Bonhoeffer’s struggle, he maintained his pacifist views to the point he wrote The Cost Of Discipleship where he fleshed out his pacifistic theology. In this volume, Dietrich found himself face to face with loving his enemy and committing himself to the task. In the end, however, he broke with these views due to the overwhelming massacre of the Jews by Hitler and plotted for Hitler’s death. Bonhoeffer realized that he had to decide whether or not the love for his neighbor would allow him to justly sit by while they were being killed. For him, their innocence was just cause to resist the evil Hitler had brought upon his nation. That was his ethical decision.
For others such as Martin Luther King Jr., pacifism was also a way to affect social change. Like Bonhoeffer, King was attempting to use his pacifism through the art of loving his neighbor, to bring a nation to change its ideology. King saw the need for change within the heart of man that would eventually lead to freedom for his oppressed people. King saw that love in action was the rival of hate in retaliation. He felt that love and forgiveness was an absolute requirement for spiritual maturity and that the potential for human beauty is marred by a man’s retaliation.[11] King felt that the means to make effective change for his society was to resist passively. His pacifism was not welcomed by those who were in opposition to him as well as those who were some of his loyal followers. His opponents wanted him to shut up while his followers wanted him to act out in retaliation against the establishment. His pacifist ethic won out in the end.
King in comparison to Bonhoeffer had a deep appreciation for his government in seeing that change could occur. King, “could not ascribe to this negative view of government… he was endowed with a deep sense of community…that caused him to avoid individualism.”[12] This type of individualism he was speaking of would defeat the cause of freedom from oppression of the blacks by allowing violence to take over which would end the cause.
King saw a better America, whereas Bonhoeffer sought an end to the killing of the innocent and war through justice. Some, however, feel that peace is a misconception. Paul Tillich feels that the concept of a just peace is a, “moralistic arrogance of the concept of a just and durable peace in a situation in which tragedy and possibly grace…can be applied to the present disrupted world”[13] Tillich saw peace as only a temporary venture due to the world living under the curse of sin and the prophesied end to which it is destined. This would bring one to question how peace can be brought about without avoiding God’s plan. For pacifism, peace is about justice, justice is about bringing an end to oppression. In both Bonhoeffer and King’s case, peace was the goal through love; love of the neighbor, both of which saw the Sermon on the Mount as a testimony to how Christian love should abound. Tillich did, however, charge the German people to not allow justice to be destroyed since God is a just God and their rulers were fighting against Him made them unjust.[14] Therefore, if justice were allowed to fail, then God would not be seen as being just. This concept of justice was a difficult message to receive especially since revenge was on most people’s minds. Revenge brings violence in the mind of a pacifist which would defeat the purpose. The concept of violence is also another alternative to pacifism as an attempt to bring about justice and now will be considered.

RESISTANCE THROUGH VIOLENCE
Although pacifism is a means of resistance, it is done so by acts of non-violence. In opposition to pacifism, resistance through violence is another avenue to be considered when attempting to oppose a national or state sanctioned evil. Caution should be emphasized, however, due to the realization that when a religion is involved, it can become over zealous in its attempt to control populations. Donald Shriver says that, “if there has been any advancement in the theology of war, it has been among those of us who know that only in great ambiguity can Christians enlist in a war as crusade.”[15] What is meant is that there are different ways to fight against war, pacifism, crusades and a just war concept which will be looked at later. The crusades were a type of Christian militia who saw it as God’s will to promote violence in the name of the church’s advancement of control. This is dangerous in that it can be interpreted as God’s will, as mentioned above, thereby giving permission to kill at will those whom oppose the state.
Violence in opposition to that of an oppressor is not a new development upon the theological scene. In the times of the Old Testament, violence was at times mandated by God to the Hebrews for the securing of the nation. Examples of this can be seen in Joshua 6:21 “and they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old (ASV).”[16] This would bring in to question the law which is against killing. Some biblical scholars see the term of kill within the context of the law as being related to murder not war. Gill explains it by saying, “killing of men in lawful war, or in defense of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law.”[17] War then could be seen as being justifiable as long as it is not done so in the realms of hate. In this sense then, the law should read: “Thou Shalt not murder.”
The Hebrews had the concept of God as being a war lord as David described him as the “Lord of Hosts.”[18] Seeing God in this light brings to mind one who is a conqueror of foreign lands. This is not true, however, according to Bultmann who sees the God of the Old Testament as ending in a “miscarriage because of its failure to break free from the empirical world.”[19] His argument is that the Old Testament is not seeing the eschatological transcendence of Christ upon the earth as a fulfillment of itself. Therefore, the concept of a warring God is no longer necessary for a new people of God. For Bultmann, the battle now is within the spiritual realms.
For those embedded within the cold stark regions of Europe who were faced with the aggression of Hitler’s evil war machine, the concept of fighting had become an anguish of inaction. France’s intellectuals agonized over their indecision to fight the Nazi war plow.[20]
For the most part, violence should be used only as an aid in the pursuit of peace and not a means of advancing the territories of a nation or state which is greed driven. Care must be also given to not be passé of the Christian response to evil that is perpetrated by others that result in death to the innocent. The Christian response should not place itself in the realm of being irrelevant. Khoder confirms this by stating, “In the abyss of annihilation, both of things and people, starting with those wreaking destruction, the true sin is insensibility.”[21] In this instance Khoder is making the point that one should not just stand by while others are destroying life and or property. Action must be taken, to not do so resulting in inaction is a sin. Therefore, one could conclude that if one were to take action against an aggressor that it would be justifiable in using violence as a means of defense.
Seeing this type of thought, many have come to the conclusion, such as Karl Barth, that war is certainly justifiable when an aggressor is totalitarian in his or her approach to taking control over the world and the church.
This concept known as just war has been debate over many years and will now be considered.

JUST WAR
In his Letter to Great Britain, Karl Barth underscores the realities of his world condition and foresaw the danger of the regime that was attempting to take over the world at the time. He knew the theology that had fostered the philosophical standing of Hitler’s agenda and knew natural theology that was the basis for his leadership was faulty and could lead to disaster.
In seeing the coming disaster, Barth warned the Christians in Great Britain to take action. For Barth, fighting for the right is the righteous thing to do.[22] Barth became disgusted with the thought that Nazism should just be tolerated. He showed where tolerance was used in the past allowed for the Nazi party to gain strength and become more aggressive in advancing its philosophies toward morals, justice and society at large. Tolerance, in the eyes of Barth, toward such brutality of leadership was considered “unchristian.”[23]
Later as Hitler appointed himself the leader of the German Church, Barth saw where the Nazi party became the head of the church instead of Christ. Barth felt that only Jesus Christ is the one true head of the church with all authority.[24]
Akin to Barth’s understanding of the justification of using violence as a means to oppose a national evil is the Institute for American Values who believe that, “Yet reason and careful moral reflection also teaches us that there are times when the first and most important reply to evil is to stop it.”[25] Obviously, it is imperative that careful consideration is given before enacting war upon a nation. All possible avenues must be sought in order to affect change of an aggressing state or nation so that the terrible results that war can bring are averted. There are times, however, that war cannot be averted. Kant felt the same way in seeing that there are universal values that, “only the war that one nation would want other nations to wage can be just.”[26] In other words, when a nation rises itself up to wage war desiring other nations to follow suit, then those nations who oppose the nation initiating the war are considered justified. One then could conclude that justification then in Kant’s eyes would say that if a nation is un-provokingly attacked by another nation, then the victim nation is wholly justified to retaliate to bring justice. Retaliation then would be then, could also be seen as revenge. Here again caution must be given in the careful reflection on how to respond to such an event so that vengeance is not the motivating factor. Justice on the other hand must be the means used as deterrence against such an event that the offending nation should not be allowed to continue the perpetuation of evil.
One must always be mindful and be clear of what the definition of evil is in regards to state criminality or national evil as stated at the beginning of this paper. To redefine evil to fit what agenda a government has to promote itself justification of war and violence would be taking the forms used by that of a fascist type of government just as the Nazi party did before the Second World War. Doing so, would be nothing more than Nihilism.
Others like Michael Ignatieff, see the justification of war as being a necessity of two evils. According to Ignatieff, the use of coercive force of a democratic nation during times of emergencies as well as normal times is regarded as being the lesser of two evils.[27] War then is justifiable, yet still evil as seen by Ignatieff. So it would be safe to reason that even though it is not an acceptable thing, war being an evil, is an appropriate alternative to defending one’s nation or family against evil itself. Violence then, according to Gill, “cannot be divorced from ethical considerations that arise from the way power is exercised by national governments.”[28] War then is also seen as being a struggle between national powers that are fighting for control. Yes, it is a possible trap for a state or nation to fall into when international status is at stake; however, the struggle for power should not be used as a means when considering the use of force as the basis for war. War should only be used for the protection of the innocent and a deterrence of evil.
The debate on how national evil has come about is a difficult one. Derfler sees the debate as having, “run all the way from a primitive bad-man theory to the ‘moral crisis of our time’ kind of argument.”[29] In either case, the justification for fighting against such is the focus here.
In some cases, the use of religion is used to aid the cause for a position of not fighting as stated earlier. Doing so, by using the argument of being non-judgmental, can also give one or a nation a false sense of righteousness. Arendt sees this as a farce. She says that, “There exists in our society a widespread fear of judging that has nothing whatever to do with the biblical ‘Judge not, that ye be judged’…behind the unwillingness to judge lurks the suspicion that no one is a free agent.”[30] To not give a judgment then is to accept the evil as being a valid point of view and should be allowed to continue and not stop it from doing harm. This kind of topsey turvey thinking would not have stopped Hitler, Mussolini or others who would have taken over the entire world. Therefore, the Just War theory is necessary for carrying out an armed conflict.
The concept of Just War however, is not a new one. Johnson mentions that, “The just war tradition came into being in the Middle Ages as a way of thinking about the right use of force in the context of responsible government of the political community.”[31] Augustine saw war as being used in the divine purposes of God. Langan agrees by stating that, “Augustine interprets war along lines inspired by the Old Testament as both an element in religious pedagogy and an exercise in divine power and judgment.”[32] Since Augustine saw the government as being a divine arm of God, then the decision of going to war was a justifiable event.
During the early stages of World War II, people were forced into labor camps and beaten by the German Nazi’s. This is what helped make the decision for some like Gabriel Tempkin to fight against the regime. Tempken recalls, “German soldiers cursing, yelling and screaming at us …forcing us to sing to muffle the screams of people beaten as they were going through customs checks.”[33]
It is estimated that during the genocide of the Jewish people during World War II that upwards of six million people were systematically killed.[34] The holocaust is but one example of the terrible evil that must be resisted. All forms of genocide are not acceptable in any form or fashion.

CONCLUSION
Within the confines of these few pages, it is difficult to do the subject justice with the amount of literature that is available on the subject. Much ink has been spilled on how to determine if war can be justified and if violence is even a viable answer to resist state criminality or national evil. One thing is clear; however, the problem of theodicy will always haunt humanity until the day of Christ’s return. Knowing this, however, does not help the Christian to develop a moral basis on how one is to react against an evil nation or state actions. To do so is to rely upon an understanding of biblical principles and a code of ethics which is needed to maintain a consistent Christian character. Trull sees character as, “a synthesizing the ideal person we ought to be with the real person we are capable of becoming. It all begins with the development of the inner life—something called character.”[35] The whole of humanity is in a struggle with seeing what is the ideal and comes to face with reality, the reality of sin. Due to the restraints in place upon the human race, the power struggle between good and evil will always exist until God puts an end to it when Christ returns.
As one can see, the struggle against state criminality and national evil is a long and historical one. Although, there are a myriad of ways to resist it whether it be through the eyes of pacifism or the act of resistance through Just War, evil must be resisted in order that justice and good prevail. In both cases of pacifism and just war, resistance is used in an attempt to achieve the goal of freedom from evil. It is the opinion of this author that there are times for both. One must be in total submission to Christ to be ready for His direction in what type of action to take as evidenced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. On the other hand, the Christian should also be alert to what is happening in his or her world as it relates to governments and state activities as attested to by Karl Barth. Both of these theologians have valid points to consider when reflecting on what actions to take being done so in prayer. “By prayer we acknowledge God’s power and goodness, and our own neediness and dependence. It is therefore an act of the virtue of religion implying the deepest reverence for God and habituating us to look to Him for everything.”[36]
In conclusion, both resistance through pacifism and resistance through Just War are acceptable. Resistance through violence, however, must be done through the same careful principles which are used to determine if war is justified. All forms of resistance must be given thought through the direction of the Holy Spirit with a great amount of prayer and humility before God. War is never a light decision to be made. Richard Foster believes that, “He who is the Way shows us the way to live so that we increasingly come to share his love, hope, feelings, and habits. He agrees to be yoked to us, as we are yoked to him, and to train us in how to live our lives as he would live them if he were in our place.”[37]
For Bonhoeffer pacifism was a calling, for Barth war was a responsibility. Both were correct in their actions. Christians must be open to both means of resistance when it comes to evil. In either case, God will prevail, but it is up to the Christian to follow his promptings.
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover these precious values: that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control.”[38]





Works Cited
American Standard Version. [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
Ansbro John, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Non Violent Strategies And Tactics For Social Change. NY: Madison Books, 2000.
Arendt Hannah, Responsibility and Judgment. NY: Schocken Books, 2003.
Barth Karl, A Letter To Great Britain From Switzerland. Eugene, Oregon, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004.
Barth Karl, Credo. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962.
Bonhoeffer Dietrich, The Cost Of Discipleship. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Brustein William, The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-1933. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
Derfler Leslie, An Age Of Conflict: Readings In Twentieth Century European History. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1990.
Gill David, Violence and Non-violence: Resuming The Debate. Ecumenical Review Journal, 32 January, 1980.
Gill John, Exposition Of The Entire Bible. [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
Hanna Martha, The French Scholars And Writers Mobilization During The Great War Of Intellect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Hanson Paul, War And Peace In The Hebrew Bible. Interpretation Journal 38 O 1984.
Ignatieff Michael, Political Ethics In An Age of Terror: The Lesser Evil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Johnson James, Just War As It Was, And Now Is. First Things Journal, 149 January 2005.
Josephson Michael, Making Ethical Decisions. Edited by Wes Hanson. Marina Del Ray, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2002.
Khoder Georges, Violence and the Gospel. Cross Currents Journal 37 no 4 Winter 1987-1988.
King Martin Luther Jr., A Knock At Midnight. NY: Warner Books, 1998.

King Martin Luther Jr., Strength To Love. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981.
Kramer Ronald C., Exploring State Criminality: The Invasion of Panama. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. [Database Online] available at http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/bol3is2/state.html accessed 22 January 2006.
Landauer Jeff, Pacifism. [online] available at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Pacifism.html accessed 28 January 2006.
Langan John, The Elements Of St Augustine's Just War Theory. Journal of Religious Ethics 12 number 1, Spring 1984.
Nation Mark, Pacifist and Enemy of the State. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa no 77 D 1991.
Prayer, Catholic Encyclopedia. [online] available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm, accessed 28 January 2006.
Richard J. Foster, Becoming Like A Christian. [online] available at http://www.renovare.org/invitation_becoming_like_christ_rjf.htm accessed 31 January 2006.
Roberts Deotis, Bonhoeffer and King: Speaking Truth To Power. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005.
Shriver Donald Jr., Violence For Peace. Living Pulpit Journal 7.04, 1998.
Sonek Barbara, Horrors of Holocaust. [online] available at http://auschwitz.dk/Holocaust.htm , accessed 28 January 2006.
Swaim J. Carter, War, Peace and the Bible. NY: Orbis Books, 1983.
Teichman Jenny, Pacifism and the Just War. NY: Basil and Blackwell Publishing, 1986.
Temes Peter S., The Just War: An American Reflection On The Morality Of War In Our Time. Chicago, IL: Ivan Dee publishing, 2003.
Tillich Paul, Against The Third Reich. Edited By Ronald Stone. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1980.
Tillich Paul, Theology Of Peace. Edited by Ronald Stone. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990.
Tempkin Gabriel, My Just War, Novato. CA: Presidio Press, 1998.
Trull James, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation For Church Leaders. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2004.
War: Opposing Viewpoints. Edited by Louis Gerdes, Farmington Hills, MI: Thompson Gale publishers, 2005.
Webster’s Universal English Dictionary. New Landmark Scotland: Geddes and Grosset 2005.

[1]Deotis Roberts, Bonhoeffer and King: Speaking Truth To Power, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005), 6.
[2]Webster’s Universal English Dictionary, (New Landmark Scotland: Geddes and Grosset 2005), 130.
[3]Ronald C. Kramer, Exploring State Criminality: The Invasion of Panama, (Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture) [Database Online] available at http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/bol3is2/state.html accessed 22 January 2006.
[4] William Brustein, The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-1933. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 4.
[5]Jeff Landauer, Pacifism, [online] available at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Pacifism.html accessed 28 January 2006.
[6]Mark Nation, Pacifist and Enemy of the State, (Journal of Theology for Southern Africa no 77 D 1991), 61-77.
[7]Ibid, 62.
[8]Jenny Teichman, Pacifism and the Just War, (NY: Basil and Blackwell Publishing, 1986), x.
[9]Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost Of Discipleship, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 29.
[10]Michael Josephson, Making Ethical Decisions, Edited by Wes Hanson, (Marina Del Ray, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2002), 25.
[11]Martin Luther King Jr., Strength To Love, (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981), 41.
[12]John Ansbro, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Non Violent Strategies And Tactics For Social Change, (NY: Madison Books, 2000), 113.
[13]Paul Tillich, Theology Of Peace, Edited by Ronald Stone, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 87.
[14]Paul Tillich, Against The Third Reich, Edited By Ronald Stone, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 19980, 28.
[15]Donald Shriver Jr., Violence For Peace, (Living Pulpit Journal 7.04, 1998), 4.
[16]American Standard Version, [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
[17]John Gill, Exposition Of The Entire Bible, (, [e-Sword© bible software] Rick Myers, 2000-2005 available at http://www.e-sword.net
[18]J. Carter Swaim, War, Peace And The Bible, (NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 5.
[19]Paul Hanson, War And Peace In The Hebrew Bible, (Interpretation Journal 38 O 1984), 341-362.
[20]Martha Hanna, The French Scholars And Writers Mobilization During The Great War Of Intellect, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 51.
[21]Georges Khoder, Violence and the Gospel,(Cross Currents Journal 37 no 4 Winter 1987-1988), 404.
[22]Karl Barth, A Letter To Great Britain From Switzerland, Eugene, Oregon, (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 4.
[23]Ibid, 6.
[24] Karl Barth, Credo, (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962), 54.
[25]War: Opposing Viewpoints, Edited by Louis Gerdes, (Farmington Hills, MI: Thompson Gale publishers, 2005), 100.
[26]Peter S. Temes, The Just War: An American Reflection On The Morality Of War In Our Time, (Chicago, IL: Ivan Dee publishing, 2003), 180.
[27]Michael Ignatieff, Political Ethics In An Age of Terror: The Lesser Evil, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), viif.
[28]David Gill, Violence and Non-violence: Resuming The Debate, (Ecumenical Review Journal, 32 January, 1980), 28.
[29]Leslie Derfler, An Age Of Conflict: Readings In Twentieth Century European History, (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1990), 141.
[30]Hannah Arendt, Responsibility and Judgment, (NY: Schocken Books, 2003), 19.
[31]James Johnson, Just War As It Was, And Now Is, (First Things Journal, 149 January 2005), 14.
[32]John Langan, The Elements Of St Augustine's Just War Theory, (Journal of Religious Ethics 12 number 1, Spring 1984), 22.
[33]Gabriel Tempkin, My Just War, (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1998), 12.
[34]Barbara Sonek, Horrors Of Holocaust, [online] available at http://auschwitz.dk/Holocaust.htm , accessed 28 January 2006.
[35]James Trull, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation For Church Leaders, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2004), 47.
[36]Prayer, Catholic Encyclopedia [online] available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm, accessed 28 January 2006.
[37]Richard J. Foster, Becoming Like A Christian, [online] available at http://www.renovare.org/invitation_becoming_like_christ_rjf.htm accessed 31 January 2006.
[38]Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock At Midnight, (NY: Warner Books, 1998), 19.