Letter to the English Churchman on Justice and Just War

Sir,
Re: Justifiability & Justification

If I may, I would like to contribute to the debate on the legitimacy of the recent conflict in Iraq but from the pro-war perspective on a wholly non-party political standing as it ought to be conducted. I write in defence of the British Government’s decision to adopt military action against Iraq in the event of the latter’s final refusal to 'fully comply' with its obligations under international law as sponsored by the United Nations Organisation and delegated, on the general issue of world peace & security, to the Security Council as expressed in Resolution 1441 (2002). This resolution unambiguously recognises the threat that 'Iraq’s non-compliance' on the specific issue of 'weapons of mass destruction (WMD)' poses to international security; and recalls the previous resolution (678) authorising Member-States to 'use all necessary means to uphold and implement' Resolution 660.

The inventory of resolutions (which includes 687 of 1991 on terrorism also) stacked up against Iraq serves only to demonstrate the determination of the Security Council to enforce its rulings in view of persistent Iraqi breaches of UN resolutions. As such, Iraq was continually guilty of the formal breach of failure to disclose or account for its stockpile of WMD (negative aspect) and sought to obstruct the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and objectives of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) at every possible turn (positive aspect). The invasion of Kuwait by Saddam on the 2nd August 1990 was the occasion for the formal exposure – in the court of international consensus - of his crimes against humanity in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and its campaign of terror and genocide.

Therefore, I sincerely and wholeheartedly believe in the legitimacy (in terms of international law) and rightfulness (in terms of the moral dimension) of the cause as assumed by the Prime Minister, and hence that the risk he took was not in vain. Furthermore, I would argue that the war against Iraq and its subsequent reconstruction are two separate issues. Indeed, the response of the Iraqis at the downfall of Saddam provides the verifiable proof of the difference. The implication is that the post-conflict (i.e. reconstruction) phase in Iraq is eroding public confidence in the integrity of the US and UK governments’ claims in pursuing military intervention.

A more important issue than the justifiability of the war on Iraq is the doctrine of justification. The clarity in the sphere of the political cause stands in contrast to the theological confusion promoted by modern-day jesters (satirically speaking) in evangelical Protestantism today. I refer to the likes of schizophrenic two-faced J. I. Packer (Puritan Anglican), Charles Colson (Southern Baptist) and John H. Rodgers (charismatic Anglican), etc. in exploring and engaging in ecumenical relations – in particularly with the Roman Church through joint-statements and cooperation that undermine the 16th century Reformation’s insistence that justification by faith alone is the 'article by which the church stands or falls' (Luther) and the 'hinge upon which religion turns' (Calvin).

On the academic front, miscreants like J. D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, etc. are claiming to have recovered the authentic Pauline emphasis on justification by its treatment under ecclesiology (in relation to the visible church), rather than christology (in relation to Christ’s person and work, and His mystical body). The assault aims at the dilution of the Biblical teaching of the imputation of the acquired (i.e. human or 'functional') righteousness of Christ alone in hypostatic union with His divine, i.e. ontological or essential nature in One Person or Ego Who in space and time became the once-for-all Sacrifice on the Cross for the remission of sin (original and actual). The definition of justification as the free and gracious act of God upon the guilty man or sinner by pronouncing him as 'not guilty' on the account of the merits of a Substitute, i.e. it is a forensic declaration/definitive event and not a process which is initiated by the infusion of grace or the exercise of faith is despised as deficient or inadequate.

And then you have Norman Shepherd and 'Auburn Avenue' theology promoting the idea that the definition of 'faith' itself includes obedience, i.e. active perseverance, instead of a mental assent to the truths of the Gospel, an exclusive gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the elect sinner.

The antidote against justification by faith plus X-factor is holding fast to the Reformed Faith as compressed in the Doctrines of Grace and the particularism inherent therein, maintaining always that the doctrine of the (temporal) church is informed by the doctrine of (eternal) election and reprobation. To God alone belongs the glory. Amen.