At the Christianity and National Security Conference, Paul D. Miller reviewed the history of how Baptists have thought about war, peace, and the just war tradition. The following is a transcript of the lecture.
Mark asked me to speak on Baptists and just war theory, and I replied, “Mark, you know Baptists are not known for their contribution to just war theory.” He said, “Yes, it’ll be a short talk.” Before diving into the topic, we’ve discussed just war, Christian realism, and Reinhold Niebuhr today. Why emphasize this so heavily? For me, the answer lies in what happened in Kabul a few months ago. That, in my view, was a dereliction of duty—ethically inexcusable and strategically indefensible. I believe it stemmed from both President Biden and President Trump losing faith in the military’s role in defending our interests and values. When two presidents in a row come to that conclusion, we see a need to emphasize and teach these principles of Christian realism and just war.
These ideas remind us that, in this fallen world, we sometimes must use force to defend ourselves, our interests, our security, and our ideals. That’s the big picture, and why we’ve focused on this so heavily. For those interested, I present a Niebuhrian grand strategy in my book, American Power and Liberal Order, which, while only occasionally mentioning Niebuhr, is deeply influenced by him. My recent book, Just War and Ordered Liberty, covers the history of just war theory and its application in today’s world.
So, how do Baptists fit into the conversation on just war theory? By reputation, just war theory is often seen as a Roman Catholic concept, often attributed—though somewhat inaccurately—to Saint Augustine. The most famous texts in just war theology are from Franciscans, Dominicans, Suarez, Victoria, Thomas Aquinas, and, in the 20th century, Catholics like John Courtney Murray, along with a Methodist, Paul Ramsey, and James Turner Johnson, who was of the Disciples of Christ tradition. The only Baptists engaging in just war theory today are here or those with connections to the Baptist tradition, like Mark LiVecche, Eric Patterson, and myself.
In thinking about this, I see a story worth telling. By examining Baptist participation in war, we can see two rival political theologies emerge—two implied just war traditions within the Baptist tradition. These traditions shed light on the right way to think about just war, as opposed to a holy war tradition, and perhaps offer insights into the American experiment.
Baptist political theology is rooted, first and foremost, in a historic commitment to religious freedom and disestablishment. If you’re unaware, Baptists invented religious freedom. You’re welcome. Any Baptists here? Good. Religious freedom is the cornerstone of Baptist political theology—no compulsion in matters of conscience. This is because we were persecuted by others in the 17th and 18th centuries: by Episcopalians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Catholics. Insistence on disestablishment was core to our political thinking, making Baptists from the beginning partial to republicanism, small-“r” republicanism, and accountable governance dedicated to the common good for all, including religious minorities.
This explains why Baptists, in the British Civil War, sided almost entirely with the parliamentary side, serving in the military and fighting for parliamentary government against the monarchy allied with the Anglican Church in the 1640s. They were so identified with the parliamentary cause that some served in Cromwell’s government and even signed the king’s death warrant. Later, they were executed in turn. Baptists participated in several plots to overthrow the monarchy in the 1670s and 1680s and supported the Glorious Revolution of 1689, benefiting from the Act of Toleration, which allowed non-Anglicans to be British subjects.
A century later, Baptists again aligned almost entirely with the American Revolution, again against the British king and the established Anglican Church. American revolutionaries fought for republican principles, enshrining religious freedom in the First Amendment, and Baptists saw an opportunity to advance their convictions. In 1789, George Washington wrote to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, praising their patriotism, saying, “While I recollect the satisfaction that the religious society of which you are members, Baptists, have been throughout America uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they will be faithful supporters of a free yet efficient general government.”
From the beginning, Baptists were seen as small-“r” republicans and friends of free government—cornerstones of Baptist political theology and war doctrine. Wars fought to defend free government were considered just wars. We saw this in the British Civil War, the American Revolution, and, in a complex way, in the American Civil War, where both sides tried to frame their causes in republican terms. The Confederates claimed continuity with the Founding Fathers, framing their rebellion as a fight for state sovereignty, popular sovereignty, and federalism. Of course, we know that was a facade, but they framed their cause in republican terms. The North argued for the republic, union, and eventually, emancipation, justifying their cause as a defense of free government and freedom for the enslaved.
Fast-forward 100 years, and this republican sentiment informed Baptist thought in World War II. Baptists and evangelicals broadly saw the Allies as having a just cause. As one historian noted, evangelicals had “no qualms about identifying the Allies with the cause of justice in the world.” They had justice on their side and mingled faith and patriotism, yet “did so without conflating this mission with the cause of the church”—a key distinction in just war theory. They avoided a “my country, right or wrong” attitude, acknowledging that their side may be fighting for justice but isn’t synonymous with perfect justice. This balance represents the best legacy of Baptist thought on war.
However, there’s another part of the story. Baptists reached this balanced view in World War II in reaction to the excesses of World War I and much of the previous century’s thinking on war. During World War I, as earlier speakers mentioned, Americans and Europeans embraced crusade-like thinking about war, seeing it as a “war to end all wars” and as a righteous cause. Many post-millennialists viewed it as a step toward a perfect kingdom of God on earth by defeating evil. For instance, Zane Batten, Secretary of the Northern Baptist Convention’s War Commission, called World War I “a holy crusade and a continuation of Christ’s sacrificial service for the redemption of the world.” That’s not just war thinking. If you hear war described in these terms, turn and go in the opposite direction. War is not a continuation of Christ’s sacrificial service; it’s not a crusade to eradicate injustice forever. This isn’t a fight to destroy the One Ring of Power.
Unfortunately, this thinking has deep roots in the United States. It wasn’t limited to World War I; Baptists and evangelicals could draw on almost a century of similar rhetoric. As early as the War of 1812, Americans described the country as a “new Israel,” divinely commissioned with a purpose on earth to carry out God’s benevolent purposes.
As early as the War of 1812, Baptists and others argued that the conflict with Britain was about more than maritime rights, economic concerns, or nationalism. According to a historian, it was about how God planned to use America to manifest His divine plan. America, in this view, held a special, favored place in God’s purposes. The sacred nature of the American nation meant that defending the land was seen as a noble enterprise. This is another example of crusade thinking, not just war thinking. It’s not about republicanism and liberty but rather the sacredness of the nation itself that makes the war just in this perspective.
During the war with Mexico a few decades later, “Southern Baptists and Methodists championed that war as a straightforward crusade against Latin Catholicism,” one of the rare instances where Baptists explicitly took up a crusade for the “true faith.” This period in the mid-19th century marked the high tide of white Protestant nativism in American history.
This crusade thinking appeared on both sides of the Civil War. Although both the North and South used republican arguments, they also used crusade arguments, especially the South. The South was explicit about founding itself on Christian principles; the Confederate Constitution called it a Christian nation. Southern Baptists argued that the defense of slavery was just because they believed it to be a biblical institution. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was founded in 1845 to defend the right of white Baptists to own slaves. Ebenezer Warren, pastor of First Baptist Church in Macon, Georgia, said in 1861, “Slavery forms a vital element of the divine revelation to man.” In 1863, South Carolina Baptists stated, “These Northerners assume that slavery is a sin and therefore ought to be abolished. We contend it’s a scriptural institution. The very nature of the contest takes the point in dispute out of the category of politics and delegates it to the sphere of Christianity. We are really contending for the precepts of religion.” Here, Southern Baptists clearly described the Civil War as a holy war to defend their version of the true faith, which included slavery.
The North was not wholly innocent of crusade thinking, even though it had just cause. Just cause is only one criterion in just war; right intention is also necessary. Historical evidence suggests that some Northern Baptists may have lacked right intention, framing the war as a holy crusade, especially after Lincoln announced emancipation. A historian notes that emancipation marked the transformation of the conflict from limited war to total or even holy war, as Northern clergy sanctified both the Northern cause and the United States itself in explicitly religious terms. The North had just cause, but that doesn’t mean it was thinking about the war in the right terms. It’s possible to fight a just war with wrong intentions. The North may have succumbed to crusading impulses, believing that its justice equated to righteousness, and infusing American nationalism with Christian rhetoric.
Thus, we see two traditions of war thinking among Baptists: a just war tradition focused on republican principles and a crusade tradition, where Baptists, like others, fought wars for the true faith as they saw it. This may explain why Baptists did not contribute to the 20th-century revival of just war thinking. The two most famous mid-20th-century Baptists, Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr., did speak on war, but not in just war terms. Billy Graham was a fervent Cold Warrior and supported the Vietnam War until the very end, while King was a pacifist, voicing his opposition to the Vietnam War in a famous 1967 speech. Neither, however, used just war language.
Billy Graham sometimes verged on crusade language. His biographer notes that the only topic he preached on more than anti-communism was the gospel itself. Graham even wrote a letter to President Nixon in 1971, outlining his own plan to win the Vietnam War. A biographer noted that Graham’s plan included carpet bombing civilian infrastructure, which is inconsistent with just war principles.
Martin Luther King, for his part, opposed the Vietnam War in pacifist terms. As a Nobel laureate, he felt he couldn’t support war, seeing it as a distraction from the civil rights movement. While some of his arguments could be construed in just war terms, they were applied inconsistently.
The lack of just war thinking among mid-20th-century Baptists may reflect an inconsistency in Baptist thought on war over the centuries. Serious Baptist engagement with just war tradition began only after the Cold War, with figures like Carl F. H. Henry in the 1960s and, later, Richard Land, Daniel Heimbach, Bruce Ashford, and Al Mohler. A debate between Heimbach and Land over the Iraq War in 2003 may mark the first time two Baptist theologians argued about war in just war terms, indicating Baptists’ late entry into this tradition.
Despite this, I argue that Baptist political theology is well-suited to just war thinking and even offers a distinctive contribution. My friend Jon Askonas will discuss Anglicanism, but I believe Baptists have something unique to offer. Baptist political theology, especially in wartime, aligns well with just war doctrine. The emphasis on religious freedom and disestablishment provides a strong foundation for waging wars for the common good, not for the true faith. It safeguards against crusades and wars for religion. Baptists, more than any other tradition, emphasize that conversion must come from a free, rational movement of the soul, with no compulsion in matters of faith. This principle not only grounds our doctrine of religious freedom and disestablishment but also rejects holy war and affirms just war.
Just war doctrine is best understood in contrast to holy war, which was prevalent during the wars of religion. Advocates of just war rejected holy war for the same reason Baptists reject state compulsion in matters of faith: state power must remain separate from inner conscience. If the state cannot compel conscience at home, it should not do so on the international stage. While Baptists were not at the forefront of applying this principle abroad, we see consistency between the two. Just war aligns naturally with Baptist political theology, which emphasizes disestablishment—the disestablishment of the church from warfare.
Of course, we still have things to say about war, holding the state accountable and teaching about justice, but we don’t expect the state to wage wars on behalf of the church or for its parochial benefit. Finally, the Baptist emphasis on republicanism, in a small-“r” sense, contributes authentically to just war thinking. Older just war theories focused on peace, justice, and order as the common good. As Baptists, we add liberty, which, when institutionalized, becomes republicanism and ordered liberty. Baptists, therefore, have an answer to the key questions of just war: when is war just? War is just in response to the violent disruption of ordered liberty. What does justice require? Justice requires the vindication and restoration of ordered liberty through and after warfare. Thank you very much.
Q&A
Question: Hello my name is Natalie from Liberty University. We have this term order of liberty repeated right at the end of your talk. So, I guess this is a two-part question. One, how do we define ordered liberty and know that our version of ordered liberty is good? As well as what do you think our responsibility is after warfare? What does that look like?
Answer: Thank you for the question, Natalie. On your second question regarding our responsibilities after war, I’ll refer you to Eric Patterson’s At War’s End. It’s the best book I’ve read on that subject, discussing the need for order, justice, and reconciliation. After war, our obligation is to work for those principles—order, justice, reconciliation—as essential to post-war justice.
As for ordered liberty: in Genesis, God places Adam and Eve in the garden and tells them to tend and keep it. Tending a garden means taking the raw material of nature—often chaotic—and imposing some order by making rows, building trellises, tilling the soil, and planting seeds in an organized way, then allowing nature to flourish. Order and liberty together bring about flourishing. It’s good parenting advice, and it’s good advice if you’re ever in charge of anything. Order and liberty are objective, transcendent, timeless principles of justice, though they may look different in specific applications. For instance, our First Amendment is a very good institutionalization of order and liberty on matters of conscience and state. While not divinely inspired, it’s quite effective.
Question: Hi, I’m Catherine from Liberty. How does asymmetric warfare relate to just war theory?
Response: Are you asking how we fight against an asymmetric enemy, like an insurgent?
Question: Yes, with insurgencies, terrorism, and the war on terror, how does just war theory apply?
Answer: Just war theory applies in several ways. First, asymmetric enemies are, by definition, smaller and less powerful, so we carry an added burden to exercise restraint and maintain proportionality. For instance, you don’t respond to a terrorist with a nuclear bomb; it’s both immoral and strategically foolish, as it would likely provoke a backlash. Another aspect is our obligation in fighting an asymmetric movement like jihadist terrorism. The objective isn’t simply to kill bad actors—that’s a mistake. Killing should serve as a means to establish justice and peace, which we failed to do in Afghanistan and Iraq. We didn’t adequately pursue peacekeeping, reconstruction, or development. To wage this war justly, we must engage with a clear intention to usher in justice and peace, which we clearly fell short of.
Question: I’m Jenna, also from Liberty. Why didn’t Baptists engage with just war tradition if it aligns so well with Baptist theology?
Answer: Great question. Just as early Christians didn’t focus on political power because they were a persecuted minority, Baptists historically didn’t have power and were often persecuted, so they focused on limiting state power to prevent persecution. In wars, they tended to side with republicanism and liberty. As Baptists became more mainstream in American culture, you started to see more engagement with these kinds of questions.
Question: Thank you, Dr. Miller. I’m Christopher Parr from Southern Seminary. You mentioned how crusade thinking has appeared in Baptist life and, in recent decades, in the form of culture wars. Can just war thinking help Baptists avoid a crusade mentality as they face cultural pressures?
Answer: Someone’s written an article on this. I’m hesitant to apply the just war framework to something that doesn’t involve actual killing, but in the culture war, it’s helpful to remember to approach conflict with magnanimity and grace. As Christians, we are still called to “let your speech always be gracious,” because “out of the heart the mouth speaks.” In waging the culture war, we should strive for right intention and love towards our opponents. I’m troubled by the mockery and denigration on both sides. Those aren’t helpful ways to advocate politically.
Question: Thanks, Dr. Miller. In John 18, Jesus says to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest.” How does that verse relate to just war theory, especially the idea of separating the church from the state in warfare?
Answer: That’s a perfect expression of why holy war is wrong. Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” We aren’t called to fight wars or build governments to establish Jesus’ rule. We aren’t authorized to create theocracies or compel others to share our beliefs. That’s why we reject holy war. Paul’s words in Romans 13, however, tell us that government exists by God’s ordinance, with the ruler given the sword to maintain order and justice. These exist side by side: government has coercive power by God’s design, but it’s not our role to use that power to establish God’s kingdom.
Thank you.
