Thesis advisor: James Keenan / Thesis advisor: Brian Dunkle / From its earliest days, Christianity has debated about when and how force can be used to repel harm without incurring sin. Although moderation and restriction have often been advocated both on a personal and on a social level, strict passivity has rarely been the proposed solution in mainstream Christianity when individuals or nations are confronted with harm. The Just War tradition, in its many variations, was born precisely out of this desire to make sense of how force can be used in a Christian way. And it soon became the prevalent theory throughout Christianity to address issues of violence, war, and force in general. What this thesis intends to argue is that Just War theory, despite all its pervasiveness, is flawed in some crucial aspects when scrutinized from a Christian viewpoint. Three such aspects seem to be especially relevant: Just War tradition is not grounded enough in Scripture; its jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria do not protect in a satisfactory way the innocent who face harm; and it is a theory that is only reactive to force being imposed upon others. Because of these three flaws, it will be claimed that in the process of giving its support to Just War theory Christianity has largely forgotten an older, broader tradition. The “be angry, but do not sin” tradition has Scriptural and philosophical roots that, when combined, can bring a Christian virtue ethics to a much better understanding of when and how forceful intervention in the social sphere is required. At the very least, this anger tradition does not fall prey to the three criticisms that are addressed towards Just War – and that seems to make it especially valuable. Righteous anger, then, and not Just War, should be what guides Christianity in its thinking about how and when force can be used without incurring sin. That is the contention of this thesis. / Thesis (STL) — Boston College, 2017. / Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry. / Discipline: Sacred Theology.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 87-90).

No description available.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 1997. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 163-173).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 87-90).

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1992. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 49-52).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Bowling Green State University, 2006. / Document formatted into pages; contains x, 231 p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 87-90).

ABSTRACT JUST NOT ENOUGH: REFRAMING JUST PEACE IN AN ERA OF PERSISTENT CONFLICT Derek M. Pottinger, ThM The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2016 Faculty Supervisor: Dr. Mark T. Coppenger Just peace is the proper end of an offensive just war. An ideally just peace is impossible must not be abandoned as a goal. This thesis argues peace is best viewed through a peace prism creating a six-level spectrum from war to ideally just peace. Levels 2 and 3 (marginally effective and substantially effective peace) do not qualify as jus post bella, while levels 4 and 5 (optimally effective and reasonably just peace) do because they address politics, economics, societal structure, international relations, and personal liberty postwar. Further the peace prism should be integrated into ad bellum decision-making as a precondition to meeting jus ad bellum criteria by using the maximum obtainable peace equation to estimate whether a just peace can be obtained at a reasonable expense in blood and treasure. Doing so will result in fewer decisions to go to war and a more ethically sound application of Just War Theory.

Thesis (M.A.B.S.)--Multnomah Biblical Seminary, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 61-65).