NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 57, Issue 2, 2003

Few concepts in the history of Christian theology have had such a lasting impact on contemporary political thinking as the doctrine of the just (or justifiable) war. In this contribution, I try to identify the meaning of the just war tradition as opposed to its two foremost competitors: a political pacifism and a crusader approach. After describing each of these theories, I draw upon the British-Indian philosopher Chandran Kukathas to explain the nature of pluralism. In the last section, I use the pacifism of John Howard Yoder in an attempt to retrace the proper meaning and explanation of just war thinking as being a strategic elaboration of the pacifism of Jesus and the early church in the context of a complex and fallen world.

Crucial for a right understanding of the ethical and theological problems of new terrorism, is to get a clear idea of its essential characteristics, viz. the creation of maximum panic by killing as many innocent victims as possible, and carried out by religiously motivated offenders in suicidal attacks. The present author puts forward that the ‘morals’ of new terrorism consist in a tribal inside-outside morality, which is religiously defended by the apocalyptic language of ‘this world against the world to come’, of ‘enemies of God against friends of God’, and of ‘liberal democracy against an axis of evil’. Thinking in these absolute opposites is already disastrous. The political theology of the 20^th century in all its varieties is out of date now. We need a renewal of the 16^th century Protestant doctrine of the two divinely instituted orders of government, suitable for the problems of 21^th century global economy and politics.

Among the inscriptions in mosaic pavements in Byzantine Palaestina/Arabia quoting texts from the Old Testament there is a group, in which the inscriptions are accompanied by a figurative representation of the text in question. Here, the quotation and representation of Isa. 65:25 (= Isa. 11:6-7) are reviewed. Text and representation are found side by side in Ma’in, whereas the figurative representation alone is found in a dozen of other localities (churches and synagogues). This Old Testament text is part of a prophecy promising a peaceful kingdom to Jerusalem. Based on the comments of Isa. 65:25 (=Isa. 11:6-7) by some of the Early Christian writers the rendering of this text in churchbuildings may be interpreted as a motif of the Peaceful Kingdom to come and of the unity of the Christians.

In the past many historians and theologians (for example F.A.G. Tholuck, H.E. Weber, P. Althaus, E. Bizer, and K. Barth) defended the thesis that post-Reformation Reformed (and Lutheran) scholasticism was an essentially rationalistic movement leading up to the Enlightenment. First, it was argued that Protestant scholasticism created an abstract doctrine of God as opposed to a God whose love for us is revealed in Jesus Christ. Secondly, it was asserted that Protestant scholasticism developed a positive locus of natural theology independent of Scripture and soteriology and that, in the final analysis, revelation was seen as no more than a completion of our natural knowledge of God. In this article it is shown that the Protestant orthodox scholastics posited the distinction between natural and revelation theology within a much broader epistemological context. This broader context was discussed in terms of the categories of theologia vera and, subordinate to that, theologia archetypa and ectypa. The main thesis of this article is that by mispresenting the fundamental trinitarian and christological structure of post-Reformation Reformed (and Lutheran) theology one unfortunately perpetuates the myth that identifies Protestant scholasticism with rationalism.