I posted the following on Facebook. As I noted, I was reluctant because I I have learned that such posts “seldom changes any minds,” and I was not surprised to find that responses made that clear. At the same time, because of the number of responses and the length required for a response, I decided to put everything in a blog post. My lengthy response to comments can be found at the end.

I try to avoid commenting on political or ecclesial issues on Facebook because I know that it seldom changes any minds. I have definite opinions on the current “bishop” troubles in the ACNA but I have sat on my hands.

Nonetheless, I taught Christian Ethics for eighteen years and one of the topics I covered every time I taught the course was the Christian understanding of the use of force by the state. Historically, there have only been two morally permissible stances for Christians concerning war: pacifism and “Just War” theory.

Just War (actually justified war) is not a permission for Christians to endorse the use of force in international relations. Rather, just war lays out certain restrictions (all of which must be met) before countries can go to war. Just War shares with pacifism a common assumption: Force is never permissible unless and only permissible if certain requirements are first met – and every single one of them must be (jus ad bellum).

The requirements are: Just Cause, Right Authority, Right Intention, Last Resort, Proportionality, and Probability of Success.

Second, there are certain restrictions on what actions are permissible within war (jus in bello):

Discrimination (no targeting of civilians)

Proportionality (military advantage must outweigh harm done – including long term harm)

Necessity (only use the force necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives)

No intrinsically evil means (weapons of mass destruction, rape, etc.)

No reprisals (no violations of just war principles just because the enemy has done so).

From a Christian perspective, the invasion of another sovereign nation (with which we are not even in a previously declared war) and the kidnapping of its leader is a violation of the principles of both pacifism (obviously) but also Just War.

From any possible Christian perspective, the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president is immoral and must be condemned. It does not matter if Maduro was a “bad guy.”

 

A second post responded to a request for a bibliography:

Biblography

A commenter asked for bibliography on Christian pacifism and just war theory. Happy to oblige. These are books from my shelves. The O’Donovan Grove Books pamphlet is perhaps the best concise introduction and defense of traditional Just War theory. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to obtain outside of a theological library. Used on abebooks, it is priced at $259.10.

My own discussion of Richard Hays’s pacifism, C.S. Lewis’s critique of pacifism, and O’Donovan’s defense of Just War theory can be found here: “Richard Hays’s Challenge to the Just War Tradition”

Christian Pacifism

Vernard Eller, War and Peace From Genesis to Revelation: King Jesus’ Manual of Arms for the Armless (Herald Press, 1973, 1981)

Stanley Hauerwas, The Peacable Kingdom (Note Dame, 1983)

Richard Hays, “Violence in Defense of Justice,” The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperSanFrancsco, 1996)

Ronald J. Sider, Christ and Violence (Herald Press, 1979)

John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Eerdmans, 1972)

________________, Karl Barth and the Problem of War (Abingdon, 1970)

Just War

Mark J. Allman, Who Would Jesus Kill? War, Peace and the Christian Tradition (St. Mary’s Press, 2008)

J. Daryl Charles, Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition (InterVarsity, 2005)

Oliver O’Donovan, In Pursuit of a Christian View of War (Grove Books, 1977)

___________The Just War Revisited (Cambridge U Press, 2003)

Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility (Rowman and Littlefield, 1968, 1983, 2002)

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (Basic Books, 1977)

In addition, I include the following three older books by secular scholars that have significantly influenced my thinking about American foreign policy.

Richard J. Barnett, Roots of War: The Men and Institutions Behind U.S. Foreign Policy (Penguin Books, 1973)

Samantha Power, “A Problem From Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide (HarperCollins, 2002)

Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power (Simon & Schuster, 1991)

 

Reply to Comments

Finally, as mentioned above, I did not expect to change minds, and numerous commenter’s responses made clear that I had not. Nonetheless, a few quick responses:

Some of the commenters challenged my appeal to “Just War” theory — either because the theory itself is problematic or because I have misinterpreted the criteria.

One criticism was that appeal to Just War criteria is “deontological” and Kantian rather than Thomistic and teleological.

I don’t see how the criteria can be read as Kantian since the theory precedes Kant by centuries. At the same time, the listing of universally applied moral principles is not in itself necessarily deontological. Aquinas lists three conditions as “required” (requiruntur) for a war to be just (quod aliquod bellum sit iustum): (1) authority of the sovereign, not a private individual; (2) just cause; (3) right intention. Summa Theologiae Iia-Iiae 40.1. Later criteria are expansions of these, but the postulating of criteria cannot itself be dismissed as deontological.  So Aquinas’ own listing of criteria would seem to be compatible with a Thomistic teleological ethic – which has been my own approach for my entire career.

My own stance follows people like Oliver O’Donovan who puts Just War theory within the duty of governments to execute justice. O’Donovan has an entire collection of books addressing what could be called “political theology,” in which justice is the major theme. O’Donovan writes in his essay In Pursuit of a Christian View of War:

The ‘Just War Theory’ of mediaeval and renaissance Christendom represented a systematic attempt to interpret acts of war by analogy with acts of civil government, not be it noted, to afford some justification for warmaking, but to bring it under the restraint of those moral stands which apply to other acts of government. It is a limiting doctrine. It rejects the old philosophy that ‘All’s fair in love and war’ (at least with respect to the second), and declares that if political authority expects to fight wars in discharge of its responsibilities, it shall be expected in turn to fight them justly. But what is it to fight wars ‘justly’? The Just War tradition singled out five principles: First, that the authority responsible for waging war should actually be a ‘magistrate,’ that is, should bear responsibility for civil justice in some community. Second, that the cause should be just, an obvious, but perhaps not otiose situation. Thirdly, examining the complexities of human motivation, and recognizing that is it possible to perform just deeds for a whole range of corrupt reasons, it added that the motive should be just too. The fourth and fifth criteria concerned the manner in which war, once begun, should be conducted. The principle of discrimination demanded that only those who were themselves in arms should be made the object of direct armed attack. While attempting to defeat the force brought against his own community, the magistrate would respect the fabric of the enemy community, and even protect it. The purpose of government is to achieve justice, and justice is never achieved by indiscriminate acts. The principle of proportion, finally, demanded that only such measures as were actually necessary to secure a stable peace should be taken. ‘Overkill’ is as much an offence against justice as is killing indiscriminately.” (13)

Second, one commenter suggested that “Just War Theory” needs an “update” to match current politics. Another stated, “I have never had any regard for just war criteria because I have only ever seen them used as dodges for pacifists to hide behind.”

Here, I would point readers not only to O’Donovan, but particularly to Walzer’s book Just and Unjust Wars, in which he applies the criteria to numerous modern examples. Here, I think a quotation from O’Donovan is helpful. “Just War” theory is necessary to avoid the alternative: “[W]hen important distinctions are overlooked, moral thinking goes awry. If the state is really just another gang of terrorists, the only options left to us seem to be total withdrawal from political activity or the wholesale abandonment of our moral principles” (15).

If the criteria of “Just War” cannot apply in the modern world, what would we suggest as alternatives? If “just cause” is not required for military action, on what grounds could we criticize Hitler’s invasion of Poland in World War II or Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait that led to the first Gulf War? Would we want an international order in which it was perfectly permissible to target civilians for indiscriminate slaughter if it brought quicker victory?

It has been my observation that people in general do not hesitate to apply the criteria reflexively when criticizing their opponents, or to provide justification for their own recourse. For example, both sides in the Israeli-Gaza conflict regularly point to past offenses as justification for their current actions in response to what they perceive as injustices committed against themselves. But if both Israel and Hamas are equally in the right, what solution is there to the conflict except total warfare until only either only Israelis or Palestinians are left standing? If mutual destruction is not the answer, then some criteria must be available in order to discriminate between which actions and responses are morally permissible and which are not.

Several commenters suggested that the invasion of Venezuela actually fit within the criteria of “just war,” at least (I’m assuming by their logic) the critera of “just cause.” For example, Maduro’s regime has been waging “an undeclared war.” Maduro is a “terrorist.” Maduro “illegally stayed in power.” Maduro was a “dictator drug lord,” but the “legitimate president who was elected can now run the country.”

Here I think a real conversation could take place. In essence, the above claims are that the removal of Maduro was in itself sufficient reason because Maduro was a bad person, not a “legitimate president,” a “dictator,” who was “waging warfare” against the United States.

None of this is disputed. However, that Maduro was a dictator does not in itself satisfy the conditions of just war. As I stated in my concluding sentence: “It does not matter if Maduro was a ‘bad guy.’”

There are two separate arguments being made, and they must be distinguished. The first is that Maduro’s regime was waging an “undeclared war” against the United States and that Maduro was a terrorist. That is, the primary justification is that the regime in Venezuela was a threat to the security of the United States.

The appeal here would be to the first criteria of “just war”: “just cause.” However, given that Venezuela had not actually engaged in a military invasion of the United States, the argument must be that in this case “preemptive war” is justified to protect the United States from a likely imminent invader. Against this, claims that Maduro was “waging an undeclared war” against the United States are at best exaggerated rhetoric. I am unaware of a single example of an actual use of force by the Venezuelan military against US citizens. Even a single such incident would have become international news. The US has however regularly been engaging in military strikes against civilians in Venezuelan boats and killing their occupants in a manner that certainly seems to violate the principle of attacking only legitimate military targets.

I would agree that there are occasions when preemptive warfare can be justified. For example, the Six Day War began with an Israeli first strike. Israel believed itself justified by the events of the previous several weeks, in which Israel had reasonable justification for its belief that the nation was itself about to be invaded. (See the discussion in Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 80-85).

However, the criteria for preemptive warfare are quite stringent. Preemptive warfare is not the same as “preventative military strikes,” which run “contrary to the basic thrust of the JWT” (Allman, 215). The key criteria are “imminent attack,” “sufficient threat, ” and “supreme emergency” (Walzer, 81, 253.). The threat must be imminent, aggressive intent must be certain, and fear cannot be the motivating factor for response. Opposing countries can do all kinds of things that we might not like, but which do not provide sufficient warrant for military intervention. For example, during the “cold war,” both the Soviet Union and the US regularly engaged in mutual espionage, weapons build up, mutual economic undermining. The war remained “cold” because neither side could have justified turning it “hot.” Or at least the fear of “mutually assured destruction” provided restraint. (Granted, “hot wars” did take place between proxies, but there was no actual war between the USSR and the USA.)

Again, since one of the criteria of just war theory is “last resort,” a preemptive strike would only be morally permissible if all else had failed and only military action could prevent a threatened country from an inevitable and imminent military invasion. Given Venezuela’s small size, small military, weak economy, and physical distance from the United States, it is just not plausible to suggest that the only conceivable way that the US could protect itself from an imminent Venezuelan invasion would be through preemptive military action.

The alternative argument would be not that military action was necessary against Venezuela because Venezuela was a threat to the US but because Maduro was an unjust leader who was a threat to his own country. Removing him from power would be an act of justice on behalf of the Venezuelan people. All people have the right to self-determination, and Maduro was a dictator who refused to leave office when he lost reelection to the presidency in 2024. His opponent Edmundo González Urrutia has been in exile in Spain, and María Corina Machado, leader of the opposition, received the Nobel Peace Price. Several of my commenters suggested that a military removal of Maduro was permissible because he was a “dictator.” One commenter suggested that the “legitimate president can now run the country.”

I have far more sympathy for this second argument. This justification would still have to meet additional criteria. A crucial criteria of Just War theory concerns long-term consequences – for both sides in a conflict. I am old enough to have lived through way too many attempts of the US attempting to spread democracy and freedom through military intervention: Cuba, Vietnam, Central and South America, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. None of these worked.

At the same time, actions are more important than rhetoric. Nations involved in military action always claim moral justification. What they actually do is more important than what they say – which is why Just War criteria exist and they need to be followed completely and exactly.

In the days since the invasion of Venezuela, the Trump Administration’s explanations have made clear that restoring democracy or pursuing justice for the Venezuelan people was not what this intervention was about. Maduro has been removed, but all of the previous administration are still in place. When asked about Machedo, Trump dismissed her as not having the “respect” of the country.

Trump has claimed more than once that the US would now “run” Venezuela. However, in subsequent questioning of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he pulled back from any such suggestion.

Trump has made two claims consistently over the last few days, which, I think, express his real concerns. First, Trump mentioned “oil” twenty-five times in his press conference. Second, Trump has since made threats to invade Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and even Greenland. None of these countries are threats to the US or (with the exception of Cuba) are being ruled by dictators. Nothing Trump has said indicates that he invaded because of concern for the people of Venezuela or that his motivations had anything to do with their well being or a restoration of democratic rule. Trump’s repeated rhetoric has made clear that procuring Venezuela’s oil and expanding American power were the primary policy motivations.

If long term justice is one of the crucial criteria in just war theory, the unclarity of the last few days makes clear that the Trump administration has no real plan for the long term in Venezuela. The US is both “going to run” and “not going to run” the country. The same corrupt administration is in power in Venezuela as before the invasion. The legitimately elected opposition has not been put in power. For the US to actually “run” the country would require a physical presence with thousands of America troops for perhaps decades. For US Oil companies to extract Venezuela’s oil would require tens of billions of dollars of investment, and again, thousands of military troops to provide protection – for decades. There is no indication that either of these two scenarios is seriously being considered or is anything more than bluster.

In terms of “just war principles,” this lack of foresight for the long run is perhaps the strongest argument against the justice of this military action. For now, the long term picture for Venezuela is grim — at best another Iraq (assuming there is actually going to be a US presence) necessitating years of US occupation in the face of an unfriendly opposition.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-venezuela.html

At worst, Haiti: the invasion took place. Maduro will be put on trial and imprisoned. The Venezuelan people will be left to fend for themselves with a broken economy, corrupt leadership, and no hope for the future.

The invasion of Venezuela and the seizing of Maduro does not then satisfy the initial criteria of “Just Cause.”

There are at least two other criteria that failed to be applied.

Right Authority:

Congress was not consulted or informed before the invasion. However, the US Constitution gives Congress and not Presidents the authority to decide when, where, and against whom the United States goes to war. The invasion was also a violation of the War Powers resolution of 1973.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/attack-venezuela-was-unconstitutional

The invasion was also a violation of international law and the UN Charter.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/05/us-violated-international-law-venezuela-australia-questions

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/01/05/us-attack-on-venezuela-what-does-international-law-say_6749108_4.html

Proportionality and Discrimination:

Finally, claims that no US military died in the operation must be balanced against the number of not only military but civilian deaths caused by the invasion. Initial estimates range from at least 30 to as many as 80. (More recent updates indicate at least 100 were killed.) Given that the only result of the operation was the seizure of Maduro and his wife, the large number of deaths cannot be dismissed as acceptable “collateral damage.”

Addendum: 

Since I wrote this, Donald Trump had an interview with the New York Times, in which he stated that his power as “Commander in Chief” is limited only by his own “moral authority,” and that he would not be bound by international law: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me . . . . I don’t need international law. . . . I’m not looking to hurt people.”

He continued to insist that Greenland must become part of the United States: “Ownership is very important . . . . Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

It should be clear from the above that Trump’s foreign policy agenda has nothing to do with moral principles that might have any resemblance to “just war.” It is evident that the invasion of Venezuela was only the first step in a larger agenda of expanding US power to other countries as well with no moral or legal restraints.