The Pope Was Indeed Careful When He Talked About Theology

Commentary

by

Perspectives

United Methodist Focus | May 28, 2026

The Just War theory has been in the news recently. After concerns expressed by Pope Leo XIV about President Trump’s Iran War, House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson said at a news conference that he was surprised at such criticism since “there’s something called the just war doctrine.” That was peculiar. A Southern Baptist who apparently just came across the just war idea is lecturing the first Augustinian pope about a doctrine shaped by Augustine and later, Aquinas. Even more astounding was the subsequent speech by Vice President J. D. Vance in which he said the Pope should be more “careful” if he was “going to opine on matters of theology.” Vance, a Catholic for about seven years, has written a book about his move to Catholicism that, incidentally, has a picture of a United Methodist church on the book cover. Catholic leaders, including the Pope, can rightfully speak with some expertise on the just war doctrine based on a thousand years of experience with it.

On May 15, Pope Leo XIV signed an encyclical on artificial intelligence that contained further views on war and peace. The statement that drew most attention was: “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.” The context, including his reference to self-defense, reflects several developments that require an even higher bar for any efforts to justify war as just. He feels that war now is so common that peace is merely seen as the time between conflicts. Almost routine justification for all manner of conflict is practiced, including for “preventative wars.” Despite expanded means to resolve conflicts, war still becomes too easily the preferred action. And, of course, the proliferation of nuclear weapons continues.

Christians and War

I was taught there are two historic Christian approaches to war: pacifism and just war.

Pacifism is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It involves nonviolence as a way of life and love for enemies. Some churches have historically been identified as “peace churches” because of their opposition to participation in war. The Religious Society of Friends (or Quakers) comes immediately to mind as well as churches in the Anabaptist tradition such as the Mennonites.

The Just War Theory is rooted in its Catholic heritage but has a much broader application within the larger Christian community. While not formulaic, it does offer some specific criteria Christians can use to test the legitimacy of a war effort. A just war must be approved by a legitimate political body after extensive consideration. It must be waged for a just cause such as self-defense or to protect other people. The motive must be to serve the neighbor and not to expand territory or a particular vision of governing. A just war is always a last resort after exhausting all nonviolent alternatives. There must be a probability of success to avoid gratuitous bloodshed. And the principle of proportionality means that the destruction of war must be outweighed by the good it will achieve.

“Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.” –Pope Leo XIV

I was also taught that there is a third option from history that no longer has any relevance: the crusade. We can hope that crusades are a relic of the past, but some of the language used by U.S. government officials in recent months gives pause. The careless identification of a nation’s “warriors” as synonymous with “God’s warriors” is troubling. Tattooed on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s right biceps is the Latin phrase for “God will it,” which he describes as a battle cry of the Crusades. He is quoted as saying that the brutality of the Crusades conducted a thousand years ago between Christians and Muslims was justified because they saved a Christian Europe from the onslaught of Islam.

United Methodists and War

United Methodists are not bystanders to debates over war and peace issues. We have a rich heritage, though diverse and not always consistent, that can inform members when matters of war arise. This multifaceted approach to national conflicts is captured in the denomination’s Social Principles. As they state, “Christians have struggled with the issue of war since the time of Jesus. Some Christians have argued historically that war and other acts of violence are never acceptable, while other believers have asserted that it is sometimes necessary to take up arms in self-defense or to defend the innocent and prevent unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide.” A brief overview of these positions in the Social Principles captures the main positions:

Against All War. The Social Principles say first, “The church deplores war and all other forms of violent conflict and urges the peaceful settlement of all disputes. We yearn for the day when there will be no more war and people will live together in peace and justice.” The Principles “reject the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy….” They also say, “We grieve that in a world where so many live in poverty, governments continue to dedicate enormous resources to preparing for and conducting wars. We are especially distressed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and call not only for an end to their production, but for their complete elimination.” The Principles “honor and support the witness of pacifists whose consciences and religious convictions prevent them from serving in the military or limit them to taking noncombatant roles,” recognizing that the “roots of such pacifist convictions are well established in the historic stances of The United Methodist Church and its predecessor bodies.”

Sometimes War is Necessary. Further, the Social Principles “urge all United Methodists to examine their own consciences and earnestly seek God’s guidance when it comes to matters of military service. While insisting “that every peaceful and diplomatic means of resolution be exhausted before the start of armed conflicts,” the Principles “honor and offer support to those who choose military service as a result of personal conviction and urge that they perform their duties in harmony with the tenets of the Christian faith and in accordance with the laws of the Geneva Conventions.”

United Methodists and Pacificism

While United Methodist ethicists agree that there is no normative position on war among United Methodists, they note there has always been a strong nonviolent and pacifist tradition in the denomination. D. Stephen Long and Stanley Hauerwas are two who come to pacificism from a distinctly theological grounding. The late James Lawson, a United Methodist pastor, was an exemplary practitioner of nonviolence, saying, “I’m willing to die for this country, but I am not willing to kill for this country.” As a college student at Baldwin Wallace, he went to prison for refusing to be drafted for the Korean War. He did so as an act of conscience despite having other draft deferment options available. Lawson is best known as the nonviolence mentor for a generation of civil rights activists and leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr.

The late James Lawson, a United Methodist pastor, was an exemplary practitioner of nonviolence, saying, “I’m willing to die for this country, but I am not willing to kill for this country.”

Lawson’s experience and that of his brothers regarding war is illustrative of the tensions and variations of how people reared in Methodist teachings respond to the challenge of war and military service. Lawson’s brother Bill was one year younger than Jim. Bill applied for noncombatant service when he turned 18. If approved, he would have joined the Army and served in a role where he would not be required to kill. His draft board denied the request. Interestingly, nothing happened to him until a few years later when he was arrested and put on trial. When the judge asked a question about the difference in noncombatant service and conscientious objectors, the prosecutor could not answer, and the judge adjourned the trial. The case was quietly dropped. Their brother John was 18 when he chose to join the Air Force. When John’s unit left for Korea, their plane went down in a snowstorm northwest of Los Angeles killing everyone on board. The youngest brother, Phillip, was approved as a conscientious objector when his draft age arrived. He also went on to become a United Methodist pastor.

United Methodists and the Just War Theory

Many United Methodists have contributed significant ideas to consideration of the just war tradition. One of the most important books of the twentieth century for Protestants on the just war theory was written by the noted United Methodist ethicist Paul Ramsey (1913-1988). Ramsey was the son of a Methodist pastor in Mississippi. He went to Millsaps College, Yale Divinity School, and Yale University, where he studied with H. Richard Niebuhr for his Ph.D. Almost all his teaching career was at Princeton University.

Unfortunately, his book The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility came out in 1968, just at the height of resistance to the Vietnam War in the United States. The timing, plus Ramsey’s failure to acknowledge the questionable justification for that war, meant that his impressive work on the just war tradition was discounted. However, when a new edition of the book came out in 2002, the introduction was written by Stanley Hauerwas, someone who did not himself embrace the just war doctrine.

Hauerwas, however, provides an important contribution to putting Ramsey’s work in perspective. Despite not sharing Ramsey’s conclusions, Hauerwas acknowledges that the book is a “great book” by a “great man, a courageous man.” Hauerwas maintains that the “hallmark of the Christian moral life,” according to Ramsey, “was agape, that is, the absolute regard for the neighbor’s welfare.” Prior to Ramsey’s recovery of just war reflection, says Hauerwas, “Protestant theology and ethics in America had no way to think about war in a disciplined and discriminating manner.” Ramsey argued that just war is required by the Christian love of the neighbor. “The Christian may be obligated to turn their cheek,” as Hauerwas captures Ramsey’s position, “but they are not to turn their neighbor’s cheek.” War, in spite of its horror, was indeed a work of charity, according to Ramsey, and the protection of the neighbor’s life and goods.

Responsible Ambivalence

Another United Methodist ethicist, J. Philip Wogaman, speaks of United Methodism’s approach to war as “responsible ambivalence” in that there is no agreement other than all war is evil and cruel. He maintains that United Methodists can acknowledge their denominational ambivalence, but always uneasily, because the stakes are so high. Intense engagement with those having views different from one’s own is required to avoid making peace too easily with the realities of war and the pain of suffering by others.

As noted earlier, our rich Methodist heritage on issues of war and peace indicates how diverse and sometimes inconsistent our positions have been. It is also important to note that United Methodist traditions have shown more willingness to respect those differing stances on war than on some other controversial ethical issues. Was it an illustration of that respect for such diversity that more Methodists chose to be conscientious objectors during World War II than those from any other denomination? One reason would have been the considerable size of Methodism relative to other churches in that era. But that preponderance of conscientious objectors among Methodists is still quite noteworthy since World War II was not an easy time to be a conscientious objector, and Methodism was composed of a broadly representative constituency of the nation’s population that was solidly behind the military. This may be one significant illustration of the way our heritage has provided guidance for our seeking faithful positions on issues of war and its options.

Public officials would be wise to be more careful when they talk about matters of war and faith. And they would do well to welcome the understandings of the Pope and all other religious leaders who bring wisdom from centuries of reflection on matters of war and its options.

At the same time, all of us who are persons of faith are called to share with our political leaders the positions we hold on these crucial questions, however clear or ambiguous the positions of our traditions might be. None of us, as citizens and people of faith, can stand aside. Our responsibility is especially crucial at times when some political leaders suggest that a particular religious position must guide the country’s decisions on war and peace.

It is for such a time as this that we are called to speak.

References

“Tattooed on Secretary…” Greg Jaffe and Elizabeth Dias, “Hegseth Frames War in Religious Terms,” New York Times, March 20, 2026, A1.

Pope Leo XIV encyclical on artificial intelligence, “Magnifica Humanitas” (Magnificent Humanity)

United Methodist Social Principles, “Government Responsibilities/War and Military Service,” The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church: 2020/2024, 138-139.

James Lawson and Emily Yellin, Nonviolent: A Memoir of Resistance, Agitation, and Love (New York: Random House, 2026).

Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, with new introduction by Stanley Hauerwas (New York: Bloomsbury, 2002).

Responsible Ambivalence, J. Philip Wogaman, “On War and Peace: Methodism’s Responsible Ambivalence,” December 12, 2011.

United Methodist Focus is the Substack blog of the Rev. Dr. Lovett H. Weems, Jr., distinguished professor of church leadership emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC. He came to Wesley in 2003 as the founding director of the Wesley’s Lewis Center for Church Leadership after eighteen years as president of Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City. Previously he was a pastor in Mississippi for many years. He is the author of many books on church leadership that have had a broad appeal to a large constituency of leaders in both the public and private sectors.