A New Definition of ‘Loving Someone to Death’
There is at least a little irony in considering the Christian-based philosophical arguments for killing people as we are approaching Good Friday and we reflect on a God who emptied Himself and surrendered his life for the sake of world. Was that a unique ‘call’ and pathway for the Messiah, or an example for all his disciples to follow?
Depends on what Christian tribe you ask.
The Good Kill: Just War and Moral Injury (1) is Marc LiVecche’s answer. Truth be told, LiVecche’s primary focus is not answering the ‘just war’ question, but to further nuance the just war rationale in order to address a particular challenge that many post-conflict veterans deal with—that is, ‘moral injury’.
LiVecche makes his intent quite clear from the start: “My primary task is straightforward: I argue against the commonplace belief, often tacitly held if not consciously asserted…that killing, including in a justified war, is always morally wrong—even when legally sanctioned and practically necessary to avert an even greater moral wrong.” (2)
LiVecche wants to challenge such commonly-held beliefs so that, “warfighters and those who care for them [can] reevaluate false beliefs about what it means to kill in war, to interrogate deeply held principles, and, where necessary, to adapt them, reinterpret them, and thereby to grow in wisdom, emotional and spiritual health, and resilience.” (3)
This needs to take place because post-war veterans are not just experiencing the challenges of classically understood PTSD, but of ‘moral injury’ which is a relatively new term that describes the, “psychic trauma resulting from doing, allowing to be done, or having done to you that which goes against deeply held normative beliefs.” (4) This moral injury results in veterans carrying excessive guilt, shame, sorrow, or remorse and it is now being recognized as a primary motivator of suicide ideation among veterans. (5)
In an effort to reduce the experience of ‘moral injury’ among war veterans, LiVecche makes the argument throughout his book that there are specific scenarios (accompanied by specific attitudes and motivations) that make killing another human being morally acceptable and right. As such, warriors can engage in war without inevitably experiencing moral injury. They cannot, however, engage in war without experiencing ‘moral bruising’—a term LiVecche uses to describe the inevitable trauma that is associated with war, a form of trauma related to grief, not guilt (6).
A few thoughts on LiVecche’s book:
First, as a pacifist-leaning follower of Jesus who has not deeply examined the philosophical arguments for and against just war, I found LiVecche’s book quite convincing in its comprehensiveness and it’s rationale. I might even say I was convinced of his position (with one caveat below), until I reflected back on the early church and attempted to apply LiVecche’s just war position into their context. While I am no church historian, I think it is fair to say that the early church did not apply ‘just war’ philosophies and take up arms against the rising injustice/persecution against followers of the Way. This might have been motivated by pragmatic reasons—how could the peasants hope to match Rome’s military strength?—but it seems to me that it was primarily motivated by their understanding of the Jesus way of overcoming—strength in weakness; love that doesn’t kill the other but forgives them as they kill you; and sacrifice that spreads the Kingdom movement. This willingness to lay down their lives rather than fight to protect it resulted in their early death AND ultimate victory over Rome–the greatest military nation in the world. Would a ‘just war’ philosophy and corresponding action have resulted in the same outcome for the early church? It’s hard to see how; Rather, one could envision pitifully weak and unprepared men and women attempting to literally fight back against Rome in order to protect the innocent and fight for justice and, as a result, be snuffed out like every other rebellion during that time. So quite apart from Jesus’ teaching and example on this topic, the early church also creates a bit of a ‘pause’ in my spirit as I process LiVecche’s apologetic for just war.
I need to do some further pondering on this and would welcome some of your own responses to this question.
Second, while I found much of LiVecche’s reasoning to be solid, I felt like his writing on ‘enemy love’ to be somewhat problematic. In my rather simplistic thinking, it seems like LiVeccche, in an effort to completely erase any possibility of moral injury among combat veterans, must try and justify killing another person as a loving act towards the one killed. In an earlier work, LiVecche writes, “When restraining a wrongdoer by forcing him to stop, by deterring him from resuming, and ideally by provoking him to think again and change his aggressive ways, we work toward the promotion of the only possibility for his true flourishing. This belongs to his own good, even if it should cost him his very life. It is the only way to be happy.” (7) I think LiVecche is taking his argument too far and it leads to, in my view, an illogical conclusion: that I can kill someone as a loving act towards them.
Jason Lepojärvi, who address this assertion of LiVecche, suggests a different way to understand this predicament and it resonates better with me. Let me quote him at length (and not really count it as part of my word count!):
“How can we both love our enemy-neighbor and kill him?” as LiVecche asks (2019, 7)…I cannot think of a persuasive or remotely probable real-life example where our enemy’s best and real interest was for us to kill him…This conclusion seems absurd to me, so I reject the premise…I argue that even in the best scenarios, even when both the reasons and methods are just, the soldier that kills the enemy is primarily motivated by love for others, not for the enemy, if at all. This does not mean that the soldier cannot love the enemy at all. He can and should. It means that he loves the enemy only insofar as he succeeds in appreciating and responsively committing to the enemy’s wellbeing despite killing him. The “good kill,” if there is one, is the kill that least violates absolute love….Killing is precisely that part in the enemy-relation that makes our enemy love “relative” not “absolute.” We do not love our enemies to death. Such language obscures its moral ambiguity and is strictly speaking false. We love our enemies to the extent that killing them least violates absolute love. We may perhaps love them despite killing them, not by killing them. (8)
This perspective, which I might summarize as the ‘best love’ available to us in this broken world, might also be described as the ‘lesser of two evils’ and it admittedly undermines LiVecche’s attempt to suggest that killing someone is ‘loving them’ and, as such, opens the war vet up to some degree of moral struggle or injury. Yet in my view Lepojärvi’s understanding intuitively makes more sense than LiVecche’s attempt to link killing another person as a form of love toward them (even with the various parameters LiVecche suggests are necessary to rightly do so).
Overall this book, like several others that we have read, requires more thinking on my part so I can land on a conclusive position related to just war.
(1) Marc LiVecche, The Good Kill: Just War and Moral Injury, 1st ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021).
(2) Marc LiVecche, The Good Kill: Just War and Moral Injury, 1st ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). 2.
(3) Ibid., 6.
(4) Ibid., 3.
(5) Ibid,. 3.
(6) Ibid., 7.
(7) Marc LiVecche, C.S. Lewis, War, and the Christian Character. Providence: Institute on Religion and Democracy July 26 (2019), 9.
(8) Jason Lepojärvi, Digital Commons @ George Fox University Faculty Publications – George Fox School of Theology School of Theology 4-2022 Love and the Winter: C.S. Lewis, Nigel Biggar and the Winter: C.S. Lewis, Nigel Biggar, and Marc LiVecche on Enemy Love. 10 & 12.
About the Author
Scott Dickie
6 responses to “A New Definition of ‘Loving Someone to Death’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Scott
I appreciate that you brought Lepojärvi’s comments in to the discussion. I found the Good Kill very helpful and insightful but I struggle to understand (and I might not be understanding)the idea that killing the enemy is an act of love toward the enemy. It certainly is an act of love toward the persons the enemy wants to harm. Maybe loving the enemy that is killed is found in how we respect the body, the person’s humanity, and their belovedness by God despite their actions? There is a lot to think about with this book!
Thanks Jenny….I agree. It seems like LiVecche takes his argument too far in an attempt to erase any possibility of moral injury for the combat veteran. I would be more comfortable leaving it in the realm of, “This is the MOST loving thing to do in this situation” which leaves room for the fact that killing another person is unfortunate and, sadly, a ‘necessary evil’ in this broken world…..but it can still be the best/most loving choice (if you endorse the just war philosophy). This sort of position, it seems to me, would still eliminate moral injury (because it is the most loving thing to do) without getting stuck in seemingly illogical arguments about loving someone by killing them.
Scott, I think Kim Sanford’s post, as well as Jenny Dooley’s post, wrestles with some of what you’ve addressed here. I’d love to know more about Kim’s process of journeying through her anabaptist tradition to where she is today. Also, because of my inspectional reading of Livecche’s book, I may have missed if he dealt with scripture such as Romans 13. This is a book that I would love for my dad to read and then discuss it with him AFTER he reads it. I tried to talk with him about it after I read it, but this will require a longer conversation. My father, and his father and father-in-law, all have a military past, even though my parents drifted toward a pacifistic-leaning denomination later in life (but that, too, has changed).
Thanks for your thoughts Scott,
I asked Dr. Clark to consider this book because I felt pastors needed to wrestle with the just war concept (and more specifically the soldiers in our congregations) BEFORE the next violent upheaval hits our congregations. If we are wrestling with “wokeness and racism” at least ONE book needed to be spent on the rising tides of international violence.
If one watches the news “conflict” is the new normal.
Again thanks.
Selah…
Appreciate the posts, what a complicated subject. I spoke with a couple of military folks, one active one not, both Christian while reading this book and they both thought it was a tall order to prevent moral injury. What can prepare people for the trauma of seeing death and being responsible for it in real time?
I also wrestle with Jesus’ teaching and his embodiment of love for enemies and where that all fits into this conversation on just war. To what extent do we live this out? Some of this requires some mental gymnastics.
Scott,
You wrote:
“While I am no church historian, I think it is fair to say that the early church did not apply ‘just war’ philosophies and take up arms against the rising injustice/persecution against followers of the Way. This might have been motivated by pragmatic reasons—how could the peasants hope to match Rome’s military strength?—but it seems to me that it was primarily motivated by their understanding of the Jesus way of overcoming—strength in weakness; love that doesn’t kill the other but forgives them as they kill you; and sacrifice that spreads the Kingdom movement.” This is such an important point to raise. I had not made this connection. I appreciate the reminder of the “Jesus Way” of overcoming!