JUST WAR & the US, Israel, Iran and Ukraine - with John McClean, Rob Smith & Grant Dibden

How should Christians think about war? How does the Biblical Framework of Just War help us understand how we should react to what is happening in the Ukraine, Iran, Israel and south Lebanon.

We go back to first principles drawing on the work of Augustine of Hippo Thomas Aquinas - asking when is it right to go to war — and how must war be conducted? And how do those principles evaluate what’s happening in today’s conflicts?

Joining us are:

• John McClean, Vice Principal of Christ College Sydney, 
• Rob Smith, theologian and ethicist and 
• Grant Dibden, Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force. 

Together we explore how Just War thinking has shaped Western military ethics and whether it is quietly being sidelined.

Plus we examine what the Just War doctrine says about individuals conduct in war, in light of the controversy surrounding Australian Soldier Ben Roberts-Smith? 

And how should Christians respond when the emotional weight of real-world conflict hits close

Anglican Aid
To find out more about supporting Anglican Aid.

Reach Australia 

For more on the Reach Australian National Conference 18-21 May go here

The Church Co
http://www.thechurchco.com is a website and app platform built specifically for churches. 

Advertise on The Pastor's Heart
To advertise on The Pastor's Heart go to thepastorsheart.net/sponsor

Transcript

Why Just War Matters Now

SPEAKER_04 1:14

Today on the Pastor's Heart, evaluating current conflict using the Christian doctrine of just war. Our guests, ethical thinkers, John McLean and Rob Smith, along with the Anglican bishop to the Australian Defense Forces, Grant Dibden. St. Augustine was the first major Christian thinker to systematically articulate the foundations of the Christian just war theory. Augustine's pastoral theology became one of the main moral foundations of Western international law and military ethics, even when secular leaders don't explicitly name it. There's been loads of opinion pieces on the current wars in the Middle East and the Ukraine and other geopolitical flashpoints. But our task on the pastor's heart today is to attempt to go back to those first Christian principles on a major Christian doctrine and then apply those Christian principles to the modern world. And of course, there's also going to be application of this principle to the controversy surrounding the Australian soldier Ben Roberts Smith. We're joined by John McLean. He's the vice principal of the Presbyterians Christ College in Sydney. He teaches in Christian thought, focusing on systematic theology and ethics. Rob Smith is also with us. Rob is an author, theologian, and ethicist, and has taught many times on the just war theory. And Grant Dibdon is Anglican bishop to the Australian Defence Forces and has been involved in the military for 46 years. I think we might come to those contemporary stories, but actually to start with Augustine in the la in the late fourth century. And uh John McLean, what is the doctrine of just war?

SPEAKER_03 3:13

Okay, well that's a big question. You mentioned Augustine. But maybe just a little bit of context is helpful as we think about Augustine. You said so late fourth century. So the Roman Empire has only been really open to Christianity and then explicitly identifying with Christianity depends exactly when you date it, but since the fourth century. So prior to the fourth century, largely Christians didn't participate in the Roman Empire, in the Roman army.

SPEAKER_04 3:46

We're playing how much and we're arguing for pacifism at that point.

SPEAKER_03 3:52

But as Christianity becomes uh very much part of the empire, uh then Christians have to think about this in a new way. Augustine himself, as a Manichaean, early in his life, was a pacifist. Um, but again, as he becomes a Christian, recognizing the realities that war is an evil, it's always bad for people, it's never something to be celebrated. But there are times when this sin and evil in the world requires uh a responsible uh action against that evil. I mean, that's basically the question of just war that yeah, when it's justified um in as a proper response to other people's evil.

SPEAKER_04 4:35

And there's really two sides to the question. There's um uh how to do the war and whether to do the war. Um why don't we go we'll come to you first on whether to go to war.

SPEAKER_03 4:45

Yeah. I mean, so for Augustine, it's first of all just cause. So um, you know, I mean, the obvious one is defense. If if you're a nation that's being attacked by um the your neighbor or by some other nation, then your right to defend yourself to yourself.

SPEAKER_04 5:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 5:03

Um but also, yeah, if people have um done done other wrongs or or b perhaps, I mean, yeah, perhaps if there's uh obvious wrongs going on in some other under some other jurisdiction, it might be right to intervene to try and to self-defense to someone else, to a neighbour or friend. Yeah, yeah. Uh and then Augustine does differentiate somewhat between um cause and intent. So he says not only should there be a good reason to go to war, and the kind of um precipitating reason, but also uh you've got to ask yourself what what's really motivating me, or the ruler who's deciding to go to war has to decide um has to reflect on you know what's really my goal here.

SPEAKER_04 5:49

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 5:50

And am I really being vindictive or spiteful or or really trying to achieve some other ends and simply using the the the proclaimed cause as um as a pre as a pre pretense for for some other goal. Yeah, other other things in the doctrine? I I mean I think for Augustine they're the the big two cause um and intent. And then the other thing Augustine says is a little bit is is it's it's only the ruler who can make this decision. Yeah. It's not he doesn't ever think that civil war, for instance, or what we'd call terrorism could be just.

SPEAKER_00 6:29

You're nodding at that point, Rob Smith. Yeah. Oh that yes, this has a bit been a big uh consistent element of just war theory from well even pre-Augustine, but but certainly uh going through Augustine, Aquinas, uh Calvin, um yeah, right through to today. So yeah, that's a key element.

SPEAKER_03 6:46

And that's Romans 13, right? But it's the legitimate authority that's making the decision. The magistrate has been appointed with the with the sword, and so they're the that's the person who can who can conduct war.

SPEAKER_04 6:57

And I've read about a couple of others, um, reasonable chance of success and proportionality. Are they things that have been added later or um yeah?

SPEAKER_03 7:05

Yeah, yeah, which we can talk about, but I think they they're they're really they're really 20th century developments, those.

SPEAKER_04 7:11

Right, yeah. Okay. Now, Rob, uh we've heard from John about um when it's right to go to war. What about uh just war theory, Christian just war theory in uh how I should conduct myself in war?

Just Cause Right Intent Authority

SPEAKER_00 7:26

Yeah, yeah. Well it's Thomas Aquinas, really, who um systematizes not just Augustine but a whole range of other thinkers, and he makes these distinctions, if if you can bear with a little bit of Latin between uh uh just ad uh bellum, which is a just cause for war, and then just in bello, which is just conduct in war. Uh, and then he has a third category of uh just post uh bellum, which is just consequences or just outcomes. Uh, but he is very clear that you can engage in war for a just cause, but do it unjustly. Uh, and so this is where um others have brought in these some of these ideas of proportionality and again intention is is key, uh, as Augustine pointed out. Um but then other pragmatic considerations, so you know, reasonable chance of success and all that sort of thing, come come in to the picture. Is this just a foolhardy uh exercise, you know, um destructive exercise? Um so yeah. Now, in terms of how uh then armies conduct themselves in war, clearly, um, well, there's all kinds of potential for mayhem and horror and brutality and and uh criminality. And so this is where uh over the centuries, and as John said, even in the 20th century, particularly, there's been a whole lot more attention given to what exactly is just just conduct in war? How do we avoid the targeting of non-combatants, for example? Uh what do we do with prisoners? Um what about the question of torture to extract vital information? All these sort of questions come up. Uh, what about the targeting of civilian infrastructure? Um, yeah. We've heard about bridges recently and and so on. Is can this be justified or is this just uh reckless um again, um a war crime of some sort? So there I uh I familiarized myself last night with what the sort of current the standard thinking of what war crimes, well what constitutes war crimes. There's sort of eleven uh uh that uh people have nominated in in the last century or more. I've had to write them down because I couldn't keep them in my head. You know, you can keep about five things in your head, but eleven is too many. But I'll just quickly run through them so you know what that we're talking about. So there's the intentional killing of civilians or prisoners. That's uh uh firstly, then there's secondly the torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners, then there's the wanton destruction of civilian property, um, yeah, again, houses, uh bridges, hospitals, schools, uh taking of hostages is number four. And number five is the uh destruction of protected buildings, religious buildings, schools, hospitals, again, things that are not military targets and so on. Uh then you've got pillaging, looting, plundering of again, civilian property, uh, rape and sexual violence, uh, number eight, using child soldiers, number nine, uh unlawful deportation or displacement without, again, without just cause or uh people. And then this last one is what's called perfidious conduct, um, which is basically uh purporting to surrender, perhaps, but uh but in fact having a uh a gun or a knife or something uh or a suicide vest or something to to actually do damage to your uh let's go to you, Grant Dibden, in your role as Bishop of the Defence Force.

SPEAKER_04 10:55

Um I mean, we've been hearing the theologians talk. How has that actually landed in thinking amongst both governments and military uh organizations, those doctrines? Yeah. What's the journey been there?

SPEAKER_01 11:09

The uh the chaplains uh well, firstly, I'm on a committee that uh will speak um uh to the chief of the defence force and the chiefs of service. We provide advice, um, and like the chaplains do to all the commanders, they'll provide advice to them about uh some of these things that are uh what is what is right. Uh we might ask a question and help them to think about it because it's the commanders uh who make the decisions. Uh and so we're an element as chaplains that we go in and sort of say, look, boss, what's have you really thought about this? Uh these are some ethical considerations, these are what you might want to consider, and we'll be one element of all the advice that they get before the commanders make decisions. So we can end up being uh prophetic voices uh to commanders, um, and uh it's a great uh place for us to be in.

Aquinas On Conduct In War

SPEAKER_04 12:29

And I think we've got the situation really where we've got, if you like, the theology of Augustine and Aquinas that has in some way or another influenced the United Nations and NATO in various policies. I mean, they've kind of had the theology washed out, but the principles are still there. Is that your read, John McLean?

SPEAKER_03 12:50

Yeah, I mean, in in broad terms, yeah. So there's the just war theory has been described as a a peace, a realistic peace theory. So it's actually not trying, it's not setting out to justify war, it's actually setting out to limit war, and to say war is an evil, but sometimes a necessary evil.

SPEAKER_04 13:13

And then my read is that um whereas our secular countries may have abandoned Christian teaching on uh abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, those kind of issues, actually, many of our Western secular countries are at least in theory holding on to this principle of Christian doctrine as the right way to go. Is is that a reasonable read, Rob?

SPEAKER_00 13:41

Yeah, yeah. Uh as with human rights and a number of other things we could point to. Um yes, it's uh there's a lot of Christian ethics here, despite the rejection of Christian metaphysics. Uh, and that's well, we thank God for that. We'd prefer to be integrated better, but uh it it's something. Um But can I just throw one thing in? Because we've kind of jumped over the the in some sense the elephant in the room, which is uh is it ever right to is there ever a justification for war? Um and of course there's a long pacifition, as we mentioned, going back to the early church and going through today. And John's just just raised, I think, a very valid perspective from my point of view, that that just war theory, rightly understood, is almost what you might say extreme pacifism. Um it's it's a it's a way to achieve peace and to limit war. Um, but theologically, if you ask, well, what okay, we're not just talking pragmatics here. We what is the principle, the theological principle behind this? It it is it's got to be uh love of neighbor. Uh that this if this is indeed the best way for me to love my neighbour, uh, you know, for example, if someone was coming to attack you and you were defenseless and I had the opportunity to defend you and and the power to defend you, I would have a duty to defend you, right? Yeah uh and to use necessary force to repel that attack. And so there is a this that's the deepest, the theological root of this uh doctrine is actually love of neighbour uh in order to uh pro provide protection, justice, and ultimately peace. Right.

SPEAKER_03 15:20

Which is then where the you know a just execution of war comes in. That this this is even seeking to work to try and articulate how do you love your enemy, even if your enemy has determined to act violently against you as a nation or as a society, how could you act loving lovingly towards them?

SPEAKER_04 15:41

And they're doing this stuff to me, but I still want to actually recognise I've got to answer to the Almighty and look to his heart. That's right.

SPEAKER_03 15:47

Which might almost seem like a weird way to say how am I going to love them, but that it that's what Rob's saying. So it it's defending perhaps my citizens, if I'm the you know, thinking of as a nation, defending the citizens of my nation or citizens of another nation, but also doing it in a way that inflicts as little harm as possible on others who'll be affected, uh enemy combatants and then non-combatants as well.

SPEAKER_04 16:12

So as you've tried to think about these principles, and let why don't we just try applying them to the Russia-Ukraine situation, where would you draw application or observation um in that situation based on the principles just articulated?

SPEAKER_03 16:26

So, I mean, I would have thought Ukraine's defense of itself is entirely justified. Um whereas Russia's attack of Ukraine is is not justified. It seems to be expansionary and uh um illegitimately expansionary. I realise there are some historical territorial disputes between between Russia and Ukraine, but I certainly where Russia's moved to now and and in this in this uh the last few years, the the war that it started. Um so I don't think that is justified on the Russian side.

Chaplains Advising Command Decisions

SPEAKER_04 17:03

And and I guess the Ukrainian position would be driven by, I mean, or or potentially at least arguably driven by the the view of just war that we've just talked about, with defence as the key thing. Yeah. I'm thinking the Russians, um, I mean, you've got the Russian Orthodox Church, which to some degree would be influenced by the kind of Augustan Aquinas thinking, at least that we're talking about, but that probably hasn't got through to higher management.

SPEAKER_03 17:28

And I'm honestly not sure how I mean the the the the relationship between church and state in Orthodox Christianity is different to the Western Christianity. And if of course you name Augustin Aquinas, they're Western thinkers, not Eastern thinkers. Yeah. I I'm I'm honestly just not sure what to what extent it is in the Eastern tradition. So can we just go back to just another kind of application of dust war, I think, in the Ukraine-Russia dispute, whatever we make of these decisions, have been the decisions of uh NATO and uh the US is part of NATO, of to what extent they support Ukraine and in what ways. That is, I think they are trying they do realize there's a risk here. If if NATO was, I mean, to go all in in defending Ukraine, it could turn into a huge European war with Russia. Yeah. And so they're trying not not to have that happen. So they're balancing that proportionality principle in their Yes, that's right. Well, it's proportionality, but it's it's it's probably more likely outcomes, isn't it?

SPEAKER_04 18:31

Right, yes.

SPEAKER_03 18:32

Um and and so these are the real politics of war, right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 18:36

Grant Dibson, what are you thinking there? Yeah, look, I think that's a a very um uh interesting point uh that John's just made um about uh uh going into into the war because one of the one of the things of the later um uh elements of just war theory is the um uh the idea that it what what is the level of probability of success? Uh and so if you go into a war from uh the Russian aspect uh with NATO, if NATO joins it in uh in full steam, uh then what is the likelihood that that we'll get a good outcome? What will well that would probably go to World War III, and there'd be this um massive uh fight, and there's no guarantees that it would come out well. And so, you know, we have to be careful in uh in joining that sort of war. And I think that's exactly what NATO's doing. They're looking at uh the probability of success uh and saying, look, I'm not sure that that that's going to be worth um worth actually doing. And so they're they're they're holding back because they don't want to go all in.

SPEAKER_04 19:38

I mean, if I pick up on that uh proportionality, uh we're if I go over to the United States and and we think that um uh I mean there is an argument that what happened in Afghanistan was a just war, it's more contested in the Iraq uh war. But um uh I mean the language from the president this week of you'll be blown to hell or wipe out a civilization. Yeah. Um I mean that's that's not fitting that paradigm at all. Yeah. Do you want to just state the obvious? State the obvious.

Pacifism Love Of Neighbour

SPEAKER_03 20:16

Well, I mean, the problem of course is, I mean, this is not unique to the current American president. There can be a big gap between the rhetoric of war and the actual strategic goals. So who knows? But the rhetoric of completely destroying a civilization, um whatever exactly that was even meant to whatever exactly that meant, um is not about proportionality. No, it's not about preserving uh you know observing these rules of protecting non-combatants and protecting not attacking unnecessarily um civilian infrastructure. Yeah. So this is what what Rob was saying, that even if there is a just cause, and you know, we could think about is there a was there initially a just cause for the threat that Iran uh actually was or at least seemed to be to Israel and and and other places. But but even if that is the case, even if you if if that the action's justified, that doesn't mean that it justifies doing whatever you want.

SPEAKER_00 21:25

No, that's that yeah, that sort of rhetoric is a way of saying um all bets are rough, um you know, the the rules of war just go out the window unless you, you know, uh dance to our tune or respond by the time we've uh you know stipulated. So yeah, it is I mean, we know Trump loves to bluster and and uh say things that then don't necessarily transfer into action, but it's reckless it's reckless speech. Uh that's for sure.

SPEAKER_04 21:56

And I'm thinking uh it I mean yes, some observers will say he'll speak and then not follow through, and that's been a repeated pattern, but he is actually educating people about an acceptable behavior and saying implying this is acceptable behaviour in his rhetoric, which uh I think I mean if the doctrine of just just war is fragile, do you know, then actually it's taken a major step backwards recently in terms of public kind of even a generation growing up not knowing about it.

SPEAKER_00 22:32

Perhaps, yes. Uh although the fact that there's been such pushback against his comments suggests that uh that there's some awareness out there in the in in the public that that no, no, this is this is not how you do it. Uh and I think if anyone's if anything's been damaged, it's probably Trump's credibility. But um but again, we'll we'll see how that plays out. You may be right, and there is an educational effect that uh that kind of uh reckless speech has, and so it's regrettable. Um now, as many pointed out, well, we yeah, I mean this the issue of I suppose Trump saying exaggerated things and then not following through. Uh, but then there's what America actually does on the ground, the way America's conducted itself is very different from the way in which um well some of these statements have been cast.

SPEAKER_04 23:22

Let's go to you, Grant. What's your analysis then of how America has conducted itself um uh given the principles of just war, not the rhetoric, but the the conduct of this war so far?

SPEAKER_01 23:34

Aaron Ross Powell The Americans uh you know they've they've held back uh to a certain extent. They haven't um had a land invasion. Uh they're doing uh stuff from the air and of course things go horribly wrong sometimes uh even there even with the most precise um uh missiles that you have they occasionally uh go offline or they get hit and so we had that we had the bombing um of the school uh right at the start and of course that was a terrible thing uh very difficult for people to um to control um certainly I wouldn't have thought that it was in uh the Americans' intention to do anything like that uh but these uh these things happen in war sometimes and it's very very difficult you can't be as precise as you'd like to be there is collateral damage uh and it's just a difficult thing and I think that's what the Americans have seen uh when they've uh when these sort of things have happened.

SPEAKER_04 24:27

So I'm I'm guessing on that school for example it's a question of we're assuming that the intentionality to bomb a children's school was not there. And yes it clearly wasn't how a just war theory would say war should be conducted, but critical is the intentionality question.

SPEAKER_00 24:48

Absolutely yeah there were always casualties of war. But yes it's a major moral difference between intending to blow up a school or not intending to blow up a school but doing so accidentally.

SPEAKER_03 24:59

Yeah yeah but there is a moral duty not only to have the right intention but to do all you can to seek to execute that intention. Yeah yeah yeah the intention actually has to actually be your intention.

SPEAKER_04 25:12

Yeah yes and I can't be care I I can't be careless on that point. That's right.

Russia Ukraine And NATO Restraint

SPEAKER_03 25:16

But then as soon as we start talking about of course you realise I mean this is what Grant was saying that the reality of any military operation is so complex and so uncontrollable in the outcomes that the there's always these risks of unforeseen, unexpected undesired outcomes.

SPEAKER_04 25:36

So let's go to Israel and uh I mean I'm imagining the Israelis would say self-defense is where they would start off in their thinking. But do you want to just keep unpacking that?

SPEAKER_03 25:48

Yeah yeah I mean I think they would and and again I mean this is probably where we're gonna have say we're not experts in this or I certainly am not and and um there's there's well may well be um intelligence that they have that we we don't have. Yeah but I think I mean Israel's major concern with Iran w was not I mean Iran obviously did have missiles that it could in itself could send but it was really Iran's support of proxies especially Hezbollah um and other kind of terrorist proxies that was really the the the cause bell I for I think is that yeah that's certainly my understanding yeah uh I think Israel saw a unique opportunity to as it were defang the let's say the Iranian regime that rather than again I the Iranian people of course and the regime are very two very different things as we're very aware.

SPEAKER_00 26:46

But yes because Israel's been fighting a multifront war for a decade um against proxies well Iranian proxies uh Hezbollah Hamas Houthis uh and so I think they saw a a unique opportunity to you might say uh this is where um to introduce another um messy category where a defensive war can st you can have a preemptive defensive war if you know what I mean. Um uh and so yeah people are saying this is an unprovoked attack well in one sense yes but in another sense no um uh um so uh these yeah things are messy. Certainly the Israelis wouldn't have seen it as purely um uh some sort of aggressive um provo unprovoked move.

SPEAKER_03 27:35

And you and you have to recognise that terrorist activities and uh non-uniform military activities are already outside of the whole framework they're already outside of the Geneva Convention and the rules of war. And and so that does make it difficult for even nations that want to preserve those rules to work out how do you respond. And so one of the things we have seen over the last few decades is uh actually expanding permissions um to attack civilian uh targets say in US I understand I understand US military doctrine because they're responding to uh actors who aren't who who mix civilian and and combatant roles you know or you know yeah so all of that just becomes more and more complex for working out how do you set these rules and how do you follow them.

SPEAKER_01 28:35

So well how do we apply oh Grant you were going to say yes I just wanted to uh uh to make the point really that um when uh you think about uh the Israeli conflicts uh and so you know as they're as they're having a fight with uh Hezbollah Hezbollah uh is not the legitimate authority in terms of a nation state that the just war theory would really be um be considering and so Hezbollah's under the uh Lebanese government so you've got the complexity of how do you get the government to to stop Hezbollah and can they do that? And Hezbollah's doing what it wants to do because it's an Iranian proxy and then you've got uh the issues with Hamas uh because uh you know that they deliberately um put themselves in amongst the civilian population so how do you as uh as Israelis defend yourself how do you strike back when when there's uh there's civilian infrastructure everywhere there's tunnels under schools there's uh tunnels under hospitals and then they're using these sort of things so it makes it very very difficult uh for uh israel to respond and and what do you do how do you protect your own your own people uh if if this is the sort of enemy that you're facing and they're they're they're not in uniform uh and it's just a very complex uh and difficult thing uh to try to figure out how would you respond.

Israel Iran Proxies And Civilian Risk

SPEAKER_03 29:56

And we're seeing it replicated now in Lebanon that Lebanon a Lebanese population is suffering um through through Israel's military response to Hezbollah um and you you know you were saying at the at the top of the show that about that young lady in tears at church yesterday over a Lebanese church being attacked.

SPEAKER_00 30:17

Understandable yeah yeah yeah the tragedy that you know the horrors of war that the the you know all the sayings you know war is hell yeah yeah they're all true uh it this is just just ugly uh uh sinful effects uh as Augustine you know you said yeah there would only be war there uh only is war because there is sin um and uh and it yeah you we're right to lament war and all that it uh entails uh and yet the just war theory says there are still uh times when out of love we have to engage in these horrible acts to try and prevent greater evil.

SPEAKER_04 30:57

So what would you say if you were the one of the chaplains in the Israeli Defence Force and you had an opportunity for a prophetic word in the in the way that uh Grant says he has that office um in the Australian Defence Force.

SPEAKER_03 31:14

I I I'm gonna say I don't know um because I think a specific prophetic word requires insight and information that I just I don't have sitting in Australia. I I do but there are still principles of love my neighbour standing behind again. Yeah I I I just don't yeah I I don't I don't I certainly don't know enough to to be able to say anything specifically.

SPEAKER_04 31:48

Let's go then to the controversy over um Ben Roberts Smith so former Australian soldier for those who are engaging with us from overseas um and uh it's a b big story in Australia at the moment um about to go on trial for um uh five wartime offences um uh and so at this point we're not thinking whether to go to war we're thinking right conduct in war yeah and how how does that apply in in here's a close to home situation in Rob.

SPEAKER_00 32:22

Well this is where we come back to uh well just conduct in war and well what we have at least uh by a large degree are are war crimes uh and well that he has certainly been charged with war crimes. Now he'll have his day in court and and obviously want to defend uh why he has done what he's done or ordered what he ordered um and so we'll see how that works out. But if he is guilty of what is he is charged with, then he is guilty of war crimes. And so in one sense that that's I guess what's to be determined. Are the charges valid?

SPEAKER_04 33:05

How do you think this through um Cry?

Ben Roberts-Smith War Crimes Questions

SPEAKER_01 33:09

First thing we really need to say is that uh Ben is uh continuing uh to maintain his innocence and of course he's entitled to the presumption of uh of innocence um until uh until it's proven otherwise in a court of law and so we need to be careful that we um uh that we afford Ben that that right uh we also as chaplains we would normally be caring for uh anybody who's in these sort of circumstances because we're all about loving our neighbor as we love ourselves and so we want to be loving and caring for Ben uh as he goes uh through these sort of things uh it's a difficult time uh but we want to make sure uh also one of the one of the things is that's uh that's a good thing uh is that Australia as a nation um uh is wanting to Australia sorry uh the good thing is that Australia as a nation uh is a place that takes these things very seriously there have been allegations made by uh other members of the special forces uh and so they're taken seriously and there's no political interference uh in our country uh we have the Prime Minister saying that he's not going to comment on it because it's before the courts a similar sort of thing to the opposition leader and of course um what we what we uh disappointed at a little bit is the um the way that uh Ben was arrested uh it was a public thing I don't think it showed the respect that it should have done for a person who's a a war hero who's presumed innocent uh it could have been done more discreetly and more carefully uh but you know Ben will have his uh have his time in court and I think that's the right place for it to to take it to the right level of um of of uh of what they need to come to which is a um uh beyond reasonable doubt the level of proof uh that's the key thing that they need to work through and so it'll be interesting to see um uh how that plays out in court but it's a very difficult time for Ben and we want to keep him in our prayers.

SPEAKER_04 35:12

And it does seem as though um I mean if we're saying well we don't really know overseas where something's happened and we're not really sure about whether or not they have done the right thing or rot wrong thing and we're holding comment here we're also holding comment but we're saying there should be a proper investigation and there should be a day in court and we actually do want to say these just war principles matter.

SPEAKER_00 35:36

Yes. And yeah yeah and Grant is exactly right he the presumption of innocence is important in our legal system. And I guess we'll wait and see what the case is he makes. He may say I didn't do these things at all or yes I did do these things but this is why I did them and this is why they're not war crimes. Again to do with intention. If I can just give an anecdote I suppose just to take it away from this current um conversation. I remember visiting an a an elderly man towards the end of his life in hospital and he confessed something to me that he never told anyone that in the war he was ordered to execute a stowaway on a ship who may well have been a spy but there were they couldn't verify. He might just have been a civilian trying to get away from the war zone. But there were certain things that didn't add up and he was commanded to execute this man, to shoot him which he did. But it haunted him all his life had he forty years. For forty years had he killed an innocent man or had he actually executed a uh a a German spy he didn't know and obviously I didn't know um but uh he was his conscience was disturbed by you know had he done the right thing. Now I said to him I thought actually under the circumstances he had done the right thing even if it turns out on the day of judgment that the man was not in fact a spy but a stowaway that he was uh ordered to well eliminate that risk because it was a real risk to the the ship. So yeah that just takes it away from the current discussion that that that the thing terrible things have happened in war that and working out are are they war crimes or are they ugly necessities is is tricky.

Prayer For Peace And Closing

SPEAKER_01 37:35

Grant why don't you close for us by leading in prayer uh about some of these current conflicts in the light of the principles we've talked about Lord and Heavenly Father we do thank you and praise you that you are the sovereign Lord uh who's in control of all things and Father we want to bring our world to you Father uh it's a world where there's much strife and much conflict as we've talked about today Father there's uh conflict in the Middle East and Lord we we pray that you would bring peace there we pray that there'd be a breakthrough in the negotiations uh between um Iran and the United States uh we pray that there would be uh peace brought between Israel and uh uh Hezbollah as they discuss with Lebanon uh we pray that there'd be peace brought with uh Hamas and what's happening with the Palestinians Father um uh we pray too for uh the other conflicts around the world that we've discussed with Ukraine and Russia Lord but there's uh more conflicts as well in uh in Sudan and Myanmar for example and so Lord we we pray that you would bring peace uh in these nations and we pray particularly for uh the chaplets who are involved Lord that you would help uh them to be um uh encouraging that uh be speaking your word prophetically and be be working through them Lord to both care for the men and women under their charge but also to be uh elements and people who are able to bring uh and help to bring peace like your word says uh in in the in the Beatitudes Lord where where we're to be the peacemakers that they're blessed and so father we pray that you would uh bring peace throughout this world and we commit this time to you now in Jesus' name amen that is Grant Dibden the Anglican bishop uh for the Australian Defence Forces uh our guests also have been John McLean Vice Principal of the uh Presbyterian Christ College in Sydney uh a teacher in Christian thought systematic theology and ethics and of course Rob Smith with us as well an author theologian and ethicist who's taught on this theory for quite a few years.

SPEAKER_04 39:40

My name is Dominic Steele. Thanks for joining us on the Pastor's Heart and we will look forward to your company next Tuesday afternoon