Read Slowly and Carefully

7 August 2026  Nahum 2:1.3; 3:1-3,6-7

“Woe to the bloody city, all full of lies and plunder, whose looting never stops.”  (Nahum 3:1)

Was the Civil War a just war?

In the entire conflict, there were just two Confederate attacks on northern territory – three if you count Ft. Sumter, but Ft. Sumter is not remotely in northern territory, but in the middle of Charleston Harbor. All the rest of the attacking was done by the North on the South.

On a matter as painful and terrible as Just War, it is unlikely that anyone will walk away feeling like they have won the argument. This side of the Kingdom, however, that’s just the way it is with many of the arguments that are most important, that define us so sharply.

That asymmetry aside, most people are inclined to say that the Civil War was a just war because it accomplished the abolition of slavery, and it certainly would have been wrong to allow slavery to continue.

Is that still enough to make a war just?

Nahum thought so. You only have two chances in the whole Christian year to hear a lectionary text from the prophecy of Nahum, and there is arguably only one big idea in the whole (very short) book, viz., the downfall of the wicked empire of Assyria. The Assyrians made cruelty a very dark art, prefiguring the even more detailed proficiency of the Romans. Whatever it took to bring down the Assyrians and their wicked capital of Nineveh was an act of justice in the eyes of God: “I will cast filth upon you, disgrace you and put you to shame, and make you an object of scorn” (Nahum 3:6).

Pope Leo, however, has recently said that the whole theory of Just War is outdated, qualified by “without prejudice to the right of self defence” (Magnifica Humanitas 192). Some thought that was a little too glib. Michael Sean Winters wrote that the Pope’s qualification:

defeats the conclusion that Just War theory is outdated. If there is a legitimate right to self defence, and a war fought on that basis is just, then we need a theory to explain why it is just and other wars are not. Call it what you will, that is a Just War Theory. (NCR 6.22.26)

Michael Sean Winters went on:

Nothing in the Gospels frees us from the responsibility before history to protect the weak and defenceless. Some injustices cry out to heaven for redress, and war, or something very much like war, may be required to end the wrong…. War is a terrible thing, but it is not always the most terrible thing. (NCR 6.22.26)

All of these words deserve to be read slowly and carefully, Pope Leo’s and Michael Sean Winters’. It is certainly true that most of the people seeking to retire Just War Theory are very well educated, and very well off, and they are the farthest removed socially and economically from those killed in their beds in Israel on 7 October 2023, or cut down by security forces in Tehran on 8-9 January 2026. It is also true that one of those well educated and well off moralists is Pope Leo, who is, at the very least, on the short list of those who have thought hardest about Jesus, and He spoke more often about loving our enemies than justifying reasons to kill them. On a matter as painful and terrible as Just War, it is unlikely that anyone will walk away feeling like they have won the argument. This side of the Kingdom, however, that’s just the way it is with many of the arguments that are most important, that define us so sharply.

And that’s why these words need to be read slowly and carefully, and subsequent words must be written or spoken with equal deliberation and care. We’re not very good at that right now. Many don’t read slowly, many more don’t read at all. Scandalously, many can’t. And because we don’t take the time to think in order to speak, or read, or write, the words that come out are often full of snark, slash, and spite.

Nahum is one of the voices in Holy Scripture. He is not the only one. Disciples don’t engage the Bible by picking which voice to listen to, but rather by joining the conversation. Carefully.