May 20, 2026
Review of Paul D. Miller, Ethics of War: A Short Companion (B&H Academic, 2025), xiv + 194 pgs.
This book is part of the Essentials in Christian Ethics series. This is a series "made up of short, introductory volumes spanning metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics" (p. xi). It is "designed to model for readers how the biblical ethic applies to every area of life both as a distinct theological and philosophical discipline in the context of the Christian moral tradition from a robust Protestant viewpoint" (p. xi).
According to the book's back cover, the author, Paul Miller, is "professor of the practice of international affairs at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service." This brief bio is lacking some important information that the reader should know before approaching the book.
Miller is also the author of Just War and Ordered Liberty (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021). In his preface to Ethics of War, Miller expresses hope that "this book takes my main arguments from the earlier work and turns them into something practical for those who make decisions about war, those who go to war, and those who shepherd the warriors" (p. xiii). But this time, he has "gone further than the last book in laying out the scriptural foundations of the Augustinian just war tradition and something like a biblical theology of war" (p. xiii). According to the author's bio in Just War and Ordered Liberty:
Paul D. Miller is a professor of the practice of international affairs at Georgetown University, a senior nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council, and a research fellow with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He served as director for Afghanistan and Pakistan on the National Security Council staff in the White House for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He previously served in the Central Intelligence Agency and is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan with the US Army.
I note also that Miller dedicated Just War and Ordered Liberty to his grandfather and father, both of whom were Mennonite "pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War II and the Vietnam War, respectively." He goes on to say that his father challenged him to justify his decision to service in the Army. Just War and Ordered Liberty "is not a direct response to pacifism," but is "with love, the fruit of a lifetime reflection on justice and war inspired by our debates."
All of this information on the author is important when approaching a book like this because it tells us what we can expect to never see in the book: a critique of U.S. foreign policy and foreign wars based on just war theory.
In addition to the book's preface and a series preface, Ethics of War contains six chapters, a selected bibliography, and subject and Scripture indexes. There are numerous footnotes.
Miller introduces the just war tradition in the first chapter, The Bible and Warfare. He dismisses pacifism, holy war, and realism. I think he spends an inordinate amount of time critiquing pacifism. Although he acknowledges that many of the early church fathers "counseled pacifism" and much of the early church was "largely pacifist" (p. 4), he maintains that "the early church fathers' pacifism may have been, in part, poor biblical exegesis" (p. 10). He considers the Sixth Commandment to be mistranslated in the venerable King James Version as "Thou shalt not kill" instead of "Thou shalt not murder" (Exodus 20:13) because it is really unlawful killing that is being prohibited-as if that is not clear from throughout the Old Testament. I have addressed this subject at length in an article and in a book review of "You Shall Not Kill" or "You Shall Not Murder" ? The Assault on a Biblical Text (2005) so I will not say anything else about it here.
Miller introduces the just war traditions and the just war criteria in chapter 3, The Just War Traditions. He briefly discusses jus ad bellum (justice of war), jus in bello (justice in war), and jus post bellum (justice after war). He explains that "just war is characterized by just cause, right authority, and right intention at the outset; by discrimination and proportionality in how it is fought; and by justice, order, and conciliation in the aftermath" (p. 97). What Miller does not mention is that just war theory has never in history limited any entity from going to war. How many entities have ever initiated military action that they have not sought to justify ? Every war is just from the perspective of those waging it. I have addressed the moral bankruptcy of just war theory here.
Chapter 4, War in the Twenty-First Century, is the most disappointing chapter in the book. Here Miller uses "major conflicts around the world today" as "case studies to show how to assess the relative justice of each side, how to identify what is at stake, and how to weigh the tactics and novel technologies used in combat" (p. 102). His three case studies are Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan, and Israel and Hamas. Miller is an apologist for Ukraine, which was already apparent by his references to Russia and Ukraine in the previous chapter (pp. 71, 82, 90). On Ukraine, see my collection of essays titled The U.S. Proxy War in Ukraine. China and Taiwan are engaged in a cold war, not a major conflict. His opinion of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is too simplistic: "The moral dimension of the immediate crisis is clear-cut and simple. Hamas is a terrorist organization that deliberately murders civilians and says it wants to destroy Israel. On the other side, Israel has a right to defend itself" (p. 122). Why no cases studies of U.S. military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Panama, and Syria ? Why does Miller act like just war theory doesn't apply to the United States?
In chapter 5, Technological Advancements in Warfare, one subject that Miller addresses is that of nuclear weapons. I was disappointed to read in the previous chapter that he thinks it was necessary to nuke Japan to end the war (pp. 85, 86). Here, however, he does make some good and thought-provoking comments about nuclear weapons, which he sees as "not intrinsically immoral," but "very difficult to use in an ethically justifiable way" (p. 141). Miller mentions that "the argument against nuclear weapons is that they are, by their very nature, indiscriminate and disproportionate," and he agrees that it "is persuasive in many, even most, cases" (p. 139). He argues that "a small nuclear weapon against a large, hardened enemy formation or facility on a battlefield far removed from civilians would likely pass the test of discrimination" (p. 140). However, when it comes to proportionality, Miller reservedly defends the atomic bombing of Japan because "a nuclear weapon used to end World War II-a total war in which the very existence of whole nations and peoples was at stake-has a much stronger argument for being proportional to the cause" (p. 140). I strongly disagree. Because the very existence of the United States and Americans was not at stake, the United States was not justified in nuking Japan-or firebombing Tokyo.
The book's last chapter, Pastoring Soldiers and Citizens in Wartime, is meant to be practical. I agree that "pastors and church leaders have an important role teaching their congregations how to think and pray about war and how to care for those who have participated in war" (p. 155). The problem is what pastors and church leaders in the United States teach their congregations about war. In the typical conservative Christian church in America, every U.S. miliary action is defended from the pulpit and the people in the pews are told to pray for the troops because they are defending our freedoms. Thus, I take issue with Miller telling pastors that they should affirm to soldiers "the goodness of their service" and keep "soldiers focused on the justice of their cause" (p. 157). Service in the U.S. military is neither good nor just. Veterans should be helped to "feel proud of their service, especially for those who may feel embittered or think their service was fruitless" (p. 160). But why should veterans feel proud of their service in the U.S. military ? Veterans should feel embittered and think their service was fruitless.
Miller is naïve and deluded. He maintains that "in a democracy, every citizen is involved about war and peace" because "our voice counts at the ballot box and in public opinion polls" (p. 162). Unfortunately, the reality is that the only voice in America that counts when it comes to war and peace is the president. And then he says that "Christians should not vote for candidates or parties that advocate war crimes or murder. Christians should not vote for candidates or parties that advocate for international aggression, wars of conquest or glory, ethnic cleansing, and so forth" (p. 164). Most U.S. military actions are nothing but war crimes and murder. International aggression is the bread and butter of the U.S. military. This rules out Christians voting for anyone who is not diametrically opposed to U.S. foreign policy.
Miller concludes that his book "is premised on the idea that war can, sometimes, be just-yet history shows that most wars are not" (p. 170). He has done his readers a great disservice by not judging American military actions by his beloved just war theory.