Augustinians and War

[barnhart]

Ernie, if one of these humans willing to restrain evil came up to you and asked if they should be willing to restrain evil, what would you tell them?

I'm not Ernie, but if you are willing to entertain another answer, my message would be the same as to anyone else. Jesus is inviting you to reign with him in his kingdom.

[joey_the_ox]

Perhaps the word "ordained" is carrying too much weight. I think of it as "something God uses for his purposes." This category includes famine, plague and earthquakes and other things people have no business supporting.

But the confession seems to give more weight to the "ordaining" than this sense. It implies that "the sword" is ordered by God for a given good end rather than being something like a famine that God can use for His purposes: "it punishes and kills the wicked and guards and protects the good." We would not say something like this about a natural disaster.

I am not willing to posit coercion and violence are fundamentally ordering society. Human society pre-existed it before the fall and will outlast it when Jesus kingdom comes in fullness. It is a force God has manipulated into a function temporarily much like the way he orchestrated the evil, violent dictator Cyrus to "Shepherd" his people for a time. I'm also not willing to accept the doctrinal position that war and policing produce peace and safety. That hasn't been the experience of many through history, much the opposite. Peace, safety and an ordered society are gifts from the Father.

I completely agree with your first two sentences here - Christianity should totally reject the notion that society necessarily must be built on a foundation of violence and coercion (or, to put it another way, that power and authority must always and necessarily be tyrannical). I was not writing from my own point of view but from the point of view that seems to be that of the confession ("Speaking in terms of a church that confesses Schleitheim"). From that point of view, it seems that violence does indeed play an important role. And as Ernie said above

The only reason God "ordains" Plan B people to use the sword is because he wants his kingdom to flourish. Plan A people are to pray for our governors so that we can live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. If there were no humans who were willing to restrain evil, God could probably bring plagues like he did in the OT that would kill off the bad people like he did in Egypt, but as long as there are humans who are willing to restrain evil, God uses/ordains them. This is how he protects the righteous and allows his kingdom to expand and grow.

This similarly seems to give violence a somewhat important role - God uses the violence of "Plan B" people to establish the peace necessary for His kingdom to expand and grow.

Possibly, but why assume violence and coercion are the only or most effective methods for forming society. Remember the people who wrote that confession shifted the collective consciousness of the West to the point where freedom of faith and separation of church and state are now considered "rights" by persuasion, not coercion. Modern liberal states would again tremble if the modern church were as "salty" as the 16th century Anabaptists. I feel christians should always maintain a critical, outsider posture to power.
As for the churches use of coersion being limited to the ban, I agree.

Again, I totally agree with your first sentence. This is indeed not a good assumption. I don't agree with everything you are saying, but I think that overall you are getting at part of my critique of Schleitheim which is that it (or at least the way it is commonly read, as Ernie does above) seems to give violence/coercion too much of a positive role in that it assumes this societal substrata that is based on the application of the sword, and that within the peace that is thus generated the church can flourish and grow, even though the church is forbidden from using the sword. And further, though I haven't developed this point yet, it does not seem to provide much room for a critique of the application of the sword. Is every application of the sword necessarily just and ordered by God? The obvious answer would be no.

[joey_the_ox]

Plan A - Kingdom A - Living according the law of liberty. Having the law written on people's hearts. Not using coercion or the sword. Calling people from Kingdom B to join Kingdom A.
Plan B - Kingdom B - Taking up the sword, supporting and encouraging those who take up the sword, retributive justice.

I would present to them Plan A and Plan B as I understand it, and tell them that God never wanted there to be a plan B and that it is God's heart that they leave Kingdom B and follow plan A. If they are not willing to follow Plan A, then yes, they should fulfill their role in Kingdom B.

I don't see much difference between this and saying that it would be better if those using the sword would instead not use the sword - that there is something wrong with the use of the sword. (Of course you are saying more than this but it seems to include this.)

If they choose to stay in Kingdom B, then by what standard would you judge whether or not they fulfilled their role?

Finally, are these the only two kingdoms in your picture? If so, are you comfortable making "the sword" the dividing line between those two?

[barnhart]

But the confession seems to give more weight to the "ordaining" than this sense. It implies that "the sword" is ordered by God for a given good end rather than being something like a famine that God can use for His purposes: "it punishes and kills the wicked and guards and protects the good." We would not say something like this about a natural disaster.

Possibly so. On the other hand, perhaps we should think of natural disasters more in that light. Who knows what future evil God is preventing when he allows such things. As he told Abraham, "the iniquities of the Amorites is not yet full." He has prescribed times and places we don't understand.

I understand the sword bearing of the SC as a reference to Paul's teaching in Romans. The sword there was certainly deadly, it eventually claimed Paul's head, yet we are still taught to accept it as "ordained" by God.

[joey_the_ox]

But the confession seems to give more weight to the "ordaining" than this sense. It implies that "the sword" is ordered by God for a given good end rather than being something like a famine that God can use for His purposes: "it punishes and kills the wicked and guards and protects the good." We would not say something like this about a natural disaster.

Possibly so. On the other hand, perhaps we should think of natural disasters more in that light. Who knows what future evil God is preventing when he allows such things. As he told Abraham, "the iniquities of the Amorites is not yet full." He has prescribed times and places we don't understand.

I understand the sword bearing of the SC as a reference to Paul's teaching in Romans. The sword there was certainly deadly, it eventually claimed Paul's head, yet we are still taught to accept it as "ordained" by God.

But isn't it obvious that natural disasters are somewhat random in their effects? Sure, God can guide and use them for His ends, but if someone dies in a natural disaster we don't generally say "looks like God was punishing the wicked!"

The use of the sword carries with it human intention and action. I would argue that viewing all applications of the sword as equally "ordained" by God in the same way as a natural disaster is will lead to incoherence. And such a view separates out "the sword" as a special moral category in that it treats it differently than we do any other type of human action.

For example, one use of the sword is our modern-day slaughter of the innocents - abortion. Another use of the sword is a police officer forcibly restraining a drunk person from getting in their car and driving off. A third use of the sword is the coercive acts (physical or otherwise) that I as a father may use on my children. (If you want to say that some of these are not actually uses of "the sword" which I have been taking to mean force/coercion, then we would need to make a distinction that Schleitheim does not make.)

Viewing the use of the sword as akin to a natural disaster would place all of these actions on the same flat moral plane. But they obviously are not so. In general, we view human actions as more or less just. Your proposed view would seem to say that we can't do so for uses of the sword - separating it out as a uniquely unquestionable category of human action. And this is part of my concern with such an interpretation of Schleitheim.

[Sudsy]

Like the decision to take Covid shots or not, I view participating in a physical war as a personal conviction. I expect to see Christians who made either one of these choices to be saved as God knows the intent of their heart in their participation or non-participation. Same view regarding wearing a head covering, baptismal mode, and other early church practises where believers differ.

The greater focus for Kingdom citizens, imo, is spiritual warfare. In this realm, I don't believe, we have a choice - Eph 6:12. Just being a believer places us into this warfare.

[HondurasKeiser]

I am not willing to posit coercion and violence are fundamentally ordering society. Human society pre-existed it before the fall and will outlast it when Jesus kingdom comes in fullness. It is a force God has manipulated into a function temporarily much like the way he orchestrated the evil, violent dictator Cyrus to "Shepherd" his people for a time. I'm also not willing to accept the doctrinal position that war and policing produce peace and safety. That hasn't been the experience of many through history, much the opposite. Peace, safety and an ordered society are gifts from the Father.

I completely agree with your first two sentences here - Christianity should totally reject the notion that society necessarily must be built on a foundation of violence and coercion (or, to put it another way, that power and authority must always and necessarily be tyrannical). I was not writing from my own point of view but from the point of view that seems to be that of the confession ("Speaking in terms of a church that confesses Schleitheim"). From that point of view, it seems that violence does indeed play an important role.

To Barnhart: But human society exists in the midst of a fallen world that largely rejects Jesus. In light of that fact, how is some semblance of peace and order to be achieved? How is chaos to be avoided? Despite your desire to redefine ordain down to be something akin to "bad stuff that happens and that God uses" - even that implies that God uses violence to good effect. Why then does God use violence - why is it necessary? Using pre-established definitions: Why might God ordain government and its attendant ability to wield the sword in the first place?

To Joey: Society may be built on mutual loves but a government exists to maintain order and punish those that violate its norms. That seems pretty foundational to a government's raison d'être. Are you suggesting a government can eschew the use of violence or coercion and still fulfill its proper functions? Is that what Christianity teaches, that in a fallen world societal harmony and peace can be achieved nonviolently a la Gandhi? Who says power and authority are necessarily tyrannical. I know you aren't saying that but your statement implies that most people, Christians included, do.

Possibly, but why assume violence and coercion are the only or most effective methods for forming society. Remember the people who wrote that confession shifted the collective consciousness of the West to the point where freedom of faith and separation of church and state are now considered "rights" by persuasion, not coercion.

Barnhart: There's something I am not getting in your thinking. Yes, the Anabaptists were influential in their persuasion and example for something like Church-State separation. The only way for that to become a reality though was for the many and sundry 'states' to adopt any number of laws instantiating that idea in a fixed time and place. Law backed by the coercive and violent-if-necessary power of the State. Indeed a state that could not enforce its Church-State laws would cease to be a state in any functional sense and then another powerful actor, using violence and coercion would move in to fill the void.

I don't say any of this as an attempt to give license to Christians for the use of violence, coercion and statecraft; I am simply dubious of some of your claims as stated above.

[HondurasKeiser]

Like the decision to take Covid shots or not, I view participating in a physical war as a personal conviction. I expect to see Christians who made either one of these choices to be saved as God knows the intent of their heart in their participation or non-participation. Same view regarding wearing a head covering, baptismal mode, and other early church practises where believers differ.

The greater focus for Kingdom citizens, imo, is spiritual warfare. In this realm, I don't believe, we have a choice - Eph 6:12. Just being a believer places us into this warfare.

Huh? What exactly is the point of 'spiritual warfare' if the material decisions that we take have no bearing on our spiritual lives so long as "the intent of our heart" is correct?

[Ken]

A lot of this discussion has been completely theoretical. All this business about taking up the sword. But we don't live in a theoretical world. This is a US-centric forum and the US has been engaged in some form of war for 227 of the 245 years that this country has existed since 1776.

How many of those endless conflicts meet any sort of objective test for "just war" however you want to define it? Maybe the Civil War and the struggle for abolition. Maybe some aspects of WW2 especially in the European theater. Beyond that? Americans engaged in the 19th Century Indian wars, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War 1, the Vietnam War, etc. etc. all convinced themselves that they were on the side of both God and justice. But were they in retrospect? Or were they mislead? Other than abolishing slavery and defeating Nazi Germany I don't see a great deal of unmitigated good accomplished by any American war.

The problem is that we live in the real world. And a person making the choice to engage in a military career is actually engaging in the last meaningful choice they will have in the arc of that military career. Once you are enlisted or commissioned, your options for meaningful choice are few and far between. You go where the military sends you, and you do what the military asks of you and there is not a lot of meaningful choice in the matter. Very few soldiers are ever actually faced with the sort of hypothetical war crimes scenario outlined in the first post of this thread. I would suggest that sort of thing is actually pretty rare. Mostly you are just part of an enormous machine who's purpose is to pursue American national interests through violence and the threat of violence. The results of which are almost always mixed at best. And whether you ever actually fire a weapon is almost irrelevant. You are still part of that same machine.

[barnhart]

But isn't it obvious that natural disasters are somewhat random in their effects? Sure, God can guide and use them for His ends, but if someone dies in a natural disaster we don't generally say "looks like God was punishing the wicked!"

Yes, this is a path to tread gingerly, I was not impressed with the prophetic ministry of the televangelist who suggested God sent Katrina to judge the specific iniquity of New Orleans. I suggest God utilizes what IS in a broken sinful world to accomplish his greater purposes. I will allow he sets some higher than others, but this singular fact does not indicate his stamp of approval, no more than raising up Cyrus indicates approval of violent tyrants.