Augustinians and War

[barnhart]

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.

One plank that may be missing from my thinking is the necessity of government to accomplish God's plans. I suggest government is downstream of the collective moral conscience, more of a result than a cause. I suppose extra-legal killing was always illegal in the US, but people were routinely lynched without prosecution well into the 20th century. It was not until the moral conscience of the nation was engaged that change was realized. At that point the machinery of government began work on that issue. This is the power of engaging the real battles with the weapons of Jesus that are powerful and effective.

[barnhart]

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?

I don't know, do you? Are you ready to look at the history of human civilization and make a case for the effectiveness of sword bearing to produce it? It is used by God from time to time for life sustaining ends, but it also causes a lot of destruction.

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?

1. The word translated "ordain" is used several times in the NT to describe someone being set to a specific task, so I would be slow to characterize my usage as redefinition. For example 1Cor. 16:15, "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints."
2. Yes, God uses even the evil of a broken world for his purposes. That is why Joseph could say to his brothers, 'you meant it for evil but God meant it for Good." But it does not follow that evil is good or redemptive because God uses it. Kidnapping and selling as slaves are not redemptive in any hand but God's. God sent some to certain tasks for his glory, but that does not clothe that task in redemptive power. As for being necessary, only God knows.

[joey_the_ox]

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.

If a government only exists to maintain some sort of abstract "order" and to punish those that violate its norms, it should dissolve itself or face the prospect of being forcibly overthrown, as it is most likely a tyranny (where tyranny is broadly defined as "rule for private gain"). Aquinas wrote in De Regno:

If ... a multitude of free men is ordered by the ruler towards the common good of the multitude, that rulership will be right and just, as is suitable to free men. If, on the other hand, a rulership aims not at the common good of the multitude, but at the private good of the ruler, it will be an unjust and perverted rulership. And hence the Lord threatens such rulers, saying by the mouth of Ezekiel: Woe to the shepherds that feed themselves, as seeking their own interest, should not the flocks be fed by the shepherd? (Ezek 34:2). Shepherds indeed should seek the good of their flocks, and every ruler the good of the multitude subject to him.

The end towards which a just government is ordered is the common good of the society. Now, as regards the question of coercion, I did not say that a society must rule this out, but rather that it is not foundational/essential to the notion of a society as such. Because we do live in a fallen world and have to deal with the effects of sin, it can be legitimate for authority in certain cases to use coercion/force. The prototypical example is perhaps a father's discipline of his son. Within the society of the family, this can be necessary. But it would be false to say that the foundation of the family is violence, or that a father's authority is necessarily tyrannical.

[joey_the_ox]

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.

It is true that I'm not really continuing a specific discussion on "war at the nation-state level" but rather a discussion on violence/coercion in general, which is not entirely theoretical in the end.

I do completely agree with you when you say "I don't see a great deal of unmitigated good accomplished by any American war." And you would likely agree with me in saying that as things stand today, it is highly unlikely that any war that America as a nation-state would join/start could be considered at all "just" in any sense of the term.

[joey_the_ox]

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?

1. The word translated "ordain" is used several times in the NT to describe someone being set to a specific task, so I would be slow to characterize my usage as redefinition. For example 1Cor. 16:15, "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints."

But this seems to be in tension with the way you were using it. We don't generally view natural disasters as being "set to a specific task" - they seem more random than that. If the sword is "set to a specific task" by God (such as "punishes and kills the wicked and guards and protects the good") then it is not just "bad stuff that happens and that God uses".

[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.

It is true that I'm not really continuing a specific discussion on "war at the nation-state level" but rather a discussion on violence/coercion in general, which is not entirely theoretical in the end.

I do completely agree with you when you say "I don't see a great deal of unmitigated good accomplished by any American war." And you would likely agree with me in saying that as things stand today, it is highly unlikely that any war that America as a nation-state would join/start could be considered at all "just" in any sense of the term.

I think there are probably very few wars in all of history that meet the Catholic Church criteria for "Just War" And probably none of them that the Catholic Church itself was involved in on one side or the other. In fact, the Catholic Church itself is actually revisiting the entire notion of "Just War" and exploring a theology of peace instead.

The thing about war is that it is the only state action in which violence is the primary tool and purpose. Police and other law enforcement agencies do carry arms, but for them the violence is a last resort and not the policy objective. So I think war and the military hold a special place in this discussion.

[joey_the_ox]

The thing about war is that it is the only state action in which violence is the primary tool and purpose. Police and other law enforcement agencies do carry arms, but for them the violence is a last resort and not the policy objective. So I think war and the military hold a special place in this discussion.

Perhaps, but I get the feeling that we all mostly agree that conscientious objection to participation in contemporary nation-state wars is generally the right decision. So there isn't much to discuss on that point .

[Ken]

The thing about war is that it is the only state action in which violence is the primary tool and purpose. Police and other law enforcement agencies do carry arms, but for them the violence is a last resort and not the policy objective. So I think war and the military hold a special place in this discussion.

Perhaps, but I get the feeling that we all mostly agree that conscientious objection to participation in contemporary nation-state wars is generally the right decision. So there isn't much to discuss on that point .

Perhaps. But the question posed by the OP and the title of this thread suggests that we are discussing war and not say using force to defend your family from an attacker or some other such moral issue.

I think future historians are going to have a very interesting time comparing and contrasting the American, Russian, and Chinese approaches to empire in the late 20th and early 21st century. Americans and Russians have primarily engaged internationally through military actions and military alliances. The Chinese are taking an economic approach. There are very few Chinese military bases or installations outside China, for example. And other than Mongolia and North Korea it doesn't have much in the way of military alliances. When you step back and look at it the contrast is very stark.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

If a government only exists to maintain some sort of abstract "order" and to punish those that violate its norms, it should dissolve itself or face the prospect of being forcibly overthrown, as it is most likely a tyranny (where tyranny is broadly defined as "rule for private gain"). Aquinas wrote in De Regno:

If ... a multitude of free men is ordered by the ruler towards the common good of the multitude, that rulership will be right and just, as is suitable to free men. If, on the other hand, a rulership aims not at the common good of the multitude, but at the private good of the ruler, it will be an unjust and perverted rulership. And hence the Lord threatens such rulers, saying by the mouth of Ezekiel: Woe to the shepherds that feed themselves, as seeking their own interest, should not the flocks be fed by the shepherd? (Ezek 34:2). Shepherds indeed should seek the good of their flocks, and every ruler the good of the multitude subject to him.

The end towards which a just government is ordered is the common good of the society. Now, as regards the question of coercion, I did not say that a society must rule this out, but rather that it is not foundational/essential to the notion of a society as such. Because we do live in a fallen world and have to deal with the effects of sin, it can be legitimate for authority in certain cases to use coercion/force. The prototypical example is perhaps a father's discipline of his son. Within the society of the family, this can be necessary. But it would be false to say that the foundation of the family is violence, or that a father's authority is necessarily tyrannical.

Perhaps I’m just being too dense but isn’t a Government, even one that fits the Thomistic ideal of being ordered to the Common Good, able to function and order society towards the Good precisely because it is able to wield the sword if necessary? That’s not to say the violence or coercion is the end of government rather that in order to be able to meet its proper ends it must necessarily be able to use them. The Father’s use of coercion is not the foundation of his authority, but it’s always a live option if absolutely necessary. In some sense the ability to use violence, however infrequent, seems pretty foundational. Indeed, he’s the one with the monopoly on violence, just like in most cases, governments maintain a monopoly on legal violence. I know you said that violence is not foundational/essential to notion of a society as such. Are you using society and government Interchangeably? If you are, do you think then that society/government has the ability to foreswear the use of violence and coercion entirely and still be able to fulfill its many functions?

Out of curiosity, do you view the U.S. or other liberal democracies as ‘ordered to the Common Good’? I do not but neither do I find them to be terribly tyrannical. Rather I see them as maintaining order and enforcing agreed upon norms. Again though, perhaps I’m way off.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

One plank that may be missing from my thinking is the necessity of government to accomplish God's plans. I suggest government is downstream of the collective moral conscience, more of a result than a cause. I suppose extra-legal killing was always illegal in the US, but people were routinely lynched without prosecution well into the 20th century. It was not until the moral conscience of the nation was engaged that change was realized. At that point the machinery of government began work on that issue. This is the power of engaging the real battles with the weapons of Jesus that are powerful and effective.

Not to be sophomoric but what about the recalcitrant and unrepentant lyncher that simply refuses to be moved or have his moral conscious engaged? Continues to lynch with abandon?