Augustinians and War

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

I am under no illusion that earthly governments are destructive forces. Just like individual humans. Both the OT and the NT though seem to state pretty clearly as to why they exist and what their limitations are. See: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blog ... nment/?amp

[Ken]

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?

That’s why we have police and a criminal justice system. As in the recent Ahmaud Arbery case.

[HondurasKeiser]

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?

That’s why we have police and a criminal justice system. As in the recent Ahmaud Arbery case.

To be sure, but that’s violence and coercion of a type that, while not the end of government, exists as a backstop when all else, including moral suasion, fails.

[Ken]

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?

That’s why we have police and a criminal justice system. As in the recent Ahmaud Arbery case.

To be sure, but that’s violence and coercion of a type that, while not the end of government, exists as a backstop when all else, including moral suasion, fails.

Of course. If everyone lived perfect lives without sin we wouldn’t need the government, but we also wouldn’t need Christianity either. Because humanity is flawed we need both.

[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.

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?

For these God often utilizes government, but not always and sometimes other things.

[barnhart]

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.

I am under no illusion that earthly governments are destructive forces. Just like individual humans. Both the OT and the NT though seem to state pretty clearly as to why they exist and what their limitations are. See: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blog ... nment/?amp

They are not always destructive but sometimes they clearly are.

[temporal1]

“The United States homicide rate continues to soar in 2021. Why?”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

If lynching is unjustified illegal heinous murder, the U.S. seems to be “wild about lynching,” not moving away from it.


Shineka Crawford holds a memento of her son, Shaquille Barbour, 18, who was shot 13 times and killed while riding his bike in Philadelphia [Ryan Collerd/AP Photo]

PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING while academia+politicians fussbudget around. The numbers of families suffering from these senseless losses has got to be staggering. Never mentioned in “news” reports. The vast majority suffer in complete silence. Every day.

Juliet:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

murder is murder

“‘It's just crazy': 12 major cities hit all-time homicide records”
"It's worse than a war zone around here lately," police official said.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-c ... d=81466453

[joey_the_ox]

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?

These are some good questions, and I don't know if I have completely satisfactory answers at this point. As you noted, it does depend somewhat on how you define "government." I think that we all govern in some sense and we all are governed by a diffuse array of various power structures. We are all parts of various societies. And it is not necessarily good or fundamental that one of these ("the state") has a monopoly on violence.

For an extended discussion of many related ideas, I would recommend a recent essay by Andrew Willard Jones: The Priority of Peace and the Problem of Power.

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.

I do not view them as ordered to the common good either. I do think they (the US in particular) are tyrannical in the sense I mentioned above of "rule for private gain." Those who have power use that power to serve themselves. But it is a sort of diffuse, distributed tyranny. There is not one person you can point to and say "look - there is the tyrant!" But we are surrounded by the forms and modes of tyranny.

[temporal1]

Page 3

HK:
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. ..

i appreciate your attempt to define+describe what government is. (here and elsewhere)

in these times, the notion of “gov as god” (or, gov is what i want it to be) is sadly normalized, of course it will end badly. expectations are enormous. and impossible. i’m pretty sure, multiple trillions in spending are about to prove it.

one purpose of every gov is to protect+defend its legal citizens and its legal boundaries. that’s life on earth. that was life in scriptures, and before. history is full of mistakes-made, many horrifying. but the basic roles gov plays on earth have not changed.

on the internet, it is well to establish some agreed upon definitions for discussion.

[HondurasKeiser]

This quote from Gene in the Death Penalty thread fits well here too.

"First do no harm" as a rule for ethically practiced foreign policy means do nothing. In order to protect national interests, there will be times violence is needed against those bent on harming us nationally and individually. In reality, there are competing interests in the world, and some groups and persons can not be persuaded short of convincing them to assume room temperature. (I suppose that depending where you are, that could be very close to body temperature, but you get the point.) Someone is going to get harmed and unfortunately innocent persons will become collateral damage. The best we can hope for is that the damage is outweighed by the benefit. Christians should not be involved, but it has to happen. The world in its fallen state is ruled by violence and the credible threat of its use. Arguments against the state use of the sword in both foreign and domestic policy would deprive humanity of an ordained tool for the suppression of evil.