Augustinians and War

[Josh]

If you choose to live in a society in which state sponsored violence, or the threat of it, exists through the police force, military, and criminal justice system. Then you are responsible, in part, for how that violence is applied and under what limits it is used. Even if you, yourself, do not "bear the sword"

Two kingdom theology is all well and good. But even the Amish live simultaneously in both worlds.

No, I'm not responsible. Every society on earth involves the use of force. The fact that I personally choose not to kill people means I'm not responsible for killing people.

What I am saying is that if there is a violent serial rapist on the loose, or a vigilante lyncher, I accept that it is necessary that other people must rise up and commit violence to deal with that person. And no, I'm not responsible for how police or state sponsored violence is used.

Police are responsible for what they do.

Every person in the state who engages in state sponsored violence is responsible for what they do.

If they ask me what they do, then I will tell them to repent and join Jesus' kingdom of peace.

[joey_the_ox]

And those of us who live in "Plan A" must need recognise that as long as anyone still exists who is not an Anabaptist, we must need depend on "Plan B" to engage in violence in order for us to have any chance of living in peace.

I really have trouble understanding this belief. It seems to make the violence of others a fundamental precondition for your peace.

I guess I’m not understanding why this is problematic.

1. We live in a fallen and violent world.
2. Violence is quotidian and banal insofar as it’s simply everywhere all the time and will be until the return of Christ.
3. It makes perfect sense that one of the animating features of government would be to try and limit the ability of individuals to prey upon their neighbors.
4. Followers of Christ say there’s a different way to live and we refuse to participate in either individual violence or the collective use of coercion to stop it.
5. By checking out of the system we can be salt and light to our neighbors and take advantage of those things that the collective action of the government does well.

It just seems like a huge double standard, and the division between (4) and (5) is impossible in practice. You can't simply "check out of the system." To make it quite practical, would you be ok with calling the police to deal with a criminal in your neighborhood? If so, by doing that are you not participating in "the collective use of coercion"?

[Josh]

It just seems like a huge double standard, and the division between (4) and (5) is impossible in practice. You can't simply "check out of the system." To make it quite practical, would you be ok with calling the police to deal with a criminal in your neighborhood? If so, by doing that are you not participating in "the collective use of coercion"?

I see nothing wrong with making an observation to someone else that someone is going around engaging in criminal behaviour. I am not engaging in a coercive act.

If the person involved stops their criminal behaviour, they won't have to deal with me discussing and talking about their behaviour. It is entirely up to them what happens next.

[temporal1]

Countries Without A Military 2021
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... a-military

.. Countries with No Military
According to the CIA World Factbook, 36 countries and territories do not have a military.
Per the CIA’s definition, several of these states do not have a “regular military force,” but their national police forces act as de facto military forces.

For example, Costa Rica’s Public Forces of Costa Rica are responsible for protecting their country’s borders.

Look, Josh! -
Here are 36 countries you may choose from that “have no military.”
But they do have militaries. Of some definition. Sorry about that.

[Ken]

And those of us who live in "Plan A" must need recognise that as long as anyone still exists who is not an Anabaptist, we must need depend on "Plan B" to engage in violence in order for us to have any chance of living in peace.

I really have trouble understanding this belief. It seems to make the violence of others a fundamental precondition for your peace.

I guess I’m not understanding why this is problematic.

1. We live in a fallen and violent world.
2. Violence is quotidian and banal insofar as it’s simply everywhere all the time and will be until the return of Christ.
3. It makes perfect sense that one of the animating features of government would be to try and limit the ability of individuals to prey upon their neighbors.
4. Followers of Christ say there’s a different way to live and we refuse to participate in either individual violence or the collective use of coercion to stop it.
5. By checking out of the system we can be salt and light to our neighbors and take advantage of those things that the collective action of the government does well.

Because life in a society does not allow us to decide for ourselves which aspects we choose to be responsible for. Take the Amish, for example, who come about as close as anyone to living separate life disengaged from the "world" Yet:

The Amish use the monetary system that is supported by the state through the threat of force (The US mints are heavily guarded and the Secret Service vigilantly protects the currency against counterfeiting) rather than engaging in say ancient methods of barter. What makes a dollar worth a dollar and not just toilet paper is the backing of the US government.

The Amish rely on public highways that are patrolled and regulated by the state. When they travel from place to place they rely on laws and police forces to keep them safe and the government to keep them maintained so that travel from one town to another isn't a scene from Road Warrior.

The Amish rely on the mechanisms of the state to recognize and enforce their property rights which prevents me from showing up with bulldozers to raze an Amish farm and put up a shopping mall.

The Amish rely on laws enforced through the criminal justice system to maintain clean air and clean water in their communities and a whole host of other things.

In a democratic society you can indeed "check out of the system" as you put it and not engage in government to the extent that you wish. Many Americans are exceedingly disengaged from civil society, not just conservative Anabaptists. But I don't think that absolves you of responsibility for the violence or injustice done by your government on your behalf. We as a society do choose what kind of armed forces, police, criminal justice system, and laws we are going to have. And we are all collectively responsible for them.

[Ernie]

Second, if you do believe that "the sword" is the dividing line between "orthodox" and "non-orthodox" Christianity, and seeing that I am on the other side of that line, what positive argument(s) would you put forward for your position?

Have you watched the Just War Debate? You can also read it here I'm not sure if you are wanting me to make a NT case, a historical case, or a case from reason???

[joey_the_ox]

It just seems like a huge double standard, and the division between (4) and (5) is impossible in practice. You can't simply "check out of the system." To make it quite practical, would you be ok with calling the police to deal with a criminal in your neighborhood? If so, by doing that are you not participating in "the collective use of coercion"?

I see nothing wrong with making an observation to someone else that someone is going around engaging in criminal behaviour. I am not engaging in a coercive act.

If the person involved stops their criminal behaviour, they won't have to deal with me discussing and talking about their behaviour. It is entirely up to them what happens next.

Your theory of moral responsibility is opaque to me.

[joey_the_ox]

Second, if you do believe that "the sword" is the dividing line between "orthodox" and "non-orthodox" Christianity, and seeing that I am on the other side of that line, what positive argument(s) would you put forward for your position?

Have you watched the Just War Debate? You can also read it here

Haha, yes I actually came across that just a few days ago and watched it. I thought the just war side was pretty bad (they really seemed to have no idea of what the Anabaptist position generally is, even though the one guy apparently grew up Mennonite). Neither side seemed to get down to the core issues.

[Ernie]

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

Like I said earlier, I don't know how God decides to deal with those who bear the sword and I'm glad I'm not called to judge.

But you do judge (or at least I am very, very sure that you do)! I'm pretty sure that both you and Josh have an implicit moral framework that you apply to the violent actions of others. I don't know anyone who would say that all violent actions are intrinsically equivalent.

If someone only used violence as a last resort, or when ordered to do so by the state in order to restrain evil, I would assume that this fits what we read in Romans 13. What I don't know is how God judges these actions. Can such a person find favor with God? I do not know and I am fine with however God decides to handle this.

[Ernie]

Second, if you do believe that "the sword" is the dividing line between "orthodox" and "non-orthodox" Christianity, and seeing that I am on the other side of that line, what positive argument(s) would you put forward for your position?

Have you watched the Just War Debate? You can also read it here

Haha, yes I actually came across that just a few days ago and watched it. I thought the just war side was pretty bad (they really seemed to have no idea of what the Anabaptist position generally is, even though the one guy apparently grew up Mennonite). Neither side seemed to get down to the core issues.

I attended the debate and was rather disappointed in how much substance was missed. I know the non-resistant side had a lot more prepared than what they had time to share. I would love to see them do round 2 and round 3. I think they would get better.
The Just War team seemed to not know what Christians said about war during the first three centuries. They seemed to only know the history after that.