Augustinians and War

[Ken]

If our government decides to march off to war in Ukraine with 500,000 troops. Would you remain apathetic and disengaged and say "those are the affairs of the kingdom of man and of no concern to us as Christians?" Would you speak out in any way? Would you protest? Would you support any peacemaking efforts by your church? Relief efforts? Efforts to support refugees? Would you encourage and support conscientious objectors? Those are all forms of engagement and the sort of thing I am talking about. What I am saying is that you can't honestly claim to be a peacemaker and then ignore what your own government is doing if it is doing the opposite. But how you choose to engage is up to you. It doesn't necessarily mean joining the State Department as a diplomat so you can engage in government policy directly. In fact it almost never means that.

To expand on my previous answer about whether/how I would engage -
If your government decides to march off to war....
My support/engagement with relief efforts would not be affected by whether the US Government was involved in the war, my encouragement/support of conscientious objectors would have more to do with the proximity of affected persons rather than having anything to do with whose government was involved. I'm not aware that Jesus taught anywhere that we have a greater or lesser obligation to show compassion depending on who caused the suffering.

I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

[Josh]

I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I have zero ability to stop America from starting more wars.

And it's not "our tax dollars". The taxes are taken from me. I have zero choice in the matter.

There are some who try to live so poor that they don't pay any taxes so they don't fund wars. I respect this position, but it is one that is barely even possible to do anymore. I don't know a way to live so that I never end up paying any sales, property, income, or other taxes.

[ohio jones]

There are some who try to live so poor that they don't pay any taxes so they don't fund wars. I respect this position, but it is one that is barely even possible to do anymore. I don't know a way to live so that I never end up paying any sales, property, income, or other taxes.

Income taxes are the ones that most directly fund war, and the easiest way to avoid them is with a full quiver.

[joey_the_ox]

There are some who try to live so poor that they don't pay any taxes so they don't fund wars. I respect this position, but it is one that is barely even possible to do anymore. I don't know a way to live so that I never end up paying any sales, property, income, or other taxes.

Income taxes are the ones that most directly fund war, and the easiest way to avoid them is with a full quiver.

Or you could take the John Howard Yoder approach. .

[Ken]

I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I have zero ability to stop America from starting more wars.

And it's not "our tax dollars". The taxes are taken from me. I have zero choice in the matter.

There are some who try to live so poor that they don't pay any taxes so they don't fund wars. I respect this position, but it is one that is barely even possible to do anymore. I don't know a way to live so that I never end up paying any sales, property, income, or other taxes.

I'm not suggesting that you have the power to affect the course of global events or that you shouldn't pay your taxes. I'm only suggesting that if you profess to be a peacemaker then you should be paying attention when your nation is beating the drums of war and not brush it off as "the affairs of the world that have no affect on me"

[ken_sylvania]

If our government decides to march off to war in Ukraine with 500,000 troops. Would you remain apathetic and disengaged and say "those are the affairs of the kingdom of man and of no concern to us as Christians?" Would you speak out in any way? Would you protest? Would you support any peacemaking efforts by your church? Relief efforts? Efforts to support refugees? Would you encourage and support conscientious objectors? Those are all forms of engagement and the sort of thing I am talking about. What I am saying is that you can't honestly claim to be a peacemaker and then ignore what your own government is doing if it is doing the opposite. But how you choose to engage is up to you. It doesn't necessarily mean joining the State Department as a diplomat so you can engage in government policy directly. In fact it almost never means that.

To expand on my previous answer about whether/how I would engage -
If your government decides to march off to war....
My support/engagement with relief efforts would not be affected by whether the US Government was involved in the war, my encouragement/support of conscientious objectors would have more to do with the proximity of affected persons rather than having anything to do with whose government was involved. I'm not aware that Jesus taught anywhere that we have a greater or lesser obligation to show compassion depending on who caused the suffering.

I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I suppose if you are willing to agree to disagree, that is at least somewhat more charitable than your previous statement that my position makes me "not serious" and "dishonest."

I simply cannot see how a government, that has set itself up as ruling over me and the place where I live without my consent, has any right or authority to make me responsible for acts that it commits and acts that my neighbors' children commit without my approbation and indeed without my having any choice in the matter.

If a robber were to steel your wallet at gunpoint, then use your cash and your ID to buy explosives to bomb a public building, would you somehow have a higher obligation to those victims than you would if he stole your neighbor's cash and ID to do the same thing? It seems to me that you are saying that you would, but I have no idea why that would be.

[Ken]

To expand on my previous answer about whether/how I would engage -
If your government decides to march off to war....
My support/engagement with relief efforts would not be affected by whether the US Government was involved in the war, my encouragement/support of conscientious objectors would have more to do with the proximity of affected persons rather than having anything to do with whose government was involved. I'm not aware that Jesus taught anywhere that we have a greater or lesser obligation to show compassion depending on who caused the suffering.

I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I suppose if you are willing to agree to disagree, that is at least somewhat more charitable than your previous statement that my position makes me "not serious" and "dishonest."

I simply cannot see how a government, that has set itself up as ruling over me and the place where I live without my consent, has any right or authority to make me responsible for acts that it commits and acts that my neighbors' children commit without my approbation and indeed without my having any choice in the matter.

If a robber were to steel your wallet at gunpoint, then use your cash and your ID to buy explosives to bomb a public building, would you somehow have a higher obligation to those victims than you would if he stole your neighbor's cash and ID to do the same thing? It seems to me that you are saying that you would, but I have no idea why that would be.

Let's look at it a different way.

Sudsy (I think) upstream suggested that "peacemaking" is simply evangelism and nothing more. If that is also your view then fine. But if you think Jesus had something more expansive in mind when he commanded us to be peacemakers then I would suggest that this obligates us to be more than simply disengaged and disinterested every our nation or society engages in conflict.

[mike]

Let's look at it a different way.

Sudsy (I think) upstream suggested that "peacemaking" is simply evangelism and nothing more. If that is also your view then fine. But if you think Jesus had something more expansive in mind when he commanded us to be peacemakers then I would suggest that this obligates us to be more than simply disengaged and disinterested every our nation or society engages in conflict.

Romans 12 is a perfect example of what I think Jesus had in mind by us being peacemakers. There is nothing to suggest that this involves engaging with the nation-state in its wars and even in its internal policing (use of the sword).

[ken_sylvania]

I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I suppose if you are willing to agree to disagree, that is at least somewhat more charitable than your previous statement that my position makes me "not serious" and "dishonest."

I simply cannot see how a government, that has set itself up as ruling over me and the place where I live without my consent, has any right or authority to make me responsible for acts that it commits and acts that my neighbors' children commit without my approbation and indeed without my having any choice in the matter.

If a robber were to steel your wallet at gunpoint, then use your cash and your ID to buy explosives to bomb a public building, would you somehow have a higher obligation to those victims than you would if he stole your neighbor's cash and ID to do the same thing? It seems to me that you are saying that you would, but I have no idea why that would be.

Let's look at it a different way.

Sudsy (I think) upstream suggested that "peacemaking" is simply evangelism and nothing more. If that is also your view then fine. But if you think Jesus had something more expansive in mind when he commanded us to be peacemakers then I would suggest that this obligates us to be more than simply disengaged and disinterested every our nation or society engages in conflict.

So if one thinks that "peacemaking" is simply evangelism and nothing more, it's fine - although dishonest and "not serious."? Really?

You may have missed this earlier, but I already said whether I think that "peacemaking" is simply evangelism.

How did Jesus go about trying to to engage in peacemaking between the Romans and the people over whom they ruled? He doesn't seem to have given us an example on how we ought to go about negotiating peace between nations, but he did give us an example on how to live in peace among ourselves. What kind of peacemaking did Jesus speak about? Was He really talking about mediators, or was he talking about people who live peaceably with others? I incline to the latter interpretation.

If a robber were to steel your wallet at gunpoint, then use your cash and your ID to buy explosives to bomb a public building, would you somehow have a higher obligation to those victims than you would if he stole your neighbor's cash and ID to do the same thing? It seems to me that you are saying that you would, but I have no idea why that would be.

[Heirbyadoption]

If our government decides to march off to war in Ukraine with 500,000 troops. Would you remain apathetic and disengaged and say "those are the affairs of the kingdom of man and of no concern to us as Christians?" Would you speak out in any way? Would you protest? Would you support any peacemaking efforts by your church? Relief efforts? Efforts to support refugees? Would you encourage and support conscientious objectors? Those are all forms of engagement and the sort of thing I am talking about. What I am saying is that you can't honestly claim to be a peacemaker and then ignore what your own government is doing if it is doing the opposite. But how you choose to engage is up to you. It doesn't necessarily mean joining the State Department as a diplomat so you can engage in government policy directly. In fact it almost never means that.

To expand on my previous answer about whether/how I would engage - If your government decides to march off to war....
My support/engagement with relief efforts would not be affected by whether the US Government was involved in the war, my encouragement/support of conscientious objectors would have more to do with the proximity of affected persons rather than having anything to do with whose government was involved. I'm not aware that Jesus taught anywhere that we have a greater or lesser obligation to show compassion depending on who caused the suffering.

I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.

Ken, I'm really wanting to understand the basis of this difference in thought here between you and Ken_Sylvania. If I may ask, am I understanding you correctly that your premise for this presumed higher obligation is fundamentally based on the concept of said war being funded with (specifically) OUR tax dollars, and that because they are somehow OUR dollars and we know they may be used to forward said conflict, then that concept of OUR ownership of said dollars obligates us to a higher obligation of compassion (whatever form that takes) toward those affected by said conflict rather than towards others not affected by that conflict? Is that a correct assessment of your position?

And IF that is the case, then:

A. at what point do those dollars cease to be OUR dollars and become "that which is Caesar's", if they were truly first OURS? and...
B. if we resist relinquishing any of "OUR" taxable dollars we know might go toward the use of force, or (specifically in the case mentioned above) toward war, and Caesar then takes them from us involuntarily, do you still posit that we still have a higher obligation toward one party than another?