Augustinians and War

[barnhart]

What I think I am saying we should not be willfully ignorant of what our government is doing in our name. And when those moments come when there are true choices between war and peace we should not simply look away and pretend it is none of our business. But such moments really only happen once or twice in a generation. The Civil War, the World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. The more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now potentially Ukraine. What that means for any one person or church is going to be different. Some may join in peaceful protest. Others may work to assist and resettle refugees. Others may work on relief missions to bring aid or medical assistance. Maybe you support an organization that works with homeless vets who have been damaged by war to bring some peace back into their lives. The choices are endless. When your nation is at war, what are you going to do to be a peacemaker?

That is completely different from actively engaging in partisan politics or directly engaging in government or even being political at all. I'm not naïve enough to think that any of us individually or collectively are going to change the course of world events. But when the world is in conflict I do think Jesus is calling us to do our own small part to bring peace. And I think that calling goes beyond simple evangelism or simply living quietly in the land as an example. I think it is an active obligation. He does not call us to simply live peacefully. He calls us to be peacemakers.

I think this is good, especially the bolded line. This type of engagement will likely be diminished by partisan support, not increased.

It seems to me the church has suffered quite a lot from failing the challenge Ken identifies. The Native American church still struggles under the weight of the failure of the broader church to recognize, name, condemn and separate from colonialism, white supremacy and manifest destiny. I read that less than 30% of Native churches have Native pastors. The black church has a long history of existing without much recognition or brotherhood from the majority church around them, and we see the results today. One can only imagine what the American church might look like if the mass of believers had been up to the salt and light challenge in relating to Native Americans and African Americans. Europe has absorbed a lot of migration and refugees from middle East destabilization, wouldn't the church there be on much better footing if they had a consistent record of speaking out against those wars?

[Josh]

What I think I am saying we should not be willfully ignorant of what our government is doing in our name. And when those moments come when there are true choices between war and peace we should not simply look away and pretend it is none of our business. But such moments really only happen once or twice in a generation. The Civil War, the World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. The more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now potentially Ukraine. What that means for any one person or church is going to be different. Some may join in peaceful protest. Others may work to assist and resettle refugees. Others may work on relief missions to bring aid or medical assistance. Maybe you support an organization that works with homeless vets who have been damaged by war to bring some peace back into their lives. The choices are endless. When your nation is at war, what are you going to do to be a peacemaker?

That is completely different from actively engaging in partisan politics or directly engaging in government or even being political at all. I'm not naïve enough to think that any of us individually or collectively are going to change the course of world events. But when the world is in conflict I do think Jesus is calling us to do our own small part to bring peace. And I think that calling goes beyond simple evangelism or simply living quietly in the land as an example. I think it is an active obligation. He does not call us to simply live peacefully. He calls us to be peacemakers.

I think this is good, especially the bolded line. This type of engagement will likely be diminished by partisan support, not increased.

It seems to me the church has suffered quite a lot from failing the challenge Ken identifies. The Native American church still struggles under the weight of the failure of the broader church to recognize, name, condemn and separate from colonialism, white supremacy and manifest destiny. I read that less than 30% of Native churches have Native pastors. The black church has a long history of existing without much recognition or brotherhood from the majority church around them, and we see the results today. One can only imagine what the American church might look like if the mass of believers had been up to the salt and light challenge in relating to Native Americans and African Americans. Europe has absorbed a lot of migration and refugees from middle East destabilization, wouldn't the church there be on much better footing if they had a consistent record of speaking out against those wars?

Speak against what wars? The invasion of Europe by the Ottomans?

[Sudsy]

What is my silence approach?

Fair question. It was my summary of what I heard when you wrote that kingdom believers "have no need to pay attention to what their nation is doing."

Our family runs a news business and we keep about 3500 Anabaptist households updated with the news. So I am not opposed at all to paying attention to what our nation and other nations are doing. That is how we make our livelihood. But I don't believe that we "need to pay attention." But if we are going to pay attention, lets listen to "pundits" who are helping us stay emotionally uninvolved, so that we can stay focused on changing the world the same way Jesus did. Jesus motto here on earth seemed to be, "Preach the Gospel (through deeds) and if possible, include words!"

I have to join in on the underlined. A nerve was hit. I disagree and the proclamation of the Gospel requires words - Romans 10:14,15

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

Also, the quote - "have no need to pay attention to what their nation is doing" - that is one I mainly agree with as what I see is that many Christians are side-tracked from sharing the Gospel with words as they are all caught up with current events in their nation. If I am sharing the Gospel with words, there is little I need to know about how sin in the world is currently manifesting itself. And if an unbeliever is all taken up with an event, I can listen to them and then direct their thoughts to a Kingdom way of life. I know this works from personal experience.

We have been given the ministry of reconciliation to bring people, who are not at peace with God, to enter into that peace with God. We also are to be peacemakers amongst the saved so the light of the Gospel message is not hidden by our unpeaceful ways of getting along.

Satan has tricked many into thinking they need to keep up with current events and the result is they get stuck there debating what the unsaved should be doing. Following current events can be an addiction just as alcohol and other things can be. Sadly, it often results in Christians who never or seldom lead anyone to the Prince of Peace. And it often leads to lives of anxiety, fears and doubt in the saving power of God.

The last thing a born again Christian is to be is to be 'the quiet in the land'. If the early church was like that Christianity would not exist today. We are heralds of the truth about Jesus and what He came to do. We can't squirm out of using words.

I realize this might sound pretty strong but it is my understanding that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost and we all are part of that reconciliation ministry.

[Ken]

What I think I am saying we should not be willfully ignorant of what our government is doing in our name. And when those moments come when there are true choices between war and peace we should not simply look away and pretend it is none of our business. But such moments really only happen once or twice in a generation. The Civil War, the World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. The more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now potentially Ukraine. What that means for any one person or church is going to be different. Some may join in peaceful protest. Others may work to assist and resettle refugees. Others may work on relief missions to bring aid or medical assistance. Maybe you support an organization that works with homeless vets who have been damaged by war to bring some peace back into their lives. The choices are endless. When your nation is at war, what are you going to do to be a peacemaker?

That is completely different from actively engaging in partisan politics or directly engaging in government or even being political at all. I'm not naïve enough to think that any of us individually or collectively are going to change the course of world events. But when the world is in conflict I do think Jesus is calling us to do our own small part to bring peace. And I think that calling goes beyond simple evangelism or simply living quietly in the land as an example. I think it is an active obligation. He does not call us to simply live peacefully. He calls us to be peacemakers.

I think this is good, especially the bolded line. This type of engagement will likely be diminished by partisan support, not increased.

It seems to me the church has suffered quite a lot from failing the challenge Ken identifies. The Native American church still struggles under the weight of the failure of the broader church to recognize, name, condemn and separate from colonialism, white supremacy and manifest destiny. I read that less than 30% of Native churches have Native pastors. The black church has a long history of existing without much recognition or brotherhood from the majority church around them, and we see the results today. One can only imagine what the American church might look like if the mass of believers had been up to the salt and light challenge in relating to Native Americans and African Americans. Europe has absorbed a lot of migration and refugees from middle East destabilization, wouldn't the church there be on much better footing if they had a consistent record of speaking out against those wars?

Speak against what wars? The invasion of Europe by the Ottomans?

How about focusing your attention on the wars being fought by your society and your country ostensibly on your behalf?

And I wouldn't suggest you necessarily even need to speak out against war. That is certainly one type of response but far from the only one. Peacemaking is an incredibly broad mandate. Everyone or every group needs to find the type of peacemaking response that suits them.

Anabaptists have been quick to respond when it is their own men who are being drafted. Then you get an urgent response from the Anabaptist community both liberal and conservative. But when it is your neighbor's kids being sent to war, and other people suffering the consequences of war, some go silent and brush it off as worldly affairs that are of no concern to them.

[Josh]

How about focusing your attention on the wars being fought by your society and your country ostensibly on your behalf?

I've certainly spoken out against America's ongoing bellicose attitude towards Russia (and lately, seemingly with China over Taiwan as well).

But I don't exactly have some leverage to somehow prevent America from (for example) shipping planeload after planeload of ammunition to the Ukraine.

Anabaptists have been quick to respond when it is their own men who are being drafted. Then you get an urgent response from the Anabaptist community both liberal and conservative. But when it is your neighbor's kids being sent to war, and other people suffering the consequences of war, some go silent and brush it off as worldly affairs that are of no concern to them.

What exactly would you have us do?

[Ken]

How about focusing your attention on the wars being fought by your society and your country ostensibly on your behalf?

I've certainly spoken out against America's ongoing bellicose attitude towards Russia (and lately, seemingly with China over Taiwan as well).

But I don't exactly have some leverage to somehow prevent America from (for example) shipping planeload after planeload of ammunition to the Ukraine.

Anabaptists have been quick to respond when it is their own men who are being drafted. Then you get an urgent response from the Anabaptist community both liberal and conservative. But when it is your neighbor's kids being sent to war, and other people suffering the consequences of war, some go silent and brush it off as worldly affairs that are of no concern to them.

What exactly would you have us do?

Whatever you feel called to do. I don't have all the answers and I'm not naïve enough to think any of us collectively or individually are going to affect the course of world events. Just don't say that it is of no concern of yours every time your country or society goes to war and then claim to be a peacemaker.

Personally most of the actual work I have done over the years has been in the area of refugees and not policy or protest. You have to find your own way to bring a measure of peace into the world, however small.

[Ernie]

Jesus motto here on earth seemed to be, "Preach the Gospel (through deeds) and if possible, include words!"

I have to join in on the underlined. A nerve was hit. I disagree and the proclamation of the Gospel requires words - Romans 10:14,15

Have you ever been in a position when you were not allowed to speak for some reason, or in a situation when speaking actually made things worse, and the only avenue left for proclaiming the Gospel was to live like Jesus?

I think the majority of followers of Jesus around the world find themselves in such a situation most of the time.

[Josh]

The Bible says there will be wars and rumours of wars. This means it is pointless to try to stop "war". Nonetheless, that doesn't mean we should get actively involved in fighting wars, nor should we get actively involved in trying to help choose who we go to war with this election cycle.

[Ken]

The Bible says there will be wars and rumours of wars. This means it is pointless to try to stop "war". Nonetheless, that doesn't mean we should get actively involved in fighting wars, nor should we get actively involved in trying to help choose who we go to war with this election cycle.

The Bible also says similar things about both sin and poverty. That there will always be sin and poverty in the world.

By your logic does that mean we should not get actively involved in opposing those things as well? Because it is all futile?

[Josh]

The Bible says there will be wars and rumours of wars. This means it is pointless to try to stop "war". Nonetheless, that doesn't mean we should get actively involved in fighting wars, nor should we get actively involved in trying to help choose who we go to war with this election cycle.

The Bible also says similar things about both sin and poverty. That there will always be sin and poverty in the world.

By your logic does that mean we should not get actively involved in opposing those things as well? Because it is all futile?

Via natural means, yes. The only way to deal with sin is through becoming born again and following Jesus. And eradicating poverty is impossible. As Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you."