Augustinians and War

[ken_sylvania]

We have a Christian responsibility to care for God's creation

Why should we be concerned about the environment? It isn’t just because of the dangers we face from pollution, climate change, or other environmental problems—although these are serious. For Christians, the issue is much deeper: We know that God created the world, and it belongs to Him, not us. Because of this, we are only stewards or trustees of God’s creation, and we aren’t to abuse or neglect it. The Bible says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1).

When we fail to see the world as God’s creation, we will end up abusing it. Selfishness and greed take over, and we end up not caring about the environment or the problems we’re creating for future generations. -Billy Graham

We have a Christian responsibility to be Peacemakers:

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

We have Christian responsibility towards the poor

“Whoever oppresses the poor insults his maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him”

I could go on and on. But more than any other single factor, the government that we elect affects how our society engages with creation, engages in war and peace, and affects poverty. And pretty much every other social and worldly issue mentioned in the Bible. You can say you care about the God's creation, peacemaking, or poverty. But if you are completely apathetic and disengaged with how the single largest force in our society engages on those topics then you really aren't being serious or honest.

Would you also say that Jesus was dishonest and not serious because he refused to engage with the Roman government in how they treated their subjects?
If I have consciously decided that I can do more good for Christ's kingdom by remaining aloof from Government and Government policy, what gives you the right to say that I am being dishonest?

[Ken]

It's not that I'm arguing we need to be social justice warriors like some urban liberal churches seem to suggest. Or be pro-life warriors like some conservative evangelical churches suggest.

Agreed. Those options seem both dangerous and ineffective. And possibly counter to the mandate of heavenly citizens.

I'm only pointing out that in any democratic society we are all collectively responsible for the things that our government does on our behalf.

I can see why this is an attractive belief, democracy is seductive. But I would say from a Kingdom perspective heavenly citizens are collectively responsible to infiltrate our societies as salt and light.

In our society the vast majority of voters identify as Christians, as do over 90% of our members of Congress, judges, state and local legislatures, and every president ever elected. Perhaps that means absolutely nothing. Many would argue that it doesn't. But Christians are not exactly without agency. We don't live in the pagan Roman Empire. Everyone's talents and roles are different. Some might be called to run for president or other elected offices. Some might be called to witness to their neighbors or those in power. Some might be called to confront and stand up to power and injustice. Some might be called to live quietly in the land as nothing more than an example to others. I think we all have an individual and collective duty. But I don't think there is any one right way or path. We also don't live in a 15th century "divine right" monarchy in which our lives are governed by the twin powers of the church and king. Our government is nothing more than "us". If our government fails to live up to our ideals, the fault is ours.

To use an example from another time and place. I think the German people shared a collective guilt for the horrors that their country brought to the world during the 1930s and 40s. And many but not all Germans were also individually guilty. But none of it would or could have happened with just the sheer will and effort of a few evil Nazis at the top. It required the complicity and eager participation of millions. Including many German Mennonites if the historical reporting is at all accurate. That does not mean any of them necessarily had the power to alter the course of history. Few people ever actually do. But those who actually tried were very few and far between. There have been thousands of volumes written about the rise of fascism, each with a different angle or focus. But the thread common to most of them is that far too many people were either sucked in or looked the other way.

[Ken]

We have a Christian responsibility to care for God's creation

Why should we be concerned about the environment? It isn’t just because of the dangers we face from pollution, climate change, or other environmental problems—although these are serious. For Christians, the issue is much deeper: We know that God created the world, and it belongs to Him, not us. Because of this, we are only stewards or trustees of God’s creation, and we aren’t to abuse or neglect it. The Bible says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1).

When we fail to see the world as God’s creation, we will end up abusing it. Selfishness and greed take over, and we end up not caring about the environment or the problems we’re creating for future generations. -Billy Graham

We have a Christian responsibility to be Peacemakers:

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

We have Christian responsibility towards the poor

“Whoever oppresses the poor insults his maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him”

I could go on and on. But more than any other single factor, the government that we elect affects how our society engages with creation, engages in war and peace, and affects poverty. And pretty much every other social and worldly issue mentioned in the Bible. You can say you care about the God's creation, peacemaking, or poverty. But if you are completely apathetic and disengaged with how the single largest force in our society engages on those topics then you really aren't being serious or honest.

Would you also say that Jesus was dishonest and not serious because he refused to engage with the Roman government in how they treated their subjects?
If I have consciously decided that I can do more good for Christ's kingdom by remaining aloof from Government and Government policy, what gives you the right to say that I am being dishonest?

I did not say you were being dishonest if you choose not to engage in government policy. Everyone has to find their own path and for many that is the right path. What I said was that Christians are being dishonest if they collectively believe they have an obligation to protect God's creation or be peacemakers or care about poverty and then ignore or hand-wave away as irrelevant the role their own government plays in those areas.

[ken_sylvania]

We have a Christian responsibility to care for God's creation



We have a Christian responsibility to be Peacemakers:



We have Christian responsibility towards the poor



I could go on and on. But more than any other single factor, the government that we elect affects how our society engages with creation, engages in war and peace, and affects poverty. And pretty much every other social and worldly issue mentioned in the Bible. You can say you care about the God's creation, peacemaking, or poverty. But if you are completely apathetic and disengaged with how the single largest force in our society engages on those topics then you really aren't being serious or honest.

Would you also say that Jesus was dishonest and not serious because he refused to engage with the Roman government in how they treated their subjects?
If I have consciously decided that I can do more good for Christ's kingdom by remaining aloof from Government and Government policy, what gives you the right to say that I am being dishonest?

I did not say you were being dishonest if you choose not to engage in government policy. Everyone has to find their own path and for many that is the right path. What I said was that Christians are being dishonest if they collectively believe they have an obligation to protect God's creation or be peacemakers or care about poverty and then ignore or hand-wave away as irrelevant the role their own government plays in those areas.

No, you said that if a person is disengaged with how the single largest force in our society (I assume you meant the government rather than the church) engages with creation, war and peace, poverty - you said that if a person is apathetic or disengaged with how government engages these topics, he is basically a fraud.

I believe that I do have an obligation to be a good steward of God's creation, to be a peacemaker, and to care about poverty. I also believe that I can best fulfill God's purpose for me in these areas by remaining aloof from Government. This being the case, how can I do anything other than refuse to engage with how the US government handles war? It would rather be active engagement with how the government handles these topics that would make a liar out of me. If I am to choose not to engage in government policy, of what value is it to worry about what atrocities "my" government is perpetuating in "my name"?

[Ken]

Would you also say that Jesus was dishonest and not serious because he refused to engage with the Roman government in how they treated their subjects?
If I have consciously decided that I can do more good for Christ's kingdom by remaining aloof from Government and Government policy, what gives you the right to say that I am being dishonest?

I did not say you were being dishonest if you choose not to engage in government policy. Everyone has to find their own path and for many that is the right path. What I said was that Christians are being dishonest if they collectively believe they have an obligation to protect God's creation or be peacemakers or care about poverty and then ignore or hand-wave away as irrelevant the role their own government plays in those areas.

No, you said that if a person is disengaged with how the single largest force in our society (I assume you meant the government rather than the church) engages with creation, war and peace, poverty - you said that if a person is apathetic or disengaged with how government engages these topics, he is basically a fraud.

I believe that I do have an obligation to be a good steward of God's creation, to be a peacemaker, and to care about poverty. I also believe that I can best fulfill God's purpose for me in these areas by remaining aloof from Government. This being the case, how can I do anything other than refuse to engage with how the US government handles war? It would rather be active engagement with how the government handles these topics that would make a liar out of me. If I am to choose not to engage in government policy, of what value is it to worry about what atrocities "my" government is perpetuating in "my name"?

I am using the term "engagement" broadly.

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.

There might well be some conservative groups like some Amish perhaps, who might say "those are the affairs of the English and of no concern to us" as long as their own boys aren't getting drafted. I would disagree with that position. I would respect their right to hold it. But I don't think one can claim to be a peacemaker and then disengage from every conflict that doesn't confront you directly.

[barnhart]

To use an example from another time and place. I think the German people shared a collective guilt for the horrors that their country brought to the world during the 1930s and 40s. And many but not all Germans were also individually guilty. But none of it would or could have happened with just the sheer will and effort of a few evil Nazis at the top. It required the complicity and eager participation of millions. Including many German Mennonites if the historical reporting is at all accurate. That does not mean any of them necessarily had the power to alter the course of history. Few people ever actually do. But those who actually tried were very few and far between. There have been thousands of volumes written about the rise of fascism, each with a different angle or focus. But the thread common to most of them is that far too many people were either sucked in or looked the other way.

I think this is a good example of the failure of salt and light and in it's place, the seduction of national identity and what J. H. Yoder called "establishment responsibility." The number of committed Nazis was relatively small. The program slid along on rails of silence, willful blindness and compliance of the masses. Most of whom were God fearing, hymn singing, active believers. If only one in ten had sat down and refused to cooperate, the program would have ground to a halt.

[ken_sylvania]

I did not say you were being dishonest if you choose not to engage in government policy. Everyone has to find their own path and for many that is the right path. What I said was that Christians are being dishonest if they collectively believe they have an obligation to protect God's creation or be peacemakers or care about poverty and then ignore or hand-wave away as irrelevant the role their own government plays in those areas.

No, you said that if a person is disengaged with how the single largest force in our society (I assume you meant the government rather than the church) engages with creation, war and peace, poverty - you said that if a person is apathetic or disengaged with how government engages these topics, he is basically a fraud.

I believe that I do have an obligation to be a good steward of God's creation, to be a peacemaker, and to care about poverty. I also believe that I can best fulfill God's purpose for me in these areas by remaining aloof from Government. This being the case, how can I do anything other than refuse to engage with how the US government handles war? It would rather be active engagement with how the government handles these topics that would make a liar out of me. If I am to choose not to engage in government policy, of what value is it to worry about what atrocities "my" government is perpetuating in "my name"?

I am using the term "engagement" broadly.

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.

There might well be some conservative groups like some Amish perhaps, who might say "those are the affairs of the English and of no concern to us" as long as their own boys aren't getting drafted. I would disagree with that position. I would respect their right to hold it. But I don't think one can claim to be a peacemaker and then disengage from every conflict that doesn't confront you directly.

I wasn't talking about joining the government. I was talking about using influence as a private citizen to try to influence government policy.

If your government decided to march off to war in Ukraine I would not speak out in any way intended to change your government's position or actions in the matter. I would not protest. My church would not send a peacemaking team (it's more important to reconcile individuals to God rather than try to reconcile nations). Relief efforts, if engaged in, would be outside of government channels.

Why must I feel an obligation to respond to whatever your government is doing? I don't feel a special obligation to respond to everything that the slumlord two towns away is doing - why would I have an obligation to respond to everything your government is doing?

How can you say that you would respect the right of the Amish to hold the position you describe while at the same time saying that it is the position of liars and cheats? Or are you saying that the Amish would not claim to be peacemakers?

[Ken]

No, you said that if a person is disengaged with how the single largest force in our society (I assume you meant the government rather than the church) engages with creation, war and peace, poverty - you said that if a person is apathetic or disengaged with how government engages these topics, he is basically a fraud.

I believe that I do have an obligation to be a good steward of God's creation, to be a peacemaker, and to care about poverty. I also believe that I can best fulfill God's purpose for me in these areas by remaining aloof from Government. This being the case, how can I do anything other than refuse to engage with how the US government handles war? It would rather be active engagement with how the government handles these topics that would make a liar out of me. If I am to choose not to engage in government policy, of what value is it to worry about what atrocities "my" government is perpetuating in "my name"?

I am using the term "engagement" broadly.

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.

There might well be some conservative groups like some Amish perhaps, who might say "those are the affairs of the English and of no concern to us" as long as their own boys aren't getting drafted. I would disagree with that position. I would respect their right to hold it. But I don't think one can claim to be a peacemaker and then disengage from every conflict that doesn't confront you directly.

I wasn't talking about joining the government. I was talking about using influence as a private citizen to try to influence government policy.

If your government decided to march off to war in Ukraine I would not speak out in any way intended to change your government's position or actions in the matter. I would not protest. My church would not send a peacemaking team (it's more important to reconcile individuals to God rather than try to reconcile nations). Relief efforts, if engaged in, would be outside of government channels.

Why must I feel an obligation to respond to whatever your government is doing? I don't feel a special obligation to respond to everything that the slumlord two towns away is doing - why would I have an obligation to respond to everything your government is doing?

How can you say that you would respect the right of the Amish to hold the position you describe while at the same time saying that it is the position of liars and cheats? Or are you saying that the Amish would not claim to be peacemakers?

I would say that one really isn't engaged in peacemaking as Jesus was speaking about if one ignores and avoids engaging with any and every warmaking endeavor that one's government engages in. While at the same time profiting from living in that same society. I don't particularly feel obligated to engage myself directly in the conflict between say Ethiopia and Tigray. Or between Myanmar and the Rohingyas. Although I would support peacemaking efforts to resolve those conflicts and any other conflicts around the world. But if it is my own government using my own tax dollars and deploying my neighbor's children to fight a war across the globe then I will feel a greater responsibility to become engaged in some way. Although what that might entail I really couldn't say.

As for the Amish? have no idea what the Amish would actually do or claim in real life. I was just using that as a hypothetical example.

[joey_the_ox]

I admit that I can't really follow the discussion, especially regarding the justifications/reasons that people are using to support various conclusions (I don't really understand the "mode" of argumentation). Both sides seem quite focused on disagreements about acts of violence that carried out by the modern "sovereign" liberal state and the means of support of or resistance to these acts that are legible to the registry of said state (such as voting). As I said closer to the beginning of the thread, I think that this is a discussion that is somewhat sidestepping the underlying issues.

[RZehr]

We are ambassadors.
We see little difference in our role, be it Ethiopia and Tigray, between Myanmar and the Rohingyas, or the Ukraine and Russia and the USA. Perhaps we could even argue we have a larger role in the case of the Rohingyas since we do have a mission there. Although I also have an old school friend that’s been in Ukraine for 15 years.