Augustinians and War

[ken_sylvania]

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.

So even though you have no idea how you ought to become engaged in such a case, you are willing to say that a person who believes they can do a more effective work for God by working with their neighbors instead is "not serious"?

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.

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.

Nice way to sidestep the question. Do the Amish in your "hypothetical example" not claim to be peacemakers, or are you respecting their right to hold a position that you describe as the position of liars and cheats?

[Ken]

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.

So even though you have no idea how you ought to become engaged in such a case, you are willing to say that a person who believes they can do a more effective work for God by working with their neighbors instead is "not serious"?

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.

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.

Nice way to sidestep the question. Do the Amish in your "hypothetical example" not claim to be peacemakers, or are you respecting their right to hold a position that you describe as the position of liars and cheats?

I did not call the Amish liars and cheats. I said it was dishonest to consider oneself a peacemaker but then completely disengage and look the other way every time one's own society is engaged in actual conflict. As in intellectually dishonest. But I don't know if that's what they would do. They might very well engage in relief efforts and be very engaged at some level in their own way.

And yes, I honestly don't know what exactly I would do if the US went to war in Ukraine. I doubt anyone here can answer that question. But I suspect I would raise a voice of opposition in some form. And organizations that I support would likely be more directly engaged with relief efforts, efforts to help refugees, medical aid, and so forth. I would not shrug and say that it is of no concern of mine.

I use Ukraine as a hypothetical but real example. Russia has the largest invasion army to threaten peace in Europe since WW2 poised on the border. I pray that we won't see war. But it seems a real a real threat that could well drag in the US in some form or another. And could involve massive death and destruction.

[ken_sylvania]

I did not call the Amish liars and cheats. I said it was dishonest to consider oneself a peacemaker but then completely disengage and look the other way every time one's own society is engaged in actual conflict. As in intellectually dishonest. But I don't know if that's what they would do. They might very well engage in relief efforts and be very engaged at some level in their own way.

You said anyone holding such a position is "not serious" and "dishonest." And you said you respect people's right to hold that position that you claim is "not serious" and "dishonest." Well.... OK then.

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?

[Ken]

I did not call the Amish liars and cheats. I said it was dishonest to consider oneself a peacemaker but then completely disengage and look the other way every time one's own society is engaged in actual conflict. As in intellectually dishonest. But I don't know if that's what they would do. They might very well engage in relief efforts and be very engaged at some level in their own way.

You said anyone holding such a position is "not serious" and "dishonest." And you said you respect people's right to hold that position that you claim is "not serious" and "dishonest." Well.... OK then.

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?

"Your government"? If you are American then it is YOUR government too, like it or not.

[ken_sylvania]

I did not call the Amish liars and cheats. I said it was dishonest to consider oneself a peacemaker but then completely disengage and look the other way every time one's own society is engaged in actual conflict. As in intellectually dishonest. But I don't know if that's what they would do. They might very well engage in relief efforts and be very engaged at some level in their own way.

You said anyone holding such a position is "not serious" and "dishonest." And you said you respect people's right to hold that position that you claim is "not serious" and "dishonest." Well.... OK then.

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?

"Your government"? If you are American then it is YOUR government too, like it or not.

Maybe it's not actually MY government. I didn't elect it, I don't try to set it's policies. Saying it's MY government implies that I somehow have an ownership stake in it. I would say that I certainly have the option to have an ownership stake in the US Federal Government, but I would say that option has to be exercised in order for it to take effect. I am careful not to talk about OUR flag, OUR President, OUR army, OUR government because I have voluntarily chosen not to exercise my option to own it. To a degree, it can be said to be MY government in the sense that it is the government that I must obey, but it's not MY government in the sense of me helping to chose the leaders and shape their governing.

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?

[Ken]

You said anyone holding such a position is "not serious" and "dishonest." And you said you respect people's right to hold that position that you claim is "not serious" and "dishonest." Well.... OK then.

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?

"Your government"? If you are American then it is YOUR government too, like it or not.

Maybe it's not actually MY government. I didn't elect it, I don't try to set it's policies. Saying it's MY government implies that I somehow have an ownership stake in it. I would say that I certainly have the option to have an ownership stake in the US Federal Government, but I would say that option has to be exercised in order for it to take effect. I am careful not to talk about OUR flag, OUR President, OUR army, OUR government because I have voluntarily chosen not to exercise my option to own it. To a degree, it can be said to be MY government in the sense that it is the government that I must obey, but it's not MY government in the sense of me helping to chose the leaders and shape their governing.

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?

A third of Americans pretty much share your view and are disengaged from government. In 2020 only 67% of Americans over 18 voted which was modern record turnout but still means that 1/3 of Americans didn't participate. Which is everyone's right in a democracy.

But choosing not to participate doesn't mean it isn't still your government. You and everyone else benefit from government in a myriad of complex ways in the US and every other modern society. And your life would be extraordinarily different and more difficult were it not for government that you claim no ownership of.

[Sudsy]

I agree we have an obligation to be peacemakers. Our role is to introduce people to the Prince of Peace. Real peace is found in knowing Jesus. When we are walking in the Spirit we will not only be experiencing God's peace but able to be at peace with everyone. Even each other with the way we view some things. 'All we are saying is give peace a chance' - (sounds like a song ) For the believer this means give Jesus a chance to rule in one's life.

'If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone' - Romans 12:18

Do you think that evangelism is the ONLY thing that Jesus was talking about when he said “blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God?”

Wow, lots said since this post. To your question - Answer, 'no'.

I do believe this is the highest form of peace which is pointing others to having that 'peace that passes all understanding' as it is key to reconciling people to God who, in their spirits, are at war with Him. The second that should be also related closely to the first (as is the 2 greatest commandments) is the peace we are to have with one another, especially amongst other born again believers.

Scriptures talk much about getting into quarrels of sorts. Since we do 'see through a glass darkly', there will be differences of opinion between believers. Question in my mind is, at what point are we going beyond our different understandings and have entered into quarreling, which is then not a reflection of what it means to be a child of God walking in the Spirit. If I am in tune with the Spirit, I will know when to walk away. The ego calls for 'the last word' on an issue. Proverbs 20:3 says 'It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling.'

Some more scriptures related to quarreling - https://www.openbible.info/topics/quarreling

So, YMMV, but I believe peacemaking for a Christian is to be focused on leading others to the Prince of Peace and also living peacefully with other Christians so that the Light we are leading people to, is not covered over by our giving way to quarrels that do not reflect the peace given to a believer. Don't let our flesh destroy our testimony. Not doing this, I admit, my own example needs a closer walk with the Holy Spirit, and I need prayers and encouragements when I fail. That, I think, is where the PM forum feature can be quite useful as the Holy Spirit might chose to use us in helping one another.

We live in a world of much anxiety and warring of sorts. But this is not our home. We are ambassadors, aliens, strangers in a foreign land. Pilgrims just passing through. And we have the message of how to be saved from a life of strife and hopelessness. May our lives reflect that we truly are born again, children of God.

[Josh]

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.

We should consider to support our brethren in Russia and Ukraine who also are trying to be salt and light by not participating in worldly, earthly wars of aggression.

Mennonites had a good witness in Ukraine in the 1920s when they worked to help injured soldiers on both sides of the conflict. The MCC actually got started to help send food aid over during that time. These seem like worthwhile things to be doing.

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 mean, Ken, what exactly are you saying? Should Mennonites and Amish get involved in drafting foreign policy, trying to get elected to office, and joining government intelligence agencies (things the Mormons do)? Do you really think the world would be improved of Amish all started behaving like Southern Baptists in Texas or Mormons in Utah?

Was it a good thing that Nixon, a Quaker, ran for President, or would he have been better off embracing his church's historical peace position?

[Ken]

I mean, Ken, what exactly are you saying? Should Mennonites and Amish get involved in drafting foreign policy, trying to get elected to office, and joining government intelligence agencies (things the Mormons do)? Do you really think the world would be improved of Amish all started behaving like Southern Baptists in Texas or Mormons in Utah?

Not at all. I'm just suggesting that if you claim to be a peacemaker in the Biblical sense then you should be paying attention when your nation and your government are beating the drums of war.

Yes, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) was formed in 1920 to provide relief in war-torn Ukraine which was ravaged by the Russian Revolution and first world war and continued that same sort of work through WW2. That is an example of peacemaking and engagement with the world of the sort I am talking about.

When history is threatening to repeat itself 100 years later in the very same Ukraine but this time with the potential for our government to be a combatant, I'm suggesting we should be paying attention and similarly engaged.

Do you disagree?

[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.