Augustinians and War

[HondurasKeiser]

One plank that may be missing from my thinking is the necessity of government to accomplish God's plans. I suggest government is downstream of the collective moral conscience, more of a result than a cause. I suppose extra-legal killing was always illegal in the US, but people were routinely lynched without prosecution well into the 20th century. It was not until the moral conscience of the nation was engaged that change was realized. At that point the machinery of government began work on that issue. This is the power of engaging the real battles with the weapons of Jesus that are powerful and effective.

Not to be sophomoric but what about the recalcitrant and unrepentant lyncher that simply refuses to be moved or have his moral conscious engaged? Continues to lynch with abandon?

For these God often utilizes government, but not always and sometimes other things.

Again, not to be needling but can you think of other instances of God using other things to stop something like a 'serial lyncher'.

I have another question - related but quite different: Do you believe the violent death at the hands of the worldly powers was necessary to accomplish Christ's salvific purposes?

[joey_the_ox]

This quote from Gene in the Death Penalty thread fits well here too.

"First do no harm" as a rule for ethically practiced foreign policy means do nothing. In order to protect national interests, there will be times violence is needed against those bent on harming us nationally and individually. In reality, there are competing interests in the world, and some groups and persons can not be persuaded short of convincing them to assume room temperature. (I suppose that depending where you are, that could be very close to body temperature, but you get the point.) Someone is going to get harmed and unfortunately innocent persons will become collateral damage. The best we can hope for is that the damage is outweighed by the benefit. Christians should not be involved, but it has to happen. The world in its fallen state is ruled by violence and the credible threat of its use. Arguments against the state use of the sword in both foreign and domestic policy would deprive humanity of an ordained tool for the suppression of evil.

This is perhaps the logical outcome of Schleitheim. And it makes more clear some of my disagreements. First, the underlying assumption that violence is what is fundamental, that it is the background upon which everything else happens. This seems an unnecessary capitulation to Hobbes and his "war of all against all." Second, the lack of an ability to question the use of violence: "Arguments against ... would deprive humanity of an ordained tool." But Gene's point of view does perhaps crack the door open for questioning the use of violence with the phrase "ethically practiced foreign policy." The natural question is then "what ethics?" How should one evaluate foreign policy in an ethical manner, or, as I prefer, how should one determine if a particular action or policy is just or not? Or if Christians should not be involved, is the only option to view all acts of violence as existing on a morally flat plane?

Finally, the entire framing of the issue is in terms of "foreign policy" and "the state." As I've indicated before, I think that this is somewhat of a historically contingent framing. And when things are framed in this way the outcome tends to be that only "state" violence is viewed as "ordained." I don't know if Gene frequents this forum, but I wonder if he would support replacing his final sentence with this one: "Arguments against [my next-door neighbor's] use of the sword in [my neighborhood] would deprive humanity of an ordained tool for the suppression of evil."

[joshuabgood]

Not to be sophomoric but what about the recalcitrant and unrepentant lyncher that simply refuses to be moved or have his moral conscious engaged? Continues to lynch with abandon?

For these God often utilizes government, but not always and sometimes other things.

Again, not to be needling but can you think of other instances of God using other things to stop something like a 'serial lyncher'.

In a sense, appealing to violence appropriated by "certain men" (the state) to offer salvation for the problems of violence (serial lynching), begs the question because those same "certain" men are also serially violent. Who polices the police? The truth is violence merely begets violence. You can't drive out darkness with darkness. Or violence with violence. Or hate with hate. You can only drive out darkness with light and hate with love.

Some would say there are compelling reasons to consider that the state has been the biggest purveyor of serial violence...not because they are "worse" but because they control the use of violence by monopoly. Empires are empires because they appropriate violence to protect the interests of the empowered.

[joshuabgood]

I have another question - related but quite different: Do you believe the violent death at the hands of the worldly powers was necessary to accomplish Christ's salvific purposes?

The cross is not so much a means of salvation as it is the method of salvation. That is why Jesus is named our forerunner. When we also take up our cross and lay down our lives, we have the hope of immortality and resurrection from the dead, being joint-heirs with him.

[Josh]

This is perhaps the logical outcome of Schleitheim. And it makes more clear some of my disagreements. First, the underlying assumption that violence is what is fundamental, that it is the background upon which everything else happens. This seems an unnecessary capitulation to Hobbes and his "war of all against all." Second, the lack of an ability to question the use of violence: "Arguments against ... would deprive humanity of an ordained tool." But Gene's point of view does perhaps crack the door open for questioning the use of violence with the phrase "ethically practiced foreign policy." The natural question is then "what ethics?" How should one evaluate foreign policy in an ethical manner, or, as I prefer, how should one determine if a particular action or policy is just or not? Or if Christians should not be involved, is the only option to view all acts of violence as existing on a morally flat plane?

My reading of Schleitheim is that Christians should refrain from killing; I do not see it as an overall condemnation of all coercive or punitive measures. Amongst adult brethren, the ultimate tool of coercion is the ban, as it should be. In my own personal life, I draw the line at killing someone (or threatening to kill them, such as brandishing a deadly weapon like a gun). I do not consider calling the police to be the same as "killing someone". A criminal suspect can choose to allow themselves to be arrested and present their case at trial, instead of provoking a deadly confrontation with the police.

Finally, the entire framing of the issue is in terms of "foreign policy" and "the state." As I've indicated before, I think that this is somewhat of a historically contingent framing. And when things are framed in this way the outcome tends to be that only "state" violence is viewed as "ordained." I don't know if Gene frequents this forum, but I wonder if he would support replacing his final sentence with this one: "Arguments against [my next-door neighbor's] use of the sword in [my neighborhood] would deprive humanity of an ordained tool for the suppression of evil."

I would argue that "state violence" does extend down to the most basic unit of government, self-government, and individual citizens are indeed authorised to use self-defence. That is part and parcel of "state violence". I have no objection at all to my neighbours engaging in self-defence against wicked people who intend to do them (or others) harm.

Of course, I would like to convert my neighbours to following the gospel, but the conversion needs to happen first before I expect the to live an apocalyptic, self-sacrificial Anabaptist lifestyle. Much like Ernie, I see there being "Plan A" and "Plan B". I think it is unfair and unreasonable to expect people to live "Plan A" before they feel the conviction to do so, feel the resurrection power to enable them to do so, and invite them to join a community that helps make that possible. 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.

[joshuabgood]

I agree with what Josh said mostly but would add these questions.

Do we believe that Plan A works? And is more effective and fighting violence than is violence?

If so, why wouldn't we advocate for everyone to follow plan A?

That said, I don't think killing some one in true self defence, or in the defense of others, is immoral per se. But perhaps there is a better way that works better if we have the faith to believe it.

[Josh]

I agree with what Josh said mostly but would add these questions.

Do we believe that Plan A works? And is more effective and fighting violence than is violence?

If so, why wouldn't we advocate for everyone to follow plan A?

I do advocate that.

The thing is - lots of people don't want to become committed Christ followers and become a member of a plain Anabaptist congregation. And it's not like we can force them to. (The old state church in Europe did have mandatory membership.)

I also don't believe that plan A is "effective". Being a committed Christian often means losing all of one's property, rights, family, children, etc. - it is no way to build any kind of stable society. Of course, as Christians we are supposed to be a peculiar people and as "sheep led to the slaughter". But it is ridiculous to try to expect an entire nation to be plan A.

[Ken]

This is perhaps the logical outcome of Schleitheim. And it makes more clear some of my disagreements. First, the underlying assumption that violence is what is fundamental, that it is the background upon which everything else happens. This seems an unnecessary capitulation to Hobbes and his "war of all against all." Second, the lack of an ability to question the use of violence: "Arguments against ... would deprive humanity of an ordained tool." But Gene's point of view does perhaps crack the door open for questioning the use of violence with the phrase "ethically practiced foreign policy." The natural question is then "what ethics?" How should one evaluate foreign policy in an ethical manner, or, as I prefer, how should one determine if a particular action or policy is just or not? Or if Christians should not be involved, is the only option to view all acts of violence as existing on a morally flat plane?

My reading of Schleitheim is that Christians should refrain from killing; I do not see it as an overall condemnation of all coercive or punitive measures. Amongst adult brethren, the ultimate tool of coercion is the ban, as it should be. In my own personal life, I draw the line at killing someone (or threatening to kill them, such as brandishing a deadly weapon like a gun). I do not consider calling the police to be the same as "killing someone". A criminal suspect can choose to allow themselves to be arrested and present their case at trial, instead of provoking a deadly confrontation with the police.

Finally, the entire framing of the issue is in terms of "foreign policy" and "the state." As I've indicated before, I think that this is somewhat of a historically contingent framing. And when things are framed in this way the outcome tends to be that only "state" violence is viewed as "ordained." I don't know if Gene frequents this forum, but I wonder if he would support replacing his final sentence with this one: "Arguments against [my next-door neighbor's] use of the sword in [my neighborhood] would deprive humanity of an ordained tool for the suppression of evil."

I would argue that "state violence" does extend down to the most basic unit of government, self-government, and individual citizens are indeed authorised to use self-defence. That is part and parcel of "state violence". I have no objection at all to my neighbours engaging in self-defence against wicked people who intend to do them (or others) harm.

Of course, I would like to convert my neighbours to following the gospel, but the conversion needs to happen first before I expect the to live an apocalyptic, self-sacrificial Anabaptist lifestyle. Much like Ernie, I see there being "Plan A" and "Plan B". I think it is unfair and unreasonable to expect people to live "Plan A" before they feel the conviction to do so, feel the resurrection power to enable them to do so, and invite them to join a community that helps make that possible. 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.

The problem with this attitude or approach is that it completely sidesteps the real issues involved with state violence. Namely, how should such violence be conducted, under what standards, and under what limits? In a democratic society it isn't enough to simply hand-wave those issues away as being of no concern to Christians.

[Josh]

It doesn’t sidestep it. The Anabaptist position is that it is not possible to reconcile following Jesus’ teachings whilst simultaneously bearing the sword.

The Catholic position is that it is possible, so I would advise those who think they have a duty to do both to consider a different religion than plain Anabaptism. (Of course, I will still evangelise all that should join up with Plan A and lay down the sword.)

[Ernie]

Plan A - Kingdom A - Living according the law of liberty. Having the law written on people's hearts. Not using coercion or the sword. Calling people from Kingdom B to join Kingdom A.
Plan B - Kingdom B - Taking up the sword, supporting and encouraging those who take up the sword, retributive justice.
I would present to them Plan A and Plan B as I understand it, and tell them that God never wanted there to be a plan B and that it is God's heart that they leave Kingdom B and follow plan A. If they are not willing to follow Plan A, then yes, they should fulfill their role in Kingdom B.

I don't see much difference between this and saying that it would be better if those using the sword would instead not use the sword - that there is something wrong with the use of the sword. (Of course you are saying more than this but it seems to include this.)

No, I am not saying that it is better to not use the sword. Anyone using the sword should stop doing so and follow the example of Jesus while he was here on earth. Like Barnhart said, the sword does not bring about good. Its only purpose is to restrain evil.

Here might be an illustration.
A set of parents has two sons who are in their upper teens. The one honors his parent's wishes, and the other is disobedient and disrespectful.
At some point the parent tells the dishonorable son that he needs to meet certain conditions or find another place to live. North American law does not allow the parents to give older teens physical punishment or stone their son to death even though that is what is commanded in the Old Testament.

So while war and violence are the ultimate weapon against evil, they are not the only weapons. Returning good for evil and prayer are other weapons. Christians are supposed to leave vengeance to God and use prayer and returning good for evil in this life

I urge everyone to become Christian, and I urge all Christians to lay down their swords.

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.

Finally, are these the only two kingdoms in your picture? If so, are you comfortable making "the sword" the dividing line between those two?

Yes, I understand laying down the sword to be part of "mere Christianity" or "orthodox Christianity". I understand Christians for the first three centuries also believed this.