War in the Institutes

That was easy.  I just went to ccel.org and searched their online edition for “war” and it brought me right to book IV, chapter 20, paragraphs 11 and 12.  Here is the argument for war by none other than Calvin himself.  Now let the investigations begin. 

11. As it is sometimes necessary for kings and states to take up arms in order to execute public vengeance, the reason assigned furnishes us with the means of estimating how far the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful. For if power has been given them to maintain the tranquillity of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent, assist those who are violently oppressed, and animadvert on crimes, can they use it more opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and the common tranquillity of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent oppression and gross wrongs? If it becomes them to be the guardians and maintainers of the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been afflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with impunity? Since it makes no difference whether it is by a king or by the lowest of the people that a hostile and devastating inroad is made into a district over which they have no authority, all alike are to be regarded and punished as robbers. Natural equity and duty, therefore, demand that princes be armed not only to repress private crimes by judicial inflictions, but to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostilely assailed. Such even the Holy Spirit, in many passages of Scripture, declares to be lawful.

12. But if it is objected, that in the New Testament there is no passage or example teaching that war is lawful for Christians, I answer, first, that the reason for carrying on war, which anciently existed, still exists in the present day, and that, on the other hand, there is no ground for debarring magistrates from the defence of those under them; and, secondly, that in the Apostolical writings we are not to look for a distinct exposition of those matters, their object being not to form a civil polity, but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ; lastly, that there also it is indicated, in passing, that our Saviour, by his advent, made no change in this respect. For (to use the words of Augustine) “if Christian discipline condemned all wars, when the soldiers ask counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to cast away their arms, and withdraw altogether from military service. Whereas it was said (Luke 3:14), Concuss no one, do injury to no one, be contented with your pay. Those whom he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve” (August. Ep. 5 ad Marcell.) But all magistrates must here be particularly cautious not to give way, in the slightest degree, to their passions. Or rather, whether punishments are to be inflicted, they must not be borne headlong by anger, nor hurried away by hatred, nor burn with implacable severity; they must, as Augustine says (De Civit. Dei. Lib. 5 cap. 24), “even pity a common nature in him in whom they punish an individual fault;” or whether they have to take up arms against an enemy, that is, an armed robber, they must not readily catch at the opportunity, nay, they must not take it when offered, unless compelled by the strongest necessity. For if we are to do far more than that heathen demanded, who wished war to appear as desired peace, assuredly all other means must be tried before having recourse to arms. In fine, in both cases, they must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others. On this right of war depends the right of garrisons, leagues, and other civil munitions. By garrisons, I mean those which are stationed in states for defence of the frontiers; by leagues, the alliances which are made by neighbouring princes, on the ground that if any disturbance arise within their territories, they will mutually assist each other, and combine their forces to repel the common enemies of the human race; under civil munitions, I include everything pertaining to the military art.

Calvin and War

I have been studying a bit on war in the Christian tradition.  It’s mainly an attempt on my part to reconcile the sermon on the mount with Church history.  Why should a religion founded on such a pacifist as the Jesus of the sermon on the mount have such a long history of war and executions?  This is one of the most popular secular and agnostic critique and disenchantment with Christianity as a historical institution and one that is most haunting to my own involvement with Christianity. 

I’ve swayed from a Republican Just War advocate in light of the Irag War (and 9/11) to a harsh Hauerwasian condemner of all war in the name of the crucified Messiah (and my own disillusionment with the development of the conflicts in the Middle East).  Two books I found extremely helpful in thinking through the way war is treated in the Bible and Church history were John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus (for the former) and Roland Bainton’s Christian Attitudes Towards War and Peace (for the latter). 

Bainton’s findings in his historical survey were intriguing and disturbing.  He found that three views on war have been held throughout Christian history: just war, crusade, and pacifism.  What shocked me most, coming as I do from a Conservative Baptist tradition that strongly advocates a strict adherence to the teachings of Jesus (which didn’t exclude those crazy commandments in the Sermon on the Mount), and the five points of Calvinism, was that the Crusade mentality had been revived in the church by none other than the Calvinists (especially the Puritans) who I had been taught to admire for their piety and radicalism. 

Here I was striving to radically follow the teachings of Jesus and admiring all things Puritan when I find that in one seemingly crucial point (it made all the difference for Jesus and consequently our atonement), they differed radically.  So here I am with earnestness, wanting to figure out, how Calvin was able to dismiss the radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount.  What justifications were made for war and execution and were they legitimate?  If anyone has any suggestions on books to go to I’d appreciate it.  I’m starting in the best place I can think of: the Institutes.

Milbank and Ontology

Liberalism… begins with a disguised naturalisation of original sin as original egotism: our own egotism which we seek to nurture, and still more the egotism of the other against which we need protection. (John Milbank, Liberality versus Liberalism)

Much can be said about the way in which assumptions guide our actions.  If a man assumes that others are angry at him, he will act defensively.  The assumption of the anger of the crowd provides an environment, which may or may not exist truly, in which the man now lives and breathes and makes decisions.  Regardless of what is in fact the case, the man sees others as angry and cannot see otherwise without having a complete change of mind and perspective through some event.  This man will probably either hide from people or act violently in defense of himself. This is part of the worldview of the pest and the pest will tend to act in response to his assumptions about his environment (whether people really think he is a pest or not). 

Actions however never take place in a vacuum.  One persons actions has positive or negative effects for their community.  Actions are always political and economical.  Politics has to do with the organization of social relationships, dealing with disputes, providing justice to a community.  Economics has to do with the organization of work and goods.  My decision to get up in the morning is political one in that I’m choosing to involve myself in social relationships that day and participate in the complexity of day to day interaction with my wife, peers, and coworkers.  My decision to eat oatmeal shorlty after I wake up is an economic decision in that I’ve chosen to trade my work for monetary goods to purchase the food goods that I will consume to give me the energy to work more in order to complete that process once again.  All actions are political and/or economical in nature.  After all, politika meant “public matters” and oikonomia meant “management of the household” (OED).  We are embedded in politics and economics and all our actions have political and economic import.

Therefore our assumptions about our environment will directly affect our politics and economics.  It is in this context that I would like to look into John Milbank’s understanding of ontological peace and violence.  According to Milbank, much of the secular political and economical project has been built on the assumption that the state of nature is one where the individual is seeking his own prosperity and survival amidst other individuals doing the same. 

There is a fundamental competition for goods among human persons–each seeking his own in the name of “rights.”  This competition is assumed by an empirical hermeneutic, observing the natural order.  Man, by nature, seems to seek self-preservation above all else, so this must be the way things are naturally.  Thus we need social contracts to allow for self-seeking individuals to exist together without violence (which necessarily follows in the state of nature when one has more than the other who is in need). 

Not only is there a competition observed among mankind, but also among other creatures of the world.  Each creature is observed to be seeking its own and thus a philosophy forms that understands all of nature to be naturally in competition with the rest of nature for individual survival.

And so, assuming a natural order of competition and violence, we act in social contract, with productive and consumptive interests that seek to first of all provide for oneself and allow others to do the same via contract.  The assumption of competition and violence as the natural condition of reality, as very fundamental nature of things, even at the level of being (ontos), leads to an oikonomia and politikas that seek self-preservation first.  Thus we have liberalism in politics and economics, the practices that directly stem from the empirical observation and interpretation of nature as fundmentally competitive, what Milbank calls ontological violence.

And what other story can we give for the nature of things?

Milbank calls forward a Catholic Christian story for the nature of being.  According to Milbank, things were created to exist in a state of harmony with each other and not competition.  Competition is correctly observed as how humans relate, but not correctly assumed to be the fundamental nature of things.  All created beings participate in Being (God’s abundant being that flows out existence like a fountain does water).  And so all created things participate harmoniously in being. 

However, things are not as they should be.  This is why the empiricist will note all the competition.  Competition and violence are a result of rebellion of the created from the purpose and order they were created for.  Competition is not the way things are at the level of being, it is rather a result of perverted creation rebelling against the ends for which it was designed. 

Assuming then, an ontology of peace, (for Milbank this necessarily involves assuming the complete Christian story of Fall, Redemption, and Eschaton) we relate very differently to others and the creation.  It is on the grounds of an ontology of peace that a different politics and different economics can be constructed, one that realigns creation with the end which it turned away from but which is the only end that can bring it back to health and peace.

And so, understanding that every action is a political and economical action, the people who assume the world as harmonious and participating in God’s generous being will create a politics and economics which more closely reflects generosity and peace.

New (for me) kind of blogging

Before now I have only occasionally written about my studies.  But, in the past year I have read the blogs of numerous others who are sharing their studies.  I guess I never figured I had much to say or many who’d want to hear it.  But as I look forward to many years more of being a student, it would probably be prudent for me to begin getting out ideas on paper…or cyberpaper.  Lacking a community with which to discuss my thoughts, and often not having the courage to put forth ideas and have them be inadequate or incomplete, the ideas have been forced to stay imprisoned in my mind.  But I’m letting all the convicts escape and they will soon litter the pages of this blog with all sorts of ramblings.  Yes, it’ll be a new kind of blogging for me.  I will hope to think through those I’m reading from Milbank to Berry, Hauerwas to Caputo.  And perhaps, just perhaps, something productive (at least for me and my messy room of a mind) will come from it.