What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Fallen Idol

At this point in my life, I certainly don’t expect to be looking up to artists, actors, musicians, or writers for deep philosophical insights into how the world works. Heck, I don’t even expect them to say something halfway smart about contemporary political issues. Just because it is a cliché, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true that too many of America’s cultural mandarins are either reflexively left-wing/liberal or totally vacuous when it comes to their ability to think coherently about politics. That’s probably why so many conservatives cheer when someone smart in Hollywood or New York “comes out of the closet” and declares their conservative principles (see e.g. David Mamet).

On the other hand, I would argue that our appreciation of a good movie, song or novel should not be diminished by the foolish pronouncements of a particular director, composer or author. Which brings me to the point of this post: one of my favorite modern authors, and someone who has written smart essays taking on modern atheists’ faith in materialism, has revealed herself as one of the most brain-dead liberals you can imagine. Yes, Marilynne Robinson, brilliant author of Gilead and Home (her two most recent novels and the former the subject of a wonderful review by our own Lydia McGrew in The Christendom Review), is stark, raving loony when it comes to contemporary politics.

I was checking out The American Conservative Liberal for blog material (they are always a reliable source of foolishness) and sure enough, this article about Ms. Robinson didn’t disappoint. Well, actually it did disappoint me to read someone of Robinson’s intellect and ability making the following stupid statements:

Yet Robinson grounds her liberalism in her Calvinist tradition. She responded by email to a question from TAC about the identification of American Christians with the right:

"Well, what is a Christian, after all? Can we say that most of us are defined by the belief that Jesus Christ made the most gracious gift of his life and death for our redemption? Then what does he deserve from us? He said we are to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek. Granted, these are difficult teachings. But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example? Does he say anywhere that we exist primarily to drive an economy and flourish in it? He says precisely the opposite. Surely we all know this. I suspect that the association of Christianity with positions that would not survive a glance at the Gospels or the Epistles is opportunistic, and that if the actual Christians raised these questions those whose real commitments are to money and hostility and potential violence would drop the pretense and walk away."

And these gems of ‘wisdom’:

In “Open Thy Hand Wide: Moses and the Origins of American Liberalism”—a lecture she delivered at the Princeton Theological Seminary—Robinson observes, “There is clearly a feeling abroad that God smiled on our beginnings, and that we should return to them if we can.” This would mean a return to the moral seriousness with which our ancestors undertook their duty to the poor and needy.

“Those among us who call themselves traditionalists, and who invoke things like ‘religion’ and ‘family’ in a spirit that makes those honest words feel mean and tainted, are usually loyal first of all to a tooth-and-nail competitiveness our history does not in fact enshrine,” she writes in The Death of Adam. Later essays in When I Was a Child continue her attack on these purported traditionalists.

[…]

As Robinson writes in When I Was a Child, Jesus does not say, “I was hungry and you fed me, though not in such a way as to interfere with free-market principles.”

[…]

Asked about “compassionate conservatism” and whether a Christian can fulfill the duties of love while being skeptical of government redistribution, she tells TAC:

"Skepticism is appropriate in all cases, especially where money is involved. There should always be checks and balances. We all know of non-government charities whose CEO’s have done very well for themselves. As Christians, we must be concerned with outcomes—are the hungry fed, are the naked clothed, are the sick visited. The more strategies that are brought to bear on the problem—which current policy or lack there of has made a pressing problem—the greater the likelihood that it will be dealt with as Christ, who identifies himself unambiguously with those in need, tells us it must be. There is no analogy to be drawn between a beleaguered community governed, in effect, by a hostile and alien occupation and a modern society that can indeed govern itself and care for its own as it chooses. If we were indeed a Christian country I think we would be making other choices than many self-proclaimed Christians are trying to impose on us now. No talk of compassion impresses me when the tone of all reference to those who are struggling is hostile and judgmental. And of course anyone can be open-handed. But, as an American, I want to be able to help an American child in Detroit, an American family in Alaska, because they are as much my own as my dear Iowans. The national government is without question the most efficient means for this kind of ‘redistribution,’ a word that distracts from the deeper fact that one naturally wishes to share one’s blessings with one’s own."

It’s little wonder conservatives are drawn to the liberal Robinson, when she not only writes beautifully but does so with a thoughtful Christianity that transcends our current political divisions and economic ideologies.

Well, actually, Mr. Long (the author of this piece for TAC), it is cause for quite a bit of wonder why any conservative worth the name would take anything Robinson has to say about politics, public policy and/or governing America with the common good in mind seriously. To address each of these ridiculous statement in order, I’ll simply note the following: there is a long and serious moral tradition in Christianity that suggests Christians are not called to be pacifists and therefore laws that help them defend themselves from aggressors (i.e. concealed-carry and stand-your-ground) are not only just but moral from the standpoint of Christian ethics. No conservative defender of markets and market economies suggest that buying and selling goods and services are our “primary” reason for existence on this good Earth. Thanks for the straw-man Marilynne! On the other hand, there is both Biblical support (see Matthew 25, the Parable of the Talents) and again, Christian tradition that suggests the common good is served when people can find something to do to work (see e.g. Rerum Novarum), which is in turn aided greatly by flourishing market economies.

For years liberals like Robinson took “moral seriousness” for our “duty to the poor and needy” to mean simply to take as much money as possible from those who were successful in America and give it to those who were not, never stopping to ask whether or not this redistribution was just, was helping, was promoting dependency, was “morally serious” when it came to issues of charity (how can you promote charity by forcing people to give?), family formation (why should women get married if the State will support their bastard children), etc.

Of course, using a phrase like “bastard children” would probably draw Robinson’s opprobrium, given that she doesn’t like a “tone” that might actually judge someone’s less than moral behavior! And then in closing, her desire to help everyone in every state across the fruited plain, reminds me of a modern-day Mrs. Jellyby (who was the character in Bleak House that wanted to help the poor children in Africa while her own family suffered from neglect) – how does Robinson have the first clue about what to do to help people in Alaska or Detroit or even in a town across the State of Iowa from where she lives? She should look first at home, then maybe around the county, and I suppose then she can set her political sights on the State of Iowa as a whole. Then, if she is really called to do mission work, sign up with a church and hit the road. As I said earlier, none of this diminishes her work in my mind, but it is a good reminder that the “artist” and their “work” and two distinct phenomenon that need to be taken on their own terms and evaluated accordingly.

Comments (54)

What really turns me off to talk about Christian charity from most people is how there's little expectation that those who need the charity will change if there is something in their life that got them in need. It's all talk of mercy for them and obligation from those with a little money.

The distinction you make between the artist and the artists work is an important one. I would never be able to laugh through one of my favourite comedy films, Peter Bogdanovich's 1972 "Whats Up Doc?", again, if I was constantly reminded of all the blithering, progressive, nonsense spouted by the lead actress,Barbra Streisand, over the years, every time she appeared on screen. It is difficult, of course, to do this when the artist does not himself make the distinction and uses his work as a vessel to convey his political message.

What particularly sickens me is the notion that Christ was telling us in the "when I was hungry" he was saying "take money from others who have more and give it to others who have less", rather than "take what YOU have and give it to the hungry." I repeat the challenge I have been making all this year to Democrats and liberals of the bleeding heart variety: Show me that you care about these poor that you want helped by government: make contributions (separate from your taxes) to the government so the government has more money to give to the poor. Alternatively, just take fewer exemptions and deductions from your taxes than you are eligible to take, and pay more into the tax system than your minimum obligation. Let the government use your money if you think that's such a wise way to go. The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets who advocate higher taxes on the rich CAN OFFER TO PAY THOSE HIGHER TAXES even without mandating by law that all rich pay them. They can refuse to take all the exclusions allowed, they could even just pay the maximum rate on the whole of their income. Indeed, if that's their Christian duty (for the ones who are Christian, like Robinson seems to suggest), then they have no excuse NOT to do just that. To date, I have yet to see a liberal accept the challenge. Not a single one that I know of says of their charitable money "I used to give to the X foundation for helping the poor, but now I am going to give it to the government instead because I like the way it distributes my money."

Somehow liberal Christians seem to have gotten into their head that "I have to do what the government tells me to do" implies also "what I ought to do should consist of what the government tells me to do" which implies that "all that is not forbidden is mandatory and has been mandated."

I would also like to find out how many people receiving largesse from the government write thank you notes to the government for it. Yet if it is our duty to give by giving through the government then it is (as always) the duty of those who receive to give thanks for it. "Were not all ten made clean? Where are the other nine?" Why aren't the liberals spouting off about the lack of gratitude, equally obligatory? Why aren't they demanding laws of poor people on welfare that they write letters of thanks to taxpayers because that's their Christian duty? How can Christian duty turn into a legal mandate on one side only, and not both sides?

Jesus does not say, “I was hungry and you fed me, though not in such a way as to interfere with free-market principles.”

I would propose this clarifying comment: Jesus did say "when I was hungry you gave ME to eat." And he also said "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, give to God that which is God's." Since the food that is supposed to be given to the poor is given to Jesus, who is God, then that food IS NOT CAESAR'S, and we should not give it to the government because He said not to. He said give it to God, with whom he identifies the hungry. So giving it to the government is wrong.

This is a surprise how? There's been a modern Lefty Calvinist strain in America at least since the early 80's when I started paying attention to such things.

"it is cause for quite a bit of wonder why any conservative worth the name would take anything Robinson has to say about politics, public policy and/or governing America with the common good in mind seriously."

Of course! After all it doesn't pass the Weekly SubStandard faux-con litmus test!

NM, for the love of heaven, stop discrediting distributism, agrarianism, and all the other honorable right-wing traditions that are skeptical of both government and finance capitalism, by associating them with this claptrap.

We'll never get any traction for a conservatism that is skeptical of our economic system if we can't ambiguously call out asinine liberals without being called dirty neocons.

Her comments about stand your ground laws and concealed carry are perhaps the _most_ annoying among these (but maybe that's just because I've become somewhat inured to economic claptrap by hearing it so often), but it would be pretty easy to guess from Gilead that Robinson is a pacifist. Her main character is a pacifist, and the book pretty clearly endorses that perspective. What makes it at least interesting in Gilead is this: Robinson delves back into the history of the Civil War, and she allows her pacifism to come into tension with her ardent support for the abolitionists in the Bleeding Kansas portion of American history. Because she is a truly great novelist, when she writes a novel she doesn't just do propaganda. She puts ideas and sympathies, including her own, into a certain amount of conflict with each other via her characters to create a rich ideological and interpersonal landscape. What we see here is Robinson qua pundit/sage rather than Robinson qua novelist. The latter is a good deal more worth reading than the former!

You switched your topic from Marilynne Robinson to "liberals like Robinson." That was kind of sneaky, because you didn't look at whether or to what degree Robinson is actually like those "liberals like Robinson." I've read her When I Was a Child I Read Books but not Death of Adam, so I'm not familiar with all her writings on these topics, but Robinson doesn't seem much like those "liberals like Robinson."

On the supposed straw man of her "primarily to drive an economy," of course no one explicitly suggests that the economy is primary. But in words and actions, conservatives (and liberals too, I'd add) very often behave as if the economy were primary, along with "economic" values like utility. So I think she's exactly right on that one. She was asked specifically about conservatives, but it would have been nice if she'd pointed out that most liberals are guilty of that, too.

On concealed-carry and stand-your-ground, I'm sure that Robinson and Long are aware of Christian just-war traditions. But she was asked for her own views as a Christian in a brief interview format, and she gave a brief summary. This response of yours - "Christians are not called to be pacifists and therefore laws that help them defend themselves from aggressors (i.e. concealed-carry and stand-your-ground) are not only just but moral" - is an obvious non sequitur. Concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws can obviously be opposed from within a Christian just-war tradition. I might be wrong here, but I think that just-warriors going as far back as Augustine and Ambrose did not believe that Christians should ever use violence in self-defense, but rather in defense of (other) innocents. But even if I'm wrong about those particular just-warriors, I think there's a strong Christian just-war tradition that would pretty clearly argue against stand-your-ground, at least, in a Christian society.

Lydia, I didn't read Gilead as endorsing pacifism. The narrator is a pacifist, but he's also unreliable and fallible - definitely not meant as "the way to be." Gilead contrasts the bloody, just-war zeal of the grandfather with the pacifism of the son and grandson, without really taking a stand on the "issue," because as you suggest, "taking a stand" on "issues" would have made it a much worse book. I thought the book was critical of both extremes, the pacifism and the zealous just-war violence. Representatives of each got their say, and nobody got the last word.

Aaron, the Christian tradition from the earliest times allowed room for pacifism - i.e. some well-regarded Christians held it - but also always had proponents of non-pacifism, including those who limited violence to protecting others as well as those who allowed for violence in self-defense. However, as doctrine developed out of the earliest 2 centuries, it became clearer that while Christianity in principle could allow for a person who personally would never use violence in any situation (think monks and priests), it could not in theory dispute the morality of using violence for defense of others and for self-defense. Further, that violence in some cases to protect the innocent and the weak is normatively a positive duty for some parties, and can be a duty thrust upon a person in the same way that the duty to help the afflicted can be thrust upon a neighbor, like the good Samaritan. That is to say, just as we can't presume to "leave it to government" to help the poor, neither can we always just "leave it to the police" to protect the innocent. I think that as a natural and necessary consequence, the principle behind "stand your ground" laws is solidly within the Christian tradition: no legal system can remove from an individual his objective right and (in some cases) duty to use violence to protect against injury.

Tony, thanks for the reply. Are you saying then that Augustine and Ambrose did say that it's OK for (some) Christians to use violence for the end of self-defense? I've never read the primary sources, but I think I read in a secondary source that they said the opposite: defense of others, yes; self-defense, no. I'll look it up, though, I might be remembering it wrong.

Also, I wonder what you mean that there were "always" proponents of just violence from "earliest times"? Jesus? Paul? I don't remember either of them saying it's OK to use violence, unless you count Luke 22:35-38. I guess you could count Peter drawing his sword as such a proponent, but...

I'm wondering when a church father first wrote that use of force is sometimes acceptable for Christians, and when he wrote it. If it wasn't till the fourth century, then I'd say the earliest tradition apparently was non-violent, or pacifist.

In any case, even if your premise is that violence is justified for the defense of others and of oneself, I don't see how you could argue for stand-your-ground. Why wouldn't just-war type thinking require you to run away, if you could do so safely? And if you couldn't do so safely, then stand-your-ground would be superfluous anyway: you'd be back to regular self-defense.

In any case, even if your premise is that violence is justified for the defense of others and of oneself, I don't see how you could argue for stand-your-ground.

Because all stand-your-ground means in law is that you formally have no duty to retreat. That's literally all it means. It does not justify any level of force in and of itself, nor does it justify provocation. Ironically, the Florida legislator who drafted their statute even said on TV when interviewed that the statue explicitly denies protection to those who instigate a conflict, but that hasn't stopped many people from making it out to be something it isn't.

States that are duty to retreat put the would be defender at a distinct disadvantage. It is after all much harder to defend anything when the law forces you to turn your back on the assailant and flee.

Sbc Russell Moore is another of the fallen. Was never an idol, but I didn't think he was going to go John Boehner on us.

Paul, I was simply trying to respond to Jeff's silly overstatement with a sarcastic one of my own.

Conservatives, whether faux or no, should occasionally read things that may challenge their own positions if only to see what thoughtful people on the other side are saying. To dismiss out of hand anything that is perceived as "liberalism" makes us no better than those libs who automatically reject anything "conservative." Mainstream conservatives do this all the time -- I have first hand experience among family and friends, who espouse a view that takes anything critical of the GOP (except when it's not "conservative" enough) and corporate America (except when a corporation does something the Right doesn't like) to be "liberal."

There is no consideration given to the idea that maybe, just maybe, the problems on the Right run deeper that the current GOP leadership and certain naughty corporations!

Here is a good example of a bona fide conservative, Gerald Russello, engaging the thought of a bona fide liberal, George Scialabba, in a critical, yet not dismissive manner:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/liberalisms-greatest-critic/

THAT is what conservatives should be doing with the thought of reflective, intelligent liberals, not writing them off as "insane" or "brain dead." Leave that knee-jerk stuff to the Lefties!

NM, I don't consider Robinson's comments on the economic area to be an example of a thoughtful and challenging alternative. Not even close. Not even remotely. Paul's word "claptrap" is dead-on. However, anyone who wants to endorse Robinson's statements on this subject can bear that in mind and not be angry when accused of endorsing major redistribution of wealth. Because she does. Unabashedly.

Aaron, it's a good question as to whether one should "read Gilead as endorsing pacifism." I myself would say that the pacifism of both the son (John Ames's father) and of Ames himself is in a sense "given the last word," but you and I quite agree that, because Gilead is great literature, Robinson's touch is pretty light. I would add that the non-pacifist, the ardent grandfather, appears to be seriously on the edge of being insane, though fascinatingly so, and that Ames's pacifist father is portrayed as rational and good, trying as best he can to deal with his extremely difficult father, giving him a home, and even traveling a long way just to visit his grave. I would also add that the only portrayal of non-pacifism is in the form of the grandfather--of an _extremely_ rough form of aggression, not only approving war but also in the form of shooting and killing, apparently quite unnecessarily, a fairly non-aggressive U.S. soldier who is following a band of very violent vigilantes. That that should be Robinson's picture of Christian non-pacifists seems to me to fit very well with her extreme aversion to (shudder) guns in the interview above.

No one around here, NM, is possessed by any illusions about just how deep the problems run. From whence comes this implication that we think the Right, alone among American political factions, is doing everything right?

The main point of unity lies in this: things can always get worse, and the Left is out to make them worse. It's all about coalitions of opposition to the advancement of liberalism.

Now, is it true that conservatives, overcome by various temptations, occasionally sign up for projects that advance liberalism? Hell yes it is. Right now the mandarins of finance and business, burnishing their faded conservative party badges, are eagerly undermining conservative defenses of conjugal marriage. The trimming is pathetic. Here's a legacy Republican taking to The New York Times with various vague imprecations against GOP bombthrowers, in a column that literally concludes with accolades for "party elders": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/opinion/the-cry-of-the-true-republican.html?_r=0

Just what the Right needs: submission to the wisdom of party elders. That'll fix this mess.

As it is with most liberals of her type I find certain aspects of her critique valid, while strongly disagreeing with her proposals for solutions. I'd hazard a guess that those conservatives who find her socio-political writings interesting are in tune more with the former than the latter. One need not agree with the treatment plan even if he finds the diagnosis accurate.

Thanks to all for some excellent and lively comments!

Aaron,

You say, "You switched your topic from Marilynne Robinson to "liberals like Robinson." I did so only because her own statements qualify -- especially that last quote about helping everyone in Alaska and Detroit via redistribution (as Lydia already pointed out).

NM,

Paul already said just about everything I would want to say, and he said it better. I would only add that it was by hanging around this website and other paleo-conservatives that I began to seriously question my own neo-con beliefs around some foreign-policy views I once held (i.e. democracy = good for the Middle-East). I'm much more of a realist these days thanks to the folks here at W4 and at other traditional conservative blogs. I try to keep an open mind, I really do; but when I encounter silliness I'm going to call it like I 'see' it.

Since David Mamet was mentioned, I'll never forget Moldbug's comment on his coversion:

Okay, Dave. As a child of the '60s, you accepted as an article of faith that government is bad, but now you believe that... government is bad? Who's doin' donuts on the road to Damascus?

We now return you to our program of NM shooting phantasms with a cylinder choke shotgun.

Funny, but I remember having that exact same conversation with a liberal friend in 1988. He was about 35 at the time and had come up through the 60s as a hippie of sorts, but had become a Christian somewhere along the way. He still had a 60's attitude toward government but was a big Dukakis backer. "Why," I asked him, "when you are suspicious of the government, would you want to vote someone into office who just wants to make it bigger and more powerful?"

His answer: "Good point -- something to think about..." Don't know who he ended up voting for.

"No one around here, NM, is possessed by any illusions about just how deep the problems run."

Until the mainstream Right in America wakes up to the fact that its ideological commitment to economic individualist autonomy is the mirror image of the Left's commitment to sexual/behavioral individualist autonomy no solutions from the Right will be forthcoming. They both have their root in the same foetid Enlightenment mud. Iow, the problems run really deep, much deeper than most conservatives want to look.

Until the mainstream Right in America . . .

And you take this place to be a forum for the mainstream Right in America?

Look, Jeff began by affirming Robinson's work as a literary artist. Keep that in mind.

If you really feel like you're having the same conversation since 1989, why, maybe you ought to vary the subject-manner of your discussion.

If you really feel like you're having the same conversation since 1989, why, maybe you ought to vary the subject-manner of your discussion.

Stop going off script you uppity extra! Just chuck your GOP spear like I told you! :)

Are you saying then that Augustine and Ambrose did say that it's OK for (some) Christians to use violence for the end of self-defense?

Aaron, I don't have the passages at hand, but my recollection is that Augustine said that what was needed was to be willing to be hurt and even killed without a response of anger, but that this didn't imply complete non-violence, for in some cases using force can be an avenue of charity toward the evildoer as well as to the community. This can be most readily seen in the prince who wields the sword against wrongdoers (St. Paul in Romans) because by punishing crimes the prince not only puts a stop to the evil acts but also may cause a change in the criminal to repent, which is a great benefit to the offender. But even though it is most readily seen in the acts of the state, it can also occur in civilians as well in various situations. Hence, if charity prevails in the heart, charity can call for violence and force to quell wrongdoing, even in self-defense cases but still more obviously in defense of others. Peacefulness in the face of evil is not always a virtue. As Christ showed at the Temple. So, yes, both Jesus and St. Paul were early Christians who regarded the use of violence as potentially appropriate.

In any case, even if your premise is that violence is justified for the defense of others and of oneself, I don't see how you could argue for stand-your-ground. Why wouldn't just-war type thinking require you to run away, if you could do so safely? And if you couldn't do so safely, then stand-your-ground would be superfluous anyway: you'd be back to regular self-defense.

Because the overriding rule is not non-violence, nor even non-anger (sometimes anger is the RIGHT thing), but charity. And although a Christian ought to be willing to suffer being struck, or injured, or lose property, or lose his life, out of charity, so too he ought to be willing to use force out of charity as well. And sometimes the greater charity is to be angry with wrongdoing and put a stop to it - especially for the good of the evildoer, and of other persons affected. I would submit that a father of children ought to regard the needs of his children in deciding whether to submit to a threat to himself, and a failure to even consider their needs would represent a potential defect of charity.

Because justice is a mandatory object of the public authority while mercy is generally rather a counsel (with regard to legal obligation) rather than mandatory, laws cannot mandate that a person be merciful to evil-doers by returning good for evil, laws can only mandate returning justice. Therefore, while it is possible to teach Christians that they should often, even usually submit to violence rather than respond violently, it cannot be a matter of civil law that you submit to evil and return good for evil, it can only be a matter that rises above civil law. Therefore it does not belong to civil law to prescribe to a person that he must not stand his ground in the face of wrongful (unjust) threats. Though Christian charity may call for his giving ground, civil law has no basis for demanding it.

Until the mainstream Right in America wakes up to the fact that its ideological commitment to economic individualist autonomy is the mirror image of the Left's commitment to sexual/behavioral individualist autonomy no solutions from the Right will be forthcoming. They both have their root in the same foetid Enlightenment mud. Iow, the problems run really deep, much deeper than most conservatives want to look.

I don't think your descriptions of these two ideologies are accurate.

For one thing, the Left doesn't have a commitment to 'sexual/behavioral individualist autonomy'. There's nothing individualist about forcing everyone to celebrate so and so 'being gay', or approving of some girl's decision to go ankles-apart at a whim, and more. This isn't about 'individualist autonomy' - it's about a far more collectivist view that makes demands on others.

I do think that the Right has problems too - in particular, the Christian right has a tendency to emphasize economic freedom, but not economic social responsibility, even of the willful kind. But I don't think they're as comparable as you say.

But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example?

As others have already pointed out, this is absurd. First, I'm not even sure how God's name is associated with these things by anyone. Second, how do they 'fly in the face of His teaching and example'? You could, I suppose, make the argument for total pacifism if you want - 'even if they're going to crucify you unjustly, don't fight back. In fact, don't even try to resist.' I wonder what she thinks a woman should do if she's being beaten by an abusive husband?

And of course anyone can be open-handed. But, as an American, I want to be able to help an American child in Detroit, an American family in Alaska, because they are as much my own as my dear Iowans. The national government is without question the most efficient means for this kind of ‘redistribution,’ a word that distracts from the deeper fact that one naturally wishes to share one’s blessings with one’s own.

And this is just absurd. It's sanctimonious inanity.

First off, it is not 'without question the most efficient means'. More like it's a means that is not questioned, precisely because questioning it will throw open all kinds of uncomfortable questions, and questioning is one thing that many liberals are completely incapable of coping with. After all, if you can question their policies, then you may introduce a reason not to implement them, and reasons not to implement them may lead to their NOT being implemented - and, since it's already been decided in advance that these policies are good, anything that gets in the way of implementing them must therefore be avoided at all costs.

Second, I am so tired of this idea that 'charity' is this mechanical thing, a matter of finding out who's in need and firing money in their general direction. This is probably the most rotten idea in all of modern politics.

Third, what is this crap about 'one naturally wishes to share one's blessings with one's own'? As near as I can tell, this woman wants to share other people's 'blessings', and he 'one's own' net scoops up everyone in the country, and possibly beyond it. Her idea of 'natural' is an odd thing. Are people with lots of money in the bank some kind of freaks of nature?

"you take this place to be a forum for the mainstream Right in America?"

Nope. But Jeff and Lydia certainly don't mind giving it a pass whenever almighty capitalism is criticized. Then it's circle the wagons time at W4.

"If you really feel like you're having the same conversation since 1989, why, maybe you ought to vary the subject-manner of your discussion."

That's not what I said. My point was that anti-establishment 60s-type liberals are inconsistent when they support establishment Democrats. They are suspicious of the government, yet they vote for candidates who push for a bigger and more powerful one?

"There's nothing individualist about forcing everyone to celebrate so and so 'being gay', or approving of some girl's decision to go ankles-apart at a whim, and more. This isn't about 'individualist autonomy' - it's about a far more collectivist view that makes demands on others."

Begin with absolute liberty, and you end with absolute despotism. Dostoevsky. The two things are directly related.

Nope. But Jeff and Lydia certainly don't mind giving it a pass whenever almighty capitalism is criticized. Then it's circle the wagons time at W4.

Not true, NM. They just don't cotton your particular criticisms and pet peeves on capitalism. They are themselves critical of lots of what passes for capitalism in this age. If you were to accept as true a couple of paradigm rules for fair critique of modern practices your critiques would get farther, such as this: a person is to be left in possession of all of the rights and privileges of their property that are implicit in ownership or have historically belonged to such property until it is clearly established that such right or privilege cannot be justly exercised within the community of man. Yes, you can shut down a factory that is polluting the river once you establish the harm the pollution causes. No, you cannot tell a big box store corporation that has purchased a lot of land zoned for retail / commercial that they cannot build there merely because you don't want them there. (Now, if you have a way of banning big box store corporations in their entirety without damaging the right to free association and assembly, I would be interested in hearing it.) Some of the restrictions on market activity that you want to create seem to be about things that are arguably not unjust types of activity.

Begin with absolute liberty, and you end with absolute despotism. Dostoevsky. The two things are directly related.

True. Though I would not have called it "liberty" as that is ambiguous. Nevertheless, although one leads to another, they are essentially distinct. Democracy tends toward anarchy which leads to tyranny because each state of affairs has inherent flawed tendencies and the attempts to deal with those flaws leads to the next condition, but the transition from one condition to the next implies as such a new type of order (or disorder). Despotism isn't the same kind of social order as democracy, it is a different one. Monarchy isn't the same sort of thing as democracy, even though the one can devolve into the other.

"They just don't cotton your particular criticisms and pet peeves on capitalism."

Ok, how about this one? I would argue that one of the large contributing factors to the current degradation of American culture is, for lack of a better term, consumerism/materialism. Consumerism in turn is directly related to modern corporate capitalism. If one grants these two points, which I'd say are rather obvious, might one not conclude that perhaps there is a problem with modern capitalism itself, i.e., in its essence, not just in certain of its manifestations?

"They are themselves critical of lots of what passes for capitalism in this age." Thank you, Tony, I agree. I'm sure Jeff finds these endless sniping sessions from and to NM to be as tedious as I do, but let me just second what Tony said here. A great deal of what is called "capitalism" nowadays is plain Keynesianism, and I get weary unto death with being saddled with the accusation of defending it. For example, I opposed the bailouts of the banks and others in 08 while many who criticize capitalism defended them! I support sound money and a moratorium on increasing the national debt, while many so-called "capitalists" really do want to keep kicking the debt can down the road so as to calm the markets for the moment and allow them personally to keep making money, hoping to keep it all from tumbling down within *their* lifetimes, future generations be damned. I've said again and again to the sniping "third-way-ers" that these are the kinds of things on which we could find common economic ground, but the olive branch is never accepted. So the heck with them. If that's what they want, I'll just go back to calling their economic ideas silly and crazy, which they mostly are.

Tony's comment at 9:09pm last night is among the best concise refutations of the necessity of Christian pacifism I've ever seen. Well done.

Tony, I don't understand how using violence against a threat when you could safely avoid it is looking after the needs of your children - by hypothesis, they're not being threatened. (Of course I'm not talking about policemen, etc.) Re Augustine and Ambrose, I'll throw out some quotes from a tertiary source: Stanley Hauerwas's epilogue to Paul Ramsey's Speak Up for Just War or Pacifism.

It is against this background that Ramsey argues that the change from pacifism to just war was a change only in tactics. Following Augustine, he maintains that Christians claim no right of self-defense. Indeed, "self-defense is the worst of all possible excuses for war or for any other form of resistance or any sort of preference among other people" (Ramsey). ...Ambrose and Augustine argued that "no Christian should save his own life at the expense of another, yet when other persons than himself are involved in the decision, no Christian ought to fail to resist evil by effective means which the state makes available to him" (Ramsey).

So according at least to Paul Ramsey and Stanley Hauerwas, Augustine argued that no Christian should kill in order to save his own life.

I think you made a good point contrasting secular law and Christian ethics. You might notice that I anticipated your point with certain qualifications I used: a Christian society, and just-war type thinking. The latter was because much Christian just-war theory seems like natural law to me (that's a bad thing). This is in very sharp contrast to Hauerwas's eschatological pacifism, which applies only to the church, because it's implied by the historic fact of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection - by the church's worship of a crucified God. I'm sure Hauerwas is pretty much hated around WWWtW, but I have a lot of respect for his theology. His pacifism is extremely realistic and non-Utopian.

I have been declaiming against consumerism for a long time, before public policy makers (such as George Bush and his pet economists) hypothesized "fixing" economic woes by encouraging consumer spending and, not incidentally, consumer debt. The concept of fixing a system that way is anathema to sound stewardship of wealth and resources.

Consumerism in turn is directly related to modern corporate capitalism.

And the modern style of corporate capitalism has been attacked so many times in these pages by all of the contributing authors here that it is downright insane to foist its defense on W4.

might one not conclude that perhaps there is a problem with modern capitalism itself, i.e., in its essence, not just in certain of its manifestations?

And there we have it. You want the (justifiable) condemnation of the ills of modern style corporate capitalism to imply (a) that "modern capitalism" in its essence is inhuman, but (b) you never distinguish that "modern" capitalism has a different essence than any other sort of capitalist system, and thus (c) you are appear to be fine with allowing capitalism of any and all forms to come under just the same condemnation, which (d) justifies as a fix social structures of laws and government that upset the heretofore freedoms of the market if they have had any connections with capitalist excesses. NM, if you really want us to take you seriously, please describe for us an ACCEPTABLE form of capitalist* system. In doing so, it may or may not be helpful to have ready to hand a recognizable meaning for the expression "private property."

*To prevent equivocation, I define "capitalism" simply as such (without any qualifiers) to be a social system which readily enables a man with surplus assets to offer the use of his capital wealth to put into production new activities generating new wealth, and where the man who owns that capital has a claim on a due share of that newly generated wealth. It is distinct from the definition of the term, but such a social system must needs have laws that specify property rights, and enforces contracts.

Forgot to add the following point before posting: Stand-your-ground allows you to use potentially lethal force against someone who (from a Christian viewpoint) very possibly might not be in a state of grace - when you could have avoided using force with no risk to your own or others' safety. Trying to imagine that from a Christian perspective, it just seems horrifying to me. Use of the crossbow was banned in wars against Christians (but not infidels) for just that reason: the crossbow gives the victim no chance to get right with God before his death. Later, its use was permitted against Christians but only in just wars.

I'm late to the party here, but this was rather a late party (I have to commend Crude for writing anything so cogent as that 2:47 AM comment at 2:47 AM).

I do feel compelled to add, since it seems to have been left to one side, that "stand your ground" is not, as liberals imagine, some newfangled invention or legal barnacle of the gun-toting right that has been shoe-horned into our legal structure. It is not, as they claim and seem sincerely in their ignorance to believe, an "expansion" of rudimentary, common-sense notions of self-defense. Rather, it is a conscious effort to roll back what actually was a distortion in our long-held conception of self-defense, carried out by leftist lawyers and judges mainly in the 1970's--namely, the bizarre notion that criminals enjoyed, for practical legal purposes, the right to assault and harass the public and that it was the duty of the victim to escape with his life somehow, lest he be prosecuted for unreasonable use of force in his own defense.

There was never any such duty to retreat in our legal code or in our criminal courts, until liberals decided that there was, and the movement to institute "stand your ground" laws was simply an effort to codify into law what had previously stood for centuries as the presumption that a man going about his business has no particular obligation to flee for his life in the face of criminal assault (something liberals inexplicably imagine can be imposed on peaceable people without affecting the safety of public streets), rather than defending his life and property where he stood.

As with almost every single thing involving self defense, guns, and like issues, the average liberal's ignorance of the history and practical facts of the matter only serves to inflame, rather than suppress, his sense of self-righteousness and contempt for the political opposition (which consists largely of that mass of barbaric gun-toting humanity known as "Americans"). This is made much, much worse by transparent demagogues like Al Sharpton and Eric Holder, who actually do know better, but who prey on the emotions of their audience by referring to imaginary things like "unreasonably expansive definitions of self-defense," when what they are referring to is just the centuries-old common law understanding of self defense that has only been formally codified into law--as has been such things as the Castle Doctrines of various states--in response to their own pro-criminal policies and jurisprudence.

Excellent, excellent comment, Sage.

I often think that pacifists and quasi-pacifists, or anti-gun liberals, really believe at some level of their being that any situation in which your home is invaded or you are attacked on the street comes with a little label on it, perhaps appearing somewhere on the bottom of the video game screen which is your visual field, that says, "Here you must fight or you will be killed, raped, or grievously injured" or alternatively says, "Here you could safely get away, so only stand and fight if you really just want to get back at the SOB." Then, you know, good Christians might be morally justified in fighting in the first situation but would have a duty to run away in the second! Real life is not like that. But it's really difficult to get away from that picture when one reads comments about standing your ground or not standing your ground. "Why didn't you just run away if you could run away safely? Wouldn't that have been better?" I can't help thinking that these are the same people who would ask someone with a gun why he didn't "just shoot the bad guy in the leg." Total lack of realism.

Lydia, first of all it's not fair to include pacifists in that criticism. For them, it's irrelevant whether you can get away safely.

Whatever your intention, you seem to be arguing there's no need for stand-your-ground laws. If a person reasonably perceives that he might not be safe retreating, then he's obviously justified in using force even if there isn't any stand-your-ground law. It's just straight self-defense. Stand-your-ground laws, you seem to be arguing, apply only to a practically empty set of circumstances.

Or, if you do concede that there are some cases where it's clear that you can run away (even if they're not the majority), then what about those cases? In those situations, where a Christian would be forced to defend himself only if he stands his ground, why wouldn't he be obligated to retreat?

Regarding Sage's comment, I don't doubt that it's true. But I'm not interested here in whether stand-your-ground is traditional; I'm interested in whether it's Christian.

If a person reasonably perceives that he might not be safe retreating, then he's obviously justified in using force even if there isn't any stand-your-ground law. It's just straight self-defense.

Here's what you're missing: Stand-your-ground just is straight self-defense as that term has always been understood, since in something hovering around 100% of cases, a person "might" not be safe in retreating. That's why for a thousand years nobody thought it necessary to actually write it down into law, until pacifistic liberals intent on imposing an irrational and unjustly narrow conception of self defense decided to overturn common sense in the courts. The consequences for the public of instituting a presumptive need to run away from rampaging criminals hardly should need spelling out, and it also hardly should need spelling out that giving free reign to thugs to literally chase the public around is incompatible with the maintenance of a recognizably Christian society.

Aaron,

You are kind of missing my original point about Robinson's annoying quote w/r/t concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws. Notice carefully what I said: "there is a long and serious moral tradition in Christianity that suggests Christians are not called to be pacifists." I didn't say there wasn't a case for Robinson's point of view -- but Robinson is the one who acts as if those of us on the Right are the crazy ones for thinking anything besides what she thinks. This is what is insane about her liberal views -- the arrogance and dismissive attitude toward anyone who might have wrestled with Christ's words and come to a different conclusion than the one Robinson has (for example this woman who does a nice job of Biblical exegesis on some tough passages -- she also provides a link to a good David Kopel article):

http://www.corneredcat.com/article/ethical-questions/christianity-and-pacifism/

Robinson might have excellent reasons for her position -- but she comes across as an intellectual jerk who couldn't care less what those of us who disagree with her reasons have to say. Which is kind of a tragedy for someone who has written such nuanced and richly detailed characters (as Lydia has already pointed out).

Aaron, what Sage said at 1:28. The "need" for stand-your-ground laws does not arise from some moral assertion on the part of people like myself, "Sure, you have a God-given knowledge in some situations that you and all those you love can completely safely get away from this wicked guy, but you ought to be allowed to stay and blow him away in those cases anyway 'just because'." The need for the laws is a political one--the need to reassert the real meaning of self-defense, a need arising from liberal political aggression against self-defense.

Now, if we want to talk about moral rights to harm people when you "could get away," you'd be on much stronger ground if you accused me of thinking that a man also has a right to defend his property, not just his "person" and the lives and safety of others. Strangely enough, I do think that. This doubtless makes me very violence-minded and un-Christian in your book, but it is not legally pertinent to s.y.g., which has to do with personal safety, not with property.

Or, if you do concede that there are some cases where it's clear that you can run away (even if they're not the majority), then what about those cases? In those situations, where a Christian would be forced to defend himself only if he stands his ground, why wouldn't he be obligated to retreat?

Because retreat might not be the charity-filled action of a Christian, that's why. It might be that charity involves, specifically, taking on this opportunity to stop the criminal in his tracks and (a) put an end to his further evils so that he brings no further punishment down on his head from God, (b) put him in prison (potentially) so that he has a chance to undergo expiation and rehabilitation at the hands of the state, (c) to relieve other future victims of the needs to deal with the evil-doer's crimes, and (d) teaching others that some evils should not be tolerated if one can stop them. Thus in some cases the response of charity is violence in the service of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. There can be no universal presumption that serving charity requires the non-violent response.

It seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that Christians must respond with equivalent force in this discussion. Any Christian man who struggles with the issues Aaron raises would do well to study a system like Aikido. Such preparation would be very useful in these situations. Aikido allows for a variety of responses like stopping a punch by bending the wrist until the forearm tendons of the assailant are in agony, to stopping an attempted stabbing by shattering the elbow and dislocating the shoulder of the assailant.

It seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that Christians must respond with equivalent force in this discussion.

Not at all, Mike. We are making 2 points in response to Aaron: (1) the Christian response of charity to unjust violence is, sometimes, violent, and (1) even when it isn't, it isn't up to the state to tell Christians when they must submit to unjust threats of violence and may not defend themselves.

Aikido allows for a variety of responses like stopping a punch by bending the wrist until the forearm tendons of the assailant are in agony, to stopping an attempted stabbing by shattering the elbow and dislocating the shoulder of the assailant.

Which are are forms of violent response, just a much more measured amount of violence than shooting the aggressor with a gun. This type of response works very well in bar fights and muggings where the assailant is within 3 feet of you, not so well when he is waving a gun at you from 25 feet away.

If we could always devise a means of disarming an unjust aggressor with non-lethal means, it might be normally obligatory to use such means. (And this is part of the impetus behind developing tasers, rubber bullets and the like.) But of course criminals take forethought on how to circumvent measures against them, so it would be unreasonable to expect to be able to do so normally on a continuing basis. Which means that our inability to rely on non-lethal means is at least partly due to criminals' own behavior (in general).

This type of response works very well in bar fights and muggings where the assailant is within 3 feet of you, not so well when he is waving a gun at you from 25 feet away.

And also will work better for men than for women, especially small women. Let's face it, a woman who wants to defend herself against a predator is going to do well, if she can, to get trained and get a concealed carry license. A physically stronger and/or larger person is actually less likely to need to use lethal force. This is a point that's been made, fairly, concerning female cops.

Which I suppose means that people who are really, really worried about any and all "gun violence" should oppose women in the police force. Heh.

Sage, I don't know what you're trying to say now. When I said "just straight self-defense," I meant self-defense law that doesn't include stand-your-ground provisions. I'm not disputing that that's a relatively new type of self-defense law. If you're right that about 100 percent of the cases are as Lydia described, then stand-your-ground provisions are nugatory.

Tony, I understand your point about violence sometimes being charitable. It's an arguable position. But it's hard to see how lethal force could be an act of charity towards the victim if he's committing a grave sin. To me it seems exactly the opposite. You're sending him to a final judgment before he has a chance to repent.

There's a deeper problem with your argument, though, which is that it's too strong. It doesn't depend on self-defense or on defense of innocents! Granting that the use of violence can sometimes be charitable, what's the difference between charitably shooting someone who's robbing a bank (and pointing a gun at workers) and charitably shooting him afterwards while he's fleeing? If charity sometimes justifies violence for the reasons you say, then it justifies violence when no one's safety is at risk.

Another thing: I've been ambiguous on whether I meant stand-your-ground laws or the act of standing your ground and using violence. Just to make this clear: Christian pacifism per se does not imply opposition to stand-your-ground laws. Nor does it imply that non-Christians should be pacifist. (I'm certainly not, and I think stand-your-ground laws are probably a good thing.) Stanley Hauerwas is a radical example of this: he believes that Christians must be non-violent, but I think he'd say that Christian ethics don't have much to say directly about self-defense laws in a secular state. My impression is that most Christian just warriors, the Niebuhr and Ramsey types (and Marilynne Robinson?), do say that their morality is binding on the secular world. So, interestingly, you could say it's the just warriors and not the pacifists who'd be arguing more directly against stand-your-ground laws.

Tony, I understand your point about violence sometimes being charitable. It's an arguable position. But it's hard to see how lethal force could be an act of charity towards the victim if he's committing a grave sin. To me it seems exactly the opposite. You're sending him to a final judgment before he has a chance to repent.

I think it is St. Alphonsus who says that sometimes God's mercy is seen in allowing or having a sinner die before he goes on to commit even more grave sins. So it is not theoretically impossible for such an act to be an act of charity toward the criminal, however rare it may be. But you seem to be mixing "using violence" with "killing him". The pacifism crowd is against using ALL violence, including that necessary to quell the offender and put him in handcuffs, or even pulling a gun on him as a threat so he submits.

And you seem also to equate the mandate of charity to be directed only to the criminal. There is no basis for so limiting it, the charity can be found in your regard for any and every person who may be affected, including your neighbor and including yourself. That is to say, you yourself are not excluded from Christ's commandment "love your neighbor as yourself." So it may be that the act of violently putting a stop to the criminal constitutes a greater charity to "all parties affected" because it benefits several of your neighbors and yourself, that "self" addition does not undermine the charity of the act.

But finally, there seems to be a mix-up between violence used by a private individual under threat, and violence used by the state. For some reason some pacifists seem to think it is OK for the state to be a violent party but not individuals. There are 2 notional problems with that. First, the state cannot be violent except by having individuals do it (police, soldiers, etc). And secondly, the state cannot have a rationale for using violence without that very same rationale applying to individuals. If the police are not around, some of the very same violent acts that they might use to promote the greater good by stopping a criminal can be used by an individual to further the very same goods.

I've been ambiguous on whether I meant stand-your-ground laws or the act of standing your ground and using violence. Just to make this clear: Christian pacifism per se does not imply opposition to stand-your-ground laws. Nor does it imply that non-Christians should be pacifist. (I'm certainly not, and I think stand-your-ground laws are probably a good thing.) Stanley Hauerwas is a radical example of this: he believes that Christians must be non-violent, but I think he'd say that Christian ethics don't have much to say directly about self-defense laws in a secular state.
.

Whatever obligations Christians hold specially on account of their faith in Christ (such as to honor Christ's admonition to "do this in remembrance of me"), and however Huerwas views that distinct obligation, it would be impossible for non-violence to be binding on the faithful without that having a bearing on the whole community whether Christian or not. For example, it would be silly to suggest that the state appropriately uses violence in some circumstances but that Christians should not be the ones to carry it out, because that would imply that a Christian state could never be viable, one would perforce direct the arrangement of the state to be non-Christian (which is absurd). Or, if refusal to use violence in a given situation is actually the most charitable thing to do, then it is the most charitable thing to do even if you are not a Christian, and non-Christians are not relieved from the general obligation to pursue the good of their neighbors - including criminals. (For the most part, the obligations that land specially on Christians that don't apply to everyone are the ones that are fundamentally ceremonial and juridic, not general moral obligations.)

It may be morally tenable to suggest that while there should be no laws preventing or obstructing a person from using violence in self-defense, the Christian should never make use of that. But that would apply just as much to a Christian state as to a secular state. And while I am fine with the notion that the Christian, specifically, should conform himself to the example of Christ who submitted without a word of complaint to unjust torture and death, he also used violence in one case, so "conforming oneself to Christ" must needs be done with attention to the entirety of Christ's teaching, which is not complete non-violence. Christ did not marry, but his teaching was not that all men should not marry. Christ was a preacher and miracle worker, but his teaching was not that all men should be preachers and miracle workers.

that would imply that a Christian state could never be viable, one would perforce direct the arrangement of the state to be non-Christian....

Hauerwas's theological politics is exactly that there cannot be a Christian state, if "state" is taken to be a kind of political entity that relies on violence (as modern states must). In other words, the church should not be involved in ruling to the extent that it entails violence. But I don't see anything absurd about that; it's simply a rejection of Constantinism.

I could cite the Gospels against your position, and you could cite them in favor, but I don't want to get into that.

It's interesting that you're doing exactly the thing that Jeffrey S. got so hot and bothered about with the interview. Almost all the assertions you make are disputed by centuries-old Christian traditions, some of which go back to before the time of Augustine, which you're ignoring as if they didn't exist. Don't worry, I'm not complaining about that, it's fine with me. But some people around here apparently don't like it.

Hauerwas's theological politics is exactly that there cannot be a Christian state, if "state" is taken to be a kind of political entity that relies on violence (as modern states must). In other words, the church should not be involved in ruling to the extent that it entails violence.

Actually, there are 2 different senses of "a Christian state", the hard and the soft version. I can easily see Huerwas saying that there should not be a state which is Christian by having the state formally confessional or formally aligned with a specific church (contra Constantine and his successors). To say, though, that there should not be a state in which all the members of the state are Christians is absurd, as if we don't want Christ's teaching to be accepted by all persons. All states rely on violence, always have and always will, until the end of time, because human nature makes it necessary to suppress evil men, carrying out the role St. Paul indicated. To have a state in which all good men are total pacifists is to lose the state to evil men in very short order.

Almost all the assertions you make are disputed by centuries-old Christian traditions, some of which go back to before the time of Augustine, which you're ignoring as if they didn't exist.

Well, not quite. I am saying that there was a development of doctrine that found earlier theses about violence incomplete, that later teaching "won out" because it was more complete. Sure, one may also dispute whether the later doctrine is a "development" versus a contradiction, but its a debate reasonable people can recognize the possibility of other reasonable people holding different opinions about. I thought the Robinson presumptive attitude, e.g. that pacifism is the only possible Christian attitude and everyone ought to know that, was what Jeff was found unacceptable.

And also will work better for men than for women, especially small women. Let's face it, a woman who wants to defend herself against a predator is going to do well, if she can, to get trained and get a concealed carry license. A physically stronger and/or larger person is actually less likely to need to use lethal force. This is a point that's been made, fairly, concerning female cops.

The reason I mentioned Aikido is that it is a martial art in which strength is far less important than strike-based styles. Most of its techniques focus on redirection of force which women are quite capable of doing. If you are making direct contact with an opponent's blows, you're doing it wrong.

Regarding the point about female cops, that is true. Another strike against female cops is that women by nature tend to be more fearful than men. When you can find police stats by gender, you typically find that female cops are more likely to use deadly force in suspect situations than male cops.

To say, though, that there should not be a state in which all the members of the state are Christians is absurd, as if we don't want Christ's teaching to be accepted by all persons.

There is actually a Protestant pacifism based on this line of thinking. The theory goes something like this. The methods of the state are intrinsically unchristian and therefore we must leave government up to the non-believers lest Christians have to use violence. I've never gotten a good response for how this squares with Romans 13 where Paul says that God actually puts people into authority, weapon in hand, to carry out the duties of the state. The most obvious implication for this form of pacifism is that God has instituted an evil that good may come of it which is not possible.

You keep saying "that's absurd," but I don't see the absurdity. Hauerwas is saying something perhaps even stronger than what you say is absurd. He's saying that no Christians should be involved with violence, so that rules out pretty much all the leading government positions. Of course that doesn't imply that those positions will be filled only by evil men, unless all good men are Christians. But even if it did, it's been close enough to that in lots of times and places, including ancient Rome. The early Christians in Rome might have been mistaken for not using violence, but I don't see them as absurd.

Besides, there are very few "real" Christians in the US government, not to mention Western Europe, yet those governments are still relatively good.

Hauerwas has written many times that non-violence often leads to more violence, not less. But there's nothing absurd about advocating non-violence nevertheless. Christian non-violence is not some utilitarian method of reducing suffering or a Utopian program of ultimately ending violence.

Also, I keep saying "Hauerwas" but I don't know how much of this he got from John Yoder. I've actually bought Yoder's The Politics of Jesus, but I haven't read it yet.

Aaron,

How familiar are you with the traditional Anabaptist views on this issue? I am curious since they are typically much more radical than what your last comment implied.

You keep saying "that's absurd," but I don't see the absurdity.

It is not technically an oxymoron. It leads to an absurdity if one supposes that (1) the state is intended (by nature, by God the author of nature) to be an ongoing, persistent, stable community, and if you accept (2) as a matter principle, of historical observation, and application of St. Paul's Romans (and of Genesis 9:6) that the state's role includes by nature the suppression of those things that violate its nature (i.e. to pursue its preservation and the common good for which it is ordained) "by the sword", and (3) that given defective humanity there will arise occasions of disobedience to laws and unjust threats of violence to citizens and to the state. If you have a state where all persons received and accepted the calling to be Christians, and all of the good Christians were committed to complete non-violence, there would be no good Christians left to carry out the state's proper natural ordination to suppress acts of injustice, transgressions, and similar conditions contrary to the common good, which would quickly undermine the existence of the state itself.

I know that there are some Christians who think that "the state" as such is a violation of God's plan, but they are not co-extensive with the Christians who hold against all violence. Given the state, and given that all good members of the state are Christians who are committed to non-violence, the state would not long persist and thus assumption (1) would not obtain. If Christians of the non-violence persuasion also accept the failure of the state as such, they can be internally consistent. But if they suppose (1) above and they leave room for state-sanctioned violence as per Romans and Genesis, this means either they (the Christians) have to sanction violence themselves or prevent that the government be composed of Christians even when the state itself is composed of Christians. Which is an absurdity.

Hauerwas has written many times that non-violence often leads to more violence, not less. But there's nothing absurd about advocating non-violence nevertheless. Christian non-violence is not some utilitarian method of reducing suffering or a Utopian program of ultimately ending violence.

Right, one could accept that non-violence as a Christian response will lead to anarchy without end, and still maintain non-violence as the only correct attitude. What one cannot do is maintain that AND maintain that the state exists to pursue the common good and to wield the sword against evildoers, while trying to convert ALL to Christianity including government officials. Something has to give. I am OK with the logical consistency with simply denying the state its permanence in human affairs altogether (and then repudiating violence), though of course I think that such a stance is wrong, demonstrably wrong.

Of course Hauerwas denies that view of the state. He's anti-Constantinian.

Depending on what you mean by "the state," the answer to "nothing left after you take away violence to achieve these ends" would probably be to look to the Mennonites: truth-telling and forgiveness. Hauerwas's non-violence is very confrontational. Lots of drama, all the time!

Mike T, I haven't yet read anything on or by the Anabaptists; still waiting for Yoder's book to arrive in the mail. I might have misled with "non-Utopian." What I meant is that Hauerwas's (and Yoder's?) pacifism is eschatological, not Utopian.

I have Anabaptist acquaintances and have discussed the issues Tony raises here and have not gotten much progress in understanding how they reconcile a rejection of the state's divinely-granted position and authority with the Bible. It's been my impression that the Anabaptist position is more of an attempt to shoehorn pacifism into scripture and tradition than a position that naturally fits with them.

From their perspective, government employment is largely inaccessible to Christians because the vast majority of positions have a duty to use force, imply one in certain cases or support such activity. As a general rule, they don't even accept jury duty or vote.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.