Chapter 26: Augustine, Apologist for the Hybrid. The Roman Empire was crumbling; the Church was sinking into the world instead of turning the world upside down. So the Kingdom of God badly needed a Paul or John the Baptist to stand up boldly and challenge the whole Constantinian hybrid. However, what the Church got instead was the primary defender of the hybrid. His name was Augustine. Augustine was quite typical of his age, totally accepting the Constantinian hybrid and the changes it had brought into the Church.
He was a very capable apologist for the hybrid, and unfortunately, there were no gifted spokesmen for the Kingdom. So naturally, Augustine's arguments prevailed. But Augustine did more than merely defend the hybrid. He also tried to defend Orthodox Christianity against the claims of heretics, such as the Gnostics. His method was to listen to his opponent's position and then counter it by taking the exact opposite position.
To illustrate, let's liken one of the apostolic doctrines to the color green, which is obtained by mixing blue and yellow together. And let's liken the heretical view of that doctrine to the color blue. The heretic has some of the truth, since green is partly comprised of blue. However, the heretic has not grasped the full truth. He has altered the apostolic doctrine by leaving out an essential portion of it: the yellow parts.
Now, Augustine's method was not to call his opponent back to the fullness of the apostolic doctrine, represented by the color green. No, Augustine would simply swing to the opposite extreme and argue that the matter was not blue at all, but was actually yellow. He thereby refused to acknowledge that his opponent had even a measure of truth. And it was quite effective as a means to win arguments. Augustine may have won arguments, but in the process, he overturned historic biblical Christianity.
Yellow is just as much a half-truth of the green apostolic faith as is blue. Let me give you two examples of what I mean. Gnosticism had been among the first heresies that Christianity faced. It taught that the material world was evil, having been created by a different deity than the God of the New Testament. In support of their position, the Gnostics pointed to the fact that Jesus' teachings were different from those of Moses.
For example, the God of the Old Testament had commanded the Israelites to go to war, but Jesus told his disciples to love their enemies. Logically, many Gnostics accepted Jesus' Kingdom teachings, but they rejected the entire Old Testament as being the work of another God. They even denied that the Son of God had actually become man. The early Christian writers, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, had already ably defended historic Christianity against the teachings of Gnosticism.
These early defenders of the faith argued that there was no new God between the Old and New Testaments. There was only a progression of revelation between the two. The Law of Moses had been a tutor preparing the Israelites for Christ. Jesus' teachings were the ultimate goal for which the Law was preparing the Israelites. However, these arguments didn't fit the Constantinian hybrid. As we have discussed, the hybrid was basically a combination of New Testament theology with Old Testament morality and lifestyle.
To acknowledge that the New Testament introduced new and greater moral laws than the Old Testament would mean admitting that the hybrid was wrong, and that wouldn't do. So Augustine countered the Gnostics, known in his day as the Manicheans, by denying their underlying premise. He said the teachings of Jesus were not different from those of the Old Testament. Killing was just as lawful under the New as it was under the Old. He wrote, "What is evil about war?
Is it the death of some who will soon die anyway, so that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling." The real evils of war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, the lust of power, and the like. And it is generally for the purpose of punishing these things when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars.
For they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in a certain way. Yes, but didn't Jesus say to love our enemies and not to resist evil? Augustine had an answer for that.
It may be supposed that God could not authorize warfare because in latter times it was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, "I say unto you that you resist not evil; but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also." However, the answer is that what is required here is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. In other words, it's okay to kill someone so long as you love the person you're killing.
Augustine continued, "The Lord commands patience when he says, 'If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also.'" This may be in the inward disposition, although it is not exhibited in bodily action or in words. For when the apostle was struck, he prayed to God to pardon his assailant in the next world, but not to leave the injury unpunished at the time. Inwardly, he preserved a kindly feeling, while outwardly he wished the man to be punished as an example.
That kind of logic might win a paper argument, but it's playing games with Christ. According to Augustine, we can perform the same brutal actions as the world. Our actions can be as violent as those of the Old Testament Israelites. We just have to make sure that our inward feelings are nothing but kindness, peace, and love. Following this line of argumentation, Augustine could rationalize just about anything.
For example, Augustine argued that persecuting the Donatists was an act of Christian love, for it brought them back into the fold of the Church. Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his Master when he has found them? And he may do this by the fear of the whip, or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance.
What Augustine didn't understand is that in Christ's Kingdom, the means is always just as important as the end. Christians don't use evil or violent means in an attempt to obtain godly results. How we do something is just as important as what we do. Augustine is typically credited as the originator of the Just War doctrine. Actually, he wasn't. It was the pagan Greek philosophers and rulers who had first formulated a doctrine of the just or righteous war.
Augustine merely borrowed what they had taught hundreds of years earlier. I have seen various lists of the criteria that Augustine said were necessary for a war to be just, and therefore morally upright for a Christian. However, these lists are a bit misleading. Augustine never wrote a treatise on the Just War doctrine, and he never set forth a list of criteria needed for a war to be just.
Instead, various medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas set forth lists of criteria, saying that these were the conditions laid down by Augustine. The truth of the matter is that Augustine did justify war, as we've seen, and he presented various justifications for war throughout his numerous works. However, Augustine himself never said that all of these criteria or aspects had to be met in order for a war to be just.
Nevertheless, based on Augustine's writings, the medieval theologians came up with a list of conditions that would make a war just. According to these theologians, it was righteous and just for a Christian to kill another man if the Christian loves the man he is killing. The Christian kills only in a war that was the last resort, after all other possible solutions had been tried and failed.
The Christian kills only in a war being fought to redress rights actually violated, or to defend against unjust demands backed by force. The Christian kills only in a war that is waged under the authority of a ruler. The Christian kills only in a war that his side has a reasonable chance of winning. The Christian tries to distinguish between soldiers and civilians, and he never kills civilians on purpose. The Christian kills only in a war in which the killing is proportionate to the end sought.
The Christian kills only in a war in which the good that is sought by his violence outweighs the evil that the violence brings. The Christian kills only in a war in which the winning side never requires the utter humiliation of the loser. If you are a Christian, these conditions should sound absurd to you. Yet, they may not. That's because most of us have been heavily conditioned by the Constantinian hybrid and Augustine's defense thereof. So let me help you to see its absurdity.
Under the ancient code of war, it was deemed perfectly lawful and honorable to kill all of the men of the enemy and to sexually assault all of their women. We have seen how Augustine rationalized the killing of men. Now let's see how these same conditions look if we apply them to the violation of women. Let's say that it is righteous and just for a Christian to violate a woman if the Christian loves the woman he has violated.
The Christian violates women only in a war that was the last resort after all other possible solutions have been tried and failed. The Christian violates women only in a war being fought to redress rights actually violated or to defend against unjust demands backed by force. The Christian violates women only in a war that is waged under the authority of a ruler. The Christian violates women only in a war that his side has a reasonable chance of winning.
The Christian tries to distinguish between soldiers' wives and civilian wives, and he never assaults civilian wives on purpose. The Christian violates women only in a war in which the violent assault is proportionate to the end sought. The Christian violates women only in a war in which the good that is sought by this violence outweighs the evil that the violence brings. The Christian violates women only in a war in which the winning side never requires the utter humiliation of the loser.
You probably have no trouble seeing the ridiculousness of these criteria when applied to assaulting women. Why is it so hard to see when we're talking about killing men instead of assaulting women? It's because nearly all of us have been conditioned by the hybrid. We have grown up in a society that accepts and propagates the values of the hybrid.
Remember, under the hybrid, no condemnation was attached to sins of violence, such as killing and torturing, so long as these acts were done under the authority of the rulers. However, the hybrid nearly always condemns sexual sins of any kind. The Just War criteria are a direct violation of Jesus' teachings. For example, the Just War criteria say that, to be just, a war must be fought to redress rights actually violated or to defend against unjust demands backed by force.
However, Jesus already addressed that very issue. He said not to resist evil. If someone wants your tunic, give him your cloak as well. If someone forces you to carry his load one mile, carry it two. Christians don't wage wars to redress rights. They willingly suffer loss instead. They turn the other cheek. They don't retaliate or fight back, but then say they were actually doing so in love. Nevertheless, let's suppose that if a war meets all of the criteria I've listed above, it would be truly just in God's sight.
If that were the case, the next question would have to be, who decides if a war meets these criteria? The Church? The individual Christian? The state? Augustine answers that the state makes the determination. So how do the individual Christians know whether or not the war they're participating in is really just? The answer is they don't. Augustine acknowledged this: "There is no power but of God, who either orders or permits. Therefore, a righteous man may be serving under an ungodly king.
Yet, he can perform the duty belonging to his position in the state by fighting under the order of his sovereign. For in some cases, it is plainly the will of God that he should fight. But in others, this may not be so plain, for it may be an unrighteous command on the part of the king. Nevertheless, the soldier is innocent because his position makes obedience a duty." So in the end, even the Just War doctrine is a farce.
The individual Christian is supposed to obey even the unrighteous commands of his king, and he is innocent in doing so. As Augustine realized, a person can't give ultimate allegiance to two kings, an earthly king and a heavenly king. So his solution was that so long as we're here on earth, the earthly king receives our absolute allegiance. The only exceptions are if the king commands us to worship false gods or orders us to believe false doctrines not approved by the Church.
However, Augustine's solution is totally unacceptable to Christ. He will not allow us to give superior allegiance to any other person or power. If an earthly king gives us a command that violates Jesus' teaching, it's the earthly king we must disobey, not our heavenly king. The Constantinian hybrid tries to relieve Christians of any individual responsibility to Christ. It says that the Church decides what we are to believe and practice.
And so long as we obey the Church, we are absolved from any guilt in the spiritual realm. Similarly, the hybrid says that the secular ruler decides when it is proper to kill, torture, banish, or plunder others. So long as we are obeying our governments, then we are innocent before Christ in the secular realm. And ever since, hundreds of thousands of Christians have killed their fellow man or even their brothers in Christ without feeling any moral responsibility for doing so. They were just following orders.
In fact, most Christian governments have demanded that their soldiers obey all orders of superior officers regardless of any concern about the moral uprightness of the order. For example, Christian Russia under the Tsars required the following of its soldiers: Article 87: To carry out an order received from a superior officer exactly, without considering whether it is good or not, and whether it is possible to carry it out. The superior officer is responsible for the consequences of the order he gives.
Article 88: The subordinate ought never to refuse to carry out the orders of a superior officer, except when he sees clearly that in carrying out his superior officer's command, he breaks. Since these articles were mandated by Christian Russia, we might expect Article 88 to have ended by saying, "Except when he sees clearly that in carrying out his superior officer's command, he breaks the commandments of Christ." But that's not the way it read.
Rather, it said, "Except he breaks his oath of fidelity and allegiance to the Tsar." The United States Code of Military Justice requires essentially the same obedience from its soldiers. It requires soldiers to obey all orders from superior officers unless they are contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders. But is such a code of conduct acceptable before Christ as to his citizens? Not in the least. He made it clear that our absolute obedience belongs to him.
He is our personal king. It doesn't matter what other authorities, ecclesiastical, secular, or military, may say to the contrary. What they say is irrelevant, so long as our king has already spoken on the matter. We will stand before the judgment throne individually, not collectively. During Augustine's lifetime, a Christian leader from Britain named Pelagius traveled throughout the Roman world, preaching against the spiritual laxity of the day. He rightfully stressed our personal accountability before Christ.
However, either he or his followers went a bit too far. They said, or purportedly said, that we humans can walk perfectly in the commandments of Jesus without the need of grace. This went against historic Christianity, which taught that without God's enabling grace, nobody would be ultimately saved. At the same time, Christians had always taught that we, too, play a role in our salvation. We have to be willing to let go of the world and to daily crucify our own flesh and its wants.
Salvation is a matter of man and God working together because God wants it that way. However, in his usual fashion, Augustine countered the Pelagians by going to the opposite extreme. He declared that we humans have no power whatsoever to obey Christ, that we don't even have sufficient free will to choose to obey him. In other words, in reality, we play no part in our salvation.
Augustine claimed that our human condition is this way because, before the universe was ever created, God arbitrarily chose who would be eternally saved and who would be eternally damned. There is nothing we can do to change the destiny he already decreed for us before we were born. But that totally nullifies the whole ethos of Jesus' gospel. What was his purpose for giving us the Sermon on the Mount if what Augustine taught was true?
What was his purpose in warning us that we must build our house on the rock by obeying his teachings? If what Augustine said were true, we have absolutely no power to obey his teachings, so we can't do any of the things he asked of us. Why would he exhort us to build on the rock if that decision had already been made by God before we were born? Why would Jesus have warned us that "he who endures to the end will be saved" if there is nothing we can do to endure?
What was the purpose of his parable of separating the sheep from the goats if that separation was already made before Jesus ever came to earth? Why did Jesus denounce the scribes and Pharisees if their actions had already been predestined by God? On what basis did the Pharisees have any guilt if they were simply living out the script God had written for them? What was the purpose of all the other warnings throughout the New Testament?
Why preach the gospel if our preaching cannot make any difference in anyone's eternal destiny? By swinging to an extreme in order to win in arguments, Augustine invented an absurd system that should easily be unmasked by any student of the Bible. The gospel of the kingdom isn't established by proof-texting special passages of Scripture and then ignoring everything else the New Testament teaches. But that's how Augustine created his own special system, by proof-texting a few passages.
In contrast, the gospel of the kingdom accepts the entirety of the New Testament. It never interprets any part of the Bible in such a way that it nullifies the teachings of Jesus. The truth of the matter is that Augustine himself didn't believe his own doctrine. If he had, he wouldn't have bothered to reply to the Pelagians. For if Augustine's doctrine is true, what difference does it make what the Pelagians taught? Nobody could be harmed by their doctrine. Nobody's relationship with God would be affected.
Again, why did Augustine argue that heretics and schismatics should be persecuted? Their errors could harm no one. No one would lose salvation because of them, since everyone's salvation had already been decided before the universe was created. In summation, under the gospel of the kingdom, the New Testament is an open book that an uneducated Christian can read and obey quite literally.
However, under Augustine and the theology of the Constantinian hybrid, the New Testament became a book dotted with landmines that only theologically trained minds could interpret correctly.