For some time I've occasionally listened to a podcast called Catholics Against Militarism. It's flawed – it is Roman Catholic after all, but interesting at times. Protestant Constantinians and Dominionists are quick to dismiss all such anti-war sentiments as 'Anabaptist' even while they ignore the long and fairly impressive 'peace' testimony found within the spectrum that is Rome.
Ironically Fundamentalism once had this testimony as well as
did some of the Restorationist groups. It's a mistake to associate all such
thinking with either the Anabaptists or Quakers. It's a disingenuous tool used
by some Confessionalists to discredit the notion.
Even many Roman Catholics who embrace power and wealth (and
thus by implication war) have held up the monastic notion of poverty (which
also implies a rejection of power) as the ideal to which they would aspire to
and yet the circumstances of life have not allowed them to do so. Once again, I
would cite the numerous examples of kings, queens, knights, and others who near
the end of their lives cast off their worldly positions and trappings for the
austerity and submissive life of the contemplative monastic.
The host of the show (CAM) is a thoughtful woman filled with a
palpable degree of conviction and yet I was sorry to note that lately things
have taken a kind of tragic turn.
But first the background for this turn – it's a story and
trajectory that will resonate with others – a story of someone losing their
way.
It begins with Libertarianism and the failure to understand
the connection between mammon and militarism. Many Libertarians, in particular
those of the Mises and Ron Paul sects are Roman Catholics and many decry American
imperialism and America's wars. They believe (wrongly) that freedom and
democracy in social life and economics will lead not only to competition and
vibrant markets but to peace. They believe that people don't want war and if
society were truly democratic, then wars would be avoided. Government
interference and the regulation of society and economics are the source of war
they argue.
This view is sadly naive and even terribly mistaken. It rests
in a faulty view of man and the consequences of the Fall, and it fails to
understand the dynamics within society and who and what are really in charge. It
is a view that resonates with the American intellectual and philosophical
tradition which itself rests in a kind of Enlightenment confidence regarding
man and his possibilities. Theologically, it is a reiteration of the teachings
of Pelagius and this too is a critical part of the American tale. The Calvinism
of the early colonies largely imploded and was replaced by the Pelagian spirit
of Enlightenment and this has overshadowed American Christian thinking ever
since. I would argue that it's prevalent even in Reformed circles, especially
in the realm of economics and individual rights – though more and more are
turning away from these notions in terms of government and the ordering of
society.
Man is fallen and given over to evil – the archetypes for
this are found in Genesis in men like Lamech and Nimrod, along with the
nameless ones involved in the building of the Tower of Babel. Pride, vengeance,
and the lust to make a name for one's self are at the heart of human nature.
Man is not good but rather given over to evil and a slave to covetousness and
thus avarice. This starts small in the realm of peer to peer relations but as
men rise in terms of their power and wealth, their vision expands allowing them
to see not just beyond the horizon but into other dimensions of influence and
ideas – markets (as it were) of thought, allegiance, and behaviour.
Men are never content and will always want more, and often more
to their own hurt – and the hurt of others. Libertarianism dreams of and
idealizes an old American frontier world where there are endless resources, abundant
land, and men can live their lives as they choose and mind their own business.
But even this is to misunderstand the nature of the frontier.
Such scenarios only existed briefly. Before long, people moved in and competed
for everything from wood and water to land and game. Pioneer accounts
(including that of my own family) are tales of constant movement. People would
stay in one place for a generation at most and looking for that elusive freedom,
success, and security they sought, they would then pick up once more and 'Go
West' – as the saying went.
Consequently (at least in terms of the United States) one of the
greatest forests in known history was all but cut down and numerous animal species
were driven to the point of extinction. And even today, there are countless waterways
(especially in the East) that remain polluted from the carelessness and greed
of past generations. It's not a happy story. A lack of regulation led to the
flourishing of some, but the exploitation of others, and certainly a trail of
destruction left for subsequent generations to deal with. I'm reminded of this
every time I go out into the woods and see the scars the resulted from the
free-for-all of past generations.
Libertarianism likewise exhibits a very flawed and
over-simplified understanding of economics, the business cycle, and the nature
of currency and its value in light of things like credit and inflation – and
deflation. And needless to say its understanding of the Industrial Revolution
and its social consequences must be described as impoverished and lacking any
moral or ethical compass. The individual comes first and cannot be restrained
in the idealized world of the Libertarian. They are always keen to appeal to
the 'success' stories but for every one of those there are thousands who
failed, and thousands more who were ill-used and they and their families
suffered as a result. Whole families and societies were destroyed and even
today we are still living with the fallout, the effects of this period – the era
of Robber Barons which they view as a kind of golden age, an ideal to return to.
Libertarianism clings to its beliefs and thus must find a way
of explaining the course of history and what has happened in the world, for the
results do not fit their narratives. It almost goes without saying that revisionist
history is quite popular in their circles. In some cases the assumptions of the
status quo needs to be challenged but nothing is gained if one set of false
premises and conclusions are merely replaced by another.
As hyper-individualists that wrongly believe selfishness to
be healthy for markets and beneficial to society, they fear collectivism in all
forms and especially when it begins to function on a global scale. They reject
regulation but at the same time decry the effects of monopoly. Monopoly is not
a betrayal of capitalism (as they sometimes seem to suggest) but its logical
end and monopoly demonstrates that a reduced state or one that is subservient
to the power of corporations dominating markets does not result in more freedom
or less regulation. What happens? The corporation simply steps into the gap and
assumes the role of the state. On a small scale level this is clearly seen in
industrial towns dominated by certain industries, in the 'company town'
phenomenon often associated with mining, and there are numerous other examples
when it comes to the power of banking, oil companies, and on a grander scale
the military-industrial complex – the companies essentially wedded to the
military in a kind of symbiosis.
They would absolutise the market but fail to understand that
its dynamic always leads to consolidation and thus its own implosion or
self-destruction in the form of monopolies. They're not going to voluntarily
break themselves up or restrain their consolidation out of loyalty to an idea.
Profit is the end game, the goal – not some idealized or even deified market.
At the most basic level, Libertarianism fails to understand
what money is and remains largely trapped by academic definitions – unable to
grasp its social and moral value, and the fact that it translates into power.
As such money is not ethically neutral (as is often argued), at least not when
it reaches a certain level.
In a capitalist context there are conflicting obligations.
Men heading companies or trading securities might be firm believers in the
principles of laissez faire but they
have other obligations to stockholders and the desire to see their companies
grow. As such, they will most certainly rig the game, and manipulate the rules,
especially if given the latitude to do so in a non-regulatory environment. For
example, the entire marketing-advertising industry is not about informing the
consumer so they can make an honest choice and 'vote' with their money in the
midst of some hallowed market paradigm. No, it's about manipulation, deceit,
and distraction – and often idolatry. We see this clearly in terms of brand
loyalty and associating certain brands with a kind of life ethos and lifestyle.
In other words the brand defines your identity – imago Apple replaces the imago
Dei. That's idolatry pure and simple, a false religion on full display.
Caveat Emptor (or buyer beware) is a prominent
motto for the Libertarian. The risks it represents are the 'price of freedom'
and yet the New Testament rejects this whole way of thinking and tells us not
to seek earthly riches at all and to put the needs of others above ourselves –
to treat others the way we would want to be treated. Caveat Emptor is not
Christian. And it must be pointed out, an empathetic, compassionate, and
sacrificial ethic in keeping with the New Testament hardly produces a business
model that will flourish within our cutthroat capitalist culture. Christians
who live as Christians are not going to flourish within its environment. They
will be odd men out.
The Christians who support this evil subversion of Scripture
have an answer of course. Modern Evangelicalism hides behind the Magisterial
Reformation's false doctrine of Vocation that allows the believer to set aside
Christian ethical imperatives as he fulfills a task that requires a different
set of ethics and rules. He can put on his banking or retail cap on Monday
morning and all the rules change. Monday thru Friday he lives by one set of
ethics and then another is idealized on Sunday – only to be ignored the next
morning when he returns to work.
Sadly, many have confused the ethos of Libertarianism with
the teaching of Scripture. So it is with Catholics Against Militarism. The
ethical and ultimately epistemological outworkings of this are devastating and ultimately
undermines its own position.
The world is a mess and since the theories of Libertarianism
fail, they must find a way to explain the way things are. Rather than
acknowledge the failures and immorality of Enlightenment society, democracy,
and capitalism, they turn to scapegoats.
Rather than understand that finance capital is like the shark
which cannot stop swimming lest it die, and therefore must endlessly seek new
markets, and if it can't find them it must create them – instead they see a
globalist conspiracy. There is a conspiracy you might say, but it's inherent to
capitalism, the Babel-system that ever runs the world and seeks to alienate,
oppress, and crush those who oppose it. After all Christ said you cannot serve
God and Mammon and yet how many Christians today utterly reject these words.
How many fail to understand that this imperative is inseparable from his other
commands regarding turning the other cheek, seeking first the Kingdom of God,
and certainly the power-rejecting and non-resistant assumptions within not just
the Beatitudes but the larger Sermon on the Mount?