God and International Relations —— Christian Theology and World Politics

Christian Realism in International Relations (IR) is often nothing more than interpreting the philosophical conclusion to anarchy, states and power onto the Biblical knowledge of sin and human pride. The Christian brand adds only the pragmatic and prudent exercise of love as a first-policy, never extended too far into the realm of faith so as to tempt the realities of human pride and national self-interest that dominate the "earthly kingdom". Christian Constructivism, if there is such a thing, could employ a similar approach only in this case, the Biblical truth that informs the constructivist is that nationalism and identity, while created, are still a function of human pride resulting from sin. The secular end of constructivism's idealist outcome argues through moral relativism to an eventual world order under a unified global identity (Wendt aside). Like its Realist counter-part, what if Christian constructivism avoids this polar reasoning, again based on the Biblical understanding of sin, natural law and a human redemption that is only complete in Christ? Mika Luoma-aho's work of perseverance takes to task the IR assumptions of state sovereignty, global anarchy, amoral political society and the "existence" of states themselves. When assumptions become an accepted given the result is as follows: We live in a state that has no empirical existence and that same state then comes back with reason (sovereignty) to defend and kill for self-interest (amoral politics). What if IR has missed completely the Biblical description of social interaction and instead adapted IR to religion... or as religion? "God and International Relations" is a multi-disciplinary masterpiece that also happens, to my delight, to summon a similar panel of diverse authors that frequent my own meanderings. Constructivist ideas naturally harvest from cultural, political, anthropological, religious and social studies. Besides, it's great fun to see how Alexander Wendt (secular constructivist), Dietrich Bonheoffer (WWII era theologian), Clifford Geertz (anthropologist), John Howard Yoder (Mennonite influenced political theology), Hans Morgenthau (IR realism), Sam Harris (atheist philosopher), C.S. Lewis (Christian thinker) and Daniel Philpott (Religious studies) could all "offer" contributions to a single work! Social theory has often played the "middle-man" to the IR theories which is oddly both to its credit and to skeptics, a compromising discredit. Mika Luoma-aho continues in the conciliatory grain but adds powerful analysis that would undercut moral relativism and include the Biblical state of nature that C.S. Lewis so brilliantly describes. To separate the secular philosophers from the Biblical brand, the author argues persuasively against the moral conclusions of Sam Harris and Paul Kurtz. Without a true moral meaning there can be no human rights. In general "The moment we compare moral ideas we measure them by a standard (pg. 122)." Beginning to form the main argument, Mika quotes the IR realist "greats" to confirm the point that the existence of states are indeed an assumption. Summarizing her foundational philosopher, C. Schmitt and a host of others, states take on meaning only through the symbols, language and shifting invisible borders we grant them. The state, in anthropomorphic form holds a "common destiny of salvation from peril (pg. 56)" much like a god might. This "personification of the state" on the other hand, also paved the way for an international morality (E. H. Carr). What Hans Morgenthau argued was lost at the social group level (and Reinhold Niebuhr tweaked through a Christian lens) is regained once again if "states are people too". Thus the books flow through discussions of states, law, the United Nations and human rights; navigating back and forth between the valid secular and religious arguments spanning the IR spectrum in a lively and impassioned interchange! History is also very much a part of political theology and Mika Luoma-aho reassesses (to avoid the stereotype attached to "revisionist") the established assumptions of IR. First of all, it would be unfair to blame religion for the cause of so called "religious wars". There is just as much evidence to convict the despots, princes, kings, sultans, imams and priests in political competitions that pulsed through history. In addition, while Martin Luther's prescription of the earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom ushered into the modern era an excuse for a dual morality, the French Revolution with its secular foundation perhaps influenced the philosophy of politics as much as the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. History can also compare the contemporary United Nations to the Hittite system of suzerain/vassal relationships by treaty (with obvious differences that the author explains). Other than the clear connections between UN programs and Biblical ideals, before IR became religion, did religion (the Bible) and its historical context have any insights for IR theory? The question has been raised by Michael Walzer (2012) and editors Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook (2008). Without the supporting theme of redemption through Christ the era of Judah, Israel and Babylonia appear a pointless convoluted IR mess (analysis my own). In many ways, the secular arguments of contemporary ethics is simply adopted from their Biblical roots. What was once known as "natural law" is now "human rights". In one final Christian constructivist end game theory there could be a "durable sediment of Christianity" (Jean-Luc Nancy) and [through] humanitarian responsibility of its teachings (Jackson) ... we will get a world society where "states lose their normative standing and are reduced to being merely instrumentalities for protecting human rights and providing for human welfare... (pg 127)". But that is only one logical conclusion to Biblical ethics in IR. Perhaps influenced by Niebuhr's read of history, Mika Luoma-aho is not convinced of utopia through human politics. Democracies are at once the enabler of peaceful IR and the barrier to world government. This could be mostly due to the reality of diverse nations and the impossibility of social and cultural harmony in politics that Babel is meant to represent. At book's end, I did not come to the title's conclusion that the theory of IR is actually a theology but rather religion is a tool through which to understand some developing precepts of IR and human nature. On the other hand, IR becomes theology not only when assumptions are taken for unmovable reality but when the "earthly citizenship" forgets its heavenly passport. Politics is an easy crutch, looking for an excuse to power and a reason to ignore an act of faith. As the author explains, the state "whispers" for our allegiance in violation of full devotion to God. We can be of service to both but we must have only one Master. "Likewise states in the world political: they are not ends in themselves, but means to achieve something beyond or indeed above themselves. I believe that confusion on this hierarchy of priorities is not only at the root of contemporary problems of development, but also some of the most pressing and persistent problems of world politics (pg 134-35)." The fault of realism is not that men are corrupted to power and self-interest but that the knowledge of this truth would too quickly resort to political amorality as the tangible, "controllable" answer to a world of sin. A correction to Christian realism does not dismiss its argument, it only allows the possibility of reconciliation, the power of kindness and the potential to corrective misunderstandings to linger just a few more moments, knowing the constructs of social structures.

Christian Realism in International Relations (IR) is often nothing more than interpreting the philosophical conclusion to anarchy, states and power onto the Biblical knowledge of sin and human pride. The Christian brand adds only the pragmatic and prudent exercise of love as a first-policy, never extended too far into the realm of faith so as to tempt the realities of human pride and national self-interest that dominate the "earthly kingdom". Christian Constructivism, if there is such a thing, could employ a similar approach only in this case, the Biblical truth that informs the constructivist is that nationalism and identity, while created, are still a function of human pride resulting from sin. The secular end of constructivism's idealist outcome argues through moral relativism to an eventual world order under a unified global identity (Wendt aside). Like its Realist counter-part, what if Christian constructivism avoids this polar reasoning, again based on the Biblical understanding of sin, natural law and a human redemption that is only complete in Christ? Mika Luoma-aho's work of perseverance takes to task the IR assumptions of state sovereignty, global anarchy, amoral political society and the "existence" of states themselves. When assumptions become an accepted given the result is as follows: We live in a state that has no empirical existence and that same state then comes back with reason (sovereignty) to defend and kill for self-interest (amoral politics). What if IR has missed completely the Biblical description of social interaction and instead adapted IR to religion... or as religion? "God and International Relations" is a multi-disciplinary masterpiece that also happens, to my delight, to summon a similar panel of diverse authors that frequent my own meanderings. Constructivist ideas naturally harvest from cultural, political, anthropological, religious and social studies. Besides, it's great fun to see how Alexander Wendt (secular constructivist), Dietrich Bonheoffer (WWII era theologian), Clifford Geertz (anthropologist), John Howard Yoder (Mennonite influenced political theology), Hans Morgenthau (IR realism), Sam Harris (atheist philosopher), C.S. Lewis (Christian thinker) and Daniel Philpott (Religious studies) could all "offer" contributions to a single work! Social theory has often played the "middle-man" to the IR theories which is oddly both to its credit and to skeptics, a compromising discredit. Mika Luoma-aho continues in the conciliatory grain but adds powerful analysis that would undercut moral relativism and include the Biblical state of nature that C.S. Lewis so brilliantly describes. To separate the secular philosophers from the Biblical brand, the author argues persuasively against the moral conclusions of Sam Harris and Paul Kurtz. Without a true moral meaning there can be no human rights. In general "The moment we compare moral ideas we measure them by a standard (pg. 122)." Beginning to form the main argument, Mika quotes the IR realist "greats" to confirm the point that the existence of states are indeed an assumption. Summarizing her foundational philosopher, C. Schmitt and a host of others, states take on meaning only through the symbols, language and shifting invisible borders we grant them. The state, in anthropomorphic form holds a "common destiny of salvation from peril (pg. 56)" much like a god might. This "personification of the state" on the other hand, also paved the way for an international morality (E. H. Carr). What Hans Morgenthau argued was lost at the social group level (and Reinhold Niebuhr tweaked through a Christian lens) is regained once again if "states are people too". Thus the books flow through discussions of states, law, the United Nations and human rights; navigating back and forth between the valid secular and religious arguments spanning the IR spectrum in a lively and impassioned interchange! History is also very much a part of political theology and Mika Luoma-aho reassesses (to avoid the stereotype attached to "revisionist") the established assumptions of IR. First of all, it would be unfair to blame religion for the cause of so called "religious wars". There is just as much evidence to convict the despots, princes, kings, sultans, imams and priests in political competitions that pulsed through history. In addition, while Martin Luther's prescription of the earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom ushered into the modern era an excuse for a dual morality, the French Revolution with its secular foundation perhaps influenced the philosophy of politics as much as the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. History can also compare the contemporary United Nations to the Hittite system of suzerain/vassal relationships by treaty (with obvious differences that the author explains). Other than the clear connections between UN programs and Biblical ideals, before IR became religion, did religion (the Bible) and its historical context have any insights for IR theory? The question has been raised by Michael Walzer (2012) and editors Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook (2008). Without the supporting theme of redemption through Christ the era of Judah, Israel and Babylonia appear a pointless convoluted IR mess (analysis my own). In many ways, the secular arguments of contemporary ethics is simply adopted from their Biblical roots. What was once known as "natural law" is now "human rights". In one final Christian constructivist end game theory there could be a "durable sediment of Christianity" (Jean-Luc Nancy) and [through] humanitarian responsibility of its teachings (Jackson) ... we will get a world society where "states lose their normative standing and are reduced to being merely instrumentalities for protecting human rights and providing for human welfare... (pg 127)". But that is only one logical conclusion to Biblical ethics in IR. Perhaps influenced by Niebuhr's read of history, Mika Luoma-aho is not convinced of utopia through human politics. Democracies are at once the enabler of peaceful IR and the barrier to world government. This could be mostly due to the reality of diverse nations and the impossibility of social and cultural harmony in politics that Babel is meant to represent. At book's end, I did not come to the title's conclusion that the theory of IR is actually a theology but rather religion is a tool through which to understand some developing precepts of IR and human nature. On the other hand, IR becomes theology not only when assumptions are taken for unmovable reality but when the "earthly citizenship" forgets its heavenly passport. Politics is an easy crutch, looking for an excuse to power and a reason to ignore an act of faith. As the author explains, the state "whispers" for our allegiance in violation of full devotion to God. We can be of service to both but we must have only one Master. "Likewise states in the world political: they are not ends in themselves, but means to achieve something beyond or indeed above themselves. I believe that confusion on this hierarchy of priorities is not only at the root of contemporary problems of development, but also some of the most pressing and persistent problems of world politics (pg 134-35)." The fault of realism is not that men are corrupted to power and self-interest but that the knowledge of this truth would too quickly resort to political amorality as the tangible, "controllable" answer to a world of sin. A correction to Christian realism does not dismiss its argument, it only allows the possibility of reconciliation, the power of kindness and the potential to corrective misunderstandings to linger just a few more moments, knowing the constructs of social structures.