I think the Bible clearly teaches us that unborn children are humans and are created in the image of God. All the Scriptural evidence points toward human life being unique and sanctified as such from the womb, not at the moment of birth. Evangelical Christians have latched onto opposition to abortion with an almost single-minded focus and rightly so. Unborn children are certainly the least of these among us, defenseless and unable to speak for themselves. I think it is rightly expected that Christians would speak out against abortion, vote for pro-life candidates and do everything in our power to encourage women to carry their children to term, including being open to adoption and being generous in support of women who lack the means to care for their children.
I also think the Bible clearly teaches us that adults are humans and are created in the image of God. Further, the Bible teaches that Christians are to be peacemakers, are to turn the other cheek and are not to avenge themselves, to respond to evil with good and leave vengeance upon the unjust to God. It is the witness of Scripture and the powerful testimony of many martyrs who have gone before us that for those who are redeemed and trust in the promise from God of eternal life would rather lay down our own life and gain all than rise up to kill another.
Why the disconnect? Granted Romans 13 clearly gives the state the authority to take up the sword, which would seem to cover both war and capital punishment, but why do we as Christians participate in something that seems so contrary to Scripture? Why do we find it so easy to rail against abortion but incapable of extending that to issues of war? The Scriptural evidence in the New Testament is actually far more clear on the issue of war-making as being incompatible with being a follower of Christ than it is with abortion. Taking up the sword as a Christian is specifically forbidden but many pastors who will stand in the pulpit and speak out against abortion will turn around and celebrate warfare from that same pulpit.
Being pro-life goes far beyond being anti-abortion and I would say it involves being so assured of life everlasting that we refuse to participate in the taking of the life of another, no matter how “just” we feel our cause may be.
15 comments:
In scripture, is there a difference in self-defense (or additionally, vigilante justice) vs. coming to the aid of others under the law/sword? In Luke 3, John answered the Roman soldiers that they should do violence to no man and be content with their wages. He didn't tell them to quit the Roman army.
So how do you continue in the service of an arguably corrupt empire's military and do violence to no man? I don't think they allowed conscientious objectors in the Roman army. Was John calling them to martyrdom, or is there a place to serve as the sword?
Eric,
I think we need to differentiate between John the Baptist answering an unrelated question to a soldier and Jesus Christ calling for His people to be peacemakers and Paul's admonition in Romans 12. John was addrerssing an economic question and didn't have the benefit of the teaching of Christ on peacemaking.
John is exhorting them to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance and not rely upon being Abraham's sons for salvation. "What shall we do?" is not necessarily an economic question, but asking what fruit is he exhorting them to.
His answer to "the people" has nothing to do with money, but sharing in their excess (two coats and meat) with those that have none.
His answer to the publicans is to not steal (exact only that which is appointed).
His answer to the soldiers is to do violence to no man (which only has to do with money if violence implies theft) AND accuse none falsely (tied to economics?) AND to be content with their wages.
I couldn't figure out how a soldier could continue without doing violence to any man. I have done some study on the word translated "violence" here and it does seem to be used consistently in a negative fashion, as in a wrongful assault. Perhaps the soldiers were engaging in stealing from the citizens via armed robbery, or blackmailing them for their money/property with false accusation and therefore John is exhorting them to be content with their wages.
However, he did not call for them to lay down their arms - just as he did not exhort the publicans to stop serving Caesar. He certainly had the teaching of the original covenant. Why wouldn't he exhort them to desert the army they served unless their killing was not murder?
Eric,
How do you reconcile what you perceive as this silence from John regarding soldiers here and the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, His chastisement of Peter for taking up the sword, His own sacrifice without struggle at the cross and the writings of Paul in Romans 12? The sound interpretation is the one that translate the unclear by the clear. John is not addressing the issue of the sword at all while the consistent witness of the New Testament is explicit in the condemnation of the use of violence by a believer.
I don't think I am clear in what I am asking. Is there not a difference in perpetrating violence against another and the ruler "that beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom 13). I am suggesting that the government is a minister of God doing "violence" to men as punishment for evil. It has been ordained by God. If I take it upon myself to execute an abortion doctor that has murdered thousands, I have transgressed against the law and will be punished by the "higher power", but the "higher power" can execute him with impunity. In either case, the murderer is executed. So John encouraged these men to continue in their occupation as soldiers (being content with their wages) but to do violence to no man. I believe "violence" here refers to an illegal or unlawful use of force or assault, based on how that Greek word is used in other instances in Scripture. They may well have still committed violent acts in the process of not wielding the sword in vain.
Maybe another way to ask this is, do you believe a believer could rightfully serve as a police officer, knowing that their occupation will likely require physical confrontation or use of deadly force at some point?
If I were to be drafted at this stage in my life I would have claim "religious exemption" or whatever it is, because I could not take up arms. I could not have said that several years ago, or maybe even a year ago.
Mark
Eric,
I would absolutely affirm that the state has the right to use the sword but that is a different issue.
Can a believer serve as a police officer where they may be called upon to use violence? I don’t think so. As a Christian I could not in good conscience take the life of another person and because of that I would find myself unsuitable for that job both for my unwillingness to use violence and for the fact that because of that unwillingness I would be unable to carry out my duties. Nor would I see it as an acceptable compromise to serve in the military in a non-combat role for the same reason (and this comparison is going to get me in trouble) I would not work in a support role for a doctor who performed abortions even if I was not personally involved in the abortions myself.
I will leave it to God to punish the evildoer and to take vengeance upon the unrighteous. There is no situation where a believer who has assurance of life everlasting would be justified in killing another human being, not even Hitler or Ted Bundy.
I can't see the similarity in the military role (if this is the sword instituted by God) and working for the abortion doctor (a hired murderer). I agree that I could not work for the abortionist. I also would have a hard time serving in our military because we for the last 60 years have been largely an offensive occupier, refusing to follow our secular Constitution. We are liars. I would consider most of our military actions "violence" in the sense I believe John was using with the soldiers - a wrongful assault, not acting as the revenger of God or even defending our fellow man. I could not participate in a system that would not let me conscientiously object to a given mission when I knew we were not coming to any aid, but invading as offenders. I am having a hard time with saying we cannot defend the defenseless or protect the lives of others - but I can see that I have no right to my own.
Is there a difference in this sword instituted by God in Romans 13 and the unjust state that we see? Or is it just evildoers being used by God to punish evildoers (if believers should not participate)? I can see this is a path to total non-participation in secular government (voting/holding office/etc).
For a provoking aside: What about paying taxes that get used to fund the abortionist's murder operation - or the military you disagree with?. Paul says to pay all what is owed to them (Rom. 13) for wrath and conscience sake.
Eric,
I knew that analogy would be unpopular. Let me ask it this way. Is there a moral difference from a Christian standpoint in these two examples:
Example A: A woman works in a clerical role at an abortionists office. She doesn’t perform abortions nor does she assist in the procedure. She works with the billing department. Her job enables the abortionists office to function by ensuring that money is coming in to pay the salaries of the doctor and staff, to pay for the butcher tools that the abortionist uses to kill infants and to advertise for abortion services in the yellow pages.
Example B: A soldier in World War II works behind the lines at an airfield in the Pacific. He has never shot down an enemy plane or even fired a gun at someone. His job is to load the ordinance that is dropped on Tokyo, the enemy of the United States at that time. The incendiary bombs used during this bombing run lead to the death of 100,000 people in Tokyo, most of whom are non-combatants and children, probably even unborn children in their mothers’ wombs.
Let’s look at the context. The very government that was being spoken of by Paul in Romans 13 and by Christ in “render unto Caesar” was a horribly unjust government, a government that conquered the western world, crucified people, sponsored games where men killed each other (and many Christians who refused to fight). So Jesus said we should pay our taxes and Paul affirmed that we are to be subject to the governing authorities. In those days there were no democracies, I would say that all of the governments of that time were unjust in our definition. Our obedience to the governing authorities is not restricted to governments we deem to be "just".
So what I see this saying is that we are to be subject to the authorities God has placed over us, including paying taxes whether those taxes pay for abortion or for war, but we are forbidden to take up the sword on behalf of that secular authority.
Eric,
I knew that analogy would be unpopular. Let me ask it this way. Is there a moral difference from a Christian standpoint in these two examples:
Example A: A woman works in a clerical role at an abortionists office. She doesn’t perform abortions nor does she assist in the procedure. She works with the billing department. Her job enables the abortionists office to function by ensuring that money is coming in to pay the salaries of the doctor and staff, to pay for the butcher tools that the abortionist uses to kill infants and to advertise for abortion services in the yellow pages.
Example B: A soldier in World War II works behind the lines at an airfield in the Pacific. He has never shot down an enemy plane or even fired a gun at someone. His job is to load the ordinance that is dropped on Tokyo, the enemy of the United States at that time. The incendiary bombs used during this bombing run lead to the death of 100,000 people in Tokyo, most of whom are non-combatants and children, probably even unborn children in their mothers’ wombs.
Let’s look at the context. The very government that was being spoken of by Paul in Romans 13 and by Christ in “render unto Caesar” was a horribly unjust government, a government that conquered the western world, crucified people, sponsored games where men killed each other (and many Christians who refused to fight). So Jesus said we should pay our taxes and Paul affirmed that we are to be subject to the governing authorities. In those days there were no democracies, I would say that all of the governments of that time were unjust in our definition.
So what I see this saying is that we are to be subject to the authorities God has placed over us, including paying taxes whether those taxes pay for abortion or for war, but we are forbidden to take up the sword on behalf of that secular authority.
I think that is a false dilemma because only the sword is instituted by God as a revenger against the evildoer. If the WWII military is that sword, then God has instituted that they execute wrath upon the evildoers - who apparently would by necessity include 100,000 Japanese including women and children in your example. The abortionist is just a hired murderer. But I get your point that in either position you are at least passively supporting murder.
So, should you quit any work that generates enough income that it requires payment of federal income taxes? This is one way I could see a path of obeying the higher powers but not funding their activities. Because those taxes are being used to fund murders. The majority goes to the military but this also funds some abortionists (now thanks to President Obama, in foreign countries - maybe even Japan). We are no different than the clerk in your example. We are the billing department.
I believe there is a distinction between the Romans and America in that the military service today is voluntary - but your conscience is removed from the picture in carrying out orders in either case. The Roman army would execute you, the American would court martial (if following their law).
Do you have a copy of Foxe's Book of Martyrs? Have you ever read the account of the Theban Legion (286 AD) or the Militine (Thundering Legion in Fourth Persecution)?
I find it interesting that these Christian men were serving in the Roman army. God used them in different ways.
I think we need to clarify just how much control God takes in the world's governance. i am currently reading Myth of a Christian Nation, and the following quote is used, from John Howard Yoder:
"God is not said to create or...ordain the powers that be, but only to order them, to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time where there was no government and then God made government through a new creative intervention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed....Likewise God does not take the responsibility for the existence of the rebellious "powers that be" or for their shape or identity; they already are. What the text says is that God orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purpose."
Where I think this is relevant is in discussing a Christian's activity in the actions of a worldly government. Yes, as described above God grants authority to man to govern, but does not necessarily control who governs, or in what manner they govern. Thus, it can not be assumed that it is okay for a Christian to carry out the actions decreed by said government, just because that government is 'ordained' by God.
The author of the book, Gregory Boyd, goes on to say "As Paul describes in Romans 13, this general purpose is to preserve as much law and order as is possible. Insofar as governments can do this, they are properly exercising the authority God grants them and are, to that extent, good."
Just found this interesting.
Mark,
I think that leaves God's sovereignty short. In a couple of examples we see some specific examples of God placing human authorities in place and neither of them was a godly ruler:
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Rom 9:17-18)
Pharaoh served a purpose and God placed him in power to show His power.
So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?" Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." (Joh 19:10-11)
Pilate was given his authority ultimately from God. Those examples as well as others in the OT refute what Yoder is saying. I like a lot of what Yoder says but I think he is dead wrong on this issue.
Eric,
I am not saying there are never any Christians who served in the military. There were certainly Christians in every major army that has ever existed. That doesn't mean that obedience would demand that we refuse the sword.
Arthur,
I get what you are saying, and I agree with the example of Pharoah. With Pilate, was he specifically put in authority, or was he sitting in a position of authority that had already been instituted, and just happened to be the man there? When Jesus said "you would have no authority over me", was he speaking specifically of Pilate only, or of earthly governments in general? I still do not believe that God is behind every action by every government, or that He controls their every move. I believe He grants them authority to "wield the sword", but I don't believe that, by and large, He chooses who will be in power, or orders their every move. Pharaoh would be an obvious exception. Another point made in this book is that Satan is still the god of this world, and as such also holds great sway over the actions of the governments of this world. Does all of that make sense in my natural mind, this back and forth battle between God and Satan to control worldly governments? No. But then again it doesn't have to. Now, having said what I believe I can't give scripture and verse as to why I believe it, but nevertheless that is what I believe at this point!
Regarding the sovereignty of God, I fully agree that He is sovereign. In His sovereignty, however, He has chosen to delay the fulfillment of His defeat of the enemy, and has chosen to use us to carry out that ultimate defeat. As such, Satan still functions as the god of this world, as mentioned above.
Again, I don't claim to have full understanding, but this is how I see it now. I am certainly open to other ideas.
Mark
Post a Comment