Living By The Sword, Dying By The Sword

Former House Representative Ron Paul has never been one to shy away from saying un-PC things. It is one of the things I admire about him and his blunt honesty is why I voted for him in the primary election last year even though he had no chance of winning. His recent tweet about the murder of "war hero" Chris Kyle has gotten many people all wound up. Here is what he said...

Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense
— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

His follow-up comment on Facebook was a little more nuanced, exposing the problems with using 144 characters on Twitter to express coherent thoughts.

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

The internet went bonkers about the tweet, most notably among conservatives and even many conservatives who would call themselves Christians. Setting aside the lack of nuance and perceived bluntness, is what Ron Paul said somehow incorrect? Jesus didn't say "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword unless they are a decorated U.S. military veteran". War is destructive, destroying property, destroying those slain and often destroying those who survive. War and violence beget war and violence. It has always been and shall always be.

It is odd that quoting Jesus is so controversial in a culture that is allegedly basd on "Judeo-Christian values". Perhaps these "Judeo-Christian values" we love to trumpet are little more than moralistic religious virtues that are aimed at creating a loyal, pliable populace that is easy to manipulate and rule. When being a peacemaker is controversial and when being a professional killer is exalted, a culture is many things but it is not reflective of the values of the Kingdom.

Mr. Kyle spent his adult life engaged in the killing of others. Many look at his 160 kills and the various awards and accolades given to him for his exceptional lethality and call him a war hero. I see him as someone used by the state to accomplish its goals by killing. Did those he killed deserve to die, were they bad guys? Probably. Was Mr. Kyle a heroic figure because he had a knack for killing? Not really.

A man who made a living from killing was killed by a mentally disturbed man who ended up that way by his involvement in an unnecessary war. That this sort of thing happened is not surprising. War and violence beget war and violence and our nation is full of people who carry scars, both external and internal, thanks to the insatiable bloodlust of man and his never ending quest for power. What Ron Paul said may have been worded in an inelegant manner and it was certainly counter-cultural but I hope that the very real issue he raised is not lost in the chatter of professional entertainers and talking heads on the TV, radio and internet.

If I may be indulged

Voddie Baucham, one of my favorite authors and speakers on most topics, has penned an excellent essay explaining why he supports Ron Paul: Why Ron Paul? . What I appreciate is that he approaches the issues with his eyes open and he especially looks at it the idea of Israel in some detail, recognizing that much of American evangelical support for Israel is "...a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel." Anyway. I try to avoid political talk on these hallowed pages but this is an interesting take from a respected Christian leader and while I disagree with some of his points, I wish more Christians would look at the upcoming election a little more carefully.

Politics, Ron Paul, Israel and Division In the Church

Politics is said to make strange bedfellows. It also causes division like nothing else save perhaps religion (and sports depending on where you live). That is especially true in this day and age as we approach the Iowa caucuses and it is bleeding over into the church to a far greater extent that normal. Nowhere is this more apparent than in how Christians, especially Christians we would call conservative, evangelical Christians, react to one candidate in particular: Ron Paul.

It is no secret that I am supporting Dr. Paul but that is not why I am writing this. If you are interested in the reasons for my support for Ron Paul, check out The Arsenal of Liberty where I blog about politics and do so intentionally apart from my main blog. My concern here and why I am writing is my concern over how the candidacy of Dr. Paul is dividing the church, a division that is not caused by him but by the hyper-political nature of American evangelicalism coupled with the strong current of dispensationalism that exists in much of the church in America.

There is a segment of the church that sees support for Ron Paul, who is fairly unique among Republicans in his lukewarm support for the nation of Israel at least compared to any other nation, as somehow being anti-Semitic and therefore anti-God's covenant people. These brothers and sisters see a vote for Paul as an act of rebellion against God. There are also a lot of Christians who are, putting it mildly, rabid supporters of Ron Paul who get angry at any suggestion that someone else might be a better nominee. Over the last week or so I have seen an incredible amount of angry rhetoric on both sides, and I am afraid I have engaged in some of it, between people who are supposed to be on the same side (see for example this post from the Gospel Coalition Evangelicals, Race, and Politics that generated over 100 fairly strident comments on both sides of the RP Divide). Brothers this must not be so.

We cannot draw dividing lines in the church over secular American politics. 

Who wins the U.S. Presidential election in 2012 is not going to make or break the Kingdom of God. If you are my brother or sister in Christ, that trumps your political allegiance and mine. A political liberal who votes for Barack Obama and is a Christian is my brother. A staunch conservative who supports Ron Paul or Sarah Palin or heaven forbid Newt Gingrich but is not a Christian is not my brother and is instead someone I need to tell about Jesus.When Paul warned us about not being unequally yoked he wasn't talking about staying clear of lib'rals! We must be more concerned with our witness to the unbelieving world than we are about electoral victory and right now we are not comporting ourselves very well.

That does not of course mean that we must avoid civic involvement entirely. Just that we need to keep in mind that who we support politically has absolutely zero impact on who we will spend eternity with.

Why not Ron Paul?

He seems pretty smart, very honest, unafraid to say what he thinks. His supporters are more like disciples, a rabid following who would go to the wall to fight for Ron. He openly supports homeschoolers. He is strongly pro-life.

Quite frankly, while Ron Paul seems like a good guy, and someone we need in Congress, his quest to be President is quixotic.

1. He is unelectable. He barely registers in state and national polls. He is at 3.7% national among Republicans according to the latest Real Clear Politics average. He may be a swell guy but he is never going to be President. I think I would be a great President but I have about the same chance of winning the election as Representative Paul.
2. He supports doing away with the Federal Reserve. While the system has it's faults, it also keeps inflation in check and prevents us from having the enormous swings in interest rates of the past. Want to go back to 18% mortgages?
3. His foreign policy borders on isolationism. Guess what, hiding in America will not make Muslim terrorists hate us less. We didn't force them to attack the World Trade Center, and a head in the sand foreign policy will not make America more secure, but less.
4. His greatest strength is his biggest weakness. His supporters are rabid to the point of being almost cultish. They tend to be arrogant and condescending to those who have not sipped the Ron Paul Kool-Aid. Maybe they aren't all that way, but the ones I have met in person, around town and on the internet always are. They seem personally offended if you don't support Paul. I recognize that Mike Huckabee has faults, as we all do. But to hear Ron Paul supporters tell it, the man is the greatest American politician to ever live.

For all of those reasons and more, Paul is just not the guy. There are candidates who are a serious part of the debate, but Paul is not one of them and is probably a few primaries away from not getting invited to further televised debates. It was amusing and refreshing while it lasted, but it is time to let go. Paul is not the answer, unless the question is "Name the most unelectable man in the Primaries"