The Bible As A Unified Whole Rather Than A Bunch Of Individual Verses

One of the most concrete rules for the Christian seeking to drink deeply and profitably from the well of Scripture is that every verse needs to be read in context. Reading in context is much more than reading the verse immediately preceding and the verse immediately following the verse you are citing. The Bible as a whole is a unified revelation of God unfolding through the ages His interacting in holiness and glory with the sin deadened world, culminating in the cross of His Son, the heralding of the Kingdom and the inauguration of God's greatest, complete and final covenant with His people. Too often we see the Bible as a whole bunch of moralistic stories, almost as though we never advanced past the children's story book Bible stage, and/or a bunch of verses that we use after sifting through the Bible to find something to support what we have already decided.

I ran into this again in a discussion regarding Christians and the sword, something I have written about a lot. The conversation was launched based on a posting of Ron Sider's article, The Early Church And Killing. I am continually amazed and saddened by how eagerly and often angrily people who profess to be Christians knee-jerk react to any suggestion that we as the ambassadors of the Prince of Peace ought not be in the business of heading out to kill our "enemies", who historically have often been other believers, at the command of Caesar. Specifically someone responded to my comment that putting forth Luke 3:14 where Jesus says a single sentence about soldiers, telling them not to abuse their position and nothing else, is making an argument from silence as He neither affirmed nor condemned being a soldier. That leaves us with the necessity of seeking what else Jesus and the apostles taught on the topic. The gist of the reply was that the Bible speaks favorably about men of war in the book of Hebrews so God must be OK with Christians serving as soldiers.

It is not an argument I have never come up against but it is a lot more rare than the "two swords" passage or direct appeals to the Old Testament. The argument goes like this: In the book of Hebrews, specifically Hebrews 11:32-38 and Hebrews 7:1-3, the author of the book praises some of those mentioned in the Bible as mighty warriors. Therefore God is Ok with His people being soldiers. The passages read as follows (I have added emphasis where I presume those who use these verses to argue in favor of Christians engaging in warfare are focused):

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. Hebrews 7:1-3

...and....

And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. Hebrews 11:32-38

First off, what is the point here? Is it the promotion of warfare? Not really. The point being made in the first paragraph is both God's and Abraham's faithfulness. Ironically the writer of Hebrews describes Melchizedek as the "king of Salem...that is the king of peace". It is their faithfulness that lands people in positions of praise in the book of Hebrews. Being valiant for the sake of being valiant is not what the Bible is praising. Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, was a valiant warrior and a brilliant general. He also led the armies of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Vasily Zaytsev, the Russian sniper immortalized in the movie Enemy At The Gates, was a valiant warrior who reportedly killed hundreds of Nazis single-handedly. He fought on behalf of the Stalinist Soviet Union that matched the genocidal prowess of the Third Reich's Final Solution. Being valiant isn't what God is after. Being faithful is what God is expecting from His people.

Second, and this is pretty critical, the men who were mighty warriors in Hebrews 11 were living in a specific covenant nation made up of believers and unbelievers and part of that covenant was that God commanded them to drive out certain people groups by force and take possession of their lands. Let me repeat that. The heroes of Hebrews 11 lived under a conditional covenant that is now obsolete that demanded as part of that covenant the conquest of other people groups. Although national Israel was made up of both believers and unbelievers, they were all part of God's covenant people. On the other hand the nations they conquered were essentially 100% not God's people. God Himself commanded His-people to war against not-His-people. So how does that compare to now?

Since the dismantling of the nation of Israel, the destruction of the Temple and the inauguration of the New Covenant there has never been a war fought to compare to that situation under the obsolete Old Covenant. God has never commanded His people who are the Bride of Christ, the citizens of the Kingdom rather than the world, to go to war based on which secular nation-state they live in and kill people from another secular nation-state. In every war of Western Europe and America, believers have been sent out by Caesar to kill their enemies who often are their brothers in Christ. To narrow down our focus a bit let me make a succinct, clear statement:

Every single war America has ever fought has included believers killing other believers for no reason other than they wore a different uniform and a different leader told them to do so.

Every. Single. War.

Two men, bought by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, pointing spears or sword or muskets or rifles at each other with the intent to take another life bought by Christ. That is perverse and I would argue blasphemous. Little wonder that in every war America has fought, clergy have been enlisted by Caesar to put their stamp of approval on these wars, from the Revolutionary War to the invasion of Iraq, to convince Christians that God is on "our side" and He is fine with Christians killing other people because He obviously is not on "their side". Of course clergy on the other side are assuring their fellow citizens that God is in fact on "their side". Imagine this. Before many battles in the Civil War, clergy prayed on behalf of their side while fellow American believers were praying a stones throw away on behalf of their side. The hope of each was victory which means killing more of them than they kill of you.

Is that why Jesus redeemed us? So we can kill each other because some leader, often an unbeliever, sends Christian to fight Christian? Perish the thought.

We are supposed to think that God wants His own people to kill for the state because men were commanded to fight under an obsolete covenant? God has placed the sword in the hand of the state (Romans 13:1-5) and immediately before that He has forbidden His people to take up the sword (Romans 12: 16-21). Context.

Viewed in the light of comprehensive Biblical context it is clear that the conditions that existed when God commanded His people to go to war under a now obsolete covenant relationship no longer exist and as a people who are mixed into all the nations, Christians are never commanded and in fact are forbidden from taking up the sword to kill our enemies. The enemies of one state are not automatically our enemies just because we live there. Even if they truly are our enemies, the only response to an enemy we are given in the Bible is to love them. The world overcomes evil by the sword. The Church overcomes evil by the Spirit of God leading His people to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). If you want to be a hero, show your faithfulness and devotion with love, not with a sword.

Sober Words From Spurgeon For This Day

Unlike years past I had to work today so I have been off social media and for that I am largely grateful. Much of what is said today and on other patriotic holidays by professing Christians is enough to make our Lord weep. Charles Spurgeon had this to say many years ago (emphasis mine):

The Lord Jesus Christ is our peace in a second sense, namely, in making peace between nations. That there are wars in the world at the present time is not the consequence of anything that Christ has said, but of the lusts of our flesh. As I understand the Word of God, I always rejoice to find a soldier a Christian, but I always mourn to find a Christian a soldier, for it seems to me that when I take up Christ Jesus, I hear one of His Laws, "I say unto you, resist not evil. Put up your sword into its sheath; he that takes the sword shall perish by the sword." The followers of Christ in these days seem to me to have forgotten a great part of Christianity. How many of you would go tomorrow into a court of law and, if you were called upon to do it, would take an oath, whereas if there is anything taught in Scripture, it is expressly taught that you are not to swear at all, neither by Heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath! If Christ ever delivered a plain precept, it is this—and yet all denominations of Christians seem to have cast it to the winds, with the exception of the Society of Friends. And so with regard to this matter of war. Our Apostle does not mince matters when he says, "Whence come wars? Whence come fights? Come they not from your own lusts?" That is the top and bottom of it, but, wherever true Christianity prevails, war becomes less frequent. It is owing to Christianity that war is far less common—though still too frequent—than it used to be. The length of human life has been much increased by the prevalence of peace—and wars, devastating wars, though, alas, they still break out—are not so constant as once they were and we are confidently looking forward to the time when the Messiah shall wield His blessed scepter and wars shall cease to the ends of the earth! Then shall men—

"Hang the useless helmet high, And study war no more."Then shall the shrill clarion of the battlefield yield to the pipe of shepherd's plaintive melody. Then shall the weaned child play upon the hole of the asp and the lion shall eat straw like an ox. Oh, that the Prince of Peace would come and establish His empire upon a firm foundation! Then could we, indeed say, "He is our peace!"

That is the right tone for it. I rejoice no less to find a soldier or other wielder of the sword of Caesar is a believer than I do any brother or sister and yet I am saddened to see so many Christians embracing the act of soldiering for reasons of nationalism, fear or crass pragmatism. For Christians to memorialize those who died while being sent to kill because they were "our" soldiers killing "their" soldiers is to completely misunderstand the cross-national nature of the New Covenant and the pilgrim status of citizens of His Kingdom. I don't say this to sneer at my fellow believers in America as some seem to take such pleasure in doing but rather as a plea to seek the alternate way. I rejoice to see more and more Christians who hold to other orthodox views turning away from the lie of redemptive violence and "Just War" and embracing the place of humility with basin and the towel.

(Hat Tip: Linford Berry)

Living By The Sword

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

- Matthew 26:52

With these words Jesus rebukes Peter for striking the servant of the high priest with his sword. Peter meant well. He lashed out with his sword to defend Jesus even though doing so against a "great crowd with swords and clubs" was a suicidal move. His heart was in the right place. It turns out that history is replete with what seemed like well intentioned decisions that ended up going horribly wrong. The church in America has an internet front row seat to a prime example right now.

Unfortunately this teaching of Christ is not restricted to just those who draw the sword or that particular event. Whenever violence is employed on a wide scale, innocents suffer. Millions died in the World Wars, many millions of them civilians. Mothers incinerated with their children, the elderly dead under the rubble of bombings. We even have a nice clinical name for it, "collateral damage". There simply is no way to wage war on a large scale without innocents suffering, even when that suffering is unintentional.

The news coming from Iraq is ugly and for Christians is especially heart-breaking. The once small but relatively secure population of Christians in Iraq is on the verge of extinction, as is the case all around the Middle East. Forced conversions, torture, rape, murder and the defilement of bodies are all happening right now to our brothers and sisters. Many of us sit in our homes in America aghast that this could be happening in 2014 and we are filled with a combination of impotent anger and horror at what we see, knowing that there is little we can do other than pray (and prayer is no small thing). What reminded me of  "live by the sword, die by the sword" is the very real part that American Christians unwittingly played in setting the stage for this atrocity that is happening to our family in Iraq.

It is hard to remember the Middle East as it was before 9/11/01. For the last dozen plus years we have known nothing but war. When September 11th happened, America as a whole was looking for vengeance. Someone to hold responsible and someone to make pay. To be honest I am not sure we much cared who that was. Like President Bush said, if you aren't with us you are against us. Given a general lack of "hard targets" America invaded and eventually occupied Afghanistan, home of the Taliban. Concurrently a case was made, leaning heavily on alleged weapons of mass destruction, to invade Iraq and finish the job we left unfinished under the first President Bush. As anyone could predict, American forces steamrolled the Iraqi military and we set up shop with dual occupations for the next decade, a decade that was drenched in blood, both American and Iraqi.

Fast forward to more recent years. In 2011 the so-called "Arab Spring" kicked off across the region. Formerly stable regimes in Egypt and Libya collapse. America is interfering a little here and a little there. Syria is embroiled in a civil war that still rages. Iraq is destabilized and with the withdrawal of American forces there is nothing to stop the ISIS other than the ragtag efforts of Iraq's military. Religious minorities are persecuted, notably for us many Christians who face unspeakable atrocities.

In a tragic irony, the collapse of Iraq and the ensuing conditions that allowed the ISIS to seize huge areas of Iraq and persecute Christians were a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that deposed Saddam Hussein (a dictator that largely tolerated Christians) in an unprovoked assault of a sovereign nation that was widely supported by American evangelicals. While I disagree with him on a lot of issues, I think Jonathan Merritt is largely on target in his piece, Blame Obama and U.S. evangelicals for the persecution of Iraqi Christians. Without the widespread and largely unquestioning support by American evangelicals of a preemptive invasion of Iraq, it is possible that America would not have gone down that road. I know of what I speak because I was pretty vocal about my support of the decision by President Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. In other words, in our thirst for vengeance over 9/11 and our ungodly fear of terrorism, Christians supported a decidedly unjust war that set the stage for unimaginable persecution of our brothers and sisters. Of course the sins being gleefully committed by the ISIS and other satanic groups in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere are on their own heads. Should God not grant them repentance and a regenerate heart they will perish to face a holy justice that will last for an eternity. That doesn't absolve American evangelicals for their role in helping to create the conditions that ISIS is thriving in. This is just another example of Christians being manipulated by the powers of the world into supporting their machinations and yielding unintended consequences, just as the church was manipulated into supporting World War I which led to Hitler and Stalin and the persecution of Christians as well as Jews and others.

Some may say and not without justification, that this is not the time for theological point scoring, not while our brothers and sisters are being tortured, raped and brutally murdered. I say that with all due respect, and I am as deeply grieved as anyone, this is precisely the time to have this conversation. We are seeing the unintentional fruit of a misguided and unbiblical war of aggression enthusiastically supported by the church. In an era when memories are short and attention spans are measured in 144 characters, we need to open our eyes now, not just to the tragic events we see playing out on social media but also to the events that have led to this situation because we will forget all about it once the news is replaced by something else.

We must stop turning to Caesar to advance our own agendas because it always turns out badly for the church when we yoke ourselves to the godless power of the state. We need to repent in sackcloth and ashes and beg forgiveness from our brothers and sisters in Iraq. I especially need to do this because I was driven by the fear of man to support a war that endangered my family in Iraq and elsewhere. We need to vow to stop letting Caesar manipulate our fear or greed or selfishness to support his wars with our witness, our treasure and our children. How many Christians have sent their children to be sacrificed on the altar of Baal to appease Caesar and accomplish his goals? I say no more. No more wars for gold or pride or power. No more of our children sent to die and to kill for Caesar. No more endangering our brothers and sisters in other lands to preserve our ungodly lifestyles in America. No more living by the sword and being surprised when we perish by the sword.

No more.

Replay: Christians and the sword

I thought it was about time to post this series again, especially since someone yesterday posted something on Facebook  about why non-resistance was naive and invited conversation about his post only to get mad when I very gently suggested some alternatives to his theories, unfriended and blocked me. I am afraid I don't understand why someone would post something, invite comment and then get mad when comments come in but I have seen this before on the topic of the sword and followers of Christ.

Why the anger at the suggestion, from Scripture, that Christians should not take up the sword and commit violence toward others? Do we love bloodshed so much? It is not a difficult case to make from the Bible, a case made from the teachings of Christ, the manner of His life and His death, the testimony of His apostles and the witness of His people throughout the ages who have gladly laid down their life for the sake of the Kingdom. Nevertheless I get more backlash from this topic than almost any other.

I would hope that I would not be misinterpreted as saying that those who take up the sword are not Christians, I simply ask if we should not seek the way of the towel and basin rather than the way of the sword and not just when it is safe and convenient but especially when it is not safe or convenient. It is easy to talk about loving our enemies in theory but many of the teachings of Christ are easy in the abstract. It is when we are faced with a situation where following Christ means great cost to us that we find out where our allegiance lies and who our trust is in.

The sword is the tool of the world, a tool that wields the power of finality by taking the life of another. That is what it is made for and that is what the powers of the world have always used it for. It is what the Jews expected from their Messiah, that He would lead them in overthrowing their oppressors. Jesus showed them a different way, a way that makes no sense to the world. He showed them and the Romans and His sheep throughout the ages that love of enemy can overcome the sin of the world.

Anyway, here is the series presented for your enjoyment and consideration.....

 --------

The state, the sword and Christians


Can Christians take up the sword? - Intro


Can Christians take up the sword? - The pro-sword view


Can Christians take up the sword? - The anti-sword view


Can Christians take up the sword? - Conclusion

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.

One More Link

Jeremy Myers has been running a very good series on our "rights" and his latest is a doozie: Liberty to Kill in the Name of Jesus

Check it out. Do our "rights" trump what Jesus commanded?

A Lesser Evil Is Still Evil

I find Doug Wilson, who blogs at the cleverly named Blog and Mablog, to be, in spite of some puzzling positions on issues like baptism and ecclesiology, one of the finest minds in the church today. Even when I disagree with his position I usually find his clearly thought out arguments to be refreshing in a day and age when dialogue often devolves into online shouting matches and one-upmanship. I found myself reading an interesting essay he wrote the other day, Santorum, Just War, and False Equivalence. Doug is disturbed by the questions some people, like me, raise when it comes to “Christian politicians” who claim the title “pro-life” based on opposition to abortion but simultaneously are quite comfortable and rarely challenged regarding their enthusiasm for war. His concern is that we are making a (false in his opinion) equivalence between support for abortion and support for war.

Equivalent what? I am speaking of the civilian casualties of war, what is sometimes infelicitously called "collateral damage," and the fatalities that result from abortion-on-demand. When these two are placed on the same moral plane in the heat of debate, it is an understandable mistake. Just as there is a fog of war, so also there is a fog of debate. But a studied, steadfast refusal to distinguish them is in reality a moral failing and we really need to be done with it.

Let me set this alongside a comparable moral failing -- the refusal to acknowledge a distinction between a deliberate targeting of civilians (as when Hamas blows up a pizza joint full of teenagers) and when one of our units targets combatants who place themselves in close proximity to civilians, so that the civilians might get caught in the crossfire. If the rules of engagement instruct our troops to do whatever is possible to protect the lives of such civilians, then this is completely different from the first scenario. These are two military actions which result in the deaths of civilians, but they nevertheless occupy two different moral universes.

At the outset let me say how troubling I find it when Doug, and the vast majority of other Christians, refer to American soldiers as “our troops”. They are not “my troops”, not in any sense. I am not interested in God blessing our troops as they vanquish the foes of America. When “our troops” are bombing someone else, whether they are targeting civilians or military targets, they are not doing so on my behalf. My political, economic and even religious freedoms are not really all that important and the presence or lack of them does not change my calling as a minister and evangelist of the King. It was by God’s providential hand that I was born and live in America but it was also His providential hand that placed Japanese children in Hiroshima and Dresden, Germany. Our fascination and admiration for the military is unbecoming for followers of the Lamb who was slain.

As far as the war=abortion equivalence, I have made that connection as well, speaking not specifically about politics but rather how Christians view political issues, in relation to candidates who espouse “our values”. There is a serious disconnect between issues where we take seriously that all people, including unborn children, are made imago dei , in the image of God, and other places where we tacitly reject that notion when the image bearer in question is wearing the wrong uniform or living in the wrong country. I have run into far too many people who claim to be Christians that see nothing wrong with defending as a necessary evil (if they even see it as evil) the killing of Japanese children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki while expressing outrage over the murder of unborn children in the womb.

However, I recognize that Doug has a point. The loss of innocent life in war is not precisely the same thing as the willful murder of a child in the womb. The intent is different, the circumstance are different just as a child in the womb killed by a stray bullet in a drive-by shooting is a different setting than the cold clinical setting of an abortion clinic. That is simply reality.

That reality does not in any way make one acceptable in some circumstances and the other not acceptable under any circumstances, especially for a follower of Christ. Jesus speaks directly to this when He talks about things like adultery as an act and lusting after a woman in your heart or the act of murdering someone versus hating someone in your heart. Far from creating a “sin hierarchy” where adultery in lust is lower than adultery in fact, Jesus creates an “equivalence” between the two. Likewise with murder and hatred. Jesus was not known for His nuanced positions. You will look in vain to Christ for an exposition of “just war theory”. Jesus didn’t say that murder was bad when it was an innocent child in the womb but potentially OK in a military action, especially if it is done on behalf of a free republic founded on “Judeo-Christian” values. If anything Jesus is drastically expanding what is unacceptable for God’s people or rather pointing out what was always the case. It was never OK to hate someone as long as you didn’t kill them. It was never OK to lust after a woman even if you never consummated the act. I think we would say that hating someone in your heart is “not as bad” as actually taking the life of another but that doesn’t mean that we should assume that in the eyes of God the two are in different moral universes.

In war, innocents die. That is simply the way of war, even in this day and age. An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will result in civilian deaths and the resulting backlash will result in untold more. Simply assuming that if America is the one dropping the bombs that it is somehow more justified than another country is comforting to those who live under the stars and stripes but that is probably less than comforting to a Christian in Iran or North Korea. Whether we admit it or not, and often it is not only admitted but trumpeted, Christians in America view our military as distinct from the armed forces of any other country. When “our troops” kill innocent civilians in a military strike, it is a tragic but unavoidable situation. When the opposite happens and the aggressor is one of our “enemies”, it is a war crime.

This truth alone should dissuade Christians from blithely supporting someone as “pro-life” who advocates for war, especially pre-emptive strikes on a nation that has not threatened America and that we are not at war with, even though that candidate is adamantly anti-abortion. That is not to suggest that Christians should only vote for one candidate or another. Whoever becomes President (or is re-elected) will be in a position where national interests likely will demand a decision that leads to killing. As such we should find ourselves removed more and more from the political process and the governing of a state.

Aborting a child is a horrible thing. It places a mother in the most unnatural possible position, a position where the one person who cares for and protects their child more than anyone else finds herself ending her child’s life. Seeing the results of “collateral damage” in the broken and burned body of a child is likewise horrible. The end result is the same regardless of the circumstances: a child is dead.

I appreciate the nuance that Doug is putting out there and the thought that he puts into his argument, flawed though I find it. It is perhaps a sign of the political times that we live in that we tend to make moral equivalences in places where they may not be appropriate but it is also a sign of the enormous influence of American culture on Christians who live here that permits us to compartmentalize certain types of evil as “necessary in some circumstances” and others as “unnecessary under any circumstances”. Our calling as Christians, if we are indeed Christians, trumps political considerations, economic and religious freedom and our “rights” to self-defense and self-determination. We may be called to lay down our lives but we will never be called to take the life of another, or to actively support actions that lead to that result. Abortion is evil and wrong. Killing a child (or an adult for that matter) in a war between nations or ideologies is also evil and wrong.

A lesser evil is still an evil.

Revisiting Christians and the sword

A couple of years ago in January of 2010 I did a series on Christians and the sword, a look at the Scriptural basis for non-resistance versus a limited use of the sword for self-defense and/or service in a military. I still find it ironic and more than a little troubling that of all the things I have written, many intentionally controversial, perhaps no other topic has received such a heated response as the suggestion that Christians shouldn't kill others in the defense of self or property or at the demand of the nation they live in.

My position coming into this series was quite different from my past positions and if anything I have grown even more firm in my stance on this contentious issue. Throughout Christian history there is a definite and often tragic linkage between Christians and the state. To an extent we see that still today, especially in the West where the church and the state are in an uneasy state of co-dependence that sees many Christians willing and often eager to use violence to defend life or property or in the service of their nation to defend a certain "way of life" that is deemed more precious than the life of another.

I would welcome your interaction. Am I overstating the case? Oversimplifying it? As you read and interact, please keep in mind that what I am concerned with primarily is the Scriptural position, not hypothetical "yeah but..." statements. To clarify further, I would classify my position as non-resistance, contrasted with those who see our mission as including societal peacemaking changes through demonstrations or political action. Here is the series...

The state, the sword and Christians


Can Christians take up the sword? - Intro


Can Christians take up the sword? - The pro-sword view


Can Christians take up the sword? - The anti-sword view


Can Christians take up the sword? - Conclusion

A great post on Christians and capital punishment

My mom sent me a great link this morning. Ben Witherington has a simply outstanding essay on Christians and capital punishment, Why Capital Punishment is not such a Capital and Christian Idea. Ben takes on not only capital punishment but the use of violence by Christians of all stripes. In this essay., Ben properly distinguishes between the ethic of secular worldly government, the topic of Romans 13, and the Kingdom ethics of the Lamb who was slain while also recognizes that violence is incompatible with a life following Christ. Here is a portion:

Jesus did not tell his disciples, pick up your swords and follow me, he said pick up your crosses and follow me. And when in extremis two desperate disciples at the Last Supper said ‘we have two swords, we are ready to rumble’ Jesus’ response was ‘enough of this!’. Sadly they had not gotten the point after lo those many months of his teaching them the ethic of non-violence and forgiveness. And when one of them actually used a sword to try and prevent his capture, Jesus not only stopped such action dead in its tracks, he paused to heal the wounded servant, on his way to execution. Who lopped off the slave’s ear? The very person who asked Jesus about forgiveness (see below).

Jesus wanted no violence at all done in his name. It is not merely an irony, it is a disgrace that Christians later thought Jesus might endorse a Crusade or two. Those were some of the most shameful things ever done in the name of Christ, but of course, we could name much more recent examples from the Holocaust or the dark days of Apartheid in South Africa.

Christians still have a capacity for deafness when it comes to Jesus’ life ethic. Jesus you see was totally pro-life—- not just pro birth, pro life. And above all, he believed that justice, if we are talking life and death here, should be left in the hands of God. The Biblical message is clear— ‘vengeance is mine says the Lord, I will repay’.

These are hard words for many Christians today to swallow, so entranced we are with the lures and lusts of the world: property, country, our own lives. The world says rise up and defend what is yours, Jesus says give it all away and I will repay.

I yearn for more and more Christians to seek not a life of being a "good Christian" and instead pursue a life with a downward trajectory as a follower of Christ. There will be glory to spare in eternity, we who have that promise have no need of it today.

Replay of my series on the sword

I reposted my series on Christians and the sword over at Under Christ's Archy. Hoping to stir up some conversation by firing up a controversial topic! Jump over to my post Christ's Archy and Killing for Country and add your thoughts!

Which will it be?

Each and every follower of Christ must choose one or the other. 

Will it be the sword of vengeance?

Or will it be the towel and basin of service?

You cannot wield a sword while washing feet.

Which will it be?

Repost: An important reminder for followers of Christ

It has been ten years. Ten years ago I remember being at work when news started trickling in about an airline accident. I remember talking to my wife on the phone when the second plane hit and having that sinking realization that this was not an airline accident but an act of terrorism. I remember the impotent rage and the lurking fear knowing that my sister was working in downtown D.C. The days that followed were a blur of watching the news and the realization that a ragtag band of terrorists had pulled off an incredible attack.

Ten years ago I wanted blood. Within a short time of the attacks, I started applying for officer candidate school in the Air Force. I was only one perfunctory interview away, I had passed the tests, done the physicals, etc. I wanted to serve my country while we crushed these terrorists. I saw no contradiction with my primary identity as a follower of Christ and my zeal to defend my homeland. We decided against it because the pay cut was too severe and the required moves to disruptive (of course we have actually moved around more since then than we would have if I had been in the service...).

Times have changed. My post (see below) from last year is far more in line with my current thinking. I don't think followers of Christ should engage in a great deal of reliving the events of 9/11/01 today. Whipping up hatred will not bring back those who were lost. I remember vividly my grandparents hatred toward the Japanese decades after Pearl Harbor, long after the leaders of Japan who led their nation to war were long gone. The same with Germans. We have replaced "Japs" and "krauts" with "Muslim" and Nazism with "Islamofascism". I understand why unbelieving Americans react that way but as followers of Christ, aren't we called to a different standard and a higher calling?

What are your thoughts on the tenth anniversary of that tragic day and the decade of war that has followed?

-----

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:17-21)

We should never forget what happened on 09/11/2001 but neither should we set ourselves to seek vengeance for those events. The Gospel is never proclaimed faithfully by someone with a sword in their hand or screaming in hatred or burning books. Our first and highest duty is to Christ and His Kingdom, not the national security of America. We as a family will remember 9/11 today, not as a call to vengeance but repentance. We will pray today for Muslims, that Christ will be shown to them in all His glory by the humble and meek witness of His followers. We will also pray for the repentance of those who call for the death of unbelievers and seek to supplant God as the dispenser of justice.

Winning the war on terror will not win a single soul for Jesus Christ.

Foot washing and September 11th

I read a very thought provoking post today from Kurt Willems, The New “War” on Terror: 9/11 and Jesus’ Approach to Enemies of the State. While I don't always agree with everything he writes and sometimes vehemently disagree, I found his post today to be fascinating. The response to the events of September 11th for most Americans, including a great many Christians, was retribution. They hit us and now we are going to hit them back and anyone who doesn't stand with us is standing against us.

But the story of Jesus washing the feet of His disciples, including the false disciple Judas, paints a different story. Not only did He not call for retribution against Judas (Judas instead kills himself) and not only did He not boot Judas who would go down in history as a villain and enemy of Christ from the room, Jesus actually washed his feet:

Judas, by all measures of terrorism, could be classified as the worst traitor of all time. Not in the measure of lives he led to unjust death, but in measure to the Kingdom he committed his act of terrorism against. Judas as a “terrorist” led the King of Kings to his horrific execution! Our King, our President, Jesus the Messiah, died because of the actions of Judas. If anyone could be classified as a Terrorist, certainly Judas could! And even though Jesus knew in advance that this pseudo-disciple would turn out to be a terrorist, Jesus lovingly chose to wash his feet. He models how Christians are invited to approach enemies of the State – love and service.

What do you think about that? How should the response of Jesus in washing the feet of Judas just hours before Judas betrayed Him inform and change how we respond to our enemies, even enemies as heinous as Osama bin Laden?

I love my enemy enough to kill him before he can sin again

David Murray filmed a brief video clip discussing the question: Was Christianity responsible for the crusades? I think David had an OK response given that he was trying to deal with an issue that, while unfortunately inextricably linked with Christianity, really had nothing to do with the church founded by Christ. He didn't like his answer so he had a couple of other people add updates to help flesh it out. The worst update was the second one, from PCA pastor James Hakim. Here is the most troubling paragraph. Try reading this in light of what Christ taught:

Yes, Christianity certainly teaches me to turn the other cheek when it is only my life or property that is at stake. But it also teaches me to love my brother and to love my neighbor, even unto the laying down of my life. And, sometimes, if it is the last option available to me in defense of brother and neighbor, loving my enemy will mean taking his life to prevent him from the bloodguilt of yet another murder at the judgment.

There is so much tragically wrong with that.

A) Jesus doesn't add a qualifier to turn the other cheek by adding "only if it is my life or property that is at stake" It is not stated or implied in what He said.

B) Certainly loving my brother and neighbor presupposes that I may be called to lay down my life for them. But...and this is a huge "but" that doesn't not translate to a willingness to kill for them, especially when more often than not when you cut through the hypothetical situations people always throw at this issue to excuse our disobedience you find that Christians throughout history rarely kill in self-defense or in the defense of their family and typically are killing others based on the command of a nation and for her self-interest.

C) The idea that neighbor loves means a willingness to kill someone else to both save the life of my neighbnor and to prevent a sinner from committing another sin is outrageous. Based on that stance, we ought to advocate in the name of Christ nuking the unreached people groups around the world before they have the chance to sin again. Some who have commented here might think that is a splendid idea.

Brothers, I appeal to each and every one of you who might read this. Examine your hearts and seek the heart of Chris. There is no excuse for a follower of Christ to take up arms to slay another, no matter how pious our intentions might be. The human heart is foolish and wicked and prone to excusing away sin.We can play the "What if?" game all day long and never get to the heart of the matter. God is sovereign over the affairs of men and nowhere is that more true than in the lives of His people. We must trust Him in His sovereign mercy and justice when it comes to laying down the sword just as we trust Him for the salvation of sinners, for our daily bread and for His eternal covenant promises. There is no place where He is unfaithful. Let's start treating Him as if we believe that.

The last miracle performed by Christ

Scripture is replete with accounts of Jesus healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, even raising the dead to life. Near the end of His earthly ministry, Scripture records a final miraculous healing. Not of a child or one of His disciples but of someone quite different and perhaps to us unexpected....

While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:47-51)

John records the name of the servant as Malchus and that it was Peter who lopped of his ear (John 18:10). Here was a man among those that came out to seize Jesus, a band of men set on doing something evil by the dark of the night so that their deeds would not be seen. He was just a servant though, so his participation was perhaps not voluntary.

Regardless, Jesus in His last miraculous act before the cross, rebukes one of His own disciples, perhaps the “leader” of the apostles, for striking a man with a sword and heals that man on the spot. What Peter did seems logical to us. He was armed and his Master, a truly innocent man, was about to be unjustly arrested and in that day and age a person who was arrested was likely going to end up badly. Knowing how often the religious authorities had tried to harm Christ, it was obvious how this would end. If Jesus was arrested, He was a dead man so Peter did what only seems right, even noble perhaps. He attacks in a doomed attempt to defend His Lord. Once again Jesus rebukes Him by exclaiming “No more of this”, reminiscent of when He said “Get behind me Satan” to Peter.

What are your thoughts? Is there significance to this event that we can apply today?

66 years ago today

On August 6, 1945 the United States military dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Tens of thousands of people died that day and many more in agony in the months and years that followed. Three days later American forces dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing many thousands more. With the threat of more bombings facing the leaders of Japan, they finally surrendered.

I get that the Japanese government started the war


I get that the potential cost of a land invasion would have been horrific

It doesn't change the fact that tens of thousands of people were slaughtered in the blink of an eye and many, many more were maimed and poisoned, leading to their eventual death. Many if not most of them were women, children, the elderly and other non-combatants.

After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, President Harry Truman addressed the nation and speaking of the atomic bomb said this:

It is an awful responsibility which has come to us. We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.

We thank God that the atomic bomb has come to us and that we are the only nation to ever use one on the infrastructure and civilians of our enemy? In which way and purpose would one ever use an atomic bomb?

Meanwhile some Christians in this country are outraged that the Air Force has halted the religious themed training of nuclear missile officers that invoked the name of Christ as theological cover to excuse their swearing to launch nuclear weapons at the command of their superiors.

Today Japan is the ally and trading partner of the United States. I wonder if America would be as forgiving to a foreign power that incinerated tens of thousands of our citizens?

Go ahead, drop a nuke on them. Jesus is OK with it!

So…what to make of this…

Air Force Suspends Christian-Themed Ethics Training Program Over Bible Passages

The Air Force has suspended a course that was taught by chaplains for more than 20 years because the material included Bible passages.

The course, called “Christian Just War Theory” was taught by chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and used Scripture from both the Old and New Testaments to show missile launch officers that it can be moral to go to war.

Keep something in mind. These are not Air Force mechanics or even jet pilots. These are missile launch officers, the guys sitting in underground bunkers across the Great Plains, staring at the electronics that could launch a missile loaded with a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world at the command of the President. Nuclear weapons are by nature indiscriminate weapons that inflict enormous civilian casualties. The indiscriminate devastation wrought by nuclear weapons is what makes them such an effective deterrent. I am not sure that nuking a whole city of women and children is what Augustine had in mind in his "Just War Theory".

Someone kindly loaded the powerpoint presentation for the class to the internet so you can see what these folks were being taught (you can see it here, see especially slides 11-23). It conveniently lists the service times for Protestant and Catholic troops who feel a sudden urge to go to church next Sunday after being told Jesus luvs nukes. Granted it does deal with the horror of nuclear weapons but it also references a number of Scriptures, completely out of context, to support a “person of faith” being in a position to potentially exterminate hundreds of thousands of non-combatants at the order of his or her nation. Somehow Jesus at His second coming to judge the nations (Rev 19:11) provides cover for a Christian who also wants to make a career in the nuclear missile business. For a special treat, check out slide number 35 with a quote from a Nazi, Wernher von Braun, an SS officer who used slave labor as part of Nazi Germany’s rocket program who felt better about turning over his rocket secrets to America because Americans are a people “guided by the Bible”. This from a Nazi who was pivotal in the development of the V-2 rocket that was used on the Allies and killed thousands of people. A quote from Nazi being used to assuage concerns over the morality of nuclear weapons? Ironically and tragically the quote from Wernher von Braun is allegedly from June 1945, a few months before the “people who are guided by the Bible” dropped a pair of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people.

I get that the presence of America’s nuclear arsenal is an effective deterrent. The fact that we haven’t used them since World War II is testimony to that, as is the absence of what otherwise would have certainly turned into an armed conflict with the Soviet Union in the years following World War II. I recognize that there are nations that have likely thought twice about doing something stupid knowing that the U.S. could eradicate their entire country with a tiny fraction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. I also recognize that the United States as a secular nation is well within its rights to arm itself as it sees fit ( Romans 13 ). What I object to is the use of Scripture to provide theological cover for those who might potentially be called upon to nuke a city. Think of our potential targets. Tehran has a metro population of over 10 million people. Pyongyang in North Korea has a population of over 3 million. Most of those people are citizens and more than half of them are women, children and the elderly. How in the world do you reconcile intentionally putting yourself in a position to snuff out millions of innocent lives with nothing more than a few random Scriptures that have nothing to do with modern nuclear war? The notion that you can use a few verses plucked from Scripture to convince a Christian that it is OK to be ready and willing to nuke innocents in one country because the leaders of another country say so is abhorrent and invoking the name of the Prince of Peace in that effort is blasphemous.

I would welcome anyone who thinks this is not a perversion to tell me why.

Book Review: War, Peace and Nonresistance

Guy Hershberger’s War, Peace and Nonresistance (hereafter WPN) is one of the best treatments of a topic that has been largely abandoned in the church, namely non-resistance as a fundamental Christian virtue. Non-resistance is a deeply Biblical position, not merely some fringe belief held by a few small groups, rooted in command, in example and in the grand tapestry of God’s redemptive purpose. In WPN Guy Hershberger lays out the case for non-resistance as the non-negotiable norm for Christians through God’s fundamental commandment to not kill and the overarching theme in Scripture of loving God and loving others as the greatest commandments. It is difficult to find a better, more thorough treatment of this topic that is also eminently Biblical and conservative in interpretation. This is not a book aimed at hippies and flower children but rather at a people with a sober understanding of sin and the redemptive power of the cross.

WPN spends quite a few chapters setting up the case for non-resistance from the Scripture which is obviously the key, starting in the Old Testament and showing why the OT is less problematic than some think and then moving seamlessly into the New. His exegesis is excellent and virtually impossible to refute. After this treatment, Hershberger moves into the history of non-resistance among the Anabaptists and others and finally into what were contemporary issues in non-resistance, many of which are still applicable today.

In places WPN is somewhat dated, written originally some sixty years ago when the world and America were quite different places. Some of what Hershberger suggests seems wildly naïve in today’s more jaded setting. Much of the Mennonite community has become virtually indistinguishable from more mainsteam liberal denominations, losing their Anabaptist flavor almost entirely. Speaking of Mennonites, WPN is focused almost exclusively on the Mennonite perspective although there are other Christians with a similar non-resistant stance. That makes sense as Mennonites are numerically the largest peace group and Hershberger was a Mennonite. Still it would have been nice to see more about other groups and their non-resistant positions. WPN addresses some issues that normally don’t fall into the discussion of non-resistance, issues like labor relations/unions and race relations. WPN was written shortly before the civil rights movement and some of the language he uses seems a bit jarring to modern ears but that is a product of the times.

In places WPN started to drag a bit, such as when Hershberger dealt with the CPS and other civilian alternative services utilized by conscientious objectors in World War I and II but that may have more to do with the world we live in where we want our information in tweet sized bites rather than extensive and detailed descriptions. At some 400 pages this is a meaty book that requires serious study. It is not a book to breeze through in an afternoon!

I thought his treatment of unionism and the church was excellent and somewhat unexpected. We typically think of non-resistance in the church as an issue of support for war and violent self-defense but Hershberger goes far deeper into a lot of areas that one would not think of initially. Hershberger also spends quite a bit of time dealing with the difference between Biblical non-resistance and the philosophy of pacifism, addressing in particular Gandhi who, while holding some laudable views, was in no way an example of how Christians should respond to persecution and tyranny. Since many Christians like to hold Gandhi up as the epitome of Christian living, this chapter was quite useful as a repudiation of that notion. The chapter dealing with pacifism and other forms of what he described as non-violent coercion were overall nothing short of excellent and would be beneficial to the church today.

One of the best parts of the book is found in the appendix. WPN contains a pretty comprehensive list of Scriptures supporting the non-resistant position, broken out by topic, as well as historical Anabaptist confessions dealing with the civil government and the sword. The best section was where Hershberger addresses the “problem” Scriptures and hypothetical situations people often throw out to try to provide cover for advocacy of violence among Christians. While brief the answers are excellent and Biblically sound.

The witness of the church has suffered for centuries because we have lost the meek, peacemaking aspects of the faith and replaced them with patriotism, nationalism and militarism. That may serve to make the Christian faith more palatable to our countrymen and lead to a tolerance of the church in society but the impact it has on those we are called to minister to and evangelize is tragic. War, Peace and Nonresistance is a great place to turn for those who have begun to question the embrace and even celebration of violence among the followers of the Prince of Peace.

The difference between Biblical nonresistance and pacifism

Take a look at this lengthy quote from Guy Hershberger

Believers in Biblical nonresistance find the social gospel and the pacifism of religious liberalism inadequate, not because they do not contain some fine ideals, but because they have a wrong conception of sin, of Christianity, and of the kingdom of God. The New Testament sees a great gulf between God and the sinful world, a gulf which will continue until the final judgment, for not until then will sin be brought to an end. The kingdom of God which the New Testament speaks of is brought into existence only through the supernatural power of God Himself. It is made up of Christians who have experienced the saving grace of God in their personal lives; who have been saved from the sinful world to a life of service to God. Such Christians are concerned for the welfare of humanity, and their influence on society may be considerable. But such changes as this influence may bring about within the sinful society of the world, however worth while they may be, do not constitute the kingdom of God. The kingdom is made up only of those who have been redeemed from, and called out of, the sinful society.

The great mistake of modern religious liberalism has been not to see this very important point. It has confused the kingdom of God with mere moral improvements within sinful society, and in doing so has identified the Kingdom of God with the sinful society itself. It has rejected salvation by faith and substituted a shallow, optimistic social evolution. Instead of receiving the divine will from a God who speaks from His throne above, religious liberalism speaks of experiencing God and practicing the presence of God in a way that makes Him identical with human experience. But a God who is identical with human experience is not God. Having emptied God of His reality, religious liberalism no longer speaks the word of truth in condemnation of sin. The liberal church becomes a mere social agency, engaged in a variety of activities, which too often do not lead to any clear-cut and positive action. When a Christian earnestly believes is that the Sermon on the Mount was spoken by the Son of God with authority from heaven, and that this same Son of God will someday sit in judgment upon this evil world, he will go into action for God. And when an entire Christian brotherhood is possessed by this same faith it has the essentials for a solidarity which makes it possible to have a peace witness that commands respect and produces results. But when Jesus is thought of merely as a religious genius, as a product of human evolution, and when human society is thought to possess within itself the powers for its own healing, then men will adjust themselves in harmony with that world. And when the Christian church once adjusts its program in harmony with the sinful world, it has lost its own soul.(Guy Hershberger, War, Peace and Nonresistance, pp 84-185)

I think a lot of people recoil at the doctrine of non-resistance because they equate it with left wing political pacifism. Pacifism brings to mind images of hippies doing "sit ins" during Vietnam, people spitting on returning troops coming back from 'Nam, peace marches, Gandhi, etc. When you mention pacifism that is what comes to mind and that doesn’t sit well with middle class, red blooded conservative Christians.

Here is the thing. It doesn’t have to.

I am in substantial agreement with Hershberger on this. Biblical non-resistance is a whole different doctrine than the philosophy of pacifism or what he calls non-violent coercion or resistance (think Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.). Gandhi was not a Christian, MLK Jr. may have been but the way of the cross is not hunger strikes and mass marches. I think Hershberger does a great job delineating the differences between Biblical non-resistance and pacifistic philosophy. Non-resistance recognizes the role of the state in a sinful and fallen world.
The core of Biblical non-resistance is not really a “war or no war” question but rather a recognition of the sinful state of the world and a submission to the will of God, whether that will includes going to a foreign land as a missionary or giving your life as a martyr for Christ. Christians are called to not seek their own “rights”, whether those rights include personal possessions, or the right to seek legal redress in a court or to defend yourself from harm or the seeking of retribution of any kind for being wronged by another. Rather than seeking justice for ourselves, we are called to declare the justice of God to others through the proclaimed Gospel and in acts of love, fulfilling both the Great Commission and Great Commandment. In doing so we will be persecuted and hated and reviled. That comes with the territory and is all part of the way of the cross.

Many of my brothers and sisters have taken the peacemaking ethic and moved beyond what the Bible teaches and into the realm of social engineering. This was apparently the case when Hershberger penned his book, War, Peace and Nonresistance and it is just as true today. It is understandable and in some ways laudable if naïve, given that many well-meaning attempts to eliminate poverty have institutionalized it instead of improving the situation. We need to recognize and reconcile the ideas that we are to care for the poor while simultaneously remembering that we will always have the poor with us, just as we will always have war, hatred and lust. That is simply the reality of living in a world groaning under the weight of sin and that will not be “fixed” until Christ returns in judgment. Our response to the reality of a lost and sinful world is to follow Christ: declaring the Gospel and serving the poor and downtrodden.

The nations will wage war. The powerful will oppress the poor. People will lie, cheat and steal. We as ambassadors of Christ are called to be apart from that, taking no part in squabbles over wealth or wars on behalf of nation states. Our calling is simply to preach Christ and Him crucified. That is not fatalistic, it is simply realistic and Biblical and not much has changed in the 2000 years since the cross.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Tim 2: 1-2)

The situation trumps the Scripture?

Several comments on recent posts regarding Christians serving in the military or using violence in self-defense revolved around a common motif. It comes down to “I know what Scripture says but what if someone were hurting your wife and kids?” or “What about Hitler, should we have just let him have his way with Europe?” In other words, “I get what you are saying but what about (insert a worst case scenario situation here)?”

The problem with these responses that I get consistently is that, while I understand and in many ways sympathize with them, they are approaching the issue from the wrong way. The way these responses approach the topic is to assume that we have the right or the ability to determine on our own when we can set aside Scripture because the situation warrants it.

Let’s look at some other Biblical commands and see how this looks…

“You shall not steal.” (Exodus 20:15)

Well, what if my kids are really hungry and we don’t have any money. Wouldn’t it be Ok to steal some food, just to get us by? God wouldn’t want me to let my kids go hungry, right?

Or how about…

“You shall not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14)

Yeah, but we love one another and are going to get married anyway so a little sex before marriage isn’t that big of a deal! Besides we didn’t go “all the way” so it doesn’t count!

Those are somewhat extreme but no more so than the idea of killing someone for the sake of a nation or killing someone who threatens you or your family. Do you see how this becomes problematic? When we dictate terms to Scripture based on situations, we become the authority over Scripture. Scripture becomes a guidebook to be consulted but also to be ignored when the situation warrants, making every man an authority unto himself.

When we are faced with an express principle or command that is discomforting, we need to examine ourselves and see where the rebellion comes from and not leap to find a “what if” situation where we can justify setting Scripture aside. I am quite certain that when our personal beliefs conflict with Scripture, it is not God who is wrong. More often than not, our doubt comes from a lack of trust in what God has promised and that is never a good position to be in.