I was recently asked (in a context where it may have been more of a challenge than a genuine request...)
"What is Jesus' teaching about war? Chapter and verse."
I would like to respond here (with the acknowledgment that I've done this before), to allow room to reflect upon this sometimes contentious, sometimes difficult question.
1. Jesus had NO STATED position on war. That is, Jesus never once is quoted as saying "I'm for war." "I'm against war." "I think war is hell." or "I think war is cute and cuddly." It never happens in the Bible where Jesus specifically addresses war.
2. On the other hand, Jesus has a good deal to say about how we deal with the "enemy" and with living lives of peace in general. Consider these from Jesus and his disciples...
A. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
B. But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
C. Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear.
Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
...“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
D. If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong. Try to do what everyone considers to be good.
Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody.
Never take revenge, instead let God’s anger do it.
If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Do not let evil defeat you; instead, conquer evil with good.”
"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts."
E. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
F. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For,
“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep their tongue from evil
and their lips from deceitful speech.
They must turn from evil and do good;
they must seek peace and pursue it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
G. Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.”
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.
H. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
“He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
3. So, while Jesus CLEARLY had no stated position about War, he had a great deal to say about love for neighbors, love for enemies, how to treat enemies, how to live peaceable lives, etc. Notably, there is not ANYTHING in Jesus' teachings that suggests, "Sometimes, it's okay to kill your enemies. Sometimes, it's okay for Christians to go to war." It's not there, anywhere.
While there are multiple "peace-making" commands and teachings, there are zero encouraging us to go to war, especially a modern-type war where shedding of innocent blood (consistently condemned biblically) is a given.
4. When asked something like this by those on the Religious Right, I always ask in return, "Given what Truths Jesus and his followers taught us, the guidelines for living in the Christian Way, what verses/teachings would you offer to suggest, sometimes it IS okay to go to war? and even sometimes shed innocent blood...?" I rarely get an answer.
5. You really have to go to the Old Testament to find even a hint of a suggestion that war is okay. But even there, what you have are the same overall Truths/Teachings to be peaceable ("Love your enemies," "Shed no innocent blood," cries out against the sorts of oppressions and killings found in wartime) and beyond these general truths/teachings, you find some EXCEPTIONS to those teachings where God specifically says, "Israel, go to war and wipe out this other evil nation, including the men, women and children..."
But these are obviously EXCEPTIONS to the rules (even if you take these stories literally, which I would question the wisdom of) where God makes a specific-to-Israel exception. Normally - hopefully we can all agree - it is wrong to slaughter men, women and children, even of an enemy. God made an exception in these stories. But the constant, overarching guide/rule/truth/teaching remains: Love your enemies. Shed no innocent blood. Period. NEVER do we find a command, "Sometimes, when dealing with an enemy, I want you to go to war." It simply is not in the Bible.
6. So, GIVEN THAT, where would any Bible believers find a biblical place that supports war-for-Christians?
7. The one New Testament passage that most often gets quoted is Romans 13, the passage that says government should punish wrong-doers...
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
8. This passage is not a defense of Christians going to war. It just isn't. It isn't even specifically about war, although one could make the case that it might include gov't's waging war, possibly.
9. This passage, though, more closely sounds like a defense of a government having a police department to deal with "whoever rebels against the authority" of government.
10. This passage also sounds quite time- and place-specific. I don't think anyone would argue that a government that chose to punish a group or individuals for no reasons (ie, they had done nothing reasonably wrong) is acting on God's behalf, for instance.
11. Still, at best, this passage is an argument saying that Governments have the responsibility to (some would say) go to physically punish wrong-doers. But saying that the government has a responsibilty to punish rebels is NOT the same as saying Christians can biblically go to war.
12. No, the idea that Christians can choose to go to war is a very difficult argument to make if one is only using the Bible. And, indeed, most of the time, the argument I hear - even from the Religious Right - is one borne out of fear, not out of the Biblical witness...
Arguments along the lines of, "If we don't go to war, then bad things will happen... 'the enemy' will try to harm us or kill us or otherwise misbehave... therefore, sometimes we have to go to war." That is a pragmatic argument and one that could be debated, but it's not a biblical argument.
13. So, looking at the totality of what the Bible does and doesn't say about Christians engaging in War or Christian peacemaking efforts, I'd say the totality of biblical witness comes down heavily on the peacemaking side and only by stretching and reaching outside of the Bible can one create an argument for Christians being war-makers.
Thanks for asking.
35 comments:
One could draw a similar conclusion, even MORE readily, that--
"...looking at the totality of what the Bible does and doesn't say about Christians engaging in [homosexual behavior], I'd say the totality of biblical witness comes down heavily on the [heterosexual] side and only by stretching and reaching outside of the Bible can one create an argument for Christians being [practicing homosexuals]."
With Romans 13 AND with the OT passages you cite, there are at least passages that do commend the government's use of force, which is more than one can say about homosexual behavior.
Apply the same standards to sodomy that you do to war, and you'd have to come out on the side of traditional sexual morality.
--
At any rate, I think you overstate your case.
1. Jesus did say that He came to bring a sword and He encouraged His followers to buy swords; if we must take the "good news for the poor" passage as a reference to a gospel of social justice and wealth redistribution, I do not see why we must NOT take these passages as a reference to physical warfare.
2. While Jesus did rebuke the sexually immoral -- "go and sin no more" -- there is NO record of rebuking even Roman soldiers, either by Christ Himself or by His Apostles, despite numerous encounters with such soldiers. They are never told to quit their day jobs.
3. While Jesus and His Apostles used the imagery of sexual promiscuity negatively, they consistently used military imagery in a positive way: the whore of Babylon is an obvious negative image, but the armor of God is an obvious positive image.
I'm not sure why you think Romans 13 "sounds quite time- and place-specific."
Do you really think the principle that the government is an agent of God's justice ONLY applies to the pagan, imperial Roman government? A government that was often quite active and vicious in its persecution of Christians?
The only question is, does God authorize the government to punish evildoers ONLY on the small scale, or does the authorization apply to the large scale, too? In other words, can the state fight crime AND wage war?
If the answer is that it can do both, the faithful Christian can indeed serve as a soldier just as much as he can serve as a cop or judge. Note that even fatherhood entails some measure of laying down the law that would be inappropriate in other settings.
Ultimately, Christ's coming did not change the fundamental truths of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. This section doesn't remotely suggest that there are times for immoral acts -- there's no "time for promiscuity" or "time for treachery" and even the "time to kill" uses a different word (harag) than what is forbidden in Exodus 20 (ratsach) -- and so we can conclude that war is SOMETIMES morally permissible and perhaps even morally required.
--
Jesus didn't teach much on political matters beyond teaching us to pay taxes: the point is not that He taught alot about peacemaking as a political activity but not about war.
JESUS DIDN'T TEACH ABOUT POLITICAL ACTIVITIES MUCH AT ALL, EITHER WAY.
The duty to make peace with your enemies is a personal duty, as is the duty to care for the poor. Extrapolating a political manifesto misses the point of why Jesus came. The Kingdom He established is not of this world.
The first-century Zealots were wrong to look for a primarily political messiah, and so are their twenty-first-century counterparts.
Strict pacifism is an honorable position, if naive, but it's not one that is biblical required.
So Bubba, GIVEN THESE PASSAGES and what the Bible does say, where would any Bible believers find a biblical place that supports war-for-Christians?
Where does it say, "Sometimes, it is okay for Christians to kill their enemies... and the people around them, too..."?
I'd say strict war-making, while naive, is not one that is biblically suggested.
Who in the world has ever suggested "strict war-making"?
Ecclesiastes 3, for instance, doesn't teach that it's ALWAYS the time for war, only that there is A time for war.
On the one hand, you have people who suggest that war is never the answer, and on the other hand, you have people who believe that war is SOMETIMES the answer. No one has ever suggested, anywhere, that war is ALWAYS the answer.
--
This "war-for-Christians" thing is also an odd way to put it. Between Eccl 3 and Rom 13, we have support across both testaments for the notion that war is AT LEAST SOMETIMES biblically permissible.
If it's permissible for wholly pagan governments like that of first-century Rome, it is surely permissible for governments where Christians have an influence.
Or where does the Bible teach that Christians may not serve their country and their government in that manner?
The problem with these hypotheticals (that is, when we don't have a direct statement) requires us to believe that Jesus would say the same thing about war today that he presumably would have said in 33AD.
There is no reason to believe that would have to be true. There's plenty in the Bible that is culturally determined ... why would this question not be one of them?
And even if he said that war is allowed, that's very different than saying war is required. So even if Bubba came up with 3891237984 verses saying war is allowed, it doesn't mean that Christians should participate.
So...without a clear "All war is evil" or "It is your duty to fight in war" statement, this question simply cannot be answered in the way that you both seem to want to answer it, that is with a definite "I've proven you wrong!!" answer.
It is just your opinion.
So what?
Now of course, you'll both ignore this and go on, along with others for about 100 comments trying to do the impossible (ie prove something right that is only an opinion). But I thought, just hoped, that I could just once cut off the insanity at the pass.
I won't hold my breath though. Carry on.
Alan, I agree with you. But THEY don't. So I'm taking the discussion to a level they understand, because I don't think their argument holds up even to THEIR rather vague and whimsical standards.
...says the guy who thinks the Bible endorses "gay marriage" from a complete argument of silence.
Look, Dan, my position is there in the very last sentence of my very first comment: strict pacifism may be biblically permissible, but it's not biblically required.
If you don't disagree with this position, what are you arguing about?
Bubba...
Between Eccl 3 and Rom 13, we have support across both testaments for the notion that war is AT LEAST SOMETIMES biblically permissible.
If it's permissible for wholly pagan governments like that of first-century Rome, it is surely permissible for governments where Christians have an influence.
Eccl 3 says "there is a time for war and there is a time for peace." No where at all does it suggest that the "time for war" is a good thing or a thing Christians should partake in.
Similarly, Romans 13 says that it is permissible for gov't's to use "the sword" to punish evil-doers.
This is not suggesting that it is acceptable for Christians to engage in war. It just isn't.
As to this...
where does the Bible teach that Christians may not serve their country and their government in that manner?
Christians CAN serve their gov't, but not if their gov't tells them "Go and prostitute yourself, raising money to give to us." Right? You would not agree that this is in any way something Christians can do "for their gov't."
Similarly, we are not to shed innocent blood, we are specifically to love our enemies and overcome evil with good and leave punishment to God. Those are OUR commands/the teachings given to US.
In the OT, we find exceptions to these rules where God specifically makes an exception (according to the literalists' view) and allows Israel to commit genocide (wipe out an entire people, down to the children and babes). That is an exception given to Israel.
Where is there any biblical exception given to Christians? Or aren't our rules/teachings, "Don't shed innocent blood. Overcome evil with good. Love your enemy, do good to those who hate you..."
On what possible biblical basis would we get an exception to those rules?
Bubba...
If you don't disagree with this position, what are you arguing about?
I was asked a question. I'm asking the same question, in inverse. I'm wondering what the answer is.
Actually, because I know the Bible at least a bit, I know the answer: We are NOT given any exception. Those who support Christians soldiers killing their enemies (and also shedding innocent blood, as happens in modern war), do so outside of biblical teaching.
The irony is that you fault me/us for this with your take on our position on marriage equity (where there is NO overt, obvious harm, only overt, obvious GOOD) but embrace it with war (where there is obvious harm).
Ah, I see. You're both thinking the other is inconsistent because the other's arguments about war do not appear to line up with a completely different and wholly unrelated set of arguments about a completely different and wholly unrelated topic.
So then, one's opinions about, say, the doctrine of transubstantiation must dictate one's opinions about just war theory vs. nonviolent action? Well....um....OK, if you guy say so.
I don't see any relationship between the two topics or the arguments on either side and I was imagining you were having one discussion of the two sides of one topic.
My mistake. Carry on.
Dan,
"Similarly, we are not to shed innocent blood, we are specifically to love our enemies and overcome evil with good and leave punishment to God. Those are OUR commands/the teachings given to US."
Since the Bible consistently condemns prostitution BUT DOES NOT condemn the use of lethal force in any and all circumstances, your use of "similarly" is presumptuous.
You are however right about one thing.
The Bible is clear that we should leave punishment to God.
We should leave punishment to God (Rom 12:19), and one of the means He uses to punishe is the state (Rom 13:4).
If Paul could write that about even the pagan, imperial Roman government, we surely do not need an explicit note extending that authority to governments where Christians have some amount of input. The New Testament records numerous encounters with Roman soldiers who believed in Jesus to one degree or another, and NOT ONCE did Jesus or His Apostles command a soldier to quit his day job. The sexually immoral were told to go and sin no more, but not the believing soldier.
As individuals, and as the church, INDEED Christians are to practice non-retaliation (though even then we have biblical grounds to excommunicate for the sinner's good), but as government officials -- either as the civilian leadership or the uniformed officers -- we have a GOD-GIVEN DUTY to punish evildoers, and since every ancient government used the sword in criminal justice matters AND in military matters, it stands to reason the duty includes waging war.
To argue the contrary, in the way you're doing, you might as well argue that, since Christ didn't give Christians parents an explicit exception, "turn the other cheek" prevents us from punishing our children for disobedience.
--
"The irony is that you fault me/us for this with your take on our position on marriage equity (where there is NO overt, obvious harm, only overt, obvious GOOD) but embrace it with war (where there is obvious harm)."
That is a pragmatic argument and one that could be debated, but it's not a biblical argument.
Or show me where the Bible teaches that God draws the line at harm.
Do we harm anyone by worshipping a graven image or by the entirely internal activity of coveting? Should we really just focus on the five or six commandments where "overt, obvious harm" is an issue?
In the SAME PASSAGE that you quote Christ teaching us to love our enemies, He ALSO prohibits lust and anger which -- being entirely internal -- harm no one. Should we ignore Him on those subjects?
Harm is your standard, not the Bible's.
Dan, I wonder, what is Jesus' teaching about law enforcement?
You assert quite confidently, "Those who support Christians soldiers killing their enemies (and also shedding innocent blood, as happens in modern war), do so outside of biblical teaching."
What about those who support Christian police officers arresting their enemies? Or Christian judges trying and convicting them? Or Christian prison wardens keeping their enemies under lock and key?
You say that Romans 13 "sounds like a defense of a government having a police department to deal with 'whoever rebels against the authority' of government," but that tells us nothing about whether Christians can join the police department -- perhaps working for the government as a cop is just as impermissible as working for the government as a prostitute.
AFTER ALL, the same Jesus who taught us, "blessed are the peacemakers" ALSO taught us, "blessed are the mericful."
Jesus who taught us to love our enemies ALSO taught us to forgive our brother seventy times seven times -- a sort of "491 strikes and your out" policy.
And since, in His sermon in Luke 4, Jesus proclaimed liberty to the captives, why wouldn't that prompt Christians to call for the release of literally everyone in prison?
On what possible biblical basis would we get an exception to those rules?
Why doesn't your argument Christian pacifism not also lead to de facto Christian anarchism?
Arguments along the lines of, "If we don't enforce the laws, then bad things will happen..." That is a pragmatic argument and one that could be debated, but it's not a biblical argument.
About war, you write, again quite confidently, "because I know the Bible at least a bit, I know the answer: We are NOT given any exception."
Where are we given the exception for law enforcement?
It took exactly one comment for someone on the right to bring up gay sex. That might be a record, although we might have to look at which sentence in the first comment that happened.
Of course, it is the easiest subject to bring up in order to illustrate the weak manner in which the Bible is used to support an opinion. Bubba's comments are spot on in that regard, but far easier to slam a right-winger for merely being a right-winger. Bubba's comments are quite specific in pointing out "Here, you do things this way, but there you don't. Not consistent and thus one or the other is a poor argument."
In the previous conversation where this question was put forth, I had not considered the Ecclesiastes verse. But Bubba has the emphasis wrong. As an example of clear Biblical support for going to war, it would have been better to say that Ecclesiastes does say that there IS a time for war. This indicates at the very least that war is not "evil" any more than "violence" is evil. More importantly, in the context of this discussion, it indicates a duty for believers to engage in war when that time should come.
In addition, I still would like an explanation for how one determines good and evil. Collateral death and injury to civilians is absolutely regrettable and something to be avoided. But the fact that it happens does not mean going to war is evil or even that it should not have been considered. Death, injury and destruction of property are the reasons most people, even career soldiers, seek to avoid going at all. But the decision to do so, at least by those of my country, is not eagerly made by anyone. Some like to accuse various governmental figures of being war-mongers, simply because they speak of going to war, but this is said as if all other options have been removed from consideration. Good people go to war when it is seen as unfortunately necessary, not because of evil intent or influence.
Another point Dan often makes has to do with the notion of seeking peace, and "blessed are the peacemakers". The true fact is that our military, when going to war, are still peacemakers despite the manner in which they bring about peace. And the threat of going to war if necessary is itself a great incentive for people to act in a manner that maintains the peace. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were examples of extreme violence that brought about a lasting peace due to the fact that the devastation of two atomic explosions demonstrated the consequences of further aggression against ourselves and our allies. Truman was a blessed man for ordering those strikes because that order led to peace.
"It took exactly one comment for someone on the right to bring up gay sex. That might be a record, although we might have to look at which sentence in the first comment that happened."
Heh. Funny thing is, I didn't even notice because it has become so expected from these guys. But no, really, they're not obsessed.
The guilty dog barks loudest once again, eh? LOL
Geoffrey, that initial observation was more directly about an inconsistent approach to biblical interpretation, Dan's conclusions about "gay marriage" being only one example of where I don't believe he uses the same interpretive approach as he does here.
I could have mentioned other examples. I note in passing that Dan cites the numerous NT passages that commend peacemaking, but the New Testament is even MORE EMPHATIC about the causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation; nevertheless, Dan denies that causal relationship, and I believe he dismisses the doctrine as a sort of "myth of redemptive violence."
I understand that -- even though the Bible routinely criticizes it and Christ Himself condemned the religious leaders for it on more than one occasion -- some people who describe themselves as Christians have no problem minimizing the significance of hypocrisy.
I personally don't have a great deal of esteem for such people.
Marshall:
I personally do believe that the Bible leads to the position that war is sometimes morally obligatory, but I don't think it's such a clear and emphatic teaching that I deny the possibility that a mature and faithful Christian could reach a different conclusion.
--
About Eccl 3, what's important is that Dan and I not only disagree on whether it's STILL true that there is a time for war, we disagree on whether it was EVER true in the first place.
The Bible has, in its historical narrative, clearly and repeatedly attributed to God the command to wage war and even wage wars of annihilation, but Dan says that he "questions the wisdom" of taking these passages literally. Instead he has dismissed these passages as literal atrocity and speculated that they are "revenge fantasies" on the part of the OT authors.
A strict pacifist who believed in the historicity of the Old Testament: now THAT would be something.
--
About collateral damage and civilian casualties in war, I note that as modern military technology becomes ever more precise, this DOES become less of an issue. And I would also say that pre-modern warfare wasn't known for its consideration towards civilians, especially when armies transitioned from open-field battles to laying seige to population centers.
BUT THE ENTIRE QUESTION IS BESIDE THE POINT.
If one believes that the Bible requires strict pacifism, don't just argue against the easy cases, like genocidal wars of choice to conquer land and seize other nations' resources. ARGUE AGAINST THE HARD CASES, like a war of self-defense against a vicious enemy, where the defending army goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualites.
If you're going to argue against capital punishment, don't just mention the easy case where the wrong guy may have been convicted, argue against the hard case: the guy who gunned down a dozen people, who was arrested on the scene with emptied guns in hand and blood on his sleeve, whose rampage is attested to by numerous eye-witness survivals AND videotape.
As Jonah Goldberg argued after the Colorado shooting:
"If the death penalty is always wrong, let us have an argument about James Holmes, a man many Americans are aware of, informed about, and interested in. Let us hear why the inequities of the criminal-justice system require that his life be spared. Fight the death-penalty battle on this battlefield.
"That won’t happen. It won’t happen in part because nobody on the Sunday talk shows wants to debate the death penalty when the case for it is strong. They like cases that 'raise troubling questions about the legitimacy of the death penalty,' not cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty."
Let's look at the hard cases when it comes to war, because if we all agree that the Christians MAY conclude -- MAY, not MUST -- that the Bible permits Christians to serve in at least these hard cases, I'll say again that I don't know what we're arguing about.
A couple other things about Romans 13, in passing and while I have the opportunity:
1) Dan writes that the passage "more closely sounds like a defense of a government having a police department to deal with 'whoever rebels against the authority' of government."
When Antigonus II Mattathias led Jerusalem to successfully rebel against Rome in 40 BC, the Romans didn't send the police department. They sent a Roman army to lay seige to Jerusalem in 37 BC. The army was led by Herod the Great, the same guy who had the young sons of Bethlehem murdered in an attempt to stop the Messiah in His tracks. This seige would not exactly be arcane history during Paul's time.
Paul wrote his letter to the Romans around AD 56. Ten years later, the Jews rebelled again, and in AD 70, the Romans responded again.
And, again, they didn't send the cops. They sent an army to lay seige to the city, after which the Romans sacked Jerusalem and leveled the temple.
The destruction of the temple occurred after Paul wrote his letter to Rome, but it WAS predicted by Jesus (see Mark 13) and it stretches all credibility that the Roman citizen Saul of Tarsus was unaware that Rome's m.o. was NOT generally sending the "police department" to respond to "whoever rebels against [their] authority." (Rom 13:2)
2) I believe Rom 13 does indeed teach that the government is morally permitted to wage war, but those of us who oppose strict pacifism should also point out that it DOES regulate such war.
The passage limits when war is morally permissible. A just war is only waged to "punish evildoers," so repelling an invasion or responding to a broken treaty or cease-fire would be permitted, but NOT a war merely for conquest or seizing resources.
The Old Testament establishes a continuity with this conclusion: God commanded Israel to wipe out His enemies (God's, not primarily Israel's) because of their irredeemible wickedness, and regardless of the motivations of the Assyrians and Babylonians, God was clear (through Isaiah) that He allowed their wars against Israel and their eventual conquest of, respectively, the northern and southern kingdoms because of Israel's unfaithfulness.
[continued]
[continued]
3) I say again that the NT doesn't provide a political manifesto, as its focus is obviously much more personal. The DIRECT point of Romans 13 is to teach the church that it should obey the governing authorities; Paul mentions that the authority comes from God, NOT to argue some theory of political science, but to explain why the Romans should (generally) defer to their authority.
The Bible is clear that one has the freedom and responsibility to refuse to obey unjust laws: the midwives in Egypt refused to kill the newborn Jewish boys, Daniel refused to worship the king, and the Apostles refused to keep silent about the risen Lord. But this civil disobedience of individual laws or decrees NEVER led to outright rebellion against the state.
As a political conservative in the American tradition, I defer whenever possible to the founding documents, but while I see SOME room for overlap between the Bible's teachings and those founding documents...
(The commands not to kill or steal are analogous to the claim that your neighbor has the right to life and property, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly teach that you are morally permitted to assert those rights for yourself.)
...I have reached the conclusion that -- barring any persuasive argument to the contrary -- Romans 13 contradicts outright the central claim of the Declaration of Independence, that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I don't think that we should spend political energy trying to undo all our ancestors' mistakes, but this is a big deal, a Buckleyite conservative concluding that the central claim of the Declaration of Independence steps outside of biblical teaching and must therefore be rejected.
The way I read Romans 13, I don't think I could have signed the Declaration in good conscience.
(In the same vein but much less disruptive to my core beliefs, I'm not quite sure that "the least of these my brothers" in Mt 25:40 is a reference to EVERYONE rather than just my fellow Christians. There's no clear passage where Jesus implies such a brotherhood of man, and in Mt 12:50 and elsewhere He defines His brother as one who does His father's will. I still oppose abortion on moral grounds, but I'm no longer sure Mt 25:40 is germane to the issue.)
THAT would be an interesting thing to see from professing Christians on both sides of the aisle, answers to these questions:
--
Are there passages of the Bible that are routinely invoked by your side of the political divide, that you think are misapplied? Do you seek to correct your allies?
What passages of the Bible contradicts one of the core teachings of your side of the political divide? Do you still defer to the Bible and overtly break ranks with your political allies on that issue and on issues that are logically related?
--
These aren't questions about when you use the Bible as a weapon against your enemies, but when you use it as a corrective to your own beliefs and those of your allies.
I wonder who would be willing to answer these questions; they would be the sort of questions to which an entire blog entry could be devoted.
Bubba,
Regarding the Declaration, I think what you say depends on what was intended by that passage you cite. Voting is a common means of altering or abolishing one government for another. The application of Romans here is tricky since WE are the government as intended by the founders, as opposed to a government imposed upon us by monarchs or despots. Just sayin'.
I realized after I headed offline that I misspoke in my haste, so let me offer a REAL QUICK clarification of my position from last night.
Romans 13 doesn't necessarily reject the DOI's claim that men have the right to rebel, but it teaches that Christians shouldn't exercise that right.
One COULD infer a sort of worst-case exception by analogy: if there are situations that are bad enough that divorce is allowed (see Mt 19), where the bond between husband and wife is unnaturally severed, then perhaps there are situations where rebellion is allowed, severing the bond between citizen/subject and state.
But, biblically, those exceptions must be extremely rare. God didn't command Israel to rebel against their oppressive Egyptian masters, and I believe the biblical heroes of the Babylonian captivity (Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah) all worked within the pagan government.
Most importantly, Paul wrote Romans 13 in the context of a government that was already persecuting Christians, albeit before the worst persecutions under Nero.
The DOI asserts that government is instituted by men; Romans that it is instituted by God. That is a HUGE difference in the fundamentals, and I believe it has a huge effect on when (and even if) it's appropriate to rebel.
--
Marshall, you're right that the issue is thornier than my gloss last night suggests, hence my further clarification now, but I would differentiate between rebellion and voting in this sense.
When you vote, you may be voting out the government's current administration, but when you rebel you seek to abolish the government itself. Since 1789, we've had only one government with 112 different congressional sessions.
--
A lot of what I wrote last night was a great digression from the main point. I wouldn't mind further feedback on those points, however:
What I'm most interested in seeing is an answer to the question I asked Dan earlier yesterday.
Does the Bible prohibit Christians from joining the police department? If not, why not?
If you all would kindly hold off for a bit until I have a chance to respond, it would be appreciated. Thank ye.
Certainly, and my time online as been spotty, at least in terms of recreational browsing, so I'd appreciate the same consideration.
--
And one more clarification, from above:
"Romans 13 doesn't necessarily reject the DOI's claim that men have the right to rebel, but it teaches that Christians shouldn't exercise that right."
Romans 13 doesn't say anything about our rights. I should have said that it clearly teaches that Christians shouldn't rebel -- but it could just be that we have the right to rebel but just shouldn't exercise it.
It's not that hard of a concept, but I didn't quite nail it the first two times.
Bubba,
Re-reading Romans 13 again, I must say that I still do not think we are wrong to rebel against bad governments. Verse 3 suggests a government that is "good" in that it says (according to my NIV),
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
This passage assumes a good government. I think it would be difficult to believe that in some parts of the world no good people doing good live in fear and terror of their governments. To allay their fear, they must "do right" as defined by that bad government. This puts a citizen in a quandary if the governmental definition of doing right conflicts with the Biblical.
What's more, I am certainly rebelling against our current government by voting them out of office. I'd guess they'd much prefer we vote to keep them in power. It could also be argued that we are doing right by exercising our duty (which it is more than a right) to abolish our government, since our government was established by the founders to be aware that it is to expect to be held accountable in this manner. It's as if our government has the standing order to the people of the nation, "If I turn into a zombie, kill me."
Marshall, even if I were to agree that Romans 13 assumes a good government, that doesn't necessarily allow for rebellion against a bad government. There are two possibilities:
1) We should defer to government because government is good.
2) We should defer ONLY when government actually is good.
Paul seems to be arguing thesis #1, and we should keep in mind that, even though this claim preceded the worst persecution under Nero, it did come AFTER what was the more generally tyrannical reign of Caligula.
George III was no Caligula.
You COULD argue from analogy that God permits rebellion in the same way He permits divorce -- as a concession to our hard-heartedness -- but only when either the government or the marriage truly is no longer salvageable.
But that's not an explicit New Testament teaching, it's certainly not what we find in Romans 13, and it cuts against Paul's point in that passage:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." (13:1)
--
"What's more, I am certainly rebelling against our current government by voting them out of office."
No, you're rebelling against the current administration. We're a nation of laws, not men, and unless you think we should do away with the supreme law of the land -- the Constitution -- you're not rebelling against the government.
In a constitutional republic, citizens are free to oppose specific office-holders and administrations without such opposition reaching the level of rebellion SO LONG AS THEY STILL AFFIRM THE CONSTITUTION.
If the incumbent holds the Constitution in clear contempt -- an impossible scenario, I know! -- the citizen might have the moral duty to oppose him for the sake of the Constitution; supporting the rebel-in-office would be the true act of rebellion.
But the Constitution is not the gov't. It is the rules by which the gov't is supposed to play. The current administration is the leadership whose authority is granted by God.
But I go back to the passage. There are indeed times when a people, while doing right in the course of their daily living, have justifiable reason to fear their gov't. Paul suggests that there is no reason to fear a gov't if one is doing right, but only if doing wrong. I submit that the use of these terms is right/wrong based on God's understanding of the terms, not that of the the gov't in power. (I believe the same of Paul's suggestion regarding what is good, what is kind, etc. is from God---it is what is good based on God's perspective, not ours.) It would have been helpful if Paul was more clear on this point, but since he is always speaking from the perspective of Christian teaching, I have to think that Paul's teaching here is based upon the assumption that the gov't in question is NOT of the Caligula/Nero variety.
Under our form of government, the administration IS NOT the government: it is only one of three equal branches of the federal government, all of whom are supposed to be subject to the Constitution. That whole "nation of laws, not men" bit means that, indeed, the supreme authority of the government resides in the document, NOT in any person or group of persons.
But, whatever: "The current administration is the leadership whose authority is granted by God."
In our system of government, that authority is still subject to the review of the electorate. Romans 13 means that indeed we SHOULD defer to the authorities when, for instance, a police office pulls us over for speeding and does so under the authority of the sherriff, mayor, or governor.
But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider voting for a more responsible choice when those office-holders come up for their job evaluations.
In a republic, the governor's God-given authority is still subject to the electorate's regular reviews; that the office's authority comes from God DOES NOT imply that a Christian must automatically support the CURRENT OFFICE-HOLDER when it's time for that review.
--
You write, "I have to think that Paul's teaching here is based upon the assumption that the gov't in question is NOT of the Caligula/Nero variety."
Even though the teaching was directed TO THE CHURCH AT ROME, only about FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER CALIGULA?
I love you like a brother, Marshall, but that assumption just stretches the context of what was written beyond all recognition.
I'll reiterate that the Bible teaches, at least by example, that we should disobey laws that are in clear defiance of God's will. See, e.g., the midwives in Exodus, Daniel, and Peter in Acts.
But it appears that Romans 13 does command against a more general rebellion against the government.
Then there is a conflict without resolution. Disobedience to civil laws is rebellion, even if those laws are in clear defiance of God's will. Thus, I can't see that it is clear that Paul was necessarily referring to all governments, but those that would not give reason for fear by the governed due to the character of the gov't. A gov't that was fair and just would give one no reason to rebel and so to rebel would be not justified.
Again, it would have been helpful if Paul was more clear on this issue. I wonder what the original language was saying when we read what is translated as "rebel" in this case. All sin is considered rebellion and many solid believers sin throughout their lives. Few are seeking to overthrow God as a faction might overthrow a gov't through organized rebellion. So what is Paul saying here? Is it driving 15 miles per hour over the posted limit, or marching on Washington with Obama burning in effigy? You can see my confusion.
Speed limits are an interesting case, because it's my conviction that quite a few levels of government have set the speed limit too low for the roads that have been built.
Roads are like water pipes: if you make the pipe bigger and straighter and with fewer junctions, you can increase the speed. You get the same effect with limited-access multi-lane highways, and there are metro-area interstates where I live, where the posted speed limit of 55 is FAR below the "natural flow" of the road.
Quite literally no one drives 55 on those roads when traffic is light or even moderate, so it's actually LESS SAFE to throttle down and make people drive around you, even if you're in the slow lane.
I think the moral imperative to drive safely trumps the strict letter of a badly designed law.
--
This really isn't the place where I'd prefer to hash out my beliefs, but I will say that I did grossly overstate myself when I wrote that Romans 13 and the Declaration of Independence are in "outright" contradiction.
Here's what I know:
1) Romans 13 teaches us to defer to the governing authorities.
2) By example, there are clearly exceptions viz. civil disobedience: Daniel, Peter, etc.
3) By ANALOGY, there COULD BE a moral exception to Romans 13, similar to the concession that the strongest human bond of marriage can sometimes be severed.
At least arguably, the Bible and the Declaration come from incompatible worldviews. One teaches that the government's authority derives from God, the other that it derives from the people; maybe it derives ultimately from God through the people?
It's possible the two conflict.
As a Christian, I should defer to the Bible as the objective, written revelation that corrects all other merely manmade theories and constructs.
The point of this post was this:
There are some who treat the Bible rather like a holy rule book, rather than a book of truths. The idea there is sort of, "If there is a rule in the Bible and no reason not to think it is STILL a rule, then it likely represents God's Will for us today."
Therefore, the reasoning goes, "men should not lie with men," to them sounds like a universal rule against all forms of gay behavior, therefore, God is opposed to all gay behavior. They have (in their minds) a reason to dismiss the latter half of that rule ("men should not lie with men, if they do, kill them.") but they retain the first half of the rule because, to them, it SEEMS like a universal rule found in their holy rule book.
The problem is that they inconsistently embrace this "rule book" approach. A great example is what I've offered here in this post. The only rules that we have today on how to treat "the enemy" is that Christians are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good, not shed innocent blood, etc. We, as God's followers, have no rule in the holy rule book that says "Sometimes, it's okay to kill your enemy. Sometimes, it's even okay to shed innocent blood while you kill your enemy."
That simply does not exist in the bible. Thus, as far as I can see, I don't think there is a rule that allows for Christians to take part in killing enemies to be found in the holy rule book. At best, there is a rule that allows GOV'Ts to kill "wrong-doers" but not one that says Christians can take part in it. The overwhelming and clear teaching - when it comes to plain rule-following - in the Bible is that we who follow God are to love our enemies, not kill them.
That is for those who try to treat the Bible as a holy rule book.
cont'd...
I'm not of that tribe. I treat the Bible as sacred Scripture, as a book of TRUTHS and wisdom that is beneficial for education, correction and knowledge... that teaches us principles and ideals, but not specific rules.
In fact, we find in the Bible that treating Scripture as a heavy-handed rule book (where Pharisee-types tell you what is and isn't the "right" way to live based on THEIR UNDERSTANDING of ancient specific rules) is exactly a wrong way to treat Scripture.
So, to address the question of "can Christians be police officers?" I say that we can all strive to follow principles that are reasonable and moral in whatever field we find ourselves in. I'm not of the tribe that demands everyone hew to my understanding of how those principles play out in their day to day life.
If you think that Christians can take part in gov't's efforts to stop "wrong-doers" via working in a police force or even in the military, that is for you to decide. Speaking for myself, I don't see stopping criminals from harming others, even with the use of force against that specific criminal, to be a violation of the principle: Love your enemy, overcome evil with good. I love my kids and, if they were acting violently, I would certainly use force to stop them. I would never stop loving them in so doing.
That is a world apart from saying "I love my enemy and the wrong-doer, but to stop them, I'm going to wage war against their nation, even when it involves shedding innocent blood." That to me is a world of difference away from police action. IF police action routinely involved shedding innocent blood, then I would not see how any Christian could take part in it.
Nonetheless, I would not apply a pharisaical "You must hew to MY understanding and abide by the rules as I understand them" approach.
Our church is a peace church. Our peace statement includes this line...
•Peace is the will of God and all war is sin. All persons are created in the image of God and owe their first allegiance to God.
and yet later, it is followed by these lines...
We respect the liberty of conscience of those among us who would serve in the military...
We don't lay down rules by which people MUST adhere to be part of our fellowship. Rather, we clearly state our understanding and yet respect the liberty of conscience of fellow believers who follow other paths.
So, to Bubba's question: Does the Bible prohibit Christians from joining the police department? If not, why not?
My direct and specific answer is that the Bible is a book of truths, not rules. Jesus did NOT give biblical people OR people today a rule about joining either the military or a police department in 20th century USA, so we can IN NO WAY say that, "Yes, there IS a police-joining rule and this is it..."
I think, instead, there are principles that we can all agree upon (love your enemy, do not shed innocent blood) and then allow one another the Christian liberty to seek God's will for themselves the best they can.
The point of this post is not really addressing those who treat the Bible and our respective understandings of it with grace and respect and leeway - understanding Holy Scripture as a Book of Truths, not as a holy rule book. The point is that, for those who treat it as a holy rule book, I just don't see where they can reach a conclusion other than, "The only rules we as followers have been given are contrary to engaging in war." IF you treat it as a holy rule book.
If you think otherwise, that there ARE places where God says to us to kill our enemies, please demonstrate it.
I did mention Ecclesiastes 3, did I not? Your response...
"Eccl 3 says 'there is a time for war and there is a time for peace.' No where at all does it suggest that the 'time for war' is a good thing or a thing Christians should partake in."
...entails treating the Bible PRECISELY as you think it ought to not be treated -- AS A BOOK OF RULES, even though it's ENTIRELY reasonable to conclude that this passage from wisdom literature implies that war is sometimes morally permissible and perhaps even morally obligatory.
It seems to me that you do this ALOT in rejecting the conclusions of others.
- Opposing biblical inerrantists, you reject as insufficient the fact that Jesus and His Apostles affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke and taught that all of it is breathed by God, and it's not enough that they treated verb tenses and sequences in Genesis and Exodus as determinative. Instead, you demand a verse that states explicitly that every passages of all 66 canonical books are inerrant.
- Opposing sexual traditionalists, you reject as insufficient the fact that the Bible consistently condemns homosexual activity, and it's not enough that Jesus Himself taught us that God made us male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female). Instead, you demand a passage that explicitly condemns all homosexual relationships across all cultures.
- Here, in opposition to Christians who reject strict pacifism, you think it's not enough that the Bible teaches that there is a time for war. Instead, you apparently demand a passage explicitly teaching that war is a good thing Christians should partake in.
You never have the same ridiculous expectations for your side.
--
About the Bible being a "Book of Truths," I note in passing that the Bible never makes this own claim about itself: your claims about the Bible don't pass the test that you demand, e.g., for the doctrine of the text's inerrancy.
That would be bad enough, except you have rejected outright teachings that the New Testament makes emphatically, repeatedly, and without any real possibility of misunderstanding -- namely, the causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation, and the absolute necessity of His bodily resurrection.
I think you miss the point of Christianity in doing this. The greatest truths of the Bible are not the ethical teachings (what you elsewhere call "Jesus' Way"), because that's not good-news gospel, that's just the clearest expression of the law. The greatest truths are NOT what we are to do in obedience to God, but what God has done IN HISTORY to restore us to Himself.
At any rate, what you mention as the great truths or principles ARE imperative statements that you treat as rules: "love your enemy, do not shed innocent blood."
You apply these rules thoughtlessly and mechanically, as if our love for our enemies must NEVER be balanced against our love for everyone else and the obligations of justice.
Dan, you write eloquently about how we should "allow one another the Christian liberty to seek God's will for themselves the best they can."
But your NEXT IMMEDIATE SENTENCE is to denigrate those whose approach differs from your own:
"The point of this post is not really addressing those who treat the Bible and our respective understandings of it with grace and respect and leeway - understanding Holy Scripture as a Book of Truths, not as a holy rule book."
Here you're not treating others' approaches with grace and respect.
--
Finally, it's simply not true that the the theologically conservative approach is Pharasaical. (Never mind how you show grace and respect to others with that frequent insinuation.)
A couple years back, you asserted that Jesus did indeed seek to overturn the Old Testament, in opposition to His quite explicit claim to the contrary. I believe your position is that the Pharisees were putting too heavy an emphasis on the text, when I believe it's clear that what Jesus criticized was their efforts to DIMINISH the weight of the law, by restricting the commandments and relaxing the permissions.
I quoted AT LENGTH John Stott's commentary on the Sermon on the Mount -- begin here and here -- and, so far as I know, you never did address his arguments on the merits.
The ONLY thing you did was Google his name in an admitted attempt to discredit the man.
"I was looking into Stott some to see what I could find out about him, expecting not to like his reasoning much. Turns out, he seems pretty reasonable."
If you're going to repeat the (gracious! and honorable!) accusation that your opponents are repeating the errors of the Pharisees, at some point you should do the legwork to justify the accusation.
"They have (in their minds) a reason to dismiss the latter half of that rule ("men should not lie with men, if they do, kill them.") but they retain the first half of the rule because, to them, it SEEMS like a universal rule found in their holy rule book."
Dan,
A little honesty, or integrity or honor, please, on this point. It has been explained in detail so many times and you prefer to pretend it hasn't. If you take away from this what you claim, then you must take away "thou shalt not murder" or ANY other behavioral practice once prohibited and allow it to be rationalized into acceptability. The behavior remains as prohibited as it always has been, as has ever other prohibited sexual practice (this being amongst the worst transgressions as indicated by this severe punishment attached as a consequence). But Christ's death on the cross changed a lot about how we deal with fellow sinners, how they are to be punished or, more importantly here, how their sin will be resolved before God. His death did not change what was permissible or prohibited as regards human behavior (and no, eating shellfish, how one trims the sides of one's hair or mixing fabrics do not constitute "behaviors"). That you continue to bring this up as if it serves some intelligent and insightful point rather than to defend the indefensible does not shore up your claim to be a serious student of Scripture or a devoted follower of Christ.
Post a Comment