It is with mixed feelings that I read of Sunday’s shooting of George Tiller, one of three American doctors who perform late-term (post 21st week) abortions:
Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was fatally shot Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.
[...]
The doctor’s death was the latest in a string of shootings and bombings over two decades directed against abortion clinics, doctors and staff.
Long a focus of national anti-abortion groups, including a summerlong protest in 1991, Tiller was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, Stolz said. Tiller’s attorney, Dan Monnat, said Tiller’s wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time.
The slaying of the 67-year-old doctor is “an unspeakable tragedy,” his widow, four children and 10 grandchildren said in a statement. “This is particularly heart-wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace.”
To this point in time, most of the Christian response I’ve heard to this latest act of violence in the war over abortion has been condemning of the shooter – as it should be. Al Mohler’s response was especially good:
But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause. Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal — not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.
We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence. We are not given the right to take this power into our own hands, for God has granted this power to governing authorities. The horror of abortion cannot be rightly confronted, much less corrected, by means of violence and acts outside the law and lawful means of remedy. This is not merely a legal technicality — it is a vital test of the morality of the pro-life movement.
He has hit upon both of the key issues, as I see them, with this despicable act – 1) the issue of honoring authority – and putting our trust in God to provide justice; and 2) the issue of hypocrisy displayed by Christians who claim to be pro-life, but commit murder in the name of life. The first is an issue of failure to love God – because we fail to trust Him and take action into our own hands. The second is an issue of failure to love our neighbor.
(I have to say that, following the trend of quoting Steve Taylor, I’m reminded of his song “I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good“)
Some Christian commentators, Doug Phillips, are asking some interesting questions, but sometimes not going far enough in their responses – possibly failing at ‘loving your neighbor’:
I conclude with this thought: George Tiller is dead. For whom shall we mourn?
First, we mourn for the many children he murdered whose names will never make headline news, but whose murder were painful, violent, and bloody at the hands of this man. Second, we mourn for the future children who may be killed as a result of the way the pro-abortion movement will capitalize on this unlawful killing. Third, we mourn for a nation that has broken covenant with God, and that is deserving of God’s just wrath for its complicity in child sacrifice.
Finally, our mourning must lead us to prayer for the Church. God forbid that the blood of the innocent would be on our hands. If we would humble ourselves before the Lord and simply refuse to tolerate abortion in our own ranks, who knows what great things might be lawfully done, with God’s blessing, to bring murderers like George Tiller to an appropriate and earthly justice?
Aside from the obvious issue of mixing of Christianity and nationalism, I have to ask “What about Tiller’s family?” He left behind a wife, four children and ten grandchildren. What about Tiller, himself? Make no mistake, he was a despicable man. He claimed to be Christian and an active member at a Lutheran church, and yet he killed 60,000+ children, oft-times baptizing their corpses before cremating them. Even so, should we not pray that he received the grace none of us deserve, rather than pray that he receives justice?
The religious movement from which Jesus came, in the Galilee region of first-century Israel, had two main thrusts – Phariseeism and Zealotry – both with identical theology apart from a single key point – The Pharisees believed that God would bring about his kingdom through the obedience of His people, and not through violence, and the Zealots believed that they were called to bring about God’s kingdom as instruments of violence. In this matter, it is clear that Jesus sided with the Pharisees – even as he condemned their hypocrisy in other matters.
As I search my own soul, I have to say in my heart of hearts I cannot say that I am sorry the Tiller is out of business. His business was chaos, hypocrisy, death and destruction – as it is with each of us, even if on a smaller scale. But I must wish – even if I must force myself to wish it – that it would have been God turning his heart, and not man doing it in the name of God.
The kingdom does not come about by our taking the role of God. It comes about through our humble obedience to Him, and His action in His time.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
163 Comments(+Add)
Consistency? If we as Christians believe in war as a means of defending the lives of our neighbors, then murdering an abortion doctor is an act in the same vein. In this era of terrorism where some have no specific national association, Dr. Tiller can well be considered a medical terrorist and who desereves what we would do to Bin Laden.
My point is that pacifism may be the only Christian perspective that is consistent. If we can murder an Iraqi teenager to protect American lives, we surely can kill this doctor to protect American lives.
I believe the New Testament teaches pacifism…consistently.
Here we go ’round the mulberry bush.
I think that pacifism is one option, but I think that sometimes war is warranted. I think as Christians, we are to respect authority. I think also that as Christians, we sometimes have to fight to protect God’s law, whether it be in the political arena, the court room or sometimes on the battle field.
I could just as easily say that the defending of your country from invasion is the only action taught consistently in the Old Testament. I think getting involved in war is sometimes justified. Sometimes capital punishment is justified. The killing of others is sometimes necessary and is consistently taught in the Bible for some situations.
However, murder is never condoned, and I believe murdering someone and killing someone to be very different things. The difference is motivation. If I want to kill you because I want to rob you of money or because I want revenge then that is murder. If on the other-hand I kill someone defending myself or my family, then while I have killed someone, I have not murdered them. I think that stance is consistent with the Bible also.
Just my two cents.
Blessing,
Untrue. We are to submit to the our governmental rulers, as they are put in place by God. If the government declares war, and you are in the armed services, lives you take in defense of your country are not murder, by definition.
In the case of the abortion doctor, the government has declared his activity legal, and the law does not compel you to sin. So, killing the abortion doctor is, by definition (again), murder.
“If on the other-hand I kill someone defending myself or my family, then while I have killed someone, I have not murdered them. I think that stance is consistent with the Bible also.”
My point exactly. So when we kill someone to protect the murder of the unborn it is warranted?
Scripture?
nc – This is a salient and important discussion that bears directly on a Christian’s response to sin.
“If the government declares war” and “the government has declared his activity legal” seem to acquiesce to the government. So when the Geram government declared it legal to murder Jews, it would have been sin to stop them? And if you were a believer in Nazi Germany and they declared war on Poland, you should kill Polish people? Drop bombs on Polish cities? Help in Auschwitz?
If you surrender to the dictates of any government, you are not surrendered to Christ.
The core problem is the view that the American government is essentially good since we compare it with worse governments and we have been taught all our Christian lives that patriotism is good Christianity.
How can a believe go and kill people he has never met and has no inside information about their activities, just because the government commanded us to do so? The so called “government authority” in Romans 13 has been stretched to mean something it never was meant to teach.
Good citizens, yes. Killing on behalf of anyone, never.
So Rick where does that leave the military, the police and those whom God has given the sword to so that they can punish the wicked and defend the weak.
By your reasoning, Christians should never be in the armed forces, or the police force or politicians or lobbyists or political activists and I think that stance is just incorrect.
“By your reasoning, Christians should never be in the armed forces, or the police force or politicians or lobbyists or political activists ”
Yes, I have come to that position. The teachings of Jesus contradict even the self defense doctrine. His principles of no evil for evil, his rebuke of Peter who was defending against an unjust arrest in the garden, and His statement concerning His refusal to use His power to escape in Jerusalem.
If we strip ourselves of any vestige of Americanism, and if we read the New Testament fairly, we are left with one torured interpretation of Romans 13. All the rest are overt and clear pronounciations of non-violence. I know this position is radical and goes against all we’ve been taught and all the brave men and women who have served in those capacities, including my father, but I cannot justify it br Scripture.
Are we to assume Gandhi took the non-violent teachings of Christ and gave them power that He did not forsee? Or are we to see that our entire perspective has been spiritually flawed? Remember this, it is the one perspective that MacArthur, Bell, Copeland, Driscoll, Rosebrough, Ingrid, and Chris L. all agree upon.
America is the tie that binds.
Interestingly enough, Rick, I was speaking of the state in general and never mentioned America.
What you seem to be saying Rick is that God does not have a plan or government and in fact God is anti-government. Again, I think that is an incorrect position. God does have a plan for government and the administration by the civil authorities. To believe otherwise is again just wrong.
God has a plan for everything. Evil, the antichrist, the beast, as well as human government. However nowhere in Scripture can you find God’s instructions to be involved or obey them when their commands are against Scripture.
I use America because it is where we live, however the principle applies to every government. We should never have allegiences to any nation, which would place at odds with other believers in different countries. Should a believer in England kill a believer in Argentina in war over land? (The Faulklands)
I can’t get past how sick that memorial service page is.
Kill. Then memorialize. Then burn.
I could puke.
I am never surprised by the depth of depravity concerning the lost. I am always surprised and disgusted concerning my own flagrant shortcomings.
Had I not been saved, I would be pro-choice and would not have cared about “fetuses”.
Yeah, whatever. I have shortcomings, etc.
But that is sick/evil and I am surprised and I judge it as such.
Run with that.
Rick (#9):
Are you referring particularly to this verse regarding governmental authorities?
Is it a “tortured interpretation” to say that God doesn’t look on His “minister[s] for good” as simply a necessary evil?
I cannot reconcile that verse to some of the most antichrist and vicious governments in history. That verse seems to indicate a warning against rebellion (Revolutionary War) and it assumes a scenarion where the officials are good.
Which government is of God, President Bush or President Hussein? Are they both God’s ministers for good and if so than war is eliminated since we would be overthrowing God’s minister for good. Let us be honest here, if that verse is a blanket statement about all governments it becomes quite a tangled mess.
The verse speaks of avenging evil through a government official, and if that is the case, where is God working through the American government to bring the sword to abortion doctors. I contend a limited and confined moralistic principle for that verse or else you must never speak against any government leader.
Kim Jon Il is a minister of God? I think not. Why where the apsotles martyred? Where their executioners God’s ministers?
In Paul’s day ? Are you kidding ?
I mean, the lions probably liked the set-up….
Bad choice of words. I find the overall meaning to be one of good and lawful behavior in a community setting.
You did not address the rest of my comment.
The provisions of government, as outlined in the OT and supported in the NT, are maintaining of order/justice and self-defense. So, I see no reason that Christians cannot (or should not) participate in either function – order/justice (which includes police and national guard forces); and defense (the armed forces).
In the case of conquest, this is not self-defense, so in the case of Nazi Germany, joining the army or informing on Jews/Homosexuals/Gypsies would be immoral – as each was either a) conquest (not self-defense); or b) a direct order to commit sin.
I believe that the Iraq question is murky. I supported the war (and support its completion) as a matter of self-defense, though it appears that some of the data used to demonstrate the threat (and thus, the need for self-defense) was faulty (or subverted).
Speaking against a government leader is permissible and part of the law of the land – so long as it is not libelous/slanderous or materially endangering (i.e. shouting “fire” in a crowded room). Unlike ancient Rome, it is not illegal (or even disrespectful) to voice disapproval of a government official. So, one may do so without violating scripture, as it is not an act of lawlessness.
I am sorry, Chris, but I find your views to be incongruous and absent substantive dealings with my previous comment. Who decides what part of the minister of God you can criticize?
And the most you can go is “murky”. Great, morality vs. immorality is murky. When the church cannot decide whether war is God’s will or not we have become an amiguous trumpet.
Rick, perhaps I misinterpret your clarification, but pretty much every gov’t official in Paul’s day was bad and anti-Christian. And yet Paul wrote that. Go fig.
I’ll be honest — I can’t “reconcile that verse to some of the most antichrist and vicious governments in history” either. But my inability to do so doesn’t eradicate the verse’s existence or even demand a given interpretation that fits my understanding. I don’t think it’s false humility for me to think that, if I don’t understand a verse, then it’s me who needs adjustment.
To claim that the NT teaches pacifism is to say that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different. Because, at God’s direct command, the Israelites conducted some major atrocities in the OT.
(If Pelosi ever read the OT, she’d probably drop over dead of a heart-attack.)
When Jesus said “You have heard it said X, but I say Y”, He wasn’t saying, “Yeah, my old man is a bit of a hot-head. Here’s how you should really do it.” He was saying, “You jokers don’t get it. You took what my Father said, and
discernedmisinterpreted the snot out of it.”I.E. Jesus’ clarifications weren’t because God changed or because God said it wrong. It was solely because we had wax in our spiritual ears. And — to beat the metaphor into the ground — nobody makes me reach for a Q-Tip faster than Paul.
I think nc is right; this dance has been done to death.
That memorial page is just creepy. I think that says something about “religion” when people can do this for a day job and attend a Lutheran church on Sunday. The fact that someone would pull a gun and murder someone there also says something. It is much too easy to attend a formal, structured religious service and not be convicted of one’s daily thoughts and actions whatsoever. It would be interesting to know what the people of that church will take from this.
Not judging anyone, mind you. Just seeing that memorial page makes me think that religious structuring of things such as “memorial services” etc. has gone down a horribly wrong path…..it seems as if this guy was using ceremony/traditions (in this case, a traditional memorial service) as a way to “make things up to God”….which in and of itself rings empty. It’s also quite the oxymoron of covering up the destruction one of the oldest, God-created traditions (new life) with a shallow, man-made tradition (an American-style memorial service). I wonder why he thought he had to do this, and was it anything to do with his view of Christianity from attending very structured, formal Lutheran services?
Just some thoughts….nothing much to do with his ironic murder (although that action could be applied to these questions, too.)
Here is another interpretation of Romans 13. http://harmlessasdoves.com/romans13.html
Caveat to this article. The man who wrote this also believes in universal salvation. I do not. But the article above is a good one.
ncgal – A good article. That man has reached the same conclusion as have I. The common interpretation of Romans 13 cannot be true as widely interpreted, and there may be some hebraic metaphor device at work.
Hitler was not God’s minister for good. The combination of a wrong interpretation of Roman 13 and a wrong view of America has led the church into idolatry. This idolatry spans most denominations and movements, as I said, the tie that binds.
In 200 years had the body of Christ in America been the gracious, loving, humble, and robust entity it should be, combined with a detachment and impartiality about politics, we might have had a much greater impact on our communities. As it stands now we are still considered a moral voting block and not much else.
I tend to agree with Rick on this issue. I won’t issue a proclamation that Christians can’t serve in the military or be police officers, but I do think Christians need to really think about the potential use of violence in a profession. I think it’s easy to buy into the myth of redemptive violence if we’re not careful.
I always find it interesting that some Christians who have no issue with a Christian being a soldier would be the first to condemn a Christian working somewhere like a bar, a “secular” record store, etc. (I don’t think anyone here would do that, though). I still think that so much of our American psyche is tied into militarism that many of react in a very visceral way in these discussion. I also think that many of us who haven’t seen war have a Hollywood idea of war. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a soldier who killed an enemy who wasn’t haunted by it.
As far as God’s use of violence in the OT, I’ve heard various arguments that are pretty convincing, but it comes down to a couple major points. First, the last word about who God really is is Jesus. If the picture of God painted by the OT authors differs from what we see in Jesus, then Jesus supersedes that description. Secondly, Israel was directly commanded by God when and when not to fight. That’s not something any other nation can rightly claim, despite what Donald Rumsfeld believed (that link goes to the GQ website, so please be aware that some of the ads may be a little PG-13, but the actual article is quite frightening).
Amen Rick.
Great, Phil. The pointabout Jesus being the “trump card” was excellent. If there was no New Testament, our view of God would be significantly different. As it is, many attempt to portray God as an angry entity just waiting for vengeance.
The cleansing of the Temple by Christ has been the dead horse used to prove God is angry. I agree with you, though, I cannot see a justification for any believer taking a human life. However, if I was forced to protect my family I am afraid I would kill someone but that makes me inconsistent, it does not change truth.
Phil – That site and the Rumsfeld Biblical memos is chilling. It is almost the counterpart to Islamic extremism where we paint God as our partner in war, and we use verses with a spiritual quality and transform them into promises of military victory. And it seemed that Bush viewed democracy as the Great Commission.
4200 dead – 30,000 wounded
unknown amount of emotional casualties.
We as believers should have no opinion as to the war’s legitimacy, we are to bind up the wounds.
Two years ago on a Sunday around the 4th of July when my husband and I drove up to our little Southern Baptist Church I noticed little American flags all around the church yard and going up the side walk. With much dread I went in the building and sat down for the service. At the start of the service t the music system came on with a canned American patriot song with a someone speaking instead of singing. Right at that moment the choir came in the church from the outside all wearing red, white, and blue carrying the American flag. Every person in that church stood and I did too out of shock. My middle son and I chose to leave that service at that moment. On the pulpit the American flag still sits there, Sunday after Sunday after Sunday. Last week we were not there but the first song was My Country tis of Thee. When did it get to be ok to mix our patriotism and our chrisitanity. One day I believe we will have to make our choice. Are we Christians or Americans. Other Christians have had to choose and I believe we will too. Government is not benevolent. In the old testamtent God wanted to be Israel’s ruler but the people wanted a king. God gave the what they asked for with a warning. I Samuel 8:1-22
Please excuse any spelling errors . I was trying to hurry before my grandaughter comes for the day. God Bless everyone.
Phil, what are “records”?
ncgal53, have fun.
Hey, vinyl is on its way back… although, I’ve never actually owned any real LPs. I did have a The Empire Strikes Back storybook that came with an accompanying 45 that added sound effects and beeped when you were supposed to turn the page, though… Chewbacca – in stereo
Back in the day, you could put several 45s or 33s and when one would end the other would drop. Scratch sounds would enhance the sound, and like rings on a tree, the longer you had the record the more scratches you have.
Thos were the Cromagnum days of phonographs.
The murder of Tiller was wrong; but Tiller was not a Christian under any sense of the word. Nor is the person who murdered Tiller.
I do not mourn for him, and I do not demand judgment. I know that he will be judged by God, and I trust God’s justice. After viewing the memorial page it makes me really wonder why God has put up with our wicked country for so long. I believe that the murder of babies is evidence that God’s wrath already dwells on this country. We are a wicked people.
The murderer will also get the justice of this world. I pray that he or she is born again so he or she can experience mercy.
I agree with whoever said that we must cease abortions within our own churches and circles of influence and make a change. I also support peaceful and educational protests outside of clinics. I think evangelists do well to preach the good news to everyone so that God can change hearts. It is the only way abortion will stop.
Since this is more in line with the OP, Greg Boyd did a series of sermons called “The Cross and the Sword.” Very compelling; a lot of people couldn’t take the pricking and left that church.
They’re worth a listen; you can find them here
5/30/2004 – In But Not of the World
In this sermon, Greg responded to the top five questions he received while preaching “The Cross and the Sword” series. Maybe you’ve been asking some of these questions: “What’s the difference between turning the other cheek and letting yourself be abused?” and “Are you saying that the church is politically irrelevant?”
5/9/2004 – Is the Church the Guardian of Social Morality?
The Cross and the Sword series continued with this sermon, which covered the final effect of failing to distinguish between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world: we Christians begin to see ourselves as the “protectors” and “fixers” of social morality, as the moral standard bearers. But our only job as the body of Christ is to look like Jesus, the one sinless human, who stood in unity with others and met their needs. Greg also addressed the idea that America is a theocracy.
5/2/2004 – Abortion: A Kingdom of God Approach
The Cross and the Sword series continued with this sermon, which covered two more consequences of fusing the kingdom of God with the kingdom of the world. To illustrate the damage this can cause, Greg discussed using the Kingdom of God approach with abortion: don’t limit ourselves to the options given by the kingdom of the world, but ascribe unsurpassable worth to others (mother and baby) at cost to ourselves. This is the unique mission of the Kingdom of God, and it’s not easy.
4/25/2004 – The Difference Between the Two Kingdoms, Greg Boyd – sermon length 43:43
The kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world are two very separate things. One uses the sword (power over) to influence people; the other uses love (power under). To understand this distinction is much easier than letting it affect the way we live. Greg continued to discuss the differences between these kingdoms and how we are to live within the distinction.
4/18/2004 – Taking America Back for God?
Greg questioned the slogan “Taking America Back for God” by discussing the differences between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God. As Christians, we are to belong first and foremost to God’s Kingdom, yet live under the governments of this world. How does that work?
Sandman,
I found Boyd’s book, The Myth of a Christian Nation really compelling. It draws a lot off of that sermon series.
Boyd recently did a review of The American Patriot’s Bible on the Out of Ur blog. There two parts – Part 1, Part 2. There’s also a post on the blog that has the promotional video for said Bible. If that Bible isn’t idolatrous, I don’t know what is.
Sandman – I have listened to Greg Boyd’s messages on the subject and he made a good case for what I now call the “Constantine heresy”. I have been rethinking the entire view of Christianity stripped of all national affiliation and moral leverage.
How can we call ourselves peculiar, or strangers, or citizens of a different kingdom when we blend in so easily with the same culture wherein we live? And what does it say about our view of the gospel’s power when we use politics as a supplemental source to accomplish God’s will?
Gandhi extricated an entire nation from England’s stronghold without firing one shot, and yet many Christians give thanks for the blood that was shed in the war against Britian. We all have been deceived.
Phil,
It is compelling, and I will have to check out your links. He comes to speak from time to time at the church I attend.
I can identify with Rick’s position, however (and this is just an observation, not an attack on Rick) I can’t ignore the irony of his statements made from the relative comfort and safety of a country that in a little more than 200 years has had to fight for its independence, fight to maintain the Union and end slavery, fight to keep Hitler from killing the rest of Europe’s Jews, fight to keep from becoming a province of Japan (nuking Japan twice in the process), fight itself to grant civil rights protections and voting rights to blacks, take the fight to Islamic fundamentalists to keep them from killing more American citizens in a 9/11 fashion.
And then on the other shoe there are those who say this is a Christian nation, when I can’t anything resembling Christ in the torture, forced conversion and slaughter of the indegenous people here (Columbus led the torture/conversion), and the abduction, murder and enslavement of millions of Africans in the slave trade.
Rick,
You seem to think that because the church benefits from the national government’s actions that somehow that government must be acting on our behalf or in our interests.
The government never acts on our behalf as the church but always on our behalf as citizens of no ordinary country. Even Paul availed himself of his citizenship when it was time.
That statement is laughable. Self-defense?
One of the most amazing things is how quickly bin Laden was morphed into Hussein… to say some of the data was faulty is a massive understatement.
I got a good kick out of the word “murky” by the way.
41: And sometimes doing a good, right thing is not always a Christian thing.
News traveled a little bit faster in Gandhi’s day than in colonial times.
In the colonial times George III was ruling by some variation of the divine right of kings. Not so in Gandhi’s time.
European monarchies used to dictate what religion their subjects would be. Not so in Gandhi’s time.
Curious as to how someone arrives at this:
Who attacked whom with what intent, Paul?
Japan attacked.
My curiosity over your statement is twofold:
1. was there ever any risk or fear the US might somehow be taken over by Japan?
2. why did the US end up nuking Japan – twice?
And the intent?
Oil and resources – pretty much regarding control of the Pacific Rim. Of its own, Japan has relatively little to no resources. The US had halted oil trading with Japan. By attacking Pearl Harbor – where America’s Pacific fleet was based – they were attempting to control oil resources from the Dutch East Indies and other areas round about. They were involved in a war, requiring huge amounts of oil, but had limited reserves (less than 1 yr) which was a frightening prospect.
In addition to oil, Japan had grand plans for other areas (expansionism) in the Pacific.
Why did the US nuke Japan twice? Well, it was known beforehand that Japan was preparing to surrender. They dropped the bombs to send a message to an expansionist USSR. It was the setting of new terms for a new world order so to speak.
The reason I picked on this statement is because I believe your summary views of US history is very, very idealistic and fantastical.
At no time was the US at risk of becoming a Japanese province.
And where would they have expanded, Paul?
Idealistic and Fantastical? Interesting you pick the admittedly subjunctive to try to deride my point. Care to take on any other part of the laundry list not contrary to fact?
Japan did not hope to defeat America yet simply bide enough time to dominate the Pacific to gain a strategic advantage.
They had plans of invading and controlling the British Malay, the American Philippines, Dutch East Indies…
Not trying to deride your point, but it would be adviseable to base your point in fact, that’s all I’m arguing, otherwise you weaken your point. I don’t want to turn this into a foreign policy debate – I just thought that statement (and a few others) were a little curious.
By the way, when I mention the nukes, I don’t mean that to be a point to be proud of. I stated on another blog seven years ago that we’re the only country in history to ever use nuke (for many of the reasons Paul C states) and I hope it never happens again.
52: Okay, I can work work with that. I didn’t mean to spark that particular debate with you, either.
We should have no opinion tp what the government does. The “nuking” of Japan probably saved 1 million lives, however does that justify it?
BTW – Concerning Greg Boyd, what are the strongest attacks against “open theism”? To me it is just a discussion on foreknowledge and free will so why the label heretic?
People like calling those who don’t think exactly like them heretics?
I honestly don’t understand why people make such a big deal about it either. I’ve never understood why Christians spend so much time in circular firing squads.
No it didn’t. It was done after Japan had made their intentions for surrender known. It was intended to send a message to the USSR – plain and simple – and to signal the birth of a new age with ‘ guess-who’ as the undisputed leader.
We can have opinions about what the government does because we live in this world, BUT I agree with your premise that we should not have moral/godly expectations of them, because, they always operate from the stand-point of self interest (ie: go into Iraq to ‘liberate’ while avoiding the Congo, go into Serbia but forget about Rwanda, the list goes on).
My point in addressing Sandman was this: we can have a wrong view of the government and its intentions, attributing good where no good exists. That’s why I also comment on Chris L’s view regarding Iraq.
Interesting how that in scripture, government is ALWAYS typified as an aggressive animal of prey, never a lamb or an animal who only wars in self-defense.
That is inaccurate.
Rick,
There is a 13-part presentation by Boyd on OT on youtube; just put in his name in the search window. He actually does a good job of addressing the points of those who calls him a heretic.
58: Paul, I just want to clarify I don’t hold up any gov’t as an exemplar of Christian virtue. My real point is that many individuals made the ultimate sacrifice in this country for many of the freedoms we (I know you’re in Canada) have today and that should temper some of our statements.
If we were all in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo, I think we may all have a slightly different perspective.
No it’s not. There are TONS of resources behind the point I’m making…
There’s a book called The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth in which the author argues that the atomic bomb was unnecessary to end World War II for the following reasons:
1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor’s personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.
2. Any remaining Japanese reluctance to quit the war would have been quickly overcome by the second step, entry of the Soviet Union in August 1945.
3. American failure to accept and implement this “two-step logic” for an expeditious end to World War II was largely a result of the emerging Cold War and especially American concern over Soviet ambitions in Eastern Europe and northeast Asia.
4. President Harry S. Truman seemed inclined to give assurances on the emperor, then pulled back. He did so out of concern with Soviet behavior and with increasingly firm knowledge that the United States would soon have atomic weapons available. Coming to believe that the bomb would be decisive and anxious to keep the Soviet Union out of Manchuria, he dropped modification of unconditional surrender.
5. Truman also refused to move on Japanese peace feelers, apparently in the belief that it was necessary to prevent a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be demonstrated to the world, and especially to the Soviet Union. The result was the needless destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and many allied casualties that need not have happened.
6. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading “myth” that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.
Sandman – Our perspective is flawed. We as Christians living on a part of the earth called America are supposed to believe God gave us freedom and democracy and air conditioning and medical resources and ice cream but that same God has forgotten the black believer in Darfur?
In many way being a Christian in a land of plenty is more difficult than many other places, unless you assimilate and call it God’s blessings.
Paul – The emperor was intransigent and had to be convinced even after Nagasaki. The threat of another bomb, which we did not have, was another factor.
Most of the “peace overtures” by others contained less than a full surrender. Even the final surrender allowed the emperor, who was a war criminal, to remain.
#63: agree fully (though I live in Canada)
#64: disagree – too much evidence to the contrary, the premise I put forward is nothing new and is widely acknowledged. The theory that the nuclear bomb was needed to make Japan surrender is like saying JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey. It’s the difference between what’s taught in the textbook and what is reality.
Does that “C” in your name stand for conspiratorialist? BTW – I was in the grassy knoll!
not quite…
But when you are force-fed a steady diet of CNN and FoxNews, I can see how the American public can develop a very unbalanced view of what is happening, or has happened in the past.
Just look at the handling of the recent bailout for a clear and simple view of how foolish the Washington thinks its own people are.
Full disclosure: Ottawa (Canada’s capital) has no better view of its people than Washington. The same can be said for virtually all governments nowadays.
Paul, that’s about as fair as saying you’re getting all your information from watching Oliver Stone movies.
BTW, how is MacGregor Ministries faring in Canada these days?
Okay, you balanced it out while I was typing. Thanks.
Actually the declassified documents from Japan indicated that surrender was NOT likely, unless a full conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands was successful. This would have resulted in the loss of 1+ million Japanese lives and potentially a quarter to half a million American lives.
When weighing all options on the table at the time, with the information available, and playing “let’s second-guess history”, I’d have to say yes – regardless of the modern historical revisionism going on right now.
Yeah – I thought about it after hitting ’submit’ – we’re no better. I’m not knocking American citizens, but more so those who manipulate.
Who is that. BTW, when travelling to the US, which I frequently do, it’s not uncommon – upon someone hearing you’re Canadian – for them to state something like:
“Oh my goodness. You’re from Canada? Do you know John?”
Well, when there’s only 23 of you there in the entire country…
#71: Chris L, your comments on Iraq (which I commented on in #44) kind of disqualify the ‘evidence’ you present about the US’s decision to bomb Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Again, when you look at the facts on the table it takes the same amount of faith the believe your proposition as it does to believe Oswald was a lone-wolf assassin.
Haha! Good one Sandman!
Seriously, MM is a counter-cult ministry in BC dealing with losing their tax status because of Canadian law considers what they do hate speech, or something like that.
Yes, well Canada is about as anti-gospel as any European country. There have been a few cases of churches/pastors being threatened for the messages they preach. Meanwhile, Islam is making huge inroads.
BTW, our health system is garbage. Waiting in a hospital waiting room for 4+ hrs before even being admitted is the norm.
Noting Christian involvement in government, I would say:
1) No governments in existence during the NT (or OT) allowed all of its citizens to take an active part in the government;
2) Since (at least for the US) “them” is partly “us”, when speaking of the government, regardless of whether or not we participate by voting/serving, we bear some responsibility in directing it. Abdicating this responsibility seems more like burying your talents in a field than exercising Christian stewardship.
3) Self-defense is a component of Torah, and Jesus did not speak against it, in and of itself – only insofar as it was related to avoiding persecution in his name.
In fact, I would argue that self-defense (including defense of the innocent) was part of ‘providing’ for one’s family and would fall under I Tim 5:8.
#78 – I agree with your thoughts on self-defense (but not with point 2).
But Chris, in today’s propagandized environment (witness the decision to go to war in Iraq for example), where the government carefully plots how to win over its own people through manipulation and deceit mixed nicely with patriotism, before engaging in a war, how do you balance this?
It’s kind of like the Crusades.
NO! NO! NO! Michael Moore said Canada and Cuba should be the models of health care for America.
78) I’ve used that one before and the “incident” at the temple with a guy I encountered who said Jesus was a pacifist.
Like Japan rejecting the Potsdam Declaration?
See Operation Downfall. Actually, though, my numbers were wrong – casualties were estimated at ~1 million Allies and ~10+ million Japanese. It was a sad necessity taken to save lives – both Allied and Japanese.
Your imaginations aside, most respected historians – even more liberal ones – concede that the use of nuclear weapons saved far more lives than they took.
There’s no way to “sell” the Crusades as ’self-defense’.
Hmmm… you link to a site called “American Heritage” and expect to bolster your argument? What do you expect it to say?
You are taking a very insulated view here – but that is to be expected since you said this:
I love those words: murky, self-defense, faulty.
Recommendation: stop watching FoxNews
Defense of the Holy Land from the infidel. Many people felt it was their Christian duty to “defend” the Holy Land and “cleanse” it from the infidel.
There’s no way to sell Iraq – unless by lying and manufacturing facts – as self-defense.
What I am saying is that manipulation is the order of the day. Just as many were manipulated to consider the Crusades a worthy cause, so too with Iraq and other adventures.
See the note on my most recent article:
…
Seeing how it is a well-respected journal that deals w/ American history (not defense of American history), and the author of the article is a history prof at Penn State University (not a conservative institution, by any means), I would expect an actual reading of the article rather an an ad homenim dismissal. But if that helps you to avoid thinking, so be it.
My apologies if support of the Iraq War was so offensive to you. If hindsight was 20-20, we’d all be billionaires.
Your support of the war is not offensive in the least, but what is telling is your generous choice of words to justify your position.
Manipulation was used and we are all victims of it to varying extents.
The source I quoted – and which you handily dismissed – was also a university professor. In addition to that I took a class with a well-respected foreign policy professor who taught the same. You castigate me for not accepting your position, yet do the same? Interesting.
“In fact, I would argue that self-defense (including defense of the innocent) was part of ‘providing’ for one’s family and would fall under I Tim 5:8.”
Wow, canopy exegesis. That gives a fresh definition to a “stretch”. Murder is OK when it is self defense OR when the government says it is self defense. I feel better now.
Paul C, with all due respect, there is enough propaganda that comes from both sides of the fence. Be it the liberal side/conservative side post war pundits and pre war pundits, should have bombed Japan, shouldn’t have bombed Japan. We ALL are guilty of siding with our favorite views.
If history has taught us anything it’s how quickly the revisionist show up, on BOTH sides! Most of it just being politics!
Speaking in the natural, we lost 90,000 men in the Pacific theatre. The estimated losses for a Japanese invasion were over 1 million Americans and 2-3 million Japanese.
In a wierd way the bomb saved lives. I do not think there is any impartial and reliable information that suggests the emperor was ready to surrender before Aug.6, 1945.
Chris L: from the same site you linked to re JFK:
I think that pretty much settles the validity of that site.
My link dealt rather convincingly with each of the points you’ve listed. While you might argue that history always sides with the winners, we’ve no limit to the self-flagellation and lopsided criticism of American history from post-60’s universities. Still, though, when examined realistically, the scenario you’ve outlined for 1945 is little more than a illogical and non-existent fantasy that ignores the bolus of information available in June – August 1945 and ignores basic scholarship, eyewitness accounts and memoirs of those directly involved with the decisions made.
What? That it has at least one article that agrees with the official conclusion of the investigation into the assassination, along with numerous investigations since then?
I go back to one of my more favorite Goldberg quotes:
Most conspiracy theories are bunk, and make far too many wild assumptions (often based upon hindsight and natural ‘irregularities’ with real-life situations). They are also far more interesting and easy to believe than official conclusions. Personally, I’d like to believe that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination, along with a drug-cartel conspiracy w/ Clinton in Mena, Arkansas, and that Vince Foster was murdered, etc., etc., but that just doesn’t jibe with what can be proven – or with the inability of most people to keep secrets all the way to the grave.
It is Biblically incongruous to support any war except the one coming led be the General on a white horse. Treating innocent casualties as unfortunate residuals is against all the teachings of Christ and the overall flavor of the New Testament.
Even the OT God would have spared Sodom if there had been a handful of righteous.
Oswald only had one accomplice – J.W. Booth. He was noticeable by a distinct limp.
You make an even bigger mistake when you ignore evidence right in front of you. That’s what you seem to be doing.
Here are two clear examples:
1. the justification of the Iraq War
2. the handling of the bailout
You simply seek to destroy a viewpoint by making it ridiculous and lumping the most asinine conspiracy theories in with relevant and well-regarded evidence against your viewpoints. Classic.
Paul – I would suggest your examples are light years from the JFK assasination.
This just in:
Osawald acted alone and nobody cares.
Well, what the examples suggest is that – contrary to Chris L’s view that the government is made up of a bunch of bumbling idiots – they sure do a good job of managing their citizens, using the media and all manner of stuff at their disposal.
Also, the reason I quoted the Oswald article was to show that you can link to anything – valid or invalid – to support your point. Chris did just that.
Your view of government is…well…refreshing.
Here is a great idea for a church service to celebrate America.
Paul C said: I love those words: murky, self-defense, faulty.
Recommendation: stop watching FoxNews
Yeah, when I read what Chris L said about self-defense I almost thought he was being sarcastic. I’m astonished at the profound ignorance of such a comment.
Back to the OP: Chris, I agree with your points made in the actual post. Righteous judgment is required in situations like this.
DMac –
I realize that I’m in the minority (even among the writers) in supporting the Iraq war. I won’t apologize for it. I just happen to believe in the doctrine of ‘just war’, and think most of the critics are operating with 20-20 hindsight (or, more accurately, 20-40 hindsight).
Funny – I also believe in ‘just war’ – with ‘just’ being the operative word.
I am not a pacifist and believe in self-defense. Ask any man or father what he would do if someone broke into his house and put his family at risk, and he has the means to stop it. We all believe in ‘just’ war and self-defense when the rubber meets the road.
My position is this: nowadays a just war is never in the self-interest of the powers that be. War is typically waged where there is gain to be had or perceived to be had (ie: Iraq). Months before the actual war is waged, an in-depth marketing blitz is waged – a modern weapon of warfare understood all to well – to rally the gullible public. Iraq was not a just war and I think that is the problem people are finding in your position Chris L.
Granted, hindsight grants us 20/20, but at least once the light has be shone, it should adjust your previously held position.
I was just reading an article I wrote in 2003: War
I think my position at the time of this writing is still the same.
Chris L mentions ‘just war’ and this statement I made jumped out at me:
The “just way” theory is illogocal since the “just” part is wholly dependent upon the subjective, impure, and media manipulated motives of fallen men. That equation seems to have worked on millions, including many who are otherwise more circumspect concerning such things.
Residual partiotism combined with the fear generated by media hysteria produces support for the unsupportable. How can we say the New Testament teaches God’s support for “just wars”? There seems to be such doctrinal mischief entering in through the wide open gate of Romans 13.
Was the US just in selling Iraq much of the weaponry they had? How about selling both Iraq and Iran billions of dollars of war equipment (just in case a just war broke out)? We have helped supply many “just wars” around the world. That “just war” philosophy is just that, a man made philosophy that dilutes the essence of radical Christianity and makes the Christian a patriot who happens to be Christian.
To belive God endorses just wars you must place God on the side of certain nations and you must believe God tells people which wars are just. Goofy.
If you believe in just wars then you must believe the United States is unjust since they refused to enter these wars:
Rwanda – 1,000,000 deaths
Angola – 500,000 deaths
Congo – 390,000 deaths
Darfur – 250,000 deaths
Uganda – 200,000 deaths (high rate of children)
Burundi – 300,000 deaths
Liberis and Sierra Leone – 400,000 deaths
and more.
Apperantly no one considered these wars just enough to enter. A calm, impartial, and thorough assessment, including anationalistic view, will ultimately lead you to the conclusion that not only is America looking out for itself, God is not interested in endorsing any “just wars”. The pastor of the church I was attending preached this sermon just before attacking Iraq:
“It’s Right to Fight When the Fight is Right”
It elicited much patriotism but was a disgrace to the cause of Christ. Even on a secular level I find it amazing how anyone can trust Cheney and Rumsfeld who masterminded the entire thing. Bush did not need much convincing since he already had it out for Hussein.
The Christian cannot Biblically support any war.
Careful Rick that type of factual debate will get you shouted down. Even if I agree…:)
If I was up for a fight I would mention that.
a) We supported the Shah of Iran
b) When the Aytollahs overthrew the Shah
c) We supported/propped up Hussein in Iraq
d) Only to give weapons to Iran
e) Which pissed off Iraq
f) Which then invaded Kuwait
g) So we swooped in to beat back Iraq
h) who was developing weapons of mass destruction
i) Hussein was killed.
Our ‘just’ war came out of ‘unjust’ policies for a region that has a long history of mistrust of the U.S.
Since I’m not up for a fight I will just go back into hiding.
I had some foresight especially when the President called for the elimination of the “axis of evil”. How’d all that work out?
Iraq is a mess, Iran more unstable than it was 10 years ago, and North Korea is launching missiles into the ocean. Hmmmm…great speech Bush!
We get freaked out when Ahmadinejad calls for the elimination of Israel and call him evil but when our President calls for the elimination of the axis of evil we call it ‘just’.
Both is crazy talk in my world.
War is evil without exception. We all roundly accuse the ODMs of bringing an Old Testament view of God into the New Testament and some of that is valid, however when we say things like “just war” we are guilty of the same.
It is on some level impossible to understand some of the things God did in the Old Testament, however we can be sure God has spoken to us in these last days by and through Jesus Christ. Read the gospels and find the “just wars” doctrine.
Everyone feels their wars are “just”.
Let us ask a pertinent question. Do we look at China (for example) as a monolithic entity where everyone must suffer and be killed because of the actions of a few. Since less than 1% rule and manipulate the entire country does that make everyone culpable?
Is that how God views the world, separated by national origin? So are the well over 100,000 dead Iraqi’s, tens of thousands of widows, tens of thousands of weeping mothers, and the 200,000 wounded Iraqi’s responsible for the actions of Hussein and his entourage? The tortured machinations of nationalistic motivations throughout the world continue to bring hatred and confusion among all peoples. We as followers of Jesus Christ should not be a part of that kingdom at all. We should be the ministers of reconciliation and the repairers of the breach among all people.
The assimmilation into the American culture and the patriotic perspective has devastated the spiritual essence of the body of Christ in America. It is time we come out from among them and be separate. Not with an air of superiority and not with a disdain for America, but with the peaceful wisdom about who we really are and what our calling really is.
It is people like Ingrid Schlueter who tout America as God’s creation of a Christian witness and who support “just wars”.
There is coming a day when the lion will lay down with the lamb, and when the swords will become plowshares. This is not some future even we as believers look forward to but act against it until it arrives. This is the template we must be harnessed to, even if it seems radical and outside the mainstream of American Christian thought.
Stop for a moment and just briefly entertain the thought that everything we have come to accept as truth concerning the subject is wrong, and most of what we’ve been taught and what we’ve heard has been completley wrong. Think what Jesus would actually do if He lived in one country or another. Would he take upon Himself their nationality, or would He be a shining light from another kingdom?
Perhaps there is another spiritual awakening “emerging” in the body of Christ who has mistakenly hooked their wagon to the wrong horse. I honestly feel it has significantly altered the will of God for the western church. The most vibrant and prayerful indigenous church, the church in China, has never tethered their hearts and affections to their country.
We should follow suit.
Can I use this in my sermon on Sunday?
Well said, good sir.
Sure, Chris, but be careful. Touching that subject usually activates a protectionism in some people. Many believers take more offense concerning their misguided patriotism than almost any other subject.
If we are to fight wars we would be at war always, since their are always people suffering oppression. I refer you to this quote from Phil in comment #29:
That is a profound statement. The violent act of redemption on Golgotha was to put an end to violent redemption or deliverence. Remember, Golgatha was one by the One who surrendered.
Should be:
“Remember, Golgatha was won by the One who surrendered.”
Well that’s why I was going to attribute it to you. If I get back lash I will merely say “Take it up with Rick”.
Rick is a psuedonym, my real name is Chris Lyons.
I have supported our actions in Iraq also, Chris. But, once Hussein was toppled, the execution of the war went downhill. We have stayed too long.
I don’t think we need to get into a long debate about it, just didn’t want Chris to hang alone on this one.
Scotty – Let me be clear, I admire your service and your willingness to place your life on the line for something you believe in. I just disagree with the premise as a believer.
My views should not be taken as demeaning of those who have fought in wars.
LOL!! I didn’t go willingly!!! They TOOK me, kickin’ and screamin’!!
That’s not to demean what you said Rick, just makin’ light of my NON-volunteer status.
Rick,
“Just War” doctrine has four components:
I believe that the Iraq War met all four criteria, particularly in light of the information available at the time. The (apparent) lack of WMD’s in Iraq after the invasion only throws doubt on #2, in my view.
You’ve listed other conflict situations which do not negate Iraq, but just beg the question on what other ‘just war’ situations might exist and whether or not the US should be involved in them. “Was the US complicit in the Iraq mess in the first place?” Certainly, and in some respects it was already ‘our mess to clean up’ by the time 2003 rolled around, and by then we were a few decades late in fixing it.
I would also note that in many of the African conflicts, neither #1 or #3 are met – they have been Civil Wars in which foreign intervention would have little chance of success.
The NT allows both for self-defense and for defense of the defenseless. Where self-defense is not proscribed is in direct response to religious persecution.
To each his own, but this isn’t essential doctrine, nor is it explicit anywhere in scripture.
As I noted, I’m rather sure I’m in the minority on this one, but – in the vein of ‘a stopped clock is right twice a day’ – I happen to agree with the tendency of Fundamentalists to support US military action, even though I believe they often go WAY too far in mixing patriotism and religion.
“Just war” is a formal doctrine – with roots back to St. Augustine of Hipo and St. Thomas Aquinas, not a modern turn of phrase. Many – most – wars are not “just”. Wars of conquest are automatically ‘unjust’, by definition. And very few meet all four of the criteria.
Agreed. Sometimes, though, it is the choice of the lesser of evils that leads to war. Truman and his generals, for instance, saw (rightly, IMO) that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the lesser of multiple evils (invasion of the Japanese homeland, protracted blockade/bombing, negotiated settlement that left Japanese empirical power in place).
Nice ad homenim, but thoroughly irrelevant (and ignorant of ‘just war’ doctrine).
But I’ve probably interrupted your Anti-American tirade enough for now.
Please continue.
Scotty:
Thank you, Scotty. I agree that the post-Hussein execution of the war was undermanned and underplanned (which gets to point #3 of ‘just war’ doctrine).
Although the four components of a just war are human contrivances, the Iraq war meets none of them.
Chris – See how Chris L. categorizes my views as Anti-American? That reactionism is prevelant in the church. I am not “anti-American”, I am pro-Christ.
Iraq fits this line more than it does any of the 4 points you outlined as part of the doctrine.
Now, strip away your formal doctrinal points, and look at the word ‘just’:
The only ‘just’ war that has occured in the recent past was the decision to halt Hitler.
That reaction has nothing to do with support (or lack thereof) for the war – just your general disdain for the country which protects the freedoms you enjoy (including the ability to comfortably sit in air-conditioning and b*itch about it online).
If we’re an occupying force, or if Iraq has become the 51st state in 10 years, give me a call. Otherwise, not so much…
Questioning patriotism in the context of Christian behavior often arouses emotional responses that are illogical and incongruous with the principle being discussed.
Rick – a question so I can understand where you’re coming from:
Looking at Israel since 1948, how would you have suggested they respond when they were attacked on several occasions? What would have been the correct response from your standpoint?
I have no opinion other than to say God is capable of using imperfect methods to accomplish His perfect will.
Other than that, I have no divine insight into your question.
Rick – not trying to trap you here – I’m just trying to understand how you view self-defense as I get the sense that even this is not acceptable in your view. I may be wrong.
I am not asking for divine insight, but just your opinion in light of your comments in this thread.
Wait a sec, now I see the dilemma – asking Rick for his opinion and divine insight are one and the same! You know I’m just kidding Rick
I have never been able to discern a Scriptural teaching concerning self defense as it pertains to the believer. Israel will have a part in God’s end time redemption as they believe on Christ, but that does not mean everything they do is correct.
Most of the people who dwell in Israel are lost Christ deniers today.
Yes, I agree with you. I just chose Israel out of the blue – not because they are God’s chosen people. The question is more along the lines: if a country is aggressively invaded what is the right/just response?
Or…
If someone breaks into your home and threatens your family and you have the means to halt the attack/rape, what is the correct response from a Christian standpoint?
It is easy for us to comment from a position of safety and theorize all day long, but in the real world, what would your advice be to the invaded country or how would you respond in the second example (home brake-in)?
I wonder if we would be having this discussion if, say, it had been a liberal (which is not to suggest that President Bush was a conservative) who had led the war against Iraq?
I wonder if we would be having this discussion if, say, Brazil had been at the forefront of the leadership in the war instead of the USA?
I wonder if we would be having this discussion if, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia had led the war against Iraq?
There is no such thing as a ‘just war’. All war, regardless of its origin is the by-product of sin and the fall. It is stupid and damnable. It is contrary to the peace of Christ. And it will continue…as will this debate.
And once again I’ll say it this way: Just because the church in the USA ‘benefits’ from the protection of the federal government doesn’t mean the government is acting on our behalf as the church. We are citizens here and we ‘benefit’ as a by-product of that citizenship. And each man’s conscience will determine how far he can allow the co-mingling of his citizenship in ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’.
The church doesn’t control the government and, frankly, it shouldn’t even if there are some christian folks in government. And yet, there is a war going on in this world…and we may not fight it in the flesh, or we might, but pacifism is not an option for the Christian. And I’m sorry to all of you who think that the Christian can afford to sit back and not play a role in this war.
Hussein was brought to justice and he should have been. 14-15 or a 100 UN directives or proclamations or whatever they are called seems to indicate that many others thought he should have been too. Thank God someone had the sack to do what all those papers said should have done.
But to suggest that because there was some logistical errors after his dethronement means the war should not have been fought is pointless. As if any war is that predictable, as if any war goes off without a hitch. I’ve read enough WWII history to know that not everything goes as planned.
I don’t think we would have this conversation if George W Bush hadn’t made statements about his faith. If he had been purely secular, this would be a moot point.
I do not believe a Christian should have any views on the conduct of any government. Our calling is the gospel and the sinful, self serving acts of nations only seek to divert us from our task.
(This was written in an air conditioned safe house)
OK Rick – I can accept that and anticipated as much, which is why I gave 2 options (a nation attacked or a home attacked). Forget the national aspect, what about the home?
In the real world, what is the just Christian response? How would you react if your wife and daughter(s) were at risk?
BTW, I just tracked the IP address at the safe house you are posting from: we know where you are
I’m going for a head shot…..
Re: 134
It’s my understanding that they scorched LBJ pretty good for Vietnam, even though he was one of our most liberal Presidents.
#139
Nixon got the most heat for Vietnam and he’s the one that got us out of it. And it was Kennedy that got us the most involved.
I think to say that pacifism necessarily means total disengagement is not reflective of the history of pacifisim (or peace-making as I prefer it to be called.)
Many a Quaker was active around battle zones throughout the years, dying as “collateral damage”, as they ministered to the wounded, soldiers, etc. etc. etc.
It’s not that Christians should high tail it away from a war, the point of Christian peace making is the belief Christians should not have any active role in perpetuating the violence or laying their hand to that violence.
Just say’n as a point of clarification…and as an alternative…there are many ways Christians can be involved…
I know, I know…I’m the one who talked about mulberry bushes…
Paul,
If faced with those circumstances I would not act in accordance with my views. I most likely would be a hypocrite.
Rick – I appreciate and respect that answer, as I do your views.
But is protecting your family, even if it leads to the death of the aggressor, a sin if your intent is not to murder, but rather to preserve life and the innocent? By saying you’d be a hypocrite, it sounds like you do.
It is one thing – as Chris L’s “head shot” illustration seems to reflect – to take pleasure in the act, and quite another to take a necessary action that may result in death. I guess I’m saying, motives are important here.
Motives are a moot point when the only option one has, is to react.
Faced with a life or death situation, one doesn’t have the time to mull over motives.
I guess restraint short of murder would be acceptable. I believe it is a sin to murder, which includes killing. It would be a sin to murder people to save a martyr from death.
But even if some claim the war exception, how can murdering people over taxes be right? Or how can we as Christian justify preemptive murders to prevent someone from doing something he might do?
With that logic we are no better than humanistic survivalists.
There is no doubt that murder is a sin. I do not believe that killing in self-defense in murder.
Not sure where murdering people over taxes comes in to play here.
I agree with your premise that when it comes to pre-emptive strikes (like Iraq for example) it is nearly impossible for us – as lowly citizens – to make any informed decision because of the media bias and lies fed to us. It’s best to focus our efforts on the Kingdom of God rather than the kingdoms of this world.
Here’s an interesting thought, as it pertains to Jesus’ prayer to leave us in the world, but that we would be kept from the evil:
An ocean fish lives its entire life in the ocean, full of salt, with saltwater running over his gills. But when you catch one, and cook it, you need to put salt on it to bring out the flavor because the ocean salt never got on the inside.
My reference to taxes was the Revolutionary War which many Christians believe was of God, even if many people were killed over taxes.
How can a Christian believe that if a country seems to be “planning” some mischief we are justified in killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens just because their leader “might” do something?
Especially when a government decides it is going to war AND THEN decides to find ‘evidence’ to prop up their position, invoke God and then sell it to their citizens.
But when it comes to warlords like Joseph Kony (Uganda), I personally see nothing wrong with eliminating him – by any means necessary. Unfortunately, there’s nothing to be gained in northern Uganda, so who cares?
I see that phrase bantered about so much.(and variations of the same) Yet, in the circles I frequent, I don’t see that mindset. And, from my observations of the internet and news sources, those that hold to that view seem to be in the minority.
National identity combined with a competitive spirit and nurtured over generations is a deep seated idolatry that is difficult to recognize, much less of which to be delivered.
To me, this kind of runs parallel to breaking the Sabbath to rescue the ox.
Could anything have been done to help Sherrice Iverson?
What if Rick, for example, weren’t around, but there were several able-bodied bystanders capable of repelling such a threat but chose not to because:
One didn’t know any of the intended victims, so it wouldn’t be worth the effort
One didn’t want to be seen as butting in someone else’s business
Another didn’t believe it was Christian to use violence to stop violence
Yet another didn’t think it was right to call for help, because “snitches get stitches”
Just as Paul C talks about the seeming global indifference shown toward Rwanda, Uganda, etc. (lots of words, little action), there is some cherry-picking going on.
I don’t see killing and murder being equivalent. Totally different words in Hebrew and the inspired KJV translators got it wrong.
I think when it comes to military or civil service or in our everyday lives, we have to recognize doing the right thing may not always be the Christian thing. Whether it’s a sin of commission or omission, we’re going to get our hands dirty. It’s always good to pray for wisdom in those matters, and maybe not every situation can be handled the same way. But also let it be settled in your own mind what you would or would not do, and not spend much time grieving others about what they’d do.
Sandman – It is very difficult to see where the axehead fell when we have been raised in a violent society, complete with toy guns, violent cartoons, violent sports, video game violence, and even violent “cowboys and Indians” games.
Now on top of all that cultural indoctrination, we have been taught by our parents, clergy, Christian schools, and Christian literature that it is not only desirable to be a patriot, it is a Christian duty to a Christian nation. And when war breaks out, we as believers must defend this God ordained nation.
Rumsfeld’s memos to Bush that contained Bible verses meant to coincide with the Iraq war are well within mainstream evangelical thought. I suggest you take just 6 months and do an intensive study of the Scriptures concerning this question, and with a personally invasive inventory of the validity of your own perspectives. I did this for two years without reading a single book on the subject.
I openly believe that nationalism is idolatry and that Christ clearly teaches pacifism. I am always met with less than opened arm enthusiasm on the subject.
Maybe this article will shed some light on how the world views our
holy crusade‘just war’http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm
I don’t see the correlation with that article and what I typed.
I don’t give much credence to Op Eds that have statements like “Those close to Bush say…..”Give me some names.
From what I read, Rumfeld’s office denied having anything to do with those memos. It came from within the ranks in the military and it was never distributed beyond the Generals and their staff within the Pentagon.
It’s amazing how things like that grow legs and with a little research one finds other answers. But as human nature is, we’d rather cling to the worse case scenario.
Scotty – Show me where Rumsfeld denied this.
I may have misunderstood what you were stating. I only shared that article to show that most of the world sees a very different attitude towards are ‘just’ war.
I’m not of the mind that the U.S. always has the purest of motives when it comes to foreign policy. Nor do I think that other countries should automatically understand that Bush, in his utterances about God, is NOT implying that God is on our side. Because if I didn’t know better it sure sounds like “God loves us and hates you”. After all if Ahmadinejad had said “Allah wants to make us victorious” we would label him an extremist and call it Holy War.
Chris – I am calling a foul on you being overly poignant.
Nationalism is a form of geographical narcissism.
Here’s one link of interest Rick, they are quoting one of Rummy’s aides here
I’ve got a few more if I can find ‘em
You may be right, I was complaining about broad brushing. I should have been more clear. In reference to:
I’m sorry next time I’ll beat around the bush. Pun absolutely intended.
Back to Genesis
Rick, I either never had that problem, or rejected the conditioning completely while in school. I told my teachers in fact that I could tell them whatever they needed to hear or read from me to ace the class, but that it didn’t mean I was going to internalize and embrace it.
I admonished a pair of Mormons who came to my home against using the Bible as a book of independent verses stripped of their historical context. You can wind up with some very bad doctrine misapplying verses or daisy-chaining one verse to another.
“Eat, drink and be merry.”
“There is no God.”
“Judas hanged himself … go thou and do likewise.”
(I have no problem with the war, just some of the ways people tried to shoehorn it into the Bible.)
Do you believe the same about having an enthusiastic admiration for, or being a fan(atic) of a certain college football team from South Bend?