Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective

Lew Rockwell ^ | 11/23/01 | Ron McKenzie

[Ada Coddington]

For your information, we Presbyterians do not believe that the nation of Israel are the spiritual decendants of Abraham. Abraham's spiritual decendants are based on faith not on genetic lineage (read Romans Ch 9, and Hebrews Ch 11), otherwise they would only be physical decendants. The church (Christians) are reckoned to be the spiritual decendants of Abraham (Romans 9).

I guess I did not make myself clear: Israel is the spiritual decendents of Abraham not the genetic lineage.

[Ada Coddington]

So what are we supposed to do, Rollover and play dead? Or, more accurately, Rollover and be dead?

I infer we are not to make war on those who did not attack us. Rather we should treat the attacks as a criminal matter.

[Ada Coddington]

look, you ignorant fool, we aren't attacking all Afghanis, just the Taliban.

You can't tell the difference and neither can the daisy cutters. Secondly, the Taliban did not attack us.

[Ada Coddington]

I justify it in this sense: we are defending ourselves, and we are doing our duty being a terror to evil-doers. Anybody who is against this war is un-American and a heretic of the Christian faith for being a Pacifist.

As the Afghanis (or the Taliban if you prefer) did not attack you, you cannot claim to be defending yourself against them. You might be able to claim "defense" if you attacked Saudi Arabia, Egypt or even Spain.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Secondly, the Taliban did not attack us.

They clearly sponsored this action.

[He Rides A White Horse]

"These people" are not Afghanis but Saudis and Egytians. Something, though, had to be done and we had already planned to replace the Taliban, so we chose the convenient response.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

The whole world, and indeed the Afghan people will be much better off without these Nazies.

I realize that the above word is bandied about quite a bit on FR, but I assure you they have earned this description.

It is a government that marches in, subjugates the people of the land, then believes it can launch attacks with impunity against whomever they feel like........all the while putting up feeble protestations as to how our campaign is terrorizing the very people they have tortured beyond belief.

[rwfromkansas]

BS! Bin Laden is sheltered (he actually was a Taliban military leader) by teh Taliban.

[Ada Coddington]

BS! Bin Laden is sheltered (he actually was a Taliban military leader) by teh Taliban.

No question of it but that does not justify killing the Taliban. The Spainards tell us they have the actual terrorists but will not extradite them. The actual people responsible for 911 as opposed to a suspect and they are even less cooperative than the Taliban. When are you going to send the daily cutters to Madrid?

[DreamWeaver]

Could you be more specific? Are you saying this verse agrees with my position? Or disagrees? I think the verse agrees.

Yes, the verse I quoted agrees.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Your perspective..... 102 posted on 11/23/01 7:12 PM Pacific by He Rides A White Horse

I agree with almost all of McKenzie's points. My agreements, with any reservations, are posted below:

• 1.War is only justified for defence (Romans 13:1-8).... This is a fundamental principle. -- 100% correct.
• 2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures. -- 100% correct.
• 3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army"(Deut 17:16; 1 Kings 10:26-29)...... 4.The defence force should take the form of a part-time local militia. The central command structure may be full-time professional so that the defence of the nation can be well organised (Deut 20:5). However, most of the soldiers will be trained civilians who can be called up when a defence force is needed. -- These points correct, provided that they are conjoined. The primary Defense ought be the voluntary militia, but having a full-time core of military professionals is every bit as sensible as having a full-time County Sheriff who can Deputize civilians as needed.
• 5.The militia should be up made of volunteers. Anyone who is faint-hearted or afraid should not be forced to fight (Deut 20:5-9). People who are at a critical stage in their lives should not be forced into military service. For example, men who have recently married, started building a house or started a business should be freed from service, because they would not be focused on the battle. -- 100%, and I would even extend the point further... the militia should always be voluntary. A Citizenry which will not rise to the defense of its neighbors is a Citizenry which has lost all sense of Duty, Honor, and Charity... and deserves the Judgment of Destruction which invaders will visit upon it. A Civilization worth defending, on the other hand, will never lack for Patriots who love her.
• 6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16). -- Naive, and wrong. Modern Warfighting admits of little distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" weaponry -- a Main Battle Tank is considered to be an "offensive" weapon, but as Von Manstein repeatedly demonstrated on the steppes of Russia, the cornerstone of a good defense is often an effective counter-offensive. While the Biblical-Israelite prohibition on an extensive cavalry-and-chariot corps made sense in Hebrew Kingdom days (when the only reason for maintaining large, expensive companies of calvary and chariot was the determination to embark on Offensive War, or to maintain a large Empire), these days, the distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" weaponry is more constitutional then technological. And the author has already addressed the "Constitutional" methodology, by proposing a small professional Army bolstered by a large voluntary Militia (an organization which will tend to be Defensive by nature).
• 7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. -- and the State should leave Private Adventurers to fight their own wars. If Multinational Companies wish to defend their economic interests overseas, let them contract private mercenary operatives to do so, and not stick the Citizenry with the tab. Ross Perot had the honor to do exactly that with EDS employees in Iran in 1979... and incidentally, his private mercenaries did a much better job protecting EDS employees, than did the Federal Government of protecting US Citizens at the Embassy.
• 8.War should always be the last resort. Before declaring war, the civil government should try every means possible to obtain peace (Deut 20:10). -- 100% correct.
• 9.A Christian nation should always seek God’s will before declaring war. -- 100% correct.
• 10.A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance of success. -- 100% correct... AND, it merits a post of its own on the question of "Christian Martyrdom" vs. "Christian Militance". In War, sometimes the Moral thing to do is take a bullet for your comrades; sometimes the Moral thing to do is damn the casualties, and sound the Charge. If you are already on the side of Moral Principle, then the question is not one of "sacrifice vs. resistance", but of prudence. Sometimes, Martyrdom is the most prudent way of protecting your family, or your platoon-mates. Sometimes, ferocious resistance is the most prudent course. It's not a question of "principle"; Moral Principle (in the case of a Just War) is already on your side. It's often a simple question of Ability (to resist). (observation occasioned by my observations of a recent dust-up between Lurker and Cultural Jihad, where Lurker was advocating resistance to State, and CJ was advocating subservience... as I said, deserves a post of its own)

Best,
The Orthodox Presbyterian (FReeper formerly known as "Uriel1975" -- these days I post almost entirely on religious or quasi-religious subjects, so I felt like a suitable name-change)

[He Rides A White Horse]

What do you make of post 76, then?........it seems clear to me that this is an offensive action being undertaken.

I understand the points being made regarding blatant aggression, but well, I suppose a good example would be the current situation in Afghanistan.........

[He Rides A White Horse]

I suppose what I am posing to you is this:

Do you see where it is prudent to carry a fight to an enemy on his soil? Do you consider an attack against a foreign power's infrastructure, etc. a correct thing to do? Or do we simply defend against them when they arrive on our shores? Please clarify.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

What do you make of post 76, then?........it seems clear to me that this is an offensive action being undertaken.

From the article:

The nation of Israel conquered and destroyed the Canaanite nations. This was only done after a specific and direct command from God (Deut 7:1,2). This was a special case where God had a specific purpose in terms of the salvation he planned for Israel. It is not an example that can be followed by Christians or a Christian nation. We should not use war to win people for the gospel.

Re: #76, I would concur with the author.

In the history of the world, one small plot of land was specifically allocated by God to one Covenantal Union, the Levitical Republic (later, kingdom) of Israel. The military actions taken by the Israelites in conquest of that plot of land was, theonomically, a matter of theocratic "self-defense". (It was *their* Land. God said so).

This case has no reference to Christian military theology.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Okay, O-P. Hmmm. Opie. I better stop now....

Nah, go right ahead.

I discovered some months ago that some of my detractors had taken to referring to me as "Urinal1975". LOL!! As playground taunts go, I think I prefer "Opie" to "Urinal1975". Fire away. ;-)

[nmh]

AHem, you need to get to know the NEW Testament. The OLD Testament, which you constantly quote is directed to our Jewish friends. Unless you are Jewish, it doesn't apply in the manner you use it.

As for Christians going to war, geesh, if the U.S. didn't go to war more Jews would have been gassed and England would be saying Heil Hitler. Honestly, instead of doing a copy/paste of someone elses thoughts, THINK nad get to know the NEW Testament! Then you can understand what Christianity is all about.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I suppose what I am posing to you is this: Do you see where it is prudent to carry a fight to an enemy on his soil? Do you consider an attack against a foreign power's infrastructure, etc. a correct thing to do? Or do we simply defend against them when they arrive on our shores? Please clarify. 152 posted on 11/26/01 6:27 PM Pacific by He Rides A White Horse

Yes. The State's Covenantal Duty is to kill murderers. If that requires "invading" their territory... well, they are murderers, fer-cryin-out-loud.

That does not always mean that this is the best option in terms of prudence (though it often is); but beyond that, it certainly does not mean that it is always the best option, once one has ventured into the rat's nest with a bottle full of "just war" rat-poison, to then stay and take up residence there.

In My Humble Opinion, the Middle East is a rat's nest. Once we have killed the offending rats in question, I would just as soon leave. My copy of the Constitution expects the Federal Government to guarantee a "republican form of Government" to the States; it says nothing whatsoever about madly attempting to guarantee a republican form of Government to Afghanistan!!!

[He Rides A White Horse]

9.A Christian nation should always seek God’s will before declaring war.

I couldn't agree more. I wasn't of naked acts of aggression, nor was I speaking of the forcible conversion of a populace to my beliefs. "Believe in my God, or I'll cut your head off" just doesn't strike me as a valid mechanism to gain converts. Anyway.........

I believe we are on the same page, for the most part. I'm off to watch the Buccaneers wage war on the Rams (or vice versa). If you have more, I'll post back later.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I believe we are on the same page, for the most part.

I think so too. God bless, and enjoy the game.

[Ada Coddington]

AHem, you need to get to know the NEW Testament. The OLD Testament, which you constantly quote is directed to our Jewish friends. Unless you are Jewish, it doesn't apply in the manner you use it.The author is a Presbyterian minister, and they regard the OT and the NT equally. The Bible is a seamless book.

As for Christians going to war, geesh, if the U.S. didn't go to war more Jews would have been gassed and England would be saying Heil Hitler. Honestly, instead of doing a copy/paste of someone elses thoughts, THINK nad get to know the NEW Testament! Then you can understand what Christianity is all about.

I don't think we can say what would have happened if we had not intervened--a case can be made, for instance, that Eastern Europe would still be Christian.