Posted on 11/23/2001 4:03:53 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective
by Ron McKenzie
A key responsibility of the civil government is to protect its citizens from attack by wrongdoers. This involves punishing those who break the law. It also involves defending the nation from every external attacker, including nations, other groups of people or dangerous pests and diseases. All these responsibilities are encompassed in the power of the sword (Romans 13:1-8). Therefore, pacifism is not a Christian option.
The Bible gives a nation the right of self-defence. However there are a number of principles which should control the civil government’s exercise of this authority in the fulfilment of its responsibilities.
1.War is only justified for defence (Romans 13:1-8). It should not be used to expand a nation's boundaries, or to take control of another nation, or to extract trade advantages. This is a fundamental principle. A nation should never need to establish military domination in another region or nation.
2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures. 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. (We should be honest and admit that the crusades were a mistake, however well-intentioned the crusaders may have been).
3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army"(Deut 17:16; 1 Kings 10:26-29). An army that is constantly training for war is dangerous, because it will be tempted to find a situation where it can use its skills. The military should not be given too much political power, as they will have a tendency to use war to solve all problems.
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. As they have other interests there will be no danger of them becoming over militant and fighting unnecessary wars. However, because they will be defending their families and friends they will be highly motivated if they are needed. They will be well prepared, but they will be only rarely called upon to fight.
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.
6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16). God forbade the king from acquiring great numbers of horses for himself. The reason for this was that horses and chariots, at that time, were offensive weapons used for attacking other nations. The defence of the nation would not need large numbers of them. A modern defence force should choose weapons that are best for defensive purposes.
7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. Individuals or companies do not have the authority to commit a nation to war. Any declaration of war must be in accordance with correct legal processes (Deut 20:10).
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). We should never forget the horror of war. It is always costly in terms of human suffering. Christians should never glorify war. While it is an honour for a man to give his life to defend his family and community, war is never an ideal solution. A Christian government should be prepared for war, if it is attacked, but it should also hope that it would never have to fight.
9.A Christian nation should always seek God’s will before declaring war. A nation going to war, because it thinks it is right, is being presumptuous (Deut 1:41-44). Presumption is a terrible sin. If the war has God’s blessing, the army is more likely to have success.
10.A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance of success. Jesus said that before a king goes to war, he should sit down and consider whether he can match the army that is coming against him. If not he will send a delegation to ask for terms of peace (Luke 14:31-32), even if this involves a loss of freedom. For Christians freedom is not an absolute value. It may be better to lose freedom to govern, than to lose a large number of lives in an unsuccessful defence. In fact, because Jesus has set us free, we cannot lose our freedom.
Two things should always be remembered,
a.Christianity can survive under extremely hostile environments. It was born in the hostile world of the Roman Empire. In our own time, Christianity has blossomed under the hostility of both the Soviet Union and Communist China. Therefore, Christianity will never be dependent on winning a war for its survival. If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. b.It is God who determines the appointed times of the nations and the boundaries of there habitations. (Acts 17:26, cf Job 12:23, Deut 32:8) If a nation is invaded by another and this is not God’s will, he will not allow the situation to last long. For example, after the Second World War, the Russian Empire took control of most of Eastern Europe. However, because this was contrary to God’s will, that empire had collapsed within fifty years. If a nation is unable to defend itself, all is not lost; God will have his way in the end.
Counting the cost of war, is not just a matter of estimating how many soldiers will be lost. The full cost of the war should be counted. There are generally very few winners in war. The cost for the families of those who die is enormous. For the soldiers who survive the cost can also be high. Many will have injuries that blight their lives. Worse still, war has a desensitising effect on its participants, and good men can be drawn into doing great evil. They will have to live with there consciences. War is also an enormous waste of economic resources. There are actually very few situations serious enough to justify the enormous costs of war.
11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one. A good example of this is Gideon, who defeated a large Midianite army with 300 unarmed men (Judges 7). However, this promise should not be used as a justification for foolish wars.
12.Total war, as it has been practised in this last century, is prohibited by the Bible. Those engaged in war are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20). The same protection would apply to women and children. Non-combatants should also be protected.
13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants. The same principle would rule out many modern weapons. Only weapons which can be targeted at combatants or other weapons can be used by a Christian nation. On the other hand, anti-ballistic missile defence systems may be justified, because they are defensive.
14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation.
15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil). A nation cannot even be invaded to establish democracy. (Democracy must come from the hearts of the people, it cannot be enforced from the outside.) Most attempts by great powers to establish "better" government by force in other nations have failed, because the spiritual forces that control the nation have not been defeated (Dan 10:13).
The principles outlined here allow a nation to defend itself, but there are very severe restrictions on which methods may be used. Likewise there are very strict conditions which must be fulfilled before war may be justified. Almost all modern conflicts would fail to meet these conditions. The Bible recognises the horror of war. There are probably very few situations that would justify the cost of war. It should be an extremely rare event.
The current war in Afghanistan does fit with these principles. The people who organised the attack on the World Trade Centre, committed a dreadful crime and should be punished as criminals. However, the nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban did not attack the United States. Afghanistan may be harbouring the criminals who organised the attack, but that is not a justification for war. We may dislike the Taliban intensely, but that does not justify war against them. The United States does not have the right to determine who should govern Afghanistan. (The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established). The United States is not defending itself against an attack by Afghanistan, so it is not justified in attacking Afghanistan.
The methods of warfare being used in Afghanistan cannot be justified either. Bombs that destroy the land and can kill and maim civilians are forbidden by Deuteronomy 20. The alliance with the ungodly men of the Northern Alliance is also contrary to the Scriptures.
November 23, 2001
Ron McKenzie is an economist in Christchurch, New Zealand. He is also a Presbyterian minister.
"Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord". To man it is only given to obey the law and enforce what we have been given instructions to enforce. Our war against the Afghans does not meet the criteria for a just war. No Afghani attacked us, and it is not defensive.
Afghanistan has been ruled by the Taliban which has given aid and protection to evil, rather than purging the evil. It now suffers the consequences of comforting evil doers.
Harboring Bin Laden is not a good enough excuse to make war against a country that had nothing to do with the 911 attacks.
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Anyone that would risk there life, to get Osama and his army of protectors, for reward only, will also abandon his mission if offered more money by the object of his search. (Osama is a very wealthy man)
You really think private citizens going out to seek and destroy, or plunder, Afghani ships, properties, and other holding, but not necessarily the doers of the deeds themselves, is a just way of settling the score, not to mention the fact that most of the perpetrators of the original attack would be left to continue the terrorist attacks that started the whole thing to begin with? Also, wouldn't that just make them see the killing of civilians as an even more justifiable means of attacking their enemy?
I'll read it in a few minutes. The conclusion sounds very Calcedonish--they would like to bomb Muslims because they are enemies of Christianity but scripture won't give them the excuse.
This is where I part ways with the article. There is no justification for this war based on the principles laid out within it.
I think the Author got lazy. The U.S. has of late broken every principle laid out here and hasn't even bothered to let the people it is supposedly defending know what the details of the evidence is against the Afghan government whom it is attacking.
Of course, but the United States is far, far wealthier than Bin Laden. That $5 million offer was totally ridiculous. I see now they have upped it to $100 million which is the bare minimum for such an undertaking. We are spending, what?, a billion a day on this operation. Letters of marque and reprisal are cheap at half the price.
You really think private citizens going out to seek and destroy, or plunder, Afghani ships, properties, and other holding, but not necessarily the doers of the deeds themselves, is a just way of settling the score, not to mention the fact that most of the perpetrators of the original attack would be left to continue the terrorist attacks that started the whole thing to begin with? Also, wouldn't that just make them see the killing of civilians as an even more justifiable means of attacking their enemy?
Afghani ships? They are landlocked and don't have any. We have no legitimate quarrel with Afghans. Remember we are supposedly only interested in Bin Laden's person and possibly the destruction of the al Qaeda bases on their soil. (Al Qaeda bases on Bosnian and Albanian soil are just fine.) The perps of the initial attack might be completely dead. If so, we have absolutely no justification for killing anyone.
What state harbored McVeigh? I agree with your assesment. This war is unjustified.
The author is a Presbyterian minister who presumably believes that the nation of Israel is now the spiritual decendants of Abraham.
I responded by quoting what Paul has said in Romans. You responded back by requesting that I read further down... I did that prior to posting. It says the same thing. There is a SPIRITUAL Israel, and a NATION of Israel. The author, you said, believes the NATION of Israel is the SPIRITUAL descendants..that is incorrect, and your verse proves my point. The author is mixing what were rules for a NATION of Israel, (only), and what is to be observed by other nations. These rules were for a national ISRAEL only. Not all Jews are SPIRITUAL descendants. The Spiritual Israel includes the Church.
Not all Jews are Spiritual Israel, but all Jews are NATIONAL Israel.
What difference do you find between the Catholic and Presbyterian positions on just war?
The author has taken a promise given to the NATION of Israel and applied it to a 'Chistian Nation'. I am trying to figure out where the author has decided for himself that there even EXISTS such an nation, much less trying to apply specific promises given to Israel to US? If we are a 'christian nation' does that mean Timothy McVey is a christian? Al Sharpton? The REv. Jackson? OJ Simpson? You cannot apply a term 'christian nation'...it doesn't work. NEITHER can one apply that ALL Jews are Spiritual Israel. And furthermore you cannot take a promise given to NATIONAL Isael and apply it to US. The author is not being honest with the text given (Isaiah 31:1-3).
I believe that Afganistan and the ruling Taliban were diplomatically requested to do the same, i.e., give Osama up for terrorist atrocities.
Micah 6:8: "He [God] has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to (that's an action word), to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"I restate: We are not called to be pacifists. God requires much of us "to do." "Do justice" is one. James is full of examples of how we are to live. Most apply to those who call themselves Christians. They are not applied to non-believers. A government is called to different actions than believers or non-believers. Rulers are empowered to take actions which differ from individuals. And individuals are to submit to their government, as the believer is to submit to God, as the wife is to submit to her husband, and he to her. In this way is order accomplished, politically, nationally, and within the family.
We differ only on opinion as to whether the Taliban deserve punishment for harboring those who have murdered thousands. I have already substantiated my position through scripture. And there are countless others which apply, to which you will, undoubtedly dispute with others. The debate is pointless.
No. Hard to explain this to some folks though.
The First Duty of Citizenship: Enthusiasm
You might find this paragraph interesting:
|
I find it fascinating that LewRockwell would actually endorse this article by posting in his website. There is so much here that contradicts the principles Lew advocates. But, I guess, when one is desperate to defend his positions, any argument will do. That said, let's examine some of the claims this minister alleges to be found in the bible. This is critical since his concluding paragraphs that this war in Afghanistan cannot be supported by Christians is supposedly based upon these scriptures.
I'll accept McKenzie's position that pacificism is not a Christian option.
McKenzie claims there are principles that control the civil government in it's exercise of the right to defense. Let's examine his points and the bibilical basis claimed by him.
McKenzie's first point is that: "War is only justified for defense." and he bases it upon Romans 13: 1-8 Before we accept that, we should examine the scriptures.
(1)."Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
(5) "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."
There's nothing there about defensive war. It says do what government officials tell you to do. BTW, I only quoted 1 and 5, but feel free to consult your own bible to see if there is anything relevent there. At this point one must wonder if Lew really supports such uncompromising obedience to government authority or if he accepts that government, being ordained by God, can do no wrong? If you apply this scripture, Christians have no choice but to support the war.
McKensie then claims in "2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures." And: "We should not use war to win people for the gospel. (We should be honest and admit that the crusades were a mistake, however well-intentioned the crusaders may have been)."
I know of no one who would object to his argument that God granting the land of Canaan to the Jews is a special case not relevent to Afghanistan, but I can't help but point out that if one accepts this, then the only thing one can condemn Israel for is not driving out all who do not accept the Jewish God. Does LewR really think the Israelis should kill all Palestinians? And, just who is claiming we are in Afghanistan to win the people there to the Gospels? Are we dropping Bibles there?
His next point is "3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army". But Deut 17:16 says nothing of the sort. It says: "The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." This is an admonition not to return to Egypt. Even if you accept the claim that a king should not have large numbers of horses, it says nothing about the size of the rest of the Army. Last I checked, we've pretty much given up on horse cavalry and chariots anyway. Now 1 Kings 10:26-29: only describes the number of King Soloman's chariots and horses. Check it out yourself, there is not the slightest thing that can be taken that God was dissatisfied with Soloman's 1400 chariots and 20,000 horses. Guess those aren't large numbers.
Then: "4.The defence force should take the form of a part-time local militia." Deut 20:5 says: "The officers shall say to the army: "Has anyone built a new house and not dedicated it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may dedicate it." How can anyone claim this is God's instruction that the army should be a part-time militia is a stretch.
McKenzie's next point is: "5.The militia should be up made of volunteers." and that certain men should be excused from battle. If your read the scripture cited(Deut 20:5-9), it doesn't say that everyone should be a volunteer only that those who have pressing obligations that would limit their effectiveness should be excused. The nature of these obligations is limited. If you think this means that only anyone has a right to opt out, refer to Romans 13 (above) about obeying government authority.
Then McKenzie claims: "6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16)." But, we've already examined that scripture and it says nothing about acquiring offensive weapons.
Then McKenzie claims: "7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. Individuals or companies do not have the authority to commit a nation to war. Any declaration of war must be in accordance with correct legal processes (Deut 20:10)." But this scripture says: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace." Where are declarations of war or legal processes mentioned? BTW, wasn't it LewR that advocated settling things with Afghanistan by Letters Of Marque, contracting with private companies, and bounty hunters?
Then McKenzie claims: "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)." We've already examined this verse and there is nothing about "every means possible to obtain peace", is there?
Then McKenzie says: "A Christian nation should always seek God's will before declaring war." I know of no Christian who would walk across the street, let alone declare war, without seeking God's Will. But these scriptures are not about "presumption" but about disobeying God specific instructions and it's consequences.
Then McKenzie claims: "A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance to win." citing Luke 14: 31-32. True, Jesus said these things, but he also mentioned the futility of starting to build a tower without first figuring the cost. Jesus concluded by saying: 33. "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." Clearly, this is an admonition that one cannot go halfway in following Jesus and has little to do with whether a Christian nation should declare war in any circumstance.
I'll skip over McKenzie's arguments in favor of pacificism since he says that isn't Christian. However, one wonders how such statements as this: "If a nation is unable to defend itself, all is not lost; God will have his way in the end." is not pacifism.
Then McKenzie makes this claim: "11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one. A good example of this is Gideon, who defeated a large Midianite army with 300 unarmed men (Judges 7). However, this promise should not be used as a justification for foolish wars." I don't disagree that it is better to be with God than against HIM, I would point out that if one really believes a small army can be justified this way, then there is no need for an army of any size, or a police department, or a fire department. After all, if your nation is conquered, if you are murdered, or if your house burns down, it's only God's will. And, I guess no one should plant a field either since God will provide the food if it is HIS will.
Then McKenzie claims that: "12.Total war, as it has been practised in this last century, is prohibited by the Bible. Those engaged in war are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20). The same protection would apply to women and children. Non-combatants should also be protected." If you read Deut 20 you'll find that after offering peace to a city, if the city surrender, then they inhabitants became slaves. If the city did not surrender, then the men were to be killed and the women and children were to become "plunder". If one applies this to Afghanistan, then we would be right in killing every man there and taking the women and children and livestock as plunder.
Then in "13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants. The same principle would rule out many modern weapons. Only weapons which can be targeted at combatants or other weapons can be used by a Christian nation." Of course, if one applies McKenzie's citation of Deut 20, then the combatants can be killed and their women taken as plunder. How does this limit weaponry? Oh, I get it, if we use nukes then there's no women to plunder.
Point "14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation." Is ours a Christian nation, living in accordance with a covenent with God? I tell you what, I'll give up the alliances if everyone else is willing to live in covenent. And, I want some plunder too. Takers?
"15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil)." See 11 above.
Also in 15. "Most attempts by great powers to establish "better" government by force in other nations have failed, because the spiritual forces that control the nation have not been defeated (Dan 10:13)." This passage in Daniel describes a supernatural conflict between an angel messenger of God and an evil spirit. It does not apply to nations.
Now his conclusions (I've corrected what I think is a typo.) "The current war in Afghanistan does (not) fit with these principles." and "The methods of warfare being used in Afghanistan cannot be justified either. Bombs that destroy the land and can kill and maim civilians are forbidden by Deuteronomy 20." and "The alliance with the ungodly men of the Northern Alliance is also contrary to the Scriptures."
His principles have been shown not to be consistent with the scriptures he quotes, Deut 20 contains no such prohibitions, and I'll give up the alliance in exchange for a covenential nation (and some woment to plunder).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.