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.
When I posted the above scripture earlier, "do justice" got cut off. It should read as stated above.
I may have missed the verse where the husband is supposed to submit to the wife? He is to love her as though it were his own body, and die for her, if necessary. I might be wrong on this, but could I request a text for the 'submission' part of it? I've checked 3 seperate texts, 1st Corinth. Ephesians, and 1st Peter and none of them say submit to the wife. Perhaps it was a 'mistype' on your part?
Exactly, that's why a Letters of Marque is ridiculous. That's what the original intent of the term was.
A letter of marque—or letter of reprisal—is the means by which a government authorizes a civilian to arm a private ship in order to attack and plunder the merchant ships of an enemy nation during war. This is the meaning the term had acquired by the eighteenth century. In earlier use, it referred to the means by which a government righted a private wrong against one of its citizens. For example, if an English trader had his goods stolen in Holland and could not receive satisfaction through the Dutch legal system, the English government might grant him a letter of marque. He was then authorized to seize any Dutch ship to regain the value of the goods stolen from him.
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.
"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" was meant to right a wrong done onto a citizen. If this is your answer to the problem, we would have the family members of every citizen that was injured or killed as a result of 9-11, legally being able to set out on their own to kill an equal amount of Arab citizens.
Also, let's not forget the Pentagon was also attacked, so your answer to the problem would allow for the US military to feel free to seek out and destroy an equal number of Talibanis as who died at the Pentagon (whether or not they had anything to do with the attack on us). That's why your "solution" to the problem is totally ridiculous. Or President choose WAR against those who gave safe harbor to the perpetrators.
.
Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
When Congress passed The War Powers Act of 1973. (Public Law 93-148. 93rd Congress, HJ Res. 542. November 7, 1973). They effectivly gave the choice of using the military to the head of the Executive Branch of the government. He choose WAR (with the consent of the congress).
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
NO state harbored McVeigh. Once we found him out, we quickly arrested, then executed, him. That was not the case in Afghanistan. They new Osama was there and committing terrorist acts around the world, but did nothing to stop him or his band of murderers. That's harboring.
This war IS justified.
When the feds asked for McVeigh's extradition for trial they presented evidence. That's the way it's supposed to work.
1 Cor. 7:3: Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (4) The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (5) Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time . . .
I was unclear what I meant by submission. There are instances, such as above, where the man, and the woman, submit to each other (and perhaps this scripture can be taken as more than submitting to each other's physical needs). Regarding decision-making, the husband is not to submit to his wife, but he should listen to her as a partner. But he, ultimately decides what course of action to take. She is to submit to that, not he to her.
Do you actually believe if we showed them pictures of Osama instructing a class on piloting aircraft into tall buildings with "September 11th is the day of our attack so be prepared" written on a blackboard behind him, they would have handed him over to us? Get real.
What our government hasn't bothered to explain is why it continued to send the Taliban hundreds of millions of dollars, all the while knowing they were "harboring" bin Laden.
If there is credible evidence against bin Laden, then I say Afghanistan must turn him over as a matter of principle and good will. However, we did not provide ANY evidence at all and still haven't.
You'd think that we could show a money trail at the very least. We can't. Why not?
What??? Maybe in 1980, but not after his terrorist attacks
...after all, he was "our" guy, bought and paid for by your tax dollars at work.
Osama didn't need our money, his family keeps him plenty wealthy. We just used him to stymie the Soviets.
Our government sent the Taliban 40 million bucks (our bucks) in March for humanitarian aid.
Tell me, how much of that was cash, and how much was food and medical supplies? And that aid was a ridiculous attempt to persuade them to discontinue their drug trade, NOT to support future terrorist acts against us.
If you think we couldn't have grabbed OBL anytime before 9/11, you need a little more KoolAid.
The clinton administration didn't have the balls to do it, coupled with the fact that we stopped paying "unsavory characters" for information needed to pin down his whereabouts.
We even listened in on his phone calls to his Mom.
Unless we were hovering above, ready to swoop down a grab him while he was on the "mobil" phone. Listening to phone calls with mommy would be of no help at all.
Gumption, quit believing everything you hear on the networks and in the major media, or from the mouths of politicians, and read a little more for yourself.
What do you read, the Taliban Tribune?
What was the evidence that we gave Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that convinced them of Osama's quilt? They were the only two Governments that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, but after seeing the evidence they decided to cut all ties to Afghanistan/Taliban even at the risk of having their people revolt against them. Why do you think that is? Must have been pretty solid/convincing evidence don't you think?
The U.S. government knew more about OBL and Al Quaeda than the Taliban did
Prove that why don't ya. I'll tell you why ... cause you can't. You just make it up in your head. Why don't you tell me where you picked up that info?
you should know that we were warned and that our "security" agencies had ample knowledge to see it coming.
How about this one? Show me where we were warned about 4 planes being high jacked for the purpose of flying them, on Sept. 11, into the WTC, the Pent., and G-d knows what other target was in mind. Being warned that a terrorist attack was gonna take place some place, at some time does us NO good at all. Do you think our government wanted this to happen? If so why? And since irrefutable evidence is so important to bring justice to Osama, why don't you show me irrefutable proof that our security agencies knew these specific attacks were coming and decided to let it happen, and why?
How would I know? Frankly I don't believe any was provided. Both have been told in no uncertain terms that we really don't respect their wishes either way and will attack them if they refuse to comply. Now you tell me: which do you think was more convincing? The "evidence" or the threats?
Since neither of us has seen the evidence, it's hard to say that Pakistan was convinced by the evidence. It would be easy for our government to claim they were convinced. They hold the two nations over a barrel.
Sep 24 2001
Intelligence experts around the world are said to be in little doubt that bin Laden was responsible for the outrages.
They admit that by the standards of a courtroom the evidence is only circumstantial - but say that taken together it is overwhelming.
It does not appear yet that any of the more than 100 people detained in connection with the bombings have directly implicated bin Laden.
However a suspect held at New York's JFK airport trying to travel on a bogus pilot's licence is reported to have provided "useful information" pointing towards him.
Intelligence experts are reportedly most swayed by telephone intercepts by security services in which alleged al-Qaida members celebrate the attack in a way apparently indicating prior knowledge.
In one, a suspect is heard to say - "We've hit the targets."
I think the rest of the paragraph which this sentence heads indicates that "does" is actually a typo, intended to be "doesn't."
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.