Here are some final thoughts on the book and our disagreements.
I’ve tried to make it
clear multiple times that I was pleasantly surprised by this work. He actually
seems to have had some meaningful conversations with fellow believers who
disagree with him. His attacks on straw men are a lot rarer than I thought I’d
find.
Having said that, I do
have to note that he indulges in it a little bit. What do I mean by the term
straw-man, btw? Just to be clear, engaging in a straw man argument is “[creating] the illusion
of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly
replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument.” In other words,
person A is arguing with person B, and instead of answering A’s arguments, B answers an argument that A
never made. A really humorous example from Jonah Goldberg is “Some say we must
put armadillos in our trousers to defeat tyranny. Others say that cats are poor
spellers. I reject both points of view.”
Examples of Dr.
Sprinkle? Well, the people he disagrees with apparently believe that the U.S.
military can do no wrong, and they also believe that the military is the way to
bring about the Kingdom of God. In a discussion which he claims (and I have no
reason to disbelieve him) to be a representative conglomerate of several he’s
had over the years, he says “I wouldn’t say that I’m against the military, but
against militarism—putting faith in military might. And I also don’t think the
Bible sanctions violence to achieve the goals of God’s kingdom.” Also, at the
end of the chapter, he says “Seeing America’s military strength as the hope of
the world is an affront to God’s rule over the world. It’s idolatry.”
Dr. Sprinkle, if you’ve
met any Bible-believer who 1) says this and 2) has anything more than a passing
knowledge of Scripture, I’d love to meet him. You say that you’ve been heavily
influenced by pastors/theologians such as MacArthur, Sproul, and Piper, and I
believe you. None of these men—who heartily disagree with you on this
subject—would say that God “sanctions violence to achieve the goals of God’s
kingdom.” I certainly wouldn’t. But they (and I) would say that, based on Romans
13 (and 1
Peter 2:13-14), the state has been created by God himself to keep basic
civilization intact and to maintain basic order and rule of law and prevent
gross and egregious injustice. And we also believe that without the state
maintaining rule of law, you quickly devolve into the rule of the jungle, in
which the strong prey on the weak with impunity and arguments are settled by
who has the biggest stick or gun. I believe you’re entirely sincere in your
rendition of some counterarguments, but I think you might’ve misunderstood us.
The ultimate “hope of
the world,” depending on what you mean by that term, is A) the Message of
Christ which changes people from the inside-out, and B) the return of Christ in
power and glory. As people are changed by the Good News, they’re moved to
reconcile with their enemies and become law-abiding citizens. And once Jesus
returns, all wars will cease when everyone bows the knee and proclaims
him (either willingly or unwillingly) as
Lord of all.
But Jesus predicted
that only a minority
of people in history will be saved: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is
the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter
through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and
only a few find it.” That seems to indicate to me scant hope that a majority of
people in the world at any one time will be saved in our lifetime, although I
guess it’s possible. If that’s true, then I don’t see any realistic hope that
the Message will change enough people to bring peace to our world. Jesus also predicted
that prior to his coming that “nation will rise against nation,” meaning there
certainly won’t be world peace in that day. The Message is the hope of every individual, and if it reaches enough
people, it can influence a society (which I think it has in Western
Civilization), but that doesn’t change what I’ve just said.
The other hope,
obviously for believers, is for Christ to return. I do believe he will, and
when he does, he’ll subdue
the nations by force. He’s not coming back to establish the “Democracy of God,”
but the Kingdom of God.
But until then, the government is an institution created and
established and empowered by God to keep society from falling apart, as we’ve
said. Here’s the note I wrote in response to Dr. Sprinkle’s comment about “Seeing
America’s military strength as the hope of the world”:
I certainly don't see America's military as "the hope of the
world." But the world has actually had an absolutely unprecedented era of
peace and prosperity that corresponds exactly with the rise in prominence of
the American military, especially since the end of World War 2. Yes, the 20th
century was incredibly bloody, but compared to other centuries the bloodshed
was incredibly light in comparison (in proportion to population), and it's
really leveled off in the last half of the century. See The
World America Made by Robert Kagan for statistics on this. Having a cop
keeping the peace in a neighborhood keeps violence and gross injustice at bay,
and it's the same on the world stage. Yes ultimately it's the Lord who blesses
with peace and gives victory, but apparently he's using the U.S. military as a
means to do so. Acknowledging this is not idolatry.
Now, let me close this
by acknowledging some areas of agreement. He believes that American Evangelicals
in general have put their trust in American military might to keep them safe. I
don’t think it’s as common a problem as he presents, but it’s always a danger. In
a nation of thousands of denominations, I’m sure we can find plenty of Christians
who are confused on this score. I also think we’re in danger of putting faith
in our own resources instead of the Lord’s provision because—compared to the
rest of humanity in history and in the world today—we’re incredibly rich. That’s
always
a danger.
There is a branch of Christianity which seems
to have confused the Kingdom of God with America: Christian
Reconstructionism, which advocates imposing the Mosaic law on nonbelievers
and seems to believe in bringing in the Kingdom of God through political domination
by Christians. But I think that its influence on both the political Right and
Evangelicals in general is pretty small. If you can point to any areas in which
they’re winning—in which people are successfully imposing biblical morality on
the public at large--I’d love to hear about it. But to the degree that any
believer is confusing the Kingdom of God with the United States of America, Dr.
Sprinkle and I would stand shoulder to shoulder in disabusing them of that
notion.
But when America was
heading into the Iraqi invasion, I certainly didn’t hear of any major pastors
endorsing it from the pulpit. Probably
a majority of them (along with most Evangelicals) did agree with President Bush
on that decision (along with most of his others), but to my knowledge they didn’t
let that cloud their emphasis from the pulpit on eternal matters. Nor should
they have. With a very few exceptions (like abortion), I don’t think that
pastors should be commenting on politics from the pulpit.
I certainly don’t believe
in mindless patriotism. The “my country right or wrong” mentality has no place
in the heart or mind of a believer. I believe that skepticism regarding our
government officials’ best intentions is healthy and thoroughly biblical. I
certainly don’t believe in jumping into military conflicts just because our
leaders say it’s necessary. I also share with Dr. Sprinkle a great concern for
avoiding civilian casualties and hardships which war inevitably brings. We’re
certainly in agreement that the only way to really change the world is to
spread the Message of Christ as far as wide and as effectively as possible,
since that’s the only way that human nature changes at all, and neither of us
thinks that military solutions will “solve” the problem of war.
And above all, I
consider him a brother in Christ whom I respect greatly. We heartily disagree
on a major ethical issue, but that doesn’t change the really important unity we
have in our Savior. I’d happily worship right next to him, and I think his book
is just about the best case he could’ve made for his position: It’s thoughtful,
it’s chock-full of Scripture, and he makes a decent effort to answer both
counterarguments and Scripture which don’t seem to support him.
This debate isn’t over
by any means. Christians have disagreed over this for a very very very long time, and it certainly isn’t
going to be settled in this venue. If you’re reading this and have something more
to add to the discussion, please feel free to comment. If you’re polite and
base your arguments on the Bible, I’ll post it. I don’t have all the answers on
this, but as we act as
“iron sharpening iron,” hopefully we’ll all go “further up and further in.”
No comments:
Post a Comment