So What's This All About?

In case you didn't know, I'm in the multi-year-long process of posting a Christian devotional at the TAWG Blog. The TAWG Blog is, and always will be, mostly apolitical. For the most part, Bible-believing Christians will find little to disagree with there. But I also firmly believe that God's word can--and should--inform everything in life, and this should include politics and popular culture. How should we vote? How should we respond to hot topics such as abortion, capital punishment, taxes, and other issues? Which party, if either, is closer to the Biblical ideal? Tony Campolo and Ron Sider, Evangelicals whose political leanings are on the Left, have made the case in several of their writings that God wants his followers to vote politically on the Left more than on the Right. At times, some of them have gone so far as to equate voting on the Left with obedience to Christ, either subtly or not-so-subtly contending that the converse is true as well: If you vote Republican, you're sinning against the Savior.
I don't agree. I think that to the degree they actually resort to the Bible, they're misinterpreting it. With a whole bunch of caveats, I think politically conservative positions are a lot more compatible with the Scriptures than the Leftist positions.
Just to clarify, I would never accuse people who disagree with me--especially siblings in Christ--of what they accuse me of. I don't judge my own heart, much less anyone else's, and I don't equate political disagreement with theological fidelity to God. I have no reason to doubt their love for the Lord and "for the least of these," but I believe that they're sincerely wrong.
So there are two main purposes for this blog. One is to make a case for my political beliefs based on Scripture. The other is a bit more vague, basically to work out my political beliefs and figure out what's based on Scripture and what's based on my own biases. I certainly don't have all the answers. Some of this stuff I'm still figuring out. And I'm certainly open to correction. As long as you make your case civilly and based on Scripture, feel free to make a comment, and I promise I'll post it and consider your arguments thoughtfully and prayerfully. Who knows? Maybe we'll learn a little something from each other.
May God bless our common striving together towards both the "little t" truth and "Big T" Truth. Our watchword here is a line from C. S. Lewis's The Last Battle: "Further up and further in!"

P.S. -- Below on the left is "Topics I've Covered" which lists everything I've posted topically. It's come to my attention that some people would like to see everything just listed for them. If that's you, you can get it here. Thanks to my friend Stephen Young for the tip!

Saturday, June 7, 2014

A Time For War: A Review of Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence by Preston Sprinkle, Part Three

           Let me say right at the outset: I agree with Dr. Sprinkle a lot more than I disagree with him. He obviously takes God’s word very seriously. He and I both see it as inspired. From what I can tell from his book and his website, he and I agree on probably around 85% to 90% of our theology. Near as I can tell, he and I part ways on our interpretation of Revelation, but that’s not a big deal to me. When it comes to such vital issues as salvation, eternity, the nature of God, the nature and work of Christ, etc., we stand shoulder to shoulder. When it comes to most moral/ethical questions, we seem to be in unison. From what I’ve gathered from his website, he and I are in full agreement re: homosexuality, divorce, and other issues in which the Bible stands opposed to the current zeitgeist.
            The only important area in which we part ways—as best as I can tell—is in the area of violence. I’ll go more into my own biblical interpretation of this issue shortly, but to put it succinctly: On my own initiative, on my own authority, I cannot avenge myself. The commands Jesus gave during what’s commonly called “The Sermon on the Mount” (e.g. “Don’t resist an evil person,” “Love your enemies,”) absolutely apply. But God has established the State to maintain order and rule of law (as opposed to the rule of the jungle), and if a believer is called into this institution (as a police officer, a judge, a soldier, an FBI agent, etc.), then of course he’s not under the obligations of that Sermon. How could a judge function as a judge if he doesn’t “resist an evil person”? Or a police officer? Was a Christian wearing a U.S. soldier uniform in World War Two sinning when he “resisted” an evil Nazi soldier by shooting at him?
            Dr. Preston Sprinkle believes very differently. To him, all violence—at least lethal violence—is sinful.
            This really colors his understanding of Scripture, and to me it skews and distorts it somewhat. Today we’re going to look at his understanding of the Old Testament.
            In reading his chapters on the Old Testament, I feel similar to how I responded to a class my wife and I took early in our relationship (I don’t remember if it was before our wedding or right after). The class was “Missions Perspectives,” and the stated purpose was to get Christians involved in international missions. Part of the process was to see all of the Scriptures (the O.T. as well as the N.T.) through the lens of God’s purpose of reclaiming the nations as his own. For about 90% of the time, I agreed with them. The O.T. does have more than a few extra-strong hints that the Lord’s ultimate purpose was not just to redeem and have a relationship with Israel but to bring people from all nations into his redeemed family. But this book went much further than that. It tried to make the case that O.T. Israel was commanded to bring knowledge of Yahweh to the Gentile world, that the Great Commission given by Jesus wasn’t that big of a change in the Lord’s paradigm. I recall thinking to myself “The absolutely last thing I want to ever do is pour cold water on anyone’s fervor in reaching the world with the Good News. But to be perfectly honest, I think you’re letting your very well-intentioned focus on international missions skew and distort your interpretation of Scripture, and quite frankly you’re reading stuff into the O.T. that’s not there.” I didn’t say anything, because I didn’t believe it was worth it to pick that battle when we were all there for the same purpose: Learn how to be more involved in spreading the Message to those unreached.
            The reason I bring this up is because I honestly think Dr. Sprinkle is guilty of basically the same thing. The idea of shalom (“peace”) is so important to him that—quite frankly—he keeps pounding this square peg into the round hole of what the Scripture actually says. I understand and even admire his dedication to this task of restoring Christians to obedience to Jesus’ commands, but I can’t get on board his interpretation.
            Examples?
            He recounts the story of Jacob’s reunion with his brother Esau, and here’s Sprinkle’s interpretation of the event: “For instance, to prevent the potential clash with his brother, Esau, Jacob assumes the posture of a servant to his lord. Instead of meeting force with force, Jacob humbles himself as a servant in order to preserve peace.” Really?! That’s how you interpret that passage? With all due respect, the reason Jacob took the posture he did was because he was terrified of his brother. The last time Jacob had heard Esau’s voice, the latter was openly planning the murder of the former. Jacob was told that his brother was coming out with 400 men, not a good sign. But Sprinkle’s so hung up on this “God’s people are peacemakers” that he’s completely reading into this story this motif. See what I’m getting at?
            Or how’s about his interpretation of the Lord’s view of the kingship? He and I are in agreement (contra one of my favorite teachers from ETBU) that God actually intended to eventually give Israel a king. To both of us, the pivotal passage is Deut. 17:14-20. You’re welcome to look it up, but here’s my summary of it. In that passage, the Lord thru Moses expressed his expectations of the king he’d eventually give them: 1) He must be a fellow Israelite, not a foreigner, 2) He must not acquire for himself a “great” number of horses or go back to Egypt to get them, 3) He must not take for himself “many” wives, 4) He must not accumulate “large amounts” of silver and gold, and (to me this is the most important one), 5) he’s supposed to hand-copy the entire Torah (the Pentateuch) for himself and read from it every day so that he won’t consider himself above the Law or his fellow Israelites.          
            The question is what does the Lord mean by a “great” number of horses, “many” wives, or “large amounts” of gold and silver? Well, it appears the writer of 1 Kings specifically indicts Solomon on these counts. That’s the way biblical interpreters, both Christian and Jewish, have typically interpreted it. But Sprinkle goes way beyond this. He’s somehow come to the conclusion that this forbids ancient Israel to have an actual standing army. He thinks that the only way for a king to keep a standing army is for him to horde a lot of money into his treasury, so therefore the Lord never intended for Israel to have a standing army at all. So apparently the Lord planned for Israel to have a king with no standing army at all. I’m not misrepresenting his view at all: He makes it clear multiple times that he believes this. To me, a king without an army to back him up is not a king; he’s a guy with opinions on how things ought to be run.
            Another part of the Deuteronomy passages he latches onto is that the Lord forbade the future king from collecting a “great” number of horses. The point—on which he and I agree—was not a king’s particular interest in horses in themselves. Horses (and chariots) were the ultimate weapons of that day. If you had horses and chariots, and your enemy didn’t, then that pretty well settled the battle before it started. There was almost no defense against horse-drawn chariots unless you had them also. So the king was warned against putting his trust in military might instead of the Lord.
            It’s actually the same principle with collecting a lot of wives (for which Solomon was famous). The main motive behind that wouldn’t be the sex (although that was an alleged side-benefit), but more wives meant more children. Marriages were also typically a method of forming political alliances between countries. Again, the issue was putting your trust in human methods of security rather than trusting the Lord.
            I actually agree with Sprinkle around 90% of the way here. Where he and I part ways is . . .he seems to believe that it’s impossible to use human means of security and to trust in the Lord at the same time, and I don’t. It’s tough and tricky, but it’s not impossible.
            Let me explain my position on this, and let me do it by asking some clarifying questions. If anyone out there thinks my stance is unbiblical (i.e., that it’s intrinsically sinful to use human means of security), let me ask you this: Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock your car in a rough neighborhood? If someone invaded your house, would you call the police? But isn’t that using a human means of security?
            It sounds all spiritual to say “I trust the Lord to protect me and my family,” but most of the people saying that will lock their doors at night. Why? Don’t they trust the Lord to protect them?
            You see, using human means to secure yourself and your family is not innately sinful. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it. The only problem is when we display a lack of trust in the Lord by disobeying a direct command from him. When Joshua and the army of Israel approached the city of Jericho, they were instructed by the Lord to do nothing but march around it for six days. Don’t fire one arrow. Don’t even say a word. But on the seventh day they marched around it and shouted, and the Lord miraculously caused the walls to fall, and the Israelites took the city. He gave them counterintuitive instructions, they followed them, and it all turned out great. When the Israelites were trapped between the Egyptian army and the Red Sea, Moses (under God’s inspiration) told them “The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still.” They didn’t fight, and they watched the entire Egyptian army--the 900-pound gorilla of the Middle East--all die in front of them without one Hebrew having to raise one weapon.
            But was that the norm in their history? No. Of course not. The norm throughout their history was that they conquered their enemies with an army. An army with weapons, like swords and bows and arrows and slingshots. They were supposed to trust in the Lord, and they were to display this trust by following his instructions. Part of these instructions were that the king was not supposed to accumulate a “great” number of horses (which is never numerated), and they were to never to go back to Egypt to get any horses at all. But was it wrong to use any horses in battle? Was that sinful? In and of itself, no. But any king had to be careful not to put his ultimate trust in anything except the Lord himself. He might put his trust in his own wisdom, or in his political alliances, or in his well-trained army, or in a host of other resources he might have available. The problem was not the resources themselves. The problem was putting ultimate trust in any of them.
            For most of us, it’s not really an issue of putting trust in armies or weapons. It might influence how we vote, but it doesn’t touch how we live day by day. But how about money? Do we put our ultimate trust in how much we’ve saved up? Is that our security?
            But it’s not intrinsically wrong to be wealthy. The problem is not how much you have in your bank account; the problem is how important it is to you. If I got clear direction from the Lord to give it all away, like he told one prospective follower, what would be my reaction? Anything other than “Yes Lord, I’ll go do that right now” with a smile on my face would be sin.
            I’m running a bit long with this, so we’ll get into his position towards David in the next posting. 

No comments:

Post a Comment