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!

Monday, June 9, 2014

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

            No doubt about it, Jesus certainly commanded his followers to practice nonviolence. In his most famous sermon, the one commonly referred to as “The Sermon on the Mount,” he commands us not to resist an evil person, to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, and he pronounces a special blessing on “peacemakers.” So how can this be compatible with any form of violence on the part of a Christian? How can it not be a sin if a believer puts on a soldier or a police uniform with the understanding that he might be called upon to kill someone?
            Let’s take the last one first. Yes, Jesus calls us to be makers of peace. But peace between whom? Well, there are always conflicts between people, from personal squabbles all the way up to international wars. And I think it’s a good thing for us to try to resolve conflicts wherever possible. Where Christ is reigning in everyone’s hearts, there won’t be true conflict (as opposed to disagreements) since we’re all following the Prince of Peace’s leadership, just like there won’t be anything but harmony in an orchestra as long as each player is following the conductor’s lead.
            But is it reasonable to expect anything like true peace on the international scene? Most world leaders don’t claim to follow Jesus, so they’re just following the dictates of their own sinful hearts. And according to James, fights and quarrels come from sinful desires within us. There might be some conflicts which can be resolved by greater understanding on both sides, but does anyone believe that the Nazis or Communists could’ve been stopped if we’d just sat down with them and talked it out? There are lots of really evil people out there. It’s always possible that the Lord can get a hold of an evil leader’s heart and turn him around (like Nebuchadnezzar), but apparently he doesn’t do that very often, judging by the historical record. And unless God specifically intervenes to do something like that, then usually the only way to bring peace is for the bad guys to get stopped by physical—usually lethal—force, or for the evil people to triumph. Of course, the Lord also can protect us by openly direct supernatural means (like the crossing of the Red Sea), but those types of incidents are few and far between. Most of the time, evil people are stopped by physical force. To believe otherwise, quite frankly, is pretty naïve and isn’t biblical.
            To my knowledge, the main conflict in which we’re called to be “peacemakers” is in bringing reconciliation between God and sinful people. As commanded by our Lord, we share the Good News with them as his representatives, and when they receive Christ, they get peace with God and with us.
            How’s about the other commands? We’re not supposed to resist an evil person, and we’re to love our enemies.
            This is where I’m going to bring up a concept that apparently Dr. Sprinkle isn’t too familiar with. This concept I call the trichotomy of  institutions, but it’s a paradigm which goes back at least as far as Luther. I need to do a little more research on exactly how far back it goes, but I know that Luther taught it, and undoubtedly it's much older than that. Here’s part of my email that I sent to Dr. Sprinkle:

Nowhere do you address the common “Three God-Ordained Institutions” paradigm which is the standard among most Evangelical/Reformed theologians. I don’t know exactly how far back it goes, but I do know that Martin  Luther definitely held to it. You know, the “Family/Church/State” trichotomy? Each of these institutions has been established by the Lord for specific and discrete functions, and while there’s some overlap, whenever one of them tries to do the job of either of the other two, there’s a huge problem. In short, the state’s function is to protect the peace, provide a basic level of order in order to protect rule of law (as opposed to the rule of the jungle), and—in the words of Romans 13—“to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” It’s there basically to keep society from completely falling apart until the Lord returns. It’s not there to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it’s not there to raise our children. And it’s certainly not there to usher in any aspect of the Kingdom of God, either in the current version or the one to come. Quite frankly, any Bible teacher who asserts that any political system or government is going to usher in paradise on earth (in any sense) is either not thinking or presenting clearly. Continuing this motif, the church’s job is not to keep the peace in society or punish evildoers. The Gospel is never advanced by the sword, and on that point I think we’re in complete agreement.

            Dr. Sprinkle really downplays this. In his book he wonders aloud why in most of his discussions with Christians who disagree with him that the conversations quickly turn to Romans 13:1-7. Well, this is the most complete teaching that we have on the origin of the state/government. Here the apostle Paul makes some things very clear some things:

·         Christians must submit themselves to the authority of the state. This means obeying its laws (unless said laws are contra our Lord’s instructions) and paying the taxes and fines and fees we’re supposed to render.  

·         But why? Just because we’re afraid of punishment? Well, that’s a good enough reason. But every pagan knows to obey the law in order to escape punishment. No, for believers, we have a much more important reason: Because God created it for our good. He created it and put a “sword” in its hand. This is symbolic of physical (including lethal) force: A sword is there to either kill someone or threaten to kill someone. Among many other fine explanations, I found this one from a Baptist Church to be more than adequate: “Government exists to protect the helpless from the powerful, the innocent from the guilty, and the upright from the criminal, and to punish all evil-doers.” It’s there to keep basic civil order, basic justice, and to maintain rule of law. The rule of law is so important; without the State, we quickly descend from the rule of law to the rule of the jungle, in which the strong prey on the weak with impunity, and every argument is settled by who has the biggest gun.

            That’s what the State is there for. God created it and put a “sword” in its hand for a reason. Without at least the threat of physical violence, there is no State. It’s not there to rehabilitate anyone. It’s certainly not there to promote the Message of Christ. I don’t even think—based on what I’ve written before—that it’s even there for helping the poor, although it might be of help in some—very few--emergency situations.
            The interesting thing is that in his section on his interpretation of Romans 13, Dr. Sprinkle downplays this somewhat. I don’t read anything of what we’ve discussed in the last few paragraphs. The closest I see is where he admits that the Lord can “use” the State for his own purposes. But there’s little to no mention of how he does use it, what he uses it for. I could be wrong, but I don’t see much of an appreciation on his part of how essential the State is.
            Another interesting thing is that he somehow latches on to the understanding that Romans 13 is only talking about keeping the order within the nation (like police), and he apparently believes that it’s not referring at all to defending the nation from outside invaders. That’s news to me; I’m not saying he’s necessarily wrong, but that’s the first I’ve heard that interpretation after reading several commentaries. But assuming he’s right, I’m not really sure how this defuses my argument. He seems to be trying to persuade fellow Christians that Romans 13 isn’t a blanket go-ahead for nations to attack other nations. I happen to agree with him, but again, I really don’t see how this has anything to do with refuting my major point.
            But someone might object (and based on what I’ve read, I think Dr. Sprinkle would as well) “Well, that’s fine. God’s created the State for us. But that doesn’t mean that Christians have permission to participate in it. Let the secular state, with its sword, continue to do what it wants to, and let followers of Jesus take no part in it.”
            Even if God created the State for our good, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s acceptable for believers to join it in this function. God uses evil men all the time in order to fulfill his purposes, but that doesn’t mean he approves of what they do. The best example of this, of course, is when the Lord used sinful men to carry out the crucifixion of Jesus. It fulfilled his plan, and I couldn’t have been saved without it, but that in no way mitigates one iota of the responsibility those men have before him. The Lord uses even Satan for his (the Lord’s) purposes, but that wouldn’t justify sin on the part of anyone. Whatever the State does, how can I put on a military or police uniform, knowing that in doing so I’ll be called upon to take up a gun against another human being?
            That’s the subject of the next posting. 

No comments:

Post a Comment