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