I'm having strong emotions roll through me as I think about this article.
On one hand, I can see part of what they are saying about the difference between being American and being Christian. I really can. I agree that sometimes Christians seems to get the two confused, and certainly a lot of people used to think (or still think) that American is synonymous with Christian.
I emphatically disagree with everything else though. What part of the following verses makes him think that warring governments are not a part of the plan of God? The Bible specifically states that members of the world's governments are God's instruments to bring justice to the evildoers of this world.
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. --(Rom 13:1-7 ESV)"
Short version of what I think: People are going to die violent deaths during the course of warfare. That's a very disturbing reality. Evil people die violent deaths because they bloody deserve it. Period. (Keep in mind Paul was talking about the very same Roman Empire that martyred him.)
I want to look at this guy's questions near the end of his article. I think the questions he asked are waaay off point. Here's what I think they should be:
Do you really think it makes sense for America to not be war-like?
No. Speak softly and carry a big stick. When the evil people of the world know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are going to die if they mistreat their people, that provides quite a bit more incentive to be a little bit nice every once in a while. Pacifism won't be needed anymore.
Doesn't your position give evil dictators and governments more leeway to commit atrocities and plot the annihilation of their neighbors? Yes. See above answer.
Isn't Gospel Pacifism just a way to ignore what the Bible says about mercy, grace, and JUSTICE? Yes. It sure is.
Aren't pacifists dependent on their lives for the very militaries they oppose?
I hate the way this author answers the question by asking "Aren't you dependent for your life on God's grace, which you oppose in your warmaking?" This guy is changing the question so that you can't answer it without agreeing to something he wants you to agree to. It's almost like shifting the burden of proof. First of all, according to the BIBLE, my warmaking is completely justified. So no, I don't oppose God's grace as I do my part to kill evil men and break their crap. Am I dependent on God's grace for my life? Absolutely dependent!!! Are the pacifists? Same answer. But let me ask you this, according to the BIBLE, how are they protected? One way is by a government wielding the power of the sword to protect them.
If these pacifist get in trouble when they go to Iraq, where are they going to go? The Muslim police officers? Or the US military (that put the police officers in power?)
Considering the Bible, I think saying anything other than "Thank you," or words of that nature, is a smack in the face to the people who see the danger and aren't afraid to step out and fight it with bare hands, if need be.
1 comment:
Just a couple thoughts - I'm only half way done with the article so I know I'll be posting more. First - he states "Jesus could have called upon his Father to rescue him..."; HE DID! TWICE! Check it out: Mt. 26:39,42. Jesus petitioned if the cup could be taken away from him, but ultimately surrendered to the will of His Father. That's HUGE.
Second, He uses 1 Cor. 15 to define death in Paul's terms as "the last enemy". The CONTEXT of 1 Cor. 15 is salvation and eternal life. The point being that death is the last obstacle, it is not referring to what he is conveying that it says, "when we think we can master this enemy..." blah blah blah
Third, the author visits Paul's identity and his call to obey governing authorities and says Paul didn't "allow his Roman status to silence his witness" (which is true) - yet Paul didn't disregard his citizenship either when others were breaking the law (Acts 22:25) - he straight up CLAIMS his citizenship knowing that what the centurions were doing was unlawful.
That's three strikes so far and I'm only half done with the article.
Post a Comment