Snippet #1: Ongoing Conversation
John Howard Yoder will have to wait (May he rest in peace, despite his writings having been targeted for mining for the purpose of extracting ammunition.). As, regrettably, will Stephen Russell. (I sat in his Sunday School class one time and all that I remember of it is that he politely disagreed with something I said.) I've read a bit of Greg Boyd since yesterday, but only on his blog--not the best place to read a succinct statement of his viewpoint. Peripherally, I did learn some interesting details about Charles Colson and Shane Claiborne who participated in a debate/discussion with Boyd some time ago.
I've decided to resist my perfectionist desire to wait to say anything till I've figured out everything. Instead, I'll continue this conversation one snippet at a time. Right now I plan to respond to only one aspect of the issue, writing from what I've learned here and there. I will remember that understanding happens just as surely when it is acquired one step at a time as it does when acquired with the suddenness and power of a tidal wave.
This incremental approach to spelling things out will almost certainly invite more response from people who have thoughts to add, as I hope they will. Case in point: The article by conservative columnist Cal Thomas that Gerald Miller linked to was a very worthwhile read. Thomas is in his mid sixties now and served as vice president of the Moral Majority for five years in the 80s. From here it looks like he acquired a lot of wisdom with his years.
When I talked last week about lessons from the Potter, I said to the ladies at our Prayer Partners Banquet "Nothing good happens without a stance of humility." I'm repeating that to myself again this week.
Here goes, with reference to an earlier comment to the "Pro-Life Position" post--
Assertion that a Pro-Life Position is Compatible With a Pro-Military Position
Here's how I understand the argument. "God's plan for government laid out in Romans 13," calls for the government to punish evildoers and carry out justice. Thus, because many military operations punish evil doers and abortion always kills innocents (the only people without sin, for which the penalty is death), according to Scripture, the military operations are defensible while the killing of babies is not. Furthermore, to oppose a government that punishes evildoers with violence is to oppose God's plan, while opposing a government that perverts justice by not protecting the good and innocent is laudable.
Points of Agreement
1. God has a plan for government. That plan involves punishing evildoers and upholding justice.
2. Abortion kills innocents (at least in the sense that they have not resisted God or chosen to sin).
3. A government is not to be commended for perverting justice.
Points of Disagreement
1. I don't think "many military operations punish evildoers" is a credible argument in the defense of military operations.
It would, in fact be just as accurate to say many military operations kill innocents. Have you never met an American soldier with a deeply stained conscience because he knows he has done exactly that? Or worse, think about the death of an innocent at the hands of a soldier who defends what he does. That happens too.
Taking the life of another person is reprehensible in the sight of God, I believe. It is destroying what God has given. Death was Satan's idea, and when a person dies, Satan has had his way, for a moment at least. Our merciful God is certainly there also when a person dies, and life with God continues for the Christian, but to suggest that people are doing what God planned when one human being takes the life of another seems very wrong to me.
I recognize civil government as one of the helps God gave man for living in a fallen world. I understand too that sometimes this legitimately involves the use of force. But lethal force? I think Christians ought never, for any reason, to promote this or participate in it. (You agree on the participation part.)
2. ". . . abortion is indeed "the *only* completely injust taking of life--the taking of the life of someone who has not yet sinned."
I see all young children as being innocent in the same way a pre-born child is--not alienated from God by the guilt of their wrongdoing. Older people with limited cognitive function also fit here, I believe. All of them are defenseless and God would take all of them to heaven if they died while young or cognitively limited. I'm registering disagreement here with the idea that abortion is the only completely unjust taking of life.
3. "Every person the government does not execute is mercy, because all have sinned."
I understand the verse in Romans 6:23 to be a reminder of the sure end of all who continue in sin till the end of life. It is not a command for individuals or governments to execute everyone who sins. I won't brag either about one imperfect person--a government person even--allowing another to live (does not execute them). That is "reasonable service." That a holy God shows mercy is the marvel. That He has the power to give the gift of eternal life is a further marvel.
4. This disagreement is related to the first one. It has to do with how a government defines an evildoer. You cited punishing evildoers as giving legitimacy to military action. Think about these situations for a moment--all involving military action on the part of the US:
a. England taxes the American colonies. This seems fair to the British and unfair to the Americans.
b. Japan has almost no trade with other countries in the late 1800s. Japan likes it this way. The American, Commodore Perry, sails into one of their harbors and, at gunpoint, demands that they open their country to trade with America.
c. Spain claims territory in what is now the southwest US. Spain wants to keep the territory. America wants to own it.
I don't see a clear right-or-wrong side in any of these situations. Yet, in every case, America justified military force to have it their own way. Doesn't America always justify getting its own way, by force if necessary? Don't other countries do the same? How can this rationally be construed as punishing evildoers?
To be continued.
I've decided to resist my perfectionist desire to wait to say anything till I've figured out everything. Instead, I'll continue this conversation one snippet at a time. Right now I plan to respond to only one aspect of the issue, writing from what I've learned here and there. I will remember that understanding happens just as surely when it is acquired one step at a time as it does when acquired with the suddenness and power of a tidal wave.
This incremental approach to spelling things out will almost certainly invite more response from people who have thoughts to add, as I hope they will. Case in point: The article by conservative columnist Cal Thomas that Gerald Miller linked to was a very worthwhile read. Thomas is in his mid sixties now and served as vice president of the Moral Majority for five years in the 80s. From here it looks like he acquired a lot of wisdom with his years.
When I talked last week about lessons from the Potter, I said to the ladies at our Prayer Partners Banquet "Nothing good happens without a stance of humility." I'm repeating that to myself again this week.
Here goes, with reference to an earlier comment to the "Pro-Life Position" post--
Assertion that a Pro-Life Position is Compatible With a Pro-Military Position
Here's how I understand the argument. "God's plan for government laid out in Romans 13," calls for the government to punish evildoers and carry out justice. Thus, because many military operations punish evil doers and abortion always kills innocents (the only people without sin, for which the penalty is death), according to Scripture, the military operations are defensible while the killing of babies is not. Furthermore, to oppose a government that punishes evildoers with violence is to oppose God's plan, while opposing a government that perverts justice by not protecting the good and innocent is laudable.
Points of Agreement
1. God has a plan for government. That plan involves punishing evildoers and upholding justice.
2. Abortion kills innocents (at least in the sense that they have not resisted God or chosen to sin).
3. A government is not to be commended for perverting justice.
Points of Disagreement
1. I don't think "many military operations punish evildoers" is a credible argument in the defense of military operations.
It would, in fact be just as accurate to say many military operations kill innocents. Have you never met an American soldier with a deeply stained conscience because he knows he has done exactly that? Or worse, think about the death of an innocent at the hands of a soldier who defends what he does. That happens too.
Taking the life of another person is reprehensible in the sight of God, I believe. It is destroying what God has given. Death was Satan's idea, and when a person dies, Satan has had his way, for a moment at least. Our merciful God is certainly there also when a person dies, and life with God continues for the Christian, but to suggest that people are doing what God planned when one human being takes the life of another seems very wrong to me.
I recognize civil government as one of the helps God gave man for living in a fallen world. I understand too that sometimes this legitimately involves the use of force. But lethal force? I think Christians ought never, for any reason, to promote this or participate in it. (You agree on the participation part.)
2. ". . . abortion is indeed "the *only* completely injust taking of life--the taking of the life of someone who has not yet sinned."
I see all young children as being innocent in the same way a pre-born child is--not alienated from God by the guilt of their wrongdoing. Older people with limited cognitive function also fit here, I believe. All of them are defenseless and God would take all of them to heaven if they died while young or cognitively limited. I'm registering disagreement here with the idea that abortion is the only completely unjust taking of life.
3. "Every person the government does not execute is mercy, because all have sinned."
I understand the verse in Romans 6:23 to be a reminder of the sure end of all who continue in sin till the end of life. It is not a command for individuals or governments to execute everyone who sins. I won't brag either about one imperfect person--a government person even--allowing another to live (does not execute them). That is "reasonable service." That a holy God shows mercy is the marvel. That He has the power to give the gift of eternal life is a further marvel.
4. This disagreement is related to the first one. It has to do with how a government defines an evildoer. You cited punishing evildoers as giving legitimacy to military action. Think about these situations for a moment--all involving military action on the part of the US:
a. England taxes the American colonies. This seems fair to the British and unfair to the Americans.
b. Japan has almost no trade with other countries in the late 1800s. Japan likes it this way. The American, Commodore Perry, sails into one of their harbors and, at gunpoint, demands that they open their country to trade with America.
c. Spain claims territory in what is now the southwest US. Spain wants to keep the territory. America wants to own it.
I don't see a clear right-or-wrong side in any of these situations. Yet, in every case, America justified military force to have it their own way. Doesn't America always justify getting its own way, by force if necessary? Don't other countries do the same? How can this rationally be construed as punishing evildoers?
To be continued.
posted by Mrs. I at
12:58 PM
3 Comments:
All Scriptures in NASB unless otherwise noted.
"to suggest that people are doing what God planned when one human being takes the life of another seems very wrong to me."
It's not his original plan, but it is undoubtedly his plan. In fact, he has much worse things planned: eternal death. It doesn't make him happy, but he's a just God. (See the Ezekiel passage below.)
"I recognize civil government as one of the helps God gave man for living in a fallen world. I understand too that sometimes this legitimately involves the use of force. But lethal force? I think Christians ought never, for any reason, to promote this or participate in it."
I agree that Christians should not actively promote lethal force, but neither should they oppose it, in principle.
I find your separation of lethal and non-lethal force hard to reconcile with the imagery of Romans 13:4: "But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Perhaps I'm not seeing clearly, but somehow an "avenger" "bring[ing] wrath" with a "sword" doesn't bring to mind pictures of non-lethal force.
"I'm registering disagreement here with the idea that abortion is the only completely unjust taking of life."
I'd be delighted to hear the basis of that disagreement.
"I understand the verse in Romans 6:23 to be a reminder of the sure end of all who continue in sin till the end of life. It is not a command for individuals or governments to execute everyone who sins."
Of course it's not and any government who would execute their entire populace on this basis would be seen as barbaric. However, we are talking about justice. Far too often we forget what true justice--justice from God's perspective and with God's morality looks like. Often, I believe, we have come to think of "justice" as "justice + standard issue amounts of mercy". (In sharing the good news with folks, God's view of justice is a concept I have studied, because only when a sinner understands their just reward for their actions--a deserved, just punishment for actions they chose to do--can they understand the awesomeness, yea, even the necessity, of the mercy of God.) Since this is a discussion about the system God set up to dispense a modicum of justice in this present world, we do well to understand justice from God's perspective. Here are some verses to that purpose:
Gen. 2:17: "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die"
Eze. 18:4, 20, 23-25: "The soul who sins will die... The person who sins will die... 'Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,' declares the Lord GOD, 'rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is not right." Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?'" (Read the whole chapter in context. It sheds a lot of light on this issue.)
Rom. 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death"
Heb. 9:22: "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Lev. 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement."
The idea that the penalty of sin is death and that death is the only just reward for sin is the entire basis of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
I also believe it to be the reason for Romans 13:4's "avenger" "bring[ing] wrath" with a "sword".
Having established that the just penalty for sin is death, we turn to this Scripture:
Lam. 3:22: "It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed"
Indeed, that we are not struck down dead--like Uzzah in 2 Sam. 6:6-7--for our sin is only God's mercy holding back justice. In the same way, when the government does not kill us, it is mercy holding back justice.
Now I'm certainly not advocating the institution of absolute justice in our government. I'm a big fan of mercy! But I believe these underpinnings should be understood.
So is it "unjust" when a government kills an "innocent" person? I believe it's an insufficient dose of mercy, but to call it injust on the scale of absolute justice doesn't seem to be accurate.
"I don't see a clear right-or-wrong side in any of these situations. Yet, in every case, America justified military force to have it their own way. Doesn't America always justify getting its own way, by force if necessary? Don't other countries do the same? How can this rationally be construed as punishing evildoers?"
Quite simply, the scenarios mentioned are not punishing evildoers. I wouldn't be in favor of those wars mentioned (allowing that your historical summary is accurate, which I trust it is).
Conversely, everyone's favorite whipping horse, the Iraq war, was a clear case of punishing evildoers that were committing evil not only against their own people, but also invading other countries and committing evil against them. I cannot condemn the Iraq War. I also can't lobby for the Iraq War. I leave those decisions to "God's ministers".
By
Anonymous, at 11/11/2008
I realized that my first paragraph of response doesn't address "one human being tak[ing] the life of another" but rather God's plan re: death in general. I feel that God accomplishes His justice in many ways: direct action (Uzzah), natural disasters (Noah's flood), and people (Children of Israel, pagan nations around Israel, government today per Romans 13). I feel Romans 13 is a description of that plan, not a sanction for me as a follower (who has been given certain commands) of Christ to help carry out. However, it's also a plan that I shouldn't try to obstruct.
(Forgive me if I repeat myself. I'm not trying to be forceful or trying to bludgeon you into agreeing, only trying to clarify.)
By
Anonymous, at 11/11/2008
I would also add that I am still very much in learning mode on this topic. (Even when I present things in a straightforward, non-equivocal manner.) I know we're supposed to be in learning modes on all topics, but in this mode I especially feel a need to learn. I am open to any corrections y'all may have.
By
Anonymous, at 11/11/2008
Post a Comment
<< Home