Constantly Reforming

Governments are Not Evil

Mike S — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:01:42 +0000

Contrary to Yoder’s theology of authorities, the governmental role of violent judgment does not make them inherently evil. While it is clear that Christians should not participate in war, it would be wrong to conclude that Christians could therefore not participate or support any part of government that implicitly supports such actions. For example, taxes clearly provide material support for government’s wars. However, Christians are clearly commanded to pay them. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the level of involvement appropriate for Christians, and it will be different in different circumstances. Daniel’s example might be of value: he worked hard to serve an empire that was almost certainly committing atrocities. The line he drew was refusing to perform an act that directly contravened God’s laws.

Calling for justice

Mike S — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:33:11 +0000

Apart from praying and proclaiming the Word, is a Christian to remain mute in the face of evil throughout the world? Psalm 139 gives a valuable example. Written in the aftermath of the Exile, there should have been no doubt in the minds of the Judean prisoners that they deserved the judgment that God had enacted upon them through Babylon. However, that did not stop them crying out for justice and judgment against their oppressors. Indeed, they pronounced blessings upon the future force who would devastate Babylon – which turned out to be the Persians. This psalm gives us two great examples. Firstly, while recognising God’s actions in history, Christians can deplore the methods used in war, and they can speak out against them. Whether it is speaking out against Saddam Hussein, or against the military methods used to topple him, Christians have the right to challenge governments on their use of violence. Secondly, Christians can cry out for justice, even though that means that God might answer that cry by raising one violent nation to judge another. If violence were inherently evil, then this would be hypocritical. However, because violence is the exclusive preserve of God, it is not hypocritical to cry out to the one who rules the universe for justice. Thirdly, Christians can see God’s justice in action in world events. Even while opposing the decision to invade Iraq, we can see the fall of Saddam Hussein as part of God’s providential judgment and praise him for it.

The Christian Nation

Mike S — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:25:34 +0000

Should a Christian country engage in war? Firstly, there is a great difference between a country that is founded on Christian principles, and a country that is governed by followers of Jesus. In the hypothetical case of a truly Christian country, we can draw strong parallels to God’s protection of Israel. The example that a Christian country is to look to is that of Hezekiah; when faced with evil, he prayed and trusted God’s providence; and the enemy literally died at his gates.

The Christian Soldier

Mike S — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:24:19 +0000

Should a Christian be a soldier? On the face of it, the answer is no – at least, not a combatant (the issue of support staff is much more complex). The overwhelming evidence of the Bible is that the basic position of a Christian when faced with evil is to turn the other cheek. As we have seen, the arguments that war is enacting God’s judgment, or that working for government somehow overrides this basic position, are not strong enough to counter this evidence. Unless a stronger biblical argument is put forward, there are no grounds for a Christian to engage in war.

First draft: submitted

Mike S — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:53:17 +0000

W000000000000000t!

Pacifism is Not ‘Doing Nothing’

Mike S — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 06:23:52 +0000

Within a discussion of war, it is vital to keep a strong theology of God’s providence, which we have seen prominently throughout our biblical theology. A Christian’s refusal to participate in war is not the same as letting evil roam the earth unpunished. Indeed, the Old Testament wars, and Romans 12, highlight the fact that God will use the nations to achieve his judgment. O’Donovan is right that a Christian must not do nothing when faced with evil, and to emphasise participation in God’s providence.[1] His error is in assuming that participation involves enacting the judgment ourselves. Instead, the biblical model for participation in God’s providence is prayer. As we have considered, prayer is powerful. We have been promised that God hears our prayers, and that they are effective.[2] When faced with international evil, the correct response is to pray for God’s intervention and his justice.

The other faithful response that we are given in the face of evil is preaching God’s word. From Elijah’s interactions with Ahab, through Isaiah, Daniel, and to Jesus and the Apostles, we have been given dozens of examples of the power of God’s proclaimed word to convert and to judge. In all the examples that we have seen of non-resistance in the Bible, the effective action was always prayer, proclamation, and faith in God’s providence. This response is not ‘doing nothing’. Far from it, it is engaging the most powerful forces in the universe. Compared to prayer and proclamation, mere military might is foolishness.

Violence is not evil

Mike S — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:34:49 +0000

I have not presented a comprehensive demolition of all just war theories, in particular I have not considered the concept of loving the oppressed by fighting against the oppressor (although the evidence I have gathered goes a long way towards challenging this argument). Nor is this a complete theology of Christian pacifism. However, the observations that I have made can allow us to make some initial observations and chart some potential directions for further exploration.

Firstly, it is important to note that I am not saying that violence is inherently evil. Some forms of liberal pacifism take this route, and then have difficulty reconciling their theology with God’s use of violence, especially judgment and the Cross. Rather, the biblical understanding of violence is that it is the exclusive domain of God, and those to whom he delegates it. My argument is that Christians are not delegated the role of violence by God. Rather, he chooses to use the violent tendencies of others to enact his temporal justice.

O’Donovan, judgment and war

Mike S — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:30:53 +0000

Is O’Donovan truly justified in his premise that war is ‘an extraordinary extension of ordinary acts of judgment’ in which Christians or governments are called by God to participate’?

To answer this, we have spent quite a bit of time examining the history of war throughout the Bible, and considered its role in God’s salvation plan. We concluded that all the wars that were sanctioned by God for Israel to engage in were part of the holy war to claim, inhabit and purify the Promised Land. Though this was an act of God’s judgment, it was not a licence for Israel to initiate other such acts of judgment against other nations. Quite the opposite, God continually showed his capability and intention to enact international judgment against nations for their evil actions. God frequently used war as part of his judgment on nations. However, apart from the example of Palestine, he specifically did this using forces and nations apart from his own people.

God – who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow – will still use war as a form of judgment against nations. It is not wrong for him to do so, for vengeance is his. However, God’s actions do not communicate in and of themselves, for he is a God who speaks. The only way that we can see God’s judgment in the wars of the Bible is because he declared their meaning. In the same way, Christians cannot read God’s judgment into any specific war of the present. Nor can they declare an evil to be so great that they must respond to it with military force.

It is hypothetically possible that God will again ask his people to engage in a war to enact his judgment against a nation. However, that would have to be demonstrated by a clear prophetic call in the nature of that given to Israel. Putting aside the question of modern-day prophecy, this clearly shows that individual Christians – whether leaders, soldiers or civilians – are not given grounds to initiate or participate in a military judgment against a nation without explicit direction from God.

Thus I conclude that:

a) O’Donovan’s argument – that the state has an authority for judgment that can allow Christians to engage in violence – is not founded on the strongest of evidence

b) even if he is right, there is no biblical support for the concept of extending judgment outside of national boundaries as an act of war. Instead, Christians are to trust that God is iun control and enacting his judgment.

14,270 words…

Mike S — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 06:23:32 +0000

And I still haven’t finished writing.
I might need to edit.

Conclusion on O’Donovan

Mike S — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 04:33:14 +0000

This alternative interpretation is not conclusively proven, but we have demonstrated that it is equally as valid – and equally as supported by evangelical scholarship – as O’Donovan’s. Given the biblical-theological evidence we have examined, it would seem that the initial position for a Christian would be the non-violence (or non-resistance) demonstrated in the lives and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Thus, the burden of proof lies upon any theological position that would suggest an exception to this style of living. While O’Donovan’s masterful biblical theology clearly shows the role of judgment in the hands of the government, he has fallen short of proving that the Christian is expected, or even permitted, to be part of that process. As we have seen, it is possible to interpret Romans 13:1-7 ,1 Peter 2, and Mark 12 to suggest this conclusion. However, it is by no means the only, or even the best, understanding of those passages within their context. Therefore, the burden of proof still resides with O’Donovan to demonstrate that his interpretation is the correct one.

This is not the same as proving O’Donovan wrong, however it does leave him short of having proven himself right.

Now I’ve got to put all this together into something vaguely coherent and present it to my supervisor, so I’ll be taking a little break…