Posted on 11/23/2001 4:03:53 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective
by Ron McKenzie
A key responsibility of the civil government is to protect its citizens from attack by wrongdoers. This involves punishing those who break the law. It also involves defending the nation from every external attacker, including nations, other groups of people or dangerous pests and diseases. All these responsibilities are encompassed in the power of the sword (Romans 13:1-8). Therefore, pacifism is not a Christian option.
The Bible gives a nation the right of self-defence. However there are a number of principles which should control the civil government’s exercise of this authority in the fulfilment of its responsibilities.
1.War is only justified for defence (Romans 13:1-8). It should not be used to expand a nation's boundaries, or to take control of another nation, or to extract trade advantages. This is a fundamental principle. A nation should never need to establish military domination in another region or nation.
2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures. The nation of Israel conquered and destroyed the Canaanite nations. This was only done after a specific and direct command from God (Deut 7:1,2). This was a special case where God had a specific purpose in terms of the salvation he planned for Israel. It is not an example that can be followed by Christians or a Christian nation. We should not use war to win people for the gospel. (We should be honest and admit that the crusades were a mistake, however well-intentioned the crusaders may have been).
3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army"(Deut 17:16; 1 Kings 10:26-29). An army that is constantly training for war is dangerous, because it will be tempted to find a situation where it can use its skills. The military should not be given too much political power, as they will have a tendency to use war to solve all problems.
4.The defence force should take the form of a part-time local militia. The central command structure may be full-time professional so that the defence of the nation can be well organised (Deut 20:5). However, most of the soldiers will be trained civilians who can be called up when a defence force is needed. As they have other interests there will be no danger of them becoming over militant and fighting unnecessary wars. However, because they will be defending their families and friends they will be highly motivated if they are needed. They will be well prepared, but they will be only rarely called upon to fight.
5.The militia should be up made of volunteers. Anyone who is faint-hearted or afraid should not be forced to fight (Deut 20:5-9). People who are at a critical stage in their lives should not be forced into military service. For example, men who have recently married, started building a house or started a business should be freed from service, because they would not be focused on the battle.
6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16). God forbade the king from acquiring great numbers of horses for himself. The reason for this was that horses and chariots, at that time, were offensive weapons used for attacking other nations. The defence of the nation would not need large numbers of them. A modern defence force should choose weapons that are best for defensive purposes.
7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. Individuals or companies do not have the authority to commit a nation to war. Any declaration of war must be in accordance with correct legal processes (Deut 20:10).
8.War should always be the last resort. Before declaring war, the civil government should try every means possible to obtain peace (Deut 20:10). We should never forget the horror of war. It is always costly in terms of human suffering. Christians should never glorify war. While it is an honour for a man to give his life to defend his family and community, war is never an ideal solution. A Christian government should be prepared for war, if it is attacked, but it should also hope that it would never have to fight.
9.A Christian nation should always seek God’s will before declaring war. A nation going to war, because it thinks it is right, is being presumptuous (Deut 1:41-44). Presumption is a terrible sin. If the war has God’s blessing, the army is more likely to have success.
10.A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance of success. Jesus said that before a king goes to war, he should sit down and consider whether he can match the army that is coming against him. If not he will send a delegation to ask for terms of peace (Luke 14:31-32), even if this involves a loss of freedom. For Christians freedom is not an absolute value. It may be better to lose freedom to govern, than to lose a large number of lives in an unsuccessful defence. In fact, because Jesus has set us free, we cannot lose our freedom.
Two things should always be remembered,
a.Christianity can survive under extremely hostile environments. It was born in the hostile world of the Roman Empire. In our own time, Christianity has blossomed under the hostility of both the Soviet Union and Communist China. Therefore, Christianity will never be dependent on winning a war for its survival. If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. b.It is God who determines the appointed times of the nations and the boundaries of there habitations. (Acts 17:26, cf Job 12:23, Deut 32:8) If a nation is invaded by another and this is not God’s will, he will not allow the situation to last long. For example, after the Second World War, the Russian Empire took control of most of Eastern Europe. However, because this was contrary to God’s will, that empire had collapsed within fifty years. If a nation is unable to defend itself, all is not lost; God will have his way in the end.
Counting the cost of war, is not just a matter of estimating how many soldiers will be lost. The full cost of the war should be counted. There are generally very few winners in war. The cost for the families of those who die is enormous. For the soldiers who survive the cost can also be high. Many will have injuries that blight their lives. Worse still, war has a desensitising effect on its participants, and good men can be drawn into doing great evil. They will have to live with there consciences. War is also an enormous waste of economic resources. There are actually very few situations serious enough to justify the enormous costs of war.
11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one. A good example of this is Gideon, who defeated a large Midianite army with 300 unarmed men (Judges 7). However, this promise should not be used as a justification for foolish wars.
12.Total war, as it has been practised in this last century, is prohibited by the Bible. Those engaged in war are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20). The same protection would apply to women and children. Non-combatants should also be protected.
13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants. The same principle would rule out many modern weapons. Only weapons which can be targeted at combatants or other weapons can be used by a Christian nation. On the other hand, anti-ballistic missile defence systems may be justified, because they are defensive.
14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation.
15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil). A nation cannot even be invaded to establish democracy. (Democracy must come from the hearts of the people, it cannot be enforced from the outside.) Most attempts by great powers to establish "better" government by force in other nations have failed, because the spiritual forces that control the nation have not been defeated (Dan 10:13).
The principles outlined here allow a nation to defend itself, but there are very severe restrictions on which methods may be used. Likewise there are very strict conditions which must be fulfilled before war may be justified. Almost all modern conflicts would fail to meet these conditions. The Bible recognises the horror of war. There are probably very few situations that would justify the cost of war. It should be an extremely rare event.
The current war in Afghanistan does fit with these principles. The people who organised the attack on the World Trade Centre, committed a dreadful crime and should be punished as criminals. However, the nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban did not attack the United States. Afghanistan may be harbouring the criminals who organised the attack, but that is not a justification for war. We may dislike the Taliban intensely, but that does not justify war against them. The United States does not have the right to determine who should govern Afghanistan. (The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established). The United States is not defending itself against an attack by Afghanistan, so it is not justified in attacking Afghanistan.
The methods of warfare being used in Afghanistan cannot be justified either. Bombs that destroy the land and can kill and maim civilians are forbidden by Deuteronomy 20. The alliance with the ungodly men of the Northern Alliance is also contrary to the Scriptures.
November 23, 2001
Ron McKenzie is an economist in Christchurch, New Zealand. He is also a Presbyterian minister.
I think the leap to your conclusion, "I don't believe any was provided", is a greater leap than my opinion that convincing evidence was provided.
I think this sentence proves you are correct in your assesment that he meant to say "doesn't."
That's a nice theory but Reagan didn't let that stop him re: Libya.
You'd also have to believe that every little bit of evidence would compromise security. To add insult to injury, you'd also have to believe that the Prime minister of England is more trustworthy than the American people when it comes to this evidence. The quote you provided shows that even the evidence that does exist cannot be linked to bin Laden in any substantial way. Laden has denied his involvement. Not that I believe him to be trustworthy but I don't find our government officials to be trustworthy either. If you're willing to accept the word of government officials who have more to lose by telling the truth than lying, that's your call. I don't buy it.
As I'm sure you probably know, that is not true. You seem to be making a habit of saying things that are blatantly false. On your last thread you claimed the U.S. had made no effort to arrest associates of the Sept. 11 terrorists, which, of course, was also false. How stupid do you think we are?
Ok last question then I won't bother you further. What is the basis of your gut opinion that the (our) government would have more to lose by lying about the source of the attack? Was it really the Jews or what?
Much more convincing are the plans they found on the folks who committed the first WTC bombing 3 years ago. And those folks do not have ties to bin Laden. Furthermore have you seen these plans? Do they involve suicide airline pilots?
How do you know they weren't drafted soon after we started bombing?
Romans 13:1-8
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
13:5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
How did you arrive at your summation?
Where would they get the horses? Egypt. This probably more a command to aviod contact with them, as perhaps He did not want other things coming back----such as the usual worship of other gods, etc.
See previous post.
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, [that] all the people [that is] found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities [which are] very far off from thee, which [are] not of the cities of these nations.
First off, 20:10:
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it
This clearly describes an attack against a foreign city; not the defense of one.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it
Again, you won't find too many defenders besieging a city; this is clearly offensive in nature.
20:15--Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities [which are] very far off from thee, which [are] not of the cities of these nations.
.....far off from thee-----definitely implies an attack on a city on foreign soil.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
3:1To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
3:6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Herein always lies the hard part.
According to the US, Bin Laden was involved in at least three major attacks - the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. source
|
|
Bin Laden, the Saudi-born businessman believed to be holed up at a secret location in Afghanistan, tops the FBI's Most Wanted fugitive list and was implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa and other acts of terror. In 1997, bin Laden declared that the Islamic fundamentalists he leads would wage a "jihad," or holy war, against the U.S. and Saudia Arabia. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:1ST0hRy5sww:www.terrorismfiles.org/individuals/usama_bin_laden.html+bin+ladin+connection+1993+trade+center+attack&hl=en Q. Why do many suspect bin Laden masterminded the New York and Washington terrorist acts? A. Bin Laden's name surfaced in connection with acts of terror around the world, including the attacks in Saudia Arabia in November 1995 and Dhahran the following June that left 30 people dead, including 24 Americans. He is also implicated in the assassination attempt on Egyptian president Mubarak in Ethiopia in 1995; the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that killed three and injured hundreds; and the Somali attack on American forces that left hundreds wounded. (Associated Press) |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.