Posted on 05/13/2004 6:10:02 PM PDT by NZerFromHK
I understand that the war itself itself is just and necessary, but it seems to me most Bible-believing Christians in Asia don't share it. My friends all tell me that Bush is wrong blah blah blah and America is imperialist etc. And these aren't apostate Christ-denying people: they are just like Jerry Falwell on moral issues (perhaps even stricter than most pastors in America) and they even read and agree with the Left Behind novels, but politically they seem to come just right out of Peter Jennings or the US PBS shows.
For example, I'm quoting a Hong Kong Baptist church pastor's sermon that was given back in February this year. (this segment is a translated by myself: the full version is only in Chinese). Note that he is just like most evangelical pastors in America but politically he is anti-the-Iraq-war:
-----------------------------------
Living in the Age of Broken Interpersonal Relationships
by Pastor M.H. Cheung
http://www.baptist.org.hk/weekly_sermon/b5_s20040208.htm
Proverbs 18:18-21
....
(1) Wisdoms which resolve conflicts (verses 18-19)
"Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart.
An offended brother is more unyielding than a fortified city, and disputes are like the barred gates of a citadel."
The quote gives us this picture: two people in bad relations, and they argue and don't give an inch to each other. Just before they resort to violence, someone receommended resolve this peacefully using lots and an argument is resolved. The picture reminds us that that in the modern times, we have more to argue about and anyone who resorts to resolution by physical strengths is to solve them with violence.
God created man so that each man could be linked by love and have good relations with each other. But sin has entered the world and we start to have conflicts and jealousy between men. In the End Times, interpersonal relationships are even completely broken down and impossible to repair. Just recently here in Hong Kong we have a news that eight high school students physically bullied another student without doing anything wrong to them. Their motive is just: "we just want to kick and bully him". On the international stage we have the same situation. The US President George W. Bush's unilateralism is another clear example, using pre-emptive strikes waging wars against countries that allegedly endanger US security, without any better motives or reasons. This type of despicable behaviour is, on principle, not that different to those eight student bullies...
...
----------------------------------------
How do you respond to these brothers in Christ? I think the pastor has good Bible points but he seems to have bought too much secular leftist ideas and also read the Bible in the wrong context.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.
Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.
Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Lk. 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.
Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."
Reply to Objection 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."
Reply to Objection 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. On olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does no bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
-Romans 13:2-4
1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
I have ran into that, too. Even in Taiwan.
I think it's some propaganda that gets inserted in certain media circles and believed by people who like to question the 'king of the hill' globally, so to speak.
BTW, Am curious if you know any of the folks from Ling Leung Tang in Taipei. Or if you ever met a pastor Ralph who visited NZ.
Most Asians, in my experience, are not given to checking a LOT of diversity of sources out. Some are discerning and skeptical of conventional media lines. But most just don';t bother to check things out by digging deeper. Their lives are full enough--usually with overwork.
In terms of the war--Jesus honored and respected the Roman soldier. There's no evidence in any of the NT that military personnel were advised or encouraged to leave the military at their earliest opportunity. They were expected to be good soldiers as potters were expected to be good potters.
There is the one comment that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. It's hard to build a list of doctrines on the one generalized statement. But probably, it at least means, that if one is depending on one's sword for protection vs God, then there will be natural consequences of that.
I personally, would have a hard time killing even most animals in most situations. But could for food and easily for food for others. I would in many situations just as soon be killed and go home to heaven instead of killing my attackers. But if I were protecting loved ones, it would be easy to kill attackers.
And, when I was in the Navy, I was certainly prepared to defend shipmates; the comm center and the USA.
And, there is a fierceness of God's wrath which will be dealt in a rather war like manner--especially at Armageddon.
I can conceive of folks earning a greater weight of glory avoiding killing anyone in these times. And, I can conceive of folks earning a greater weight of glory taking a jaw bone of an ass, so to speak and slaying thousands of Philistines.
But we do well to remember that over all, the weapons of our warfare are NOT carnal.
I think that whichever tack we take, we do well to prayerfully seek God's will for us in that situation and then act in as much faith as we can muster accordingly.
The Old Testament is full of instruction by God to defeat evil and war. Also...go to Charles Stanley web site and look for A Nation At WAr which presents a great sermon on why war can be just and biblical.
the ideal way to respond is to note that individuals have to show mercy and forgive, but to live in community, and in peace, you need a government. So Peter insists we need to pray for the government who lets us live in peace.
Although many pc people say that the early Christians were pacifists, it's interesting to note that Cornelius, a centurian, was one of the earliest Christian converts.
For the world to outlaw war, you need a strong and Just UN.
Reality however shows the UN ignoring the massacres in Kosovo, Ruanda, Nigeria, the USSR etc. It was started as a way to stop aggression, but it simply does not prevent aggression. Indeed, by putting Libya, Sudan etc in charge of "human rights" groups at the UN, it shows it prefers to ignore human rights.
So since the end of the cold war, there is a vacuum to prevent naked aggression.
Clinton saw the UN and the EU ignoring the murder of hundreds of thousands in Yugoslavia, so finally unilaterally intervened, and has probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives by doing so. So we now see only the US (with the help of friendly powers) is willing to intervene in other countries to save lives.
After 9-11, it was recognized that Islamofascism of many kinds could coalesque and cooperate in getting WMD. Both Iraq and Iran had active programs. So we intervened in Iraq, where 17 UN resolutions had been ignored by S.H. but where the French and friends refused to enforce these resolutions. Bush, like Clinton, foresaw the future of mass destruction of western civilization if the interwoven sections of Islamofascists, terrorists, and states that supported terror continued to coalesque.
Since essentially, the US is the only nation willing AND able to intervene in this dangerous and rising power, it is our responsibility to do so.
If these people object, then ask them to project ten years into the future if we did NOT intervene. Do they really think it would be peaceful?. And then ask them why they stand with the liberals who ridicule the religious beliefs of Bush and Tony Blair, and why they chose to stand with the many --including some Vatican bureaucrats-- who probably defended S.H. because they got rich off of the oil for palaces program.
Sorry that I don't personally know anyone from the Taiwanese Ling Leung Tang and in NZ (I know mainly Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptists, and some non-denom brothers here only), but coincidentially when I was still living in Hong Kong, the Kowloon Ling Leung Tang is just next to my home at Boundary Street. We frequently receive gospel leaflets from them but it seemed to us that particular church was embroiled in a vicious church property dispute in the 1980s so we don't have much contacts with them. (I can't remember much detail as I was a small boy then, but it seemed to be about the church site. The original pastor, Mr Sai-kwong Chiu, had the church registered under his name. When he went to be with the Lord his sons hoarded the property and the church was forced to "rent" the church site that was originally rightfully theirs)
I share your line of thinking as well, particularly since the whole Sinosphere (excluding Korea and Japan), from Taiwan to HK to Singapore and to many North American Chinese, read essentially the same Christian materials. We read the same Christian books and magazines and many people seemed to be what you in America would call "religiously and socially conservative BUT politically liberal". I know their shocks when they see Christians in the West who are as Biblically orthodox to them on doctrines and beliefs are politically conservative, or that those "Christians" in the West who share their politics are full-blown apostates. (Not long after 9/11, I remembered it was common in Asia to see Christian sermons or articles that runs like "9/11 is God'd pubnishment on the United States for its sin or abortion, pornography, gay rights, public school prayers ban, imperialism, wars, capitalism, racism, all together" Hey, this is like rolling the words of Jerry Falwell and Frank Griswold together!)
At the end of the day, I know some of them accuse me of "humanist" or "rebelling against the Word of God" when I say that the Iraq war was necessary or when I say the free market is superior to socialism (whether in full-blown communism mode or Euro-lite version of welfare state), but I know a more thorough study of the Bible reveals that our side of the stand on politics is more Christian. And a big "Amen" to your points about seeking God's will on these areas.
I agree fully with you on this matter. That's why on politics I'm often forced to agree with unbelieving political conservatives rather than full-blown Bible-believing political liberals. If my memory was correct these same brothers were equally against GWI back in 1991, but then of course it seemed over very soon and then the Soviet Union came tumbling down and wars in the Balkans began, so their energy was diverted to somewhere else.
Thanks again for reminding me again of Dr Stanley's sermons on Chrustians and warfare. I saw it last year so I'm sure about the concept of just war. But the point is that Asian Christians take Bible study very, very seriously, they also read Dr Stanley, R.C. Sproul, Roy Zuck, H.L. Willmington, Chuck Swindoll, but they arrive at exactly the opposite position on many secular political issues like war, economics, US foreign policies, etc. Strange...
Oh my goodness, apparently these you speak of think that the OT is not for us today? Of course it isn't a sin to wage war, I do believe Jesus said he brought a sword, and His return may just be during a huge battle with those who would rage war against Him.
Even worse was that I attended a Methodist school in HK at that time (I was in Form 1, which is roughly equivalent to Grade 7 in US sys), and there was an Art assignment (homework) where we must convery an anti-Gulf War message through cartoons. (Fortunately for me I was on a sick absence on that day due to a cold - otherwise I wouldn't be able to fathom that assignment!) Oddly enough, our school also had a gospel outreach programme that a preacher came and talked about Bible prophecy, the Rapture, Tribulation Period, Jesus' Second Coming, and how Gulf War could lead to the appearance of the Antichrist! (And that shows amillennialism/Reformed theology don't get you very far in HK - a Methodist school talks about the Rapture! :p)
I think Christians in HK agree that when Jesus comes in Glorious Appearing, He will wage huge battles to the forces of the Antichrist, BUT they would probably think that "this use of force is only confined to God Himself and we as humans CAN'T use force".
A true Christian *must* support not only the Iraq war, but war on Islam wherever found.
Since its establishment by Satan, Islam has had one primary goal: the eradication of the two religions that worship the one true God, followed closely by the eradication of all other religions.
They are again on the march. Christendom is in worse peril than it has seen since Islam was at the gates of Venice, and may actually be in more danger now than it was in then.
As in Europe in the 1930s, we have only two choices. Do nothing as the enemy grows stronger, or stomp on them at the earliest possible date.
What if France and England had marched into Germany in 1936, arrested Hitler, and destroyed the Nazi Party? Millions of innocent people would have been spared horrible and premature death.
We can either fight Islam now, or we can fight them later when they are stronger. That is, we can choose an option that ultimately results in fewer innocent deaths, or an option that ultimately results in many more innocent deaths. There is no third option.
So you can tell those people who confuse Christianity with Marxism that standing by and allowing the forced conversion of the world to a religion created by Satan is no part of Christianity.
Am humbled and blessed by your wisdom.
I hate the church fight stuff over property and other more petty stuff. I think God must have some special spots in hell for some such.
Would enjoy keeping tabs with you on all things Chinese and Christian!
Do you know that Max Lucado's YOU ARE SPECIAL children's book is in Chinese? Great book.
Blessings,
I don't think it's an issue of anything other than the media establishing the agenda in his location.
When anyone mention Bush and preemption and doesn't mention Bush and 9/11, then I don't pay them any attention. They've been brainwashed.
Chinese-speaking Christians are very Biblically orthodox in faith. The only church denom I can think of that has modernist/liberal/apostate "Christians" in the Western Christian sense is the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan (PCT) which is openly aligned with Taiwanese independence political cause. Bur even there, just like PCUSA or United Methodists in the US, there are also many biblical Christians in that denomination. Perhaps that's because in the Chinese-speaking Sinosphere, as we never have had a Christian cultural tradition, those who aren't Christians don't need to have the pretense of being a "liberal" Christian - he can basically stay as a unbeliever or be a Buddhist or traditional Chinese religions believer whatsoever.
But politics wise, apart from views on Taiwanese independence movements, there is basically no difference between many Asian Christians. In fact, some of the most hard-core anti-American and Communist-China-nationalist HK Chinese are Christians.
I don't like church squabbles on properties either. In the Asian churches this type of disputes, along with power struggles within the church committee over who's in charge, are the most common problems, where in the American Christian scene (and partially Canada as well) it seems to be financial scandals, morality issues, and ecumenism/separation that matters. In the non-US West (partially true also for Canada) the issue seems to be survival.
I have seen Max Lucado's books in Chinese (just visited the only Chinese-language Christian bookstore here in Auckland the other day) and I think he is very very good. Many also recommend Hudson Taylor's books - Hudson Taylor is not that well known among Western Christians, but he was one of the leading 19th century evangelists in China. Beliefs wise Taylor was very much like a doctrinally rigourous evangelical pastor you see in America today. I also recommend C.T. Chan (his Chinese name is Chan Chung-tao) and Patrick So (So Wing-chi) if you can find their works. In particular, Pastor Chan's works are doctrinally much sounder than many pseudo-evangelical books in the West.
YBIC,
There is a saying that when you get to heaven, you will find many people whose stands you find shocking/wrong are also true Christians. I have often joked when American Christians get to heaven, they will be surprised to see many liberal and pacifist Third Worlders there, while many Asian Christians will also be shocked to see so many "right-wing militarist" Americans present as well.
Pastor Cheung did mention 9/11 in that sermon and he also said that these terrorists are hate-filled and are also wrong. I didn't translate that section just to save time.
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.