Posted on 11/01/2017 9:37:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
With Donald Trump threatening “fire and fury” against North Korea for its provocative nuclear program, many in the United States are braced for the worst. But not everyone is concerned. Robert Jeffress, a Texas evangelical Christian pastor (and outspoken Trump supporter) backed Trump’s hostile moves. He specifically pointed to a Biblical passage on government authority — Romans 13 — to justify a potential war against North Korea. Jeffress’ use of this passage to support military action, however, is a dangerous misinterpretation of what the Bible actually says.
There are reasons to be concerned about Jeffress’ argument that have nothing to do with his Biblical exegesis. A U.S. airstrike on North Korea could lead to North Korean retaliation against South Korea and Japan, harming our allies and troops stationed there. North Korea may also be able to launch missiles that could hit the U.S. west coast. Accordingly, some have pushed back on Trump because of these dangers, and would likely say the same things to Jeffress.
But Jeffress is also missing the point of the Bible passage he cites. First, what is he talking about? In Romans 13, Paul wrote (using the NIV translation): “Let everyone be subject to governing authorities.” Later, he wrote “they [governments] are agents of God’s wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” So does this mean Trump has God’s backing to bomb North Korea?
Now, I am neither a theologian nor a religious studies scholar. So I don’t claim expertise, and I hope experts in this area will address any important points I leave out. But when we apply a passage from religious scripture to a contemporary issue, we need to think about three things. First, do we understand what it actually says? Second, does our understanding fit with the context of the passage? Finally, does our understanding fall within traditional approaches to the issue? Jeffress’ statement fails on all three points.
First, he misses the point of Romans 13 (specifically Romans 13:1–7). In this passage, Paul is calling for Christians to follow government authorities and not to resist their actions. This could be interpreted to mean Christians shouldn’t get too involved in politics (…) or that open rebellion is never justified. It may also be geared to a specific time and place: Christians in Paul’s age were under constant threat of repression, so they shouldn’t give the government a reason to arrest them. But it does not include divine backing for a government to wage war.
Second, it’s hard to square his interpretation of that passage with others in the Bible. The Bible is not a book of aphorisms, with each verse having a message independent of all others. It’s meant to establish a coherent belief system. So any application of a passage to an issue should be in line with other relevant passages.
Jeffress’ is not. There are many Biblical passages warning against war, such as the famous Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Children of God.” There’s even the next verse in Romans 13 after the above passage, “let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.” There is thus little evidence that the Bible supports Trump’s bellicose actions against North Korea.
Finally, his argument doesn’t fit with the long Christian tradition of just war. As I’ve discussed, this ancient tradition can be useful in weighing potential military acts. Just war theory draws in part from the works of St. Augustine. Based on this tradition, there are several criteria leaders must meet before engaging in war, including a just cause, a competent authority, proportionality of response, and war as a last resort.
An in-depth discussion of these points would take up too much space, but even a cursory glance should show military action against North Korea would fail on all these counts. If North Korea were prepared to attack the United States or its allies, a pre-emptive strike by the United States may be justified. North Korea’s missile tests and nuclear development are concerning and grounds for condemnation. But this is posturing, not preparation for an attack.
So Jeffress is wrong on the desirability of war with North Korea, but he is also wrong on his use of the Bible to justify it. Christians (and really people of any faith, or no faith) concerned about certain evangelical leaders’ support for Trump should push back on the details of the policies Trump proposes. But they should also engage with the religious beliefs that underlie some of this support.
It’s always amusing when a leftist tries to argue from a book he not only doesn’t believe, but openly despises.
Akin to Herr Adolf trying to win a Torah argument.
For those opposed to Rome, you now have the Huff Po for your Bible study....
Luther would be happy.....
Who is Peter Henne?
This is a straw man lie and the author bases his entire article on it. Trump threatened "fire and fury" as a US response to any attack by NK - not as a response to its nuclear program.
Christians (and really people of any faith, or no faith) concerned about certain evangelical leaders’ support for Trump should push back on the details of the policies Trump proposes.
I'll listen to Dr. Jeffres long before I paid heed to this University of Vermont professor. No one wants war - at all - but neither do I want my country to sit back and get annihilated because leftists are more interested in taking down Trump than in saving the population of the west coast.
Pffft...
“such as the famous Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers”
—
The dullard should have read on to Matthew 10: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
This author doesn’t understand that the Bible distinguishes between individual responsibilities and governmental responsibilities. Blessed are the peacemakers is not directed to the defense department of a Sovereign Nation. It is directed to individuals and them living their lives in a non-aggressive way.
Jeffers is exactly right that Romans 13 assumes that governments have the power of the sword to punish evildoers. Since Rome had already fought many wars by the time Paul came along, there is no doubt that he acknowledged their Authority and realized that Authority had led them into many wars. Had he wanted to make an anti-war, anti-government statement, he very easily could have said so at some point in Romans 13.
Try looking at CONTEXT please, before plucking Scripture passages from the internet, as too, should the author of the article.
Extreme silliness by a Biblical neophyte. Romans 13 is an admonition warning the role of government in God’s hands is to punish the wicked. Benne neglects this passage completely.
Benne denies the Just War argument because he lives in the mind of Kim who is “posturing, not preparing for an attack.” Most Americans, Japanese, and South Koreans disagree.
The article is a waste of ink.
“Try looking at CONTEXT please”
—
Oy. You missed that I was illustrating absurdity with absurdity. You can put down the caplocks, nothing to get worked up about.
“The article is a waste of ink.”
—
It is the Huffpo after all.
RE: Who is Peter Henne?
From his Profile on the HuffPo page:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/peter-henne
Peter S. Henne is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Vermont, where he teaches courses on international relations and Middle East politics.
His research focuses on religion and international affairs, particularly in the areas of international conflict and states’ foreign policies. Before coming to the University of Vermont, Henne ran the Pew Research Center’s work on international religious freedom. He has also worked with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, and as a consultant with the US government on counter-terrorism.
Henne’s first book-Islamic Politics, Muslim States and Counterterrorism Tensions-was recently published by Cambridge University Press
Responding to an actual nuclear attack is justified. What would not be justified is a pre-emptive strike simply because NK possesses long-range nuclear capability. This would be like arguing the only reason we should not have nuked the Soviet Union was due to M.A.D., but given the absence of M.A.D. we should have turned them into a radioactive desert.
And who among us doesn’t turn to HuffPo for the interpretation of Biblical passages?
“Now, I am neither a theologian nor a religious studies scholar.”
That is apparent.
“So Jeffress is wrong on the desirability of war with North Korea”
Jeferess and Trump do not desire a war with North Korea. This guy wrote this whole thing just to slip that little sentence in.
Lefties ALWAYS trot out poor old Augustine and the “Just War” saw whenever they want to surrender us to the enemy.
Like clockwork ...
Oh goody another “expert” I won’t refer to
X is an unknown quantity. A spurt is a drip under pressure
Because I ALWAYS get my views on Theology, Scripture Interpretation, and New Testament Hermeneutics from the Huffington Post! :-)
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.