Every election season one of the subjects discussed most frequently by evangelicals is abortion. Most evangelicals (and Roman Catholics) stand against the legalization of abortion. Yet this isn’t the only “pro-life” issue worth considering. There are at least two other things impacted by whom one votes into various political positions: (1) warfare and (2) capital punishment.
Today’s question is simple: “Is your ‘pro-life’ ethic internally consistent?” In other words, do you know why you are against abortion, but OK with capital punishment and war or against war and capital punishment, but OK with abortion? Please explain your thought process on this important matter!
Of course, other matters could be considered “pro-life” like various environmental policies that may impact the lifespan and quality of life for people in particular regions. If you want to mention your views on such matters you’re welcome to do so in the comments section.
the archives near Emmaus 
I am against arbortion for the same reason I am for capital punishment and (generally) for war…Holiness of life. Of course, there are numerous ‘what if’s’ and each situation presents the opportunity for nuance, but in general that’s where I’m at and have been for a long time.
I selected:
“I am against all three.”
I should provide a disclaimer, that I am also somewhat comfortable with the Just War Theory, although the justification of violence and war has been easier and more common to present.
I find this consistent in the way of being against abortion, but to save the mother’s life, or otherwise help save life, finding these decisions something that go beyond our reflection on ethics, and into prayer and reflection to God, with the value of life in mind.
The ethics of these three subjects could fill volumes. I’ll be back!
Consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds (*), I am proud of my inconsistency!!
Seriously though, I try for consistency but often fall short. I am GENERALLY against abortion although I oppose the abolition of abortion and am not completely convinced of the full personhood of a cluster of cells. The debate concerning late-term abortions and viability of the fetus are different. I also consider war, as practiced, as alomost always misguided and fraught with unintended consequences. That said, I cannot bring myself to denounce all military intervention. As to capital punishment, I am comfortable in opposing it universally on the grounds that it is impossible to practice with justice (so much depends on the quality of your legal representation), that mistakes in its implementation are impossible to recall and that its efficacy as a deterrent to crime is questionable.
[ * – Yes, I now I left out “foolish” ]
@James:
JWT is difficult to maintain in our modern world. I don’t know that any of the principles offered by Cicero or Augustine can be applied anymore.
@Scott F:
If abortion is made illegal it would still lead to some troublesome scenarios, especially since it is unlikely abortions would cease to occur. As regards the status of personhood this is another difficult matter. When would you call the embryo a human with rights?
Your views on capital punishment are interesting and worth exploring further.
Against all three. I am also against pollution and other such things which infringe on the rights/quality of life/lifespan of others.
@Jonathan: Very straight forward…do you care to unpack your reasoning?
I am against all three because I believe in the sanctity of life from womb to tomb. I also believe that God gives life and is the only One who can take life. My hope is that God is an active partner when decisions involving these delicate and life-altering issues are being considered.
@Nellie:
So you take a somewhat universal stance against one human taking another human’s life no matter the situation?
Is a Pro-life stance consistent with support for capital punishment?
I live in a country without capital punishment, but I certainly concede there’s a difference between the state putting to death a serial criminal found guilty in the eyes of his peers as sentence, and the termination of an unborn child within the womb.
If you’re going to ask a question about consistent attitudes add to that consistency question the assertion of whether or not this comparison includes the sense that the foetus has had a fair trial. Perhaps then some answer could be provided; otherwise this is an apples and oranges and oranges comparison.
Abortion and capital punishment? different. One is the taking of innocent life and the other is the punishment of evil. I have a personal issue with capital punishment. Not on a right and wrong premise but I have a hard time approving of something I couldn’t do myself.
On that note, in response to the war thing, I could do. Not saying I would enjoy it or that I would be good in war. I don’t like war but war for the right reasons, I believe, is right. For example, a man that would want to hurt my wife and kids has started a war with me.
On a national level, the military needs to have a right response to protecting not only our country but more vulnerable countries who need our help. If I saw my neighbor’s house being plundered or family being hurt then it is either my response to step in or to get the police to help no matter what danger that may put me in.
In other words, I don’t believe in peace at all costs.
@Andrew:
What about Scott’s suggestion above that the legal system is too finite for capital punishment to be a good idea. In other words, one may think if someone could be proven utterly evil the state should take their life, but the fallibility of judge and jury has killed too many innocent people in the past?
@Ike:
Good observation regarding the difference between abortion and capital punishment. What do you think of Scott’s suggestion above that the finite knowledge of judge and jury might make capital punishment immoral in some way? Also, do you see a difference between how nationals fight when protecting each other and how you may fight someone robbing your neighbors home (e.g. it is unlikely many innocent by-standers would be harmed)?
I have often been critical of people who claim to be “pro-life” but don’t mind the fact that we send forces into other countries to kill people because we do not like how they work. Recently a video leaked of a couple of U.S. soldiers urinating on the corpse of a “terrorist.” Now I don’t want to extend this attitude into a generalization, but it’s a pretty clear picture of how we view the lives of others in the midst of war.
I am opposed to war for several reasons, but I like to view it eschatological and missiologically. It’s difficult to spread the Gospel to all nations if we’re killing them. And if we believe in the lack of hate, pain, war, killing, etc in the eshaton, then maybe experiencing it now is bringing that into reality.
As far as Capital punishment, when I realized that in our Declaration of Independence we have a phrase from John Locke about the unalienable right to life, it made a big difference. I think we have forgotten what unalienable means. Of course crimes cannot go unpunished, but if we really value life and see it as unalienable, then it seems like a consistent outcome would be the taking away of the right to freely express life in public, i.e. life imprisonment.
@Brian. Exception: Self-defense, if someone’s life is clearly in danger. All of these issues have their own unique exceptions, depending on the circumstances. But regarding war, can there really be a just war, considering the cost to human lives and to the resources to maintain decent human living?
@Cris:
I like your eschatological and missional approach to warfare. You are correct that it is difficult to tell people they are loved by Jesus when your country is bombing their city. Your insight into the legitimacy of capital punishment in our country is an interesting one that I’ve never considered.
@Nellie:
I don’t think there can be a just war. If someone argues that war is inevitable I’d respect them more if they don’t attempt to call it just.
@Cris I like your perspectives. What then, as a citizen of a country, if that country is provoked into war, whether we advocate for it or not. The troops are coming and will kill everyone. What then of our ethic? Should we value life by preserving and defending, or should we protest and all die?
In one sense, I know this will never be our problem (there will be plenty of people willing to fight), but in another, I like to know that my ethics about a thing can be carried out to a justifiable ends — and I’m not sure I could feel justified by sitting back and doing nothing.
While I’m not exactly promoting the theatrics of Braveheart, I nevertheless see, in a broken world, how we get dragged into broken situations as well. This is what makes the topic difficult for me. Still, I toe the line more on anti-War than any other position. Of course, strong conservative Republicans extol the virtues of avoiding war as well, by means of stockpiling a strong national defense. This, they say, is like a car alarm for wanton burglars. And the debate goes on…
@James:
I think the same question can bounce back your direction as a follower of Jesus. That is the very thing he did when people came for his life. He refused to fight and he told his disciples to expect death as well. Is this a temporal thing or do disciples of Jesus need to rethink their willingness to fight?
I am far more consistent in my “pro-life” stance than the main of the Democratic Party ever would be. This is aimed at “conservatives” and the issue is never raised right back at “liberals.” It is time to pull the mask off of both hypocrisies. Not just one.
@Dan:
You’re wrong concerning the aim of this post. I do not support abortion. I am cautious regarding capital punishment (because I fear the fallibility of our justice system may risk many lives). I am anti-war, though I don’t know that I am a pacifist, per se. You presumed a lot with your comment.
I just find the question, when it is raised, to call out “conservatives,” that’s all. I wouldn’t doubt your position, but typically when the question is raised it is to in some way show the hypocrisy of being “pro-life” and “pro-war.” It’s rarely, if ever raised to show the hypocrisy of the typical “liberal” position. Of course I presume a lot. As you do.
@Dan: It calls “liberals” to answer the same question. So can one be “pro-life” and “pro-war”?
You would be the first. That’s refreshing. Honestly.
@Brian Point taken. And good question about if this was part of Christ’s specific mission? Surely, we have much in the Story of God about defending the weak from evil. We have tales of justice, and often by violence.
I can’t imagine a mother offering her child up to armed intruders, while the “holy” dad sits nearby, submitting to the evil that is coming upon them. And he must do more than negotiate with them… he must do everything in his power to stop them… everything. On a larger scale, we are born into the Kingdom of God, but also hold dual citizenship here as families and people trying to live in peace.
Jesus never made a command to all disciples in all places that they could never fight back evil. But these disciples, who probably still have Zealot ideas about taking war to the Roman throat, were forbidden. The Mission of the Messiah was not about Rome or Jerusalem. It was about Universal Redemption…
I’m not sure we have enough on the topic to declare Pacifism as a clear and sure way of life.
BTW, the way you described your position on war above, is probably similar to mine. I wrestle through the very same issue. I took a course on Evangelical Ethics not long ago, and I was boggled by the many layers of debate on this topic. It was overwhelming to say the least.
@Brian, Scott, Brian WRT to Scott’s position.
As someone who has experienced war first hand (Afghanistan), as unpleasant as it was, I can attest that within the political toolbox (and war IS within the Political toolbox), it is necessary (sometimes). Beyond endless diplomatic solutions that fail to achieve purpose, and sanctions, there comes a point in time that in order to achieve some political means, war is necessary. Certainly, one could make the argument that we lack wisdom to know perfectly when to wag war, but neither the bible, nor our faith, expects us to know this perfectly. The bible illustrates that war was used both BY and AGAINST Israel (also Edom, Egypt, Babylon and others), and its use was sanctioned by God and expected of men. Whether or not God stands before us as pillar of smoke by day and fire by night, war is not something God prohibits, especially when it relates to His purpose. To argue against this then, is a reflection of personal prejudice. Yet Scott does not denounce all military intervention.
WRT to the argument the legal system is ‘too finite’ for capital punishment, I disagree. The purpose of the legal system is not to prove anyone ‘evil’ or ‘good’, only God knows what is in a man’s heart. However the legal system is to determine ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’, and then to sentence. Is Scott suggesting that because we lack the ability to determine ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ perfectly we shouldn’t sentence? The standard for sentencing is ‘reasonable doubt’ not ‘perfect’, and this standard does not change based upon sufficiency of evidence or on possible sentencing outcomes. Therefore ‘reasonable doubt’ is sufficient to sentence ‘death’. We don’t say things like ‘although the maximum sentence for your crime is 20 years, because the jury was only 80% sure you were guilty, we’ll give you 15 years. Once guilt or innocence is determined, we ascribe confidence to the determination, and then move on and establish sentencing. If Scott has doubts about this process, his position is broader than a simple criticism of capital punishment.
The legal system Western democracies possess was not a human invention. Rather it is primarily (historically) the product of our Christian faith (research the history of both Common and Civil law). Therefore it has been greatly is influenced by God sanctioned law-givers such as Moses and based upon biblical principles. In sentencing the legal system serves at least four purposes in its deliberations; retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. All of these considerations are biblical concepts and founded on biblical principles.
Because death as a punishment is not a question of sufficiency of evidence then, what about the above four principles? The bible makes it clear that a ‘life for a life’ is the maximal acceptable standard for retribution, but it is still within the acceptable range. Before someone presents the argument about Jesus saying ‘turn the other cheek’, note that ‘life for a life’ and ‘eye for an eye’ was an argument against blood vendetta, such that ONLY one left for ONE LIFE was permissible, not two or three lives, eyes, whatever. Even with turn the other cheek as an axiom for others, the OT standard is still within God’s acceptable standard for retribution. Death is also a biblically acceptable standard for deterrence given the crime. Death is not acceptable for rehabilitation or incapacitation, but not all crimes warrant due attention to either of these principles, biblically or practically.
So lets take a N. American example, from a country that doesn’t possess Capital Punishment, that did make American news; Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Homolka was a serial rapist turned serial killer who was convicted beyond reasonable doubt of serial killing (including the rape and killing of his sister-in-law, with his wife’s help). He was ‘likely responsible for over 100 rapes in Toronto / Scarborough. (Since his incarceration for murder has been shown by DNA evidence to be responsible for unsolved rapes). He and his wife both video taped themselves beheading their victims (as well as other things), and his DNA found on his victims.
Clearly the evidence was sufficient to find him ‘guilty’. Would Scott argue that some other standard would be necessary to sentence Paul Bernardo to death? Given the breadth of his victims and the nature of this crimes including many deaths for which he was not tried, surely death would be an acceptable form of retribution even if capital punishment does not restore the victims to life. Given video evidence, DNA and a jury finding of ‘guilty’ what more standard would be necessary to recommend ‘death’?
To someone who disagrees with the penalty in the first place no standard would be acceptable. So the question is, if the penalty is biblically permissible (though arguably perhaps not preferable), how can we justify giving personal ‘taste’ precedent over the state’s obligation govern equitably and justly? This type of thinking reflects typical western liberalism which is the ancestor of humanism.
@James:
Personally, I don’t think a Christian should volunteer for military service because more often than not one is asked to kill for the state for reasons that are very, very, very hard to justify as disciples. It is one thing to say, “What is someone came into your home to kill your wife?” and another to say “What if you chose to enter the military to go into another country to kill people on their own land who disagree with your government?” This seems to be different in many ways. If one is drafted by the state this would lead me to more sympathy for the Christian going into a war.
@Brian, The biblical principle behind ‘military service’ is when the state asks you to kill, the state is held responsible. If the decision resides with you, you are held accountable.
Given the admonishment to respect earthly authority, if your state asks you to serve, you should serve.
@Andrew:
Who is “the state” that is responsible before God? The President? Your commanding general? Senators? House Representatives? It seems odd to think that if I shoot and kill an man because the impersonal “state” says I should that there is no blood on my hands at all.
If the “state” tells me to kill my wife or child, to enslave a man, to torture someone by abusing them physically, or other gross injustices contrary to the way of Christ, do I do it to “respect earthly authority”. It seems odd to suggest that if the state asks you to do something you consider immoral that you should do it because the state is the authority.
Thanks for the poll, it is sure to stir the pot. While the disputation will remain, my pro-life view is “internally consistent”. I am against war-fare and capital punishment. Namely because I disagree with the means justifying the ends of taking people’s lives in warfare. As for capital punishment, no heinous act–although we would like to— can be justified with ending someone’s life.
@Brian, who are the ‘governing authorities’ listed in [Romans 13:1-2]? (Or you dispute that there is such a thing?)
WRT the ‘why’, I suggest here’s ‘why’ [Psa 75:6-7]. Unless you believe God is an impersonal deity who created and set creation in motion only to remain aloof, God still executes judgment, putting down one, and lifting up another; however it seems …
@Andrew:
Let’s assume that “the governing authorities” are the United States, or Great Britain, or whatever nation in which you live….you must answer the questions I asked. Do you obey them in whatever they tell you?
Even if God raises and removes nations this doesn’t tell us how he does it. Nor does it tell us our role in the process each time. Nor can we over universalize Paul’s statement in Romans 13 considering he spoke to a small sectarian group under the thumb of the Roman Empire.
I am pro-life in every case. However, others are not and thus the approach us pro-lifers need to take to those who have abortions, fight in wars, hand out the death penalty,and ‘murder,’ needs to be done with Christ’s enemy love. So when one has an abortion, we need to be there for them, pouring out Christ’s love for them, and likewise for the rest. The state does have its ‘job’ to hand out justice, but in handing out justice life often times must be taken. Because Christ’s teachings are pro-life, it would be hard or next to impossible for a Christian to rejoice or partake in handing out justice. In regards to ‘just wars’ I am not sure if there ever are any ‘just wars.’ Even the one people generally accept as just(WWII) lacks in the standard category of jus in bello; and then we have to look at all the events leading up to it (i.e. we waited until our interests were jeopardized before we jumped in). If we could conclude it was just, again, that does not mean Christians should be involved…we are certainly never called to hand out justice.
@Roger
I think the main tension lies between what we see as a common thread in the teachings of Jesus and “realism” regarding the world around us. It is J.H. Yoder v. Niebuhr over and over again.
@Barobin:
I think the only difficulty is when Christians are part of the state and the functioning of the state. Should we abstain completely?
That option has recently led me to the conclusion that we may have to abstain even from governmental participation—after all even when we vote, depending on the view of God’s sovereignty, we may just be playing lots. With that being said, I haven’t comfortably accepted a view of abstinence; but it has been something I’ve been toying with philosophically and theologically in the past few months.
@Barobin:
I pondered abstinence from government affairs for a while, but realized even my acceptance of taxation makes me part of the affairs of this nation. It’s a challenging thing with which to wrestle.
@Brian as you yourself pointed out, Peter himself exhibited civil disobedience. The Nuremberg principle, that we are always to follow ‘lawful’ commands and are held morally responsible for our actions when we follow ‘unlawful’ ones – is not contradicted by the bible. Your own statement implies you recognize a command to kill your wife or child as ‘unlawful’ (biblically). However, the state asks us to ‘enslave’ all the time. Restricted freedom to move (otherwise known as imprisonment) is a form of enslavement.
Now I’ve answered your question in the affirmative, there are justifiable reasons for civil disobedience. Do you hold that up as your argument for WHY a state does not have proper authority to order you to kill? Is your argument that because the state might potentially issue an unlawful command we are not to honour it when it issues lawful ones?
Or if you hold the state never has the right to order you to kill, is this a biblical or personal belief?
Taxation certainly does add an interesting quandary—what do the Amish do?
@Andrew
Quite simple: I think Jesus’ Kingly decree for his disciples excludes killing. If I let the state tell me to kill I contradict his Kingdom ethic.
@Barobin:
I’m not sure.
My initial thoughts about taxation would be to continue paying, some good comes out of taxation (i.e. roads, hospitals, education—sometimes, etc.)—despite the bloated defense budget. Plus this allows Christians to maintain a good citizenship here, allowing us to do our Gospeling project without any suspicions. But again, I am still playing with ideas about this—I see the good and the bad for participating/not participating.
If we assume that Jesus expected his disciples to follow his teachings as best as we can regarding not seeking revenge, not doing evil to other people, turning the cheek, and the like then there seems to be little wiggle room for signing up to serve a government that would tell us to do otherwise, especially voluntarily. If Jesus’ words to Peter were not merely a temporal rebuke but preserved by the Evangelists to show it was part of Jesus’ ethic then this should be taken seriously.
@Barobin:
Like you I suspect if I am to partake of what the government offers regarding highways, hospitals, education, and so forth then I should pay taxes. I see the danger of the government using my money for violent means, but this is something that seems impossible to measure. How do I know if my money went to new books or bombs? I suspect God’s grace is sufficient!
@Brian … and yet David, a man after God’s own heart, killed 200 Philistines for their foreskins at the request of King Saul [1 Sam 18:25:27].
God considered it a sin when David killed a man for his wife, yet not 200 men for their foreskins for a bride.
It sounds like you equivocate murder and killing.
@AndrewT— One can accept the idea that murder and killing are two different ‘actions,’ and yet still be against both; no equivocation necessary. Not only this, but I do not see where Brian equivocated murder and killing.
AndrewT.—Killing is a broad term that encompasses all forms of taking of life. If one says I shouldn’t kill that means murder, self-defense, justice, war, or any other forms of life taking. When one says no to only murder, one qualifies the killing— killing is wrong if and only if when it is the case that the killing being done is murder.
@Barobin – I agree, but not on biblical grounds.
I’m arguing that a prohibition on ‘murder’ is biblical. Yet I believe that it is also biblically permissible for a just and God fearing society to wage war and lawfully order men to kill (on behalf of the state).
That is not to say every instance the state exercises this right is moral, or lawful, but likewise is it not correct that because these abuses may occur, every instance a state goes to war is immoral and unlawful.
It may be more immoral, for example, when a nation/state does not go to war to prevent genocide.
Like man, nation/states are judged by God, except that nation/states are judged yet while they exists while man’s judgment may be delayed until the 2nd coming. That God uses some nations to punish other nations is biblical, and so far I’ve not seen anything to the contrary.
I’ve not seen a Kingly decree from Jesus prohibiting his disciples from being soldiers for from acting politically on behalf of the state. In fact I’ve seen him healing the families of soldiers and marvelling at their faith.
@Brian:
Ah yes, the teachings of that religious man Jesus. 😉 By the way, I must confess I have yet to consider the dialogue between Yoder and Niebuhr. Where do you suggest I begin?
However, there is a great introduction to people that are also internally consistent called Christian Peace and Nonviolence: A Documentary History.
—Shalom!
@AndrewT.— Because Jesus did not specifically say: “Disciples you cannot join the military” does not mean it is morally right to join the military.
We have to separate the kingdom of the world from the kingdom of heaven. God will use the kingdoms of the world in his fashion to handle justice as He sees fit. As for Christians, we’re not called to hand out justice. So if God used the United States to ‘judge’ Germany and Japan, so be it. However, this does not mean the Christian is to help dish out the justice.
@Barobin because Jesus did not specifically say “Disciples you cannot join the military” does not meant it is morally wrong either. If you are going to assert this as a biblical precept, you need to show how it is so.
The bible, one book, God’s word is reflective on one God who establishes what is moral from immoral. He does not exhibit change or variation. The OT and NT precepts are consistent with one another. We can see from the OT that the earthly Kingdom that honoured God was indeed his ‘elected’ Kingdom ([Gen 17:4-5]) destined to be the kingdom of heaven forever:
[Hosea 3:5] written 200 years after the death of King David, spoke of Israel seeking David their King – a reference to Jesus, and [Isa 60:15] makes it clear that God’s earthly Kingdom would be his heavenly kingdom.
No, I think it’s a mistake and unbiblical to believe Christian’s should not judge righteously:
[Pro 31:9] “Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
[John 7:24] “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment”
If we don’t it is either a sign we are immature in our faith and cannot recognize justice, which means we are not like our God, or our head is in the sand.
@James sorry for the late response! But I agree with Brian here. Jesus openly opposed the Zealots and their way of doing things. He tells us to do pretty ridiculous things in the Sermon on the Mount when it comes to loving our enemies. The particular teaching that gets it for me is what Jesus says in Matthew 5:39. Most translations say, “do not resist an evil person,” which seems kind of strange, especially when we are told to resist the evil one! A better translation is, “do not resist evil by evil means” and he goes on to talk about turning the other cheek.
Now if we had people invading our country, the question would be “can a Christian volunteer for combatant military service?”
I guess a way to answer that would be with the criticisms the early church received from pagans for not joining the Roman military forces
Forgive me for not remember the specific writing, but I believe it was actually one of the first complaints against the church in writing.
@AndrewT: Remember Jesus’ statement about an eye for an eye?
We have to keep in mind that the Bible has a progressive revelation. In other words, what was acceptable for the Israelites may not be acceptable for us, and vice versa. Take the Torah for instance, Christians are freed up from much of the rules. Yet at the same time, it is stricter in some cases, “You have heard it said to not murder, I say do not even hate.” So simply quoting random Bible verses to support your case, especially from the Old Testament, needs to be done with care and through the lens of Christ—who fulfills Israel’s originally intended role, and now establishes a new covenant with a new way of doing things…a way much akin to how things ought to be. If we don’t do this, we stand on shaky ground.
I have no issues accepting that the kingdom of heaven will be on a restored earth. But that has nothing to do with ‘worldly kingdoms’ and the ‘kingdom of heaven.’ Worldly kingdoms are those ran by men, influenced by Satan, yet under God’s sovereignty. The kingdom of heaven is here now in us, yet not yet arrived. Remember what was said ‘my kingdom is not of this world,’ or ‘the kingdom of heaven is within you.’ It isn’t a kingdom by the world’s standards, and it is here now but not yet.
Justice is justice, judgment is judgment—they are not the same. We also have to be clear about which justice we’re talking about: There is no mandate in the New Testament that gives Christians the power to hand out retributive justice to criminals. The only judgment that occurs in the New Testament is within the Church,(i.e. 1 Cor. 5:12).Certainly the state is given power to issue out justice by the sword; however again, they’re under the power of Satan, and there is much ambiguity in how the control between Satan and God works with the powers, that Christians ought to be extremely careful in worldly affairs.
Brian, what do you think about using the framework of your question to ask if those who condemn the Holocaust are internally consistent by being against abortion as well, or, whether some people feel they are being consistent to condemn one but not the other?
@Roger:
I haven’t done much reading there either. I know the terms of the debate and that’s about it!
@Andrew:
It isn’t so much about whether or not is has ever been wrong to kill, but whether it is wrong for a disciple of Christ to kill. That makes David an irrelevant analogy.
@Mike:
I think the Holocaust and abortion are similar in numbers alone. We don’t have one ethnic groups being destroyed. We don’t have people who are independently alive being killed (the embryo is alive only because a mother is willing to provide herself as a sustainer). So while I think abortion is very, very sad, and it ignores the embryo’s “right to life”, the two seem to be categorically different.
Brian, I am amazed that you consider abortion as similar enough to capital punishment and war to call upon your readers for a rationale to distinguish them but as so “categorically different” from the Holocaust that it doesn’t belong in such a discussion. Perhaps if we could get abortion reduced to being practiced against only a single ethnic group, you’d be more likely to see some parallel.
For the record, I see abortion, capital punishment, war, and the Holocaust as all bearing certain similarities and certain dissimilarities. I respect a person’s conscience as to where he or she lands on each issue, but I deplore the identity politics, political party wrangling, and other influences – both obvious and subtle – that inhibit the free operation of an individual’s conscience.
Yes Mike, encouraging people to think about their approach to ethics…shame, shame, shame.
Brian, you misunderstand my point. Nevertheless, it’s probably not wise for me to belabor it. Rather, i’ll just close for now by saying that with Christ as our ever-present witness we have more than ample reason for think about our approach to ethics. In that regard, I support what you’re doing with this post.
@Brian so God has two standards?
…or God progressively works with humanity toward his ideal as revealed in his Son. Let’s not forget how much of the Law was fulfilled in Christ so that God could define his people without circumcision, Sabbaths, animal sacrifice, etc…
Which is another way of saying “God’s standard changes”?
What do you think?
I think – to discount the example of David [Acts 13:22-23] or to miss the significance of God’s love for him [1 Sam 13:13-14] as something less than perfectly revealed, is a defective view of the first covenant, since all scripture points to Christ.
If God describes David, a soldier, as a man after his own heart, whom Israel’s savior would be the offspring off, clearly being a soldier is not necessarily un-Christlike since Christ Himself is the descendant of a soldier (and a king).
Furthermore, whether or not God’s revelation is ‘progressive’, the manner of revelation has no bearing on the the thing being revealed. God’s way is perfect [Psa 18:30][2 Sam 22:31] and without shade or variation; nor hint of change. This means David’s conduct was acceptable before the Lord, no less than any Christian, because it was Christ honouring [Psa 118:1-2]
Furthermore, there is danger in reading the old covenant as the Pharisees did. We should read it as Christ taught his disciples to; which is to say – we should recognize Him all throughout it, as it all points to Him anyway.
Do I think David’s example is irrevelant? Not if I wish to be a man after God’s own heart.
I don’t see how your logic works. God loved David, but not all of David’s actions were ideal. This doesn’t discount the old covenant at all. Your leaping to all kinds of odd conclusions.
Mr. LePort, you stated:
“I think the Holocaust and abortion are similar in numbers alone. We don’t have one ethnic groups being destroyed. We don’t have people who are independently alive being killed (the embryo is alive only because a mother is willing to provide herself as a sustainer). So while I think abortion is very, very sad, and it ignores the embryo’s “right to life”, the two seem to be categorically different.”
The Numbers:
Holocaust: ~ 11 million killed, 6 million of which were Jews.
Abortion: ~ 53 million killed since 1973 in America alone, 13 million of which were black babies.
53 million and 11 million are only “similar” in that they are both 8 digit numbers.
The Ethnicity:
Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.
So much for your first two premises.
As for your third premise, are you positing that a pre-born baby ought to be guaranteed the Right to Life only if the mother is “willing to provide herself as a sustainer” of it’s life?
@Andy:
As much as I know you’d like to do your best Rush Limbaugh impression I am not saying I am “pro-choice”. I am noting difference per Mike’s question. Yes, the numbers are different overall, but Roe v. Wade was nearly forty years ago and WWII lasted about six years (and I can’t recall how far into the war before the Holocaust began). So you are looking about about 2-3 million Jews per year. The numbers aren’t all that different from that perspective. That being said, I am not minimizing the numbers overall. I was noting them as similar in fact.
Even on my second point one-third of abortions being a particular ethnic group is not quite the same as 100%. So while I emphasize again that I am not justifying abortion, I do think there are differences.
As to the third point, Andy, no, I am not saying that. Yet I do think it is an important distinction to make when we consider the two events. It is something that must be addressed when we consider ethics of life. The woman’s role as sustainer is an important thing to factor and one that makes women’s voices in the debate worth hearing.
Now my friend, we are on the same side regarding the morality of abortion. We may be on the same side regarding the legislation, though I admit I am far more unsure of how to go about organizing a post-Roe V. Wade America. I don’t know if it will actually stop abortions, though it may slow the pace a bit it could have other serious consequences if we aren’t thoughtful. Remember, if either you or I had a daughter who was pregnant and she wanted an abortion it would put a real face on that side of things. We wouldn’t want her life at risk and we wouldn’t want her to abort her child. In this spirit we must ask ourselves what it means to defend an ethic of life in a way that defends the unborn and cares for the women of our society. I am not sure I have all the answers there.
What does my “best Rush Limbaugh impression” have any relevancy with this post?! First, I’m not a Rush Limbaugh fan and I have not listened to him in over four years. Second, Rush Limbaugh is neutral, at best, on the Life issue. There is no impersonating being attempted on my part whatsoever. I’m just trying to see if your logic is “internally consistent”.
You falsely equate the time period of WWII with the time period of the Holocaust. The Holocaust actually started many years prior to WWII. 1933 is when most sources started counting Holocaust deaths, so your numbers are quite skewed.
Also, you seem to be of the misunderstanding that it was just Jews that were victims of the Holocaust. In my initial post I clearly stated that ~ 11 million was the total death count, of which ~ 6 million were Jews. After looking more closely the total number is actually over 12 million, with 6 million being Jews. Based upon your numbers (2-3 million Jews per year, over about six years), you are saying that 12-18 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That is categorically incorrect. Your perspective on the Holocaust is grossly mistaken.
You stated, “Even on my second point one-third of abortions being a particular ethnic group is not quite the same as 100%.” Again, the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is NOT 100%, it is actually very near 50%. 50% is quite comparable to 36%, especially when comparing your false understanding of 100% vs. 36%.
I’m troubled with the way in which you chose to word your response to Mr. Gantt, which is why I asked for clarification on your 3rd premise. The fact that you refer to the pre-born baby as an “embryo” minimizes its personhood, and is essentially an acceptance of the pro-choice premise that the pre-born baby is just a clump of cells. That being said, I do appreciate your clarification on your 3rd premise. I would just caution you against accepting the language and thus the premise of the pro-choice advocates.
Personally, I have already thought through your hypothetical scenario of having a daughter that wants an abortion. I think it is wise for people to have reasoned those things out prior to it becoming a reality. Often, when emotions are involved, logic and reason is not present and it is too late to make a good decision in such a situation.
Andy:
You remind me of Limbaugh in that you are an angry person always ready to debate almost anything, but never someone with whom many would envision any sort of dialogue to occur. It’s your reputation. Your goal is to win a fight, so own it.
You are correct on the statics. I overlooked the overall number proposed in comparison with the number of Jews included in the larger number (well done, one point for Andy). Thank you for noting my error.
Anyways, I may revisit this subject again since it is worth pondering what one thinks of life in the womb in comparison with life outside of it.
Angry? No. Always ready to debate anything? That depends on what you mean by “debate”. Willing to dialogue? Always (as our exchange here proves). My goal is not to win the fight, but to perpetuate the Truth. I saw incorrect statements being made by you in response to Mr. Gantt’s comparison of abortion to the Holocaust and I endeavored to correct those statements. Please refrain from your ad hominem labeling. Especially since it has been years since you and I have had any sort of exchange. Your assumptions of me based upon your perceptions of me back then are simply incorrect. If you have a personal disdain for me for whatever reason, that is fine. But don’t let that get in the way of our dialogue. 🙂 Thanks.
I would support your revisiting of this subject in the future. If you are interested, I would be willing to submit something on the topic of abortion as a guest post. Just let me know.
Andy:
It would be ad hominem if I thought your person discounted your argument. I am not saying that. I am saying you are a difficult person with which to interact and it is your reputation. That’s all.
These are my most recent thoughts on the matter so you can understand what I am pondering: http://nearemmaus.com/2012/01/16/the-moral-quandaries-of-the-abortion-debate/
@Brian, it’s true not all of David’s actions were ideal; nor are any of ours. How does is this different from the conduct of Christians? Still, even though true, it hardly makes the case David’s case differs from the followers of Christ or that Christians should not be soldiers.
You’ve argued above that somehow following Christ means one should not soldier, though the bible shows many followers of God were not only soldiers but beloved of God (Joshua as well as David!).
The position ‘one who follows Christ should not be a soldier’ is the result of eisegesis rather than exegesis.
@Andrew:
All exegesis contains eisegesis, lest we wouldn’t be having this discussion by taking our concern to the biblical text.
Again, I don’t understand where you are going. I am not saying all Christians are flawless. What does that matter to this discussion? My concern is with Christ refusing to allow his disciple to use force creating the maxim “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” Jesus language regarding turning the other cheek, going the second mile, and so forth creates quite a precedent for his followers. He didn’t see his Kingdom as emerging from the world ad this should be a straightforward message to Pilate that he wouldn’t obtain his Kingdom as Rome obtained hers.
When Paul admonishes Roman Christians to not return evil for evil he follows Jesus’ line of thinking. For Christians we witness to a peaceful Kingdom. Our role (as most of the early church saw it) is to witness to Christ’s Kingdom in the midst of the world’s kingdoms.
To join the military means I must return evil for evil. I must strike my enemy. I must live by the sword. I support kingdoms arising by force. It is one thing to be nonviolent knowing I may not be able to live those ideals all the time (e.g. if someone attacked my wife), but to join the military is a direct affront to those commands of Christ and Paul…at least in our world.
David’s actions at his time are one thing. Our actions after the advent of Christ are another. Personally, I don’t see how we can fight in wars while proclaiming the gospel of a crucified King.
My thoughts on this matter: http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2009/06/01/abortion-defensive-violence-and-moral-consistency/
@Brian, thank you for re-articulating your position. Respectfully we must agree to disagree. You say “To join the military means I must return evil for evil”, yet this is the very thing we are trying to prove. This is an example of affirming to consequence (which is a fallacy). To join the military, or a nation that uses of force is not necessarily ‘evil’.
If [James 4:3] is correct that “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God” is correct, and we are a God fearing people (as nations) than we will naturally be at enmity with the world whether or not we are able to use peace to spread the Gospel. The word hates Christ (because He testifies against it) [John 7:6-7], so the world, by nature, will hate the Christian message. If we are Christ-like as a people, and our nations, we will also testify against its evil works as Christ did (for our Christ-likeness should enable us to recognize it). The world cannot help but hate the Gospel and the people who affirm it.
Therefore, WRT to our relationship to the world, we have an individual choice and a national choice; are we going to be at enmity with God or the world? As much as we may not like the enmity the world has with Christ, or his message, waging war IS an outworking of faith (unfortunately). (Please notice, I am not disdaining peace for war, or suggesting the Gospel will not propagate through peace)
To not defend Christ’s values in a world that hates them, is faithlessness. To say “‘peace’, ‘peace’ when there is no peace” [Jer 6:14][Jer 8:11] is an abomination because with the wicked, there is no peace [Isa 48:22]. This is how the use of force to prevent genocide is biblically justifiable, for example. Sure we could choose not to use force against genocide, but what worth is a Gospel that proclaims ‘defence of the innocent’ but does nothing to ‘defend the innocent’? It is a Gospel of faith without works (which is dead) [James 2:14-26], and therefore worthless.
The peace that you (and I) value, that we would like to see the Gospel spread through, is the bi-product of having a relationship with God, and evident no where else. The biblical account of war, and of faith, is not that war is inherently evil (as you presuppose), rather the bible says war is inherently evil WHEN the cause of it is unbridled passions [James 4:1-2]. So you cannot say “joining the military means you must return evil for evil”.
WRT to your use of Christ’s admonishment to Peter, don’t take that quote out of context. Christ was speaking TO Peter who was using the sword to STOP CHRIST from accomplishing His mission. That instance is NOT the only possible use of the sword, and certainly not an admonishment to nations. I would absolutely agree with Christ’s point to Peter. However, to generalize to nations Christ’s specific words to Peter under those circumstance, is to mine the bible, misappropriating verses apart from their context to prop up an idea (that otherwise lacks such biblical foundation). Look at Christ’s words in [Luke 22:35-38] and follow its reasoning.
I admire your sincere desire for the Kingdom to be established in peace, but the bible simply makes it clear this will not be possible as long as the world is at enmity against it. For this reason, I cannot agree with you.
@Halden:
Thank you for sharing the link!
@Andrew:
I am attempting to present the mission of Christ and reading Scripture through that lens. This is a far cry from what you accuse me of doing. I find it quite surprising that you would essentially say that I am proof-texting when you just used portions of the Book of James to justify your views on war!
Your views align quite well with the rationalization of so-called Christians who joined the Nazi party. They could have seen their fight against the world as an act of faith. They could have described their enemies as the wicked. They could position themselves as the people of God and a righteous nation against people who disagreed with them which would allow them to see others at “enmity with God”. You may disagree with them, but your argument is no different in content.
My argument is not a logical fallacy. You don’t accept the premise that using violence in the name of the state is evil, but that doesn’t make it a fallacy. It is a premise you don’t share.
I find it rather hilarious that Andrew is saying that James 4:1-2 is about going to war. Hilarious! Totally out of context.
@Rod, Not quite; Andrew is saying (and said) that [James 4:1-2] is about “unbridled passion” as was indicated above. However, please note also, that [James 4:1-2] is being addressed to an ‘adulterous people in [James 4:4], and so is applicable here, contrary to your claim.
@Brian, now you’re saying because I argue war as an outworking of faith, my rationalization would justifies joining the Nazi’s? That’s absurd I presuppose, as you do, that people fundamentally recognize right from wrong. The Nuremberg trials exposed the fact that people fundamentally recognize laws exists above (national) laws. When pressed, indeed those Germans who rationalized supporting the Nazi’s knew they were acting against their conscious and doing wrong. This type of war is not an outworking of faith (or a natural consequence of my position). Don’t let the frustration of a controversy cloud your judgement.
However, since you bring it, was resisting the Nazi’s with war an option according to your position? Peace and diplomacy were consistently tried throughout the 30’s, up until 1939, was there some other way that was missed that would have had effect with Nazi thinking? When facing genocide, how does your position propose to spread the Gospel?
@Andrew:
Rod is correct, James 4 has nothing to do with warfare between nations. It has to do with contention in the church. Your claim is most absurd.
Please, before you flee from addressing this serious flaw in your logic, what makes an American or British army inherently sanctified, but not Nazi Germany? You have said that there are certain nations where if we as Christians submit to the state in acts of war we are justified because God has instated them. Then you place some nations on the side of God and others on the side of enmity of God.
Suddenly, you want to appeal to conscience! Now you want to say they were wrong because they knew their actions were wrong. Andrew, they obeyed their state leadership. Also, Nazi Germany claimed to be as Christian as many modern states whose acts of war you have baptized.
We can get to other things like genocide and so forth, but right now you have some explaining to do.
Further, you should answer what makes one nation for God and another against God? How does one know this? How many people in a nation must be Christian to qualify? What if the nation is split regarding Christianity (many in Europe and America are secularist)? What if two “Christian nations” fight against each other, who is on God’s side?
@AndrewT.—- You stated that you went to Afghanistan up above somewhere…Let me ask you, since you do not believe joining the military is necessarily evil—Think about the sort of violent, racist, disparaging, sexist language comes from the military. Think about the culture of death and hatred even ”righteous’ America’s military creates. Think about why this mindset is…think about the psychology that must go into creating ‘warriors’ who can kill people— regardless of the enemy’s ‘guilt’ level,so that they can do so willingly. Think about the ol’ basic training mantras that praise the God of War—what makes the green grass grow? blood bright red blood!—-If you can’t see how tainted with hatred and death the military is, whether the soldiers ‘really mean it’ or not, you’re just blind and deaf. I myself have done a combat tour to Afghanistan—and I myself came back a pacifist.
And let me add, I did so because it becomes extremely hard to mesh the military lifestyle with the words of Christ. If you can’t see that, you’re reading the Bible through the lens of America’s Civil Religion.
@Brian you say “…suddenly I want to appeal to conscience! Now you want to say they were wrong because they knew their actions were wrong. Andrew, they obeyed their state leadership.”
Have you already forgotten one of the arguments I presented that started this debate? It is still retrained above. I said (quoting):
“The Nuremberg principle, that we are always to follow ‘lawful’ commands and are held morally responsible for our actions when we follow ‘unlawful’ ones – is not contradicted by the bible.”
I’m not suddenly doing anything I have not done before. At the very top of this thread I conceded that we must always follow our concious. But if further clarification is needed, I’ll clarify.
There are two things here related but different. We can talk individuals, and we can talk nation/states. Biblically, there are admonishments to individuals and to nations states. I assume at this point, you and I do not share a controversy.
WRT to individuals, individuals are always expected to listen to their consciences, else risk muting the Holy Spirit [Isa 63:10][Eph 4:30]. Do I believe ALL killing is murder; no, I don’t. Not all killing is murder, for the bible records instances of God commanding his people to ‘kill’ (but not to murder). “A man after God’s own heart”, was responsible for the death of 200 for their foreskins, who was ultimately so beloved that he not only warranted a family covenant, but was ancestor to the Messiah.
WRT to nations, I don’t believe nations have consciences (as nations), so nations (especially ones proportedly comprised primarily of Christians) are expected to follow the tenants of biblical law, and the Gospel – which I would argue do not differ from one another or contradict one another. For example, although the 10 commandments are prohibitive (‘thou shall not have any other Gods …’), and 10, Jesus summarized them as 2 and making them directive rather than prohibitive (‘Love the Lord thy God’). Therefore, the OT shows that God uses ‘righteous nations’ to punish ‘unrighteous nations’.
The bible has two words for ‘killing’ and ‘murder’ just as English does. In [Deut 7:2], [Deu 13:15] (and others) God commands Israel to ‘slay’ נכה (nakah H5221) and clearly this was not ‘sin’. However, God was not commanding Israel to ‘murder’ רצח (ratsach H7523) contradicting his own commandment. To fail to appreciate the exegetical difference between ‘slaying’ and ‘to murdering’, or to see all ‘slaying’ as ‘murder’, simply does not reflect the realities of the Hebrew language, the intent of the commandment not to ‘murder’ or how God deals with nations. It is a notion not supported by the text.
Still, there is some type of relationship between individuals and nations, and that is what was alluded to in the ‘Nuremberg principle’. Within a nation that fears God, the individual always has the responsibility to discern whether or not they will obey the authority of the state WRT their own conscious, and whether or not they believe the state to be acting IAW principles consistent with God’s plan for the world. There is a difference between following a lawful command an an unlawful command and even where nations are concerned individuals are never to act against their concious.
Brian, its fair you do some explaining as well. How do you see the Gospel advancing where there is genocide?
Andrew,
I have emphatically declared over and over and over again that my contention is not with whether or not there are passages of Scripture that allow for one human to take another’s life. Obviously there are such passages, so I am not sure what you are trying to prove by rehashing that point. Our concern is whether or not the Kingdom of God established by Jesus Christ is one of peaceful, anti-violence as exemplified by our Master who was crucified or one where disciples are allowed to strike back, harm, kill, and destroy. I don’t care if Moses, Joshua, Samson, or David took human life. Our concern is with whether or not Christ permits his followers to do so as we witness to the Kingdom of God in this “already, but not yet” age. So let us move along from proving a mute point.
You have failed to explain what makes a “Christian nation”. Is this a game of percentages? If 51% of a population are Christian does that sanctify their acts of war? 60%? 75%? What if they go to war with one another? I’d like you to name one such nation in existence the qualifies in your view.
You appeal to God using righteous nations to judge wicked nations. This is simply false. God used nations to judge nations and I am sure he continues to do so. Assyria was not righteous. Babylon was not righteous. Even if your point here could stand (and it doesn’t) what does this mean for disciples of Christ? What is our role in the world when it comes to violence and war?
As to genocide we must ask if killing justifies killing. Would I be tempted to kill if I thought a whole people were going to be slaughtered. Yes, of course. This doesn’t justify my actions though. I am taking human life just like the people I kill. I am not witnessing to the shalom of God. I am using the same methods of those I judge to preserve the lives of those I see fit. I stoop to their level.
What is a Christian to do? I think you are aware of the variety of responses that could come from a Christian whether it be providing financial and material support for one people group to flee, self-sacrifice against an enemy, and so forth and so on.
Let us not move too far from our earlier question though because a quick sprint to “What about genocide!!!” hardly addresses our main concern of justifying all sorts of violence simply because the state has some people who obey the ten commandments.
Definitely war is not the answer and I believe that the very people who wage wars know that. But what happens to the military gear and warfare commerce that line the pockets of many? When will the lion ever lie down with the kid?
Andrew T,
James 4 has nothing to do with war, and if you say otherwise, you are doing the worst form of prooftexting I have seen.
@Brian well you certainly raise good objections and ask pertinent questions. I was ‘rehashing’ that point because I ‘believed’ (apparently wrongly) that this was the point of controversy between us. I thought the thinking was something to the effect that ‘joining the military meant a Christian had to return evil for evil because the Christian may be called upon to kill, which is evil’. However, your last arguments makes it clear you don’t see all ‘taking of life’ as murder, and indeed agree there is evidence God ordered his elect to take life. We agree, so I won’t come back to that.
You then go on to ask a series of pertinent questions, which I’ll try to address. Does Christ permit his followers to ‘slay’ to witness to the Kingdom of God, in this ‘already but not yet’ age? I would say “No”, but would also say that witnessing to the Kingdom of God is only one expectation placed upon his people. That a prohibition against using force to ‘witness to the Kingdom’ is not the same as a general prohibition against using force. Jesus, being the same as the God of the OT, is reflected in the actions of the God of the OT. For example, see [Matt 10:1-39] – Jesus is sending his disciples as ‘sheep among wolves’, ‘I did not come to bring peace, but a sword’.
This is not to say Jesus is ‘advocating war’, but Jesus is asking his disciples to witness to the truth. At an individual level, standing for the truth against an evil world will result in us (as individuals) contending for the faith. I assume you agree that individually proclaiming the Gospel will pit us against the world. But you raise questions about the governance of God believing people. So what can we tease out of (all) scripture about how God believing people are to be governed in a God honouring way; since that really is what our controversy is about. It may not be a ‘person’s’ responsibility to stand against genocide; though it may be a nation’s.
The NT has many teachings applicable to individuals. However the whole ‘Kingdom of God’ element shows that the NT is NOT ONLY about individuals by the use of the descriptor ‘Kingdom’. So we must understand how God sees ‘nations’. Biblically we can understand governance of the “Kingdom of God’ if we look at how God deals with nation/states, much of which is in the OT. It can be shown that God’s view of governance favours a theocratic monarchy with God Himself as a our king. Even so, people rejected this form of government, so God concedes us our wish, though it isn’t in His interest to do so (look at [1 Sam 8:5-7]). Israel was formed as a Kingdom with a King possessing executive authority, and a High Priest to moderate that authority. But you ask about Democracy with percentages, 60%, 75% whatever. Though earthly ‘monarchy’ more closely approximates theocratic monarchy, all earthly governance structures will fall short of perfect Godly government (since man is at the centre and not God). In this criticism I include Democracy.
I don’t think governments and percentages matter. However there are principles we should be aware of when talking governance, of whatever form. All government authority (of whatever form) is ordained in heaven (ALL!) [Rom 13:1] which is why God judges governments. You point out that God used unrighteous nations such as ‘Assyria’ and ‘Babylon’ for his purposes as well as righteous ones (and I absolutely agree), but we know God uses the wicked for his purposes too [Pro 16:4]. Also, though God uses unrighteous nations for His purposes, surely you would agree that He never accepts unrighteous behaviour as acceptable from them. But if you recognize that a governments (righteous or not) may be doing God’s purpose, you yourself are suggesting how a believer is to relate to their government.
What believers need to ask is, ‘Is the government with authority over me acting righteously or not?’ Surely you agree that believers (with consciences) are able to discern this? Jeremiah, though an Israelite, recognized that the unrighteous nations attacking Israel and Judah were acting IAW God’s plan specifically b/c Israel had been unrighteous themselves. This made him very unpopular. This is no different that saying a Christian who is in the military has an obligation to discern whether or not the order they are being given is ‘lawful’ (moral) or not. If a believer discerns that the government with authority over them is acting IAW Godly principles, they are not sinning by honouring that authority. On the other hand no government authority has the ability to cause a person to sin [Mark 9:42].
Notice that a wife submitting to the authority of her husband is excused from that authority if the husband is causing the wife to sin – this is the same principle as a Christian submitting to the authority of the state. But notice also what [1 Peter 3:1] says about a wife being Godly under the authority of her unGodly husband (assuming he’s not enticing her to sin) .. it says that the unGodly man might still be won over by her influence of his wife. The bible portrays the relationship between a ‘Godly kingdom’ and her God as a marriage [Isa 54:5][Rev 21:12]. The Gospel message is not simply propagated through ‘word’ but also by actions. If a Godly wife under unGodly authority can influence that authority, Godly Christian’s under unGodly government can influence that government. Likewise Christian’s within a military can influence that military.
You ask “What makes a Christian nation, a Christian nation?”. It is when Christian influence is sufficient to cause a nation to act in a God honouring way. (Daniel’s influence on Babylon is written). Thus the question of genocide; if genocide can be stopped by diplomacy it should be (this is God honouring). If it cannot stopped peacefully, the use of force by the state is clearly righteous, and lawful. Honouring the authority of the state is not sinning by the Christian, while ignoring the authority of state plainly is, just as honouring the authority of the state when it is causing Christian’s to sin is not acceptable before God.
The defacto statement Christians should not serve in the military however, is denying the Christian their God given right to use their conscience, and discernment about the state that exercises authority over them.
it by force is
Andrew,
Jesus’ relationship to Israel’s God doesn’t demand that Israel’s God act through Jesus as he has acted through Israel in the past. If God’s aim is to bring the nations to him through his people there was a time when he needed to preserve a people and we may say that violence from the hands of the Israelites was justified. As the author of the Book of Hebrews writes, God has said many things in the past, but he speaks through his Son now. Jesus’ words are God’s definitive ideals. So I don’t see a disconnect between Jesus and Israel’s God (as I’ve noted already), but I see God’s mission progressing in Christ (as I’ve noted already).
I don’t know that we can escape this impasse, but I disagree with you that (1) Jesus would have his disciples do some actions as witnesses to him while suspending that witness during other actions (i.e. our whole life is a witness) and (2) that his bringing of the sword is a literal reference to violence he advocated.
While preaching the gospel may put as odds with the world it doesn’t justify violence against them. Likewise, within a state you have people who fight for that state who are Christians and others who are not. If it is “righteousness” against “unrighteousness” as you frame it why shoot a gun at an Iraqi Christians when I have an American atheist next to me? I don’t get your logic.
You overreach when you suggest that in acknowledging God can use governments that this allows for Christian involvement in violence. This simply does not equate. God could use an earthquake to judge a nation. Should I go there and smash some more windows to participate?
I’m sorry, but Mark 9.42 has nothing to do with government authority and 1 Peter 3.1 doesn’t say a woman can sin under her husband’s authority. What is with these appeals to completely irrelevant passages? Mark 9.42 is saying that the judgment of God against someone who hurts a child is worse than suicide by means of tying a rock around one’s neck and diving into the sea. 1 Peter 3.1 is saying to remain obedient even to an unbelieving husband who disobeys the word, not to disobey the word herself! C’mon Andrew.
Sure, godly Christians can influence a government…and one way is non-violence.
I guess we must agree to disagree on this matter. For one, you want both the justification of an individual who obeys the state because the state has authority, but you don’t want to face the reality that the state calls us to do evil things when we submit to them as instruments of violence. You don’t want to provide clarification for what makes a so-called just state in your eyes. You don’t provide any safeguards against claims by nations like Nazi Germany that they have Christians and that they are do the right thing. You continue to rehash the same claims over and over again without answering the serious questions. I understand you are not going to change your view, but I was hoping you’d at least make a serious effort to defend it.
@Brian, we could on, so you have the last word (this being your blog).
I do want to correct something you said that incorrectly represented my position. I did NOT say that [1 Peter 3:1] says a woman CAN sin under her husband’s authority. I said that though a husband has authority over his wife, CANNOT (under any circumstances) compel a wife to sin.
Quoting “…. is EXCUSED from that authority IF the husband is causing the wife to sin”.
As I understand it, we are never to sin which is from the authority of God, over-riding all else. Therefore, no authority, be it husband, or government, or anything else, has authority enough to separate us from God.
Perhaps you read that bit too quickly, but I agree with your counter argument (because you weren’t really arguing against anything I presented you)
Andrew,
Thank you for the clarification, but I still do not find 1 Peter 3.1 to be a helpful analogy. If it is an analogy it would be like the state drafting people into the military and in good conscience one becomes an objector, showing loyalty to the state in that one refuses to do anything to harm it, but showing unwillingness to follow the state into their wrongheaded behaviors.
I highly encourage you guys to look into Life Matters Journal which advocates a consistent opposition to all three of these acts of legalized homicide http://www.magcloud.com/browse/magazine/269932