I don’t know much about organizing a foreign policy. I am not well acquainted with Ron Paul’s position on the subject nor that of Newt Gingrich (though I understand the gist of their views). What I do know as a Christian is that there is something fundamentally wrong with one politician being jeered for suggesting we should do our best to model our foreign policy around the golden rule of doing unto others as we would have them do to us and another politician being cheered for suggesting that the best approach to dealing with our nation’s enemies is to kill them. This is especially concerning when it happens in the same debate in a state that claims to have a large evangelical voting block (though there is no way to know if those cheering loudly are evangelicals or not)! It is even more concerning when former President Andrew Jackson is declared an example of how things should be done.
Whatever nuance we may observe regarding Gingrich’s and Paul’s various proposals regarding this or that matter I think we should be disturbed when people show this much bloodlust.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian. One difference I would point out is that the golden rule is for interpersonal relationships and not for governments. I think when it comes to the death of enemies, I can celebrate that evil has been defeated and innocent people will no longer suffer, but I can mourn that some people are entering eternity without Christ.
Not specifically on this, but the Psalms 109:8 prayer for Obama to me is a prime example of how we seem to forget basic “love one another” when it comes to politics. I have seen a number of friends post the 109:8 prayer on facebook. Many of them do not understand that they are praying for Obama’s death, but some do.
I think that’s a dangerous road to go down–to suggest that biblical principles such as the golden rule only apply to individuals and not governments. I guess we can therefore say goodbye to just war theory, too. What other aspects of biblical morality can we dismiss based on such an approach?
I have never been impressed with Ron Paul, and even think some of his ideas smack of Randian economics, which in the end I find unbiblical. However, I find myself in agreement with him here on this aspect of foreign policy..
No. Just war theory is built on much more than the Golden Rule and keep in mind the theory of a Just War is not taught in the Bible. Furthermore, for moral issues, I contend that you don’t need the Bible. Jesus was talking about one-on-one relationships and not foreign policy. Besides, when he says “Give to everyone who asks of you” do you want to interpret that so that I can come up to you and say “Give me all your money” and walk away with every penny you have?
No, I know that just war theory is based on much more than the golden rule. I was merely using it as an example of another biblical concept that could be done away with. But maybe it was a bad example.
I also understand Jesus’ use of hyperbole, such as in the statement to give of everyone who asks.
My point is merely that I think it’s a mistake to limit principles such as the golden rule only to interpersonal relationships in that it allows for easy excuses for a lot of bad behavior on the part of groups and governments. The government is made up of people–of individuals. The principle of the golden rule is one of empathy. Does that not apply at some level to our government?
Yes. It does apply on some level, but not an identical level. For instance, we are told “Resist not evil” so does that mean that we should not have responded to 9/11 or the bombing of Pearl Harbor? If anything, the commands given were to say to let just authorities handle things. Turn the other cheek instead of raising the cycle of revenge. Note that turning the other cheek was also about a personal insult and not a real crime. If someone punches me in the face, they will get a fight, plain and simple.
Should governments have empathy? For individuals, but not necessarily for governments. I don’t have any empathy for a government that encourages terrorism against our people for instance.
@Nick
Let’s except your premise that Jesus intended for his teaching to be implemented by individuals but not groups of individuals (e.g. nations) I think the bloodlust displayed by Gingrich should give us pause. I don’t imagine that the leap from Jesus’ teachings suddenly includes excited anticipation of killing if we are doing as a group. I’m not saying that you are suggesting such (you do speak of mourning), but I think you’d agree that Gingrich is presenting something far more sinister than your qualification allows.
Adam
I haven’t seen the use of Ps. 109.8, yet, but that is creepy!
@Brian. No problem. I do think there should be a drive and desire for justice, but one does not seek justice for their own personal pleasure, but the sake of justice itself.
@Nick:
I guess we must ask if justice necessarily =’s killing.
Necessarily? No. I think sometimes it does. On an individual level, I can assure you if someone goes after my family an either my wife will live or them, well they’re about to meet their maker then.
@Nick:
If I was in that position I’d make the same decision, but I don’t know that I’d be able to justify the act of taking a human life. It would be my confession that I can live with killing someone like that while I cannot live with the thought of someone killing someone I love. In other words, I have a function hierarchy in how I value human life…but I don’t think that makes my act of killing “good”, per se.
Even then…it is one thing to say, “If I must absolutely kill I will do it.” and another to say, “My (our) enemies should be killed because they are my (our) enemies.” Gingrich cited Andrew Jackson as an example. Let’s consider some of the “enemies” he killed and harmed. People who owned the land and who were forced from their own home through violence and misleading treaties. If that is the spirit of Gingrich’s comment then it is a far cry from killing if I absolutely have to kill.
@Brian. I think you and I can both agree that we cannot say that the Bible forbids all killing. I think Ecclesiastes is right in that there is a time to kill and I think the government does bear the sword for a reason. I think if we go after an enemy, it should not be because of what they are doing to us necessarily, but because they are a threat to the well-being of the good.
I also think about how Wyatt Earp referred to his gun as “The Peacemaker.” Why? Because he brought about peace by removing from the Earth those who were opposed to it. Those who we wish death on must do something that is truly worthy of it and even in Just War theory, War is the last resort. I agree with Patton. War is Hell. Hell is not ideal, but it does serve a purpose.
Well, to me it’s unhealthy to rejoice in either war or hell. The folks in that video were definitely rejoicing over the idea of war and killing of the nation’s enemies.
I also believe in hell, but I won’t rejoice in it or in my enemies ending up there either.
@Nick:
I do agree that the Bible doesn’t forbid killing, but it doesn’t forbid slavery either. So I don’t know that the Bible “allowing” something is the final and best answer to our moral formation. We must ask ourselves if our role as disciples of Christ allow for our time to be “a time to kill” and whether or not we can justify sharing the role of a disciple with the role of a state given the sword. I know this isn’t an easy answer and there is a lot of gray, but I find it quite hard to find ways for Jesus’ ethic to jive with our reasons for killing.
Wyatt Earp may have seen his gun as a peacemaker, but Jesus told Peter that the sword will lead to another with a sword. The swinging of swords and the shooting of guns increases the swinging of swords and the shooting of guns.
@Brian. I do not think slavery fits as slavery in ancient times was far different from what we normally think of when we hear the word “slavery” today. I do agree that the Bible allowing something is not the same as it mandating it, but neither do I see the Bible rejecting the use of the sword.
Also, the use of warfare can also stop warfare. It sure seemed to stop Hitler as well as several others that war has been used against, and if the death penalty is used effectively, I believe it could stop several others who are wanting to do evil.
@Nick:
Slavery in ancient times is multifaceted. Whether there were more or less humane enslavement is secondary to the overall permissiveness of the institution. Even the most humane forms we’d reject if someone proposed that our society adopt them. This is a secondary matter though since the main point is just because the Bible “allows” for something doesn’t mean it is the right practice.
Yes, warfare can eventually, temporarily end warfare. There is no denying that. Once a nation or people have been devastated by violence there is an eventual exhaustion that causes a temporary lapse until people recover their willingness for bloodshed again.
Yet this seems to be a pragmatist approach to moral reasoning. Killing is good because…..it accomplishes A, B, C….
@Brian. I agree that slavery is multi-faceted and I think God started with Israel where they were but had the seeds of the destruction of that which was less than ideal in the system. I do also think that there is a pragmatic idea in some ways to what we do. One aspect of a moral action includes the consequences of it. If we sit back in war and let those who are doing evil do what they will, then I think we are just as much doing evil, and at times violence is the best way to respond for the sake of the good that will be harmed if evil is left unchecked.
Again, this is a difficult decision and I do not think it is one we should delight in. If we must go to war, let us not go to war with glee at the thought of shedding blood, but with the sorrow that we live in such a fallen world where this is necessary.
I do see something in your quote worth mentioning: “It is even more concerning when former President Andrew Jackson is declared an example of how things should be done.”
Although there are many thing I would not take from Andrew Jackson, that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. RP even sites Andrew Jackson as being someone we can learn from when it comes to balancing the budget, being fiscally responsible, and having sound money.
I do realize that the context is foreign policy; however, I would be happy to use A. Jackson (in some ways) as an example.
Thanks for posting. RP really is a great candidate!
Here are some Psalm 109:8 links. Political rhetoric matters. It may be a small thing to some people. But when Newt talks about killing enemies and pastors joke (or seriously) talk about praying for the death of the president, we really have strayed quite far from Jesus’ intentions for us as Christians.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2009/11/bumper-stickers-for-psalm-1098—-a-wrong-hearted-prayer-for-obama/1
http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal/cafepress-stops-selling-psalms
http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/psalm-1098-let-his-days-be-few/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/03/statehouse-live-speaker-oneal-forwards-anti-obama-/
@Nick:
I am not totally opposed to your suggestion regarding violence (see this morning’s post), but I do wonder how this jives with Jesus’ “you’ve heard them say…but I say” teachings about turning the other cheek, not using the sword, and Paul’s subsequent teaching on this subject? It is one thing to think like Cicero, but what does Christ do to our assertions?
@Jon:
My use of Jackson parallels Gingrich’s in that I am referring to his policy toward other people groups as you noted.
When we start with the premise that everything in the bible is pure and consistent and relevant for our world, then we wind up in some strange places, such as trying to argue that slavery isn’t so bad and some types of random killing are more justified than others.
Let’s start with one thing that we should all agree on: slavery is always, always, always bad, no matter how the slaves are treated. However, slavery was OK to the writers of the bible because they knew no other system. To me, that says that the writers of the bible are not the last word on political morality.
The same thing with Jesus. There is no way to construe his words as anything other than killing for any reason is wrong. Individually or corporately, he was opposed.But that’s not the same thing as saying that Jesus should be the architect of our foreign policy. The Jesus of Nazareth who lived in the first century would have made a bad president.
I think the most reasonable solution is that we have to take his words in the manner and context in which they were intended. He taught the imminent overthrow of the Romans by supernatural means. It’s hard to see how to apply such logic to our world.
I think there is a larger message that pervades the entire bible, which is that governments should treat people fairly and not discriminate against the poor, but what that means today is not easily apparent.
@Bond: Your comment has much to add but I think it misses two crucial components.
First, yes, Jesus did see the Kingdom of God arriving and we may argue that he didn’t envision it immediately as the Father intended (it did indeed arrive in the resurrection), but the Evangelists are on the other side of those events and they frame Jesus’ words for the church. They had a sense of immediacy as well, but this is quite the same as what you present here by essentially arguing Jesus’ words are irrelevant for his followers since the Kingdom was not physically established in Jesus’ day. We can’t forget who gave us the words of Jesus.
Second, it isn’t a matter of whether Jesus would make a good ruler in this age (as a Christian I do believe he is ‘the ruler’ from the God’s realm, but that’s a different subject), but whether or not the eschatological trajectory in which he ministered, in which he lives by the resurrection, in which he will rule upon his return is one Christians should continue to live as we await to physicality of his Kingdom.
If you don’t foresee Jesus returning and a physical Kingdom then yes, your solution is about as good as it gets: namely, extract the best principles from the Bible and try to live by them.
@Bond: In addition to Brian’s point above I’d add that simply because the bible reports something historically, doesn’t mean it endorses it. (Can you, for example, cite even one passage where the bible advocates slavery? Or can you simply cite instance where it reports its existence matter-of-factly OR informs slaves on HOW NOT TO SIN while still being slaves?)
Moreover, there is also a difference between what God commands and what He permits. This is like recognizing that our present reality differs from how God intended it to be, or how it will be again.
So we cannot look into the bible and read what the bible says in an absolute way. To read it as ‘pure and consistent and relevant for our world’ we need to understand its context, and intent. One example would be divorce. Jesus clearly stipulated that God’s intent for marriage (yet while we live) was that one man and one woman should join together for the course of their lives [Mar 10:7-9][1 Cor 7:10-11][Heb 13:4].
Yet, this intent is also NOT TRUE with the resurrection [Matt 22:30] and God has provided provision against this intent, to mitigate the sinful state of man. In other words, God permits divorce (as a practical matter) because of our current state of sin [Deut 24:1-4]. Notice the exception in [Matt 19:9]. Notice also that God permits divorce where sin is present. Another example is war. Brian has been posting about morality and war recently, and these same threads raise similar issues. God does not intend war, but because of the sinful state of man he condones it (as a practical concession to man’s sinful state) where (national) sin is involved.
Thus if people read the bible in an absolute way without an understanding of context and intent (or with a poor one), it does lead to strange places as you say, but that is a defect of the reader’s understanding, and not of the text itself.
Brian L, I don’t disagree with what you are saying. My point is basically that in today’s world in makes more sense to live in a way that embodies the big picture, rather than the particulars, of the bible’s teachings. Not only because those teachings are not always consistent, but because they are often hard to relate to today’s world.
And I agree that the basic thrust of Jesus’s teachings is to live in a way that will emulate the lifestyle of the Kingdom of God, where presumably social classes and poverty and oppression and war will not exist. But people will have different ways of what obedience means in our world. I have my own views, but this is America and everyone has the right to decide on his or her own (which was not an idea present in antiquity).
AndrewT: Obviously the bible contains stories about people who do bad things, but it is completely off the mark to dismiss whatever is incompatable with modern life as something that the bible does not endorse.
The bible does “endorse” slavery, if we define the word normally. God ordered the Israelites at times to take slaves (in one passage God literally orders soldiers to kill most everyone but capture virgins that are referred to by a word for woman’s sexual part, so we know what was in mind), and the OT has extensive regulations of slaves, so that duck doesn’t quack.
The whole “god doesn’t like, but he permits…” formulation makes no logical sense. It is a way to try to harmonize incompatable teachings. In the end, the conclusion always is, “well, we don’t understand it, but that’s because we are flawed” or “God’s ways are mysterious.” But I can’t believe what I don’t understand.
@Bondboy: Again context counts. Do you know what the Edomites did when they conquered a people, or the Moabites? How about the Amorites? All of these nations did NOT as a matter of course take slaves.
The standard practice was to massacre all of the fighting age males, along with women who had bore children. ( Even this Israelites did this incidentally [Deut 2:34][Judges 20:43-48]). The suggestion that the Egyptians were different (with Israel) is incorrect also; recall that the Israelites were not a captive people in Egypt due to force, rather they were a welcomed people who had become enslaved apart from the use of force).
Surely, you would agree that given the alternative, WRT to war the taking of slaves would be an act of mercy? If so, look how the bible advocates treating them:
[Lev 19:34] “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”
[Exo 12:49] “There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you”. (also [Num 15:16])
God does not condone slavery, but He permits it as a consequence of our sin. The very first mention of slavery in the bible was due to sin and a consequent of it ([Gen 9:25] has Canaan sinning, and Noah predicting (correctly as it turns out) slavery as a consequent).
Only by ignoring the biblical context, can we conclude that the bible ‘endorses’ slavery. It is true in all writing, that we can conclude false things from our reading when we ignore context.
@bondboy,
read proverbs 30:18 ff.
Andrew, what does it matter what the Edomites did? God ordered Israel to take slaves, so he must have been OK with it.
Not only in context of war, Israel’s law required those in debt be taken as slaves, the only thing was Israelites could not be enslaved permanently. The bible prescribes levels of punishments for slaves.
The NT gives instructions to slaves and slaveholders. If I knew someone who owned slaves, I’d write to them as such: “What the hell is WRONG with you?!!!! YOU are SCUM of the earth!!!!! Free those people!” That is NOT what it says in the NT: “masters, treat your slaves well, and slaves y’all be nice and obedient so your masters have no reason to beat your ass.”
That there are biblical passages where God apparently instructs Israelites to treat outsiders well means a combination of two things:
1) Those passages were intended in a different context, i.e., they refer to treatment of free citizens of other countries, and
2) It points out the different views of the writers of the Hebrew Bible along the lines that we have today. Some OT authors were nativist who rejected any good could come outside of their tribe, while others (such as the author of Jonah) rejected this view and had a more universalist idea of religion.
Those and other ideas were blended together by the redactor who put together the Pentateuch, and if you don’t know what I mean read Richard Elliot Friedman’s brilliant “Who Wrote the Bible?”
@bondboy,
ok, you’ve convinced me. the God of the Israelites loved slavery. is that the argument you intended? He must also love sin, since you reject as illogical the understanding that God can permit something but not approve of it. there’s a lot of sin in the world, so God must be ok with that. but seriously, is it a surprise that the same teaching that says turn the other cheek also says obey, make peace? would you expect the new testament writers to say slaves, rise up, revolt, and kill your masters? most often the new testament is using the imagery of how we have all been slaves to sin. personally i think God hates slavery in all its versions.
@bondboy: You were presented with the argument that ‘context is important’. Although you don’t dispute this, you counter argue ‘God ordered Israel to take slaves, so he must have been OK with it.’
Since this seems to be your whole position, AND since ‘context is important’ let’s look at your examples where God ordered Israel to take slaves to see if the context shows he must have been OK with it.
@Brian. Turning the other cheek is about personal insults. It’s a way of saying in a private one-on-one exchange, don’t up the ante in insulting. It says nothing about the public sphere of life.
@Nick:
I know what your saying. I just think it odd that Jesus is depicted as saying, “When someone slaps you, take it” but “When someone bombs you, well, do what every pagan would do”.
@Brian. Why? I see a qualitative difference between a private insult and an actual act of violence.
Guys, The bible says God ORDERED Israel to take slaves and commit genocide (Jericho).
There is no dispute to this.
It is not my opinion.
It is clearly written in the bible.
Make of it what you will (and I’ve expounded at length about what I make of it), but facts are facts. Denying facts isn’t an argument.
All the best.
@Nick:
It the political climate wherein Jesus spoke those words I doubt it was hardly meant to apply to little scuffles between neighbors alone.
…and I should add the milieu in which the Evangelists wrote down the words of Jesus to the early church.
@Brian. You can think that, but there was no reason why I should. A slap on the cheek was considered a personal insult and a one-on-one situation at that.
@bondboy: OK, so what is the reference you’re citing exactly?
this thread has deviated quite far from the original ron paul-based discussion, and is bringing up much more complex issues. an interesting exploration of these ideas appears:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html#xeno
I think that this thread is a perfect example of how difficult it is for people to adapt the teachings of an ancient Jewish social radical to their everyday lives. For over two thousand years church leaders and the faithful have engaged in all sorts of mental and rhetorical gymnastics resulting in all kinds of different Jesus’. Brian’s points have been consistent and I think close to the basic, uncomfortable truths. I think that Jesus’ teachings and American Exceptionalism can’t be reconciled, no more than Jesus’ teachings could be reconciled to the lifestyles of the Roman elite, post Constantine, or the Germanic aristocracy who took over from them. At some point, there will be fudging and self-serving twisting of the words.
One point regarding slavery. Ancient slavery was very harsh, particularly if you had the ill fortune to be assigned to mines or plantation work gangs. Remember, we can’t just talk about Near Eastern slavery, Jesus and the apostles lived during Roman times, so we have to take that into consideration. The argument that slavery wasn’t so bad is primarily an Anglo-American one, concerned more with our guilt about our slave owning past and a mild form of racism, the racism of soft expectations. Protestant, civilized people should know better, after all.
It is often based on very little evidence and broad generalizations. For example, note the emphasis, in discussions of American slavery, on men forcing themselves on women. It is a central point, and has been since the 19th-century. Yet strangely enough, this point isn’t often raised when discussing enslaved women in other places and times. Only recently do we hear about it, in the Sudan. I’m not trying to belittle or dismiss the revulsion correctly felt for this abomination, I just have always thought it a splendid example of what I said in the previous paragraph.
The slavery, and debt slavery, point does bring up one other biblical tradition that would be anathema to most Anglo-American Protestants, even the anti-slavery whigs; namely, the debt jubilee. Now that would be interesting, if the next time a conservative political leader called for putting God back in Government, i.e. harsh moralizing and authoritarianism, yet forgiveness for the foibles of the wealthy, some public person agreed to it only on the condition of the debt jubilee.