28 Jul 2008
Mitch's Question:
I enjoyed and appreciated your comments about the "Church" of Scientology. Your information and conclusions seemed accurate.
After looking at the rest of your site, I did feel compelled to comment about one thing I felt strongly about.
I cannot argue that the sanctity of life is a pillar of Christian faith, but I am surprised, as I often am, to see you mention "abortion, infanticide, physician-assisted suicides, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and the growing specter of human cloning" but not mention the horror of war, something I believe that Our Lord would find just as repugnant.
Our nation has entered into a period of moral squalor by supporting pre-emptive invasion and the senseless slaughter of men, women and children in the vain pursuit of a 'war on terror'. We have allowed our leaders to suborn not only the word of God, but the founding principles of our nation: that men - all men - are created equal and deserve essential human rights.
All you need to do is re-read your articles on the Sanctity of Human Life and replace the context of abortion with the context of warfare and I believe you will get a very clear picture on where Almighty God stands on the notion of war: Galatians 5:22, John 10:10, I Corinthians 14:33, Psalms 34:14, Ephesians 4:32, Matthew 5:9, Galatians 5:22-23, 2 Corinthians 5:18, etc.
Also there is capital punishment - who are we to punish killers with death? Read your article with that in mind and I hope you also see how God feels when our governments put men to death and calls that 'justice'. Romans 12:19 - Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Don's Answer:
Thanks for your question and thoughts about our website. Please, permit me to comment on your beliefs concerning war and capital punishment.
While we may debate the justification for and the merits of our nation's current War in Iraq, there is no debate about our Lord's teaching that war is inevitable in this fallen world (Matthew 24:6). The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus came the first time to bring peace with God, not peace on earth, as is commonly and mistakenly believed today (Matthew 10:34 and Luke 2:14 NIV). Since His first coming, there has never been a time when some war was not being fought somewhere in the world; therefore, if Jesus came to bring peace on earth, He miserably failed in His mission.
Whereas Jesus came the first time to bring peace with God, He is coming the second time to bring peace on earth (Isaiah 2:4; 11:6-9). Until the return of the Prince of Peace, there will be no peace. To insist upon fallen man's ability to accomplish world peace in this fallen world is to ignore the clear teachings of the Scripture and to ascribe to fallen man an innate goodness that he does not possess.
It is the reality of evil that results in the inevitability of war in this fallen world. Although many in the world today deny evil's existence, explaining it away as mere mishaps or misunderstandings, the Bible is empathic about the reality of evil. For instance, the Bible calls Satan—the god of this world--the evil one. It teaches that the unregenerate heart of man is evil; that is, "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it" (Jeremiah 17:9). And the Apostle Paul taught that it was to "deliver us from this present evil world" that Christ "gave Himself for our sins" (Galatians 1:4).
The harsh reality of evil was brought home to our country in a most undeniable way on September 11, 2001. That Muslim terrorists, in particularly Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, would not hesitate to kill us and our families, as well as destroy our country and way of life, is indisputable. Thus, we find ourselves in an unfortunate, but inescapable predicament. With evil men hell-bent upon our destruction, do we fight for the preservation of our lives and those of our loved ones or do we surrender to those gleefully sharpening their throat-slitting blades? Obviously, we have only one sane alternative—war. We must defend ourselves or perish at the hands of those without regard for the sanctity of human life.
Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Even Herschel Hobbs taught, in the Baptist Faith And Message, that refusing to go to war against evil "would turn the world into a jungle ruled by criminals and tyrants, and in which all moral and spiritual values would disappear from the social order." The simple truth is clear: The world must war with evil, lest evil win the world.
Warring against evil is no option, but a necessity. Evil demands it. It is forced upon us in a fallen world by dark hearts. Anyone failing to see this is living in a world of illusion. Your argument against war is actually the Biblical argument for it. Wars must be fought because of our belief in the sanctity of human life. Those without regard for human life must be fought and eradicated if human life is to survive on this planet.
You, like many other Christians today, mistakenly believe that the Bible teaches pacifism. A careful study of the Scripture, however, will correct this error. For example, consider the following:
- Many argue that the sixth commandment prohibits Christians from fighting in wars. However, the Hebrew word here for "kill" means "to murder." Thus, this commandment does not forbid killing in war, police action or capital punishment.
- Many argue that Jesus' words to Pilate--"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"--prove that Jesus intended His followers to be pacifists (John 18:36). However, Jesus is simply stating that His kingdom is not spread by the sword or by force. Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of what the Prophet Mohammed taught his followers.
- Others insist that Jesus' rebuke of Peter for using the sword in Matthew 26:52 proves that Christianity is a faith for pacifists alone. Yet, it was Jesus Himself who instructed the disciples to arm themselves with swords before going to the garden (Luke 22:36-38). Since the Greek word for "watch" in Matthew 26:38 means "to stand guard," it appears Jesus instructed His disciples to take swords in order to protect Him from being arrested before His hour had come. His rebuke of Peter, therefore, was due to Peter's attempt to prevent Christ's arrest once the hour had come for which Christ had come into the world; namely, the hour for Him to go to the cross and die for our sins (Matthew 26:45).
- Another popular argument offered in defense of pacifist Christians is Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). As I'm sure you are aware, the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible. What Scripture says in one place is often illuminated by what it says elsewhere. Peter's teaching that Christians should not return evil for evil is the perfect commentary on Jesus' commanding of us to turn the other cheek (1 Peter 3:9). All Jesus meant by turning the other cheek was that we should never strike back at others for striking out at us. He did not mean that we cannot defend ourselves, our families, or our country. I could not help but notice that you mistakenly equated all wars and executions to the dark motive of revenge. Although you are right in assuming vengeance to be an improper motive for war or capital punishment, you are wrong in failing to see that the defense of human life is a Scripturally justifiable reason for both. If a man breaks into my home with a gun and I shoot him in defense of myself and my family I've done nothing wrong. I didn't want to shoot him, I had nothing against him personally, and I will regret for the rest of my life that the incident occurred. Still, I've done nothing wrong, since I did not shoot him out of anger for breaking into my home, but out of self-defense for threatening the lives of my family.
- Although there are several other passages we could consider to debunk the notion that all Christians are suppose to be pacifists, I will conclude with one more. In Ecclesiastes 3:8, the Bible plainly teaches that there is "a time for war."
While it may offend the delicate sensibilities of many in today's world, there are places in the Bible where God orders His people to go to war, where He provides the battle plan to assure victory, and where He even commands His people to take no prisoners. The simple, but difficult truth to be gleaned from this is that there are some people who just shouldn't be around. Who are these people? They are all who do not hold to the sanctity of human life.
Of the three God ordained institutions in this world—the home, the church, and the government—only the government has been given the sword to wield in protection of the sanctity of human life (Romans 13:1-7). This is why the government alone has the power to execute murderers (Genesis 9:6) and to wage war against aggressors. For us to take this power into our own hands is vigilantism. For the government to do so, however, is not only Biblical and right, but the God ordained method for preserving the sanctity of human life on a fallen planet filled with evil.
Ironically, your argument against war and capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life is the Biblical argument for both. Contrary to your contention, my support of the execution of murderers and the execution of war against murdering Islamists is necessitated by my belief in the sanctity of human life, it is not in any way contradictory to it. Your belief, however, is, I'm sorry to say, totally untenable in this sin-cursed, Satan-controlled, lost and dying world. For instance, what are you going to do if some burglar breaks into your house tonight intending to slit your throat, rape your wife and molest your children. I suspect you'll shoot him, in spite of all of your fine sounding, peace loving, pacifist arguments!
Please, don't misunderstand me. I wish I could believe what you do, but the harsh realities of a fallen world and the clear teachings of Scripture keep me from doing so. I'm committed, as I believe you are, to pursuing peace with all men. Yet, as the Bible suggest (Romans 12:18), I realize, as you apparently fail to, sometimes it's not possible in a fallen world filled with evil.
Mitch's Second Question:
Thank you very much for your extremely polite and well-thought answer. It was never my intention to accuse you of holding beliefs that are non-scriptural, as it is my belief that the word of Our Lord resonates with each of us differently.
As to the matter of peace on Earth, I understand the difficulty of reconciling the Earth as a place of sin - sometimes great sin - and the need or want to operate in a venue of peace in all of our dealings with our brothers and sisters.
It is my belief that being a Christian means two things: one, believing that Christ died for our sins and redeemed our sins on the cross, and the other believing that we should all live our lives in emulation of the way Jesus lived. This is a bit different than believing that our faith demands that we live without the necessity of bloodshed. Although we can never, obviously, lead a sin-free life, it is still - in my opinion - our duty as Christians to make every attempt to do so.
"We must defend ourselves or perish at the hands of those without regard for the sanctity of human life." This is true, but the issue remains as to what is meant by 'defend ourselves'. If we disregard the sanctity of human life in an effort to preserve human life, we will have found ourselves in a very sticky situation indeed.
I have a very tough time equating what is going on in Iraq with self-defense. It is my belief that the truth is simple, and that complicated explanations are an echo of justifying temptation to do evil. What would delight Satan more than a war fought for greed and gluttony under the guise of the pursuit of freedom and democracy?
And how easy is it to forget: Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance.
As to capital punishment, I understand and accept what you say, but the example of me shooting an intruder in my home is substantially different than a government deciding who should live or die. It is less of a matter of the substance of the decision than who makes the decision, and I contend that in a world of sin and flawed human behavior, we should reserve the right to decide who should live or die and commend that decision to the Lord, the giver of life. Simply studying how many innocent people have been freed from death row should indicate that there is a serious problem with the legal system, and until we can approach the matter with equity and intellect, not haste and passion, we will risk putting innocents to death.
I really appreciate your efforts and your consideration of my point of view. I wish you success in your efforts to serve Christ in your way as I do in mine.
Don's Answer:
Thanks for your response to my response. I certainly understand your problem with equating President Bush's Iraq policy with "Just War." While I believe our president was justified in deposing Saddam, I too question the justification for and logic behind our ongoing involvement in Iraq, as many of my blogs and articles have stipulated. However, I still find your arguments against war and capital punishment flawed and untenable.
To begin with, you state: "As to capital punishment, I understand and accept what you say, but the example of me shooting an intruder in my home is substantially different than a government deciding who should live or die. It is less of a matter of the substance of the decision than who makes the decision, and I contend that in a world of sin and flawed human behavior, we should reserve the right to decide who should live or die and commend that decision to the Lord, the giver of life." While you're right in commending the decision to the Lord, "the giver of life," you're mistaken in that the Lord has already decided—"Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). In other words, once a murderer usurps God's place and arbitrarily decides to end an innocent life, men should see to it that the murderer never has another opportunity to perpetrate so egregious an offense. Furthermore, it is government that God has ordained to execute His sentence against all murderers (Romans 13:1-7). For government to do otherwise, regardless of the reason, is for it to fail in its God ordained role as protector of human life.
Many, like yourself, suppose that "flawed human behavior" offers a loophole for the outlawing of capital punishment, despite God's command to the contrary. You argue that "studying how many innocent people have been freed from death row" will prove "that there is a serious problem with the legal system." You suggest, therefore, that "we [should not] risk putting innocents to death" until we can be assured of perfect "equity and intellect" in our legal system. You know, as well as I do, that such a grandiose goal for our obviously flawed legal system is an impossibility. If we are to wait until imperfect men develop a perfect legal system before ridding our society of those without regard for the sanctity of human life, our government will never perform its God ordained task and our society will never be safe.
In addition to the above, your argument against capital punishment can also be used against anyone being arrested (study how many people have been falsely arrested), against anyone being accused of a crime (study how many people have been falsely accused), against anyone being convicted of a crime (study how many people have been falsely convicted), and against anyone being imprisoned (study how many people have been falsely imprisoned). Obviously, if we followed your thinking to its logical conclusion our entire legal system would be paralyzed and our society overrun by criminals.
I always find it interesting that people of your persuasion always argue about our flawed legal system from the criminals' point of view and never from their victims'. For instance, why don't you study how many murders have been committed by repeat offenders, who would have never had an opportunity to murder another innocent person if they had been executed the first time? Perhaps, you'll be surprised to learn that there are far more innocent lives lost at the hands of two-time murderers than in the electric chair, a fact that is easily understood once one learns that the average prison term for a convicted murderer in America today is less than eight years. While the loss of any innocent life is unacceptable, I believe, unlike yourself, that it is preferable to err on the side of crime's victims than on the side of crime's perpetrators.
As I stated before, I would love to believe what you do, but find it impossible to do so in an imperfect world. Nevertheless, I respect you for standing up for your beliefs; few today are willing to do so. I also appreciate the reasonable arguments you present in support of what you believe. I always find folks like you and questions like yours helpful, either in correcting my convictions or sharpening them.
Don Walton
|
