You wrote: “Jason seemed invested in logic and reason in the form of communicating with you, except, of course, when it became convenient for him to lapse into primal truth beyond mere words, and to suspend dialogue...which seems to tie into Benedict's Regensburg Address.”
● Agreed, and this seems to be the modus operandi for post-modern theological bloviation. I was also struck by the self-congratulatory attitude of the participants based upon the number of contemporary theologians one could reference.

●I, too, pray that things are well with Stealth and his family.

● I have no quibble with your statement, it is certainly taught in Scripture as the private ethic of the Christian. My post here is in regard to the public ethic of Just War.
● I am still working through my theology of self-defense. Currently I hold to the view that the force used in self-defense must be minimal — not more than is necessary for the preservation of one’s life.
● Just a side note, it is estimated that 2.5 million violent crimes are thwarted each year simply because victims brandish firearms without firing. In the vast majority of cases the attackers immediately skedaddle. In these cases neither the attacker nor victim are injured. A large percentage of these are women who would be likely victims of violent sexual assault. Of course, criminals (particularly violent criminals) purposefully look for the easiest prey they can find. As the Israeli’s discovered, “gun-free zones” are an invitation to killers—modern public schools are like a flashing sign that says, “Come and use us as a killing zone.”

You wrote: “It may well be true that there are a large number of violent crimes averted by people packing in America, but in the same vein, there are fewer violent crimes in Great Britain per capita than in the US.”
● Most Americans are shocked to discover that England has an out-of-control violent crime rate. Objective observers identify England’s super-prohibitive gun laws as the prime reason law-abiding citizens are so heavily victimized. Below I will quote from an article by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College found in Reason Online. You can access the full article at: http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
● Her is what she says in part:

“From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.” Joyce Lee Malcolm, Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome, Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

● My points here would be two-fold. First, the most effective form of self-defense that reduces the likelihood that neither the assailant nor the victim will be injured is the availability of a firearm for the victim. Statistically this is indisputable. Second, Americans that do not have firearms in their homes, those that oppose gun ownership and anti-gun activists are all receiving a substantial indirect benefit from those Americans that do possess firearms. Criminals, by a huge margin fear homeowners with firearms more than they fear the police. Also, please notice the key statistic above regarding criminal break-ins while occupants are home. Notice that in England 53% of burglaries occur while the occupants are at home as opposed to 13% of break-ins in the U.S. This is, statistically, a huge difference. In England there is an added benefit for the burglar because he is able to rob the personal valuables of the homeowner without fear of facing a firearm. The downside for the homeowner in England is that burglars tend to be high on drugs or alcohol and are likely to commit violent crimes against the homeowner.
● These things all make perfect rational sense when viewed from the perspective of the criminal.

● In regard to Israel as a theocracy, I don’t think we can do any kind of one-to-one comparison between ancient Israel and any contemporary country. This is why I think we must refer to the NT for direction for our personal ethic of love and our governmental ethic of delegated justice (Rom. 12-13).

Your position:

1. In the Old Testament the nation of Israel was a theocracy ruled by God in which the prophets served as the “presiding authority” that determined when Israel went to war. This insured that Israel always won her battles.
2. In the United States we are no longer a “nation under God” and the government and God are “mutually exclusive” so our decisions to go to war are based not on the “Bible or any scripture” but these decisions are based upon “philosophers far separated from the writers” of the Bible.
3. However, a nation “need not have a theocracy to follow God’s will in our relations with other nations.”
4. The Just War Tradition as outlined by Aquinas gives as much reason for Islam to wage war against us as it does us against them.
5. The whole topic of the JWT is meant to give a Christian justification to a political agenda.

Responses:

Point 1: It is true that Israel was a theocracy ruled by God; but, it was uniquely this. The Israelites were God’s chosen people. This is stated over and over again in the OT. While often the prophets were consulted as to when to conduct a war, so also, were the priests. David sought God’s guidance from the High Priest using the Urim and Thummim in order to conduct a war. The sad truth is that Israel often lost her battles because of her disobedience.
Point 2: Obviously, all nations are under God whether they realize it or not; however, the motto “One Nation Under God” is intended to signify that the United States is a nation that willingly submits to God’s sovereignty. However, there has never been any other nation that has had God as their political sovereign (king) except ancient Israel. The Bible clearly states this in Deut. 4:19-20 “ …the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are. Consequently, America must seek to live by biblical principles if it intends to have God’s favor. The JWT is based upon the biblical principles ascertained from the Bible as to how to conduct a just war. Every point of the JWT arises out of a biblical concept that is referenced by both Augustine and Aquinas. Modern Western governments do not have formal relationships with “prophets” and “priests” by which they seek political guidance. Additionally, there no longer exists the office of Levitical Priesthood nor do the Urim and Thummim exist.

Point 3: It is true that a modern government does not need to be a theocracy to follow God’s will; however, the United States separates its government from a direct relationship with any religion. This provides for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Therefore, the government must be religiously influenced by its populace. Whether the United States follows God’s guidance and conducts Just Wars is dependent upon the spiritual vitality of the populace.

Point 4: Contrary to your assertion, the JWT does not give “Islam” the right to conduct a war against the United States. First of all, the United States is conducting a war against terrorist organizations and rouge states that support terrorism. It is not conducting a war against “Islam.” Secondly, groups like Al-Qu’ida are not legitimate governing states and therefore cannot meet the first requirement of the JWT. Thirdly, terrorists attacked us repeatedly. Whatever grievances that Osama Bin Liden may have had, they do not justify, according to the JWT, attacking unsuspecting non-combatants. The terrorists cannot possibly met even one requirement for a just war.

Point 5: The JWT is indeed designed to give moral justification for political action—this is its whole purpose. By the way, the prophets and priests of the OT did the same for David and other Israelite kings. This seems obvious. However, you use the word “political” in a pejorative way as if it was sub-moral or unsavory. In the United States the word political has a long and wonderful meaning. It refers to the American system as the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I think it is terrific!

For Vitoria and Suarez, hostilities can be sub-divided into two groups: 1) an armed attack against a peaceful society and 2) “injurious actions” against a peaceful society (“generally defined as an infringement of a right”). The first is obviously a defensive war and, according to Vitoria and Suarez it needed “no special justification.” However, the second type of war needed justification because it was considered offensive.

Specifically, the two conditions added by Vitoria and Suarez were that an offensive war—to be justified—must be fought as a last resort and it must be done in a proper manner. The proper manner referred to avoiding the loss of innocent life.

●Regarding the loss of innocent life: I believe that Vitoria and Suarez were realistic enough to know that it is impossible for a war to be conducted without the loss of innocent life. What they meant is that the Just War country must avoid conducting a campaign against innocent parties. In my opinion, no nation in the history of the world has been more conscious, concerned and careful at doing this than the United States of America. Can you imagine, for instance, the former Soviet Union conducting a court marshal against its soldiers during the time of war for mistreating POWs—not torture—mistreatment? Ever read about how the French treated the Algerians when they rebelled against the French? Ever read about how the Belgians treated the Congolese in the 20th century? Ever read about how the French treated the rebels in the Ivory Coast? Ever read how the Soviets treated the people of Afganistan?
●See, what the world and the left does is hold America up to a standard that even angels could not maintain and then when they conduct their wars, they feel free to use whatever means suits them. Unfortunately, Americans are clueless about world history so they fall for this ridiculous nonsense.

●Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists: 10,564
●Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans: 71
●Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists).

If you will do the math, you’ll see that the U.S. military is responsible for less than 1 in 100 deaths in Iraq. Americans killed fewer Iraqi people this year than those that died in Iraq due to automotive accidents. Now please take the time to research how many Afghan citizens were killed per year by the Soviets during their 1980’s occupation and the number of those killed by the French in Algeria.

I am willing to bet that you had no idea that the number of collateral civilian deaths caused by the U.S. military was so low. Please be willing to give me an honest reply and suggest to me why you think you are not aware of this information.

Here is another thought question. How many stories have you seen in the mass media highlighting the heroism and positive work of our military in Iraq? If all we get is reporting on the aberrant, negative behavior and absolutely no reporting on the heroic, positive and uplifting work of our military, how can we possibly make any kind of rational judgment of the just or unjust means of our endeavors? What if absolutely no context is supplied from the mass media? What if the mass media never reports on the incredibly low level of collateral civilian casualties? How can you or anyone ever make a rational judgment? If all you ever get is the aberrant and negative, my view is that you will assume that the U.S. military is the worst, most war-mongering institution ever launched against the innocent peoples of the world. However, the factual reality is 180 degrees the opposite. It is the least offensive and least aggressive of any military in human history.

The acknowledged expert on firearm’s ownership and crime is Law and economics professor John R. Lott Jr. You can find a University of Chicago interview with Dr. Lott here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Here is a National Review article by Dr. Lott touching on the Canadian, English and Australian crime rates. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp

Regarding the American murder rate: Over 70 percent of American murders take place in just 3.5 percent of counties--these being the inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports show that in 2005, 88% of murder victims were age 18 or older. Of all murder victims, 45% were 20 to 34 years old. In short, the largest group of violent crime perpetrators are young men living in urban centers who are involved in drug trafficking.
●For the period 1999 to 2001, the average rate (the number of homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.6 in the EU with the highest rates in Finland (2.9), Northern Ireland (2.7) and Scotland (2.2). For the other countries, the highest rates were found in Russia (22.1), Estonia (10.6), Lithuania (10.6) and the USA (5.6). Source: Barclay, Gordon & Cynthia Tavares, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001," Home Office Bulletin 12/03 (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, October 24, 2003), p. 3.

●However, there are also a large number of peer-reviewed academic studies showing that letting private citizens own guns reduces violent crime—even against the police. Professor David Mustard in the Journal of Law and Economics specifically tested this and found that each additional year a state allows citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces the number of police murders by another 2 percent.

The Lancet (a British medical journal) analysis estimated that 100,000 civilian casualties had been caused in Iraq. However, their "study" has been widely discredited by credible groups on both sides of the debate. Yet, we continue to be inundated with high casualty numbers with massive numbers of civilian dead reported. However, Logic Times’ maintains an in-depth analysis of all combatant and non-combatant deaths. They report that after “two years of combat since the fall of Baghdad, much of it urban warfare, with less than 1,000 (948) civilians killed as a result of U.S. action.” A full and detailed analysis of all deaths can be found here: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

The website: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ maintains a complete week-by-week full analysis of every single death related to Islamic terrorism; an ongoing analysis of the civilian collateral deaths from both Islamic and American forces; and a listing of all terrorism attacks in the world.

I agree with Ralph Peters the brilliant columnist for the New York Post and Washington Times. He maintains that the media has been unconscionably irresponsible and childish in its misrepresentation of the American effort in Iraq. Never has a military labored so hard to reduce civilian casualties and so maligned and misrepresented.

You wrote: “The war as it is being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan is not achieving any of the desired primary objectives.”
●You are such a typical American—microwave mentality. The clear and decisive objectives for Afghanistan were to end the Taliban’s rule of the country and its usefulness it as a base of operations and training for Al-Qu’ida and other terrorist groups. An additional benefit for the Afghan people was that it allowed them to restart their country and economy and develop a viable democratic government. The clear and decisive objectives for Iraq were to depose Saddam Hussein after violation after violation of U.N. sanctions. Side benefits have been the ending of his rule of terror, the formation of an elected government, an improved economy, the end to his secret police’s involvement in terrorism, etc. As I have mentioned, the historical record indicates that it takes a minimum of 10 years to end an insurgency. Even when we are able to largely withdraw, the Iraqi government will be dealing with terrorism and insurgency for some time into the future.

You wrote: “…believe there is a link. That link is what is called Justice.”
●I take it that you mean that because Islamic Jihadists are using terrorism against us, this means that God is bringing justice against us because of Hiroshima in the form of suicide attacks and the whole-sale slaughter of Muslims.
●I take it that you would have preferred that 500,000 to 1,000,000 of our American servicemen should have been sacrificed on the shores of Japan in order to appease your sense of fairness. This, of course, would have meant that at least two-three times the number of Japanese would have died defending their mainland (conservatively 1.5 million). I draw your attention to Iwo Jima were 20,000 Japanese troops literally fought to the last man. It took 7,000 Marine deaths to secure that small island. However, that was even less intense than Okinawa where the battle lasted for two and a half months, until June 21, 1945 and cost nearly 19,000 American lives. The Japanese losses were even more sobering: more than 100,000 Japanese soldiers were killed (out of just over 100,000 Japanese soldiers on the island), while the civilian death toll was estimated to be 80,000 to 100,000. The closer the American forces got to the Japanese mainland the more extreme the Japanese methods of defense became. The Japanese assessed that, while they could not defeat us, they could cause so many casualties that we would leave their country and future empire in tact. After 1942 the Japanese refused to surrender in any battle no matter how badly they were loosing. Literally—in no way figurative—a ground invasion of Japan would have been catastrophic. However, I am sure none of this makes any impact on you because no matter how evil our enemies may have been, for you, we are always at fault and God is always pouring out his wrath on America.

●Guess who was pressuring the United States NOT to enter the war against the Axis powers. In the minds of American pacifists and isolationists, what was happening in Europe and Asia was not worth dying for—am I wrong? It took a direct attack against our navy to overcome the opposition to the war. I think a policy of appeasement (a literal policy and not a pejorative term) was the guiding principle for many until Pearl Harbor. I believe the thinking was “that’s not my problem.” Actually, if it hadn’t been for Pearl Harbor, it is very likely that pacifists and isolationists would have allowed Hitler to have his way with millions; because, after all, the death of one innocent American life or one innocent bystander is not worth our involvement.
●You’d think we would have learned our lesson, but, frankly it doesn’t appear that we can grasp the idea that there are evil regimes in the world.
●Again, the biblical principle is that one’s individual Christian ethic is guided by “love overcoming evil.” The Christian ethic for the government is serving as an “instrument of God’s wrath” against evil doers. In my opinion, confusing these two leads to catastrophic disasters.

Its four principles were:

1. The United States must build an invulnerable national defense.
2. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack an America that is prepared.
3. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the war in Europe
4. "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.

Within a year the organization had more 800,000 members.

Charles Lindbergh.com has an extensive article on the America First Committee and has a wealth of resources including an archive of Lindbergh’s isolationist speeches. They describe his leadership and thinking as follows:

His approach was, in effect, more understanding of the Germans (without approving of what they did) and more skeptical of the Allies than the conventional view in the United States. Lindbergh saw a divided responsibility for the origins of the European war, rather than an assignment of the total blame to Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Axis states. He did not view Germany, Britian, and France as implacable foes with irreconcilable differences that could be resolved only by war; he saw them all as parts of Western civilization. And he conceived of the European war as a fratricidal struggle (like the wars between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece) that could destroy Western civilization. http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp

One might argue that Lindbergh was not appeasement minded; however, you may be aware that many in the United States believed that he went too far in justifying and accommodating the Axis position and in his urging the American government to avoid siding with the Allies. The fact is that Lindbergh lived the rest of his life (like Chamberlain) with the whispers of being a Nazi appeaser or sympathizer.

Again, I am sure there were many and varied views within the isolationist and pacifist camps. However, I think I am justified in using the broad brush stroke that they calculated that the loss of American lives was “not worth it” and that appeasement was preferable (certainly this was true at with the leadership of the largest isolationist group in the U.S.).

Finally, you’ll notice that none of the things that you listed as the “economic” reasons for staying out of the war were listed by AFC in its printed literature. Other isolationists may have valued the things you listed; however, they didn’t make it into the platform for the largest isolationist group in pre-war America.

"In our civilization, when two men get down, either seriously or just “woofing”, what do they say? Some variation of “I’m going to kick your ass.” Am I right? Here’s what I heard in the Kingdom, “Hey, don’t f**k with me, or someday you get a knife in the back.” I’m not saying that wouldn’t happen to you in the West, but most men would be ashamed to make a threat of that nature. We don’t understand that direct shock battle is not necessarily the law of nature. When overwhelming force is brought to bear on them, they become cringing and obsequious. To put it bluntly, they lie their heads off to get you to turn your back on them. Try to see it from their point of view – how else do you expect them to act when you have the overwhelming force? You expect them to meet you on equal terms when the situation is so unequal? What other tactics are available but prevarication and delay followed by a sneak attack?

Folks, what we call “terrorism” is quite close to the historically normal way of warfare among these people."

Stealth: my patience is wearing thin with your repeated accusations regarding the “Current sentiment at this blog is that the Hispanic is a dishonest and loathsome soul, as well.” I have written one post on immigration from a biblical perspective in which I never even mentioned Hispanics. You have been the only one to interject a specific race into the immigration issue and each time I have stated that the issue is about abiding by laws that are already on the books. You do this because you cannot offer an intelligent argument and so you descend to race baiting. Please stop this nonsense.

You wrote: “In every case, those opinions have not been Christian. Tolerance and love are prominent attributes of the true Christian. What you describe is a worldly view. And I dare say, there are those who deny Christ who are more tolerant than the views found here.”
●Agreed, tolerance and love are prominent attributes of the true Christian. So, also are truth, integrity and intellectual honesty. Let me ask you, is it truthful to say that the “current sentiment at this blog is that the Hispanic is a dishonest and loathsome soul?” Also, who is being intolerant here, the people who are attempting to carry on a lively intellectual debate in a courteous and respectful fashion or the person—you—who is constantly claiming that others are racists, intolerant and arrogant? I’ve noticed that others are able to disagree with each other without name-calling. Why are you not able to do this—is it because of your “true Christian” character?

You wrote: “War is the answer here, and if it is not working, more intense war is called for to cure the problem. To justify such war, we must make the enemy a truly loathsome people. All of them. Good job.”
●First, I noticed that you completely ignored my logical assumption that you preferred catastrophic casualties resulting from a ground invasion of Japan (i.e. likely totaling 4,000,000) to the U.S. ending the war with the use of the atomic bomb. This was a legitimate assumption since you appear to believe that somehow God is pouring out his wrath on America through Islamic terrorism because of the way WWII ended. What is more “loathsome:” 1) the desire for massive casualties during WWII coupled with a “na-nu-na-na-naw-naw” attitude suggesting God causes terrorists to kill civilians, or 2) exploring the idea that Arab culture may have certain immoral characteristics?

● “I see it again and again from you, Thom. These are code words to "We must maintain our present, pure white dominated political and cultural heritage". You do not want that culture contaminated by certain foreigners and you want to strengthen immigration laws against certain racial groups who bring change while encouraging others who will melt into our present culture. This is especially the poor. …He gives clear evidence as a Californian of a deep racism to MAINTAIN the heritage he is accustomed to. That is always the color of racism…This paints the picture of parasites crossing our southern border. After all, the question goes, what Mexican can be adaquately skilled anyway?.. Those who honor law are just the ones we want here…The correct answer can be found without the all so frequent theme (from Thom) of racial hatred driving it.”

This should help you and you are welcome to read the post for yourself. We have nothing to hide here at TFD and if I feel I am being too caustic or sarcastic, I make the effort to apologize—even to Stealth. You can see for yourself if Mr. Stealth makes any effort to set the record straight.

You offered a great summary, by the way, of will and love for both humans and God.

I think you are right that Aquinas’ view of God’s love presupposes a greater love for those things that are higher or more perfect. This does nod toward Calvinism. It also is the central concept for Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s view of predestination. He builds on Augustine and Aquinas to postulate the principle of predilection—the intrinsic efficacy of God’s grace so that “no man would be better unless loved more by God” (Predestination, p. 33) detected in Paul’s statements “It is God who works in you, according to His good will” (Phil 2:13) and “For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (1 Cor 4:7).

However, I think Fr. Most builds off of two other concepts in Aquinas that are sometimes overlooked. One is that the greatest good is “the good of the order of the universe; for it is most perfect” (SCG III, Part 1, Ch. 64, 9). Therefore, Aquinas says, “among created things, what God cares for most is the order of the universe” (Ibid., 10). Without this, there would be no justice because God’s justice maintains the “proper operation” of the universal order. In other words, the good of the universal order is greater than the individual salvation of particular men. The second concept that Most identifies in Aquinas is that the Bible teaches that man can resist God. Aquinas states, “God is ready to give grace to all (quoting 1 Tim 2:4)…But those alone are deprived of grace who offer an obstacle within themselves to grace; just as, while the sun is shinning on the world, the man who keeps his eyes closed is held responsible for his fault, if as a result some evil follow, even though he could not see unless he were provided in advance with light from the sun” (SCG III, Part 2, Ch. 129, 2).

Putting these things together, Most notes that the good of the order of the universe is expressed in God’s willingness to provide all the means necessary for the salvation of all men (1 Tim 2:4) and that His love and willingness is expressed in the infinitely efficacious sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Secondly, God looks to see (not chronologically because there is no time in God; but, rather in logical order) who will persistently resist His grace. All others are saved.

I’m not sure this answers your question, but it is my first stab at it.

What follows from this understanding of the good is the classic Christian view of evil. Evil is not being at all; rather, it is the privation of being or the good.

Additionally, since God is the absolute fullness of being (His name literally means “existence”), so, the supreme and infinite Being is also the Supreme Good from which all things that are created receive both their being and goodness.

Now, the reason all things are hardwired to desire the good is because all things seek their own “well-being.” Plants, for example, require light, air, moisture, etc. for their well-being or “good.” They cannot not seek these things because if they did not seek their own good they would perish. Likewise, animals seek their well-being (the good) by instinct and limited intelligence. If they did not naturally do this, they would cease to exist. Man, though, being hardwired to seek his own well-being (survival), he does so through intelligence. This means that though he must seek the good, he can choose—through judgment—which “particular” goods to pursue. This is how moral evil enters the picture. Man can pursue an “apparent” good which is actually an evil (something that is destructive of being). Men, for instance, use sex (which is a good created by God), in a way that is destructive of life rather than an enhancement of life—this is an evil.

Immoral behavior is never corillary to a specific race.

The final result of identifying freedom with the power to choose is nihilism, as Nietzsche describes it in The Will to Power: “What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The aim is lacking; ‘why?’ finds no answer.”32 A genuine aim requires a genuine end, something that offers a response to the question ‘why?’ But a genuine end, as we have seen, must in some respect move me prior to my choosing of it. Goodness or value presents itself phenomenologically as attraction, and attraction is the action upon me of an external object, the intimate “tugging” on me of something other than myself. But such attraction loses any force to the extent that I identify myself with my will as the power to choose. If there is no possibility of profound attraction, then even if there did exist things in the world things of genuine value, they could never be perceived as such, because to be experienced as good would require intruding upon and supplanting the end that the will makes of itself. If to be merely an “option” means that a thing makes no claim whatsoever on the will before the will makes a claim on it, then, from what we have just seen, one way to characterize nihilism would be to say that the world appears as nothing but a set of options; and defining the will as the power to choose allows the world to appear in no other way.

Just a small reminder of the slaughter of innocents that preceded our war on terrorism
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
January 1993: Two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: First attack against Twin Towers
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: A Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an Egypt Air flight near New York City.
Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996
August 1998: 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
October 2000: 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen.
9/11: 2,700 lives perish in the Twin Towers

Osama Bin Laden’s list of grievances against the U.S.:

1) Our former base in Saudi Arabia placed there to protect them and Kuwait from invasion by Iraq.
2) Attacking Iraq to rescue Kuwait
3) Support for Israel

For this, Osama states the “infidel” Crusader is guilty of crimes against Allah. These crimes, he states, amount to “a clear declaration of war by the Americans against God, his Prophet, and the Muslims.” Therefore, OBL declared that, "By God's leave, we call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward to obey God's command to kill the Americans and plunder their possessions wherever he finds them and whenever he can.”

The issue of unjust rulers falls under the heading of the Biblical principle found in Acts 4:19 in that one is to “obey God rather than man.” However, if you will bother to look at the passage you will notice that Peter and John willingly submitted to the governing authorities while refusing to end their preaching of Christ. Additionally, if you will bother to look at the passage mentioned in the post—Romans 13—there is no qualification in regard to government—all are established by God with the purpose of serving as God’s instrument of “wrath” against wrongdoers.

Yes, George Bush and Dick Cheney have the mantle of authority from God as the elected executives of the United States. You may not know this, but the Constitution of the United States also states clearly that they are the chief executives of the U.S. You may want to refer to the Constitution. Most of us studied it in the 8th grade.

1. The Apostles Paul and Peter were lying.
2. The New Testament cannot be trusted.
3. The Old Testament prophets cannot be understood when condemning human governments for their injustice.

What is amazing to me is how Christian pacifists can be so enamored with the Old Testament prophets, loving to quote from them to disparage the American government and its system and, yet, they cannot see that the whole superstructure for the prophetic condemnation of political/social injustice is based on God’s establishment of human government with the purpose of punishing the wrong and commending the good. How blind can Christians be?

Christian pacifists also blindly refuse to see that the New Testament teaches both a private and public ethic for Christians. Certainly one’s personal (private) ethic—as taught in Scripture—is to be one of love. There is no question about this. We are to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. However, a governing official, magistrate, policeman, fireman, judge, military soldier, etc. are not acting on an individual basis—they are acting in a public capacity. They are acting as “instruments” of God’s wrath and justice. How hard is this to understand? There is Romans 12 (personal/private ethic) and Romans 13 (public/governing authorities). The minute a Christian policeman takes off his uniform he becomes an individual Christian who is to love his enemies. We are talking apples and oranges here. Again, I am amazed that seemingly educated people cannot see this obvious truth. I am reminded of Christ’s saying, “they strain a gnat and swallow a camel.”

I remind you that there were hundreds and hundreds of soldiers who were held up as model Christians, soldiers and martyrs in the ancient and early church—well before Constantine. Christian pacifists conveniently ignore all of these men as if they never existed. Several of them have been canonized. Christian pacifists consistently ignore the fact that not one soldier mentioned in the NT was told to end his involvement in military service—in the Roman army no less! Not even John the Baptist demanded that a Roman soldier leave his military service in order to prepare for the Messiah. In fact, Cornelius the centurion of the Italian Regiment (a famous unit) and the centurion at the cross are given special mention in Scripture. Jesus commended a centurion for having greater faith than anyone in Israel, yet, he did not instruct him to end his military service. The book of Acts specifically states that Cornelius’ prayers and alms came up to God as a beautiful offering and he was declared as a righteous man even before Peter evangelized him. He was a Roman officer for goodness sake! Yet, God sent him an angel to commend him—while he was a Gentile centurion. Sergius Paulus remained the leading magistrate on Cyprus after converting to Christianity. He must have been routinely required to execute wrongdoers for the Roman government. Just a reminder, the Romans weren’t the Dutch.

Christian pacifists create a legalistic teaching based on sophistry and not the teaching of God’s Word. My mind goes back to Jesus saying, “they strain a gnat and swallow a camel.” Any Christian is free to and should follow the dictates of his/her conscience in regard to military service. However, it is wrong and rank legalism to teach that all Christians must be pacifists per se.

Starrider, feel free to keep quoting people like Wink and Augburger, I prefer to stay with the New Testament, the apostles and with the actual history of the church.

Well, let’s see if we can explain what you missed. Here are a few things.

●The story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law Tamar when she disguised herself as a prostitute (Gen. 38:12-30) is a story about two very fallible people neither of which, in the contextual setting, should be used as examples of Christian living. Their actions are not condoned in Scripture.
●Nothing in the Genesis story indicates that either Tamar or Judah were doing God’s will or that they should somehow be used as models for either Christians or government officials.
● The passages from Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 are clear apostolic teaching. The hermeneutic principle is that the clear and unequivocal teaching of Scripture is the basis for understanding and interpreting the unclear sections of Scripture.
●Your backhanded logic seems to go something like one of the following: A) Some of God’s people as recorded in the Bible narrative did bad things; therefore, we can ignore the direct and clear teaching of the apostles. Or B) Tamar (or Judah) is like the modern governing authority doing God’s will but in reality are unrighteous people; therefore, we are not to think that Christians can act as governing authorities. These are both examples of fallacious logic for the following reasons.
1. Nothing in the Genesis passage indicates that Tamar or Judah were doing God’s will.
2. Nowhere in the Scripture are Christians condemned for serving as governing officials; in fact, many Old and New Testament saints were governing officials and serve as godly examples to Christians. Conversely, the actions of the just Christian governing official while serving in office do not become the norm for his/her private Christian behavior. Just as the parent is responsible to God to discipline their children, they do not have the right to discipline and punish children from other families or to discipline or punish adults. Both the parent and governing authority are bounded by rules of application and justice. This is so obvious you would think it unnecessary to mention.
3. What God ordains cannot be sinful.

James 1:13 (NIV) When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
James 1:16-17 (NIV) Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. [17] Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
4. To call government or governing authorities, as an institution or office, “evil” or an evil “dominion system” is to say that God has ordained or instituted an evil. This is pure heresy. Manichaeism comes to mind.
5. What God has ordained as an institution (the family, government or church) cannot be wrong for Christians to participate in per se. If it is wrong per se for Christians to be governing authorities “bearing the sword” and “punishing” wrongdoers as instruments of “God’s wrath,” then it must also be wrong also for Christians to be part of a family or church—which is logically absurd. Furthermore, if it is true that it is an evil for Christians to participate in government as “agents of God’s wrath,” then all those saints in the Bible that were governing authorities were living in sin.

But let me go on:

●There is absolutely nothing in the Tamar story that abrogates the following contextual statements by Peter and Paul:

1 Peter 2:13-14 (NIV) Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, [14] or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
Romans 13:1-5 (NIV) Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

●Paul unequivocally states that the reason Christians are to submit to the governing authority is because he/she is God’s servant, an agent of wrath.” Paul insists that those who refuse to acknowledge the authority and role of the governing official is actually “rebelling” against God.
●The germane point in regard to Just War Theory is not the issue of Christian submission to government. The issue is the government’s God-ordained responsibility to serve as God’s instrument of wrath and for Christians to legitimately participate in government and governing offices.

You wrote: “Therefore, this is by no means a proof that God wants His Church to take part in killing our fellow humans. On the contrary, killing our fellow humans is insult to the Great Commission.”

●This is a red herring argument. The church does not serve in the capacity of “killing our fellow humans.” Such a statement is just sophistry. The purpose of the institution of the church is to proclaim the gospel and to be God’s instrument of salvation in the world. Neither the government nor the family is delegated the responsibility that is the church’s. However, the government is the institution that is delegated the responsibility of being an “instrument of God’s wrath” to “punish” the “wrongdoer.” It, by the way, is not to kill our “fellow humans.” It is to act justly against the wrongdoer and use only the force necessary to restrain and control evil.

You wrote in regard to Jesus and the money changers: The point to the event is that the "Religious folk" were imposing a "Poll Tax" on the poor who were trying to enter the Lords Temple and address Him, which BTW was not legal under Jewish Law. The priests knew this, and that is why no charges were levied against Jesus, the priests would have been found guilty…If we have forgotten; Mark 16:15-16 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe should be SHOT DEAD, DEAD, DEAD."

●I keep asking myself why Christian pacifists have to insult one’s intelligence with such juvenile thinking?
●Yes, the religious leaders were imposing a from of “poll tax” on the poor and keeping Gentiles from using the Court of the Gentiles for prayer (“my house shall be a house of prayer for all nations [goy]”). The germane point is that Jesus felt free to use coercion to cleanse the Temple because of the unrighteous and unjust actions of the religious leaders. He, obviously, as the Messiah had the right to be an “agent of God’s wrath” against the unjust religious rulers. This is the point.
●The point is not that any Christian can at any time use physical coercion to get his way. The point is that, as the Messiah and Lord of the Temple, Jesus had every right to be an “agent of God’s wrath” to cleanse the Temple using coercion.
●Your point regarding Mark 16:15-16 does not deserve a response.

You wrote: Jesus gave us the commission to "Seek and save the lost". This was His purpose this is our purpose, when we deviate from our purpose, then we are following someone other that Jesus.”

●Certainly, Jesus gave his commission to the church to seek and save the lost. God has also given parents the responsibility to train and discipline their own children—he did not give this responsibility to the church nor the government. God has also given the government the responsibility to be an “instrument of God’s wrath” to “punish” the “wrongdoer.” He did not give His church or the family the responsibility to punish criminals, lawbreakers, brigands, and attacking armies.
●A Christian parent cannot abrogate their responsibilities to their children so that they can evangelize the world--to do so brings discredit and dishonor on Christ. Likewise, a Christian magistrate or policeman or soldier cannot abrogate their responsibilities as an “agent of God’s wrath” to “punish” the “wrongdoer” because they want to evangelize people. Such a thing would be absurd, wrong and bring discredit upon Christ and His church. Christians must be both responsible members of their family and active participants in the work of the church. The Christian magistrate must be both a responsible instrument of God’s “wrath/commendation” as well as an active participant in the church—helping to fulfill the great commission.

…the readily apparent glee you displayed in dueling with the folks on another blog…
…far more interested in rebel rousing and stirring up fellow Christians whom did not agree…
…you…are simply using the bait and switch technique with this bit from your own profile and mission statement so as to create an audience of straw men…
…have a tit for tat debate or to insinuate as you have done with me and others that you or anyone else disagreeing with me are lacking in intelligence, education or spiritual insight…
…that the person that uses the brashest, most forceful quasi-intellectual style of "discussion" is not necessarily right just because they insist so…
…you wish to call yourself a Christian you cannot do so realistically and also be someone who primarily espouses the values of the WORLD… …You posted another rant while I was writing this one. Which has left me convinced that the conversation will bear no fruit until you cool your jets and live up to your own stated standards….

●You may want to read back over what you have written before you make your final decision as to who is ranting.

●What I have been attempting to do with you and ccwman is actually address your key points in regard to the subject of the post which is the Just War Theory vs. Christian Pacifism. Here I will make an attempt to deal with key things you have written.

You asked: “My question for you is, "held up as model Christians by who? Canonized by who- but other men?". I thought you were sticking to the words of the Apostles and of Jesus. Are we assuming that because Jesus did not instruct certain soldiers to leave the military that this is a free pass for mass violence, dropping atomic bombs and so on?”

● First, the reason I mentioned Constantine is because you brought up the subject by saying that the Middle East conflict has its “roots in SIN that is common to all the players in the conflict at least as far back as the Constantine when “Christendom” was created and the social ethic of Jesus’ actual teaching was departed from…” and earlier say,“The Constantinian…viewing of the world through the unscriptural and ill advised blending of church and empire…” What I was showing you is that it was (and still is) common in both Eastern and Western Christianity to honor hundreds of soldiers who died as martyrs. It was also common to view them as godly role-models for Christian bravery under persecution. This single fact denies the assertion that Christian pacifism was the rule of the day in the ancient and early church. Certainly Christians serving in the Roman military did not begin with the “Constantinian” blending of church and state. It is an inaccurate view of history to claim that it was uncommon or wrong for Christians to serve in the military during the age of persecution.
● Yes, you are correct, because Jesus did not instruct soldiers to leave the military it does not give anyone a “free pass for mass violence.” However, no one is suggesting this. The Just War Theory does just the opposite. The point is that it cannot be wrong on-the-face of it for a Christian to serve in the military and to bear arms in warfare. If it was, Jesus and the Apostles would have either have stated so or have instructed soldiers to end their military service. They did not.

You wrote: “Thomisticguy, feel free to keep quoting people like Thomas Aquinas and referring to other "Christian" leaders like Sergius Paulus , I prefer to stay with the New Testament, the apostles and with the actual mission of the church.”

● I have not quoted Thomas Aquinas to you. Sergius Paulus was a Christian magistrate mentioned in the Bible that protected Paul and Barnabas.

You wrote: regarding the NT centurion commended by Christ, “…( faith because becoming a Christian would naturally mean that he was jeopardizing his livelihood, forfeiting his standing and reputation and possibly even putting his life at risk...he stood to lose everythingbecause of his choice to follow Jesus.”
● The only centurion commended by Christ in the NT was not commended for leaving his position as a military commander. He was commended for his faith that Jesus could heal his servant.

You wrote: “Also, I consider you my brother in Christ and I think it would be wise for you to re-consider your viewpoint- especially if you are teaching others the same.”
● Here you state that you consider me to by your brother in Christ but then you also state, (you) “wish to call yourself a Christian you cannot do so realistically and also be someone who primarily espouses the values of the WORLD.” Hmm…interesting.
●I have reconsidered it my position. I used to be a Christian pacifist and I have attended a Mennonite seminary. I found the position untenable in light of the Word of God.

You wrote: “Sure, governments can legitimately protect their people. What is really being debated is HOW that is done. If you realistically examine the current war and conflict that our country is engaged in, as noted in my other post, the US is clearly not innocent and has clearly chosen courses of action and foreign policy in the past that have helped to produce the backlash of terrorism. So, I assert that the best way that our government could protect us and the rest of mankind is by more closely adhering to the teachings of Jesus and by crafting foreign policy and practice that are more Godly, fair and just.
● Your position seems to be that governments can legitimately protect their people but they must use the non-violent means taught by Jesus.
● Here are several Scripturally ascertained reasons why this cannot be right:
1. Governments are neither Christian nor non-Christian.
2. When Paul wrote Romans 13, the Roman government was pagan and brutal.
3. Romans 13 indicates the magistrate “bears the sword.” The Roman sword was the finest instrument of military violence ever developed until that era. Paul states that the magistrate bears the sword as “God’s” instrument of “wrath.”
4. There is clearly a private Christian non-violent ethic and a public governmental ethic taught in the New Testament. The governmental ethic is of “wrath” and “punishment” and not non-violence.

You wrote: (In regard to my assertion that the Just War Theory has been the predominant view throughout church history) “ I would point out that the predominant view of "Christendom" has also in the past been that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved arounfd the Earth. So, the "predominant" view debate is irrelevant and based on doctrine formulated by men and not necessarily on the proper interpretation of scripture. More importantly, there is in fact much debate on the meaning from Romans and 1st Peter 3. So, if one is using for instance 1st Peter 3:17 which says: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. - to make the argument that because the "Just War" tradition is the "predominant" extrapolation from scripture- it is "What is right in the eyes of everyone" it is quite a stretch. What should be "right in the eyes of everyone" is Jesus' words and examples as are found in the "Sermon on the Mount and in his martyrdom. 1st Peter 3:19 says: 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay, "says the Lord. Also 1st peter 3:19 does some damage to the assertion, “

● That the Just War Theory has been the predominant view throughout church history going back to the 1st century is a raw fact. It also points to the probability that it is the most accurate view of biblical teaching. Ultimately, you are correct; the case rises or falls on the best interpretation of Scripture.
● The predominant view of the earth is that it was round. Despite this, errors in science do not necessitate errors in theology. It does not follow that because Christians may have believed the Sun revolved around earth that the Just War Theory, as the predominant view historically, is wrong. The same argument could be used against Christian pacifism as a “relic of the dark ages or of the superstitious past.”
● Your quotations from 1 Peter 3 are fully affirmed by all those who hold to the Just War Theory. The reason for this is that there is a private Christian ethic (as a private citizen) and a public Christian ethic (as a public official) taught in the New Testament. The Scriptures you are quoting address the private, non-violent behavior of all Christians. These verses do no damage to my assertion but underscore and validate it.

You wrote: (In regard to my assertion that God demands that governments provide protection and justice for its citizens from evil-doers) “I think it can be established that God UTILIZES governments to establish justice...and they have been established and modeled after a plan that he authored. However just as with all human endeavor, that model and plan is often abandoned by humankind through freewill- and the source of all strife and warfare is sin.”
● No, the Bible doesn’t say God “utilizes governments to establish justice.” The Bible says there is no“authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” There is a huge difference between God utilizing something and “establishing” or instituting something. God can use evil for good (Gen. 50); but, He does not establish or institute evil. Paul actually states the governing authority, “… is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God actually establishes government as His institution to restrain and punish wrongdoers. You stated the case as God “UTILIZES governments to establish justice.” The Bible states it as God establishes government to express His wrath against wrongdoing and His rewards for doing good. Just as parents are set in their position in the family (established by God) to rule over their children; so, God establishes governments to rule over countries and provide protection from wrongdoers and bringing justice to the oppressed.
● The fact that humankind fails to act in all cases as God commands does not negate what He has established. For example, because many parents fail to be proper and godly leaders in their homes does not necessitate the dismantling of the God-ordained family. I am sure you would consider it an outrageous suggestion that the family be ignored, replaced or dismantled because many parents are failures. However, to deny that the God-established institution of government should not be operative because men fail to act rightly is certainly equivalent to dismantling or making inoperative the human family structure.
● The Just War Theory sets Scripturally ascertained principles down to guide and limit the government in the use of the “sword” to protect a country’s populace.
● Finally, you note rightly that the source of warfare is sin. However, it does not follow that there are not innocent victims of military attack. Just as there are innocent victims of criminal violence that need to be protected; there are innocent victims of military attack that need to be protected. For both of these reasons (i.e. criminal violence and military attack) God has ordained government for the protection of the populace and the “punishment” of wrongdoers.

You wrote: “In fact you seem to be more interested in wrath and justice than love and forgiveness and holiness. I would be careful with that. God has said pretty plainly throughout the Word that that is his business and not ours....even if he uses our nation states for his purposes. When God used the Babylonians to punish Israel for instance- how many Babylonians do you think killed their way into Heaven?
● Okay, so because I am having to go over and over the same territory in order to get you to recognize that there is a legitimate dual ethic in the New Testament (one private of non-violence and one public of serving as God’s instrument of wrath), I now need to be “careful” because being “interested in wrath and justice” could be a problem with God and, perhaps, put me in the category of being a Babylonian who was used by God to kill people? And you are concerned that I am “ranting?”
● God’s judgment and the wrath of God were topics that both Jesus and the Apostles often spoke of.
● This comes back again to the Apostolic teaching that you seem to think I am not describing to you. The apostolic teaching is that there is a legitimate dual ethic in the New Testament clearly described in Romans 12 (private and non-violent) and in Romans 13 (public for governing officials as instruments of God’s wrath against wrongdoers). It would be apostolic teaching if only the Apostle Paul wrote about it but (following the Biblical principle of “by two or three witnesses let all things be confirmed”), the Apostle Peter also wrote about the same dual ethic. This is all that is necessary to establish legitimacy for the just use of the “sword” by the governing magistrates against wrongdoers.

You wrote: “Because of this rarity I believe Christians should be very careful about their participation in warfare on behalf of nation states and certainly not be bandwagon people without marked scrutiny and discernment...I will offer the present elective war in Iraq as a prime example of a situation where America has made all the wrong moves all the way back to the enabling of Saddam back in the Reagan administration days. I know you have not made any allusions to the war in Iraq necessarily- but I am curious to ask for anyone to explainif this is God's will that we are fighting in Iraq- why is it going so poorly for us?”

● The Just War Theory is exactly what is necessary to help Christians discern their participation in warfare. It is clear, simple and scripturally based. It is my view that without it, all other attempts to ascertain the proper participation in war become a matter of opinion. Even with the Just War Theory there can be legitimate differences in regard to what is appropriate and that is why individual conscience must be respected.
● In my view, it would be unhelpful to write about the war in Iraq until there is agreement on the Just War Theory. A strict pacifistic view would automatically preclude any involvement in any war no matter how well justified.

You wrote: “Is the assertion that Romans 13 is "clear apostolic teaching" and the definitive statement on this all you have...besides the "Just Warfare" doctrine which is fallible?”

● Okay, so you are saying something to the effect that it is not enough to have a Just War Theory with apostolic teaching in order to have a Just War Theory with apostolic teaching. This would be like me saying, “Hey, I have a car, it’s a Ford Mustang.” And you replying, “All you have is a Ford Mustang—where’s your car?”
● The Just War Theory starts with Paul and Peter’s teaching in the New Testament that God establishes all governments with the express and specific purpose of being His “instrument of wrath” to “punish” “wrongdoers.” By the way, while most Christians believe that the family is an institution given to mankind and established by God; the scriptural basis for this is less clear than the scriptural statements in Rom 13 and 1 Peter 2 in regard to God’s establishment of government. Surely we all believe that the church is established by God for the salvation of mankind; however, can you find a statement about this in the NT that is as clear as Rom 13 and 1 Peter 2?
● All that is necessary to establish that there is a dual ethic in the NT in regard to violence is to do a simple exposition of Romans 12 and 13—Paul, fortunately, coupled the two together. The Romans 12 passage has the advantage of mirroring exactly the teaching of Jesus in regard to a Christian’s private deportment. As you know, he immediately follows this with Romans 13, providing unequivocal statements about the government and governing authorities. This, then, is followed by showing that there is no teaching in the NT requiring Christians to refrain from public service in any facet of government per se. In fact, there are scores of examples in the Bible of men and women who are presented as godly governmental leaders (i.e. Daniel, Nehemiah, David, Josiah, Hezekiah, Cornelius and Sergius Paulus to name a few). Therefore, if it is clear that God establishes government and governing officials as His instruments of “wrath” to “punish” wrongdoers and it is not wrong for Christians to serve in the role of a governing leader; then, it is wrong to teach that A) the government cannot use coercion and violence to restrain evil, and B) that Christians cannot serve in leadership and regular positions in government.
●It is a principle of the Protestant Reformation that what is not directly stated in Scripture cannot be used to bind the conscience of Christians. There is nothing written in the New Testament stating that Christians cannot serve in the government as “instruments” of “God’s wrath” to “punish” the “wrongdoer.”
● Again, and most importantly; what God establishes cannot be evil in-and-of-itself. If God establishes government with the express purpose of bearing the “sword” to apply God’s “wrath” in order to “punish” wrongdoers, then it cannot be evil for Christians to serve in such roles in government. God can “utilize” or use evil by transforming it into good by His power; but, God never establishes or institutes an evil thing. As I noted before, the idea that God establishes an evil thing is a heresy. The Manichaean heresy believed such things. I am not saying that this is what you believe; but, it is my considered opinion that the concept of government as “worldly dominion” is very close to the Manichaean heresy.

Since I have a busy schedule and since you wrote a lot; if there are any of your ideas that you would like me to respond to, please note them so that I can do so. Thanks.

●The Anabaptist churches generally are those that have somewhat of a “restorationist” paradigm intending to return to the very NT primitive church. Included in this is the belief that the church at some point before or at Constantine fell into worldliness. There position on non-violence springs from a strong Christological view of the Bible in that one cannot understand God and the Christian life except in Jesus. Historically their teachings on non-resistance are grounded in the teachings and actions of Jesus (i.e. Luke 6:27-28; Matt. 7:12; and Matt. 26:52).
●In a nutshell, my problem with Anabaptist teaching (by the way, many Anabaptist struggle with these issues) is that the more I studied church history the more I realized that the “fallen church” concept was deeply and irreparably flawed. Then as I studied the full text of the Old and New Testaments I began to see that their strong Christological view was problematic in that it tended to make too radical of a disjunction between Jesus and the apostles. Actually, it is through the apostles that we have come to know Jesus; we have an apostolic faith (as in the Apostles Creed).

You wrote: “My thoughts are that when one assumes that a nation- state has God on its side without a very Christ like discernment, which is just about impossible in the world of propaganda and politics, it would seem that they are putting their faith in an expression of the World as much as anything.

●Since we no longer have the Urim and Thummim available to us to tell us when we should or shouldn’t go to war, we must rely upon a prayer process of investigation, contemplation and sound judgment. We do, after all, live in a flawed world in which there will always be wars and rumors of wars.

You wrote: “Can we always assume that because a government decides that country X is "the enemy" and an is filled with "evildoers" that these judgments are inspired by God?

●Well, when they bomb the living daylights out of our navel fleet in our own port, it is probably a pretty good indication that “they” are our enemies—especially when they follow it up by declaring war on us. Likewise, when they issue Fatwa after Fatwa stating that they are going to kill every American they can get their hands on and inspiring 1.2 billion people to join in the carnage and follow this with bombing after bombing of our installations, diplomatic offices, embassies, ships, and finally devastating three of our most important national buildings killing thousands of non-combatants, followed by several more declarations of war against us; it is probably a hint that they see themselves as our enemies.
●All countries are filled with “evil-doers” in the theological sense; however, from the perspective of unjust attack against country, usually the majority of an enemies people are not particularly engaged in acts of evil toward others. For instance, probably the majority of Germans were not people of ill-will toward the countries Hitler gobbled up. The exception might be the 15% of Muslims that are actively working to destroy all other non-Muslim governments in the world.

You wrote: “Do you think its evil to be a communist in an of itself?

●Communism is obviously an evil system of government. It is responsible for the systematic death of over 100,000,000 people (within their own countries) in the 20th century. Communist countries carried out the most horrendous persecutions of Christians in church history. (Just a side note, the scholarly total for deaths due to the Spanish Inquisition over a 200 year period now stands at 2,500). Communism not only carries out massive destruction of human life it also destroys economies and puts people into poverty. However, a communist is not an evil person per se. On the other hand Stalin and Pol Pot were two of the most vicious dictators in human history.

You wrote: “Are we to assume that one nation has the God given right and authority to dub another nation evil? It seems like this is done in just about every war by both sides. Even the Nazis operated under the slogan "God with us".

No, but each nation has the God given responsibility to protect its populace from unjust attack and can, therefore, appropriately deem actions against it as unjust. Because Nazi’s cloaked themselves in self-righteousness does not mean that all nations are therefore unable to declare actions against themselves as unjust. Bullies always act put-upon but someone has to protect innocent children from their bullying.

You wrote: “I have laid down some pretty strong indictments of the "United" States. Do you consider America to be a Christian nation? What are the criteria for being considered a Christian nation? Can you give examples of Christian nations?

●Western Civilization is by its very history and nature a product of Judeo-Christian culture. Just check the artwork until the 18th century. In this sense, all of the nations in the European-Anglo orbit are “Christian.” By the way, Muslims strongly believe this. However, no nation on earth is equivalent to the ancient theocracy of Israel. A better way to view the Western countries is that they are all at one level or another “Christianized” (i.e. their laws, art, literature, language and culture have all been formed and molded by Christianity).

You wrote: “What if my country, the U.S. decides to take make war against American Indians based upon capatilist ideology (as was done in the past.
●Capitalism as an ideology did not exist until nearly the end of the U.S.-Indian wars. Karl Marx is largely responsible for the popularization of the idea of “capitalism.” By the way, private property is protected by divine law. Communism violates the natural and divine law at a most basic level.
●There is not one example in the history of mankind where a stone-age culture has survived an encounter with a more technologically advanced culture. The U.S.-Indian wars would have happened no matter what the economic systems of the two cultures. This does not make it right, it is just a fact. The good news is that evangelical Christians were very often on the forefront of the demand for the humane treatment of Native Americans (including missionaries in my own family).

You wrote: “Further, lets say that I am an American Indian and a Christian...whose side would I be on as a good Christian citizen of both communities?”

●This is an odd question. Most Native American reservations are sovereign territory and have their own police, governing authorities and laws. The Native American’s in our area are fabulously wealthy do to the gaming casinos that they own. They have their own sovereign reservations and jet set all over the world. One tribe just purchased the major baseball stadium in our city.

You wrote: “If one side achieves a military victory is that how we decide whose side God was on? What if God's side loses? Many that would consider America both a Christian nation and "the Arm of the Lord" begin to falter when discussing the outcome of the Viet Nam war for instance.

●The United States did not lose one battle in the Viet Nam war. This is a highly controlled piece of information. In fact, the “Tet Offensive” was a disaster for the North Vietnamese. North Vietnamese veterans will tell you today (our church has a mission project there) that they were hanging by a thread expecting to collapse when the U.S. pulled out. They knew their only hope was to win the propaganda war in the U.S. They rightly believed if they could hold out long enough that the American left would demoralize the average citizen. They were correct. The cost is estimated to be 2,000,000 lives lost in the slaughter that followed our withdrawal and the Congress’s refusal to follow-through with its commitments to supply the South Vietnamese. This is something, I’m sure, all Americans can be proud of. I have a number of former refugees from Viet Nam and Laos in my congregation. There opinion on this matter is different than what one hears in most American universities.

You wrote: “I agree that we are not quite ready to discuss Iraq yet without some of these preliminary issues cleared up- but what if things never improve there and we lose there..what lesson can we take from that? Do we just declare victory and go home?
●There is absolutely no way that we could lose in Iraq—except the same way we turned and slithered away in Viet Nam. On average it takes 10 years to suppress an insurgency (in Iraq most of these are coming from Syria and Iran). The radical Muslims know that they cannot possibly win through military engagement. However, they do know that they have the will-power to outlast the American left. Any unbiased observer would have to conclude that the American left has less will-power than it did even in Viet Nam. Terrorism has one purpose—to terrorize. Terrorism causes people to fear and by the use of fear the terrorist gets his way. My prediction is that Europe will be largely Muslim-ized by 2050—no question about it. It will, by the way, not be the moderate version of Islam that takes possession of Europe. I am sure, idealist and non-violent resisters will not find Sharia and the Taliban-ization of Europe to be less accommodating than democracy and the old Christendom.

You wrote: “What do you make of these verses and how would you define world?:

1st John 2:15-17

15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

●John was obviously not talking about the creation. He was writing about the three great temptations that Adam and Eve faced in the Garden and Jesus faced in the desert—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. This is known in Thomistic theology as the concupiscent and irascible passions that are not under the Lordship of Christ.

You wrote: “What do you have to say about this segment?:…The common wisdom on the streets of L.A., like the wisdom on the streets of most cities, holds that violence is the ultimate reality. This is the conviction of people in democracies and dictatorships, in "developed' as well as 'undeveloped" countries. Here are its basic assumptions.


1. The world is a dangerous place.

2. Human beings are innately, intrinsically, violent.

3. The enemy is evil, more violent than we are, and beyond change.

4. We have only three alternatives: accomodate violence, avoid violence, or use violence ourselves- go along with it, run from it or do it before they do it.

5. The answer to violence is more violence. Evil is the bottom line, and violence its language, logic and ultimate reality.

6. Violence can solve our problems decisively. Power, domination, and extermination of evildoers will stop the spiral, prevent the violence from feeding on itself, extinguish resentment, intimidate those who would seek revenge, render retaliation against us impossible, allow us to dominate benevolently.

●I don’t think this is the “common wisdom on the streets of L.A.” I work with a small number of convicted felons. They don’t even come close to thinking in these terms. Be that as it may, your assumptions #2, #3, #4 and #5 are problematic. I do not believe all humans are innately violent. I do think all humans are innately designed to protect their persons from danger. If this was not true, people would be accidentally killing themselves at an unusual level and the species would not survive. Premise number three is just wrong. Premise number four is too limiting. There are many alternatives to the use of violence. For instance, 2.5 million times per year people brandish a firearm in the U.S. for self-protection and never suffer any violence because the assailant immediately flees. Neither the victim nor the assailant are injured. This single thing saves more lives than all the police action in all of the United States combined. A sizeable percentage of the 2.5 million are women who might otherwise be raped or assaulted. Premise five is strange. Evil is the privation of the good. Unjust violent action is only one of countless ways that actions are evil. Additionally, violent action is not evil per se--such an idea is a logical fallacy.

It is your opinion that Native Americans are marginalized. I do not adhere to a group-think mentality. You’ll notice that all my comments about Native Americans were specific.

I did not avoid the responding to and explaining 1 John 2:15-17, you may not have understood my response. In short my response has to do with the fall from Original Justice and its consequences.

It is your experience that your friend believes that the six points from Starrider accurately describes the thinking of people on the streets of L.A. This is your opinion and I have mine based upon my experience. Neither opinions are scientific or statistical and I’m sure you are adamant about holding yours. Both of us may be wrong or you may be right. There is also a possibility that I might be right.

You wrote: “And you know what I would say about violence being inherently evil being a logical fallacy…but I will leave that alone.”

Here are reasons why violence cannot be inherently evil:

1. All of the violence directed by Yahweh in the Old Testament would be necessarily evil acts. This would mean that God initiated and instructed an evil which violates the Scriptural principle that God does not cause evil. Such a view would necessitate a radical change in the Christian view of God.
2. There would be no justifiable uses of violence provided for in God’s divine law, but there are.
3. God cannot use an evil to do good. He can cause humans that are created good to do good or just things even though they often choose to do evil.
4. There are actually no evil things per se, only the misuse of good things. Gnostics believe that there are evil things. Again, it is my judgment that the Christian pacifist position borders on Gnostic dualism.

You wrote: “You are misrepresenting human nature and that of the world. The vast majority of the violence in the world cannot be reduced to a rational decision made in a spirit of self-control.
● The point I was making was that violence is a voluntary and not purely instinctual response for humans. A voluntary response does not necessarily have to entail a rational process of discursive reasoning. If this was not true than no one could ever restrain oneself when threatened. Even on the mean streets of LA hardened and violent criminals will not strike back if they ascertain that they cannot escape a situation with their person’s intact. They will wait and retaliate later. If violence was purely an involuntary response, hardened criminals could never plan violent acts. This is actually the way human nature is configured. If we could not voluntarily act we would not be humans and there would be no moral culpability.

You misunderstood the point about the Roman Pax Romana. As I mentioned, it was not a benevolent regime but there were certain “goods” that were attendant to the Roman rule. (By the way, it was Herod that slaughtered the babies in Bethlehem that precipitated the Flight to Egypt.) The larger question is what is better, government or no government. It is the witness of civilization and the Word of God that mankind is benefited more by government than anarchy. That being said, there can be just and unjust governments; however, both remain the instruments of God’s wrath against evil doers. Just as parents are delegated the responsibility of nurturing and disciplining their children with some succeeding admirably while others fail miserably; yet, we do not scrape the family because of lousy parents. Nor do we change the purposes of government because God has established those purposes. Nor do we call the family an example of “evil dominion” or of the “world” system. No, there are bad families and good families, but, the institution of the family is a “good” given to mankind by God. In short, it is unbiblical and wrong to term government per se as an evil or as part of the evil “world” system. This dishonors and disparages God.

John himself in 1 John 2 defines what he means by the “world” as that which gives rise to the “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” He is obviously not referring to any “good” that has been instituted by God whether it is the family, the government or the church.

Loose-end One: Voluntarism:

You just wrote: “I am not “just trying to be contrary”. The thugs who “rationally” and “voluntarily” don’t retaliate at the wrong time are still ruled by “the Prince of ‘this world’” rather than the “Prince of Peace”. And the properly ordered relationship between what is rational and irrational is part of what is thrown out of whack by the prince of this world.
● Okay, I appreciate your view that a person living on the mean streets of LA may have both their reasoning ability and choices powerfully affected by Satan. I fully endorse this. On the other hand, this has not been—at least as I read your words—the topic in regard to this issue. You wrote earlier in regard to human volunteerism the following:

“You (Thom) are misrepresenting human nature and that of the world. The vast majority of the violence in the world cannot be reduced to a rational decision made in a spirit of self-control.

To which I responded:

The point I was making was that violence is a voluntary and not purely instinctual response for humans. A voluntary response does not necessarily have to entail a rational process of discursive reasoning. If this was not true than no one could ever restrain oneself when threatened. Even on the mean streets of LA hardened and violent criminals will not strike back if they ascertain that they cannot escape a situation with their person’s intact.

●Certainly now I can (because of your later comment) read back into your comment about me “misrepresenting human nature and that of the world” that you meant that you would want to include the binding power of Satan as a strong factor in the human decision process; however, I would have had to read your mind to do this. Therefore, I take it that you agree that violence, as well as all other moral choices made by man, are voluntary but are also influenced by Satan—am I correct in this assumption?
● The reason this seems important to me is because I don’t see how God could hold man culpable for moral choices that are not within his power to make. If man is either a totally instinctual being or completely bound my spiritual forces then it would seem impossible for him to make moral choices and, therefore, God would be unjust to hold such a being responsible for his actions.

Second “loose end”—Pacifism and Gnosticism

The issue of Gnosticism arises in my thinking because of the following exchange:

You originally wrote: “And you know what I would say about violence being inherently evil being a logical fallacy…but I will leave that alone.”

My specific response was: 4. There are actually no evil things per se, only the misuse of good things. Gnostics believe that there are evil things. Again, it is my judgment that the Christian pacifist position borders on Gnostic dualism.

Your latest comment was partially: And I am not necessarily asserting passivism. And to say that passivism borders on a Gnostic duality is to read a lot into it. I undersand what you say about there being no things evil per se.
● My point was that if Christian Pacifism posits that violence is inherently evil then it is bordering on Gnostic dualism. At minimum, positing that violence is inherently evil is a departure from the Christian understanding of the nature of good and evil. For instance, sex is not inherently evil. The misuse of sex is evil. Gnostics believed that sex was inherently evil.

Your comment continued: “But it doesn't come down only to an issue of "use", either. To say that man doesn't "act" but "operates" (easily translated into all "actions" being "voluntary" and controlled..and available for statistial analysis) "borders on" a Cartesian duality (is nearly equivalent), which itself is very related to the Gnostic one (but not necessarily in historical geneology).”
● If you are saying that human evil cannot be reduced simply to choices, I would agree. However, it must include this and human choices must also be free at some level in order for there to be moral culpability. I honestly do not believe that my view of human moral evil in anyway borders on Gnosticism. If I am wrong please show me.

Third Loose-end: Anarchy:

You recently wrote: “But anarchy has nothing to do with anything anyone here is saying. No one here is proposing anarchy.
● Well, actually it does have something to do with at least one person here—me. The point I was making was not that you or Starrider are advocating anarchy. My point was that both from the history of humanity and from God’s Word we can ascertain that government is superior to anarchy. Therefore, it was for the benefit of mankind that God instituted government. Government like the family and the church are institutions provided to mankind by God and cannot be evil per se. Governments become evil by acting unjustly and failing to do God’s ordained will for government. Again, Satan can play a significant roll in this by fostering perverse customs and vicious social behaviors and habits; however, if all voluntary ability is removed by Satanic activity then God could not hold governments accountable for their actions—which, according to Scripture, He does. In short, government cannot be evil inherently and certainly God’s purpose for government (i.e. serving as an agent of God’s wrath) cannot be evil. Government is a divinely given “good.”

Fourth Loose-end: Original Justice, Original Sin and 1 John 2:

You wrote: “And I understood your response about 1st John. You say you don’t adhere to group-think mentality, but the laws that established the reservations were not to “provide” a place to live for you and me. It’s not “original justice”, but “original sin”. Original justice is firmly in tact. As I mentioned, I know damn well when I’ve violated God’s Law written on my heart. I realize that wasn’t what you meant, but I said that only to point out that you are reading your interpretation into the scripture, and your interpretation is getting read back into your life.

● I am not sure what the connection is between my comments about Original Justice and how I interpret Scripture. Original Justice is the state of Adam and Eve before the fall. Therefore, the fall is called the “fall from Original Justice.” Original Sin specifically refers to Adam and Eve’s first sin and the consequences of that sin. In this understanding of the terms, Original Justice cannot be “firmly in tact”—it was lost in the Garden of Eden.
●You’ll notice in Genesis 3:6 that the text says that Eve “saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” If you look at 1 John 2:16 you will notice an interesting similarity: “For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world..” And, finally, if you will look at the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11 you will see that, interestingly, there are three temptations that are very similar to the Genesis and 1 John texts. In two of the texts, Satan provides the temptation. In short, many have noticed that all three texts have the subject of the temptations of the “world” that pull men from a relationship with God into the evil use of the things God has created. In short, the “world” (in 1 John 2) is not the created earth (as Starrider noted); but the things in the world—material and immaterial—that are out of the Lordship of Christ. This view protects the goodness of creation and, yet, realistically shows that evil is a moral reality. Satan is also shown to be doing his worst to bind people into a downward spiral of sin and degradation.

You wrote: (regarding #3: Anarchy) “My basic point is not to argue that God doens't have a purpose in Government, or even that it can't be SAID that He "instituted Government", but my point is that such language is, and must be, understood in a bigger context of who God "really" is...what will always be for man a missing link between his language and the first Word as it is in itself.”
● First, of course, it “can’t be said that He ‘instituted Government’” because the Bible directly states that God has instituted all governments. Furthermore, the Apostles Peter and Paul place commands upon the lives of Christians based on this truth and they both instruct Christians as to God’s direct purpose for instituting government. Therefore, no thinking about or fathoming of the “missing link between (our) language and the first Word as it is in itself” can negate or countermand these commands and truths. Christians must assume that whatever mysteries of God that we do not understand cannot be a contradiction in any way of what He has directly revealed of Himself nor can these unknown or missing factors contradict His demands and commands on our lives.
● The belief that God’s unrevealed Self is in any way incongruent with what He has revealed of Himself or that His commands or truths are in any way incongruent with His unrevealed nature would do the following:
1. Deny the simplicity of God and make His nature a composite with the possibility that He is not what He says He is.
2. Immediately be the cause of men postulating that the “unrevealed” God is different than the revealed God of the Bible. This would be followed by the development of a plethora of new moral systems some of which could just as easily and rightly postulate that God is the author of wickedness.
3. There would be no reason for Christians to be faithful to their word or have moral integrity because it could be rightly postulated that God’s unrevealed nature is different than His revealed nature.
4. Make God to be fundamentally no different then the ancient Greek gods who lacked moral integrity and were capricious in their behavior.
5. Make it impossible to actually know who God is because there would not be any necessary link between God’s revealed nature in creation and revelation and that of His unrevealed self.
6. And, not least of all, would immediately lead to many heresies.

You wrote (in regard to #4: Original Justice) You are reading the phrase "original justice" into the Bible with your system of logical interpretation. It's a simple fact that the Bible doesn't describe/say what was before the fall as "original justice". That is my point. Plus, there are other implicit meanings in the story that are simply not available to purely logical and at least purely explicit language.
● First, it the phrase “Original Justice” is not my term. It is a theological term that is very ancient and is simply a short-hand way of referring to the state of existence of Adam and Eve before the fall. The words “Fall,” “Original Sin,” “Lapsarian” and a host of other terms are a cluster of words used to speak about the important issues related to the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. They were developed to simplify the discussion. Original Justice happens to be one of the oldest terms and one of the simplest. The point is all of them mean something about the Genesis account. Your problem with the terminology “Original Justice” is based on the same reasoning that people use to discredit the word “Trinity.” The fact is though, the word “Trinity” is a short-hand way of terming the Biblical doctrine of the Trinitarian nature of God. The term Original Justice, like Trinity, has solid biblical content that serves as its definition.
● To theologize about how the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was at the “center” of the garden and what this means is all well and good. In fact I personally enjoy doing this. The church has a long history of allegorical interpretation of Scripture. The problem only arises when the allegorical interpretation begins to negate or contradict the clear meaning of the didactic teaching of Scripture. In short, postulations about that which is on “the other side of the horizon” of our understanding and of our senses cannot be the justification for contradicting the clear commands and teaching of Scripture.

You wrote: (regarding #1: volunteerism) “The implication, for me, is not that what is on the other side, where the very pool of possibilities comes from, is irrelevant...but that it is, in a sense, the source. That's why, for me, its about both what man does, and also what is given to him that is far beyond his control in any way. This is what I mean by saying that oftentimes your thinking seems "one sided".
● You’ll love this…I put #1 last because it “logically” flowed better… : - )
● Since I have a high view of God and His Providence, I do not have to have a knowledge of that which is beyond the horizon and serves as the full “pool of possibilities” or source for human action. God is the source of all things. All things that will ever exist and all things that will ever happen first exist in God’s very essence as exemplars. There is nothing that can exist except it be in God first and come into existence through His divine decrees. In this way, my thinking is very “one sided” because this is the ultimate reality. To say otherwise, of course, is to say that things can exist outside of God’s Providence which is impossible.
● A component of God’s Providence is that it is a greater good for the material and immaterial realms to have creatures that are both necessary (involuntary) and contingent (voluntary). Humans and angels (both blessed and fallen angels) are voluntary creatures in that they are created with free will. If they were not God could not hold us morally culpable for our actions. Therefore, despite the fallen-ness of mankind, despite Satan’s influence, despite influences beyond man’s understanding, and despite individual propensities, all men with the capacity for free and voluntary choices are held responsible to God for their actions.
● The first three chapters of Romans deal with all of man’s excuses for his desire to be held free of moral accountability. Of particular interest is Romans 1 where Paul recounts the moral degradation of mankind over the course of history. In reading this incredible chapter you will notice two stark things: 1) Paul insists that all men are accountable to God for their moral choices because they know God’s will; and 2) there is absolutely no mention of Satan’s influence or of any moral influence outside of man’s own wicked choices. Therefore, any theological postulation regarding forces beyond man’s knowing or understanding cannot negate God’s direct and clear moral commands and demands upon man.

Consequently, because the Bible directly states it as so, it must be concluded that government is instituted by God with the express purpose of serving as the agent of God’s wrath against wrong-doers in order to punish those wrong-doers. Because government is instituted by God it cannot be an evil per se and therefore it cannot be wrong for Christians to participate in government nor can it be wrong per se for Christian magistrates and officers to “bear the sword” to “punish” “wrongdoers” because this is God’s revealed purpose for those governing officials. God cannot be the author of evil.

It was a typo, I meant “irrationality.”

First, here is how I would summarize our situation.

I believe we are generally in agreement that the New Testament actually propagates a dual moral ethic for Christians. This dual ethic is not contradictory; rather, it represents two spheres. One sphere is the private Christian ethic of non-violence and love for enemies. The second sphere is the public Christian ethic where God has instituted government and governing officials to serve as His agents of “wrath” to “punish” “wrongdoers.” However, where we differ is that you believe the understanding of this second sphere is subject to factors outside a theological “system” and God is not done with His “story” yet and that man does not have a “Pan-like view of the ‘all’ offered to him by a system, does not yet know the end of the story.” Furthermore, in regard to the public sphere of the New Testament teaching about government, you believe “Morals are not ends in themselves” and we have to be careful about using them as a “leaping point to many conclusions” when morals can actually get in the way or our relationship with God. In short, I take it that you mean we don’t have to be obedient to the Biblical teaching about government and governing officials.

Here are some reasons why your view of the public sphere of Biblical teaching is problematic (incoherent):

1. If what you say is true about the public sphere of Biblical teaching, then there is no reason not to extend it to the private sphere of Biblical teaching. Certainly God’s “story” is not done yet in regard to Christian personal non-violence. And if morals get in the way or our relationship with God then certainly Christ and Paul’s teachings on loving our enemies can be a problem for us in relating to God. Perhaps, violent or criminal behavior in some cases would actually enhance our appreciation for God. Perhaps Ted Bundy had something to teach us about loving God. Certainly we don’t have a “Pan-like view” of the whole system and God is still not done with His story.
2. One might retort, but that would be wrong to apply such thinking to the Christian ethic of personal non-violence. However, the question arises immediately—who says so? Is it G.A. that decides these things? Obviously, we are now into a religious food-fight as to which passages we take at face value and which we don’t have a “Pan-like view” of and on which the “end of the story” hasn’t been written.
3. Whereas we used to believe that the clear teaching of the New Testament was to be applied for “all matters of life and godliness,” now we must realize that even saying we have a clear understanding of Scripture puts us inside the box of our system and potentially closed off from God because of our morals. However, doesn’t this also apply to the Lord’s teachings regarding the love of our enemies? Therefore, we either have absolutely no way of knowing what passages to apply to our moral acts or we have to wait for G.A. to tell us what stories have been completed enough to act on. In other words, we have a new form of Papal Infallibility.
4. Since our morals can get in the way of our relationship to God, the wisest course of action would be to avoid any moral judgments whatsoever. Or, an even wiser course might be to act immorally in order to keep ourselves free of any theological “system” that gives us the impression that we have a “Pan-live view” of the “end of the story.”
5. Hence it seems that the best course of action appears to be antinomianism and license except for the moral teachings that G.A. infallibly designates as those to be obeyed.

Secondary issue:

You wrote: For you, it seems, there are the things we can understand, and the things we cannot. These things we can understand are distinct and different from the things that we cannot understand. Your epistemological structure seems both to separate God from us by an infinite gulf in a way that does not happen without a closed system of knowledge, and to enclose God in a closed system of human knowledge.

●This is virtually exactly the opposite of what I was saying. First, yes, there are things we cannot understand. Any person who does not recognize this is probably in need of psychiatric help. However, I never implied in any way that the things “we can understand are distinct and different from the things that we cannot understand.” I was saying the opposite. The point is, whatever is beyond human comprehension about God and His will for our lives cannot contradict what we do know about Himself and His will. Simple example: if God’s Word says He is Love then what we don’t fully understand about Him cannot be used to say that He is actually “hate.”
● This is why no matter how much of the “story” of God is yet to be written or however much of the kingdom is over “the horizon,” it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said to love our enemies and Paul said the government is instituted by God as an agency of God’s wrath to punish wrongdoers. These things are clear and we don’t need to be rocket scientists to understand them nor do we need a new pope to tell us which one to obey and which one we need the “end of the story” on before we can obey.

Thus I am forced to conclude that, far from teaching that the state is to be accepted uncritically in all that it does, Paul’s discussion in Romans 13 serves as a warning against the state exceeding its limits. How this works itself out in daily life is, of course, another topic and one I hope to address in a book that I am currently writing entitled Unleashing the Church.
●First of all, I completely agree with you that the actions of the state are not to be uncritically accepted. Examples that you provided are germane (i.e. the Caesar is Lord and apostasy requirements of the Roman state). When the state exceeds it bounds and acts unjustly, it may be justly opposed by Christians.
●I am not quite so enamored with your statement that “Romans 13 serves as a warning against the state exceeding its limits.” I do not believe this is the primary thrust and purpose of Romans 13. However, there are other passages that do teach Christians that we are to “obey God rather than man.”
●The main point for me is that the Just War Theory is designed to do exactly what you are arguing for—working out the proper involvement of the Christian in relationship to the state’s use of the military.
●The reason this is important is that God cannot be the author of evil. If He has instituted government it cannot be an “evil” per se. Likewise, if Romans 13 tells us that the governing official is an agent of God’s wrath to punish evil doers, then this function cannot be evil per se nor can those who serve as magistrates, etc. be deemed evil per se. The “evil” arises from the misuse of the “good” institution that God has given to mankind. The evil use of government is when its actions are in contradiction of God’s divine or natural law. For instance, it is unjust for governments to force people to worship the state since God alone is to be worshiped. Christians are not obligated to obey such governments on this issue.
●The “world” as used in 1 John and other passages refers to the world system of material and immaterial things, which are created good by God, but are not under the Lordship of Christ. Consequently, a “good” such as the family can fall under the sway of the world when it is operating out of the will of God. Yet, this does not make the family an evil thing per se. Nor does the fact that there are countless families living by worldly values mean that Christians cannot participate in families. Christians begin to fall into Gnostic dualism when they start equating the family and government with the “world” per se.

The Holman Bible Dictionary gives this definition of “world” which is essentially the same as what I have been attempting to convey.

“The world” can also designate all that is hostile, rebellious, and opposed to God. Paul referred to the effects of the fall on the whole cosmic order: “The creation was subjected to frustration ... [but] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage” (Rom 8:19-25 NIV; compare 2 Pet. 1:4). The world, therefore, is under the power of “the prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2), the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4); “the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19 NIV).

This definition of the “world” gives it a trans-cultural meaning and application. You are free to give your own definition to the word “world.” Starrider asked me what I thought it meant.

You wrote: “And just to highlight my basic point about systems and morals...it is the Holy Spirit who confronts us, convicts us, and transforms us...IN GRACE...NOT possible with a system of morals. And not only is that not possible with a system, but if we think we NEED the system of morals for ANY of those things, then the system has REPLACED the God by whom all good and bad, right and wrong could ever be measured.

●The “system” of morals I am referring to, of course, is the divine law given by God Himself.
●In the Bible, grace and law are not in opposition to one another. It is through grace that the believer is able to keep the just requirements of the law. The Holy Spirit convicts the sinner by means of the law.

James 2:9 (NIV) But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
John 16:8 (NIV) When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:
Romans 2:13-16 (NIV) For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. [14] (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, [15] since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) [16] This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Again, when I refer to trans-cultural I am simply saying the definition of the word “world” must be able to be applied beyond its Greco-Roman historical setting in order to have meaning in every human time and place until Christ returns.

In regard to my two definitions of the word “world;” they are really the two sides of the same coin. One looks at the word from the perspective of the individual (“the lust of the flesh, the lust of eyes and the pride of life”) and the other looks at the same word from the perspective of the larger (cosmos) setting.

No matter how good or bad my definition is of the biblical meaning of the word “world,” it does not change the fact that government is an institution given to mankind by God and, therefore, it cannot be an evil per se. Likewise the purpose of government comes from God and it is to serve as an “agent of God’s wrath” to “punish” “wrongdoers.” Hence, because this purpose is from God it cannot be evil per se nor can it be an evil per se for Christians to participate in government and government’s purposes.

Your statement:

“…especially the concept of “world” in particular) is NOT a concept only or primarily with transcendent and abstract meaning free of cultural and circumstantial restraints with which we are so generously enlightening those tribal Kenyans, but I am saying that we are bringing Rome and its very particular attitudes and habits of “bowing to Ceasar” OVER (not under, and not sideways) TO the tribal.”

1. First, the concept of “world” has both a Hebraic and Greek meaning before it came into the New Testament. It is not strictly a “Roman” word. Additionally, it has a uniquely Christian meaning in light of the Lordship of Christ.
2. One of the first objectives of good Biblical hermeneutics is to work at understanding what a Bible passage under consideration meant to the original audience. After this work is done, one can begin to apply it to the life setting of a contemporary audience whether they live in Kenya, Brazil or Japan.
3. If we cannot proceed in this hermeneutical process with some degree of confidence that what we learn from Scripture is relevant and can be applied to the life setting of all humans on planet earth; then there is no reason to believe that it can be applied to anyone but the very first disciples to whom it was written. If your view is true than we are back to a new Papal Infallibility instead of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
4. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to guide His church in the truth: John 16:13 (NIV) But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
5. Jesus stated, Matthew 28:20 (NIV) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
6. Christianity has gone into countless numbers of cultures throughout 2,000 years of history and led people out of paganism that were just as steeped into their own worldview and thought-forms as any tribal group alive today. It is likely that your ancestors were just as pagan and unchristian as any un-reached people-group presently on planet earth.
7. The apostles themselves took the Jewish-Christian worldview into lots of pagan and unusual cultures and did it successfully.
8. The whole idea of confronting the “world” is to bring all things under submission to Christ and his witness in Holy Scripture.
9. (Personal opinion) I find your view tinged with a “little brown brothers” elitism. Kenyan’s are just as capable of understanding NT thought-forms and how to translate them into their culture as well as any Anglo group in the world.

You wrote: “And I see that the two definitions you’ve offered from scripture of “world” can easily be two sides of a coin. But can the same be said of the two ideas of government? You still haven’t addressed this, and I seriously would assume you have lots of thoughts on the matter already (but maybe not, I don’t know). Issues attached to that very tension are the same ones that, when seen in the light of present CIRCUMSTANCES and PRACTICES of our CULTURE, might just inform us that we are in ways often not aknowledged “bowing to Ceasar” (which was discussed above between yourself and starrider.
●There is one definition of “world” with two applications—1. Trans-cultural; and 2. individual. 1John 2:15-16 puts them along side of each other.
●There is only one idea of how Christians are to act as individuals in relationship to their enemies—they are to love them. As well, in the Bible there is only one idea regarding the institution of government. Government is instituted by God for the express purpose of serving as God’s instrument of wrath to bring punishment upon the evil-doer. Mixing the two teachings causes all kinds of problems. On one side we could have people attempting to be “agents of God’s wrath” against their neighbors, etc. and on the other side we could have magistrates trying to love rather than punish the Ted Bundy’s.

You wrote: “…on the other hand would define the “World” as the entire collection of human values, culture, priorities, institutions, traditions, beliefs and so on that are based predominately on humanism rather than being in righteous relationship to God. In an earlier post I noted that another scholar defined “World” as a set of cultural values, basic survival assumptions, and political structures that actively control, impose upon, and exploit human kind through violence and domination. I do not presume to speak for you- but my guess is that the only real problem that you have with that definition is the inclusion of the word violence.”
●I would draw your attention to your following phrase to illustrate the differences between our positions: “than being in righteous relationship to God.” You here were referring to how the “world” is the entire collection of human values, etc. based on humanism rather than a “righteous relationship to God.” My view would be that governments do not have a “relationship to God.” Only humans have relationships to God. Governments can be just or unjust or a mixture of the two. Most governments are a mixture of just and unjust principles, procedures, policies and operations. Governing magistrates, also, can be just or unjust whether they are Christians or not. What determines the “justness” of a government is God’s law. If, for instance, a government perverts its God-given purpose and punishes the good people and commends evil-doers (this is not unknown in human history); then, it is an unjust government.
●Again, I believe the simplest way to understand the “world” is to see it as the all those things that are created good by God but are not under the Lordship of Christ. This has the benefit of including Satan in the understanding of the “world.”

You wrote: “The aspect of God’s wrath in biblical theology cannot be denied. Nor can it be denied that Christ will in at least some sense assume the role of avenger at the closing of this “World”. However, Jesus’ example set out for his disciples was decidedly non-violent. Given the interpretation of Romans 13 that I offered above- I do not see a disconnect between the way of Jesus and “Apostolic teaching” about the role of government in God’s meta-narrative. I want to say more here but I think I’d be letting my words get ahead of my thoughts. So, lets move on to the last points I want to address tonight.”
●First, I have no idea what a “meta-narrative” is in relationship to theology.
●There is no disconnect in my thinking between the private Christian ethic of non-violence and the public God-given role of government and governing magistrates serving as agents of God’s wrath to punish wrongdoers.

You wrote: “The “Western” world has developed itself with a coinciding mythology that has come to dominate the entire globe’s economics, politics, and academics, imposing itself as the natural, God given, unquestionable norm of human existence. This pseudo- mythical “world” of “Western” superiority has functioned implicitly and often brutally explicitly, to facilitate the conquest and enslavement of indigenous peoples, the exploitation of their labor and natural resources and the genocidal destruction of whole cultures and peoples…as put by fellow Christian and Native author, George E. Tinker.”
●Without having to go into a lengthy apology for Western Civilization which is beyond the scope of this post, please allow me to note a few things in its defense.
1. The true test of the benefit of an economic system is one simple number—the life expectancy of the population. Free market economics for all of its failings easily outstrips all other economic systems at increasing life-span.
2. It is interesting how critics of the West often enjoy the blessings of its affluence and political freedom and yet decry its inherent unfairness in not “distributing” goods and services to everyone with the equal misery that socialist systems provide.
3. The West was the first to provide: public hospitals, free education, abolish slavery, enfranchisement, women’s rights, child labor laws, and nearly universal college education. Additionally, no other civilization in the last 1,000 years can match the West in its support for the arts, culture, science, medicine and human rights.
4. No civilization in human history has been free of causing all kinds of injustice—including Western Civilization. On the other hand, no civilization can match the West in the last 1,000 years for the above.

You wrote: “…my understanding of the Romans 13, the role of government and the definition of “World” is entirely different from what I am getting from your theses. Now, to be fair, what I just said could indeed be resulting from a subjective filter on my own part. Again, it is not my mission to instill guilt or to condemn. My eagerness and passion for this topic stems from a genuine hunger to understand. I invite you to think and respond in a spirit of friendship.”
●Simple, in my understanding, the “world” and government cannot be equivalent. Government is a “good” instituted by God that can be manifested as “just” or “unjust” through the agency of human free choice. If this is not true then no human government could ever be just and God would be wrong for sending all of His OT prophets to condemn unjust Israelite kings. Also, if government is an inherently unjust thing then God would be evil in instituting it and deeming governmental magistrates as His agents of “wrath.”

Thanks for your friendly exchange, it is much appreciated.