Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift.
Sometime next week, our Congress will vote on whether or not to give President Obama the authorization to attack Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. Britain had a similar vote last week and their Parliament voted to sit this one out. Is there a Christian position on this? Should we get involved? First, let’s look at St. Augustine’s Just War Doctrine as a guide.
Just War Doctrine/Theory basically states that if a nation goes to war, it needs to have really good reasons to do so and it should engage in war in as ethical a way as possible. St. Augustine developed this perspective as the Roman Empire was crumbling, but it has served to guide the Christian influenced nations of the West for the past 1500 years. Here is a summary (thanks to Oregon State for putting this together).
The right to go to war concerns the justification that a nation must give in order for it to have a moral right to wage war on another. Augustine laid the basis for four main criteria:
1. Just Authority – is the decision to go to war based on a legitimate political and legal process?2. Just Cause – has a wrong been committed to which war is the appropriate response?3. Right Intention – is the response proportional to the cause? i.e. is the war action limited to righting the wrong, and no further. When people speak of “mission creep,” this condition is the relevant concern.4. Last Resort – has every other means of righting the wrong been attempted sincerely so that no other option but war remains?The conduct of war is clearly a matter of moral concern. Even when a nation is justified in waging war on another, there are moral limits on what it may do in prosecuting the war. Defining and enforcing such limits has been a long a concern for international agreement and law.1. Proportionality – The proportionality of the use of force in a war. The degree of allowable force used in the war must be measured against the force required to correct the Just cause and limited by Just Intention (see Jus Ad Bellum).2. Discrimination -The combatants discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Innocent, nonmilitary people should never be made the target of attacks.3. Responsibility – A country is not responsible for unexpected side effects of its military activity as long as the following three conditions are met:(a) The action must carry the intention to produce good consequences.(b) The bad effects were not intended.(c) The good of the war must outweigh the damage done by it.
So, how does an attack on Syria at this stage line up with Just War Theory? Fairly well, on the surface. If President Obama gets authorization from Congress and the UN, he will cover the “Just Authority” clause. He is appealing to “Just Cause” on the basis of the chemical weapons attacks on civilians. He exhibits “Right Intention” by saying that the attacks will be surgical and limited. He is claiming “Last Resort” because the Civil War has been going on for two years and he has warned Assad repeatedly not to use chemical weapons. It seems that Proportionality, Discrimination, and Responsibility are also being taken into account, at least according to what is being said.
But, does this settle it? Have these qualifications really been met or has the argument for war with Syria been framed in a way that answers all of the pertinent questions without exposing what is really going on? We don’t really know. It comes down to a few basic questions.
- Do we believe our leaders and our intelligence community to be trustworthy?
- Do we believe that these attacks will accomplish their designed goal? What is the goal? What is the end game?
- Have we really thought through the consequences of tipping the scales of the war in the favor of the Rebels (who are allied with Al Qaeda)?
- What happens if Syria defends themselves and attacks us back or attacks Israel? What will we do then?
- What happens if Iran and/or Russia get involved? How far are we willing to go? What are the consequences? Could this lead to World War III?
- If it was Assad who used the chemical weapons, what will we do if he uses them again? What if we later find out it was the Rebels who did it?
- What happens if the Rebels are strengthened through this and they move into Damascus and house-to-house fighting occurs and Assad gets desperate and another 100,000+ are killed?
- What is our overall strategy in the Middle East? We have been fighting for over a decade in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and now Syria. For what purpose? What are we trying to accomplish?
- Do we believe that peace will ultimately come from fighting war? Is there actually any such thing as a “Just War” and if not, should we just dispense with the illusion and accept reality, that wars and rumors of wars will be the norm until Christ returns?
- What will happen to the Syrian Christians and other religious minorities if Assad is toppled and the Rebels gain control? There is little doubt that the government that the Rebels will usher in will be of the militant Islamic fundamentalist flavor. Christians have been tolerated in Syria up till now. What about them? Philip Jenkins writes on this very convincingly.
Assad is a brutal dictator just like Saddam Hussein was. But, what is the result of toppling him (as our attacks on his military capabilities could lead to)? Who fills the void? The Rebels seem to be no better. Should we get involved in a Civil War with apparent evil on both sides? America has decisions to make here and our country will make the decisions that are in America’s best interests.
As I was thinking about this, I was reminded of the story in Joshua 5:13-15 where Joshua meets the commander of the Army of the Lord before the attack on Jericho. It goes like this:
13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.
The commander was neither for Joshua nor for his enemies. He was for God and God’s purposes. God is not on one side or the other. God is on His side and He is most concerned with His own purposes being carried out. If that is the case, then I think about the Christians in Syria who are being attacked, the weak and the defenseless, children, and the elderly. I think about those who do not want this war but this violence has been unleashed on them anyway. I think about what God wants to do here in the midst of geopolitical meltdown in the Middle East from Libya to Egypt to Syria to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Praying for peace right now.
Perhaps the position of Christians when asked whose side we are on should be the same as the commander of the Army of the Lord. Neither. We are wanting to see God glorified and His will be done. We want peace and justice and the innocent to be protected, but we do not see a way through this mess, so we pray. We are citizens of a different Kingdom and are aliens and strangers in this world. As for me, in my American citizenship, I am not in favor of striking Syria at this time based on what we know. The Rebels that will be emboldened and empowered by an attack on Assad seem to be just as bad as he is. The whole situation seems like the worst kind of quicksand and the unintended consequences of effectively throwing our lot in with the Rebels concerns me greatly. Civil Wars are always incredibly complicated and this one seems to be more complicated than most.
But, as a Christian, I believe that neutrality is called for – not neutrality when it comes to dealing with evil, but when one side is just as bad as the other, I am not sure that we should be on either side. Protecting civilians? Yes. Aiding and abetting the Rebels? Not so much.
Prayer for our leaders to have wisdom and to act with justice needs to come from the Church to God. Prayer for the helpless and the refugees in Syria. Prayer for those being killed in the horror of war. We follow the Prince of Peace. We should pray and work for peace. When peace is not possible, we should pray that whatever course of action that is taken should be done with the utmost integrity and desire for justice. But, our main goal should be peace. On the surface, it appears that the boxes on Augustine’s Just War Doctrine can be checked off by what President Obama is proposing. But, what lies under the surface of the hearts of men? What are the real motives? Is there any such thing as a “good war”? Who gains from this and what drives this push for war? We can make judgments, but at the end of the day, only God knows. We do what others cannot or will not do when we cry out to God and put this in His hands. We pray and trust what is said in Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
Scripture says that the state was established to bear the sword to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13:1-5). I am not a strict pacifist. There is a role for the state to protect its people and the weak and to punish evil. I do not deny that. If we get involved in this, there should be a stated goal/purpose and we should act decisively and quickly and the blowback could be severe. If we sit it out, the carnage will likely continue. But, the future loss of life from the toppling of Assad including the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria causes me to be against this.
What do you think?
Excellent thoughts, Alan.
I think most of us are making our decisions not based on Just War Theory, but on something much simpler – Just Oppose Obama!
He’s for it. I’m agin it. That settles it.
Very informative article.
My sense has always been that we in America can and should use our immense might to protect those who need to be protected. But in these countries, the lines are so blurred, it is hard to tell who the good guys are!
Dave and I were communicating to revise this article up until the last minute. I was revising over on my blog and I think he missed the last revision. So, add to the end of the last paragraph my conclusion, which is: “But, the future loss of life from the toppling of Assad including the rise of Al Quaeda in Syria causes me to be against this.”
I made the edit – I think.
Yep. Thanks!
I’m with the idea that we ought to protect, but I think that a few missiles at a distance isn’t going to accomplish that here.
Which means, in the long run, putting Americans on the ground in the middle of this, and I would think we could look at the last ten years and realize that it doesn’t work as simply as we would like to do that.
If there is an actual plan that provides security for the civilian population and does not make the US a permanent occupier, and does not result in more death and chaos than if we stay out, then we should get involved. If American involvement only makes it worse–eventually both sides stop fighting each other and fight the Americans, for example–then we should stay out.
Preventing civilian deaths is a worthy effort. Preventing deaths from chemical weapons by getting those same people killed in other ways, like starvation, bombings, etc..? Let’s have a plan, and one that has learned the lessons from previous wars, and go forward from there.
I’m not sure the value of Just War Theory anymore. Look at how JWT was used in the lead up to the Iraq War. Folks on both sides were using JWT and reaching very different conclusions.
I think we have a responsibility to –at least — try to protect. And that’s not a responsibility to aid the “good guys” (because, like has been said here, who is the good guy?) but a responsibility to protect the innocent — future children from being the victims of chemical weapons. I just don’t think civilized societies can tolerate that type of warfare and intentional targeting (w/ intent to terrorize) civilians.
That’s my two cents – and I’m gonna guess that I’ve probably been one of the more anti-war folks to frequently comment here at Voices.
Aaron, we don’t often agree, but I find you candid, at least. Here’s what I’m noticing. With a different party in the White House, roles seem to be reversing somewhat. The GOP was waving the flag and calling for war when GWB was in the Oval Office and the Dems (after initially voting to support the war) were questioning its value. I know all that changed by 2008, but that was what was going on in the early days – in my failing memory.
Now, many Dems are supporting the war because they trust Obama’s leadership and call to do so, while Republicans tend to be saying the things that the Dems were saying last time.
I’m not accusing you of just supporting the president, but am I the only one who is seeing such a role -reversal? It seems disingenuous on both sides.
To be completely honest, I was against the war in 2003 because I was not convinced that Iraq was a threat to us. But, we had FAR more reason to go into Iraq (based on something like 26 UN resolutions, the no-fly zones, Saddam throwing out weapons inspectors, and over 40 nations joining together in a coalition). Still, I felt that containment was the best strategy.
At the time, I was 27 years old and an associate pastor in a military town and I was not sure if I was right or not. It did not really matter what I thought about it, so I kept my opinion to myself and watched what happened.
Many of us learned from the Iraq War. While I am not a pacifist, I do think that we need to be really careful and that the bar for engaging in war needs to be high. Going into Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda and the Taliban was a no-brainer. Going into Iraq made much less sense. Attacking Syria makes even less sense to me.
Dave,
I’m not seeing the role-reversal.
Obviously, there are Democrats who are going to back the president. But, even as I was watching MSNBC tonight, I heard very few voices backing military intervention. Rev. Al and Ed were defending the president against unwarranted criticisms, but Ed said we need to “help the President” by telling Congress to vote “no.” Chris Matthews is against the war. And I’d be shocked if Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow were for it.
Of course, MSNBC is not the Democratic Party – but the lack of support among their leading personalities certainly says something.
But, in my own little corner, among my own liberal friends and colleagues, I am finding myself alone. Very few of my friends are supportive of intervention; the few that are lean moderate, the real liberals are vehemently opposed. All voted for Obama, twice.
I’m working on a column for a Baptist publication on Baptist responses to Syria and Just War Theory. In my readings, I’ve stumbled across virtually no moral theologians/ethicists who back military action against Syria (I did find a rabbi from Emory who supports military action).
But, in the lead up to Iraq, Christian conservative leaders were almost all on board, that’s why the “Land Letter” signed by Colson, Dobson, Bright, Land, etc. has been deemed so influential. The letter echoed the sentiments of most conservative Christian leaders. I’m not seeing liberal Protestant leaders backing Obama here – in fact, the ones that did back him up in Libya are opposing him now.
Dave, I do think the “I hate Obama” factor plays a role, but I think its much less than you have expressed. The last couple of years has really seen the rise of a libertarian vein inside the Republican Party. More mindful of civil liberties, government intrusion, and anti-interventionism (not “isolationism”) are much more commonly heard within the party ranks than ten years ago when the “hawks” ruled the roost.
I’m not saying its the only reason many Republicans are opposing this war, I just think it should at least be considered as a factor instead of just calling it party politics.
How many civilians are we willing to kill to prevent Assad from killing civilians? Why is killing with gas worse than killing with bombs? Why are we willing to go to war to protect innocents in the middle east but not in Africa?
A president who gasses his own people versus an opposition backed by those who blow up our people. This one is pretty simple: we should stay out of it.
That is exactly right, Chris. Both sides are made up of evil tyrants. Let them fight it out…cause we are going to have to deal with whichever side wins turning on us at some point, I’m afraid.
I have heard congress people say that the intelligence presented was not collected by our people, but by the rebels in Syria.
If that is true….wow. just wow…this administration are the same people who accused President Bush of ‘cooking the books”? wow.
Why are other crisis around the world going unabated? Chemical weapons are arguably one of the worst forms of atrocities….but let’s not pretend that mass genocides, religious persecution, rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, the eating of body parts, etc…are not happening on both sides of this civil war…there are no good guys. None of them are our friends. Neither side is truly on the side of the regular civilian Syrian people. Not to mention the above atrocities are being carried out in other locations as well….what’s the real reason were talking about doing this…it seems to be deeper that what some are saying.
If its a message to Iran by proxy…that’s not exactly noble on our part either, IMO.
Here is my take on all this….at the base level I truly don’t think anything we do here will help the Syrian people, the world, or the United States. There is no upside, we have not been attacked by the Syrians (unless you count the Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood linked rebels we are looking to help…but I digress), there is no imminent attack as if it were we would have already struck them…and certainly would not be waiting weeks for Asaad to move women and children to places we mike strike, and/or move what it is we might target.
If we strike and he remains we’re likely to hack off Asaad….not good for the Syrians or the world.
If we strike and he dies…Hezbollah, .Iran and Russia likely will not stand by and watch the rebels take over one of their allied nations that’s not good for Syrian people or the world.
If we attack and Asaad or one of his allies attacks Israel and theyre (and we) aredrawn into war – that’s not good for Syrian people or the world.
Do we really think that he’s just gonna take this laying down? Are we so powerful that he and his allies will just take their lashes lying down?! or are we so arrogant that we think we are more powerful that we are?
I am heartbroken by the chemical attacks and war atrocities but he’s been doing them for years as have the “rebels”….why now? Why Syria when this is happening all over the world?
I do not trust John Kerry. I don’t trust ANYTHING Kerry says. NOTHING. He’s the epitome of an opportunistic windbag who plays the politics of the moment as he perceives most advantageous to John Kerry. When he says make no mistake, or unquestionably, or without a doubt…given his past history we would be very wise to question, have doubts and probably ignore his advice. I know he is the secretary of state…but that gives me truly no comfort.
I used to be a war hawk of sorts…but our interventionism is getting old, costly, deadly and is of no or little benefit to our national security.
Sorry for the rant. Kinda. 🙂
As long as the mission involves destroying or limiting the ability to use poison chemicals on Syria’s innocent civilians, I am in support of military action.
I think that is the stated mission as presented to Congress today.
Using this situation to stick it to Obama is foolish for one reason: internationally, only two individuals have ever used these types of weapons against innocent people: Sadam Hussein and Hitler.
If the use of these weapons is ignored by the world and by the United States THIS time, are we opening up a can of worms that will someday impact our own innocent little ones ?
Part of what our response should be is ‘sending a message’.
What message do you want to send?
I’d consider Grotius’ advice on war here: “If, from the moral point of view at any rate, the matter under consideration seems to have an equal effectiveness for good and for evil, it is to be chosen only if the good has somewhat more of good than the evil has of evil. That is what Aristides states thus: ‘When the good is less than the evil, it is better to give up the good.’ In his description of a large-souled man, Andronicus of Rhodes says that he will not incur dangers for any and every cause, but only for causes that are of the highest importance.”
Considering the involvement of Islamic fundamentalists fighting Assad, and the intense dangers of supporting these militants (see Afghanistan versus the Soviets), the evil of creating more Jihadists seems clear and frightening.
Furthermore, I can’t remember St. Augustine’s stand regarding rebellion. I know Grotius’ rejected almost all rights of subjects to rebel citing Hebraic custom, the Gospel, etc. If Augustine is similar to Grotius’ then his own structure would prohibit helping a rebellion on the grounds that it is inappropriate use of force.
Good point, Alan. I didn’t think about that and that is worth looking into. Of course, our own nation was formed via rebellion, but how much of that do we support now and to what end? There must be really good reason for it and the ones rebellion must be considered to be markedly better than the ones they are rebelling against, otherwise it is just a reshuffling of the deck.
In the various media I have seen related to this (including a lot of average people’s opinions via social media), it seems like about the only ones really supporting military intervention are politicians. Perhaps I am just not exposing myself to a broad enough swath of media opinions.
In any case, it all makes me wonder just what is going on.
By the way, Alan, I pretty much agree with everything you have written here.
Here is a link to another article I found helpful that makes some similar points:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/09/paleo-evangelicals-and-syria/
Brother Alan,
I definitely agree with your last paragraph…. The baby gets cut either way, just war or no just war.
What is America’s leverage? Obama is trying to diplomatically and politically position the strike. There is little doubt that he will have to strike. The reasons of course have little to do with “gas”, but more to do with “arms”. Unfortunately everyone stands to gain from a strike on this country of Muslim extremists. Syria just happens to be one of the last girls left at the dance or pawn on the board.
The US is definitely still the major power, hands down. Russia is impotent, Iran and Iraq needs to get more supplies…so Russia needs the manufacturing and jobs just to maintain status quo. No real upside for the US except for moving artillery of our own to allies. I guess there could be a slight upside to destabilizing the current regime, but even that will repeat within a few years even when destroyed.
I’ll go out on a limb…from a military point of view (I’m no expert by any means) but a longer lasting play could be to damage all parties, and help initiate new leadership. I will be curious to see what happens….because we will definitely strike.
Blessings,
Chris
To me, it just seems wrong that as we approach another anniversary of Al Queada attack on 9/11, we will fight on their side in Syria.
I do think Dave is right when he said that we are against it because the President is for it. But not because we are against him. But because we have seen what his disastrous foreign policy has become. He takes sides when he ought to stay out, witness the debacle in Egypt.
I’m not well-schooled in Just War Theory.
But this much I know. I’m going to Israel on October 3. Whatever we do, we must wait until after October 11 when I return.
Put on your boots and get some more life insurance.
Most life insurance policies are null and void in the case of a breakout of war.
While I agree with the Just War philosophical process, I want to offer that it is an abstraction and as an abstraction it causes people to not stay viscerally in contact with the real reasons for going to war. To paraphrase Von Clausewitz, military action is an alternative to diplomatic action in order to cause an opponent to return to diplomatic action.
So what are the national interests of the United States in the Middle East?
1. Support for Israel. I won’t digress to discuss this as evangelicals generally view the modern state of Israel as at least a partial fulfillment of at least the Ezekiel prophecies regarding the nation of Israel. I also won’t defend the modern semi-secular state of Israel’s socialism or it’s handling of Israeli Arabs. But I presume that the typical Southern Baptist understands and agrees with the basic concept that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
2. A desire for peace in the Middle East. This encompasses U.S. relationships with each country and specifically addresses the relationship between Israel and its surrounding Muslim-majority and especially Arab-majority neighbors.
3. Support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and specifically for member Turkey as they deal with the spillover impacts from the Syrian Civil War. We have a treat obligation to participate in Turkey’s defense if requested by Turkey.
4. General international welfare. This included both the use of toxic materials by Saddam Hussein against the people of Iraq as well as Bashir Assad’s use against the people of Syria. And more generally it is the question of how long the international community stands by when a national leader is committing atrocities–whether with WMDs or just through starvation or mass murder by other means. Now this specific one goes against the status quo mentality of the UN that basically draws sovereignty lines around the nation state and essentially prevents interference. Russia and China are states that protect the concept of nation state sovereignty because they’re the bad guys and they like to support the bad guys in opposition to the national interests of the U.S. and of the civilized world and especially the Western world in general.
Now if you’ve followed what I’ve written so far, you are beginning to notice the weakness of the “Just War” framework. It conceives things in moral terms instead of political/diplomatic terms. The Geneva Conventions generally have the same failing which means that those who subscribe to those Conventions purportedly hold themselves to a higher moral standard than those who do not. I think of this as an excellent ethical design, but in reality it generally is a meaningless gesture. For example, what credit does the US get for following the Geneva Conventions when it tries to adhere to them but opponents don’t? We get blamed for not following them in how we handle improperly dressed enemy combatants who have an obligation to either wear a uniform or risk execution as spies.
So we have to realize that the Just War framework ties our hands without issuing useful demands against opponents. And when you tie your hands unilaterally, that means they might be permitted to commit atrocities against you without a reasonable method of responding. And if you subscribe to such limitations, then what you are sacrificing isn’t your ability to “commit war”. You’re sacrificing your ability to use military methods to force opponents to the diplomatic table.
It’s in essence a prissy act which conveys weakness to others and without any real value other than feeling good about yourself. So I guess the question isn’t whether Christians should support the war against Syria or not. I think the question is what we risk by not supporting it with respect to the continuation of the United States as a successful and sovereign nation state.
In reality, I think the direct risk to the continuation of the United States as a nation state is relatively low from Syria being a bad actor. But the various other accumulated negative effects are not trivial. Not supporting Israel potentially results in an effort to wipe them off of the face of the earth (what the previous president of Iran consistently recommended).
Not directly addressing the need for peace with military might results in a continuation of a potential conflagration that turns into a region-wide war–very likely enveloping Israel, ally Turkey, and other regional allies–that potentially has eschatological implications (not that such concerns should be high on our list of concerns, but they should be in the back of our minds.)
NATO is an alliance looking for a problem to solve at this point, and it arguably has been mostly ineffective in the past two decades. But they have supported the U.S. especially in Afghanistan and I would argue that with a more aggressive Russia that it is in our interests to not only solidify NATO but also to expand it further. This includes supporting either continuing economic ties with Turkey or supporting Turkey’s entrance into the European Union (which is unlikely as long as Edrogan is taking them towards Islamic “nationalism”, but I digress.)
But the most important of the points is “what happens if the US does nothing about Syria’s use of WMDs against its own people?” The USA will not cease to exist as a nation. But the international system that the US led to create–first by proposing the League of Nations–which we didn’t join–and then by hosting the United Nations will continue to deteriorate in diplomatic and strategic value. Now I’m not an advocate nor an apologist for the UN. But having it is still arguably better than not having it in spite of all of its warts.
And unless one of the nation states of the world steps up and defends not the international system of “law” but the concept of common decency–which is a MORAL STANDARD–then you encourage international lawlessness.
In addition, a defeat and unseating of Bashir Assad breaks Iran’s direct ties to Hezbollah and is a strategic defeat for Iran. It supports the pluralistic government of Iraq and dents Iran’s influence there. It supports the Sunni Arab crescent and at least reduces their nervousness at the ascendance of Iran. And it sends a very clear message to Iran of the consequences of using WMDs.
In my opinion, this list of benefits meet the spirit of the Just War framework even if they don’t actually address the specific points of that framework. So I argue that the United States is justified in seeking military action against Syria and against its ally Iran for the specific purpose of reminding each where the diplomatic table is that they need to stay seated at or risk a more robust military conflict with the United States and with the Western world at large. Right now, they don’t take us seriously because they believe we will eventually cut and run from the region.
1.”…the typical Southern Baptist understands and agrees with the basic concept that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.”
…unless you believe that the Church is “Israel” and Jews are lost like everyone else.
Also, the “wipe Israel off the map” line is getting a little tired as well. This was said by a radical politician trying to fire up his base. Israel is way too powerful and everyone (except billion-dollar lobbyists) know it. Iran would never try to destroy Israel. They dont want to die.
I have a colleague who is Iranian and he pointed out that it is really suspicious that Assad would use poison gas when things were going better for him, and not awhile ago when things were looking really bad for him. Do we really think it is inconceivable that the rebels used the gas to force our hand?
I think that’s exactly what happened.
Although I think that’s what happened here…maybe who knows….Asaad is no saint.
Neither side is. They’re both (Asaads admin. and the rebels) Islamic jihadists – just of variant factions.
Like someone said….entering a fight (even with intents of bringing peace) between siblings make YOU the common enemy.
I’m going to take a CB stance here and argue from a “wisdom” pov. We have nothing to gain from entering this and nothing to lose from staying out. That makes good sense (wisdom). If your (they are not mine) idiots in charge of this country just have to have another one of these never ending battles then the motto needs to be a quote from General Curtis E. LeMay from circa 1958 regarding the soon to explode SE Asian “conflict”, “nuke them all and let God sort them out”.
It cannot be a bad thing when a people who worship satan (allah) fight and kill each other…..let them go at it. I certainly would not sacrifice myself or one of my grandchildren for a billion of these islamic idiots. May we stay out of it and wish them a good day and happy trails.
so you would not worry about the gassing of children, as long as they are of another ethnic group ?
what does that make you?
He didn’t say that. He specifically only addressed Jihadists fighting other Jihadists.
Will there be collateral damage in war? Yes. Of course. Will children die if the U.S. bombs Syria? Yes. Most likely if we can judge based on past conflicts.
Thus, the question becomes what yields the greater good. Leaving the Jihadists alone to sort out their own war, or intervening in the war. Children die either way. What is the correct criteria to judge right? Fewer deaths? Saving the most lives? What?
Of the same mind as Jehovah God when he ordered the Israelites to kill all inhabitants (including women and children) of the land that he gave to the children of Israel for as long as this earth exists.
And you?
My above reply is addressed to Christiane BTW.
JAKE, I am of this mind:
‘The heresy of Marcionism taught that the Old Testament was the revelation of a pathetic demigod marked by pettiness, jealousy and violence. This ancient heresy portrays the God of the Old Testament as a morally offensive, vain, psychotic and violent God, who commands that a ban be put on cities, who orders genocide so that his people can take possession of the Promised Land, who commands that children’s heads be dashed against stones.
Traditionally, Christians have read the entire Bible in the light of Christ crucified and risen from the dead. They cannot believe in a ‘Marcion’ description of God because they examine the Old Testament in the light of Christ.
There is an image in the Book of Revelation of a Lamb standing as though slain. When no one else in the heavenly court is able to open the scroll that symbolizes all of salvation history, the Lamb alone succeeds. This indicates that the nonviolent Christ, who took upon Himself the sin of the world and returned in forgiving love, IS the interpretive key to the Bible.
It was in this light that some in the early Church read the texts concerning the Old Testament ban as an ALLEGORY about the struggle against sin. Marcion tried to drive a wedge between the two testaments, but Christians have always allowed Christ to be the structuring logic of the entire Scripture.’
It would seem that your solution to difficult scriptures is just to ignore them and allegorize them. If your theology requires you to pretend that what the Bible says it does not really say, then the problem is with your theology.
You want a god who is squishy and lovey-dovey – one who is unholy, caring little about sin, one who would NEVER send anyone to hell. The problem is that the god you want is one of your own creation – not the God of the Bible, the God of Israel.
He did things we do not understand – in our unholy, sinful and finite minds they are beyond our knowledge. But the solution is not to imagine an unholy God, Christiane. It is not to deny the God of the Bible as he is revealed there. Yes, we see his ultimate purpose in the work of Christ, but that does not allow you to simply ignore the multi-faceted character of God.
God is who he is, not who you wish he was. Truth requires that you adjust your mind to the God of the Bible, not recreate the God of the Bible to fit your own ideas.
Hi DAVID,
thank you for responding . . .
the portrayal of God as revealed by Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation of ‘Who God Is’ according to sacred Scripture:
“Jesus replied.
“If you knew Me, you would know my Father also.”
My faith looks at Christ as the fullness of revelation about God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
not as just another witness whose testament is equal with those of all others in sacred Scripture.
My Church DOES give priority to Christ in the sacred Scriptures because He IS the Lamb of God Who will open the scrolls and explain the fullness of their meaning . . . He is the ONLY one who will be able to do this at the end of time:
” “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” (Rev. 5)
You emphasize a different understanding of how the sacred Scriptures are to be examined and judged, and in Our Lord is no longer the ‘lens’ for you in your denomination, DAVID, so I understand how the difference came about, yes.
So we disagree, at least on my part, I try to comprehend why people see sacred Scripture in the ways that they do.
For me, the Word is Christ Himself. I think you can very well understand that, if not agree with how other Christians may apply that understanding in ways different from your denomination.
Again, thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate your response. And I am hopeful that your people with cancer are given Christ’s Holy Peace in the midst of their worries and suffering.
Thanks Dave, you are a lot more of a huggy bear than I am…..my response to her is that if one does not believe both the old covenant and the new covenant then that one is headed to the same hell that the muslims are headed for. And BTW Christiane, I have read both covenants and most of the commentary books explaining them…..it still appears to me that you are on a fast track to hell….yet you still will not repent of your stand for abortion?
No, it is not just that we have differing views of God. It is that you have a view of a God not revealed AT ALL in scripture – not from Genesis to Revelation.
And your view of Jesus is no more factual than your view of God. Our theology must root in revelation, not in fantasy or human desire. I understand why someone would want the God you have created in your mind – the God lacking in holiness and absent of wrath against sin. Sinners want a God who doesn’t care about sin, don’t we? But the view is nonetheless false.
Revelation 19 describes the Second Coming of Christ – in glory this time, not veiled in the humility he took on at the Incarnation. He rides out of heaven with armies following him. As he rides down, the armies of man – opposing the God of Scripture – unite against him, but…
“From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” (Revelation 19:15).
Jesus victory is complete, according to Revelation 19:21. “And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.”
This biblical presentation does not much match your Nicely-Nicely Jesus – as fictional as the Broadway character.
The love of God is displayed in Jesus Christ – ALWAYS! But it is not in the way you say – the love without holiness, without redemption, without propitiation.
Jesus (according to the Bible) demonstrated God’s love in the while we were still in our sin (guilty, hell-deserving and hell-bound) Christ died for our sins. He took my place on the cross, suffering the wrath I deserved.
There is no greater love than that – that Jesus died for the sins of sinners.
Christiane, Jesus died to show God’s love to sinners. Those who repent of their sins and believe on Jesus (and Jesus alone) find salvation and hope in him. You need to leave behind the false doctrines you believe that pervert the God of the Bible into an unholy God without righteous standards.
You cannot simply make up the God you want to worship. Start in Genesis and read what the Bible says about God. He is Holy and pure. He is righteous and Just. He is Love and mercy. He is all of that.
To insist that God is only one side is to deny the God of Scripture. You need to stop doing that believe in the God the Scriptures reveal.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Re 19:21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Christiane,
How many civilians are you willing to kill to stop the killing of civilians?
if the attacks begin against the arsenals of poisoned gas and chemical weapons, I hope that any civilians guarding those arsenals have the good sense to abandon their posts and get out of the target areas . . .
I’m hopeful that the hideous weapons used on civilians in Syria will be destroyed, or at least greatly impacted by an American strike.
I have every faith in our military’s ability to perform surgical strikes without putting ‘boots’ on the ground.
I want those weapons destroyed so that no more civilians can be killed in that terrible way. It would be ‘the right thing’ to do to destroy those weapons. This is my opinion, yes. It would still be my opinion even if I were the ONLY one who saw the wisdom of taking action in this case.
Which of course does not answer my question.
You think bombing from the air kills fewer civilians than infantry?
How many civilians are you willing to let die?
Anyone wanna take bets on how long before John McCain and Lindsey Graham grow long beards and start flippantly saying “Allah Akbar” instead of “Thank God”?
I would not support a war though scripture tells me to do so if my government decides to move forward. If this administration chooses to go to war based upon the innocent being killed, then we must also look around and compare it with other parts of the world that are killing the innocent. Also, it would be hypocritical to choose the innocent because this administration’s platform supports late term abortions of American babies.
I do not see much information on what is happening in Syria now. Is there a cease fire? I don’t think so. I think the news media controls most of what we think and know because that is where we get most of our information anyway.
Before we, as a country, aim our weapons at the current evil rulers of Syria, even the New York Times is expressing caution at painting one side as the perpetrators of evil. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0
I learned a long time ago not to step into a fight between brothers, they’ll both turn on you.
The rebels could end this today. In fact they could have not started the whole thing but did so as they sensed implicit approval and approval from America. Assad was generally a benevolent dictator. Removing him from power wasn’t worth 100 lives much less 100,000 even if we didn’t like those who he allied himself with. The world told him early on that he has one choice, surrender and be charged as a war criminal or die fighting. What do they expect him to do? When he goes he’ll be replaced with a worse son of hell than he was. I’m sick about the whole thing because just as in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and morocco Christians are suffering greatly at the hands of the side America backed. I’m sick because thousands of souls are being sent into eternity without an opportunity. I’m sick because the outcome will be an environment far more hostile to gospel witness than before.
1000 Syrians killed by nerve gas…..1 million Americans killed legally through abortions by highly educated professionals(ie physicians)….Seems kind of difficult for the US to take the high ground here…..just a thought
I’m just curious: are you claiming that “he who has no sin” is the only nation qualified “morally” to protect national interests through military expeditions? Because I would offer that’s just silly.
Greg,
I certainly agree with the sentiments of your comment, but what does this Syria thing have to do with us protecting any of our national interests? In my view, any involvement in Syria will work against our national interests.
My earlier, vastly long and detailed comment–not this short one–covers that question, John. It’s a rhetorical position statement so I don’t necessarily everyone to agree with me, but it’s detailed and extensive.
Greg,
I was only thinking how hypocritical it is to show concern for one group of lives (Syrians some hundreds and thousands of miles away) while not even protecting the most innocent of lives in our own backyard due to abortion…..Not really commenting of pros or cons of military intervention.
Fair enough. I’m not a fan of the abortion issue as a litmus test myself and especially not as a filter for all other issues. And, yes, I’m very much pro-life and anti-abortion.
I’m with you on neutrality. There are three groups of people we are dealing with in Syria:
1. Assad and his group is a part of a Shia sect. The Shia are only a small percentage of the Muslim population of Syria. They tend to be more moderate regarding getting along with people from other religions. In fact, we have Christian friends who are still ministering in Syria although since this present conflict, they have had to move their base of operations outside the country. While they were in country, they enjoyed open Christian ministry approved of and facilitated by President Assad himself. In fact, Assad sent a million or so copies of a Christian movie/documentary they produced as a gift to Putin and the Russians. That doesn’t mitigate Assad’s reprehensible actions, but it’s a side that you won’t see in the media.
2. The rebels are radicalized Sunni encouraged by the Arab Spring movement. They are upset that Assad has allowed Christianity to have a prominent place in Syria and are devoted to overthrowing that kind of regime and instituting their brand of Sharia law.
3. Most Syrians are Sunni. However, they are generally open to Christian activity among their neighbors, not because they are Sunni but because they are Syrian. Syria has a long tradition of peace between different religions. The average Syrian isn’t in favor of the radicals. They don’t particularly like Assad’s response either. They have family members being killed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If we support Assad or the rebels, we will end up fighting whoever we sided with 10 or 20 years down the road and the people will hate us either way. We have nothing to gain politically by getting involved. If there were any way to protect the people without supporting either side, that would be the right thing to do.
the plan is to destroy or degrade the use of poisoned gas chemical weapons, the kind that have already been used on innocent civilian men, women, children and infants
. . . not to get ‘involved’ in a civil war
you’ve seen the pictures of the dead children . . . one was an infant three weeks old, unclaimed . . . likely because her family was also dead
if we can halt this slaughter or ‘degrade’ the ability to murder the innocent, and we don’t, is that not a decision we will regret ?
When all the great powers of this Earth turn their eyes away from the use of poisoned gas and chemicals on the innocent, are we not opening a Pandora’s box that will release the hell that will surely come home against ourselves and our own?
Mission: take decisive action to destroy or degrade poisoned-gas and chemical weapons and biological weapons
Not to respond is not an option in today’s world where terrorists watch and wait to see what the great nations will ‘permit’ by choosing to look away and do nothing
Sure is curious, you all up and ready to go to battle over “retro-active abortion” and all in favor of abortion here in our own country. You are indeed a contradiction in terms.
I have to note that Syrian Christians don’t want us fighting Assad, and they have good reasons. I can speak from having spoken to the Syrian Christians I know. But Mark Movsesian pointed this out in his article posted on St John’s University School of Law as well.
When you oppose the slaughter of innocents in this country over abortion, which you liberals will give your life’s blood to “Keep it legal, keep it safe”, then you have standing to justify the use of force over what happened in Syria. Until then, it’s hypocricy to get all worked up over any deaths in Syria.
I think the hypocrisy of not being consistent on pro-life issues–such as opposing use of poison gas against one’s own population–is just as despicable as politically favoring abortion myself. Though I do not necessarily think that is by itself an adequate reason for a military intervention.
For instance: if the state of California were to execute someone today with toxic gas as they used to do in order to administer the death penalty for a capital crime, I would applaud them. Some think THAT is an example of hypocrisy regarding the pro-life position and I understand why it can cause some confusion. But because the Bible clearly recommends capital punishment–admittedly just in the theocracy but the reference to government being given “the sword” suggests it’s more generally applicable–one has little choice but to conclude that God holds us responsible for bad actors who take actions against others.
In our own nation, we can do that with laws. Perhaps in an international system we also can use an equivalent of laws in the form of treaty obligations. But when a state actor no longer respects laws, then a military action may be required.
Peggy Noonan–a moderate I might add as well as a devout Catholic and former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan during his presidency–noted that in Saddam Hussein’s case we didn’t know at first that he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. But we learned about the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people “real time” due to today’s social media. We might be able to quibble regarding which of the bad actors in Syria did it, but we can’t quibble about whether hundreds died.
That is why I argued earlier for military intervention without attempting to define a specific strategy for accomplishing an specific desired outcome.
one has little choice but to conclude that God holds us responsible for bad actors who take actions against others.
I can’t respond to this comment the way I’d like, because the comment would never be published (and rightly so).
Therefore, I’ll just say that asserting something is not the same thing as proving something. So you can assert that the verse means that governments are responsible for punishing other governments for doing wrong until you sneeze lighting, but until you prove it it doesn’t mean anything.
Also, if what you say about that verse is true, then your side was wrong to oppose going into Iraq because of Sadam’s many attrocities against his own people, so I won’t hold my breath for you to try to prove your assertions.
So it’s OK to intervene when it is poison gas but not when it is bombs, or guns, or machetes?
And why are you certain it was Assad who used the gas?
While the current rulers in Syria are not friends of the Christians in Syria, they are not the enemies of believers that the Muslim Bortherhood will be if they take over. Muslim Brotherhood army units have already attacked Christian villages in Syria.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/05/syrian-rebels-attack-christian-village-n1691989?utm_source=TopBreakingNewsCarousel&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingNewsCarousel
Honestly, no argument can be made against attacking Syria that could not have been used against attacking Iraq. (Please, no claims that Iraq was ever a threat to us.) Even the claim that we now know that attacking Syria is unwise because of what we have now learned from the negative consequences of attacking Iraq is specious. Why? Because the evangelical leaders that supported the Iraq War never actually publicly came out and recanted their support for the Iraq War. For example, the “Land Letter” was never retracted or apologized for. The many other evangelical leaders who preached sermons urging their congregations to support the Iraq War (the SBC’s own Charles Stanley was quoted in the New York Times exhorting the war’s cause and support for Bush) have not recanted. And it is not as if there haven’t been plenty of opportunities. As early as 2004, it was known that the weapons of mass destruction would never be found, and also the shambles that Iraq’s military and infrastructure were in thanks to years of U.N. sanctions plus Bill Clinton’s frequent bombings of Iraq to prevent them from ever becoming a threat when he was office were in (meaning that they lacked the ability even to defend themselves, let alone threaten anybody else, and particularly a superpower halfway around the world like us) was fully known. And by 2006, it was clear that Iraq was a full-blown quagmire that we had entered into under false claims, whose purpose and goals had shifted several times, for which there was absolutely no chance of achieving victory of any kind, and had long been used as an excuse to bilk taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars that were being funneled to friends and supporters of the Bush and Cheney families in no-bid contracts, and that invading Iraq had cost us any chance of actually winning Afghanistan, plus there was a horrific toll on Iraq’s Christian community (curiously, the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, which began during and as a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq, was not much of an issue for conservative evangelicals during the Bush administration, but now Obama finds himself accused of not doing enough to protect Christians in the Middle East when his reaction to the persecution of Christians over there was pretty much the same as Bush’s). Even then, no retraction of support for the Iraq War was made.
So, sorry. You cannot say “We can’t invade Syria because Iraq shows what would happen” without first coming out and saying “we were wrong to support Iraq.” You can’t say “I supported the Iraq War because I trusted Bush but can’t support attacking Syria because I don’t trust Obama or his policies” without admitting that trusting Bush was wrong, and that Bush’s foreign policy was anything but an absolute disaster. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Never found? Iraq a threat to harm us? A lie. Iraq an imminent threat to harm us? A bigger lie. (Especially if you rely on the actual dictionary term of “imminent” and realize that over a year passed between Bush’s declaring Iraq to be an imminent threat and our actually using our troops to neutralize that threat). Bringing democracy to Iraq and ultimately the Middle East? A total failure. All it accomplished was to make Iraq a client state of Iran, and make Iran stronger than before. Defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Invading Iraq was Al Qaeda’s best recruiting tool. And diverting resources and attention from Afghanistan – where we were actually winning – to Iraq allowed the Taliban to regroup and retrench. Also, the decision to invade Iraq helped Islamists consolidate power in Turkey.
Basically, every negative thing that every liberal, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Republican code pink International A.N.S.W.E.R. type (as well as the Ron Paul libertarians, who lest we forget were despised and purposefully marginalized on the right when Paul ran for president in 2008) predicted would happen as a result of our invading Iraq did. Meanwhile, NONE of the positives that supporters of the war – including conservative evangelicals – predicted or wanted occurred. That’s why using the failure in Iraq to justify opposing going into Syria is just playing party/ideology politics. If you aren’t going to unequivocally withdraw support for – and denounce – the Iraq War and the president who got us into it first, then you are holding the current guy accountable for what might happen while letting the previous guy off the hook for what did happen.
For the record, I supported the Iraq War, but not because of any nonsense about Iraq being some threat to us or any relationship that Iraq allegedly had with bin Laden and 9/11 or yellowcake from Niger or whatever. I supported it because the U.N. sanctions against Iraq that were intended to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military capabilities (and hopefully provoke enough internal pressure to get Saddam removed from power) caused scores of innocent Iraqis, many of them children, to die for want of food and medicine. The sanctions had little effect on Saddam and those connected to him, but were wreaking havoc on almost everybody else. So I felt that the quick war that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us (Rumsfeld claimed “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months”) would save more lives than it would cost by toppling the regime and ending the sanctions. But after Saddam and the rest of his regime were toppled, captured, killed etc. my basis for supporting the war was over, and as the years dragged on and the civilian death toll from the war and the religious/tribal chaos that resulted from the lack of Saddam’s secular authoritarian regime to stop it far exceeded the number of people that would have died by virtue of leaving Saddam – and the U.N. sanctions – in place, it was very easy to recant my support of the war and for ever supporting or believing the guys who got us into it to begin with. Another thing: Bush’s public proclamation of Christian piety and the heavy support that he got from evangelicals on the Iraq issue made it real easy for nonbelievers (including Muslims in foreign lands) to associate Christianity with bloodthirsty imperialism. All a Muslim Brotherhood cleric in Egypt has to do in order to incite their violent mobs against Christians is remind them of Iraq, Bush and his evangelical supporters. It would be easy. Create a video that starts with A) Bush claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and following Christ’s teachings, switches B) evangelical pastors giving full-throated endorsement of Bush and support for the war, and transitions to C) our bombs raining death on Iraqis. Now I am one who believes that the world is ultimately going to hate the church because it hates Jesus Christ anyway, but one cannot claim that conservative evangelical support of Bush and the Iraq War was somehow good for the reputation of evangelicalism abroad or even at home, especially when it comes to those who do not personally know many evangelicals and as a result have their image of us shaped entirely by the media, Hollywood, academia and liberal and other anti-Christian politicians.
As to whether attacking Syria is a good idea: the Bible is against sedition. It is so clear on that fact that David considered it to be a sin to kill King Saul even after Saul not only A) attempted to kill David but B) murdered God’s priests. Also, note that God chose not to have Israel rebel against Egypt in response to Egypt’s cruel oppression of Israel, and it is revealing that Egypt’s false claim that Israel MIGHT rebel was used as justification for killing Israel’s male babies. God also never instructed Israel to rebel against the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks or Romans that conquered them, and the messiahs who claimed to be anointed by God to free Israel from Rome were false, and called robbers and murderers by Christ. And Christ’s apostles – Peter and Paul – told both the Jews and the Gentiles in the church to submit to the Roman Empire and pray for its leaders rather than join any of the subversive rebel movements. So we should not give any aid or comfort to the Syrian seditionists. We were similarly wrong to support (and I believe that the Obama administration and the state department and the CIA secretly promoted and helped organize) the “Arab spring” wave of sedition in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia etc. In Libya we used civilian casualties as an excuse to join a conflict that would have never existed in the first place had we not worked to foment it. So in Syria, the only reason why all those innocent civilians died, refugees misplaced and chemical weapons were used in the first place was due to the sinful support (and I believe provocation and organization of) the Arab spring by a reprobate president and administration that utterly rejects and hates God and His Word.
That is what it is about. We foment a rebellion that we know is going to result in the death of innocents, and then we use the deaths of those innocents as an excuse to enter the civil war and kill even more innocents. Which makes going into Libya then and Syria now as bad or worse than the Iraq War in my book.
As far as the “just-war” thing goes, Augustine was a proto-Roman Catholic (he adhered to the Catholic abominations on Mary worship) as part of his propaganda for the Roman imperial church-state (and obviously more state than church). And keep in mind: Augustine supported the murderous violence that the Roman state inflicted on the Donatists, who were the Anabaptists of their time, and this was despite Augustine’s own admission that the Donatists’ error was not Christological heresy, so even though they were his brothers in Christ he still promoted the idea that their desire to leave Catholicism made them worthy of death! I would use the term that Spurgeon applied to things Catholic – popery – but I cannot as technically the papacy did not exist at that time, but it is still Catholic doctrine that cannot be supported by sola scriptura, so from such things Baptists should turn away.
The New Testament does not contain anything concerning how secular states should conduct warfare because the New Testament is meant to govern the affairs of the church and not the secular state. It is of the church and not the world. And the OT does not apply because its rules were meant to govern the OT Israel theocracy. And even the OT does not give things concerning government outside the context of that theocracy (i.e. before the Exodus and Sinai and after the destruction of the nation in 586 B.C.). Basically, when the Anabaptists came to the belief that New Testament teachings meant that they could not in good conscience join the military, they were far closer to sola scriptura than was Augustine’s propaganda for state Catholicism. Which is not surprising in the least because unlike the biblicist Anabaptists, Augustine rejected sola scriptura in favor of Catholic tradition, and he frequently rejected legitimate hermeneutics to follow after the Alexandrian allegorists. But outside of a church-state arrangement where the aims of the church and those of the state are the same (or more accurately the aims of the state become and those of the church and must be defended and promoted by the church) it is difficult to come of with a legitimate sola scriptura argument in support of any war that is not purely defensive i.e. when another nation attacks “your” nation and whose goals go beyond stopping the other nation from killing “your” nation’s citizens. And many Anabaptists even went as far as opposing joining an army to fight an entirely defensive war. Think about it: so long as the invading army doesn’t kill YOU, what does it matter? It would only involve changing governments, going from being led by the government of “your” own nation to that of the conquering nation. As a Christian, what difference does that make to you? Basically, looking for texts in the Bible that can be construed as lending support for patriotism and nationalism that would cause you to favor one particular government or regime over another, to say that one earthly kingdom is superior to another, is a vain errand. So a Biblical argument for military force really can’t go beyond joining a collective effort to defend yourself and others, and the Bible does not condemn taking just actions to defend yourself and others.
Job,
Makes sense to me.
Dave Miller,
I wouldn’t mind seeing Job do some posts of his own here.
I take submissions.
Your write, “So a Biblical argument for military force really can’t go beyond joining a collective effort to defend yourself and others, and the Bible does not condemn taking just actions to defend yourself and others.”
And this was the justification for the Crusades–helping others. Or more specifically, helping the brethren of the eastern churches under persecution and attack. Without Augustine and Grotius’ respective works things get out of balance. Both laid the foundation of international law balancing the commands of our Lord to help others with admonitions to justice.
There is significant teachings of both Old and New Testaments that apply to the affairs of man in whatever realm he exists–even politics. I don’t think we can reject the OT just because of its special circumstance. Are some commands only for Israel? Sure. However, there is much general teaching on justice that applies today. We cannot ignore the commands of Christ, or the witness of Scripture in the affairs of the state. It would be neither wise nor moral.
George Washington probably said it best, “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be good policy doth not equally enjoin it?”
It may be time for Baptists (free churchers like myself) to begin rethinking Constantine and the relation between church and state. It is clear that Christianity grows whether suffering persecution or not. However, a history of missions clearly shows that when the power wielding the sword has some commitment to Christian principles, life is better for everyone.
Interesting thoughts.
Job,
Good comment. I did not support the Iraq War at the time. My reservations were internal and I did not speak up, though – not that it would have mattered. The whole nation minus some anti-war protestors seemed to be all for it. It was hard to know and at the time, we just had to trust our leaders. That was a mistake that I hope we don’t make again. Going to war is a huge deal and the bar to attack another sovereign nation should be very, very high. We had Saddam contained and we should have worked from there. We have no real business in Syria that I can see.
I also agree with you about the Arab Spring being a fomenting of rebellion by the U.S. If other nations were meddling in our affairs like we do in their’s, we would consider that to be an act of war in and of itself. I understand that we want to control things for our benefit, but our foreign policy has been a muddled mess for a long time over there. We need to reconsider our approach. And, no, I do not say that because I think that they will then like us. That is naive. But, I do think that we do what we would not tolerate being done to us and the blowback is consistent.
Job,
“For the record, I supported the Iraq War…I supported it because the U.N. sanctions against Iraq that were intended to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military capabilities (and hopefully provoke enough internal pressure to get Saddam removed from power) caused scores of innocent Iraqis, many of them children, to die for want of food and medicine. The sanctions had little effect on Saddam and those connected to him, but were wreaking havoc on almost everybody else. So I felt that the quick war that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us (Rumsfeld claimed “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months”) would save more lives than it would cost by toppling the regime and ending the sanctions.”
None of those things are present here….as valid reasons to attack Syria.
It’s was not only the bush administration, but leaders and congressional members of both political parties (including Joe Bidn and John Kerry….Kerry was full throat pro Iraq war at first – biden less so but generally supportive) here in the US who had seen intelligence, ops every allies, middle eastern nations, a plethora of UN violations and reports saying the sae things….so if anyone “lied” it certainly wasn’t only Bush and his team. There were a lot of people who articulated and believed (worldwide community) the intelligence gathered with regard to Iraq. I’ll also remind everyone that we were fighting al Queda militants from DAY ONE in Iraq….so he was harboring those who did and wanted to and were planning to attack us….see your “lie and bigger lie comments above”.
Also, even the Obama administration including Secretary of windbagery Kerry are mentioning HUESSAIN as a violator of “the world established norms” so any argumentation that going into Iraq and taking him down is at least hypocritical since that what they wanna do with Asaad with much less to go on.
In addition….I think we’re finding these (iraqs) weapons of mass destruction as we go along in the middle east….But the present administration has great reason to keep that info from us.
Further….this is a civil war which Iraq was not when we went in….it can be argued that we and our allies prosecuted the war so badly (I’m there too) that we set one in motion…..but we didn’t enter one.
Lastly, haven’t we seen from experience that no matter what our leaders say about quick, fast, “the of the country people wanting and desiring us to help”….war never works out that way.
So yes, there is some nuance here with regard to the no Syria vs. Iraq supporters….but there’s also vast and blatant differences as noted above indicating that an attack on Syria is a bad idea and without even the merit of the Iraq war….which you indicated as being a quite low bar.
First of all, I love Democrats.
Secondly, it’s interesting that the Dems are all for war because Obama is for it. But, when W. was leading us to fight Iraq, they cried foul as loudly as they could. Okay, Assad is gassing his own people. That’s terrible. But also, Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurds. I mean, he was wiping them off the face of the planet. Not to mention, his goon squads were going out, and murdering anyone, who opposed Saddam. They would murder the men, and rape the women….many times while they laid there looking at the dead bodies of thier husbands and sons.
So, it just seems a little bit hypocritical for Dems to be for war, because Assad is killing his own people…..BUT, they opposed the war STRONGLY when W. was leading our country.
Hummmmm…..aint life interesting?
David
I wasn’t in favor of the Iraq war, but I agree, the hypocrisy is stunning.
Did you read Tarheel’s comment? Based on your comment either you did not or you think he is not correct.