Response to Chad (”aircraft carriers are huge killing machines”)

44 Responses to “Response to Chad (”aircraft carriers are huge killing machines”)”

1. Thomas St. Clair on September 28th, 2007 3:20 pm

   What a GREAT explanation……THANK YOU sincerely Del! I know you actually meant to state it was the “WORLD” Hitler was trying to take over, but you typed the “WORD”. Now I wonder which you meant, Hitler was likely after BOTH!
   God Bless You and Yours!
   Sincerely,
   Tom S

2. Debbie Smith on September 28th, 2007 6:16 pm

   Del-
   Right on the mark as usual! Thank you for that explanation… I may use it next time I am confronted with this issue! What do you call it when you are “articulate deficient?” AD? Anyhow, I appreciate the articulate way God has given you to express truth! Thanks!

   Debbie Smith
   Cottonwood, AZ

3. joshMshep on September 28th, 2007 6:42 pm

   Well said, Dr. Tackett. Thank you for a biblical look at these important issues… my brother is a Sergeant in the U.S. Army; he’d agree that armed conflict is nothing to get excited about. I am thankful for our troops who fight for our freedom.

   blessings,
   -josh

4. Jacob Thielman on September 30th, 2007 1:50 pm

   I was intrigued when I heard that Focus on the Family had started something called the Truth Project. I even let myself be optimistic when Os Guiness put in his two cents on the website. Now, at the risk of being deemed “cynical” or “unnecessarily contentious,” of which I intend to be neither (though I daresay the Kingdom of God accepts both kinds of people - C. S. Lewis did honor to the office of Skeptic in That Hideous Strength), I must respectfully disagree with the above piece of political theology. For the sake of transparency, I should say that I write not because I think anyone will change their minds, but because I’d like to see how far the Truth Project actually will go to address the issue of truth in our day and age.

   My contention may be directed at the last few statements of this article: “But we live in a world of depravity and God has provided the means to control and punish it. Rather than call God’s design evil, let’s embrace His provision with thankfulness; pray that those who hold those offices carry out their responsibilities with godly wisdom and righteousness; that the sword will not be used for evil, but for good.” The statement that God has provided us with coercive government for the purpose of controlling and punishing evil needs support. Del has provided us with one way of looking at Romans 13, but as he has so aptly put it, in order to understand the picture being revealed in this puzzle, we have to have all the pieces.

   When Paul writes that the authority is there to punish those who do evil, and that it holds no terror for those who do good, remember that Paul is writing, as the name of the book suggests, to Christians in Rome. Rome was not an easy place to be a Christian. For the first three hundred years of the Church’s existence, it was the primary source of persecution for Christians. It would be hard for early Christians meeting in secret to preserve their lives to accept that “rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” (Romans 13:3)

   The best way to address this issue is through Jesus’ words. When Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, he called it a kingdom that was not of this world. In fact, the kingdom he describes seems utterly upside-down to the casual modern observer. It’s a place where the first is last, the weak are strong, the poor are rich, and where those who lose their lives for Jesus find them unto eternal life. Likewise, Jesus’ commandments to us are similarly upside-down - positively impractical in most cases. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is three chapters of paradigm-altering commands not to worry about needs (but to seek the kingdom), not to be at odds with anyone, to be purer than the Pharisees even in our very thoughts, and to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (in direct contrast with “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” which would be closer to the ideology behind aircraft carriers).

   One of the most thoughtful, relevant theologians of our time, John Milbank (a man of many hats, including philosopher and political theorist) shows that ideologies such as that of Dr. Tackett are a highly modernized and selective interpretation of Scipture - which is to say that it has subscribed to modern ideas to the point of compromise. For example, I take issue with this interpretation of 1 Peter, who says “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” (2:13-15) Dr. Tackett takes Peter’s implication that civil authorities do indeed exist to imply a normative endorsement of their work. That misses Peter’s point entirely - which is that if you are beaten or persecuted, let it never be for some legitimate punishment of wrongdoing, which would discredit Christ. “For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?” (2:19-20) What Dr. Tackett here endorses is a view of the world as inherently conflictual - as in the State of Nature described by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. In this view of things, evil is done, and it is to be met with its own violent resistance for the sake of self-preservation. This is viewed not as moral, but as necessary - a way of thinking more akin to Machiavelli than Jesus.

   This is not a biblical understanding of the world. Rather, Jesus’ words paint a picture of a fallen world of conflict in which we are to offer that original peace that God intended by acting that peace out. The greatest argument for truth, as Os Guinness says on the front page of the Truth Project site, is its enactment - and the originary act founding the Christian Church is Christ’s death on the cross. This act of utter abandonment of self, of voluntary submission to the most debasing and alienating procedures of Jewish law and Roman government is our founding act. It is this attitude that we are to emulate, for Christ, “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant. Being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” (Philippians 2: 5-11) If that is to be our attitude, then violent reaction is incompatible with it, but the resulting suffering is rewarded when God exalts us as with Christ in the final ressurrection. Is there no place for a magistrate in the kingdom of God? On the contrary, I know there is, for many soldiers and centurions gave their lives to Christ through the gospels and Acts. Is there room for the Kingdom of God in our government? That is a dangerous question to answer, because as Jesus said (and as I pointed out earlier), His kingdom is not of this world - and it more often stands in contrast with the kingdoms of this world than not.

   Instead of answering that question here, I would like to encourage further study of the origins of modernity and the history of the Church in government. It might prove enlightening (so to speak) not only in our politics, but in our practice of Christianity - that practice that is better than argument, which Francis Schaeffer called The Final Apologetic.

5. Melanie Y on September 30th, 2007 8:57 pm

   Thank you so much for this explanation!! It is so refreshing to hear the love in your explanation and hear you explain the Bible so accurately. God has truly granted you wisdom. Maybe when I devour the Word more, I too will understand God’s nature as you do too.

   Thanks Again!!

6. T.B. on October 1st, 2007 7:51 am

   This is off topic but…

   I have to thank you so much for the Truth Project. I have a family member who is getting involved in a Cult. Last night I was able to sit down and watch a very convincing video they produced, and catch so much more because of the truth project. The assumptive reasoning was amazingly clear to me. The little lies where they twisted scripture were in everything. I know that I would not have caught them if it wasn’t for the Truth Project which opened my eyes. I wish I could use you to help me with figureing out the details. Please pray that I can bring my relative back to the Christ and out of satan’s grasp.

   Thanks so much
   TB

7. Mary Stevenson on October 1st, 2007 9:11 am

   Thank you for this great explanation. My husband is a retired Navy pilot and we live in a miliary town. This is excellent and I am planning on placing it on my Public Policy kiosk at my church next Sunday. God gave me the desires of my heart after waiting for this kiosk for about 10 years (but especially since ‘01 when I attended Reclaiming America for Christ and seeing Barbara Collier’s table at Coral Ridge). I no longer have to work out of my trunk!!

   My husband has been leading Truth Project at our church. Worldview has been a passion of his since reading “How Now Shall We Live” and teaching/using Colson’s video series. The first Truth Project class averaged about 30. The word spread and this quarter we have about 86.

   Alan & I went on the Alaskan Cruise & had hoped to meet you, have a “photo op”, & personallly thank you for the Truth Project. God is certainly using this at Pinewood Presbyterian (PCA)in Middleburg Florida (suburb of Jacksonville) We have quite a few people that have purchased the set of DVDs and we are trying to work on a way to reach out to the lost in our community with this fantastic tool. My sister & brother-in-law saw one DVD and have talked to their pastor in north Georgia about attending the conference which I told them would be in Chattanooga. They are disappointed that you will not be there this fall. Thank you again.
   Blessings,
   Mary Lib Stevenson

8. Mike Weaver on October 1st, 2007 10:35 pm

   Thank you for posting Jacob Thielman’s comments.
   I grew up in a church that strongly taught this worldview but by God’s grace came to see that the Gospel indeed does speak to all areas of life.

   Why do so many good and sincere Christians point to the infamous medieval Roman Catholic church as a model to discredit righteousness in the area of civil goverment? They pray for them to make good decisions but not that they would be Christians.

   These dear folks who I grew up with believe that all force is inherently evil and interpret all scripture from that paradigm. I know men who said they would do nothing with force to protect their wives or kids from intruders but they would call the police. And yet many of them believe that Jesus will return and forcefully convert the whole world to Himself for a thousand years.

   I’m afraid that these people are being “left behind” in the building of God’s kingdom on earth.
   Did Jesus not say that the kingdom of God is within us? Doesn’t Daniel prophesy that the Church will grow till it fills the whole earth? Again, didn’t Jesus say that the Kingdom is like a little yeast put into dough until it is mixed through the whole batch? Tragically, the worldview I grew up with is aiding and abetting the enemy of our souls by keeping Christianity from an area that the devil wants exclusively for himself. And is paranoid of losing that control, I might add!

   A question for you Jacob…is the market place “of this world”? Are financial institutions “of this world”? What about ungodly homes? They are “of this world” too, are they not? Sin has impacted every area of life hasn’t it? Including goverment. But Jesus, the Great Testifier to the Truth has done something about sin and having adopted us as sons and daughters into His glorious kingdom we now can see the world not only as it is but as it ought to be!

   What are we waiting for in this day of oppurtunity?? God’s truth is marching on but many do not recognise it. The Tuth Project is part of that march and Jacob, I hope that you will continue to observe the impact that it is having on the lives of people and our culture.

   Let us gaze upon the face of God and realise that we must, as Dr. Tackett teaches, understand the Bible from the perspective of who God is rather than simply trying to decipher the letter of a commandment. To know Him is eternal life!

   May His kingdom come, His will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.

   Mike Weaver

9. Jacob Thielman on October 2nd, 2007 6:10 am

   Thanks for posting my comment! I’m impressed.

10. Jacob Thielman on October 4th, 2007 3:26 pm

    Mike-

    Thank you for responding to my comment. I sincerely hope that I don’t stand in the way of the advancement of the kingdom of God - on the contrary, I consider the advancement of God’s kingdom to be the highest possible priority for our lives. When you speak of the advancement of God’s kingdom, which is in our hearts, which will fill the whole earth, which will work through the dough like yeast, you are clearly speaking of the salvation of people’s souls. That is a worthwhile endeavor indeed. And when the new comes and the old passes from those lives, what changes? Are we not to be made new in the attitude of our minds? When you speak of taking over civil service for Christ, I couldn’t agree more, but why must we do that within the confines of a highly un-Christlike way of thinking? Were the kingdom to advance throughout the government, it would change the way government operates, would it not? And the way in which it would change, I would argue, would lead to the dissolution of the modern system of government, which is nothing but the enforcement of pluralism through “toleration.” (See Locke’s 2nd Treatise of Government)

    But instead of dwelling in this hypothetical of taking government for Christ and changing it to look like His Kingdom, I prefer to dwell in the Kingdom Jesus has already established, the one that is not only emphatically NOT a withdrawal from the world, but is a revolutionary, unstoppable narrative. So powerful is peace that the church was built on the blood of the martyrs. So powerless are the coercive governments of the world that Christ says that all authority in heaven and on earth is under his feet, and that we have absolutely nothing to fear from the rulers of this world (but rather should address our attentions to our enemy who is not flesh and blood). These are Christ’s teachings.

    To address your question, Mike, I think you have pigeonholed my argument into a very small, liberal package which I find as repulsive as you do - lukewarm and impotent. Far from bringing an irrational pacifism to the Bible as my only interpretive tool, I can only understand the entirety of the Bible if I subscribe to its teaching that God proclaims and intends peace (Paul calls our faith the gospel of Peace), and that the proclamation of the Kingdom of God is in part a reinstatement of that peace we lost at the Fall. Of course, that is not the only feature of the Kingdom of God, but to neglect it is to be selective indeed in interpreting Christ’s teachings. As you ask me whether ungodly homes, financial institutions, etc. are not of this world, you imply that I believe those things to be outside the reach of the kingdom of God (the salvation of souls, for you) - on the contrary, I believe those things to be vital to the Kingdom of God, and as such I must ask you the same question: Do you believe that God’s Kingdom has nothing to say about how economics, politics, and society are to be conducted? Then why must we defend institutions that conduct themselves in a manner contrary to the calling we have received as Christians? Ands why attempt to win over the nations through evil means when Christ mandated and even enacted for us the means through which we are to win it? Or do you consider the means?

    I must ask you to clarify the statement that we must “understand the Bible from the perspective of who God is rather than simply trying to decipher the letter of a commandment.” I do not want to address it until I have understood it.

    If His will is to be done on Earth as in Heaven, my friend, then we must obey the letter of his commandments, and these, interestingly enough, seem to mandate our acting as those who are citizens of the peaceful Kingdom of Heaven.

11. Mike Weaver on October 8th, 2007 1:22 pm

    Hi Jacob!

    I would love to meet you on this earth someday but if not, no doubt I’ll see you in heaven! So much larger is the common ground we have at the foot of the cross than this important issue that we are debating. In you I see honesty and a heart that beats for Christ. God bless you my brother! Thank you for your response to my response! And many thanks to the administrators here for posting this conversation. The truth has nothing to hide and doesn’t suppress questions and scrutiny, so come now, let us reason together…

    (Dr.Tackett, I do this with a degree of trepidation since a student is a reflection of his teacher! But even more so, less I mischaracterize God!)

    Jacob, I am sorry for stereotyping you because of your position on this subject. It is an emotional subject for me, especially when I think of babies being slaughtered in the womb and multitudes of Christians doing nothing in their defense. And when I think of children being bussed off to be indoctrinated with paganism, what hope do they have??? What will history say of this generation of Christians??
    I do not see how the current non-involvement of the Church in these areas will get a “Well done” from our Father in heaven.

    Yes, the first effect of the Gospel is the salvation of individual souls, a state change that I believe will eventually spread through the whole earth. That’s why I consider it a blessing to serve on the Board of World Missionary Press (www.wmpress.org) a ministry that prints scripture booklets in over 300 languages and sends them all over the world with no charge.

    You ask what would change if the Gospel were to have an effect in government. If you would see the lesson on The American Experiment from the Truth Project you would see that early on in our nation’s history the Gospel indeed did have a profound effect. But that history has purposefully been re-written and tragically most Christians believe the current pagan version. It wasn’t a perfect effect but I am not yet perfectly effected either.

    In short, I would argue that the more the Gospel would permeate the area of government, the more it would look like Rom. 13. The Gospel would not dissolve the institution of government any more than It dissolves the institution of the home. C.S.Lewis said, “I believe there’s a sun, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else”. Salvation has come and gives us the opportunity to be the stewards that God commanded us to be before the fall.

    By His sovereign grace God has done a new thing in the establishment of this American government that recognized God as the Supreme Authority over all of life. The early Church did not have the opportunity to be stewards in the area of civil government. Indeed the apostle John told them that the whole world is under the control of the devil but Paul declared to the Roman Christians that the God of peace will soon crush satan under their feet. Are we not their offspring?? Remember, Jesus said, “Now will the prince of this world be cast out”.

    I don’t have faith in peace nor faith in faith, but God is the Gospel and He is my peace. Salvation in reality turns the world right-side up. That’s why those who teach and live a Bilical worlview are the smell of death to those who are perishing but life to those who are being saved. They are as Jesus was to the money-changers in the temple, as John the Baptist was to King Herod and as any Christian who is/was persecuted for refusing to recognize the state as God. (Consider the hatred hurled at Focus On the Family from secular activists.) We are in a war and there is much that’s not peaceful about it. Of course we understand that Godliness in government can never coerce someone to life in Christ. Such coercion knows nothing about life in Christ! But by the power of the Holy Spirit, in our homes and in every God-given institution it is our sacred duty and honor to build an enviroment to the best that He enables us that is conducive to the Gospel.

    Yes, I do believe that God’s kingdom speaks to all areas of life: First of all to our relationship with Him, then with each other and then in relationship with all the rest of life from an ever-increasing understanding of Who He is. Truly the Gospel is about relationships! How exciting to experience God in living out His design for those relationships!

    To answer your last question I ask another question - what did Jesus mean when he told the Pharisees that they search the Scriptures because in them they thought there was eternal life? I think that anyone who cares about the truth is to some degree vulnerable to the same error. What’s the difference between someone who holds the Holy Text in high regard and one who worships the letter? The Parisees were obsessed with doing every thing 150% by the letter rather than knowing the One who inspired it. I believe that as Jesus said, the text points to Him. And when we gaze upon His face we can look back at the text and understand it from His perspective. This is the promised work of the Spirit of Truth.

    I thank God for raising up teachers as Dr. Tackett for such a time as this to point us to a relational God who is magnificent beyond description! May we join hearts and hands in God’s anwering of His Son’s prayer in Jn.17.

    Go ahead my brother - sign up for a Truth Project conference and see what God is doing!

    Love and prayers,

    Mike Weaver

    P.S. I have my request in for a conference in Winona Lake, Indiana!

12. Jacob Thielman on October 9th, 2007 5:38 pm

    Mike-

    I’d do coffee with you in a heartbeat. Are there any Truth Project conferences in North Carolina? I’d hate to be a troll at such a conference, but it would be a good experience.

    I understand what you’re saying about Biblical interpretation now. That makes sense. A professor of mine once said that one cannot rightly do theology without a relationship to the deity, because there is no empirical data beyond what He provides for us. However, I think it is a serious mistake to use this principle to devalue exegesis and intensive Bible study (I’m sure you’d agree), and I don’t think there’s anything at all wrong with applying Scripture to the realm of practice in the most thorough and exhaustive way. The corrective Jesus brought to the Pharisees here was one of belief - he says they did not believe the words they were reading, for otherwise they would be led to Him. Now that is a wise and a perfect thing - but let’s not stop at our arrival at Christ’s person by any means! Let us take this into the realm of practice, and in order to better do that, into the realm of theory (for the institutions we are discussing are now two thousand years removed from the commands Jesus gave us).

    There are a couple of very debatable statements that you’ve made, and from what I gather Dr. Tackett promotes them as well. The first is that the early church had no say in government - that really depends on how early we are talking about. In the fourth century, Constantine relented from the Roman persecution of the Christians, and Justinian actually made Christianity the official religion of Rome, and this compromise led to some of the most famous atrocities ever committed in the name of Christ, for which we still have to answer to skeptics even today. The rise of western thought and government is directly linked to the fall of a corrupt church that was desperately entangled with the Roman Empire.

    This leads me to the second debatable statement: that the American government recognized the [Christian] God as the supreme authority over all life. The whole idea behind liberal democracy was to separate the Church from the modern state in order to give people freedom of opinion with regard to the supernatural. This reflected the Enlightenment thought of the day, which separated the material realm from the realm of “values” and “superstitions,” which had led to so much strife in the past. James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance is a founding document of this idea, and it is often cited as such by the Supreme Court. Religion was to become an affair of individual opinion rather than submission to the Church, and the state became the mediator of the resulting pluralism. Now, that’s a simplified version, as all this had roots in pre-Reformation thought, and perhaps earlier, but suffice it to say that institutionally, none of those ideas were set in stone until the advent of liberal democracy.

    Democracy, clearly, is just a container. You can put whatever you want into it. The founders put their Protestant, Christian God and their deist god into this container, and that is reflected in many early writings. The system itself, however, does not support Christianity - it just supports the most popular notion. Neither the state nor any private citizen may enforce their religion upon anyone else. That’s John Locke’s idea of toleration (the most American virtue) in action. As Thomas Jefferson so tersely put it, “…It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” That’s not a Christian sentiment, but it’s a very democratic one. Jefferson lifted heavily from Locke’s writings in framing the Constitution.

    So when people try to put non-Christian values into our democratic system, they are not betraying democracy. We may say they’re violating our original national identity, but Benedict Anderson (in his book Imagined Communities) notes that this also is simply a container, changing with majority opinion. It’s not rewriting history to say most people think differently from the founding fathers. The most we can say is that they’re not holding to the national identity we started with, and there’s no rule against that.

    So I’ll end by asking this: In what sense does America acknowledge God? From what I can see, it does not acknowledge Him in its system, its prevailing ideas, or in its behaviors. His name may be written on many of our documents, but that doesn’t mean much - in fact, it greatly dishonors God to sin in His name. I must maintain that the very coercive nature of our government’s processes, and the very machine which we would be attempting to take over is an inappropriate and sinful means of spreading the gospel of Christ - but I am open to persuasion.

13. David Adams on October 14th, 2007 3:07 pm

    Dear Del,

    Great explanation! One comment though. You didn’t complete the quote of Romans 12:17-21.  ”20Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, give him drink. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.  21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (MKJV)

    Sometimes the “good” we use to overcome evil comes form an aircraft carrier. They carry much more than bombs and bullets. They could carry food and/or medical supplies. The mere presence of aircover is also a deterrance to aggression without firing a shot.

    This type of love may not seem merciful to the enemy, but it does seem merciful to those we are protecting.

14. Jacob Thielman on October 15th, 2007 7:50 pm

    David - our struggle is not against flesh and blood. (Eph. 6:12)

15. Mike Weaver on October 16th, 2007 1:11 pm

    Jacob,

    Jesus loves “trolls” too! Whenever I meet another believer I listen for a heart beat. So if you went to a Truth Pro. conference and listened to Dr. Tackett’s heart, I think you would find it hard to not be deeply moved. So it was for me and many others. I think everyone in our small group was in tears in our last DVD lesson focused on God’s design for community. And I agree - Bible study without application is worthless and only adds damnation. May God help us!

    About the Pharisees - I think that they truly thought that they believed the words of the scriptures. It seems to me that they understood those words from the wrong perspective and consequently missed the One they pointed to.
    In C.S. Lewis’ “The Chronicles of Narnia” I think it was beaver who told the children that what you see and what you hear depends on where you’re standing and what kind of an attitude you have. What a powerful truth! I think of this often and have a standing prayer that God will continually help me to see life from His perspective. That only happens, as you referred to, when we are bound up in an intimate relationship with God. But certainly the learning and applying of that relationship is a life-long journey.

    You asked which early Christians was I refering to. The ones to whom Paul was giving God’s design for goverment. I don’t think that Constantine understood that!

    I think that this brings up one of the most basic questions to this issue at hand. Does God or does God not have a design for goverment? The question is not about imposing Christianity. That contradicts the very nature of the Gospel. For our Lord said, “No man comes to the Father except the Spirit draws him.” So coercing conversions to Christ is preposterous even in the sphere of the Church or the home.
    But since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (2Tim. 3:15) of which Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, it is the sacred duty of the Church to teach God’s design in all areas of life. If God has no design for goverment then this is a waste of time and indeed Christianity will always be an underground movement too weak to drive back the forces of satan currently controlling most of the world. But I consider such thoughts to be sacrilege. Heb. 2:8, 10:13,1Cor.15:25, Ps. 72

    As to early American history, check your sources. Their worldview affects how they present it. Did we have pagan influences? Certainly, but that doesn’t discredit the Godly influences. Study the early foundations of universities such as Princeton, Harvard and Yale. Look at the convictions of the early Puritan colonies and those who came on the Mayflower. The founding of this country is not the Constitution.

    Does our goverment honor God today? Hardly. But it should. And I believe it could. Unless the Church by God’s grace leads the way, it never will. Let’s not be like the 10 spies who caved in fear and cowardice when they saw giants in the land of Caanan.

    But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added unto you.

    In His grace,

    Mike

16. Michael Lilley on October 16th, 2007 2:16 pm

    Dr. Tackett

    First, thanks so much for giving us the “Truth Project.” My wife and I had the privilege of attending your Louisville, KY, session 12-13 October.

    Second, I have a question, which I’d hoped to have the opportunity to ask you in Louisville, but didn’t. In a sense, it’s a subset of the discussion Chad inspired with his question.

    To wit: Francis Schaeffer in his book “A Christian Manifesto” cites Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” regarding the right of the civil magistrate to govern. Schaeffer says “Rutherford argued that Romans 13 indicates that all power is from God and that government is ordained and instituted by God. The state, however, is to be administered according to the principles of God’s Law. Acts of the state which contradicted God’s Law were illegitimate and acts of tyranny. Tyranny was defined as ruling without the sanction of God.

    “Rutherford held that a tyrannical government is always immoral . . . a licentious deviation of power; and is no more from God but from sinful nature . . .”

    “Rutherford presents several arguments to establish the right and duty of resistance to unlawful government. First, since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God — to resist tyranny is to honor God. Second, since the ruler is granted power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to withdraw their sanction if the proper conditions are not fulfilled. The civil magistrate is a ‘fiduciary figure’ — that is, he holds his authority in trust for the people. Violation of the trust gives the people a legitimate base for resistance.

    “It follows from Rutherford’s thesis that citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government. While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible.

    “. . .A ruler, he wrote, shold not be deposed merely because he commits a single breach of the compact he has with the people. Only when the magistrate acts in such a way that the governing structure of the country is being destroyed — that is, when he is attacking the fundamental structure of society — is he to be relieved of his power and authority.”

    Schaffer goes on to say Rutherford recommended three appropriate levels of resistance for the individual: “First, He must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second he must flee if at all possible; and, third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of redress [witness the example of David vs. Saul].

    “On the other hand, when the state commits illegitimate acts against a corporate body — such as a duly constituted state or local body, or even a church — then flight is often an impractical and unrealistic means of resistance. Therefore, with respect to a corporate group or community, there are two levels of resistance: remonstration (or protest) and then, if necessary, force employed in self-defense. In this respect, Rutherford cautioned that a distinction must be made between a lawless uprising and lawful resistance.”

    Forgive the long citation, but what’s your take on this — specifically whether our country’s founders (who obviously were aware of Rutherford’s assertions and Locke’s secular version) had the right in God’s eyes to do what they did in rebelling against England? Do you believe we should be celebrating July 4th, or condemning it?

    And incidentally, thanks for your thoughtful insights re the “carrier-killing machine” question. Having been on and around carriers, the aircraft, weapons systems, etc., I see a great deal of intricacy and beauty in them, as I do in a finely made firearm.

    I would think the object in and of itself isn’t evil — the intent of the user (if evil) can, however, make it so. Similarly, if I’d had the chance to observe the surgical machinery used to “kill” the cancer which once infested my body and threatened my life, I’m sure I would’ve seen beauty (albeit of a more clinical and uninspiring nature) in it. Put to the right purpose, the hospital’s apparatus killed what most, if not all, would consider an evil organism. By the same token, when we use a carrier to neutralize (kill?) evil people bent on dominating or killing innocents, I have a hard time seeing that as an ugly, much less evil, machine. Would that it were not necessary, but it obviously is.

17. Jacob Thielman on October 16th, 2007 6:19 pm

    Mike-

    You are very gracious indeed to engage my thoughts so thoroughly. Let me invite you to consider our interpretative tool - that of looking at the world from God’s perspective, or at least, from a perspective assuming once and for all the presence of the God of Christianity with no room for doubt. If we take a thoroughgoing approach with this tool, we come to something much more radical than Christianity rising to the top of the power structures of the world, as you seem to suggest. We find, in fact, a giant much larger than Ahmadinejad, Hitler, or Sadaam Houssein - we find Satan, and the power of death. What does Hebrews 2:8-10 say? “Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” It goes on in verse 14-15 to identify the enemy: “…that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” The only thing this passage says about political authority is that we are not to fear it, because Jesus holds even the power of death - not them. The martyrs died at the hands of political authority, and contrary to the above quotes from Rutherford, it is that very refusal to engage in the power games of the world that GREW the church - and moreover, indicated their freedom from the slavery brought about by our fear of death; that slavery that so often drives us to sin against our fellow man.

    Back to the interpretative tool. In a world where there is such a God, the necessity for violence becomes very slim indeed - in fact, I have trouble seeing how it would not vanish altogether. Death has no victory or power over us. Suffering brings us closer to our Lord, of whom it is said in that very same chapter in Hebrews, “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” Now, this brings me to my point about the structure of democracy - another professor I once had made a very important distinction between ancient Israel and the modern nation-state. In Israel, the boundaries of the political structure were exactly coincident with those of God’s covenant people. This is the definition of Theocracy, and it is, from what I read in the Bible, the one and only way to talk about Just War. When Jesus came, it is frankly undeniable that he changed the rules - or maybe I should say, the same rules were being applied in a completely different setting; a setting where God’s people are no longer a political entity, or an independent society unto themselves.

    And finally, this brings me back to the structure of democracy. I will tell you the difference between my sources and yours - many of which, I am sure, overlap. Mine are the sources denoting the pure, undesignated, neutral structure of democracy - like the scaffolding of the building. Locke’s 2nd Treatise of Government, Hobbes’ Leviathan (a little more distantly related, but essential to the justification of our government), the aforementioned Madison document, the Constitution, U. S. Supreme Court jurisprudence - these denote the structure and principles governing America. The sources I am certain Dr. Tackett refers to (and there is no dearth of theology in Locke and Hobbes, but it all belongs to this second category) are like the paint, or maybe even the brick facade - and these are not inconsequential. Indeed, a bank is not a bank unless the symbols on the outside make it so. Likewise, the heritage of America’s people is essentially a Christian one - no doubt about that. However, a bank, broken down to its scaffolding and rebuilt could just as easily be a hardware store or a prison. There is nothing Christian about the structure governing our country. It is completely agnostic, just as cold steel scaffolding does not care what building it will be - and in order to build anything on it, you have to use the scaffolding. This is how we find ourselves supporting a coercive government and an economic system with no sense of just distribution. The modern world has enticed us to act as if there were no victory over death, and as such we simply play the power games that Nietzsche prescribed for a nihilistic world - a world of “necessary,” not “right” - without ever dreaming there could be anything better, much less something as upside-down as Jesus’ prescriptions in the Sermon on the Mount.

    We must try desperately not shy away from any radicalism to which Jesus calls us. The Kingdom of God does not resemble the kingdoms of this world, and to control one does not make it any less of horror.

18. Jacob Thielman on October 17th, 2007 8:27 am

    I feel that I’m not explaining this well (mostly because I didn’t proofread very well last time - haha), so I’ll put it differently and more briefly. Peace in the face of violence can only occur assuming God’s presence in the matter, assuring that such peace is worth something and not a waste of life. This is what it means to see things from the perspective of an omnipotent God in this context. The practicality of real and active peace depends on the existence of heaven and eternal life, whereas violence is the fruit of an unnecessary struggle for earthly power (all of which is ultimately under Jesus’ feet). This is what it means to overcome death and not to be enslaved to it any longer. Does this make sense?

19. Mike Weaver on October 18th, 2007 4:22 pm

    Jacob,

    So you can be persuaded…but not very easily I see! And that is good as long as we continually have all of ourselves, including our theology on the alter to God. Thank you for intensely engaging my thoughts as well! It is a shame that most of the western Church is unthinking and ignorant in matters as important as truth. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus said that for this very reason He was born and came to this world - to testify to the truth!
    As His people, with His nature, being witnesses to the truth should be a natural outflow of discipleship.

    I think I understand what you’re saying about government structure. Reminds me of a lot of churches…full of structure but the Presence of God is hardly there. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have structure does it? The more I learn of God the more I see that He is a God of order, design, and structure. But it’s not the structure that makes the home or the Church Godly. We can have structure without God but any institution that claims to have God without structure is very deluded.

    So then…if the structure we currently have is not inherently evil, why abandon it to a people who seek to be God? Either God is God or man is god in every area of life. If government is a necessary structure then it is necessary to teach God’s design for that sphere no matter the cost. How the studs and rafters are laid out isn’t the real issue. The issue is the foundation. Romans 13 is a design document giving us the principles for a Biblical foundation for the civil magistrate. But if peace itself is our guide, we will end up with a wordly peace and a warped foundation. We must see the sermon on the mount in the context of the big picture. I certainly try to apply it to my personal life.

    Trying to apply the Gospel to all areas of life has cost the life of many believers but eventually, I am convinced, It’s unstoppable power shall, through the Church, trod satan underfoot. This cosmic battle is a battle between truth and lies. That is what you and I and all of God’s people are called to fight against - the lies of the world, the flesh and the devil.

    I love you brother, and I hope that my view of government is not worldly. It’s not about us striving for power - that would be worldly. It’s about being obedient stewards.

    God bless,

    Mike

20. Michael Lilley on October 19th, 2007 3:28 pm

    Jacob

    A belated apology for being so “hit or miss” regarding this blog, but I unfortunately have precious little time to indulge in it. Hence I wrote primarily to get Dr. Tackett’s take on the Biblical appropriateness of how America set up on its own, without much time for being able to participate in the give and take this blog offers.

    I seek an answer which has gnawed at my gut for quite some time and am hoping Dr. Tackett can find the time to help lay the issue to rest. I do, however, appreciate the opinions you offered.

    If I may, some insights regarding some of your points. To begin with, I’m not sure how I led you to believe your “interpretive tool” is any different from mine (perhaps on my “carrier” addendum?).

    I think we also must be extremely careful about presuming we moderns have an interpretive tool which is morally superior to that which the founders of our republic employed. What I can glean from history indicates we don’t; indeed, the “tool” appears to be one and the same. Moreover, the intellectual prowess of that unique collection of men tends to make many modern politicians look like nincompoops by comparison. No slight intended.

    When one considers that more than half the framers of the Constitution were seminarians, almost all were Christians (not deists), and that they cited the Bible more often than any other source in developing our Constitution (hence they cited Jeremiah 17:9 for the idea of the separation of power; Exodus 18:21-22 for a republican form of government; Isaiah 33:22 regarding the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, plus Ezra 7:24 regarding the tax-exempt status of churches)I find it incongruous that they established an “agnostic” document. Thus it would appear that those moderns who suggest the founders crafted the Constitution in a purely secular manner are at best ignorant and at worst intellectually dishonest.

    Did the Constitution provide for religious freedoms for non-Christians? That’s certainly the way I interpret it. Nevertheless, it seems clear that our country and its core documents were based on Christian principles.

    Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that these men whom history showed to be so devoted to God (particularly Washington, who served as chaplain to his troops and spent, as I understand it, at least two hours daily on his knees in Scripture study and prayer) would so cavalierly choose to go against God’s Word by rebelling against the Colonies’ “civil magistrate,” King George III. If so, they paid a terrible (and unnecessary) price in terms of fortunes, and in some cases, lives lost for their rebellion. Why choose the hard road when the alternative was not only biblical, but demonstrably more comfortable?

    And as a side note, in an earlier blog entry you mentioned Jefferson relying heavily on Locke for his thoughts in framing the Constitution. Unless I’m mistaken, Jefferson was ambassador to France the entire time the Constitution was being drafted and wasn’t involved in the process at all. Moreover, in his writings I understand he corrected others who called him a constitutional expert, at least in part on these grounds.

    Additionally, I fully appreciate your point that you can pour anything into the basic structure of “democracy.” That’s at least initially true (although I can’t imagine it working without the citizenry’s submission to an ultimate Moral Law, rather than each individual being a law unto himself).

    However, you could say the same thing about another God-ordained institution: Marriage. The structure may, indeed, be stock, standard and garden variety throughout our culture. But each particular marriage will differ tremendously based on the personalities and beliefs of the members of that mystical union and thus what they pour into that marriage.

    It’s the same with democracies. So my question remains the same: Were these particular men right in rebelling against this particular monarch to establish this particular nation with this particular form of government, which is shot through with Judeo-Christian principles as its basis? There would be little reason to ask the same question regarding the French Revolution.

    It’s an easy question to ask, but obviously a hard one to answer. Hence the differences in opinion. If this were not so, we’d all be occupying ourselves in other ways right now.

    And I fully agree we must carefully and prayerfully scrutinize the issue from the perspective of a holy and sovereign God who has revealed Himself through His Word. It appears as though the founders did, as did many of those who disagree with them. The question is: Who’s right?

    I look forward to hearing Dr. Tackett’s response, if he has the time. In the meantime, I’ll be pleased to interact with all of you whenever I can, however spotty that may be.

    Mike

21. Jacob Thielman on October 21st, 2007 5:13 pm

    To the Mikes:

    To clear one thing up, I see that there is a Mike Weaver and a Mike Lillian on this blog, both of whom sign as “Mike.” That may have something to do with the confusion, and I’ll try to parse things out a little. The interptetative tool comment was meant for Mike Weaver.

    Mike Weaver - I think if we seek the Lord in everything we think instead of seeking to find what we already think in the Lord, we will not have worldly opinions or practices in our views or actions towards government. I believe some radical things about Jesus, about peace, and about Truth - but I wouldn’t if I didn’t think the world as we know it is radically flawed and in need of some radical correction.

    I’m not arguing against structure - heavens no. I’m no anarchist. I’m arguing against the modern structure we have right now. I believe Jesus already set up the institution we needed to govern our lives when He gave us the Church, and I don’t think the Church was meant to be infused with the state as it was during Christendom, I don’t think it was meant to be subjected to the whims of the state, as in a totalitarian regime, and I don’t think it was meant to be reduced to a set of opinions that are useful in directing a violent nation-state, as here in America. I think it was meant to be the Kingdom of God on Earth and to act as such, and I believe that our complicity in the enticing powers of this country are not good stewardship, but sin.

    That is my critique, at any rate. I’m sorry I can’t offer a more full and complete positive alternative at the moment. I still feel very new to the world of ecclesiology, and I’m not as comfortable there as in the world of political philosophy. Suffice it to say that I’ve heard more than one story of God’s miraculous faithfulness to people acting in peace (not merely advocating for it) in this country and around the world, and that I doubt very much that if you and I sought to bring the gospel in the peaceful manner He intended, that He would not show up faithfully once again.

    Mike Lilley -

    Thanks for responding to my points. Pardon my mistake - I did get my founding documents mixed up. It was Jefferson helping draft the Declaration of Independence who uses many references to John Locke, sometimes almost verbatim. Even so, I think it would be hard to argue against Locke’s influence on the D of I or the Constitution. And it is that influence we see in the Preamble of the Constitution, which states, “We the people…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” America is an institution founded upon popular sovereignty, not Christian ideals - but if I’m not mistaken, you would argue that these are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. For the moment, let’s agree that they are different.

    I am glad you understand the point about structure, but I must take issue with your caveat. The Christian or secular nature of our country has nothing to do with who said what first. The founders could quote scripture and invoke the name of God as much as they wanted to, but when they voted our country into being, the manner of country they had created made those references amount at best to a heritage, a national identity, an original and irrelevant set of opinions. I am not arguing that “the founders crafted the Constitution in a purely secular manner.” I am arguing that the founder crafted a thoroughly secular Constitution in a highly religious manner. We could talk about intentions, but those are beside the point - if they were sincere Christian men, and I have no reason to think they were not - then they were misguided to think that this form of government could uphold the Kingdom of God as Jesus describes it.

    I do not support modern philosophy (and am not a “modern” trying to keep God away from the U.S.), but I am arguing that we live in a secular, modern nation-state, and that this should inform our approach to it. That point seems to me pretty incontestable. Look at the very problem we are trying to address - when you argue that we live in a Christian nation, you are attempting to ground our country on a moral foundation. But in the forum of our country, arguments about legitimacy and moral foundations have no purchase because the whole discussion takes place in a forum that already has rules declaring that we must lose. Modern thought excludes any argument about God, religion, or for that matter, philosophy from affecting the discussion. These normative, speculative ideas may be the topic of the discussion, but the things they are meant to address - like how we should act - have been declared unknowable. In a sense, the jury is now perpetually out, and in its absence, justice is reduced to the coercive regulation of bare human life towards whatever goal is in vogue (or if we’re fair, no goal at all but the self-perpetuation of our lifestyle).

    Christians signed on to this system in the days of the Enlightenment with full confidence that science and the march of rational deduction would eventually validate our claims, but this has proven to be completely erroneous. Science has, in fact, no comment on the claims of any system of belief. The forum that was supposed to produce Truth has produced a chaotic pluralism of unfounded systems of meaning, and I’m just arguing that this is where we were headed from the beginning. You can trace the PRACTICAL political philosophy of our country right back through Madison (the Father of the Constitution) arguing for the sepration of Church and state, Kant railing (perhaps rightly) against religious authority in his essay “What is Enlightenment?” to Machiavelli, whispering in his ruler’s ear that religion is good for most occasions, but as ruler, he must first and foremost act pragmatically. The theological foundation of our country would be very important, were it not rendered utterly impotent by the fundamental components of democracy.

    ***

    I don’t think Dr. Tackett will respond, sadly. I was hoping for his input, but I don’t think he has seen the comments on this thread.

22. Jacob Thielman on October 21st, 2007 5:16 pm

    Forgive me - Lilley. Not Lillian. Apparently I’m as bad with names as I am with founding American documents

23. Michael Lilley on October 22nd, 2007 3:42 pm

    Jacob

    Don’t sweat the “Lillian” faux pas. I’ve had my somewhat unusual surname murdered in a variety of innovative, yet innocuous ways. Not a problem. Should this continue, I’ll be sure to at least tag an “L.” after the “Mike” to avoid confusion.

    Doing this on the fly, I confess I didn’t have the chance to read your response in minute detail, so I respond ever so briefly (and with a bit of trepidation)to a few points you made.

    I’d agree with you that the founders intended our nation’s governmental structure to be inclusive to the Nth degree, if I read them correctly. Nevertheless, they most certainly based its content on Christian principles. The swing away from that conviction came only in the 20th century with the (I suppose inevitable) rise of secularism and pluralization). For corroboration, check out Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226 (February 29, 1892), in which Justice Josiah Brewer wrote for the majority, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . .”

    Similarly, United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931), in which Justice George Sutherland spoke as follows for the majority: “We are a Christian people . . . according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.”

    Washington, of course, would’ve agreed, having noted, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

    Is this the way the most Americans view our culture today? I suspect absolutely not. Should we adhere to those sentiments cited above if our culture is to function properly? I would submit absolutely yes.

    In essence, I would certainly agree that’s not the way things are now, but that only means the enemy now occupies America’s ramparts due, in large measure, to the malleability of the American church’s collective spine in these later years. That fact does nothing to give the occupiers legitimacy. “Whatever is” is not necessarily right.

    And you’re certainly right when you say the situation we confront inevitably must frame the nature of our response. Christians find themselves with the ultimate answer to our national malaise, but also find themselves disenfranchised to a large degree, on the outside looking in.

    Thus, Man has, indeed, become the measure of all things. The only problem is, which man? Those who would prefer to avoid violence as a viable means of resistance unfortunately have guaranteed precisely the prospect of violence as the only means for the state to ultimately enforce its will, since there is no universally acknowledged, ultimate Moral Law which Americans acknowledge to referee any debate. We, as a nation, simply know nothing of it.

    As a result, Tennyson may be proved right: “Nature is red in tooth and claw,” since we’ve excised God from the equation of our nation’s day-to-day life. That contravenes the wisdom of the founders, the Supreme Court, Washington and, more importantly, the God of the Bible.

    Rather than shrug and accept it, I believe it would be more appropriate to bend our efforts in Christian love to turn the clock back to the system originally envisioned and established by the founders. It’s essentially the only viable one in which a democracy can legitimately thrive (Montesquieu speaks to this in his “Spirit of the Laws”).

    If our nation has taken a wrong turn over the years, the shortest, and indeed the only, way to make “progress” is to turn back and get back on the right road.

    Hope and pray all’s well with you. I’ll continue to check in when I can.

    Mike L.

24. Mike Weaver on October 23rd, 2007 11:05 am

    Hi Jacob!

    It’s me again, Mike W. I’m not as educated as Mike L. but like him find it hard to get as much time responding to this blog as I’d like.

    I figure if I hang around enough educated people like yourself I’ll get smarter for less!

    For starters let me say that my confidence does not lie in understanding all the details of the founding of our nation although I want to understand as much as I can because it had and has a deep impact. But my confidence comes from being deeply convinced that the Gospel will, in time, make all the enemies of Christ, His footstool. For a race that is born in slavery to sin and rebellion, that is radical indeed!

    But neither faith nor peace nor radicalism are sure guides for how we should then live as Christians, not of the world, but in it. It is only being reconciled to God that we can see the world for how He intends it to be. Those intentions are laid out in Gen. 1 & 2 and dashed in chapter 3. But God…who is rich in mercy…in due time sent His Son!

    I am not aware of any place in the Bible that indicates that the Gospel will eradicate any God-given institution so long as this earth stands. To withdraw from the sphere of goverment is to reflect that God has no design for that realm. In that case, Islam is more comprehensive than the Gospel. But the words of Christ are found just as strongly in Rom. 13 as they are anywhere else in the Bible!

    We could have an endless debate on who said what and what the intentions were on the founding of our nation but if we agree that Christian principles did have an impact on the design of our government, then it is our duty to call our elected officials back to those truths. Even if our beginning was entirely secular so let our government turn to God and be infused with His character, nature and life! In the world but not of it!

    Like Mike L., I have questions about the morality of the revolutionary war. I think it was wrong to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and joining forces with a murderer like Stalin seems wicked to me. I wish we would have abolished slavery like Britian did. But I am thankful that we’re not dropping nuclear weapons on Iraq or other enemy nations today. It brought tears to my eyes to see our military doing food drops in Afghanistan - radically different from the scorched earth policies of militant Muslims!

    A comment on science…go to www.answersingenisis.org. Also the Truth Pro. has two lessons that deal with this subject very powerfully.

    Love to all,

    Mike Weaver

25. Jacob Thielman on October 23rd, 2007 2:03 pm

    Mike (L.),

    My last name gets butchered all the time too. The most recent (Firldman) is my favorite.

    What a fantastic response! Let me first say that I do think if you read my previous post carefully (and I understand you have limited time - I sympathize strongly) you will see that the sentiments expressed by Justices Brewer and Sutherland and George Washington fit squarely into the idea that advocates for a fundamentally Christian nation intended one thing and created another. One simply cannot make national identity (a category in which I include the idea of a Christian America) and governmental structure inseparable - and in this sense first and foremost, Brewer is wrong that “it is impossible that it should be otherwise.” Time always wins that battle in the end.

    It has occurred to me, however, that a nation that claims to value the moral convictions of all must make the initial assumption that people HAVE moral convictions. It is a great irony that when one’s personal convictions consist solely of toleration of others’ convictions, one has become completely useless in advocating for any just legislation. We instead get this strange sacralization of agnosticism, such that any notion of justice at all is denied real purchase in the state. Yet, as this is the predominant viewpoint of the American people today (even Christians), we get the kind of constitutional law we have seen in the last century, which has pushed ideals meant to govern the public realm as far into the private realm as school functions and nativity displays - but I hope you see how this is just the system at work, legislating the most popular notion of morality. Ironically, tolerance has the uniquely patriotic distinction of mirroring the central ideological principle of our system on a private level, no matter how ridiculous this makes our situation. In this regard, Montesquieu, as you have characterized him, is quite right that a Christian democracy (or, I should add, any religious democracy) is the only one that will work, in that it is the only one capable of producing anything that can claim the title of “Justice.”

    The term “legitimate,” however, is ironically hard to legitimate. This is the fundamental postmodern criticism, and it is the general thrust of my argument. When you say that the mere presence of an ideology within “America’s ramparts…does nothing to give the occupiers legitimacy,” you are making an unsupportable statement. Now, my rationale is not “because everything is relative.” I’m saying that within the confines of our modern nation-state, legitimacy is up for grabs. Were it not, we would be able to argue from the very structure of the system for our point of view, because Christian theology would actually be responsible for the system in question, and as such, would be the content of that system. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is not the case. The Bible no more argues for modern democracy than it does for any Enlightenment ideal, whose first and most sweeping action it was to exclude authorities like the Bible from the public discourse.

    The modern nation-state is most emphatically not based on Christian ideology. On the contrary, it is a nihilistic machine that regulates human life like a computer manipulates data. Its decisions are inherently amoral by design, and any moral decision that occurs within it originates from necessarily foundationless opinion. The same decision could just as easily be made for evil if opinions were to move that direction. The status of morality, transcendence, absolute meaning, God, and spirituality in the west is one of flux, and the mad hope of this modern project was that we would progress to Truth in these areas through working (through science and reason) toward consensus. To quote Justice Holmes, “…when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.” (Abrams v. U.S.) The problem of normative legitimacy makes this look absolutely foolish.

    This has all been my attempt to call a spade a spade. So to bring all this back to the topic - violence - in lieu of any real notion of justice, we have indeed resorted to policies quite reminiscent of the Tennyson quote, and this was, as you say, inevitable (though perhaps you meant that differently?). To turn back the clock to the America you are describing is to turn it back to a fundamental initial contradiction that has worked itself into our present situation, and as such, there is no going back. This is essential: Modernity leads us inevitably to nihilism. This is why I have argued for an ecclesiology that rejects every facet of modernity, including its embrace of the will to power - that is, the “necessity” of violence. Is this a pipe-dream? No more than the anticipation of the coming Messiah was a pipe dream. In fact, I would say that the radical practice of the Kingdom of God is equivalent to that prior anticipation of its coming in Christ. And - I cannot stress this enough - only participation in this narrative can produce anything like real Justice.

    -Jacob Thielman

26. Mike Weaver on October 23rd, 2007 9:09 pm

    Jacob,

    Thanks for persevering in this conversation. You too, Mr. Lilley! I have learned from both of you. In the balance of this conversation (in terms of practice) are the lives of the unborn, the education of our children and the destiny of our nation. (And the effect America has on the rest of the world.) My belief in the triumph of Christendom does not negate the judgement of God on rebellion. In fact judgement is promised to those who continue to harden their hearts towards the truth. I believe that God is calling our nation to turn to Him but I don’t know the outcome.

    I just want to say as emphatically as I can that a biblical worldview starts with God’s Word. It is the Gospel that saves and God is that Gospel. He is Good News! to those who believe.
    And any person or group of persons (including the state) who choose not to believe in Him are objects of wrath and are deeply relationally dysfunctional. God’s Kingdom expands on earth only to the degree that His people come to proper relationship with Him in every sphere of life.

    The idea that the Gospel would somehow turn the state into a swordless paper tiger contradicts Rom. 13. It seems to me, brother, that you need to take your gifted, studious mind and wrestle with God’s Word. Why hold a position that puts Rom. 13 and the sermon on the mt. at apparent odds? Wouldn’t it be better to have an ecclesiology that is congruent to both? When all nations come to understand the proper use of the sword, we won’t need near as many! Crime will become a rarity. But the earth is still fallen and in the end will rebel against God once more which He will crush with His glorious appearing. That’s my opinion, which God of course, is not beholden to. Still, it is important that our biblical worlview does not conflict with itself. Rom. 13 or the sermon on the mt. ? I believe both.

    Mike Weaver

27. Jacob Thielman on October 24th, 2007 7:42 am

    Hey Mike W.,

    I’m not terribly educated either (just a B.A. for now), but I have been reading a lot lately. I basically agree with everything you said, but I think there are a couple of misunderstandings: First, I don’t think we should withdraw from the sphere of government. I think rather that God had a different plan for creating real and lasting peace among people (which, I hope you would agree, is the goal of government) than the one set forward by modern government. By all means, let’s advocate for justice in our government and make our voice heard - Paul did, after all, exploit his status as a Roman citizen. But let’s not forget that America is not plan A. In fact, it’s probably not even plan B. It’s just our context, and a fallen, broken, and at times evil context at that.

    Let me see if I can articulate where I’m coming from theologically. Contrary to what most evangelicals seem to believe by the evidence of their words and actions, God considers Justice of prior importance to worship: “Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:23-24) God rebukes an unjust nation that hypocritically calls Him Lord. Why is that? Because a person’s idea of justice is inextricably linked to a person’s understanding of the transcendent, and any justice decided apart from God is not justice. And not any old version of God will do, but I’m talking about the specific God we serve, whose nature is given an exact image in the person of Jesus Christ, giving his actions ultimate normative authority. Now, in the modern day, our idea of justice has been warped (forgive me if I’m getting repetitive) because we have attempted to found justice on an absence of God. This is why there is such a thing as popular sovereignty, social contract, tolerance, and all the things we learned about growing up upon which our system of government is based - the necessity for those mechanisms of justice arises from the absence of a theological basis.

    So this places us in a strange position: the substantive justice we might seek through our government is only acknowledged by that government as one point of view, even if it’s the prevailing point of view. That’s why I put no stock in our government. We must fervently seek to achieve that justice if we are to avoid the same rebuke God gave to Israel. Yet, if every person in America was a Christian, and our government’s decisions were informed exclusively by Christian theology, we would find ourselves in a predicament, because the justice that is of our God absorbs so much violence, loves its enemies, and desires not death (going so far as to liken hatred and anger to murder), but the reconciliation of man to God. Thus, the pragmatic necessities of government are contrary to Christ’s proclamation of the kingdom of God. And lest we think that the God we serve is simply the one that destroyed the Canaanites, please refer to my statements above about the political status of God’s covenant people (ctrl+f might help), and note that this form of judgement on earth has been done away with in light of the wrath to come: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 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. On the contrary:
    “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
    In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”"

    This is at the end of Romans 12, right before the passage being used to justify invasion and destruction. Right after that passage, Paul says that love is the fulfillment of the law - and as I have said, the God’s law is the foundation of Justice. So instead of taking the passage of Romans 13 as a justification for actions contradicting Paul’s explicit instructions before and afterward, let’s try and understand it differently. I won’t offer a rereading of it at this moment (because I need to read more about it to understand it), but I will say this: taking our government for Christ and restoring it to the semblance of what Paul describes in Romans 13, assuming that it truly is a design document (which is questionable), and assuming that the God we’re talking about is the one who also inspired Romans 12 and the Sermon on the Mount, would upset the vast majority of its founding justifications, practices, and current rationales. It would be reform on such a scale as to appear a revolution. That was also the case in Rome. How can we understand these passages in light of these facts?

28. Michael Lilley on October 24th, 2007 8:58 am

    Jacob

    A very quick, and of necessity, inadequate, response:

    I totally agree with your thought that in our modern nation-state “legitimacy is up for grabs.” I’d have to go back to my original assertion, however, that whatever is, is not necessarily right. When one views humanity’s history through the lense of our 66 books of scripture, we can certainly see that.

    Nevertheless, the founders founded what the founders founded, based on certain critical assumptions which no longer hold sway in our country. If those assumptions did, I believe democracy would work, within the limits of human frailty and fallenness.

    So to divine their intent, we need to examine the thoughts of the builders — not the interlopers. If examining a seemingly odd and eccentrically constructed house on a city’s historic register, I’d prefer to hear what the architect had to say about his intent, rather than the individual who just happened to move in two hundred years later. So with the founders, whom, I’m sure, didn’t see anything odd, or dysfunctional about the governmental legacy they left us. What was it Franklin said when asked what kind of government the founders had given us in the wake of the constitutional convention? “A republic, if you can keep it.” Alas, it appears as though we can’t.

    In any case, the founders didn’t establish what they established lightly, nor did Supreme Court justices say what they said any more lightly, basing (until say, 1947) their decisions on precedent, rather than whim. That, in essence, is what made our American experience unique.

    And force inevitably plays a role in it, when necessary. As one blogger noted, he / she (I forget which) wouldn’t use force to save themselves from another human being’s attacks, but would rely on the police to do it for them. That’s incongruous and hypocritical, at best.

    If it’s not too much of a leap, Romans 13 clearly says the state bears the sword not in vain — again, necessitated by our abject fallenness. In fact, you can easily strike the word “government” wherever you like and insert the word “force.”

    So even if the intent of the founders is abundantly clear (and moderns who think otherwise have no basis for their assertions, based on the founders’ writings), my question remains: Was what they did from breaking away from England right? And it appears you’re right: This, in the bigger blog scheme, has become a tangential, backwater issue. Perhaps I should package up all this and ship it to Dr. Tackett direct.

    In the meantime, thanks for your insights. It’ll probably be quite a few days before my schedule permits me to take a peek at any blogs. Hope and pray all’s well with all of you.

    Mike L.

    And a P.S. to Mike W.:

    Thanks for your thoughts as well, many of which I agree. We can have confidence that the founders intended just what they intended: a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles in which even non-Christians could thrive.

    I further agree that, while we never were a theocracy, nor should we be, we must ultimately turn back to a higher Moral Law as the final arbiter in the life of our nation. I believe we’re all agreed that without that yardstick, democracy’s doomed to failure.

    And we also shouldn’t forget that the job of the military, like it or not, is to (bluntly put) “kill people and break things.” But they do so (as Clausewitz put it) as a “continuation of policy by other means,” again, necessitated by the fallenness of humankind.

    Fortunately, as you so rightly point out, the military can (and should) use its unique resources to preserve life as well as to take it, e.g. through humanitarian relief. That’s why you find, typically, more actual, day-to-day missions conducted in that type of operation than you do in combat (except in the midst of a no-kidding shooting war).

    And, unfortunately, saving lives can mean taking other lives to neutralize the threat to the innocent. That may sound incongruous, but inescapable. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki regrettably ghastly? Of course, as is all conflict. So were the Bataan Death march and the brutal cannibalization and execution of Allied POWs by the Japanese, who would doubtless been more efficient in their atrocities if they’d had the means.

    However, we did, indeed, save millions of lives (both Japanese and American) as a result of bringing WWII to a conclusion. Once war becomes inevitable, the best option remains to end it as quickly and decisively as possible. But that’s an entirely different issue — another which, as you’ve all pointed out, we could debate endlessly.

    Regards.

    Mike L.

29. Michael Lilley on October 24th, 2007 12:57 pm

    To Mike and Jacob

    An addendum, which may not be necessary: Forgive the disjointed nature of my response. That’s what happens when I try to shoehorn a size 13 bundle of thoughts into a size 4 shoe.

    Mike L.

30. Michael Lilley on October 24th, 2007 1:03 pm

    Yet another addendum to Jacob and Mike W:

    I realize I misquoted von Clausewitz, who asserted that “. . . war is a continuation of politics by other means . . .”

    Mike L.

31. Jacob Thielman on October 24th, 2007 10:22 pm

    Mike L.,

    To answer your question, no, the revolutionary war is not justifiable. That war, like every modern revolution, is based on an ultimately subjective juridical criterion called “the state of exception” (see Giorgio Agamben for details), coupled with an erroneous notion of the “necessity” of a certain means over another for achieving their ends of independence. All over the political theology being espoused here is the idea that violence is “regrettable” and “necessary” but not right. I am not for anything that is not right in the most explicit terms, and this horrifying third moral category of “necessary” in addition to right and wrong ought to be the subject of some serious thought and concern, don’t you think? The only way to talk about that category is to assume that there are situations on this earth to which the Law of God does not apply, which, if you read up on it, is the founding notion of modern political thought and the rationale behind our regulatory systems.

    I tried pretty hard to show how Romans 13 cannot be interpreted the way you are interpreting it based on the rest of the New Testament including the entire surrounding context of the book of Romans, but failing that avenue, let’s just look bluntly at Paul’s assertion: “Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval.” (vs. 3) Dr. Tackett reconciles this with reality by saying that this is prescriptive, but in that case, Paul would have stated his arguments prescriptively for the government, which he does not. He states them as prescriptions to subjects of the government - the Roman government, which was persecuting Christians severely, and would for the next three hundred years. So we can either say that Paul was just wrong, or we can say that he is looking at reality in a way other than the agonistics used to justify the word “necessary.” Perhaps, if we do submit to the authorities, over and over again, then the authorities will start to realize that they are wrong to persecute us. That we mean no harm. That in fact, we mean good for others and embody a way of life that predates the Fall (instead of assuming that sometimes the flesh is right, and killing people is “necessary” because we’re fallen, not redeemed). As I said above, this reading is consistent with 1 Peter’s arguments for submission to authority, which address the obvious eventuality of an evil authority by stating that it is of no benefit to us if we are punished for evil, but according to the beatitudes, persecution for doing good amounts to persecution of Christ. This wouldn’t be hard if we weren’t investing so much of our theology in justifying the unsanctionable actions of our state. In no way do any of these passages say anything about international diplomacy, but I imagine that if we merely extrapolate the already consistent message of peace, we would find that war is an unacceptable option for any nation declaring itself to be Christian. To go a step farther, 1 John 4:20 states explicitly, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

    I find the actions of that blogger repugnant too, because they completely fail to understand the nature of the peace Christ has instated. He is not saying to rely on the agonistic state for protection - He says to rely on God for protection, and in doing good we may silence the ignorant talk of foolish men, heap burning coals on their heads, and ultimately win souls to a new way of life that will flow in perfect sync into heaven on the day we die. This is the Kingdom of God. It is not of this world. The Light came to the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. How is this not exactly what Jesus taught? Is it the punishment clause? God used the Assyrians to punish his own people - that has nothing to do with whether our modern state is Christian.

    Forgive me if my passion comes across as belligerence - it is not intended to be hostile, but this is so important, and the priorities of the church today are backwards. We treat human life like it’s expendable for our purposes, and we act like the Bible teaches this sort of utilitarian approach to morality. I say God loves every sinner while they are yet in sin, and that killing someone loved by God is not unfortunate, as I have said elsewhere on this blog - it’s ultimate.

    -Jacob Thielman

32. Michael Lilley on October 25th, 2007 6:43 pm

    Jacob

    To quickly clarify, you never see resistance or force against the State as an option for the Christian? Would it also be fair to say that you would never, as a Christian, resort to violent resistance to stop any evil action? I don’t want to misunderstand your position.

    And admittedly, while I fail to find your argument compelling, I have, on more than one occasion, wondered if we’re truly called to simply submit to violence (either doled out by the State or a criminal) ourselves, or to let innocents be subjected to the same when we’re in a position to save them.

    Interestingly, the apostles themselves bucked the State on occasion when they continued to preach the Gospel in the face of severe penalties from governmental authorities, allowed themselves to escape imprisonment or death by being lowered out of a jail cell by means of a basket on a rope, etc.

    It could, indeed, be that we’re literally called to take the Quaker approach and do nothing, relying on the Lord to subject the perpetrator to His wrath in every instance. A radical concept, but certainly one which must be considered. But what if He chooses, in some cases (doubtless not all) to be the instrument of His wrath, or at least temporal salvation? Hence my malaise over the Revolutionary War.

    And at the personal level, the real test comes when one stands in the presence of evil being done to an innocent (possibly a wife, a daughter, etc.?) and you stand by, doing nothing in the name of non-violence. Perhaps it’s ultimately the right choice, or perhaps God placed the generic “you” there precisely to prevent that from happening. If the latter, the non-violent approach could amount to cowardice, rather than compassion. Each, I suppose, has to be persuaded according to his convictions.

    Yet when I read of Jesus cutting a swath through the temple with a whip, I get the impression there’s a time when violence, either at the individual or the state level, is warranted. Even Solomon opined there’s a “time to kill.” Then it must be so.

    And if we stand by and let an innocent life be taken, aren’t we really saying that life, in this case, is, indeed, expendable? After all, we’ve done nothing to save or protect it. Perhaps, alternatively, God places us in the unenviable position of killing a million Nazis to save six million Jews. Or is life of such inestimable value that we just let the killing of many continue at the hands of a relative few?

    Nevertheless, if you look at the church fathers, they consistently look as some violence, some wars, as just. Consider Augustine who made the very cogent point that “If Christian discipleship wholly reprobated war, then to those who sought the counsel of salvation in the Gospel this answer would have been given first, that they should throw away their arms and withdraw themselves altogether from being soldiers. But what was really said to them was, ‘Do violence to no man and be content with your pay.’ When he bade them to be content with their due soldier’s pay, he forbade them not to be paid as soldiers.”

    So, having chased those rabbits, I’m not fully persuaded that the founders were right, but would tend to side with them. We’ve probably beaten this one to death and I’ll close by apologizing if I’ve raised your blood pressure a bit. Thankfully, given your convictions, I rest secure in the knowledge that your passions would never incite you to violence, if I read you right.

    Hope and pray all’s well with you. Perhaps we’ll meet again in other blogs.

    Mike L.

33. Michael Lilley on October 25th, 2007 6:47 pm

    Jacob

    An addendum to the last entry, fourth graph, fourth line: “. . . what if He chooses us . . .”

    I probably need to not write unless I have the time to proof as well. In any case, this is a wrap for me. I sincerely appreciate your insights in any case.

    Mike L.

34. Mike Weaver on October 25th, 2007 9:20 pm

    Jacob,

    Grace and peace to you!

    So you’re not like the Quaker who said to the intruder breaking into his safe, “My friend, I wouldst not harm thee but thou standest in the place I am about to shoot!”

    Well, I don’t feel inclined to shoot someone over my money but if some despot wanted to rape my wife or molest my kids it would be an unloving act towards those placed in my care to
    not use whatever force needed for their protection. The word “father” carries with it a deep sense of protection does it not? So is “force” always evil?

    Isn’t it true that God’s order and design for our lives is definitely lived out through our flesh? I think we can get mixed up here about God’s Kingdom not being against flesh and blood.

    I truly appreciate your passion for the Gospel as it is and to apply it without hypocrisy. It’s just that… well, I used to believe Rom. 13 exactly the way you appear to be framing it. That doesn’t mean I’m right, but I do understand your arguments. I was taught that way from my childhood.

    But I came to have questions that demanded answers. I was then labeled “contentious” even though my questions were based on things that really happened and could happen again. I came to think that our blanket doctrines of non-resistance and non-conformity were shallow and really took no sense of wisdom in application. We had the formula and it fit every situation. Who needs the Holy Spirit in this?

    Here’s one of those questions… It’s WWII and you or someone you know are hiding Jews. The Gestapo stops by and asks your position on the state’s policy regarding this issue. Are you under a moral obligation to tell the absolute truth to these murderers? If telling the truth or saying nothing means the death of innocent people, what would you do? While it’s true that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, it’s also true that the devil lives out his life through flesh and blood. This is where being a textual purist (trying to live by the letter) with God’s Word becomes impossible. To be true in one area makes us horribly untrue in another.

    So the matter of “force” is one that requires wisdom, not a blanket, one-size-fits-all, mentality. True, the basis of the use of force are not utilitarian or pragmatic but must be rooted in the truth of the design God has given us.

    Rom. 13, rather than being negated by the surrounding context, is simply clarifying the role of the civil magistrate. Was Paul indicating that their current form of government was punishing evil and rewarding good? I don’t see how that can even be debatable.

    Blessings to all,

    Mike Weaver

35. Mike Weaver on October 26th, 2007 3:40 pm

    Mike Lilley,

    I didn’t mean to not acknowledge your comments addressed to me, I just ran out of time. Imagine that! I have about five minutes here…

    Thank you! I do believe that our nation’s beginnings were historically unique in that for the first time Christian men endeavored to build a framework for civil government based on biblical principles. It is a framework that dictates as go the people so goes the government. That is why Noah Webster, Daniel Webster and many others put such a great emphasis on morality and religion being encouraged in education. Noah W. said that education without the Bible is worthless.

    I do not think that democracy demands pluralism although it must allow it. The reason the founders put a great emphasis on morality was because they knew that there is no ’structure’ on earth that can restrain the vices of men.

    So unless the structure is filled with a moral people it will not fulfill the founders intended purpose. But Christians have neglected this sphere as being unspiritual and then critisize it for being corrupt. God have mercy!

    One more thing, our rational for using deadly force shouldn’t be the same one used for embryonic stem-cell research should it?

    In Christ,

    Mike Weaver

36. Jacob Thielman on October 26th, 2007 10:50 pm

    Mike L. (and Mike W. for most points),

    No apology necessary. It doesn’t raise my blood pressure to have my ideas challenged. In fact, I love to debate, and probably wouldn’t hold any worthwhile views if I didn’t. Also, I’m not a hardcore pacifist, and all the well-worn scenarios being raised here are not new to me - and I certainly am not in favor of a blanket behavioral doctrine on violence at this point. I’m in the discussion to learn, and the topic is still very much alive for me, if you will indulge me once more.

    Mine is an argument as much about modernity as it is about the Christian response to violence and submission to authority. To consider the correct course of action for our lives today, we have to understand both the commands of the Bible and the context in which we find ourselves. Now, when I talk about peace, I’m speaking of a peace that actually negates the common understanding of agonistic behavior, so whenever we talk about practicality, necessity, or anything else involving an assumption about human behavior, we are not necessarily talking about an absolute. My understanding of the gospel is that it so changes one’s nature through sanctification that we find ourselves on the other side of human experience from the agon. We find that our desires have actually changed, and that the selfish competition of the world is no longer necessary.

    Now, this would seem ridiculous if we took it individualistically, and individualism is an aspect of modernity for just this reason - the isolated man does often have to resort to violence for self-preservation (which is his ultimate goal, according to our founding fathers), and a nation of isolated men is a nation mired in this competition. Such is the theoretical foundation of capitalism and liberal democracy. The body of Christ has no such necessity, and embodies society in a different form.

    So is force against the State ever warranted? It’s hard to imagine a situation in which it would be, given that it is in the nature of the church to fight oppression in other ways. Are these impractical? They seem to have worked out up to the point at which Constantine stopped persecution of the Christians, which seemed only to make them stronger (not surprisingly to me). There was no revolution there, and I can hardly see the Apostles’ teachings as violence. Defiance? Certainly. Violence? No. Their goal was not to overthrow Rome, but to advance the Kingdom of God. Would I ever resort to violence to stop an evil action? I’ve thought about what you Mikes have said, and I think there might be places where coercion of some sort is right. 1 Cor. 13 says “Love always protects.” That’s important. And above I cite Amos, who shows God’s concern for Justice. I think if I was a witness to some domestic injustice, or a father in his household confronted with an irrational or gruesome evil, I would most certainly protect those I love - but I do believe that in most cases, a human being can be moved by compassion more effectively than by force. That is one teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, let’s not let the exception become the rule. It is never cowardice to prefer compassion. The coward is the one who will not take a blow for love of his enemy - Christians needn’t fear death, and it is the fear of death that drives many to sin.

    Now to our context. I am not so much interested in how to stop Hitler (see the Danish exception for an interesting discussion of WWII) as how to avoid the transformation of the modern nation-state into that one. One thing I have definitely changed my mind on since I started this discussion is that I think we must absolutely advocate for justice in our government. I don’t think it’s a just government, but I think I’ve come to agree that it’s our responsibility to see that it does justice, one way or another. And here is where I think we can find a connection: Think for me for a moment about what happened, exactly, to the Jews. It was not an injustice, juridically speaking. The entire process was characterized by an utter lack of any notion of justice or injustice whatsoever - it was exactly what it purported to be: an extermination. How did this occur? Giorgio Agamben makes it clear in his book Homo Sacer (highly recommended reading for everyone living in a modern country) - the modern governs through the control and regulation of bare human life toward the end of self-preservation (of individual, of nation, of system). The only principles it recognizes are those of sheer power, and once the notion of Justice has ceased to guide that power, it resorts to simple self-preservation - and this always involves the otherizing of some people group(s) and the necessity for rigid definition of who is in and who is out. This is where modernity goes, if it is not curbed.

    So where I start getting all pacifist is where we try to decide what God’s version of Justice is, which we intend to advocate in our system. I hope you can see that if we applied Jesus’ teachings about enemies to our system, it would evaporate, because its entire apparatus of discipline and self-defense banks on some iteration of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Consequences, deterrence, the threat of punishment - that’s just the game it plays. Now if there is some other form of Justice in the Bible that applies to a secular nation-state (not a Covenant people like ancient Israel), I am interested in hearing about it, because our country needs it very much right now. And I will continue to look at Romans 13 to try and understand it in full context (because the incongruencies between ch. 12 and 13 are not insignificant).

    Mike W.,

    I think I’ve addressed most of what you talked about above. Did I miss anything? I am trying very hard to understand these things without inconsistency or hypocrisy, and there is just such a large gap between Jesus’ teaching about how we are to behave and the behavior or a modern nation-state that it’s quite distressing to someone attempting to be intellectually honest about it. I’m open to any passages of Scipture that might shed light on the subject, and I do hope Dr. Tackett gives us his opinion at some point, because I’d like to hear him talk about Justice in light of our actual context instead of excusing violence through appeals to a Christian America. My whole point here (even with my ambivalence about the right course of action) is that he has misrepresented both the terms Christian and America.

    Anyway, I’ve repeated myself enough on this one, and it’s becoming impractical to scroll so far down the page to read the next comment. Thank you both for your patience. I have very much enjoyed and appreciated it.

    -Jacob Thielman

37. Mike Corum on October 27th, 2007 10:28 am

    Whew!

    When I read that there had been a lively discussion on Dr. Tackett’s response to Chad, I decided to take a look. Little did I realize that it would take all morning to read through all the “responses.”

    Let me commend each of you for the gentlemanly manner of your conversation. How unlike some of the letters to the editor I read. Of course, one would expect that of Christians, which I assume each of you to be.

    Now, for my two-cents worth. (That may be stretching the value a bit, but you get the picture.

    One thing that I have been taught about reading and interpreting the Bible is that it is all the Word of God. Simply because Jesus has come doesn’t mean we now throw out the Old Testament. Jesus said He did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. By the law I think we can infer all the Old Testament writings.

    God’s love has always been toward mankind, but especially toward His people. I do not think of the church as the new Israel in any way, but I do believe that God is now gathering for Himself a people from all nations, tribes, and tongues. And, boy, am I glad!! Now I’m included! Praise His Name!!!

    God in the Old Testament used heathen nations to chastise His nation Israel. He also delivered the Israelites from oppression, many times by Himself eliminating thousands of those who were opposed to Israel.

    We have to remember that God’s intention originally was for Israel to be a light to the nations. We also have to remember that when Israel started into the Promised Land, they were told to drive out by armed conflict those who lived there. I don’t think there can be any misunderstanding there.

    I believe that God loved those nations whom He drove out before Israel, but that their time had come. He had been patient, giving them opportunity to respond to the witness of Him in their hearts and in creation, but they chose instead to worship the creature rather than the Creator. So He facilitated their removal from the land. (Remember that it was God who killed the firstborn of Egypt, and who drowned Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea.)

    So it is my humble opinion that God doesn’t like war and death, that it is not His will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Yet, we find Him slaughtering untold thousands. Is this a contradiction? I don’t think so. Rather, it is an indication that His Spirit will not always strive with man. God’s wrath is not a sudden, blind rage, but a part of His holiness; a thoroughly thought out and planned response to man’s rebellion.

    OK, so where does that leave us? Jesus said love your enemies, and Paul said that the magistrate doesn’t carry the sword for nothing. Incompatible? I don’t think so.

    Before going further, let us remember that if all Scripture is inspired by God, God-breathed as it were, then the words of Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such can be taken as God’s words, as much so as those of the Sermon on the Mount.

    As individuals we are to, as much as possible, live at peace with all men. This statement indicates that some times it isn’t possible. God has ordained government to help organize and rule the affairs of men.

    Originally Israel had the perfect government, God as King. But they wanted kings like those around them, so God instituted the period of kings in Israel, thus establishing a formal government like the heathen nations had.

    Centuries later Jesus would say, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Thus confirming for us the rule of government in the affairs of men. “The powers that be are ordained of God.” Even the cruel Roman government.

    It is the civil magistrate, or government, that bears the sword, not the individual. By that I mean that I am not to go out and randomly and without cause kill and commit mayhem. However, the government has been ordained of God to carry the sword, and exercise it as necessary. Thus we have the death penalty for those who commit heinous crimes. I don’t personally go and carry out vigilante justice, but the government carries out justice for those crimes.

    Likewise, I don’t personally wage war against other nations. However, if called upon by my government, I render unto that government the things that are due, which includes my taxes but also my service in the military.

    Wow! I hadn’t intended to write so much, and I hope I haven’t offended anyone. I am open to you wiser, more schooled gentlemen correcting my errors.

    I respect Dr. Tackett for not getting involved. I think he may be enjoying the action from the sidelines, waiting to see how it all winds up.

    I am including an excerpt from an essay by Mark Alexander at the end of my comments. I particularly draw attention to the quote from John Adams.

    I believe that our founding fathers did indeed intend a Christian nation. Many of the settlers came to this country for the express purpose of spreading the gospel. It may be that the founders had a more optimistic view of the course this nation would take. It appears to me that they intended a nation which was not a theocracy, but one in which the populace was educated in the Bible, believed in its precepts, and worshipped its God. That, very obviously, is not what we have today.

    In fact, I further believe that most who attend church and call themselves Christian are Biblically illiterate. We get upset when the Ten Commandments can’t be posted at the courthouse, but haven’t bothered to write them upon the tables of our hearts. Much like Israel at the time of Christ, we are into ritual, form, and fashion, but our hearts are far from God.

    Let us hope that whatever we as individuals may believe about war, that the conditions of God’s promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 will be met, for we know that He is faithful: If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

    The following is taken from an essay posted on the Patriot Post by Mark Alexander – “School is in but the Bible is out”:

    Indeed, every student in America should understand the Bible’s role in our nation’s founding and principles — and why.
    What did our Founders have to say about the Bible? “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God…. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.” –John Jay (1784) “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.” –Gouverneur Morris (1791) “[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths…?” –George Washington (1796) “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams (1798) “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” –Benjamin Rush (1806)

    May God bless each of you, and may He lead us all into His wonderful Truth!!

    Mike Corum, aka Mike C.

    (Yes, another Mike. Sorry.)

38. Michael Lilley on October 29th, 2007 3:54 pm

    To Jacob, Mike W. and Mike C.

    Had just a moment to take a glance at what’s happened in my absence. Without time to adequately respond (a perennial problem right now), good food for thought — all of it — and we