War is an enemy of liberty
May 22nd, 2007 | Published in Current Events, Quotes, War | 27 Comments
Jeremy posted this great quote from James Madison about how war is an enemy of liberty. With current US military spending over $1,200,000,000,000 dollarssrc (51% of our taxes), we had better take note.
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm (#)
I find that the more I read the writings of the “Founding Fathers,” the more I see a stark contrast between their worldview(s) and those of most people in power in this country today. It’s shocking just how Communistic they make our present government look…
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm (#)
Those are hard words for someone from a military background… those whose swear an oath to protect our constitution. I can understand Madison’s point but frankly, this is a different time.
It would be a beautiful thing if a militia would still work to defend ourselves, unfortunately war has become too much of a professional business and there is really no choice but to stay ahead of the trend – unless it makes no difference to you whether your country stands of falls.
Which is why I wrestle so much with the philosophy of Wendell Berry. I really love what he says and wish that American society could be more like what he envisions, but I don’t see how his ideal could in any way support the military infrastructure that we currently have. It’s almost as if we don’t have any choice but to promote a power-house economy and rapidly advancing technology – just for the sake of the military.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. I certainly think war and standing armies are a lamentable thing, but I also think that they are a fact of the world that the wise attend to. The surest way to promote peace is to have an army so powerful that no one would dare fight against you.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 am (#)
Robert,
I think it’s more than the philosophy of Berry — it’s Jesus. Jesus is the one who said “blessed are the peacemakers.” Jesus is the one who commands his disciples to “turn the other cheek” and “do good to those who hurt you.” It’s a radical message — few can receive it.
I do believe countries need a defensive military. But obviously we have gone *far* beyond that. The war in Iraq, for example, was a preemptive strike on a nation that had nothing (or little) to do with 9-11 and was no threat to us. They did not have WMD. There were peaceful options with Iraq. Weapon inspectors were already there, for example. Yet we went in anyway, against the better judgment of many nations and the UN. That, in my opinion, is not peacemaking. And we can see the horrible results now (though many predicted them). Over 60,000 Iraqi civilians (men, women and children) have been killed. Another study says that “655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.” That’s just horrible. All those lives lost — and for something that might of had a peaceful solution. War is horrible — of all the ideas of man the worst.
You said “The surest way to promote peace is to have an army so powerful that no one would dare fight against you.” Obviously that doesn’t work. We have the most powerful army and little mosquito terrorists are not afraid of us.
Well, those are my thoughts, anyway.
Josh
May 24th, 2007 at 10:23 am (#)
Thanks for the response, Josh.
I certainly agree that the philosophy of Jesus is one of pacifism, however,
I think it’s also important to note that Jesus made a distinction between
what is required of the individual and what is required of the state. The
individual ought to offer what is due to both Caesar and God and therefore
there are clearly two authorities that every believer is to submit to. And
one of those authorities is the state.
Later on the Apostle Paul writes that the State is the instrument of God to
do justice. I take that to mean that even while we as individual
Christians ought to turn the other cheek when someone seeks to harm us – the
government ought to arrest that person. Similarly, even though we as
Christians ought to pray for individuals like Saddam and never take up the
sword against him – the government (which Christians must submit to) ought
to take up the sword against him if that is what is required to execute
justice on the earth.
Obviously whether justice was done in removing Saddam and establishing
democracy in Iraq is a questionable case, and one that you and I disagree
on, but I still think that the Biblical concept is there for the government
to use the sword, indeed, the governments responsibility to do so in the
cause of justice.
What is sad is when the government, “bears the sword for nothing,” to use
the words of Paul when he says the government, “does not bear the sword for
nothing.” And in response to your claim that having a powerful army
doesn’t work to promote peace, the reason conservatives (like me) would
claim that we do not have peace now is because individuals like Clinton did
not use our military might to enforce justice and therefore today
terrorists think that they commit the most atrocious unjust acts and the US
will do nothing. (Somalia is often used as their case and point in this
regard.)
In my mind, the greatest benefit of the Iraq war is not necessarily that it
has defended America against future attack (although I think it has), the
greatest benefit of Iraq is that the terrorists (or whatever label you want
to put on them) now see that America will stand up when they perpetrate
unjust acts. And that even if it means entering into ambiguous situations
(which inevitably work in the terrorists’ favor) then the US will not allow
terrorists to simply do whatever they like in the world. And even though
Europe and the UN will not execute justice, because of their dislike of
violence even though they have legitimate authority to use violence (unlike
terrorists), America will. And this will make terrorists think twice
before striking again and will benefit every country in the world, not just
America.
It is unfortunate that America must be alone in its desire to see
evil-doers held accountable for their acts but that is the state of things
right now therefore I don’t think America is unjustified in acting alone if
its reasons are right. Indeed we must act alone otherwise the spiral of
injustice, of terrorists committing violence wherever they like, can only
continue.
And I think that if you look at the rhetoric surrounding Iraq, the
terrorists very much see this as a strike against them, even if we in the
West don’t see it that way. And therefore the terrorists see that we are
indeed fighting against their goal of installing strict Islamic governments
in every nation in the world by means of violence, even though we in the
West don’t see it that way. In other words, either the terrorists see
something that we don’t see or the terrorists don’t see something that we
can see. And I would submit that it’s us that are blind to the fact that
we are indeed fighting for an appropriate cause and that the terrorists have
judged rightly that we have come after them. Why would the terrorists feel
threatened about the war in Iraq if indeed we mis-struck?
Anyways, there is certainly more to say about this debate, and I do hope
the discussion can continue. I appreciate your interaction and sorry for
letting this get so long.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pm (#)
Thanks, Robert and Josh, for the sober-minded and thoughtful discussion. I hope I can contribute in like manner.
Robert, I sympathize with your kind of conservatism, perhaps because I used to think of myself as a conservative. I definitely agree that the government has biblical authority to use the sword, and I agree that that should factor into our understanding of what biblical peacemaking means. Where I see things getting murkier is when we start crossing the lines of domestic criminal vs. enemy state vs. oversees terrorist vs. opposing ideology. Romans 13 seems to apply most directly to the domestic criminal. How would you, Robert, define the proper scope of “the sword” as used in Romans 13 and how do you get there biblically? You also used the phrase “in the cause of justice.†Doesn’t Romans 13 talk about punishing wrongdoers? Are you equating that with “the cause of justice,†or are you getting that from somewhere else?
Getting back to your original post, Robert–and I say this as an agrarian and as such an ally of Berry–I think one thing that’s missing from your argument for a strong military is consideration of incentive. What I mean is that a strong military may enable us to deal with threats to security, but the military and the whole economy that sustains our military makes us a likelier target.
(As an aside, I should note that the ability of the military to deal specifically with *terrorist* threats to our security is especially questionable. That’s another place where I get confused trying to follow your second post. You talk about the Iraq war as our way of standing up to terrorists. That doesn’t seem like a very substantive statement. What does it mean to “stand up to terrorists� How would I know if someone were doing that or doing that successfully? Certainly we’re spending lots of money and making lots of noise, and meanwhile we’re using terrorism-related rhetoric, but that alone really has nothing to do with terrorists.)
It seems you’re overlooking the fact that we’ve pissed off a lot of potential Muslim terrorists, focused their animosities on us, escalated the conflict/raised the decibel level/upped the ante, and put ourselves in direct conflict with a lot of people that might otherwise have been content to leave us alone so long as we kept a safe distance. That’s not to say, of course, that everything would be okay, that there wouldn’t be Muslims wanting to kill Americans, if we just kept our military at home. It’s definitely possible for our military to kill potential terrorists in foreign countries and to disrupt their organized activities. But it’s also possible that our gains come at the cost of inciting even more hatred and pushing more Muslims over the edge into terrorist extremism.
The way I see it, mind-your-own business agrarianism really is a reasonable way of dealing with terrorism. Is it really reasonable for Port William (Berry’s fictional small, agrarian town) to send soldiers to Muslim countries to avert a terrorist attack? I think there’s no question that Port William puts itself at far greater risk by sending its members to war than it would by minding its own business. Not only do draft animals and small business buildings (versus airplanes and skyscrapers) not lend themselves very well to terrorist purposes, but they’re not attractive targets either. And apart from their connection to industrialized America, Muslim terrorists really don’t have particular hatred for the people of Port William, just like their animosity doesn’t focus on the people of El Salvador (even though they’re Western and “Christianâ€). The more industrialized we are, the more at risk of such attacks we are.
The Amish schoolhouse shooting demonstrates that pacifist agrarianism doesn’t equate to immunity from attack, but theirs was a very “random†killing. Could they have avoided the shooting by standing up to terrorism or some such thing? I can’t see how. So long as men are reigned by sin, such things are going to happen. Industrialization merely exacerbates the scale and the damage.
As another aside, I really don’t buy the argument that America’s use of violence will make terrorists think twice before striking again. Why would they think twice? Because they fear an escalation of the conflict with the West? Aren’t they attacking us precisely because they desire an escalated conflict? Moreover, I don’t see any reason to say that the terrorists (whoever they are) “feel threatened†about the war in Iraq. But even if ‘they’ did “feel threatened,†is that something we necessarily want? Unless we aim to annihilate the whole Muslim world (which would include much of Western Europe and part of the United States), I think we had better re-think our strategy and find a way to live peaceably with Muslims in the world, not setting ourselves against them and not provoking them by making them “feel threatened.â€
In summary, I don’t think the nature of the world has changed such that we should pay any less heed to Madison’s sound advice.
Eric
May 25th, 2007 at 5:17 pm (#)
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the response.
Jesus nor Paul said war was right. The only argument that can be made is from silence, which is not a good argument. Both Jesus and Paul were committed to peace. Jesus and Paul were explicitly for peace, they were never explicit or even implicit about their approval for war. Could you imagine one of the apostles joining the army? Okay, maybe Peter, but Jesus wasn’t too fond of him cutting off the Priest servant’s ear.
As for the state being different from the individual, I’m not convinced that is correct. What is our state, except made up of people? Who makes the laws? Yes, we should obey our government — unless it is morally wrong. I think killing other people for land or food or oil or whatever is wrong, unless we really need to defend ourselves. But bloodshed should always be the last resort for any civilized person — especially a Christian.
So I do agree the state should protect us, but I see our military far past what is required to protect us. Defense is good and necessary. Up to a point.
You said: “the greatest benefit of Iraq is that the terrorists now see that America will stand up when they perpetrate unjust acts.”
That’s a completely different reason than why we went to war. And Iraq was not perpetrating unjust acts against us — that was Osama and the Taliban. It’s like having some thugs from Mexico bomb and one of our buildings and then attack Iran to show we are serious about putting down injustice. “Yeah, we may not of caught the main thug, but we showed those Iranians! Mission accomplished!”
But should we really have that kind of attitude? Should we invade N. Korea next? Iran? Etc? If we are serious about the “injustice” and “furthering democracy” argument, we will have no end of wars. And are we really all that “just” ourselves? Are we really “good” and they “bad”? Is it really so simple? Unlikely. Maybe we should look at the log in our own eye.
You said: “this will make terrorists think twice before striking again”
It seems like this will just provoke them more. It’s like kicking an ant pile — it doesn’t teach the ants, it just makes them mad. Unless we eradicate all the “terrorists,” there will always be violence. There always has been violence. The solution isn’t more violence. That has been tried for thousands of years. It doesn’t work.
Josh
(I wrote this before I read Eric’s response, which I thought was very good.)
May 26th, 2007 at 5:35 pm (#)
Thanks for your response Eric,
First, I don’t want to make it sound like I’m “pro war” as in one who thinks that war is a great thing. I don’t think we should invade any and every country that makes us mad and war ought always be used as the last of all possible resorts.
It is true that Romans 13 most directly fits the nature of domestic criminals but I don’t see how one could limit it there. “Those who do wrong” (ESV) are clearly not always domestic criminals. As a paradigm case, when Hitler was doing wrong by committing genocide against Jews, are we then to say, “well that’s not OUR wrongdoer so he should be allowed to continue?”
Certainly the good of punishing wrongdoers must be weighed against the evils of war, but I do believe there are cases where justice and the blood of innocents so cries out that it would be evil not to take action.
To answer your second question: yes, I am equating the cause of justice with punishing wrongdoers. I take this as fundamental to the Biblical concept of justice (e.g. God’s justice demands that he punish us as sinners and that is why he had to send Christ, so that he could remain just in punishing sin and through that, grant us mercy cf. Rom 3:25).
I certainly agree that our unsurpassed economy makes us a more likely target (although I don’t think that the military does in and of itself). Indeed, if we did not have such an enormous economy and a military capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, this whole discussion would be a moot point – even IF the terrorists still wanted to attack us, all we could do is sit here and take it (which, if we didn’t have the power to respond, would be all right I guess since “ought” implies “can”).
So you are probably right that if we had a purely agrarian economy, terrorists would not be nearly the issue that they are (although I still wouldn’t put it past them to attack a peaceful agrarian nation), but seeing as we aren’t that way now, there is the issue of what to do. Is your advice that we simply stop fighting and do all that we can to scale back our economy? I am certainly in favor of scaling back our economy (if it can be done voluntarily), but even while are seeking to become a blip on the world screen, we should probably engage in some sort of defensive measure.
And it is also true that perhaps our going to war made many more Muslims mad, but I doubt it. No Muslim country in the world has offered any sort of assistance to their Muslim brothers in Iraq be it monetary, military, law enforcement, or even trying to keep security along its own border that it shares with Iraq. Of course, that is unless you count the extremists sent in to kill innocent Iraqis. In fact – it seems that the Muslim extremists are more zealous for killing Iraqis than our military is – it’s all we can do to protect them. The primary concern of Muslim extremists lies with our support of Israel – the archenemy (as they see it) of the Muslim cause. They are only concerned to wipe Israel off the map, without that cause, Iraq and Palestine would mean very little. So while I’m sure that our invasion of Iraq got their motor going, it’s certainly not because they are zealous for the plight of the Iraqi people – it’s only because now it’s easier than ever to kill Americans and weaken their political will.
This has gotten long, so let me respond to your two asides in a later comment. Thanks for the interaction!
Robert
May 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm (#)
Regarding your first aside, Eric, I agree that it is important to be able to quantify successes whenever you are in a battle against something. And also agree that the military alone will never be able to stop terrorism. Military alone can never stop anything beyond the very target it is engaged with.
One could equally say that the military can’t stop anti-Semetic fascist governments, and this would be true, since they can arise at any time and in any place, but the military did stop at least one anti-Semetic fascist government.
The goal ought to be likewise with terrorism. The military will certainly never stop radical Islam from poking its head in various parts of the world, but it can end at least one manifestation of it, and judging by the events in Iraq, it can end a couple manifestations of it.
By “stand up to terrorists” I simply mean either kill or capture them. Therefore you know someone is doing it successfully when terrorists are either killed or captured. I agree that spending lots of money, making lots of noise, and using terrorism-related rhetoric does not accomplish the end of standing up to terrorists, but I would argue that there have been significant victories in Iraq in the sense that significant terrorists have been either killed or captured.
Regarding your second aside, I don’t think it’s true that terrorists attack us, “precisely because they desire an escalated conflict.” That has never been any terrorist’s stated aim. Terrorists attack because they want the US to stop supporting Israel, because they want to destroy Israel, because they want to install radical Muslim government, because they want others to convert to Islam, and probably other reasons as well. But I’ve never heard any terrorist say he/she is attacking just because he/she wants more fighting to occur.
For this reason (because they have specific aims), you can be sure that an effective use of violence will make terrorists think twice before they strike again. If terrorists see that certain actions actually detract from achievement of their goals then they will cease to do those actions. Terrorists may be radical, but they are not crazy – they too can measure to what extent a certain strategy is effective or not. I would think that if bin Laden et al. could have seen beforehand all the fallout from 9/11, then he would have at least planned a more minor attack that would not lead to the continuing series of consequences that he is receiving. 9/11, in the long run, has not helped his organization nor contributed to its stated ends. In fact, because of the invasion of Iraq, it has actually significantly harmed his ultimate goals.
Finally, terrorists would feel threatened about the war in Iraq because Islam is a territorial religion in the sense that certain locations and areas are very important to it. While not being a location of primary importance, Iraq does have some value. And of course to radicals its importance is increased twenty fold because of their earnestness concerning it. I don’t think the average Muslim (at least none of the ones that I know) feel terribly threatened about infidels being in Iraq. Therefore, our presence in Iraq, while not bothering average, peaceful, Muslims, enrages radical Muslims.
So I don’t think we need to, “aim to annihilate the whole Muslim world” in order to get at the terrorists and I think, because we can fight terrorists, enraging them is not all bad because then they are just easier to target and destroy.
On the other hand, some have said that we ought to threaten to destroy Mecca and Medina unless the attacks stop. This is an interesting strategy, and it does have the benefit of motivating all Muslims to stop the terrorist attacks, but ultimately, I think the loss of innocent life in such an event compared to the loss of innocent life of continued terrorist attacks would not justify that course of action.
In closing, it is not us who need to, “find a way to live peaceably with Muslims in the world,” the US has been doing so since its inception as a nation. Those who are inciting violence between Islam and the US are the terrorists.
Well I’ve probably completely bored you by now. If so… sorry. But I do hope that at least I have provided to cogent responses to all your remarks.
And I guess to get this whole comment back on topic… ironically, the war in Iraq is not a good argument for a standing army. Simple people with simple guns could potentially do just as well in Iraq as a professionally trained force – since the war is more about intelligence and relationships than firepower and armor. It’s the Nazi Germanies, the U.S.S.R.s, and the communist China’s that I think really necessitate a standing force.
In that regard, I guess it’s really unnecessary that we ever began discussing Iraq at all – my bad.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pm (#)
Sorry for taking so long to respond to you, Josh,
It is true that neither Jesus nor Paul approved of war and only approved of nonviolent behavior. At the same time, this observation only contributes to a discussion of just war theory if, as you claim, the state is no different than the individual.
If the state is no different than the individual then I’m with you 100%, but as I see it, this can’t be true. The starkest way to put it is to contrast John 18:11 – “Put your sword away!” and Romans 13:4 – “he does not bear the sword for nothing.” So unless you adopt a view that pits Paul against Christ, it seems that God is saying that Christians as individuals are to never use the sword while those acting as an arm of the state are to bear the sword. I think it is also significant that the one with the greatest faith in all Israel is a Roman centurion (Luke 7:9) and that the very first gentile convert to Christianity (Acts10:1).
Although it should be noted that even the nonviolence of Christians in this age happens within a context. We should also remember that our Lamb is the same one who will unleash the four horsemen of the apocalypse in Revelation 6, will order the torturing of people in Revelation 9:4-6, and will authorize the killing of a third of mankind in 9:15, among other things. And if one looks at God’s authority in that regard, then looks at “there is no authority except that which God has established,” along with, “rulers hold no terror for those who do right,” then I believe a clear picture emerges of the state’s authority to use violence in contrast to the individual’s prohibition to use violence.
I think this is a topic that a person could do a whole dissertation on, so I’ll stop there, but I hope that’s not the end of the discussion. Another good source to see on this is Piper’s sermon: Subjection to God and Subjection to the State, Part 4.
It is interesting too that you think the military is far past what is required to protect us. It is true that our military is the most powerful in the world, but I would say that is what is required to protect us. After all, if your military can be defeated, it’s not very good protection. And there aren’t the massive threats there used to be, like Russia, but I guess I would point to China as one example of a military that’s strength is on the rise and that doesn’t seem to have any qualms about invading foreign countries.
I wouldn’t say that combating terrorism is a “completely different reason than why we went to war,” although it certainly wasn’t the main one, and I’m not here to defend anyone else’s reasons for the war. I do think it was a significant reason though. And regarding your claim that Iraq was not perpetrating unjust acts against us – well – that’s the debate. Both sides have their news articles and obviously I side with the president. In part because of what I have read and in part because I have faith that Bush is not a war-monger and that he had much more information than I’ll ever have privy to.
The “log in our own eye” is an interesting argument. I certainly think that America should be in the business of examining its own eyes but at the same time it’s important to remember the “log in your own eye” teaching that Jesus put forward was in order to prevent hypocrisy. And I certainly think that in this case America is not engaged in a hypocritical action. Terrorists aim to kill innocents and delight when they do so, and that is why we want to destroy them. America aims extremely hard not to kill innocents and mourns when it does so. Thus I think the argument from hypocrisy, while valid, does not fit America’s situation in fighting terrorism.
And I don’t think we should invade countries merely to further democracy, although I do think that is a positive thing to leave behind when we do invade. Regarding all the issues of when and where to invade other countries – I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on that and I certainly advocate that things be settled by any means other than war.
Two things on the, “making them mad” argument. First, anytime you fight radicals they are always going to get more angry when you fight against them – they’re radical about it! You think Hitler was happy when the allies came against him? No – he just strengthened his army as much as he could. The point when striking an enemy becomes viable despite their increased rage at the action is the point when the strike has the potential of victory. If we could defeat terrorists (and I think we can) then it doesn’t matter how angry they get, because they can’t do anything about it.
Lastly, I would like to make very clear that I in no way see war as the ultimate solution. It can stop an enemy for a generation at most. Violence will indeed always come back which is why those who are “good” must always be prepared to fight violence, in the authority of the state. The only ultimate solution to violence is the gospel, and while I approve of violence in limited measures before everyone has become a Christian, the main focus of my life is still to create as many disciples of Christ as God can possibly create through me.
Thanks for the interaction.
Robert
P.S. Typing takes a lot of time. I actually go to Bethlehem (and I think you do too) I’d be interested in meeting up sometime then we could just discuss and could probably communicate much more in less time. I always enjoy discussing significant issues.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:10 pm (#)
First, thanks again, Josh, for the forum.
Robert, thanks for the response and for contributing to the discussion. I think this discussion has exceeded what I can reasonably respond to in a systematic way, but I would like to hit on a few key points.
The first thing that comes to mind is what you, Robert, said about the “stated aims” of terrorists. I’ve read a couple translations of a couple things that bin Laden wrote, but those are the only stated aims I’ve ever heard. Maybe you’ve heard more, but in any case, the “never…any” assessment seems like an absurd exaggeration. I don’t trust *any* line of argument that rests on our (Americans’) understanding of terrorists’ stated aims, and it would be foolish for me to do so, first because I know so very, very little of what terrorists have said, and secondly because I have no good way of knowing how much trust to put in those who know relatively more. Moreover, arguments based on terrorists’ “stated aims” are based on terrorists’ integrity, honesty, and wisdom. For comparison, one of our stated aims in the so-called “war on terror” was to “rid the world of evil.” What do you make of that? What I make of that is merely that Bush is far from the wisest of men, and moreover he wasn’t speaking clearly so much as he was trying to incite certain emotions as part of a political maneuver. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t fear anyone with power that talks about ridding the world of evil. Best case, he’s too much of a fool to know what he’s saying or he’s enough of a liar to not mean it. Worst case, he’s enough of a fool to mean it. In either case, he’s not to be trusted, which is about all I would say for the stated aims of terrorists. (“Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.” Proverbs 14:7 “Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with destruction.” Psalm 5:9a)
A few more random proverbs: “Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city.” (16:32) “When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.” (16:7) “He who loves a quarrel loves sin; he who builds a high gate invites destruction.” (17:19)
Regarding your interpretation of Romans 13, I just re-read the section we’ve been talking about. Clearly, the context is one of rulers and subjects and submission to authority. It’s one thing to say you “don’t see how…”, but it’s another to say you *do* see how it applies to any army going after any wrongdoer anywhere. Sure, wrongdoers aren’t always domestic criminals; that doesn’t mean that every ruler’s authority extends everwhere. Those are two very distinct points. Looking just at Romans 13, one could just as well argue that “he [USA] who rebels against the authority [the rulers of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.] is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so [USA] will bring judgment on themselves.” I’m not sure if that’s an overstatement, but we definitely can say that, prior to our military incursions, the authorities that existed had been established by God. Overthrowing an authority established by God is no light matter.
As for Hitler, we didn’t go to war with Germany because of how he was ruling his subjects. We only declared war after Hitler’s ally attacked our armed forces on our territory. None of which is to say whether we were or weren’t justified in going to war or what our proper justification was if we were. Obviously, there are wrongdoers everywhere and in every government. Is every country therefore justified in declaring war on every other country? I certainly don’t see Romans 13 as a broad justification for overthrowing authorities that aren’t righteous enough. Surely the authorities Paul was referring to weren’t exceptionally righteous. My own people were invaded and oppressed because neighboring people let themselves think they could govern us more righteously than we could govern ourselves.
You asked, “… are we then to say, ‘well that’s not OUR wrongdoer so he should be allowed to continue?’” Here’s what I think we can say: “Do not fret because of evil men…for the evil man has no future hope, and the lamp of the wicked will be snuffed out.” “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” “For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” “The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge.” “So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.” “Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. … To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” “…do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes.” “…there is a future for the man of peace.” “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; it is he who will save us.” “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
As for equating the cause of justice with punishing wrongdoers, that’s where I have to echo Josh’s call to examine the log in our own eye. I think our neglect of justice closely parallels our industrialism and consumerism, which is central to our current predicament as the target of terrorists.
I should also probably comment on the term “terrorists.” We’ve used the term quite a lot now in very loose ways. Insofar as we’re “standing up” to them, killing and capturing them, declaring war on them, etc., we ought to be very clear about who them is, so to speak. Are we specifically targeting those and only those that were complicit in specific terrorist attacks? Or are we targeting anyone that would take a pot shot at us, given an easy opportunity? Do you know for a fact that even a single terrorist (of a specific terrorist act against the United States) resided in Iraq at the time of our invasion? My only point is that talk about terrorists is as worthless as it is ill-defined and imprecise, and there’s much of that going around in America.
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country
against his government” — Edward Abbey
May 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm (#)
Eric,
Your argument is an interesting one, and, like you, I think the discussion has exceeded what I can reasonably respond to in a systematic way, but I will also add a few points.
First, I am of the perspective that no particular political view is the “political view of God” so to speak. I see warrant in Scripture for thinking as I do and I see warrant in Scripture for thinking as you do. I do think that Scripture limits what political views we can hold but I don’t think it gives us one view in particular on most issues.
That’s just to say, please don’t understand me as trying to convince you that the war (or any war) is, “the Christian way to see it.” All I’m trying to do is demonstrate that my view is defensible, moral, and Biblically sound. So if you grant me that – that’s really all I’m looking for. You really don’t have to agree with me.
I certainly hope my “never… any” statement about the stated aims of terrorists is not an absurd exaggeration. Perhaps I should be more empirical in my approach, but I mainly made that statement on basis of the definition of a terrorist. I was trying to imagine a terrorist, a radical Muslim militant, saying that his/her supreme goal in fighting was… fighting. In other words, that he/she really didn’t have any end goals, he/she just wanted to, “escalate the conflict.”
I think it is very clear that this is the case. People who always just want to escalate the conflict we may call anarchists, but not Muslim radicals. (Some) Anarchists seek destruction and conflict at any turn – never having a cause except the disruption of authority. Muslim radicals, who are the current objects of the word, “terrorist,” are the exact opposite. They seek the institution of a very definite authority and would have no desire to escalate conflict were the entire world governed by Sharia law.
So I think it is a dangerous miscalculation to see Muslim extremists as “mere” bloodthirsty killers and not as fighters with a cause. That is why suicide bombers, mujahideen, and any other Muslim fighters are labeled “martyr” upon death. They fight for a cause, they don’t fight for pleasure.
So if there is any exception to my denial that a stated aim of terrorists is “escalating conflict” then it would certainly be significant and would change my stance quite a bit. Certainly there is no point in fighting someone who really just wants to fight – that will get you nowhere. But if you fight someone who has ends and he/she suddenly sees that his/her ends can’t be achieved – then that has a big impact (as I believe the war does).
Anyways, sorry I’m belaboring that point. I don’t know how important it is to your overall argument. But I do think it is essential for us to see terrorists as human beings just like everyone else who have minds and have vision. It is a myth to say that terrorists are just crazy about violence period and have no allegiance to a specific set of values. Terrorists only use violence as a means to an end and if that end can be shown unattainable then they will also cease with their means. “Escalating conflict” is not a core value or aim of terrorists – it is a means to an end.
With all that being said, I find it very unfortunate that you, “don’t trust *any* line of argument that rests on our (Americans’) understanding of terrorists’ stated aims.” And if that is indeed the case, then it is very clear why you and I disagree on this issue. Were I to believe that we just can’t ever understand these crazy people, then I would certainly agree that fighting is useless and it just has to run its course. However, since I do believe that we can understand terrorist goals (at least to some extent) then I also believe that we can counter them in their progress towards attaining those goals.
You also said that, “arguments based on terrorists’ ‘stated aims’ are based on terrorists’ integrity, honesty, and wisdom,” and used the President’s stated aims as an example of this. But here I’m afraid I really need more explanation on your exact position. When a terrorist says they want to establish an Islamic state and liberate Palestine and then start killing everyone who is in his way – can we not take him at his word? Can we infer nothing from 9/11 or any of the other bombings about what the terrorists are trying to do? When Bush says he wants to rid the world of evil and sends an army to Iraq and Afghanistan to do it, can we not infer that he means it, even if he is stupid? If I am stupid, foolish, and dishonest and say I am looking for something and go about shuffling in drawers, will you not accept that I am indeed looking for something?
If your point is simply that the goals of terrorists are crazy, then I agree. If your point is that we can’t trust what they say are their goals then I heartily disagree. Someone who is willing to die for their cause is not likely to lie about their cause, that would defeat the purpose of their death. If your point is that we can’t understand what the goals of terrorists are then again, I disagree – there is nothing terrorists are more public about than their goals – that’s the whole point of them doing what they do.
You ask very good questions concerning Romans 13 and the authority of the state to engage in warfare. It is precisely those questions that led Thomas Aquinas to first develop just war theory. In some ways I think it’s silly even for me to be discussing this because I am by no means a scholar on this very large body of philosophy.
I think you make a good point that every ruler’s authority doesn’t extend everywhere. I certainly don’t think it’s an overstatement to invoke Romans 13 in the way that you did between the US and Afghanistan. You are right to say that the authority in Afghanistan was instituted by God, but the Bible also clearly sets a precedent for obeying God when there is a conflict between what God commands and what the state commands (Acts 5:29). Therefore every state preparing to overthrow another state ought to reckon with the very question we are reckoning with now – might it be the will of God that we overthrow this state? You obviously don’t adhere to a doctrine that says one must always obey the state, no matter what, so you shouldn’t have too much of a problem with the state of America not obeying the states of Afghanistan or Iraq if the reasons are right.
You also ask the question, “Obviously, there are wrongdoers everywhere and in every government. Is every country therefore justified in declaring war on every other country?” Yes – if you think the only justification required for war is the existence of wrongdoers in that country. Obviously the US does not believe this otherwise it would invade many more countries. The US only believes it is justified in declaring war when there are heinous wrongdoers in another country and the other country does not fulfill its Biblical role to prosecute them.
I think your list of verses in response to my statement that we ought to take action against wrongdoers is taking Scripture out of context. I do not think those verses are there to encourage inaction – I think they are there to encourage patience and longsuffering. For example, Christ also says, “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Mat 6:34). But does that mean when we see a starving person we tell them, “don’t worry about tomorrow, it will take care of itself.” No, we do our all to be concerned for their tomorrow and get them food, but in our own personal posture, we do not concern ourselves with material things. Similarly, when someone is suffering at the hands of evil men we don’t tell them, “Do not fret because of evil men…for the evil man has no future hope, and the lamp of the wicked will be snuffed out.” No, we do our all to deliver that person from the hands of evil men. If we are individual Christians, we do not use violence, if we are the state, we bear the sword in their defense. But the Bible does not write about providence to justify inaction on behalf of the weak.
Okay, last two things, sorry this is so terribly long.
You said, “I think our neglect of justice closely parallels our industrialism and consumerism, which is central to our current predicament as the target of terrorists.” I really don’t understand what in the process of consumerism and industrialism is neglectful of justice. My only point with Josh is that hypocrisy works along certain lines. One does not have to be perfect to judge another person (then none of us could ever judge) one only has to be free of the error that he/she point out in others. The US would not be justified in attacking another nation because they are consumers or industrialists (we are too!) but the US is justified in attacking someone who delights to kill innocents because we are not that way in any way, shape, or form.
Lastly, you are correct to say that talk of terrorists is worthless when it is ill-defined and imprecise. But in many cases, its use is not imprecise. I think in this discussion we are both very aware of what we mean when we say, “terrorist,” we mean the Islamic radicals who have already perpetrated evil attacks against innocents. Furthermore, I think if you spent any time with a line unit in Iraq, you would find that in their day-to-day operations, their definition is as specific as could be: “who placed the bomb that killed 5 people yesterday?” The military in Iraq is not operating with an ambiguous definition, they are operating with very specific targets – that’s the only way the military can work.
Again, sorry this is so terribly long, and I am even more sorry if I sounded insulting in any way. I enjoy how civil this discussion has remained. I totally agree that a patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government, I just do not think this is one of those times.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am (#)
> but the US is justified in attacking someone
> who delights to kill innocents because we are
> not that way in any way, shape, or form.
Don’t we murder approximately as many completely innocent, unborn children every single day as were killed on 9-11? And these are our own children, not even the children of our enemies. I think we are “that way” in several ways, shapes, and forms, most notably in the case of abortion.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm (#)
> The military in Iraq is not operating with
> an ambiguous definition, they are operating
> with very specific targets – that’s the
> only way the military can work.
I heard on the radio soldiers in Iraq talking about targeting MOMAs (men of military age.) It was the first time I had heard that acronym. Under the circumstances, I don’t know how else soldiers could operate, but we’re definitely not dealing with “very specific targets” then, are we?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pm (#)
> But does that mean when we see a starving
> person we tell them, “don’t worry about
> tomorrow, it will take care of itself.â€
I think your analogy is badly flawed. First of all, in our case we (America) are both the starving person and the “we see[ing] a starving person.” So you’ve introduced a division in your analogy that implies we’re doing something selfless when that’s not the case. Secondly, what we’re talking about doing is waging war and killing people, not feeding the hungry.
So when the Bible says, “Do not fret because of evil men…for the evil man has no future hope, and the lamp of the wicked will be snuffed out,” I think we’re terribly mistaken if we take that as warrant to go snuffing out lamps. Are you saying the Bible tells us to forcibly prevent other people from sinning? What does it mean to call God our deliverer, if we insist on taking matters into our own hands? Robert, you talked about patience and longsuffering. What does that mean, if we immediately go to killing people with the idea that we can thereby avoid further suffering?
I guess my central point here is that stopping evil isn’t our job; it’s God’s, and he will do it, and we should be very glad that he’s not doing it all at once, because that would be the end of us, too. And I think that’s a lot of what Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, etc. are telling us: that God’s in charge, things happen only within His plan, and that we can live at peace with godless rulers and harsh slavemasters knowing that all these things are operating only within the bounds of God’s plan, a plan that includes our salvation and the snuffing out of the lamp of the wicked.
What other way is there to make biblical sense of these passages? How do you make sense of telling slaves to submit to harsh masters, for instance? That always seemed to me like an extreme example that really challenged my thinking. I used to think how can I, in good conscience, pay taxes to a government that supports abortion, and it was that passage about slaves that convinced me I could take the part about taxes in Romans 13 at face value.
You might be tempted to call that a shirking of responsibility, but I don’t see it that way, not biblically and especially not from my experience. This is a point I think Wendell Berry articulates very well. Letting other people sin allows us to focus on the one sinful soul we oversee. Our lives are full of sin and sinful ways that are causing a lot of the problems in the world. Dealing with the sin in our own lives (as opposed to trying to deal with other people’s sins) not only works because we have real power and control over our own lives, but when it comes to the good of our neighbors: an ounce of prevention (of evil) is worth a pound of cure.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:51 pm (#)
Hi Eric,
Sorry… I wasn’t checking for updates so I just came back and saw your comments.
First, your point about abortion is certainly valid – I only thought of that after I had posted the comment. I could probably accept someone being against war on the ground that we do abortions here in the US, but even that position requires further explanation. It doesn’t necessarily change my position because there are many other things that terrorists are opposed to that the US is very good at such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom the press, among other things.
I am not aware of the story that refer to about MOMAs, nor am I sure what is meant by “targeting.” But I assure you that our military is not shooting at every male of a military age in Iraq. If they were I have no doubt our news networks would be on it in no time. My statement mainly came from my experience in the military and from my discussions with my friends that are over there. When an army unit goes on a mission, they always have a very specific set of instructions. Any officer taking his unit out with ambiguous goals would never be allowed to take his unit off the base in the first place and if he did, he would be fired in no time. Given the new strategy in Iraq since General Petraeus took over, that mission generally means going out into the neighborhood and talking with the locals to gather information and if good information turns up then to go and investigate and if they get shot at in the mean time then they may fire in return.
Lastly, I didn’t really mean my example of feeding a starving person to be used as an analogy for the war. I was only using it to point out that Scriptures that encourage patience and longsuffering can’t be used in a “for them” sort of a way. We can’t tell a person starving and worried about tomorrow, “don’t worry, God will supply all your needs,” then go home and eat our feast. Just like we can’t tell the person fretting because of the evil man, “don’t fret, God will give you justice,” then go home and enjoy our lives of peace. We do all we can to help the starving just like we should do all we can to help those suffering from injustice. For the individual Christian, that does not mean force or violence – it means prayer and activism.
You asked, “Are you saying the Bible tells us to forcibly prevent other people from sinning?” Of course by and large the Bible doesn’t say this but I certainly think the Bible encourages it in extreme circumstances. What of a man about to set fire to a building, do we not try to stop him? Or a man on a shooting rampage, should we not forcibly try to take his gun away? Christ certainly forcibly prevented others from sinning when he threw the money changers out of the temple.
We can’t so simply say, “stopping evil isn’t our job.” And I know you don’t think so – obviously you think the war in Iraq is evil and therefore you are speaking out against it. Obviously you think that you have at least some right to do so.
But even this is besides the point – civil disobedience and proactive Christian involvement against injustice is a separate topic from just war and the warrant of the state to use violence in fighting injustice.
In response to your slave and slavemaster example. I would totally agree that the slave should submit to even the harshest treatment by his master. But can the slave not, when he or she has opportunity, speak to his government and ask them to outlaw slavery? Or can the policeman (a part of the state) when he now sees someone buying a person as a slave, arrest the person seeking to own another person, or must he say, “no, the person being sold should endure slavery.”
All I’m saying is that this issue is not black and white. There is a wide gulf, especially when it comes to the policy of the state, for simply making wise decisions in matters the Bible is not explicit about. But the Bible is explicit about the state acting in the authority of God to enact justice. We simply must decide where justice lies.
June 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pm (#)
Robert, thanks again for the reply. I appreciate the discussion.
> We can’t so simply say, “stopping evil isn’t
> our job.†And I know you don’t think so –
> obviously you think the war in Iraq is evil
> and therefore you are speaking out against
> it. Obviously you think that you have at
> least some right to do so.
I wouldn’t have thought to say the war in Iraq is evil. Certainly the men that wage war are evil (as are the men that don’t wage war.) I suspect that thinking of wars in terms of evil wars and not evil wars is a confusing/misleading way to think about wars.
I would be much more confident and bold in opposing large standing armies in general, and in generally calling war the enemy of liberty, along the lines of what Madison said in the quote that started this discussion. In other words, what I object to about your position, Robert, isn’t so much your defense of the war in Iraq as it is your defense of the military-industrial complex. I think a lot of superficial politicians take superficial stands against the war in Iraq without giving any good reason why they wouldn’t lead us into a similar situation in another place at another time. In other words, there’s no discernible principle behind their objections to the war. In contrast, I would like make my stand primarily on (biblically consistent) principle.
I would say that if we desire liberty, we should embrace agrarianism as opposed to a powerful military (and the industrialism that goes with a powerful military.)
And I’m very cynical toward justifications for war. For instance, when you say, “the US is justified in attacking someone who delights to kill innocents because we are not that way,” I see a faulty justification for war. Granted, that was before we talked about abortion, but it’s awfully suspicious when our justification for war changes from day to day and week to week, as it seems to do among all of the war’s (occupation’s) apologists. If we’re going to support a war, it seems reasonable to demand a heavy burden of proof, the kind that is solid and can be pinned down and provide accountability. In that respect, I still have a lot of respect for how Bush, Sr. waged the 1st Gulf War.
> But the Bible is explicit about the state
> acting in the authority of God to enact
> justice. We simply must decide where
> justice lies.
I also still think the presence of injustice/wrongdoers (whether or not we are ourselves unjust in the same particular way) is a lousy justification for war, most obviously because it could just as well be a justification for any country attacking any (or every) other country. Surely there is some limit to the wars you would justify? Is it a haphazard limit or is it a consistent and discernible limit.
I also think it’s very important to keep in mind that Romans 13 and the related passages we’ve discussed are advocating a respect for the established order of things: rulers and subjects, slaves and masters. If harsh (unjust) masters aren’t an excuse for the Christian slave to set himself against his master, how can you use parallel passages as an excuse for waging war, usurping authorities, etc.? It seems inconsistent.
The Bible doesn’t say to respect rulers because (and on the condition that) you deem them just. Should we be concerned with justice? Absolutely. But here’s my point, above all we should be concerned with the justice of what *WE* do. It would be easy for a slave to neglect his own pursuit of righteousness by focusing on the injustices of his harsh master. The Bible says not to do that. In what ways are *WE* practicing extortion, oppressing the poor and needy, mistreating aliens, defrauding laborers of their wages, oppressing the fatherless, making widows our prey, etc.? There is a strong corelation between how well we pursue these questions of justice and how well we respect and submit to the authorities God has instituted.
Should the slave, when he has the opportunity, speak to the government and ask it to outlaw slavery? The Bible doesn’t tell us that. It does tell us directly to submit, to respect, to suffer, and all the while to pursue our own sanctification–not to neglect it.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pm (#)
Well I’m afraid that our differences may run too deep for me to be intellectually prepared to counter at this time. So allow me to state my position from the depths (in brief), then if you still disagree, perhaps we can just shake hands and say, “good game.”
Most fundamental to my position, I think, is that we live in a world governed by force. I mean this in the sense that the ultimate arbiter in any action is whether or not one is physically able to do it. Obviously, then, the amount of force that one is able to bring to bear is the ultimate determinant of whether or not he/she/the government can actually do the desired action.
With this in mind, when any entity is using force to accomplish their aims, the only way to ultimately stop them is by a superior use of force. I totally agree that there are many intermediate ways to stop someone from a course of action, and that all those intermediate ways are better than the ultimate way. But ultimately, if nothing else works, the question is one of, “can I physically stop him/her/the governement from doing this?” Which is a question about whether or not one has the physical power or ability to do it.
This is where armies come in. Armies act as a physical limit to what others can accomplish. Indeed, armies are the ultimate physical barrier that exist on earth by which an individual or state may accomplish or deter an end.
So in that way armies are indeed an enemy of liberty – in that when they act, nothing, except a more powerful army, can stop them. Yet we should immediately note that being unstoppable is the very purpose of an army since it must act as a physical limit to what others can accomplish. So if by “enemy” you merely mean “threat” then yes – armies are the enemy of liberty, as they are the enemy of tyranny, and any other cause put forth by man.
But an army is just a tool of the one who wields it. Madison is correct in that, because armies are indeed the pinnacle of human force, they have the ability to do whatever they want (because physical possibility is the final arbiter of any action). But despite the fact that armies are the most powerful tools that exist, they are still tools, and in that sense cannot be called an “enemy” of anything.
This is like those who advocate for gun control on the basis that, “guns kill people.” It is true that guns kill people, but they don’t kill without someone pulling the trigger. And we as Christians know that murder lies in the heart (Mat 15:19, Mark 7:21) and it the heart that needs dealing with – not the tools. Similarly, “armies kill people,” and “armies are the enemy of liberty” but armies don’t kill without an order coming from somewhere and they don’t become the enemy of anything or anyone without their commander (or renegade commander) making it an enemy (and even then, the enemy is generally said to be the people that the army represents and not the army itself).
So my defense of the military-industrial complex is simply: “do we want to allow our enemies to have the ultimate say in what happens on the earth?” If our army cannot overcome them then the bottom line is that they can do whatever they want. We can try diplomacy and bribes and gifts and whatever else, but at the end of the day, if they want to act and we do not have the force to oppose them, they will act.
Now again, I, personally, as a Christian, am prepared to endure whatever tyranny I may be faced with as the result of not having the ability to stop an aggressor. But in loving my neighbor, I am not prepared to subject them to tyranny when I have perfectly moral options to help them avoid or overcome it. War can be one of these perfectly moral options, and the only way that war can be an option at all is if one has an army powerful enough to defeat the foe. Furthermore, the more powerful your army is in contrast to the enemy’s army – the more quickly and acutely the war will be done with. And most of all, if your army is so powerful that all others fear even opposing it, then we have peace.
You seem to think that my criteria for a moral war is merely that there be wrongdoers present, but this is certainly not the case. In accordance with just war theory, my criteria for a just (or moral) war is (1) having just cause, (2) being declared by a proper authority, (3) possessing right intention, (4) having a reasonable chance of success, and (5) the end being proportional to the means used.
As to the question of, “what is a just cause?” I would respond: “a just cause seeks to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations.” Specific examples of this, which have been illustrated in just war literature, are things like, self defense, correcting human rights violations, punishing an act of aggression, assisting invaded friendly nations, among other things. Most recently, the doctrine of preemptive strike has been debated at length as to whether or not it is worthy to be added to the list. In short, the criteria for a just war is very long and complex and I think you are right to by “cynical towards justifications for war.” After all, we should be very cautious about going to war.
It is also significant to note that just war theory has been almost entirely developed by Christians, because we realize the realities of the world and that war is sometimes necessary and we, unlike anyone else with a powerful army, are concerned that we use the army justly.
In short, I would love to see everyone in the world lay down their arms and beat their swords into plowshares, but this would be the most dangerous thing of all to do while there are still wicked men with swords, unless we genuinely only care about ourselves and are ready to see the rest of the world thrown into enormous suffering by those who are ready and willing to take it by force. That is why we will only live in peace after our Lord returns and he, by the power of his might, vanquishes all those who oppose him – the only absolute standard for right and wrong.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pm (#)
Robert, thanks once again for the detailed reply. I figure I’ll keep replying so long as I can find the time and so long as I feel like there’s something worthwhile I can say. Please don’t feel obligated to this discussion. I appreciate your willingness to take part in the discussion, though, and I feel like you’re helping to sharpen and clarify my understanding of the world.
A couple things stand out for me in your last post. First, the way you used the word “ultimate” to describe the military (in several different places) seems really hard to reconcile with the biblical fact that God is the ultimate arbiter, the ultimate judge, the ultimate word, the ultimate check, the ultimate determinant, and the ultimate power. We could modify your comments to say the “ultimate human…” but even then is there no significance to the fact that God is the real ultimate power? Surely there is.
Consider Luke 12:16-34:
16And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
18″Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” ‘
20″But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
21″This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”
22Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]? 26Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?
27″Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! 29And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. 30For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.
32″Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
So here’s what I’m saying: If we think we can amass a big and powerful army and thereby achieve security, we’re fools. Therefore, we shouldn’t worry about our lives, how to protect ourselves from terrorists. Life is more than security. Consider the Amish. They neither take up arms or embrace the industrial economy, yet God protects them. Do not set your heart on how you will protect yourself; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after security, and your Father knows that you need security. But seek his kingdom, and security will be given to you as well. Do not be afraid. Quit living for your own security, and live generously. Let your security be in heaven where no terrorist attacks. For where your security is, there your heart will be also. (I’m not saying this is what that passage is saying, but I think it’s consistent with the Bible and that passage, in particular.)
Similarly, when an entity is using force to accomplish its aims, we should remember that God will stop the wicked. The wicked *will* be stopped. God will use infinitely superior force. It would be foolish to worry about whether the wicked will be stopped or not; they will. Ultimately stopping anything is God’s and only God’s job. If the question is what do we need to do to stop the wicked, then the answer is nothing.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t do anything about the wicked, but if our justification is based on the idea that ultimately stopping the wicked depends on us, or if our justification neglects and fails to account for the truth that God will snuff out the lamp of the wicked, then our justification is wrong, and we’re probably not justified in what we’re doing.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:37 pm (#)
> Most fundamental to my position, I think, is
> that we live in a world governed by force.
To put it simply–and I don’t say this to be cute, but because I think it really gets at the heart of where your position is flawed: most fundamental to my position is that we live in a world governed by God.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm (#)
Eric,
We’re in agreement about the horror of war, but I’d like to press you one one thing: Doesn’t God use means to govern? Paul says it is God who institutes our leaders, after all. So God doesn’t (usually) magically protect people — he does it through the means of friends, police, law, and armies. When someone like Hitler tries to take over the world, should we sit back and say, “God will protect us and the innocent people he is slaughtering.” Or should we say “God will use us to protect others”?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:02 pm (#)
>But despite the fact that armies are the most powerful tools that exist, they are still tools, and in that sense cannot be called an “enemy†of anything.
Liberty doesn’t exist or come about in a vacuum. Liberty is interrelated with all sorts of other things. When I say that large standing armies are the enemy of liberty, I don’t mean merely that armies can be used in illiberal ways, although that, of course, is true, too. What I (and Madison) mean is that large standing armies are inconsistent with liberty like Walmart is inconsistent with diverse, small, independent manufacturers, and like mega-farms are the enemy of keeping animals on pasture. The conditions that foster large standing armies and proceed from them are conditions that undermine liberty. You recognized as much when you defended the industrial economy on the grounds that it’s essential to our large standing army. The founding fathers would have said the same thing about guns: a dispersal of gunpower (citizen gun ownership) is a friend to liberty; concentrated gunpower is the enemy of liberty.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm (#)
Hi Josh,
My first thought in response to your question:
1 Corinthians 3:6 and following:
6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:11 pm (#)
That’s not a thought, that’s a text! :)
June 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm (#)
Hi Josh,
I still haven’t given you much of an answer to your question about God using “means” to govern. Yes, God’s providence works through police officers and armies, but it also works through terrorists and God-haters. God’s plan allowed Israel’s neighbors to attack Israel. God’s plan allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery and thrown into prison, in part, to protect his people.
Genesis 45:
4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! 5 And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. 6 For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. 7 But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
8 “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt.
So one point I would make is that God’s plan of protection sometimes runs completely contrary to what would make sense to us. Along the same lines I’m remembering a Berry quote I found on your site yesterday: “The fallibility of a human system of thought is always the result of incompleteness. In order to include some things, we invariably exclude others. We can’t include everything because we don’t know everything; we can’t comprehend what comprehends us.” So I definitely think it’s essential to respect the incomprehensible mystery of how God uses his “means.” For Abraham faithfulness meant preparing to slaughter his only son. And so I think we can say: “31But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.”
Jesus tells us “…do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes.” At the same time Paul said, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” So I absolutely believe that we should be working, seeking the good of others, and obeying God’s commands. I don’t know if this is exactly what I want to say or not, but maybe it’s that I object to ends justifying the means. In other words, I think we should obey God, do what he tells us, and trust him to take care of the ends. I’m not saying we should expect to harvest grain that we never sowed; we should sow grain, but in the end, it’s God that provides the harvest. If the means that God gives us in scripture aren’t yielding the results we want (or that we think God wants), we shouldn’t turn to other means, and we certainly shouldn’t act as if we were the hand of God himself. Suffering is certainly part of God’s plan.
Mainly I just think we need to keep the Bible first and let our common sense follow. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.”
June 9th, 2007 at 3:25 am (#)
Hi Eric,
Thanks so much for your response! I think your comment truly reveals one of the most foundational and most profound truths in all the world (at least that is what I have found it to be in my experience).
You wrote: “most fundamental to my position is that we live in a world governed by God,” in contrast to my position, “we live in a world governed by force.”
But what has been so profound to me over the years is that there is no contrast between these two – they are one in the same. In other words, “God is a force.” In fact, I would even go so far as to say, “God is the force.” “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” Hebrews 4:3 says. All things are sustained by his powerful word.
A force is simply a verb. Where there is movement, there is force. One should also recognize that force, ultimately, is identical to energy. There is much debate going on today about the proper use of energy in light of global warming! Even new age religions have a notion of God as some ultimate source of energy.
Don’t get me wrong! I am certainly not saying that God is just a force – he is so so much more. But the bedrock – if God is nothing else, he is at least a force, that is, he as least is actor, an influence, on the happenings, the movements, the changes of the world.
Most mysteriously, ask yourself the question, “what is life?” Somehow (it is incredible to say) science still doesn’t know what ultimately makes our cells keep “spinning.” Scientists still debate over exactly what “death” is, and cannot explain the phenomenon of consciousness. We know we need “food” for “energy” yet when we feed a dead man bread, he cannot move. But the Bible says, “In him was life, and that life was the light of men.” These words: “life,” “light,” is John merely waxing poetic? I have taken the deepest meaning of this text to be that the ultimate force within man that moves those microscopic parts of our cells (or whatever it is that we can properly call “life”) is God – this, “life” this “light.” When God works miracles to regenerate lost limbs, make cripples walk, and blind to see, is this just “magic”? Or is there some force at work to create and renew?
But perhaps I am scaring you with my mysterious conjectures (I must admit, I do not have that point totally worked out) and I should take a more obvious example. God is omnipotent cf. Jer 32:27, Rev 19:6. Is this omnipotence merely an attractive pendant that hangs around God’s neck or is it part and partial to who God is? In other words, if God could be overcome by something or someone else, would we still call him God? Frankly, I certainly hope not. When discussing the power of Christ over death, that is, the resurrection, Paul wrote, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” That is if anything or anyone has the power to hold Christ in the grave then faith is worthless.
You see, it’s remarkable, force is an attribute of God – yet it’s not even an attribute, it is the essence to which attributes are attached. One thing we know: God is a force – all else that we know about God are merely descriptions of how that force is put into effect. Or, if you would rather it be in less strong terms. One thing we know about God: God is a person and one cannot be a person unless one exerts a force in some way, shape, or form. God has the maximum force in all the universe, that is why we call him, “God.”
Anyways, I sense I am belaboring this point. Allow me to address your other point in another comment.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:13 am (#)
Regarding your second objection, I must admit, I don’t completely understand it. You seem to admit my very point – that liberty doesn’t exist or come about in a vacuum. My overall point was simply that without armies, liberty will always be vanquished by those who hate liberty.
You say, “The conditions that foster large standing armies and proceed from them are conditions that undermine liberty.” Exactly! (1) Conditions exist which undermine liberty. (2) These conditions give rise to large standing armies. (3) Therefore, if liberty is to be protected, we must maintain a large standing army. (Underlying presupposition) A larg-er standing army is the only way to overcome a large standing army. (Unless you know another way to stop armies)
The paradox your argument has created could be stated like this: (1) Armies are the enemy of liberty. (2) Enemies must be protected against. (3) The only protection against armies are armies. (4) To protect liberty, we must, therefore, indulge the enemy of liberty (yet then it is not an enemy). Alternative (1) Armies are the enemy of liberty. (2) Enemies must be protected against. (3) Therefore we shall have no standing army. Yet I remind you (4) Armies still exist elsewhere and my attack for territory, for lust of power, or for other reasons. (5) In such situations the attacker is the enemy of liberty. (6) We have two options: (a) not develop an army, because it is the enemy of liberty (b) develop an army because we are faced with an enemy of liberty. In the case of (6a) liberty has lost because the attacker will surely impose whatever rules he desires (yet how can this be since no army was developed?). In the case of (6b) in your thinking liberty again has lost, because an army was developed (yet how can this be because the people actually kept liberty?). So ultimately, it seems to me that you (and Madison, if he had the same thought process as you) either have a self-contradicting definition of “liberty” or you have a self-contradicting definition of “enemy.”
For those who love liberty, armies are a necessary evil – because there is a realization that there are conditions which require an army exist. For those who hate liberty, armies are a wonderful good because they allow a commander to have absolute control over others. My claim has never been that armies are a good – but that they are an absolutely necessary evil (that therefore serve a great good). And that to ignore the necessary function that armies have is to invite much greater evil into the world than the comparatively mild evil of armies in defense of liberty.
To bring this back full circle: I love the philosophy of Wendell Berry – I see it as good and correct and uplifting. At the same time, I lament because I do not think it is sustainable. After it is established, give it 30 years, perhaps 100 years if God is merciful, but after that time someone who has satellites and canon and jet planes and nuclear bombs will wipe that friendly, peace-loving agrarian community off the map or send them all to work in barren labor-camps, perhaps strip-mining resources. Thus, ultimately, the wonderful (and I do mean wonderful, because I love it, and wish life was like it) community that was created by Wendellian philosophy merely paves the way for great haters of life and haters of the environment and liberty and everything else that this ideal community valued. I wish there was a way around it, but there simply is not, because we live in a world governed by force (where God is the ultimate force).
Think of it this way, Wendell Berry very much treasures human life and the environment. Therefore, he has devised a philosophy that maximizes the good done to humans and the good done to the environment. In other words, his philosophy works at the level of creating practical benefits for humans and the environment, not visa versa: he does not seek to change his values to fit his practical vision. Humans and the environment are ultimate; agrarianism, home economy, etc. are penultimate. In other words, if his philosophy, if agrarianism and home economy actually harmed humans or the environment then that would be valid grounds for him to change his philosophy.
My claim is that, while agrarianism, home economy, and all that certainly do lift up human life and the environment, in the long run, it harms human life and the environment because it cannot provide for the forceful defense of its own values.
You say we don’t need to worry about these far-reaching consequences – just follow the will of God and endure what may come. (1a) Is this not placing the practical advice above the core principles?* (What we Christians would call, “idolatry,” albeit this is at an extremely hidden level.) But perhaps your argument is not simply, “don’t worry about the consequences,” perhaps your argument also includes the element that, “God will take care of the consequences (i.e. a tyrant taking over).” In that case, (1b) Is this the prosperity doctrine, whereby God secures our earthly good and not merely himself for our enjoyment? And if that is not the prosperity doctrine then (1c) how will he take care of the grave consequences? Will it not be by means of some force, whether natural (i.e. a natural disaster) or human? (1ci) If he takes care of it by a human force then why can we not consider ourselves that human force and act to prevent catastrophe in the first place? (1cii) If he takes care of it by a natural force, why can we not expect the same for positive goods – like an incredible bountiful harvest in Africa? Do you think we ought to send food to alleviate starvation in Africa? Certainly God can provide a miraculous harvest there. Then why should we send food, is it not God’s problem and not ours? Are you using the same argument to say that defense is God’s prerogative and not ours? Therefore we should not defend and should merely trust God to protect us?
*This is another interesting paradox that your argument creates. You assert that the will of God is this agrarian, environmentalist ideal. (1) If you assert this on the basis of values such as “human life” and “the environment” then you actually sacrifice those values to your practice. (2) If you assert this on the basis of the practical commands of Christ then (a) these commands aren’t exactly explicit in the Bible, therefore it seems you are putting something doubtful above something sure and (b) you make God out to command the very behavior that would ultimately be contrary to the purposes you see God intending. (Unless you can resolve the first paradox I put to you.)
Ultimately we must also recognize another fundamental truth, one which you very well may affirm, but one that it seems your argument is ignoring. That truth is: there are two wills in God. There is his will of command and his will of decree (among many other names). It is important to recognize that God may command one thing, “Thou shalt not kill” while decreeing another thing, “Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.”
I just say that to point out that there is no guarantee that any pre-scripted course of action will yield the consequence you intend. I think that when we are under the law of grace, the law of love, we must use our minds to think in every circumstance, and use our souls to pray in every circumstance, how we can best demonstrate love toward God and man. Obviously if these thoughts and prayers ever lead us to do something explicitly contrary to Biblical command then we should call our own judgement into question, but if we are thinking and praying rightly then our decided course of action should always and only fulfill the old testament law in ways that the listed law could never accomplish. Developing a philosophy that allows for a robust military defense of key values is one way we can love our neighbor as ourself and (it should be noted) it is totally within the realm of all Biblical texts.
On the flip side of the coin, we should realize that our actions, even when following the will of God, may actually be pushing against the overall purposes of God at various points, and that is why we should expect persecution and oppression. So we should not expect, “everything to work out in the end,” (except the ultimate end) just because we are working for God. Simultaneously, we should, indeed, press on in loving our neighbor and loving God even when it seems our end goal might fail. Therefore, we cannot think that if we simply follow the will of God in being agrarian and environmentalist then he will take care of the rest. Simultaneously, we must press on in maintaining a strong military even when those focused on more immediate impacts are decrying our efforts.
And with that, I cannot write any more because I must sleep. I could potentially be out of internet contact for a long time (like 10 days) just so you are aware. I will do my best to check when I am traveling, but I can’t make guarantees.
It’s been great thinking through these issues with you and I look forward to reading your response!
June 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am (#)
Hi Robert,
Thanks again for replying.
I didn’t see an answer to a question I asked previously, namely if evil requires *us* to respond with force, what then is the significance of God being the ultimate force in this world? It seems you place no significance on that fact. In other words, it seems as you would have us act as if we didn’t have an almighty judge.
You expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability of agrarianism. In short, I agree that all human virtue will be outdone by human vice. Human vice, though, will be outdone by God. In the meantime, let us take sides with God and let us pray for grace. God has always maintained his remnant by grace and will until the last day. You seem to be denying the possibility of living by God’s grace.
That’s not to say that agrarianism is a biblically explicit virtue, but we can make compelling arguments from scripture for living agrarian lives. For instance, Paul writes to the Thessalonians to make it their ambition to live a quiet life, to mind their own business, and to work with their hands, so that their daily life will be an example to outsiders, and so that they won’t be dependent on anyone. That’s just one very little example, but one I especially love. I’ve been meaning to collect a list of similarly compelling proverbs.
I should say, though, that I’m not opposed to having an army. What I object to is a (relatively) large standing army.
As for our liberty depending on our having more force than our enemies, we have nuclear weapons capable of rapidly killing more or less every person on the face of the globe. And yet the (perceived) need for more and more military might never ceases. I think nuclear weapons make a joke of the idea that liberty can be secured by superior military force. That’s not to say that I don’t think it was a joke before nuclear weapons (as in the time of the founding fathers), but the absurdity of the argument is now all that much more obvious.
Since, I’m running short on time at the moment, I’ll leave it at that.
Have a good trip, Robert.
Eric