Christians and fighting for the state

Just started reading "Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition" by J. Charles. Certainly should be an interesting read to say the lease :)

I was asked the question on how 1 Pet. 2:13-14 relates to a Christian, and if there is a duty to fighting for the state. Here is my initial answer:


First we need to ask "what's the context?"
1 Peter is talking about our privileged place as God's people. Peter describes Christians as a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a people for his possession (2:9), using Old Testament language for God's people of Israel to describe the church. God is building us up into a holy priesthood, (2:5), who are honored to serve the cornerstone (Jesus) of God's work (2:6-7). In v. 11 Peter uses the term "sojourners", which emphasizes our heavenly citizenship, It means that we are living in a world that we are aliens to (analogous with Jews who were forced to live outside of Israel). Our citizenship and identity are now in Christ and God's Kingdom instead of this world.

Peter continues by arguing that Christians should live according to this heavenly citizenship as a beacon of light to those around them, (2:11-12). Christians who act honorably among non-Christians glorify God, and offer an opportunity for non-Christians to do the same. Further, our Christ-like actions prove us blameless in the face of accusations of evil. This is a pretty important theme in the New Testament: our lives are to reflect our citizenship and identity, and when others see this they are presented with the opportunity to respond to Jesus' Gospel.

So what is 2:13-14 about?

2:13 By submitting to governing authorities we are glorifying God and revealing God's light to others. Government isn't an evil thing, in fact the whole reason for government is to restrain evil in the world, something that God ordained (see Romans 13 for example). It is proper and biblical to be in submission to the government as an institution God allows.

2:14 unpacks the reason for government: it's purpose is to restrain evil. Because humans are sinful and there is evil in the world, God uses governments to restrain this evil until the end of the world when his Kingdom arrives in fullness. Governments certainly cannot completely restrain evil (and are evil themselves often times), but by and large they succeed in allowing sin and evil to take their full course. I don't mean that governments do a good job at promoting goodness, but they restrain evil enough that humanity is still alive today (I do believe without this restraint we would have died off a long time ago).

So what 2:13-14 are saying is that as Christians, we should submit to government as an institution ordained by God to restrain evil in this world. Government has some degree of God sanctioned authority, even though governments often times abuse this. Our submission then to government is a part of our submission to God (again, Rom. 13 comes to mind). Even though our primary citizenship is God's Kingdom, we glorify and honor God to submit to government in this world and as a result testify to God's Kingdom.

So should Christians fight when their government goes to war?

1. As a part of our submission to government, there is our patriotic duty to the state (which itself is in submission to our primary duty to God! God is always more important than state).
2. If the state has a just cause for going to war, then as a part of this obligation we can fight for the government.

I really want to stress "just cause": soldiers are supposed to fight and kill who they are told to, this is the nature of orders. As a Christian, I think we must ask if it is "just". We are held to a higher standard than serving state: we serve the true, sovereign, and holy God, and our primary citizenship is not to the state but to God and his Kingdom.

Further, an "unjust" war is immoral, and certainly even as moral creatures we should not support these kind of actions. If there is just cause for going to war, I think there is nothing wrong with this, and in fact we are being unfaithful to our patriotic duty. I certainly do not see the morality or biblical case for pacifism. However, defining "just war" is another question, and certainly not one I am at a place right now to easily answer.


Read more...

Jesus' relationship with the Father and us

I've been reading I. Howard Marshall's short monograph "The Work of Christ". It's an awesome little biblical theology on the development of the significance of Jesus' work.

This isn't a review of any kind... I just wanted to write down somewhere an insight that I had (it's either his point, or me just drawing something from his point)



It is basically this:
Jesus' life and ministry on earth was about providing us with an example of how we are to relate to him in his glorified state.

He:
-- Lived a life in relationship with the Father, which mean both that he was completely obedient (even to dying on the cross), but also was entirely in submission to the will of the Father.
-- Was in such a close proximity with the will of the Father that he was said to be doing the very work of the Father, with the authority and power of the Father
-- The Father glorified him by raising him from the dead and glorifying him. This brought Jesus back to the state of glory he was before the incarnation, but now he was recognized as divine by the church in his new title Lord (the same Greek word used in the OT for God)

(An interesting side note that Marshall mentions: even though in our minds, Jesus' resurrection and ascension/glorification where two different events, in the Church's mind both words referred to the same event. Jesus' ascent into the clouds was just his final appearance in his glorified state).

Likewise, now... the church:
-- Should live in relationship with Jesus, meaning both we are obedient to him (even if it means we must suffer or die) and we are to be in complete submission to his will.
-- Should be in such proximity to the will of Jesus that we are doing His work with his authority and power. (... through the ministry of the Holy Spirit working in us).
-- Will be glorified by Christ in the end by receiving the finality of our salvation and spending eternity with him in his eternal, perfect new creation kingdom. This "glorification" is not only bringing a final realization to our hope in Christ, but also a restoration of our bodies to a Eden-ic quality, though better now that we've conquered sin in Christ.

Anyway, I can see this working in a lot of ways through the New Testament.... not only in Jesus serving as the pattern for our lives and existence (Paul), but also Jesus serving as the mediator of the new covenant, the promised King, and the perfect high priest (Hebrews).

Read more...

Counter Balance

I like to talk sometimes about maintaining balance, that many things in life, philosophy, theology, and so on require balancing between two "extremes" to find truth.

This is certainly a good thing, and there are plenty of examples of its fruitfulness. However, I've been thinking some tonight about some of the downsides (dangers?) of "balance".



The problem is we live in a culture obsessed with "balance".

This kind can be philosophical pluralism, (all views are equally valid options). Sometimes this is sociological: we want to (over?)-represent those who are perceived as under-represented (such as race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). Sometimes it is perspective: postmodernism has taught us that everyone sees the world differently -- and so we want to understand how others perceive the world. (Jane Espenson had an awesome quote at Comicon... she was asked about how she's contributed to the writing of female characters as the only female writer in BSG, she essentially said "I don't think you have to be a female to write good female characters"). Or it can be in the realm of ideas: we want the "under dog" to ultimately triumph over either evil oppressors (of ideas especially), or the willfully ignorant.

The word "balance" itself can mean a lot of things, such as a new-age peace with self / universe, or a form of mental/emotional health. "Balance" can be more of a cop-out to sound "smart" when you really don't have good answers for difficult questions. "Balance" can also be a mask for something that is not really balanced.


So in light of all these options, what is this balance (in regards to theology, and more importantly the Christian mind) that I talk way to much about? Well.. this isn't exhaustive, but a few ideas I had to distinguish it from some of the examples above:

1) Balance between "extremes"
This would hopefully go without saying, but I'm going to say it anyway. Just because there likely is balance to be found between "extremes" does not mean all "extremes" are equally valid. In fact, for such "balance" to occur, there actually is required to have two "extremes" that contain valid elements worth striking a balance between.

What makes it valid? My initial thought is that it has some "significant" explication of truth that justifies the question of balance. Another form of this would be minor revision: perhaps one view is almost entirely wrong, but only has a sliver of truth, that the counter point simply has to slightly modify itself to incorporate that truth.

The point here is that "balance" is a movement towards truth: not just pluralism, and not just...

2) Synthesis
"Balance" is trying to synthesize the elements of truth in the views under question into something close to the truth. This isn't a "pure" synthesis, because you are only dealing with specific aspects of a view, (or making minor alterations to one view). I think my point here is that sometimes "balance" between two views means blurring lines so that "both can be right" without really answering any of the tensions. This really doesn't strike me as a movement towards truth, but rather a movement away from conflict.

This isn't a pure "synthesis", there is no real option of Calminiasm or such. Instead, it is recognizing the points of value and truth and trying to synthesize these points in a way that is harmonious with scripture's presentation of these themes.

3) Scriptural
That last sentence is the more important: we're not just taking claim A, finding its element of truth and fitting it in with the element of truth in claim B. We're taking what seems to be true of both, and finding out where the "balance" or "synthesis" of the two is within the actual themes of scripture. This isn't always possible, and that's why we have systematic theology: to at least present our best reasoning of how these themes can work together. But the goal is to find where the "balance" lies within the text of scripture, and not just some made-up formula.

A harder example is the presence and future of God's Kingdom. This is an example of more true "balance" and less "synthesis", because scripture fluctuates between the two. There isn't a clear "middle ground", but much more of a "tension" in the sense that there are aspects of the kingdom that are present, and aspects that are yet future.

4) Humility
I don't want to sound mean here... but there seems to be this perception that to be a good, grounded theologian, scholar, or minister, you have to at least be sure of what you do know, and have a lot of answers. On the one hand, I would agree that to function well in those positions, you better have a solid grasp of things, but at the same time, true "balance" is found in recognizing the difference between "gray areas" of truth and those that are rock solid. I wouldn't think much of a minister who wavered on things like the unique sufficiency of Christ's work, or the complete authority of Scripture.

That's all I have for now, but hopefully the picture I'm trying to paint is clear enough, or at least getting there. I suspect that the hardest point here is actually determining the validity of a claim and whether it is worthy actually trying to strike a balance. But this at least seems to be a basic component of good critical thinking. And ultimately, that's all I've really been talking about.


Read more...