War on Terror Dialogue (7)

(NOTE: This email was from Jason Sica who is an associate pastor at faith church where my dad and Brent attend)

It seems to me the main issue here is the question of what function or role government is to have in society. I believe government is established by God to promote and maintain the public good. One way of doing this is through upholding law and order by restraining evil and promoting civil righteousness. This means the state is to pursue domestic peace - to cultivate a safe environment in which people can live, work, and flourish. You find numerous Scripture passages compelling belivers to pray for those in authority and to seek the well-being of the city. The rationale is that when justice and peace prevail we will benefit and enjoy the freedom to practice our beliefs. Conservatives are generally good at this (law & order). However, they don't always do a good job of seeing that this must by necessity include promoting and maintaining social justice. Throughout Scripture, the government is held accountable for promoting justice among the most vulnerable in society. The rights of the weak must be upheld. Christians must actively hold the government accountable to this.

The authority of the Church is to be distinguished from the authority of the state so there is a proper separation of spheres of authority. This is really what separation of church and state means (the issue is authority). Society flourishes when all spheres do what they are called to by God. So in regard to the state, it is to promote the public good (which by the way should include such things as caring for the environment). Therefore, the government has no right to endorse a confession of faith or impose any form of worship, but is to concern itself with public justice for the common good. The church by consequence has no right to create and uphold laws for the public, especially in regard to following certain beliefs. Coercion in religion is fundmentally opposed to the dignity of the human person. I also think Constantine declaring Christianity the religion of the Roman empire was a huge mistake. I believe history bears this out. It blurs the line between to spheres of authority which are meant to be separate. So the point here is that government is instituted by God for specific purposes that are essential in society. This is the backdrop for what I'm about to say.

As I mentioned above, one way the government promotes peace is by restraining evil. I believe this includes the use of force when necessary. For example, I believe it would have been morally acceptable for a police officer to shoot the Virginia Tech gunman in the midst of his bloody rampage. Likewise, I believe government officials have the right to invade a brothel and use force if necessary to free young girls from being dehumanized in the sex trade. Remember Romans 13 says that those who do wrong should fear the one in authority, for the one in authority is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Interestingly enough, Romans 12 argues that we must bless those who persecute us and not repay anyone evil for evil. Does Romans 13 therefore contradict the previous chapter? No, not if we keep before us the fact that there are different spheres of authority. As individual citizens or Christians, or as a communities of faith, we have no right to bear the sword or repay evil for evil. Jesus makes this clear in the Sermon on the Mount. We must turn the other cheek (now does this mean it would have been morally wrong for an ordinary citizen to shoot the Virginia Tech gunman, if the police would not have been able to do so. I'm not sure. I don't think so, but this is an extreme case and while related to our conversation, it a bit of an exception). So individuals (those outside the church, and especially those inside) have no right to bear the sword. Our ethic rooted in Jesus is love above all else. What Paul is saying, however, is that God has given the state such authority if necessary as it seeks to accomplish the goal of promoting the well-being of society. So I believe we must separate what we have the authority to do, and what the government has the authority to do.

Now, in regard to war I do believe the state has the authority to declare war as a measure of self-defense. However, this is to be a last resort that is rarely implemented. Peaceful negotiation and even the use of force apart from all out war is to be pursued before the declaration of war. We should go to war in tears because it is not ideal and is yet another reminder that we live in a world where things are not the way they're supposed to be. So I have no problem with someone like Deitrich Bonhoeffer (one of my favorites from church history) who was a pacifist but reached a point where he involved himself in plots with the German Military Intelligence Office to assasinate Hitler. I don't think it no longer made him a pacifist, but rather showed he thought the assasination of Hitler would likley lead to peace. Sadly, Bonhoeffer was murdered by the Nazis shortly before the war ended as the plots were "found out."

Having said all that, the state's right to bear the sword does not give permission to use force at will. So I personally believe the U.S. government abuses the authority given to the state in this area. I also don't believe the war in Iraq is just. Our tendency to play "world police officer" is very dangerous. It seems to me that whenever a threat arises, our response is to say "You better be careful here. We'll blow you to shreads." This is not good. Again, war in my estimation is a last resort that should be avoided at all cost. In fact, it should be rarely enacted. I think our country too quickly turns to war because we are the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and as a result, we have a "big bad army." Militarism is not what's in view in Romans 13. I do know that. The idea that we can secure freedom by going around and blowing up everything and everyone that is a threat is not healthy. I think we have to be weary of a nationalistic, civil religion that leans too quickly toward military involvement as the solution to everything. It's easy to justify war by saying we have the interest of other people in mind. But I don't see that when we are sometimes careless in the way we employ war, and when it seems to be self-serving and ultimately protecting our self-interest. I don't see our government expending the same kind of time and energy when it comes to the injustice of Genocide in a place like Sudan. Why? Well, probably because it isn't much of threat to us. I'm weary of government officials who are quick to to go to war, but slow to address social injustice even at home. This is another reason why I think the whole Republican/Democrat debate is a distraction. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm a Christian (which by the way in the NT means literally little follower of Christ). I care about morals, family values, and all those things. But I also need to care about the rights of the poor, the oppressed, and the planet on which we live (because it was made by God and he commands us to care for it). So there's no need for me to buy into a Republican or Democratic ideology. Christ the supreme ruler, the ultimate Caesar, is concerned that I buy into the ideology of his subversive Kingdom.

Don't end the conversation now. I just entered...Let me know your thoughts.

Jason