by Laurence M. Vance
Falwell has done it again. Just like Jacob’s sons Simeon and Levi
made him "stink among the inhabitants of the land" (Genesis
34:30), so Falwell has made Christians stink. Case in point
Falwell’s recent WorldNetDaily
article in which he made an attempt, and a very feeble one,
to justify, with Scripture, President Bush’s invasion of Iraq
an invasion which has resulted, and continues to result, in the
senseless deaths of American servicemen. And if the article itself
wasn’t bad enough, he had the audacity to entitle it: "God
is pro-war." As a Christian of the Independent Baptist persuasion
(like Falwell), I am almost ashamed to identify myself as such.
Although Falwell has been an embarrassment to Independent Baptists
for years, his recent article is just too much to stomach.
is certainly correct when he says about war that "the Bible
is not silent on the subject." Yes, it is true that "just
as there are numerous references to peace in the Bible, there are
frequent references to God-ordained war." And yes, it is true
that Jesus is depicted in Revelation 19 as "bearing a ‘sharp
sword’ and smiting nations, ruling them with ‘a rod of iron.’"
And yes again, it is true that "the Song of Victory in Exodus
15 hails God as a God of war." Furthermore, no one can deny
that "God actually strengthened individuals for war, including
Moses, Joshua, and many of the Old Testament judges who demonstrated
great faith in battle." And finally, it is true that "the
Bible tells us war will be a reality until Christ returns. And when
the time is right, Jesus will indeed come again, ending all wars."
is also correct when he says about society that "we continue
to live in violent times." And yes, "America continues
to face the horrible realities of our fallen world. Suicide bombings
and terrorist actions are beamed live into our homes daily."
problem with Falwell’s article is not with these observations that
anyone who read the Bible and watched the nightly news already knew.
The problem with the article is the numerous distortions of Scripture
and the truth that occur in it.
first distortion is the inappropriate use of that portion of Scripture
that prefaces his article: "To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born
. . . , a time of war." This implies that the present
war in Iraq is just because, after all, there is "a time of
war." If the United States was invaded then it would certainly
be "a time of war." But it would be a morally justifiable
defensive war against an aggressor. The war in Iraq is neither defensive
nor against an aggressor.
second distortion is the title of his article itself: "God
is pro-war." To say that because God permitted wars to take
place, and even commanded the nation of Israel in the Old Testament
to conduct them, that he is "pro-war" is ludicrous. We
know from the Bible that God is pro-holiness and pro-righteousness,
but to say that God is "pro-war" doesn’t sound like any
description of God’s attributes that I ever read in a systematic
theology book. Was God pro-Crimean War? Was God pro-War of the Austrian
Succession? Was God pro-War of the Roses? Whose side was he on in
these conflicts? What Falwell really means is that God is pro-American
wars. Falwell’s shameless pseudo-patriotism is a violation of the
third commandment in the Bible he professes to believe: "Thou
shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" (Exodus
third distortion: "God even gives counsel to be wise in war.
Proverbs 20:18: 'Every purpose is established by counsel: and with
good advice make war.'" How this verse is supposed to mean
that "God even gives counsel to be wise in war" is beyond
me. Nothing in the verse or the context suggests that God is giving
the counsel or the advice. Did God give Hitler and Stalin counsel
to be wise in war? Did God give Pol Pot and Ho Chi Min advice to
make war? Oh, I guess it just means that God only gives U.S. presidents
counsel and advise to be wise in war? But could that even be the
case? Did God give Lincoln counsel to invade the South after Lincoln
said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I
believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination
to do so."? Did God give advice to Wilson to make the world
safe for democracy after Wilson sought reelection on the slogan
"he kept us out of war"?
fourth distortion: "It is apparent that our God-authored freedoms
must be defended. Throughout the book of Judges, God calls the Israelites
to go to war against the Midianites and Philistines. Why? Because
these nations were trying to conquer Israel, and God’s people were
called to defend themselves." But what does invading Iraq have
to do with defending our God-authored freedoms? For this analogy
to be credible, several things must of necessity be true. First,
Iraq would had to have been trying to conquer the United States which
it wasn’t, and couldn’t possibly have done so if it tried. Second,
the citizens of the United States would have to be God’s people quite
strange in view of the fact that God and his Bible are unwelcome
in most of the country’s schools. Christians can quote 2 Chronicles
7:14 all they want, but it still won’t change the fact that America
is not made up of God’s people like Israel of the Old Testament.
Third, invading another country would have to be a means of defending
our God-authored freedoms. That is, we owe our freedoms to offensive
wars by the United States military away from American soil in places
that most Americans couldn’t locate on a map. And fourth, the state
would have to be the defender of our God-given freedoms. But who
has always been the greatest opponent of anyone’s God-authored freedoms?
Why, the state, of course.
fifth distortion: "President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend
innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15
tells us: 'It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction
shall be to the workers of iniquity.'" Well, first of all,
according to that archaic, neglected document in Washington known
as the Constitution, the power to declare war belongs exclusively
to Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8, Par. 11). The fact that Congress hasn’t
officially issued a declaration of war since World War II doesn’t
change anything. It only demonstrates that the Iraq fiasco is not
any more constitutional than the Korea or Vietnam fiascos were.
Secondly, I thought the war was all about finding weapons of mass
destruction, destroying chemical weapons labs, or uncovering Iraq’s
nascent nuclear capability? If the United States is so interested
in defending innocent people in Iraq then why was not Saddam Hussein
removed during the First Gulf War? Why let them suffer all these
years? And why stop at Iraq? Why not defend the innocent people
in North Korea who have suffered under oppressive regimes for decades?
And if it is such a worthy pursuit to defend innocent people in
Iraq, then why not defend innocent people in America? How many millions
of unborn children have been slaughtered in the United States since
the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision? How many thousands of people
are languishing in U.S. prisons for victimless crimes? There are
also two problems with Falwell’s equating the destruction of Iraq
by the U.S. military with the destruction of the workers of iniquity.
First off, I don’t recall reading in Proverbs that it is the job
of the United States to destroy the workers of iniquity. And second,
if "destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity,"
then the United States is in trouble, for we have worked iniquity
all over the globe for the past fifty years.
sixth distortion: "One of the primary purposes of the church
is to stop the spread of evil, even at the cost of human lives.
If we do not stop the spread of evil, many innocent lives will be
lost and the kingdom of God suffers." I thought one of the
primary purposes of the church was to preach the gospel? I thought
one of the primary purposes of the church was to teach converts?
There is no mention anywhere in the New Testament of the church
being commanded to stop the spread of evil. Only God himself can
stop the spread of evil. The Apostle Paul preached the gospel and
taught converts (Acts 14:21), he didn’t waste five minutes trying
to stop the spread of something as nebulous as evil. And then there
is the "cost of human lives." Should the church practice
evil to stop evil? Does the end justify the means? Falwell apparently
thinks it does, even though the Apostle Paul said it was slanderously
reported that he was saying: "Let us do evil, that good may
come?" (Romans 3:8). Falwell’s attitude is like the then U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, in 1996, saying
that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children because of U.S. sanctions
was "worth it" in order to punish Saddam Hussein.
seventh distortion: "Some reading this column will surely ask,
‘Doesn’t the sixth commandment say, "Thou shalt not kill?"’
Actually, no; it says: ‘Thou shalt not commit murder.’ There is
a difference between killing and murdering. In fact, many times
God commanded capital punishment for those who break the law."
Falwell is exactly right, there is a difference between killing
and murdering. The question then is this: Is dropping bombs on countries
thousands of miles away for dubious reasons killing or murdering?
I think the answer is quite obvious.
addition to mentioning war, the writer of Ecclesiastes also says
that there is "a time to keep silence" (Ecclesiastes 3:7).
Mr. Falwell, are you listening?
M. Vance [send him mail]
is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and
economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. Visit his
© 2004 LewRockwell.com