Christian
Killers?
by
Laurence
M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance
There
is no doubt that many of the soldiers responsible for the recent
death
and destruction
in Fallujah are Christians. And there is no doubt that many Americans
who call for more death and destruction in Iraq
and elsewhere are Christians as well.
Christian
Killers.
The
phrase should be a contradiction in terms. If someone referred to
Christian adulterers, Christian drug addicts, Christian prostitutes,
Christian pimps, Christian gangsta rappers, or Christian acid rockers,
most Christians would get an extremely perplexed look on their face.
But when Christians
in the military continue killing for the state, and Christians
not in the military call for more killing in the name of the state,
many Christians don’t even raise an eyebrow.
In
some respects, this is the fault of religious "leaders."
Christians in the pew are in many cases just blindly following their
pastors, priests, elders, and ministers who, instead of preaching
the gospel, are preaching the same pro-war politics their congregation
hears on the Sean
Hannity radio show or else they are not denouncing the debacle
in Iraq for what it is: unscriptural, immoral, and unconstitutional.
Conservative religious leaders are in some cases nothing more than
cheerleaders for George Bush and the Republican Party.
But
even if a Christian hears nothing but pro-war propaganda from the
pulpit, it is still no excuse, for Christians have access to the
truth if they will just put forth the effort to look for it. They
have a Bible they can read for themselves. They have the example
of some principled Christian leaders who have opposed the debacle
in Iraq from the beginning. They have an abundance of alternative
news sources to receive information from besides the pro-war propaganda
they get from the Fox War Channel and the War Street Journal.
It is unfortunate that some Christians won’t read anything unless
it was written by some other Christian they know and usually agree
with. God forbid that they should read something by someone outside
of their denomination, circle, or "camp" or even
worse, someone they consider to be a nominal Christian or not a
Christian at all.
To
justify their consent or silence, and to keep their congregations
in line, Christian leaders repeat to their parishioners the mantra
of "obey the powers that be," a loose paraphrase of Romans
13:1, as if that somehow means that they should blindly follow whatever
the president or the government says, and even worse, that it overturns
the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy
5:17), which is repeated in the New Testament (Matthew 19:18; Romans
13:9). The way some Christians repeat the "obey the powers
that be" mantra, one would think that they would slit their
own mothers’ throats if the state told them to do so.
Under
what circumstances, then, is a Christian justified in or excused
from killing another human being? Is it ever all right for a Christian
to be a "killer"? As I see it, there are four circumstances
under which a Christian could justifiably kill or be excused from
killing: capital punishment, self-defense, accidents, and "just"
wars.
A
Christian who lawfully carried out capital punishment would
not be committing murder. Although the subject of capital punishment
is sometimes hotly debated, the Bible sanctions it before the law
(Genesis 9:6), under the law (Numbers 35:1621, 3031),
and under the New Testament (Acts 25:11; Romans 13:4). For more
on the death penalty see Walter
Block.
No
one, Christian or otherwise, would fault a man for killing another
man in self-defense. Only the most diehard pacifist would refuse
to act in self-defense if he was attacked. This would have to include
the protection of one’s family as well, for if the Bible condemns
a Christian for not providing for his own house (1 Timothy 5:8),
how could a Christian not ensure by whatever means necessary the
protection of his family’s life?
Accidents
happen. And sometimes someone is tragically killed. This does not
make the perpetrator a murderer. The Jews were commanded in the
Old Testament to establish cities of refuge (Numbers 35:6, 11-15)
to which someone might flee that killed his neighbor unawares or
ignorantly (Numbers 35:11; Deuteronomy 19:4-5).
Most
Christians would wholeheartedly agree with these first three propositions.
The problem is with war; specifically, the fact that all wars are
not created equal. The vast majority of wars in the world’s history
have been destructive, unjust, and immoral. What constitutes a just
war is a question I have answered in the essay "Christianity
and War." Obviously, an aggressive, preemptive war against
a country with no navy or air force, an economy in ruins after a
decade of sanctions, and that was no threat to the United States
is not a just war.
A
Christian fighting for the U.S. Government in Iraq doesn’t fall
under any of these circumstances.
After
Bush launched his nebulous "war on terrorism" by having
Afghanistan bombed back to the Stone Age to supposedly rid the world
of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, he announced to the
world his "axis
of evil" and went to war against Iraq to, depending on
what day it was, rid the world of the evil Saddam Hussein or because
Iraq violated U.N. resolutions or to destroy Iraq’s supposed stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction or because of the perceived connection
between al-Qaeda and Iraq or to liberate the Iraqi people or to
bring democracy to Iraq.
Christians
who support or remain silent about Bush’s "war against terrorism"
are terribly inconsistent. If the state were to say: "Here
Christian, put on this uniform, take this gun, go to your hometown,
and kill your father," Christians would recoil in horror and
refuse to obey the state. But if the state were to say: "Here
Christian, put on this uniform, take this gun, go to Iraq, and kill
someone else’s father," I am afraid that many Christians would
reply, "When does my plane leave?"
Why
is it that the same Christian who would not do the former, has no
qualms about doing the latter?
Christians
who voted for George W. Bush (even if it is true that he was in
fact the lesser of two evils a dubious proposition), or make
excuses for his invasion of Iraq, are supporting a man with blood
on his hands (Iraqi blood
and American blood).
The fact that the president himself never killed anyone is irrelevant
Adolf Hitler never gassed a single Jew.
What,
then, is a Christian to do? What should any citizen do? Even though
it is no longer posted in the public schools, most people know the
answer: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). Stop killing
or supporting or making excuses for those who do. Quit ignoring
the fact that the United States has a global empire of troops
and bases
that inevitably leads to more killing. Realize that it is the interventionist
foreign policy of the United States that is the main reason why
the world hates us. Acknowledge that the reason more countries don’t
hate us is because we bribe them with foreign
aid (after the money is first confiscated from U.S. taxpayers).
It
is true that the Bible commands the Christian: "Submit yourselves
to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake" (1 Peter 2:13).
And it is true that it also says: "Let every soul be subject
unto the higher powers" (Romans 13:1). But it doesn’t take
a seminary education to see that this doesn’t trump the commandment:
"Thou shalt not kill." To know when to submit and when
to be in subjection, we have some relevant biblical examples to
go by two in the Old Testament book of Daniel and two in
the New Testament book of Acts.
In
Daniel chapter 3, we read that King Nebuchadnezzar "made an
image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth
thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province
of Babylon" (Daniel 3:1). It was then decreed that when the
music started, everyone was to "fall down and worship the golden
image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up" (Daniel 3:5).
The penalty for noncompliance was to be "cast into the midst
of a burning fiery furnace" (Daniel 3:6). It was then charged
that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not worship the golden
image (Daniel 3:12). When brought before the king and threatened
with being cast into the furnace, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
answered the king: "If it be so, our God whom we serve is able
to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver
us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee,
O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden
image which thou hast set up" (Daniel 3:17-18). Although Nebuchadnezzar
did cast them into the furnace, and God did deliver them, the point
is that these three Hebrews did not submit and were not subject
to King Nebuchadnezzar.
In
Daniel chapter 6, we read that King Darius made a decree that "whosoever
shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days," except
from the king, "shall be cast into the den of lions" (Daniel
6:7). But "when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he
went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward
Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed,
and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime" (Daniel
6:10). For his disobedience, Daniel was cast into the den of lions,
but God delivered him. The point, however, is that Daniel did not
submit and was not subject to King Darius.
In
Acts chapter 4, the Apostles Peter and John were imprisoned by the
leaders of the Jews and then brought before them and commanded "not
to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" (Acts 4:18).
But instead of submitting and being in subjection, they replied:
"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you
more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things
which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). They even prayed
for boldness to continue speaking (Acts 4:29).
In
Acts chapter 5, some apostles were put in prison by order of the
high priest (Acts 5:17-18). They were freed by an angel and ordered
to "stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words
of this life" (Acts 5:20). These apostles were then brought
before the leaders of the Jews and asked: "Did not we straitly
command you that ye should not teach in this name? And, behold,
ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring
this man’s blood upon us" (Acts 5:28). But rather than apologizing
and submitting and being subject to them, the apostles replied:
"We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
To
say, as some Christians do, that because "The LORD is a man
of war" (Exodus 15:3), and God allows wars between nations,
that it is honorable for Christians to enthusiastically participate
in U.S. wars of aggression is about the most profound demonstration
of biblical ignorance that one could manifest.
Perhaps
I should close by saying that I have never advocated, nor am I now
advocating, nor do I intend to advocate in the future, any armed
resistance to the government or any aggression against the government
in any way. The pen is mightier than the sword. "The weapons
of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:4). However,
as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration
of Independence:
We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly
all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train
of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security.
And,
as even Abraham Lincoln said (long before his invasion of the Southern
states):
Any people
anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right
to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new
one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred
right a right which we hope and believe is to liberate
the world.
What
is a Christian (or anyone) going to do when he faces God at the
Judgment and has to give an account of his actions? Suppose he is
asked a simple question: "Why did you kill those people defending
their homes in Iraq?" And suppose he replied: "Because
the U.S. government told me to." What do you suppose would
be the Lord’s reaction to such a reply? But what else could a man
say? He could not say that the United States was under attack. He
could not say that Iraq was a threat to the United States. He could
not say that he was protecting his family. He could not say that
he was protecting his property. He could not even legitimately say
that he was protecting himself, since he was in fact a trespasser
on someone else’s property intending to do the owner great bodily
harm.
"Cursed
be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the
people shall say, Amen" (Deuteronomy 27:25).
December
2, 2004
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and
economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. His forthcoming
book is Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare
State. Visit his
website.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
Laurence
M. Vance Archives
|