She begins by discussing money and quoting my article:

Libertarians talk a lot about economics, and rightfully so. Money is central to a healthy economy. Christians are also concerned about money; in fact God talks frequently about money in the Bible. [Horn]

Actually, money is mentioned more in the Bible than anything else. I’ve written previously of this here. Scriptures tell us that money is a tool with which evil can control man. The Bible obviously doesn’t give political doctrine specific to the Fed, but rather as Christians we are taught to use our access to money as a way of evangelism through deed. This is something libertarianism leaves out, the God part. Are libertarians conservatives without God? That’s a question friends and I have discussed.

Yes, money is mentioned in the Bible a lot. Nonetheless, money is is not “a tool with which evil can control man.” “Evil” does not “control” man. Man has sinful desires, and he chooses to follow after those desires and commit evil actions. This is an important distinction, lest we become metaphysical dualists. Sin is indeed personified sometimes in the Bible, but it is clearly absurd to take such personification too far. As James 1:14-15 tells us, “But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

The language of James likens our sinful state to a struggle going on inside us, and it fits very well with what Paul says in Romans 7. Still, never do Paul or James imply that some ethereal “evil” controls the Christian. On the contrary, Romans 6:6-7 says, “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin – because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.”

Money is indeed a tool, and man can use it do great good, or great evil, or anything in between. I would argue that money has a far greater potential for good than for evil, as is evidenced by the market ecosystem that produces such amazing things as, for instance, computers and the internet, or Bibles and theology books.

Now, although Loesch is right that there is no specific doctrine for the Federal Reserve, Loesch’s statements above are completely non-responsive to the actual substance of my argument: (1) that we need sound money in order to have genuine prosperity and to avoid the business cycle, and (2) sound money, as opposed to state fiat, is the proper moral and Biblical position. Stranger still, she somehow transitions from talking about money – and ignoring the Biblical point about money I was trying to make – to declaring that libertarians leave out “the God part.”

This statement is rather silly and also, quite frankly, rather insulting. It is clearly meant to stand in contrast to Christian “conservatives,” whom I suppose categorically make sure God is in every one of their doctrines, including big government national security and war, big government social security, big government education, and big government health care so long as it’s sponsored by Republicans like Bush or Romney.

More importantly, Loesch misses the point of the article. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that expounds upon natural law, and whose critical ethic is the non-aggression principle. Though not all libertarians believe in God (just as not all conservatives believe either), a vast number admit from the outset that natural law comes from a higher authority. It is transcendent to man, and no man is exceptional to it. The Christian libertarian takes the particular position that natural law was created by the God of the Bible, and that natural law will always stand in concordance with Biblical revelation. This stands in stark contrast to the typical conservative stance that is perfectly fine with giving special moral privilege to American leaders for various purposes regardless of what natural law or the Bible says.

Loesch moves on to war and peace, quoting my article once again:

It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same. [Horn]

This passage presupposes that every conflict in which the United States has ever engaged is due to the United States’s frat boy aggression and need to sow its seed of democracy by force.

No, it does not make such a presupposition, but it does imply that I think the litany of recent wars is completely evil. Such an implication would be correct, in fact. Reader, if you are curious about the effects of American interventionism over time, perhaps you should peruse this article on the Middle East. George W. Bush eventually even admitted that the point of the Second Iraq War was to bring democracy to the Middle East, after the lies about WMDs and such were fully abandoned and they needed a new excuse to continue the violence.

Lest you think I spoke too quickly about the American churches at large – and I mean this in the general sense rather than every church everywhere in America – how many Christians noticed when the Department of State released its report saying that there are no more churches in Afghanistan? How many who did notice thought that this just might be related to American interventionism in Afghanistan for the past 10 years? Christians are typically fine with praying for their military members (I get that), but rarely, if ever, do you hear prayers on the behalf of the innocent people whom their military members directly affect. Where are their priorities?

One year after the Civil War was over, Church of Christ luminary David Lipscomb said: “Why is it that we see men willing to sacrifice property, the comforts of home, the sweets of the domestic and family relationship, undergo privations and sorrows, suffer hunger, and cold, and nakedness, and want for long and weary years, and freely give up life itself at the bidding of earthly rulers and for the sake of corrupt and perishing human kingdoms, while so few are willing to undergo the slightest inconvenience or suffer the least self-denial for the heavenly and eternal kingdom?” Yes, why is it?

Furthermore, it’s odd to me that a follower of limited government would advocate for a state-endorsed religion as a way of nation building, supplanting the previous logical fallacy.

How Loesch discerned from my writings that I support some sort of state-endorsed religious means of nation-building I will never know. Libertarians don’t endorse nation-building by governments at all. If anything, we are interested in spreading our values via peaceful interaction, never through force. Quite a “Christian” thought, I might add.

This author quotes Paul more than the Bible, which tells me everything I need to know about this piece. Ron Paul is not God.

This is potentially the worst accusation in Loesch’s post. Honestly, I do not feel as though I even have to answer it, because the quality of the statement is so poor and the accusation so ridiculous that it should be obvious how wrong it is. I will, however, make one note. When the Washington Post asked me to write an article for them, they requested 600 to 800 words on why some Christians embrace libertarianism and how Ron Paul fits into that. I cannot cover all topics nor can I quote everything I might want. I gave it a good shot, and even so my article ended up being just over 850 words. Loesch, you need to stop reading into my article too much, and trying to make me say things I have never said.

What is truly unfortunate is that by making the universal straw man that “modern American churches seem to think,” i.e. all churches, the author betrays a (conscious or subconscious) prejudice against churches based on his own presupposition.

Whoops, Loesch continues her uncharitable and fallacious reading! She completely misses the mark here, and if she had done her homework she would have probably realized that I love the church and, as I mentioned, even work part-time for one. In fact, I have frequently chided Christians who think that they can just get along without the fellowship of other Christians or who criticize all organized religion. Also, I love how she can read into my subconscious. That’s just outstanding. 

Horn misses a huge part of Christ’s work, exemplified in Matthew 10:34:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Generally, you need to do something called “exegesis” to understand the meaning of a passage like this. You cannot just proof-text Matthew 10:34 to refute the peace-loving nature of Jesus and that pesky “blessed are the peacemakers” passage. Or perhaps you should also call your mother, father, and siblings regularly just to say you have turned against them? (See the next verse.) Moreover, how does one extend this idea that Jesus knew conflict was coming spiritually between people into something akin to “peace between nations is a bad thing”?

I get that Horn wants to promote his stylized version of Biblical interpretation, but he should realize that Ron Paul’s words carry no weight compared to Christ’s, and he perhaps should study the Word of God more than Paul’s words, especially those newsletters.

Again, this statement is so off-center it is barely worthy of response. Besides the blatant insult regarding the newsletters, again she accuses me of elevating Ron Paul to god-status. Loesch, did you not realize I have a theology graduate degree from a reputable, theologically-conservative seminary? Of course not, because you didn’t do your homework. I don’t do “stylized interpretation,” Dana, I do scholarship. If you want to argue with me like scholars do then go right ahead if you can, but leave the needlessly incendiary comments at home.

There’s also this third graph:

Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved.

Scratch “libertarian” from this, it’s something every Christian I know believes, but how does Horn think our rights are secured? By lying prostrate before our enemies when they attack?

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Does that make our Founding Fathers that misused and abused term: “neocons?”

I highly doubt that every Christian Loesch knows truly believes in these principles. I doubt even Loesch agrees with the principle of sound money based on her earlier remarks. Besides, I would guess that the conservatives she knows thinks “limited” government means whatever Republicans want to do, like initiate unconstitutional wars, bailout entire industries, control education of children, and sponsor massive government healthcare programs. I would highly suspect she also knows plenty of Christian warmongers, who think all the aggressive wars of recent years are justifiable, and plenty of Christians who think personal lives ought to be regulated by the government in multitudinous ways. Unlike “conservatives,” libertarians actually care about limiting all government power, not just the power of Democrats.

Then, once again, she completely misrepresents what I said in my article. Never did I argue against using self-defense, but suddenly Loesch apparently thinks I am a complete pacifist (or something similar) who will not defend the rights of others. How ridiculous! If she is perhaps more innocently just indicating I did not say enough, well, there are editorial limits to what you can do with 800 words.

I disagree with the hyphenated way that Horn presents his religious discipline: Christian is Christian. There is no “libertarian Christian,” such division is expressly protested throughout the Gospel, especially in Paul’s address to the Ephesians which addresses division in the body of Christ. There is no need to self-segregate and doing so shows a lack of knowledge in the face of Christ who Himself and through his disciples preached unity.

We now arrive at what seems to be central point of the article. It relates to the title of the post as well, which is: “A Bad Way to Argue for Libertarian-Christianity.” Apparently, what seems to offend Loesch the most is that I would dare argue at all that Christianity and libertarianism are compatible. Doing so, she says, is hyphenating the faith. First off, this is a complete misreading of my article. Never did I say I was arguing for some “libertarian-form-of-Christianity.” Never have I done this on LibertarianChristians.com. On the contrary, any reader of this site can see through the long history of writing that I have always argued for being Christian first, such as this short blog post.

My goal is to get Christians to reconsider their political philosophy, because as far as I can see the modern American church (general sense) tends to elevate statism above principle. Learning better principles tends to lead Christians to embrace a more libertarian political philosophy; it’s a perfectly natural result. It is not, as C.S. Lewis warned us, injecting a “Christianity and…” problem into our theology, it is a consistent way of viewing natural law and behaving accordingly.

Statism is not only a miserable failure, but also fraught with moral hazard and prone to commit atrocities beyond imagination. Instead, let us heed the words of Frederic Bastiat: “And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”

To conclude, I return to the beginning of Loesch’s article:

Can a Christian be a libertarian? A column with some questionable logic that prevents the piece from being truly thought-provoking. A few things: …

Does anyone else find it funny that the only complete sentence in the first paragraph is the title of my original article? More importantly, how is it that Loesch accuses my article of “questionable logic” when her own work is fraught with mischaracterizations, insults, and straw-man arguments? If this is representative of the quality of her BigJournalism site, then count me out.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Bad Way to Argue Against Being a Christian Libertarian

Understanding the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job) is a difficult task at times. On the one hand, the messages are frequently simple to understand and clearly applicable to anyone at any stage of life. On the other hand, connecting this literature to Jesus in the New Testament is complex. O’Donnell’s book engages the reader to think differently about the Wisdom Literature and see Christ in ways that perhaps he or she has never considered before.

The main body of the book contains seven chapters, six of which are written sermons on the first and last chapters of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job. The seventh chapter covers homiletics itself, in other words, how the Wisdom Literature ought to be preached. The seven main chapters total about 150 pages. The book also includes a brief introduction as well as appendices on Hebrew poetry and further study suggestions.

I found the sermons/chapters on Proverbs to be the strongest sections of the book. Recall that Proverbs 1 begins by telling us that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. But what exactly does the "fear" entail? O’Donnell’s study gives us perhaps the best definition of "fearing God" that I have seen in print, and it is worth quoting here from page 37:

"According to the book of Proverbs, ‘the fear of the Lord’ is a continual (Pr. 23:17), humble, and faithful submission to Yahweh, which compels one to hate evil (8:13) and turn away from it (16:6) and brings with it rewards better than all earthly treasures (15:16) – the rewards of a love for and a knowledge of God (1:29; 2:5; 9:10; 15:33), and long life (10:27; 14:27a; 19:23a), confidence (14:26), satisfaction, and protection (19:23)."

Now that is a thorough definition!

You rarely hear a sermon focused on Proverbs 31, which primarily talks about the virtuous wife. The lessons in the chapter, though, are very striking. This chapter reminded me of how blessed I am to have such a wonderful wife myself.

I did not enjoy O’Donnell’s sermons on Ecclesiastes as much as the rest of the book. To me, he seemed somewhat to tow what I might call the standard "Evangelical line," which tends to emphasize the relative superiority of ministerial "church" work to everything else. Perhaps I am not interpreting O’Donnell’s work well, though. To his credit, though, Ecclesiastes is a very difficult book to read and O’Donnell’s contribution to understanding God’s word here is still valuable.

The sermons on Job, I felt, were not particularly novel but still quite encouraging. As is frequently done, he focused on the redemptive aspects of suffering and emphasized the importance of trusting in Jesus Christ for providential care through trouble. Again, the attention given to linking Jesus to the text is worthy of note.

Overall, I found this book enlightening and encouraging in a number of ways. The sermon format, rather than the typical theological book, reads quite well and I found it consistently engaging. While not perfect, it is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of the Christian interested in going deeper into the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament.

Interested in learning more? Check out the book at Amazon.com.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

The defense "cuts," of course, are not really cuts at all, just reductions in the rate of spending increases of the bloated defense budget.

So, who is this Christian warmonger that is so upset about defense budget "cuts" that he thinks they are a deeply disturbing, draconian, recklessly dangerous, self-destructive absurdity.

He is not a member, with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Hal Lindsey, Cal Thomas, and Pat Boone, of the Christian axis of evil, although he should be. He is not a Christian killer par excellence, like Doug Giles. He is not a Christian warmonger on steroids, like Bryan Fischer. And neither is he the greatest Christian warmonger of all time. That designation goes to Ellis Washington.

He is Michael Milton, the newly elected chancellor/CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. Milton holds a B.A. from Mid-America Nazarene University, an M.Div. from Knox Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the University of Wales, Lampeter. He is the former pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in addition to founding two other churches and a Christian school. Milton is the host and speaker on Faith for Living, which can be seen on television and heard on radio. He has also released three music CDs and is the author of several books.

But perhaps I should also note that Dr. Milton has a diploma from the Defense Language Institute, holds a commission in the U.S. Army Reserves as a chaplain, and was elected in 2010 by the Chief of Chaplains to the College of Military Preachers and appointed an instructor at the Armed Forces Chaplain School. He is also the founding director of the Chaplain Ministries Institute in Charlotte. I also note that on October 14, 2001, it was announced that Reformed Theological Seminary had "been approved by the NC SAA Program to receive the GI Bill under the provisions of Title 38 and 10, United States Code!"

Milton is a theological schizophrenic. Schizophrenia has been described as a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness that most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking.

I know of no other way to describe Milton after reading his latest post on the Faith for Living blog hosted by his seminary:

The failure of the bipartisan super committee to take decisive action to reverse the 15 trillion-dollar debt crisis this country needs from becoming another Greece has, predictably, failed. Now the Washington blame game begins. However, the greatest losers are the American people and, specifically, those Americans who courageously and proudly wear the uniform of the armed services.

As threats of cuts are made to their very mission, our brave troops are on the ground, in the air, and on the seas fighting, defending, and protecting this nation from the continuing threats to our very existence as a people. The absurd decision to tie massive cuts to the US military as an "incentive" to force action by the super committee was one of the biggest mistakes ever made by Washington DC, and they have made a few recently. Of all the things that the government does, providing a military to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" just happens to be one of the clearest.

Scripture teaches that God has ordained government for the good of man. Civil authority, according to St. Paul, has been granted the power of the sword to punish evil, thereby protecting the innocent: "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (The Epistle to the Romans 13:4 KJV). The present talk of defense cuts flies in the face of our nation’s duty and our proud heritage.

We have had draw downs before – after WWII, after Vietnam, and after the Gulf War, but we have never had to think about draconian reductions while we were in the middle of a war! It is this very point that is deeply disturbing, and recklessly dangerous. The consequences of even the talk of such tinkering with our defenders, even if reasonable heads prevail to stop this absurdity, will have their consequences.

Have we not learned our lesson? Reagan’s military build-up in the 1980s reversed the ill-advised draw downs after Vietnam (just one front in a larger, trans-generational Cold War) and, according to scholars like Paul Kengor of Grove City College and the American Center for Vision and Values, "All of these ventures [the strengthening of defense] had the effect of demonstrating a stronger, resurgent America, not only economically but also militarily. Suddenly, the country that had left Vietnam no longer appeared to lack resolve" (The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism by Dr. Paul Kengor, HarperCollins, 2007, 82).

Kengor went on to demonstrate that President Reagan understood that America was still at war. According to this preeminent Reagan scholar, his action in strengthening the military greatly contributed to bringing down the Soviet Union. Why now, when our sacred military members are risking their lives to fight "over there" so we don’t fight "over here," would the president and other congressional leaders think that it is any different? To reduce military strength or even to talk about it as an option is to demoralize our troops while they are literally in the midst of a battle for our way of life.

Some may call it treason. I would call it self-destructive. As a minister of the gospel I would also call it irresponsible and immoral, given that God has called our civil authorities to protect our people against evil. May God have mercy and bless the troops who bravely carry on their mission to defend this nation, even while others who have taken the same oath are allegedly using the military as pawns in a Washington election year. There are times when the Church should speak up. Because our life and liberty is at stake, I think that time is now.

Milton holds to every armchair warrior, red-state fascist, reich-wing nationalist, imperial Christian fallacy known to man.

As I mentioned above, cutting the bloated defense budget is to Milton a deeply disturbing, draconian, recklessly dangerous, self-destructive absurdity. The "cuts" fly "in the face of our nation’s duty and our proud heritage." Never mind that the real defense budget is $1 trillion, that the United States spends more than the rest of the world combined, and that most defense spending is really spending on offense.

Milton idolizes members of the military. They are our "brave troops." They "courageously and proudly wear the uniform of the armed services." God should "bless the troops." U.S. soldiers are never Christian killers, murders, accomplices to murder, criminals, dupes, mercenaries, or part of the president’s personal attack force willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary. They are "our sacred military members."

Milton is likewise deceived about the real mission of the military. He thinks they are "our defenders" who "defend this nation" and protect "this nation from the continuing threats to our very existence as a people." The government provides a military to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." U.S. troops "fight ‘over there’ so we don’t fight ‘over here.’" They are "in the midst of a battle for our way of life." But is this what the U.S. military actually does? Unfortunately, most of what the military does is more offense than defense, more foreign than domestic, and more civilian than martial. I think Milton needs a course in DOD 101.

Milton says that we are "in the middle of a war." The United States is actually in the middle of several wars. But rather than saying we should not cut defense because we are fighting wars, why not examine the wars we are fighting to see if they are just, right, and necessary? Since the undeclared, unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Yemen, Pakistan, and everywhere else, are clearly – except to Christian warmongers and imperial Christians – unjust, immoral, and unnecessary, the only sensible solution is to end the wars, not increase the defense budget.

Like other Christian apologists for the state, its military, and its wars that I have written about who appeal to Romans 13 to justify their blind nationalism, their cheerleading for the Republican Party, their childish devotion to the military, their acceptance of national-security state, and their support for perpetual war, Milton seeks to justify a large defense budget by doing the same thing. This, of course, is ludicrous, since the passage has nothing to do with the government providing national defense. But let’s assume for a moment that it does. Fine. How does that justify bloated military budgets, foreign wars, militarism, imperialism, and policing the world? When it comes to the military budget, conservatives adopt the same fallacy as liberals do when it comes to education. To liberals more spending on education means better education; to conservatives more spending on defense means better defense.

And finally, why do conservatives always invoke the name of the criminal, warmongering, budget-busting, deficit-increasing, liberty-destroying, government-expanding, economic and foreign interventionist St. Reagan? Anyone remotely familiar with the Reagan record would not be impressed with Milton’s name-dropping. For the complete and utter evisceration of Reagan, see Murray Rothbard’s "The Reagan Phenomenon," "Ronald Reagan, Warmonger," and "Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy."

What is so bad about theological schizophrenics like Michael Milton is that they have a position of influence over many young people. We can only hope and pray that this is one college administrator that students never get to know.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on December 9, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Theological Schizophrenia

I remember back in the mid 1990s when I was teaching theology and Zondervan published Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I thought it was a good book, and now see that it has sold over 300,000 copies. Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw that the author recently wrote an equally massive book on politics. It is not everyday when a theologian is found to have such a different field of interest and, in the case of Grudem, expertise.

As I have mentioned in some of my other reviews of Christian books (see here, here, here, here, and here), because one of my primary interests is the intersection of religion with politics and economics, I try to read and possibly review any books on these subjects. Although I am usually disappointed, Politics – According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (hereafter just Politics – According to the Bible), although it has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He was formerly Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois. Grudem holds degrees from Harvard, Westminster Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Cambridge. He has served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

The book is very well written and organized. Grudem divides the book into three parts: Basic Principles (5 chapters), Specific Issues (10 chapters), and Concluding Observations (3 chapters). There is a brief preface and introduction, a very detailed table of contents, clear chapter divisions, footnotes, and Scripture, name, and subject indexes.

The author’s approach to the issues he discusses is threefold: arguments from direct biblical statements, arguments from broader biblical principles, and arguments that do not depend on the Bible but on an evaluation of the relevant facts in the world today.

Grudem is a conservative and a Republican, makes no apologies for it, and doesn’t try to hide it. But although he claims in his preface to "not hesitate to criticize Republican policies" where he differs with them and gives as examples "runaway government spending" and "the continual expansion of the federal government" under conservative Republican presidents, the book is long on criticism of Democrats and liberals (with one direct, negative mention of libertarianism [p. 275], although it is not in the index), and short on criticism of Republicans and conservatives.

Grudem’s whipping boys are President Barack Obama, Jim Wallis, the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, and, to a lesser extent, Greg Boyd, the author of The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church.

Boyd has written what I think is a good book criticizing Christian nationalism and warmongering, although I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it. Wallis is a liberal Christian that I rarely agree with either. I also share Grudem’s aversion to the Marxist, socialist, fascist, corporatist abomination that is Obama. In other words, I feel about him the same way as I feel about George W. Bush.

Bush should go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. He gave us the No Child Left Behind Act, expanded Medicare with a prescription-drug program, started two immoral and senseless wars, justified perpetual incarceration, torture, and innumerable other violations of civil liberties and human rights. He had bailout and stimulus programs before Obama did. He crippled corporations with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, destroyed the Fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act, waged war on the Bill of Rights, created the monstrous Department of Homeland Security with its groping TSA goons, and increased farm subsidies and foreign aid. Bush and the Republicans used the federal treasury as an ATM, doubling the national debt, massively increasing government spending, and giving us the first trillion-dollar budget deficit.

Although Bush is mentioned many times in the book, there is only one negative thing said about "George W. Bush’s administration" (p. 573). It is in the Concluding Observations section, and it is just basically a restatement of what Grudem said in the preface that I quoted above about the increase in government spending that occurred "when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate." Taken together, both of these statements imply that there is some criticism of Republicans in the pages between them. But all you will see is some faint criticism of Republicans on pages 274 (a quote from someone else about government debt), 313 (some Republicans opposing change because they are fearful of losing re-election), and 489 (wealthy members of Congress). The only significant criticism of Republicans is on page 474 where Grudem says he is astounded "that anyone in either party, whether Democrat or Republican, would oppose having Congress and the President take the necessary steps to complete a secure and impenetrable border fence immediately." Later in his Concluding Observations section, Grudem reluctantly admits that "President Reagan, a Republican, supported some reduction of the US nuclear arsenal" (p. 582), condemns "hyper-conservative people who have opposed any elements of a plan that would allow any path to citizenship whatsoever for the illegal aliens who are now here in the United States" (p. 584), and criticizes John McCain for being an opponent of "coercive interrogation methods" (p. 582) and a prominent supporter of campaign finance restrictions (p. 585).

Part I

As mentioned previously, the book is divided into three parts. The first section, Basic Principles, actually consists of four distinct elements: what Grudem considers to be five wrong views about Christians and government followed by his "better solution," biblical principles concerning government, a biblical worldview, and the court system as the ultimate power in a nation. The second and most important part of the book is the Specific Issues section. Although there are ten chapters here, there are actually about fifty topics that are discussed, from things one would expect like abortion and private property, to unexpected topics like farm subsidies and CAFE standards. The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book.

Grudem starts out with his five wrong views about Christians and government: "government should compel religion," "government should exclude religion," "all government is evil and demonic," "do evangelism, not politics," and "do politics, not evangelism." The problems with the first two and the last one are obvious, but I think Grudem errs in his treatment of the other two.

In his discussion of "all government is evil and demonic," Grudem is mainly arguing against Greg Boyd and his The Myth of a Christian Nation. Grudem takes issue with Boyd’s reference to Jesus’ encounter with Satan when he was fasting in the wilderness, specifically this:

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. (Luke 4:5-7)

Grudem says Boyd is wrong in pointing out that Jesus "doesn’t dispute the Devil’s claim" because Satan is lying, because "there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). I think the point here is that Satan was offering Christ the kingdoms of the world now, without the Cross, which was not in the plan of God. Christ later said that his kingdom was not now of this world (John 18:36), although it will be in the future (2 Timothy 4:1). Christ three times refers to the devil as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) – the "present evil world" (Galatians 1:4) that "lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). It could be argued that the devil had this position by usurpation and permission (see Job 1 & 2; Daniel 2:21, 4:25; John 19:11), but he had it nevertheless.

In taking issue with Boyd’s pacifism (which I don’t necessarily agree with), Grudem makes some statements that show where he will go later in the book on the subject of national defense (chap. 11). He reasons that taking the view that "all government is demonic" (how else could you describe the current U.S. government?) "would mean less and less support for a strong military" that could "oppose evil aggressors anywhere in the world" (p. 43). He is concerned about "aggressive nations who would attack us and our allies," blind to the fact that the United States has the most aggressive foreign policy of any country and is the only country currently engaged in foreign wars half way around the world. Naturally, like all apologists for U.S. wars, he is compelled to mention Munich and appeasement, as if that someone justifies the aggressive foreign policy of the United States. (On Munich, see my review of "Buchanan’s Necessary Book.")

In arguing against "do evangelism, not politics," Grudem seems to equate Christians not using political means to transform society with not preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God and not seeking to be a good influence on society. He is arguing here against a straw man. And I think he is incorrect in more than one respect when he says that "God gave both the church and the government to restrain evil in this age" (p. 48). The real purpose of government, as my friend Tom DiLorenzo has said, is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.

I have no argument with Grudem’s "better solution" to what he considers to be wrong views of Christians and government of "Christian influence on government." I wholeheartedly concur that "the responsibility of pastors is to give wise biblical teaching, explaining exactly how the teachings of the Bible apply to various specific situations in life, and that should certainly include instruction about some political matters in government and politics" (p. 62). On the subject of Prohibition, Grudem makes the good point that "it is impossible to enforce moral standards on a population when those moral standards are more strict than the standards found in the Bible itself" (pgs. 63-64).

The one problem I see with Grudem’s "better solution" is that it includes voting. Although I think he wisely says that he doesn’t think Christians should only vote for Christian candidates or generally prefer an evangelical candidate over a non-evangelical one (Grudem’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2007 over Mike Huckabee proves his sincerity), he believes that Christians have an obligation to vote. And not only vote, but to do something else like "giving money or giving time to support specific candidates and issues," "writing letters or helping to distribute literature," or "running for office or volunteering to serve in the military" (p. 75). I think rather that Christians would do better to give their money and time to churches and charity work instead of politicians and political parties, distribute religious literature instead of political literature, and run for a church office instead of a political office. And above all, stay out of the military. We are only in chapter two, and once again Grudem’s admiration for the military shines through. He also mentions here the canard of U.S. soldiers dying for our freedoms, including in that number those who were duped to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. One can already see that we are going to have a tough time getting through his chapter on national defense.

In the third chapter of the Basic Principles section, Grudem gives us his biblical principles concerning government. Here we find mostly good, but sometimes a mixed bag. He recognizes that "governments too often attempt to restrict human liberty in ways that are much more extensive and intrusive and that prohibit not only the doing of things that are clearly evil, but also doing things that are morally neutral or good but not favored by the government" and that "every incremental increase in governmental regulation of life is also an incremental removal of some measure of human liberty" (p. 94), but then defends the current airport security system that views all travelers as criminals and expresses support for a federal court decision that prohibited a religious group from using marijuana.

Another example is on the subject of taxes. Grudem mentions how taxes result in lost liberty and freedom and rob people of huge portions of their lives. But he speaks favorably of "tax-supported playgrounds and parks where families can picnic and sports teams can practice and compete" (p. 80). We will see the same thing in his section on taxes in the chapter on economics (chap. 9).

Grudem makes a distinction between "blind patriotism" and "genuine patriotism" (p. 109), and makes some good biblical points about the necessity of sometimes disobeying the government, but does not seem to sufficiently recognize a distinction between a country and its government.

To finish out the Basic Principles section, Grudem has chapter on "a biblical worldview" that is straightforward enough. However, his final chapter on "the courts and the question of ultimate power in a nation," while it contains much good information, concludes with the admonition to vote Republican as "the best way – in fact, the only way known to me – to bring about a change and break the rule of unaccountable judges over our society" (p. 154). Grudem is under the delusion that Republicans generally support "‘originalist’ judges and justices who will rule according to the original meaning of the Constitution." I guess that’s why Senator John McCain voted to confirm to the Supreme Court the liberal, pro-choice justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter. It is also delusional to say that justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas "consistently" rule "according to the original meaning of the Constitution" (p. 151). Just look at the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005) where Scalia voted with the "liberal" majority while Thomas wrote a blistering dissent that charged the majority with making a mockery of the Constitution. And on the federal appeals court level, in the case of Seven-Sky & American Center for Law and Justice v. Holder, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just recently ruled that the Obamacare "individual mandate" was constitutional. The opinion was written by Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman. (On the legal challenges to Obamacare, see my "The Supreme Court and Obamacare.")

Part II

The meat of Politics – According to the Bible is the Specific Issues section. Each of the ten chapters discusses from four to eleven topics. The best chapter is the one on The Environment; the worst is the one on National Defense. Although Grudem covers about fifty topics, I think some important ones are missing; e.g., civil liberties and the war on drugs.

The Protection of Life

The chapter on The Protection of Life includes the topics of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and self-defense and ownership of guns. Obviously, Grudem, as a conservative Republican, is an opponent of abortion, and states his case quite well, but I take issue with his statement that "every vote for every Democratic candidate for President or Congress undeniably has the effect of continuing to protect 1,000,000 abortions per year in the United States" (p. 177). Earlier in the section on abortion, Grudem says that no government money should be given to pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. But just look at who has been funding Planned Parenthood. This is a blog post I did on April 28, 2010:

I have seen it reported in several places that Planned Parenthood, one of the world’s leading abortion providers, received government grants and contracts of $350 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 and $337 million for fiscal year 2006-2007. I verified this information for myself on the Planned Parenthood website. I also discovered that Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year ends on June 30. This means that Bush the Republican was the president during this time. But after doing a little digging, I also found out that Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million (34%) during fiscal year 2005-2006. During this time we not only had Bush the Republican president but also a Republican majority in Congress. Yet, Planned Parenthood was still funded. And we are supposed to take Republicans seriously when they complain that Obama isn’t likely to appoint an anti-abortion judge to the Supreme Court? Why wasn’t the Republican Party that concerned about abortion when clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005?

Although I agree with Grudem on his biblical defense of capital punishment, I think he exceeds the biblical mandate when he says that he thinks "that capital punishment should be the penalty for some other crimes that were intended to or actually did lead to the death of other people" (p. 192). In his otherwise good discussion of gun control, I think he compromises when he says the government should be able to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership including "the prohibition of private ownership of certain types of weapons not needed for personal self-defense" (p. 211).

Marriage

In his chapter on marriage, Grudem shines except for his insistence that "only a civil government is able to define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for a whole nation of whole society" (p. 222). Marriage preceded the state, and does not need the state’s oversight. Furthermore, I think Grudem greatly overstates his case:

Without a governmentally established standard of what constitutes marriage, the result will be a proliferation of children born in relationships of incest and polygamy as well as in many temporary relationships without commitment, and many children born with no one having a legal obligation to care for them (p. 222).

Taking these in reverse order, a child’s parents have the legal obligation to care for it whether they are married or not, there are many children born now as a result of temporary relationships without commitment, and it is ludicrous to think that it is only state oversight of marriage that keeps people from incest and polygamy. This is akin to the drug warrior implying that everyone would be on drugs if all drug prohibitions were lifted.

Grudem unfortunately provides the wrong information on which states have legalized same-sex marriage. In a book the size of Politics – According to the Bible, it is understandable that has to be written over a long period of time. However, every attempt should be made to have facts and figures up-to-date by the time the book is published. We are told on page 229 that three states – Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont – have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage, but that the voters in Maine overruled the legislature and governor. This leaves two states where same-sex marriage is legal. But on page 596, Grudem tells us that there are four states where same-sex marriage is legal: Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Both of these are wrong. The date Grudem gives at the end of his preface is February 2010. On page 395 he mentions that he is writing in early 2010. Five states plus the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage before the book was published. And since Grudem mentions in one place the latest state to do so – New Hampshire on January 1, 2010 – there is no excuse for the other states and the District of Columbia not being mentioned.

Grudem makes a good point when he says that if the majority of society decides to grant domestic partner benefits, "they should not be limited to homosexual domestic partners, but should apply to all people living together in long-term relationships where there is mutual commitment and obligation to care and support each other" (p. 234).

On the topic of pornography, Grudem begins well: "The fact that something is morally wrong according to the Bible does not by itself mean that governments should have laws against it" (p. 242). Yet, he makes a distinction between laws against looking at pornographic material (he opposes them) and laws against the production, distribution, and sale of pornography (he supports them).

The Family

This brief chapter includes a discussion of educational vouchers. Although Grudem believes that "parents, not the government, should have the freedom to decide how best to educate their children" (p. 248), he believes, unfortunately, that this freedom includes the use of other people’s money to pay for their decision. Grudem wants to see "a system of school vouchers provided by the local government to pay for the education of children in each family" (p. 250). To the objection that parents could use vouchers to send their children to church-related schools, he says, correctly: "The First Amendment was only intended to prohibit the governmental establishment of one certain church or religion as the official state church. It was never intended to prevent all government support for everything that is done by a church." But this does not mean that the government should support anything done by a church. What we need, of course, is a complete separation of school from state, not a continuation of it through a voucher system. (See my articles on vouchers here, here, here, and here.) But as to whether "governments should encourage married couples to bear and raise children" (p. 245), the government should neither encourage nor discourage this decision.

Economics

Overall, this is a very good chapter. Grudem defends free markets, personal liberty, limited government, and property rights while disparaging government regulation, progressive taxation, the "fair tax," and income redistribution. My favorites:

• Every increase in taxes takes away that much more human freedom (p. 286).
• Governments all over the world are notorious for waste and inefficiency (p. 286).
• Higher taxes on corporations are just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices (p. 289).
• A strong argument can be made that the capital gains tax should be completely abolished (p. 291).
• I can see no justification in the Bible for a "progressive" tax rate (p. 292).
• When taxpayers are allowed to keep more of their own money, there is an increase in the amount of personal liberty in society (p. 300).
• Property belongs to individuals, not to society and not to the government (p. 301).
• My conclusion is that the estate tax should be permanently repealed (p. 309).

But in typical Republican fashion, Grudem compromises, and sometimes a great deal. Note carefully the downward progression (emphasis mine):

• Government is never an efficient provider of economic goods (p. 313).
• It is difficult to think of any goods or services that a government might produce that could not be produced better by private companies (p. 285).
• The free market is almost always a better way of solving an economic problem than government ownership or control (p. 275).
• Some services and products needed by the entire society are best provided by government (p. 285).

Therefore, "government should establish and maintain an effective money supply for a nation" (p. 271), "it is necessary for governments to impose some health and safety standards on the sale of medicines and foods or other products such as bicycles and cars" (p. 274), some government regulation is necessary "to prevent wrongdoing such as theft, fraud, and breaking of contracts (p. 276), "there is some need for government-supported welfare programs to help cases of urgent need (for example, to provide a ‘safety net’ to keep people from going hungry or without clothing or shelter)" (p. 281), "it is appropriate for government to provide enough funding so that everyone is able to gain enough skills and education to earn a living" (p. 281), the government should enable "every citizen to live adequately in the society" (p. 281), "there is nothing wrong with the original idea behind Social Security" (p. 312), and "some provision should be made to care for those who truly cannot afford medical insurance" (p. 315).

So, lest there be any misunderstanding about Grudem’s compassionate conservatism:

I want to reaffirm that I believe that it is right that government provide some kind of guarantee of support for those who are genuinely no longer able to work due to old age, disability, or involuntary unemployment. And it would of course make sense to provide provisions for partial benefits to be paid to people who wanted to take semi-retirement and then ease gradually into full retirement (p. 312).

It would make more sense to follow the Constitution, which Grudem says is the highest government authority (p. 153), and that authorizes no such provisions.

It is unfortunate that in this chapter Grudem perverts Matthew 22:17 in maintaining that "Jesus thus endorsed the legitimacy of paying taxes to a civil government" (p. 285) and Romans 13:4 in saying that "governments should do ‘good’ for people." (On the former see Jeffrey Barr on "Render unto Caesar"; on the later see my recent analysis of another perversion of Romans 13.)

The Environment

As mentioned previously, this is Grudem’s best chapter in the Specific Issues section. "It is not wrong in principle, as many environmentalists think it is, for human beings to modify the world" (p. 323), says Grudem. Man was placed on the earth to subdue it and have dominion over it (Genesis 1:28). Grudem demolishes environmentalist wacko claims about global warming, and perceptively sees the issue as a controversy over human liberty versus government control:

If the government can dictate how far you drive your car, how much you heat or cool your home, how much you will use electric lights or computers or a TV, how much energy your factory can use, and how much jet fuel you can have to fly an airplane, then it can control most of the society (p. 380).

Grudem makes the case that there is no good reason to think we will ever run out of any essential natural resource. To this end, he examines data regarding population, land, water, clean air, waste disposal, forests, species loss, pesticides, and life expectancy, and discusses energy sources. I also like his heroic defense of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

National Defense

All good things must come to an end. Grudem’s chapter on National Defense is typical Republican and conservative pro-war and pro-military claptrap.

No one would have an argument with one of Grudem’s opening statements:

Now, if a government is commanded by God to protect its citizens from the robber or thief who comes from within a country, then certainly it also has an obligation to protect its citizens against thousands of murderers or thieves who come as an army from somewhere outside of the nation. Therefore a nation has a moral obligation to defend itself against foreign attackers who would come to kill and conquer and subjugate the people in a nation (p. 388).

He also says later: "No nation has the right ever to use military power simply to conquer other nations or impose their ideas of social good on another nation" (p. 394). But all of this goes by the wayside when Grudem says: "I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just wars" (p. 414). And especially when he says: "The war in Iraq was a necessary, strategic, and highly significant step in defending the United States against radical Islamic terrorism" (p. 417).

But that’s not all, Grudem, in typical warmongering, interventionist Republican fashion, defends coercive interrogation techniques (he justifies this on the basis of biblical admonitions to discipline children), John Yoo, George W. Bush, the atomic bombing of Japan, the FBI, the CIA (we should "be thankful" for it), NATO, more weapons, missile defense, bigger military budgets, the war on terror, waterboarding ("this procedure does not seem to me to be inherently morally wrong"), and warrantless wiretapping.

Grudem singles out Congressman Ron Paul for his noninterventionist views (p. 398-399). He calls his understanding of foreign policy "deeply flawed." His criticism of the sane noninterventionist views of Dr. Paul is enough to make you want to put down the book. But your reviewer has persevered.

There are some real howlers in the chapter. Like justifying foreign intervention with the Declaration of Independence (p. 397-398). Like bemoaning the vote of the Senate to stop production of the F-22 at 187 fighters (p. 400-401), a decision supported by Senator John McCain, senior military leaders, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and opposed by Democratic and Republican senators because they were concerned about job losses in their districts. Like Saddam Hussein transported his mass of weapons destruction to Syria (p. 415). And like it is all Obama’s fault that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is decreasing (p. 418) when Bush made an agreement to do so in 2008.

Because this review is already too long, I refer the reader to some of my articles regarding things Grudem brings up. On the sixth commandment is only about murder (p. 389), see my "The Unholy Desire of Christians to Legitimize Killing in War." On soldiers in the New Testament not being condemned (p. 389), see my "There They Crucified Him" and "Do Violence to No Man." On the just war tradition being consistent with biblical teachings (p. 389), see my "What About Hitler?" On Romans 13 as a justification for national defense (pgs. 392, 425, 428), see my "Romans 13 and National Defense." On Obama reducing the strength of the military, see my "Rush Is Wrong." On torture being okay if we don’t call it torture (p. 425-433), see my "Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus," "Christians for Torture," and "The Morality of Torture." And on the war in Iraq being a just war (p. 414-418), see my "Christianity and the War."

Foreign Policy

Grudem’s chapter on foreign policy isn’t much better than his chapter on national defense. But this was to be expected since an interventionist military policy is just the other side of the coin of an interventionist foreign policy. No one would argue with the author that the "promotion of human freedom, human rights, and democratic government is consistent with the most foundational convictions of our nation" (p. 441). But it is the way Grudem feels the United States should go about this that is troubling. He applies the command of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39) to nations, saying that "nations should seek to do good for other nations insofar as they have opportunity to do so" (p. 437). However, the main way this is to be done is through foreign aid; that is, the looting of the American taxpayers (see my many articles on foreign aid here). Grudem supports continuing the Cuban embargo. Grudem is not a dispensationalist, but still believes that "we should treat Israel as a very special and close ally" (p. 467). He again states his disagreement with the noninterventionism of Ron Paul because it is a policy "which opposes any defense alliances with Israel and all foreign or military aid to Israel."

Grudem takes an exceptionally hard line on immigration. "The United States must take immediate action to immediately and effectively close its borders," he says (p. 473). As mentioned previously, Grudem favors the immediate construction of a secure and impenetrable border fence. He sees no valid argument to oppose it or delay it. He favors more effective law enforcement to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants and the E-Verify program. To his credit, Grudem does say that the idea that foreign workers will take jobs away from Americans "is based on a misunderstanding of economics" (p. 481) And he also says that "immigrants who want to come to the United States are, by and large, producers who bring benefit to the economy and helpers who bring other benefits to the society as a whole" (p. 476). One thing he doesn’t say is that the welfare state should be abolished to prevent immigrants draining more resources "from the nation than they provide to the nation" (p. 472). The fact that Grudem lives in Arizona may somewhat explain his views on immigration.

Freedom of Speech

Here Grudem presents a biblical and constitutional defense of freedom of speech. In doing so he harshly criticizes campaign finance restrictions, campus "hate speech" codes, and the Fairness Doctrine.

Freedom of Religion

The only problem I see with the author’s chapter on Freedom of Religion is his advocacy of government-supported "faith-based" programs because they "‘promote the general welfare’ of the nation" (p. 508). He maintains that faith-based programs "actually save tax dollars that would otherwise need to be spent to help the people who are cared for by these religiously based institutions." But just like vouchers don’t lower federal spending on education, so faith-based program funding will not lower federal welfare spending. Our main disagreement is over government funds needing to be spent on welfare in the first place.

Special Groups

The last chapter in the Specific Issues section covers topics like regulators, earmarks, affirmative action, gender-based quotas, farm subsidies, tariffs, tort reform, the NEA, Native Americans, and gambling. Grudem favors "the complete abolition of all affirmative action policies in law and business and government once for all" (p. 524). He opposes farm subsidizes and tariffs on principle, but is willing to make some exceptions. He terms regulators "a vast army of bureaucrats," and labels increasing government regulation as "anti-democratic" and "anti-free market" (p. 517), but allows for "certain product control standards and certain standards for safety and justice in the workplace" to be "enforced by such government agencies" (p. 515). His criticism of the NEA is mainly over its opposition to vouchers. The solution to the Indian problem he sees as private ownership of property instead of the system of tribal ownership.

On gambling, Grudem says he is not aware of any specific Bible verses that directly prohibit participating in gambling" (p. 550), and that it is his personal practice to avoid gambling, but since casinos and state lotteries "bring much more harm to society than the benefits they generate" (p. 551), he would vote against a state allowing a lottery, an Indian casino, or a commercial casino to operate. (See my articles on gambling prohibitions at the state and federal levels.) Since Grudem has a section on gambling, there is no excuse for not having a section on the drug war.

Part III

The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book. Chapter 16, on "media bias," closes with one Scripture reference at the end. Chapter 18, on "faith and works, and trusting God while working in politics and government," although it contains may Scripture references, likewise departs from the subject of politics and the Bible.

Chapter 17, titled "application to Democratic and Republican policies today," forms the book’s conclusion. It also serves as the author’s solution to policies that don’t line up with the Bible – vote Republican. Grudem criticizes Jim Wallis for writing a book about God not being a Republican or Democrat and then arguing that "‘God’s politics’ are the politics of the Democratic Party" (p. 573), but this is exactly what he has done as it relates to Republicans.

Grudem is deluded to think that the policies and principles of the two major parties represent very different viewpoints (see my many articles on the Republican Party here). He claims that "the Republican Party has been dominated by people favoring smaller government, lower taxes, strong defense, traditional standards regarding abortion and marriage, the promotion of democracy, and the promotion of free market economics" (p. 574). Anyone who has studied the history of the Republican Party knows that this is simply not true (again, see my many articles on the Republican Party here). Rather than the teachings of the Bible mostly supporting "the current policies of the Republicans" (p. 573-574), it would be more accurate to say that the teachings of the Bible mostly support Republican rhetoric that they don’t really believe.

One thing that will turn people from, and cause readers not to finish Politics – According to the Bible is its size (619 pgs.). The main reason for this is the author’s departure from the book’s subject, which is not limited to just chapters 16 and 18. This does not mean that all his departures are necessarily bad, but I do think that the book, in its current format, should have been shorter, or else expanded and put into a more encyclopedic format.

To repeat what I said at the onset, although this book has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on November 17, 2011.

You might not want to read Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, but there are plenty of other great books out there for you. Check out LCC’s latest book list and the recently updated LCC bookstore, and support LCC by clicking through a link to Amazon.com. Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Republican Politics According to the Bible

If the Christian “nation” is comprised of every nation, how can it be right for Christians to be nationalists in the common sense of the term? Regrettably, modern cultural dynamics have led many Christians to embrace the sin of nationalism. The dictionary defines nationalism as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations”.(¹⁾ Absent a theocracy, the New Testament clearly stands out against nationalism. Christians are “strangers and pilgrims” in this world and are comprised of brethren from “every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Hebrews 11:13; Revelation 5:9b).

The Christian’s King is Jesus and his “country” is a heavenly one where ethnicity is not important and all speak the same, delightful language of “Beulah” (Hebrews 11:16b; Isaiah 62:4b). That fact implies, in short, that nationalism is a prideful sin that is deleterious to Christian thinking, to missionary endeavors, and to personal sanctification. Indeed, the tightest loyalty a Christian should have in this world is to other believers—no matter what political realm they belong to. The moment a believer is more American, British, Argentine, Peruvian, Chilean, Czech, etc. than he is Christian, he is guilty of nationalism. At any time a Christian favors the people of “his country” (e.g., fellow Americans) more than Christians in other countries he is guilty of the sin of nationalism. Are we loyal to Jesus and His church first and to our fellow citizens only secondarily? Or have we succumbed to nationalism?

Is it right for Christians to oppose immigration of foreigners through public policies? Legal immigration is probably not a concern for Christians, but what about illegal immigration? By now it should be clear that the only true outsiders to a Christian are the unbelieving “dogs” of this age—especially those political and wealthy figures who revel in ungodliness (Matthew 7:6; Philippians 3:2; Revelation 22:15). Christians around the world are superficially separated by language and political boundaries but are unified by the Holy Spirit—even though many Christians apparently ignore this fact. Sadly, at times they enthusiastically advocate the bombing of other countries, adversely impacting other Christians. How many Christians were killed or injured by the American bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Baghdad? Does the perceived necessity of bombing a country override our obligation to protect innocent human life— especially the lives of our brethren, the poor, and the oppressed? A Christian foreign policy should be distinct from that of unbelievers because it is influenced by biblical principles.

Christians are pilgrims in this world who seek a heavenly country (Hebrews 11:6). They are told by Christ to “flee” persecution (Matthew 10:23; 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21), as Joseph and Mary did (Matthew 2:13)—along with countless other believers throughout history. Such obedient fleeing might entail a Christian having to enter another country, perhaps violating the country’s immigration policies. But so what? Christians are remiss if they make the well-being of their country the primary focal point for deciding the veracity of immigration policy rather than the well-being of God’s beloved people.

On the one hand, a Christian’s nationality is irrelevant and Christians should welcome believing immigrants with open arms—whether they are legal or illegal in the state’s eyes. For Christians, borders and the legality of migration are trivial or extraneous when it comes to obeying Christ’s command to flee persecution or to love and prefer one another in Christ (Philippians 2:2). How can Christians who financially and prayerfully support national pastors and church members living under tyrannical regimes hinder those same people from fleeing to America (or freer countries) by any means? The sanctimonious divine right notion that Christians may only flee when it is legal to do so—and then only immigrate to America after they have clearance from state bureaucrats—is fallacious, hypocritical, and unbiblical.

On the other hand, a Christian may support the limited government where he lives, procuring better self-defense of life and liberty. A Christian is called to steward his private property too (Proverbs 27:23-24).(²⁾ To those ends, Christians may justly back reactive public policy to safeguard national borders, oppose any migration that undermines the common defense of life, liberty, and property, and even (by default rule) oppose the illegal immigration of ordinary unbelievers. Such reactive immigration policy will be most efficiently and effectively carried out through market-based solutions rather than clumsy and venal attempts by government enforcement.

But an American Christian must always be a Christian first and an American second. He must think and consider each issue on its own merits before supporting or rejecting any particular migration policy. He must avoid jumping on an absolutist bandwagon that opposes any and all illegal immigration out-of-hand that would cause him to shirk his biblical responsibilities or trammel his brethren.(³⁾ He must prefer Christians of any nationality over unbelieving Americans. And he should “do good” to poor or oppressed unbelievers when possible too (as Galatians 6:10 mandates) by facilitating their migration. Thus, in the final analysis, a Christian should oppose any proactive immigration or foreign policy that curtails his biblical obligations, and only support proper reactive immigration and foreign policies.

⁽¹⁾ That is, “nations” in the modern sense of the word. I have covered issues regarding the sin of nationalism more extensively in Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective (Alertness Books, 2003), pages 41-48.

⁽²⁾ “Be diligent to know the state of your flocks, and attend to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations” (Proverbs 27:23-24), along with many other verses promoting good stewardship.

⁽³⁾ A biblical understanding of nations leads us to embrace a theology of public policy that differs widely from that advocated by many Christians—especially in America. Christians should not absolutely oppose illegal immigration. Christians should not obey men rather than God.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on September 28, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Christians cannot be nationalists

It is error to comprehend the United States of America as a nation in a biblical sense. America’s territory contains people from many nations, all falling under the political authority of the Constitution. Even though many of God’s people are also Americans it is incorrect to equate the American people with God’s people. Moreover, the territory of the United States is not the special or promised “land” of the people of God. Territory does not become sacred on account of some Christians inhabiting it.

Regrettably, many modern preachers have failed to grasp these facts. Two passages of Scripture commonly twisted in contemporary sermons are: “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14) and “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His own inheritance” (Psalm 33:12). These verses are inappropriately preached or interpreted as follows: “If Americans will humble themselves, and pray and seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways, then God will hear from heaven, and will forgive America’s national sins and heal the country.” Further, the God of the Bible is purported to be America’s God and, as a result, many Americans presume that the American people have been chosen as God’s inheritance. From these errors emerge the underlying specious idea that certain “national sins”—which occur within arbitrary and variable political boundaries (e.g., the United States)—will lead to divine judgment. Nonetheless, “national repentance” is possible when sought in earnest.

Nevertheless, there are no such national sins, and no national repentance. The Bible does not indicate that God any longer deals with nations as He did under the Old Covenant. He used to deal uniquely with the nation of Israel (i.e., the “people” and the “inheritance” referred to in 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Psalm 33:12), often violently opposing and dispossessing the Gentile nations. For instance, it was said that “the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles” (Zechariah 14:18). Certainly, Gentiles could abandon their pagan ways and join Israel, as was the case with Rahab the Canaanite, Ruth the Moabitess, and those Jews who heard Peter preach in Jerusalem described as “devout men, from every nation under heaven” (Joshua 6:25; Hebrews 11:31; Ruth 1:22; Acts 2:5). But these individuals were the exception rather than the rule under the Old Covenant. Now God deals with nations by calling out his elect from every nation—forming a new and holy nation called the church—and abandoning the rest to eternal condemnation. Thus, passages like 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Psalm 33:12 have no more application to the political constituents of America than they do to political constituents of largely Muslim Indonesia, largely pagan New Guinea and Madagascar, or largely Roman Catholic Paraguay and Argentina.

A similar critique may be leveled at the abuse of the infamously mistreated verse: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). This verse should not be interpreted that the political realm America will be exalted when its decrees are righteous. It means that blessing will follow when a family is converted to Christ, and then a clan follows suit, and finally over time (perhaps encompassing several generations), an entire tribe or larger ethnic aggregate “nation” may be depicted as faithful. At that point, the righteousness of those people exalts them both temporally and eternally. One may see examples of this blessing (or imperfect tendencies toward it) in the people of Judah under Josiah and the people of Nineveh, as well as the households of Moses, Samuel, David, Lydia, and the Philippian jailor (2 Kings 23:4-24; Jonah 3:5-10; Hebrews 3:2, 5; 1 Samuel 2:35; 1 Samuel 22:14; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:34). Widespread good character and habits among any ethnic group have an uplifting effect.

Conversely, sinful habits and proclivities are a snare to any ethnic group: “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits’” (1 Corinthians 15:33). Remember how Paul warned Titus about the character of the people of Crete: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12), and how God debilitated Pharaoh on account of Sarai: “But the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife” (Genesis 12:17). Modern America contains many ethnic groups—nations—which have many bad habits. But the true Christian nation in America is no more implicated by the evils of its neighbors than Lot was in Sodom, Israel was in Egypt, Judah was in Babylon, or Christians were in Rome. It is not the fault of Christians that their neighbors practice sin. Of course, individual Christians may fall into the sins of the nations around them (2 Kings 17:15), but they can and should remain holy (Romans 6:1; 1 Corinthians 10:13; Hebrews 12:14).

Originally published in The Times Examiner on September 21, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The United States: Not a Biblical Nation

God is not concerned about the repentance and salvation of America as a nation-state but rather the salvation of the nations within America. Jesus Christ used the term nation to mean His chosen people—the spiritual “seed” of Abraham (Galatians 3:29)—as opposed to Abraham’s physical lineage. “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:43). The Apostle Peter makes it clear that the church of Jesus Christ is now God’s “holy nation” and His “special people” rather than ethnic Israel. “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). And the Apostle John similarly esteems the work of Christ in redeeming His church from all racial and cultural groups: “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

Accordingly, Jesus “shall inherit all nations”, not in some political sense but in terms of gaining a people from all ethnic groups.(¹⁾ The Psalms declare that Jesus Christ has “the nations” for His “inheritance”, and has become the “head of the nations”, where “all the families of the nations shall worship before” Him. God’s salvation is known “among all nations”,(²⁾ so that “all nations shall serve Him” and “all nations shall call Him blessed” (Psalms 82:8; 2:8; 18:43; 22:27; 67:2; 72:11, 17). Now “all nations shall flow to” the Lord’s house, “a house of prayer for all nations”, where “all the nations shall be blessed” (Isaiah 2:2; Mark 11:17; Galatians 3:8). The gospel is at the present “a witness unto all nations” that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations”, “for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name” (Matthew 24:14; Luke 24:47; Romans 1:5). Thus, Christians are called to “make disciples of all the nations” via the gospel which must “be preached to all the nations” (Matthew 28:19; Mark 13:10). As a result, “the glory and the honor of the nations” will be present in heaven (Revelation 21:26).

Clearly, God is interested in forming His church from the remnant of nations now confined in all countries worldwide. Capricious political boundaries are not in view in these verses—Roman or otherwise. The Bible is speaking of reaching all ethnic groups. In the end, Jesus will gather “all the nations” before Him for judgment (Matthew 25:32), speaking not of judging political authorities or constituencies but rather ethnic aggregates.

While “the nations rage”, it is the Lord that “makes nations great, and destroys them; He enlarges nations, and guides them” (Psalm 2:1; Acts 4:25; Job 12:23; cf. Psalm 118:10). God “destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan”; “the nations have perished out of His land” (Acts 13:19; Psalm 10:16). Indeed, “All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless” (Isaiah 40:17). God is speaking about the insignificance of people groups, not of political covenants.

Just think about the blessings that have been bestowed upon ethnic groups within Western Europe and America in recent centuries, stemming from revivals and widespread acceptance of the Gospel for many generations. Sometimes God will “grant…repentance” to masses of people (2 Timothy 2:25), such as He did in the case of Nineveh, Macedonia, and Corinth (Jonah 3:5; 4:2, 11; Matthew 12:41; Luke 11:42; Acts 16:9-10; 18:10). These good people, God’s elect, were not so much identified by their political allegiances as by their ethnic and cultural attributes. They retained their godly character even after being exiled to new political jurisdictions, as with the Puritans fleeing to America.(³⁾ Hence, the blessings of America are not the result of God favoring its political organization but rather the godly culture of the nations which have flowed into it.

Individuals repent and believe; political entities do not. Only individuals or ethnic groups are said to be judged in the Bible: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” and “Let the nations be judged in Your sight” (Psalm 9:17, 19). “When He gives quietness, who then can make trouble? And when He hides His face, who then can see Him, whether it is against a nation or a man alone?” (Job 34:29). The idea of national repentance defined by non-ethnic, political boundaries is bogus.

⁽¹⁾ This idea is likely implied in the apostolic discussion of the “firstfruits” from Achaia in Romans 16:15 and 1 Corinthians 16:15.

⁽²⁾ Under this blessed existence, “men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’” (Zechariah 8:23).

⁽³⁾ Many other examples could be cited: the Huguenots fleeing from French papists, the Baptists fleeing from persecution in central Europe to the new world, or the early Roman Christians being exiled to the southern shores of the Black Sea by Nero (1 Peter 1:1).

Originally published in The Times Examiner on September 14, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Why do the nations rage?” and more on Biblical nations

In the Bible, a nation simply does not refer to a political apparatus demarcated by territory. When the Bible says, “Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled” (Isaiah 43:9), it does not refer to the inhabitants of the various political boundaries set by men throughout history but to the ethnic lineage of people groups and cultures. The Lord told Rebekah that, “Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23)—showing that one nation can become divided into many. Her son Jacob (Israel) was to become “the one nation on the earth whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people” (2 Samuel 7:23), as opposed to other ethnic groups and peoples.

Human rather than political attributes are ascribed to nations. More than metaphorically, nations have “eyes”, “mouths”, and “ears”. They can “drink” or be “drunk”, can “hear”, can bear a “yoke of iron”, can “shake” from fear, can “know” God, can be enraged, can “abhor” or “hate” others, and can “be ashamed” (Isaiah 52:10; Micah 7:16; Revelation 14:8; 18:3; Jeremiah 6:18; 25:15; 28:14; Ezekiel 31:16; 36:23; 38:23; Psalm 2:1; Acts 4:25; Proverbs 24:24; Matthew 24:9; Micah 7:16). They can “assemble and come” and “gather together all around”. They can be “deceived” and become “ungodly” (Joel 3:11; Revelation 18:23; 20:8; Psalm 43:1).(¹⁾ Such traits can hardly be applied even figuratively to states.

In Daniel, the phrase “peoples, nations, and languages” is repeated five times (Daniel 3:4, 7; 4:1; 5:19; 6:25; 7:14). Similar phrases are engaged seven times in the book of Revelation—combining the words tribes, tongues, peoples, multitudes, and nations (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15).(²⁾ The Apostle John is likely alluding to the prophet Daniel, and both writers make clear that people groups rather than political constituencies are signified by the word “nations”. The other words in these phrases also refer to individual human beings classified according to their ethnicity or culture, rendering any understanding of nation as a political structure incongruent with the immediate context.(³⁾ Accordingly, when the Bible states that, “men of all nations, from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom, came to hear the wisdom of Solomon” (1 Kings 4:34), it means that men from all races and ethnic groups, including those of high political office, learned from Solomon.

Such biblical usage of the word nation is exemplified elsewhere. First century Jewish elders acclaimed a Roman centurion as being one who “loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue” (Luke 7:5). They did not use “our nation” to signify that the centurion built it because he loved the political boundaries, citizenship rules, or dominion of the Roman authorities over Palestine. They meant that the centurion loved the Jewish people and therefore built them a synagogue. Likewise, when the Jews accused Jesus of “perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2; cf. John 7:12), they did not mean that Jesus perverted the Roman political system or its constituency. They meant that He stirred up the Jewish people to disobey Caesar and not pay Roman taxes.

Similarly, the first century high priest had “prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52). This prophecy did not indicate that Jesus was going to die for all the people within chosen political jurisdictions. Instead, it meant that Jesus would die for all of “His people”, from His “chosen generation” (Matthew 1:21; 1 Peter 2:9), snatched from every ethnic group on earth. Pilate also demonstrated this understanding when he said “Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me” (John 18:35), indicating that Jesus’ ethnic group—what Luke calls “the nation of the Jews” (Acts 10:22)—had delivered Him up. Jesus’ nation was neither Rome nor any Roman province. He was of the nation of Israel, in the country of Palestine, which was then being subjugated by the Roman civil authority. Paul too admitted his ethnic alignment with the Jews, twice calling them “my own nation” (Acts 26:4; Galatians 1:14). Thus, a biblical nation has everything to do with ethnicity and nothing to do with territory or political boundaries.

⁽¹⁾ The Israelites desired that Samuel would give them “a king to judge [them] like all the nations” so that they would be “like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5, 20)—not because they lacked the political boundaries that other nations had but because they wanted a territorial ruler akin to theirs.

⁽²⁾ These are: “tribe and tongue and people and nation”, “all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues”, “many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings”, “peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations”, “every tribe, tongue, and nation”, “every nation, tribe, tongue, and people”, or “peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues”.

⁽³⁾ It might seem curious that the political word “kings” is once included in Revelation 10:11 except that the word also refers to an individual’s profession, making it congruent with the other synonyms in the set.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on September 7, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Theology of Nations in the Bible

The biblical idea of a nation is not analogous to the modern concept of a state. Yet many preachers have erred by forcing the modern scheme of states into passages dealing with nations (or peoples). It is quite impossible for preachers to square the spurious notions—(1) that Americans are the “people of God”, (2) that the territory of the United States is the “land” of God’s people, or (3) that America as a nation can “repent” and be “healed”—with what the Bible teaches. Indeed, to comprehend the United States of America as a “nation” in a biblical sense is to distort the teaching of the word of God.(¹⁾

If God is not bound by political boundaries, then how does He deal with nations? What is a nation in a biblical sense? Generally, a nation is an ethnic aggregate or a race. It is the swelling of the extended family over generations; an ethnic group identified by lineage, language, and culture—typically taking the namesake of a patriarch (e.g., the “nation of Israel”). Thus, a nation is a group of related people headed by single man (e.g., Abraham), composed of tribes, which are composed of clans, which are composed of families. A tribe becomes a nation when it grows sufficiently to have large subdivisions.

Accordingly, in Genesis 10:5 the Bible says “the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.” In Genesis 25:16 we read that “the sons of Ishmael…[had] towns and their settlements [named after them], twelve princes according to their nations.” A man named Tidal was called the “king of nations” (Genesis 14:1, 9), probably referring to his rule over several undesignated peoples, as opposed to the kings of specified nations like Shinar, Ellasar, and Elam. Ethnic groups like the Geshurites, Girzites, Amalekites, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Amalekites are called “nations” too (1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Chronicles 18:11), and some of these nations are mentioned as having controlled territory (denoted as their “country”) throughout the Old Testament. Abraham was told that he would become “a father of many nations”, “a great and mighty nation” that would bless other nations, and that “kings” would come from him (Genesis 17:4-5; 18:18; 17:16).

Sometimes in Scripture the word nations is used in a pejorative sense. It can be used to allude to the embodiment of evil represented by ungodly Gentile practices, or the place where evil kings arise to do mischief against God’s people, such as those arrayed against the Lord in battle (Lamentations 1:10; Isaiah 14:9; Revelation 14:8; Psalm 83:4; Isaiah 13:4).1 Jesus tells us that “nation will rise against nation” (Matthew 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:10). However, ethnic groups are infrequently identified solely for a political attribute of aggression or by a trait of immorality. Their ethnic character remains paramount.

In Scripture, the word country is more analogous to the modern idea of nation or political jurisdiction of a government or a state. There are many such cases in Scripture: (1) Abraham was told by God: “get out of your country” and dwell in a “foreign country” (Genesis 12:1; Acts 7:3; Hebrews 11:9); (2) Joseph cannily accused his brothers of spying out the “country” of Egypt (Genesis 42:30); (3) the Israelites dwelt in the “country of Goshen” (Genesis 47:27); (4) the children of Israel “searched out” and conquered Canaan—also known as the “country which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us” (Deuteronomy 26:3; Joshua 2:2; 7:2) and to three tribes were given the “country of Gilead” (Joshua 22:9); (5) the Magi “departed for their own country another way” (Matthew 2:12); (6) a prophet is honored everywhere “except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4; Matthew 21:33; John 4:44); (7) businessmen and noblemen traveling abroad to other countries (Matthew 21:33; 25:14; Mark 12:1; 13:34; Luke 19:12; 20:9); (8) Mary “went into the hill country with haste” (Luke 1:39), and (9) the multitudes listening to Jesus sought lodging and provisions in “the surrounding towns and country” (Luke 9:12).

Further, the political significance of the word country is perhaps most plainly set forth by: (10) the prodigal son who “journeyed to a far country…and joined himself to a citizen of that country” (Luke 15:13, 15); and (11) Joses “a Levite of the country of Cyprus” (Acts 4:36), who was obviously of the nation of Israel. The word country usually refers to the political confines of some place.² Regrettably, many preachers have been misinformed and confused, assuming that the modern usage of “nation” is analogous to the biblical concept of nation rather than only being analogous to the biblical concept of country . As we will see, they have erred by transposing their vernacular onto the Scriptures, causing their hearers to stumble with them.

¹ The Greek words translated as “nation” or “nations” in the New Testament also support the ethnic group understanding of the terms and rather than the mistaken modern understanding based on the common vernacular. The roots of these words come through in English in a similar way to their usage in Greek: (1) eqnoV (ethnos) — underlies the translation of nation or nations sixty-one times (or 93.9% of the occurrences) in the King James Version New Testament — from which are derived the English words ethnic and ethnicity; (2) genoV and genea (genos and genea) — underlies the translation of nation or nations three times (or 4.6% of the occurrences) in the King James Version New Testament — from which are derived the English words genus, group, and class (even genealogy); and (3) allofuloV (allophulos) — underlies the translation of nation or nations once (or 1.5% of the occurrences) in the King James Version New Testament — meaning a foreign people or nation (e.g., a Gentile one). Accordingly, these words imply that people groups or ethnic aggregates are embodied in the words nation and nations. They certainly do not refer to the group of people living within the political confines of places like America. Furthermore, the few Hebrew words translated as nation or nations in the King James Version Old Testament likewise refer to people groups according to ethnicity rather than cohorts of people confined inside political boundaries or classified by political allegiance. Thus, it is evident that the idea of nation in the Bible does not carry the same significance as the word in our English vernacular.

² The word country can also mean “the countryside” as was the case when Jesus went “into the country near the wilderness” to avoid the Jews (John 11:54), or for Simon the Cyrenian who was coming “from the country” (Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26).

Originally published in The Times Examiner on August 31, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Biblical Nations are not States

Americans love anniversaries, and especially of horrific events. Every year at this time we are reminded that the atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945 ("Little Boy"), and on Nagasaki on Thursday, August 9 ("Fat Man") ended World War II (or began the Cold War, depending on how you look at it).

Since the 9/11 attacks, we have heard a lot of talk about Iraq, Iran, or some terrorist group having weapons of mass destruction; that is, nuclear weapons. Yet, when it is pointed out that the United States is the only country that has actually used these weapons of mass destruction – against civilians no less – we are told that it was necessary to incinerate 200,000 people – civilians – to save the lives of "thousands and thousands" (Harry Truman’s original number) or "millions" (George H. W. Bush’s figure) of American soldiers who might die invading Japan.

So, according to the American myth that is trotted out every year, the atomic bombing of Japan was not only justified and necessary, but sane and moral. After all, the U.S. Army Air Force had already killed 100,000 Japanese civilians when it firebombed Tokyo on the night of March 9, 1945, with seventeen hundred tons of bombs. "War is hell." "All’s fair in love and war." "Remember Pearl Harbor."

I write now, not about Truman’s decision to drop the bomb or to rethink World War II, but about the United States using nuclear weapons again in another "good war."

It was recently brought to light that U.S. Air Force chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California were appealing to the Bible and just war theory in a mandatory Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session for missile officers in order to morally and ethically justify the launching of nuclear weapons.

In other words, nuke ’em and God will bless you.

A watchdog group, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, filed a complaint on behalf of thirty-one instructor and student missile launch officers.

The program has since "been taken out of the curriculum and is being reviewed," said David Smith, chief of public affairs of Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. It turns out that the Air Force has been citing Christian teachings in its missile officer training materials for twenty years.

A forty-three-page PowerPoint presentation given in the Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session by Chaplain Captain Shin Soh can be viewed here.

Many armchair Christian warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, Religious Right warvangelicals, Reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, and God and country Christian bumpkins might object, not to the existence of a Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session that appeals to Scripture to soothe the consciences of religious people, but to the cancellation of such a program because it "takes God out of government" and other nonsense. David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, dismissed complaints about the program as what he called "another attempt to cleanse American history of its religious realities." "It’s about cleansing religion from the public square and building a completely secular society and military," added French.

I am not one of those Christians and I think French should go to France.

I wish I could say that the only things wrong with the PowerPoint presentation are that page sixteen is duplicated and page forty-three is blank.

I find the presentation to be a blasphemous misuse and perversion of Scripture to justify the idea that Christians can launch nuclear weapons with the blessing of God.

I want to focus on the examples given in the presentation from the Old Testament, the Intertestamental Period, and the New Testament. I reproduce the text of the presentation exactly as it appears.

On page eighteen we are told that there are "many examples of believers engaged in wars in the Old Testament." Here are the four examples we are given:

• Abraham organized an army to rescue Lot (Gen 14)
• Judges (Samson, Deborah, Barak) – God is motivating judges to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors
• David is a warrior who is also a man after God’s own heart
• Hebrews 11:32-34 uses as examples of true faith those OT believers who engaged in war in a righteous way

Chaplain Shin Soh should have just said what he meant: Abraham organized an army to rescue Lot, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. God motivated judges to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. David was a warrior and a man after God’s own heart, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Hebrews 11:32-34 uses as examples of true faith those OT believers who engaged in war in a righteous way, so nuke ’em and God will bless you.

What does Abraham, "the friend of God" (James 2:23), rescuing his nephew Lot have to do with launching nuclear weapons? Absolutely nothing, of course, unless you are deluded enough to think that the United States is the "friend of God" and other nations are God’s enemies.

So, God motivated judges to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors. Does this also mean that God motivates U.S. soldiers to fight and oppress foreigners? I didn’t think so.

True, David was a warrior (Psalm 144:1) and a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), but he was also an adulterer (2 Samuel 11:2-4) and a murderer (2 Samuel 12:9). And besides, because David was a man of war, the Lord said to him: "Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood" (1 Chronicles 28:3).

The "OT believers" mentioned in Hebrews 11:32-34 include four judges (already discussed), King David (already discussed), and Samuel and the prophets. What they did is irrelevant since, as the presentation says, they did it "in a righteous way." There is nothing righteous about nuking cities. And especially nuking civilians after their military strikes a military target like the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. And besides, the Bible in Hebrews actually says that these people in the Old Testament "wrought righteousness" (Hebrews 11:33), not that they did something in a righteous way. At least get your Scripture straight before you pervert it.

There is one PowerPoint slide on the "Inter-testimental [sic] Period":

• Maccabees – Jewish revolt against their Syrian oppressors
• No pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history

What Chaplain Shin Soh means to say is that since the Jews revolted against the Syrians and there is no pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history then go ahead and nuke ’em and God will bless you.

Although it is true that God commanded the nation of Israel in the Old Testament to fight against heathen nations (Judges 6:16), the president of the United States is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, the U.S. military is not the Lord’s army, the Christian’s sword is the word of God, and the only warfare the New Testament encourages the Christian to wage is against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

On pages twenty-one through twenty-three we are given six examples from the New Testament:

• Luke 3:14 – John the Baptist doesn’t tell the Roman soldiers to leave the army before being baptized
• Luke 7:10 – Jesus uses the Roman centurion as a positive illustration of faith
• Acts 10:2, 22, 35 Paul interacts with Cornelius, a Roman army officer – known as "devout and God fearing"
• Romans 13:4 In spite of personal blemishes, God calls the emperor to be an instrument of justice
• II Timothy 2:3 Paul chooses three illustrations to show what it means to be a good disciple of Christ
  • Farmer – work hard and be patient
  • Athlete – be self disciplined, train
  • Soldier – be willing to put up with hardship
• Revelation 19:11 Jesus Christ is the mighty warrior

Again, Chaplain Shin Soh should have just said what he meant: John the Baptist doesn’t tell the Roman soldiers to leave the army before being baptized, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Jesus uses the Roman centurion as a positive illustration of faith, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Paul interacts with Cornelius, a Roman army officer, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. In spite of personal blemishes, God calls the emperor to be an instrument of justice, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Paul uses the illustrations of a farmer, an athlete, and a soldier to show what it means to be a good disciple of Christ, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Jesus Christ is the mighty warrior, so nuke ’em and God will bless you.

Regarding Roman soldiers, centurions, and army officers, it’s funny how apologists for the U.S. military never refer to the ones that beat and crucified Jesus Christ, an innocent man (Matthew 27:4). They would be more akin to U.S. soldiers that kill foreigners in unjust wars or train to launch nuclear missiles at civilians. On John the Baptist, I have written a whole article here.

The emperor was "an instrument of justice" in his empire; he was not the policeman of the world. Unless Chaplain Shin Soh wants to acknowledge the U.S. empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, he might want to rethink his example. He can’t have it both ways.

The Bible does liken a Christian to a soldier (2 Timothy 2:3, Philemon 2, Philippians 2:25). But as soldiers, Christians are admonished to "put on the whole armor of God" (Ephesians 6:11), "the breastplate of righteousness" (Ephesians 6:14), and "the helmet of salvation" (Ephesians 6:17). The weapons of the Christian soldier are not carnal (2 Corinthians 10:4); his shield is "the shield of faith" (Ephesians 6:16) and his sword is "the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). Not exactly a description of a soldier in the U.S. military.

It is blasphemous to even remotely imply that since Jesus Christ is pictured as a mighty warrior, so nuke ’em and God will bless you.

The New Testament section of the presentation closes with this statement: "If war in the natural order is inherently unethical, it cannot be a good illustration in the spiritual order." Sorry chaplain, wrong again. First, it depends on what kind of war. War that is truly defensive (not just said to be defensive like Bush declaring the Iraq war to be defensive) or war that is divinely sanctioned (limited to Jews in the Old Testament, not U.S. wars) is not inherently unethical. Anything else is not just unethical; it is wholesale murder. And second, the Bible records Jesus as saying: "Behold, I come as a thief" (Revelation 16:15). Although stealing is inherently unethical, it is a good illustration in the spiritual order because the Lord Jesus made the illustration.

On page thirty-two of the presentation, under "Nuclear Ethics," the question is asked: "Can we exercise enough faith in our decision makers, political and military, to follow through with the orders that are given to us?" This is a good question, and one that all current and potential U.S. military personnel should consider. I would say that our decision makers, political and military, are the last people that anyone should put faith in.

The presentation concludes with a statement by a Captain Charles H. Nicholls that I wholeheartedly agree with: "Those of us on missile or bomber crews must also make the decision now. Before taking the oath of office or donning the uniform, we must commit ourselves to duty. We must decide now that our mission is compatible with our morality, or else we must resign our commissions." This is a great statement. I would say – nuclear mission or no nuclear mission – that since so much of what the military does is immoral (like, for instance, bombing, invading, and occupying other countries that were no threat to the United States), those young people that can’t find a good job or are looking for money for college should not even consider the military in any capacity. And to those entrusted with nuclear weapons, we can only hope and pray that they resign their commissions. God will not bless them for launching nukes just because they were following the orders of political and military decision makers.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on August 6, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Nuke ‘em and God Will Bless You