Considering the spiritual battle raging between God and Satan, it should come as little surprise that the spread of God’s kingdom often does not occur peaceably. Paradoxically, the Lord is both the “God of peace” and the God who assails the kingdom of Satan: “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20), implying that His judgment will come upon Satan’s kingdom in both the spiritual and temporal realms. The Christian’s civic duty should be similarly directed. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) and yet He tells us: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The reason is simply that even though a battle rages in the spiritual world between principalities and powers (2 Corinthians 10:4-6, Revelation 12:7; Jude 1:9; Daniel 10:13), this battle spills over into time and space, being manifested principally through conflicts between Christians and false religion or the state. However, God’s kingdom has invaded the world, casting out Satan’s kingdom and disrupting the false “peace” that Satan gives (Luke 11:21).

Surely, the preaching of the Gospel and its transformation of hearers brings men peace with God. But the preaching of the Gospel also yields a threat to Satan’s kingdom, resulting in social rancor and violence as Satan seeks to defend his turf. The church is to neither be the initiator of violence nor use force to create converts. Yet the Bible indicates that individual Christians may use force to defend themselves against attacks from criminals—even state criminals. Martyrdom is not their only choice. Indeed, the threat of force is the only deterrent that keeps a state in line and Christians must be ready to use their might to that end. Of course, prudence would direct that using force should only be considered for egregious, ongoing violations of civil liberties. The civil disobedience and resistance doctrine of Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer thus has no quarrel with the Scriptures and rightly concurs with Jefferson’s caution in the Declaration of Independence. (¹⁾

Ironically, Christians must fight for peace, and their greatest achievement and objective should be to promote peace. Conversely, let us recall that the great “achievements” of modern man—unbelief, totalitarianism, secular humanism, Darwinism, and socialism, just to name a few—have brought poverty, misery, hatred, and war to human civilizations. But Christians should have the opposite record. They can promote peace with God by preaching the Gospel and they will promote peace and goodwill among men by advocating limited government and free markets. They may also promote earthly peace by engaging their culture politically: by voting, by signing petitions, by writing to congressmen, and by serving on juries in order to establish and secure fundamental rights for all people equally (and utilizing civil government as a means to defend these rights).

If we remember that the state is humanity’s foe, how can Christians justly use it to be their henchman? The state has wrought the antithesis of peace on earth. It has brought terrestrial hell to millions of people: shortening lives, extorting funds, degrading the environment, and destroying property. Therefore, Christians should not work to recruit the state into God’s service. Instead, they should be active in transforming their culture, reducing the impact of evil and the grief that comes from the state.

For this reason, it is important for American Christians to be informed and vote for candidates who will stand by the principles of liberty. They should not cop out and vote pragmatically, viz. for “the lesser of two evils”. Christians must overcome evil with good and that feat cannot be achieved by pragmatism. A Christian’s vote is never “wasted” when it is cast for someone or some policy backing good principles. But it is always wasted when it is cast for evil—even the lesser of two evils.

Some Christians might go beyond merely voting and even venture to get involved with politics. They may do so when they believe that running for office will allow them to pursue peace by encouraging the recognition of fundamental rights, the maintenance of free markets, and the rule of law. (²⁾ Furthermore, all Christians should be eager to sit on a jury in order to be ready to free any captive of the state who is having his fundamental rights violated. They can do this by nullifying an unjust or stupid decree (i.e., the procedure known as “jury nullification”).

Freedom is neither free nor cheap and Christians who want to enjoy political freedom need to be prepared to pay the price of keeping it. Professor Richard Beeman reminds us: “There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’ The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.” (³⁾ Accordingly, American Christians fighting for peace now face the challenge of trying to keep the republican form of government that the Founders entrusted to them.

⁽¹⁾ “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

⁽²⁾ Dietrich Bonhoeffer was simply mistaken when he wrote in The Cost of Discipleship that Christians should never aspire to high political office. Some peacemaking Christians might be effective in government office that promotes proactive policy. In remarking on the humility that a disciple must display he did not take into account the role a disciple has in engaging his culture and being a peacemaker. Whether or not they pursue a legitimate political office (i.e., one based in reactive policy) ought to be left to the liberty of each Christian’s conscience.

⁽³⁾ Richard R. Beeman, “A republic, if you can keep it” (2005), National Constitution Center.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on November 16, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Some Strategies in the Fight for Peace

Some things are worth fighting for and at times struggling for peace forms a part of our civic duty.

Christians may justly fight, when prudent, either by rhetoric and diplomacy or by political power and arms—especially when their purpose is to quell the evil intrusions of the interventionist state. In order to establish sanctuary in a fallen world, Christians may thus forcibly oppose tyrants or other criminals who attempt to undermine fundamental rights through destroying life and property.

In chapters 7–9 of A Christian Manifesto (1982), Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer argues that there is a point at which a Christian must take up arms against the state. He maintains that resisting tyrants is ultimately part of a Christian’s civic duty. Following the feisty preacher John Knox and Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex, Schaeffer says that prior to violent action, a Christian must take certain steps as his civic duty: (a) petition elected officials, (b) utilize the courts to establish precedent that favor Christian values, and (c) flee when persecuted (if possible). He notes that the actions of the American Founders were justified because they followed this prescription, having petitioned the Crown and finding nowhere to flee (or perhaps having no need to flee given that the Crown was already so remote from them), observing that the Crown had lost its legitimacy when it became a lawbreaker. Thus, not doing one’s civic duty by forcefully resisting the King would have been sin. For a Christian to do nothing in the face of collectivist or interventionist tyranny is to permit injustice and violence in society—clearly a sinful action for those who are commanded to “pursue peace” (2 Timothy 2:22; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 3:11). (¹⁾

How can Schaeffer’s doctrine of civil disobedience be reconciled with biblical teaching? After all, Jesus clearly says: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). The apparent contradiction is resolved once the redemptive purpose of Christ’s earthly ministry is taken into consideration. When Jesus walked on the earth, neither He nor His disciples defended themselves, realizing that His “time is not yet come” (Luke 4:30; 9:51; John 7:6; 8:59). Jesus meant that although He came to die for His people it was not yet the right time for Him to die according to the Father’s predetermined plan (Acts 2:23). After His redemptive purpose had been accomplished, however, the dissemination of the Gospel of peace began through Christian transformational action bounded by different criteria. Jesus had wrought peace with God for His people. Now His people were to promulgate peace by engaging their culture.

On the one hand, the people of this world often do not know what makes for true peace (Luke 19:42). (²⁾ There is a peace that the world gives, often granted through state “magistrates” and rulers like Felix (Acts 16:36; Acts 24:2). But this peace is fleeting, as the Apostle Paul warns: “For when they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3). When God judges the nations and the kingdoms of this world, He will “take peace from the earth” so “that people should kill one another” (Revelation 6:4). (³⁾ So not only is the “peace” of earthly states characteristically fleeting, but also God Himself will remove any earthly peace established by states when He comes in judgment. Thus, man-produced peace is vain.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ brings another message to His people: “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Peace is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22) and peacemakers are blessed, being called “sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). “Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:18). Christians are to bring peace both spiritually by the Gospel and socially by engaging their culture, although the Bible teaches that the peace they convey does not always “remain” where they go (Matthew 10:13; Luke 10:5-6). (⁴⁾ One of the greatest benefits of Christ’s advent was that it brought the way of peace to men (Luke 1:79; 2:14) through the Gospel, both “with God”—“in believing” (Romans 5:1; 15:13) and “always in every way”—as Christians live their lives (2 Thessalonians 3:16). And therefore Christians are called to be at peace with one another, providing a good testimony to those who do not believe (Mark 9:50; 2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:13). (5)

The invasion of the kingdom of God into the world has not come by force of arms but by the suffering Servant who casts out Satan and makes peace between God and men. If Christ wanted to conquer the Romans militarily He could have done so (cf. Matthew 26:53). But that was not God’s plan. Nevertheless, since the resurrection and ascension, the Gospel is spreading and the dominion mandate (Genesis 1:26-27) is being implemented by peacemaking Christians who are called to transform their culture. And defending themselves against predators so that men may live in peace becomes part of their civic duty.

⁽¹⁾ 2 Timothy 2:22: “Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” Hebrews 12:14: “Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” 1 Peter 3:11: “Let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it.”

⁽²⁾ Luke 19:42: “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.”

⁽³⁾ The result of the Lamb opening the second seal was: “Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword” (Revelation 6:4).

⁽⁴⁾ Matthew 10:13: “If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.” Luke 10:5-6: “But whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you.”

(5) Mark 9:50: “Salt is good, but if the salt loses its flavor, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace with one another.” 2 Corinthians 13:11: “Finally, brethren, farewell. Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.” 1 Thessalonians 5:13: “Be at peace among yourselves.”

Originally published in The Times Examiner on November 9, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Christian Fight for Peace

As I have maintained whenever I speak about Christianity and war, if there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, empire, militarism, the warfare state, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government war propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace.

I have also maintained throughout these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that, even though it is Christianity above all religions that should be opposed to the evils of war and militarism, in the Church will be found some of the greatest supporters of the military and the current wars.

The "criminality of war," as Howard Malcom, president of Georgetown College, wrote in 1845, is not "that tyrants should lead men into wars of pride and conquest," but that "the people, in governments comparatively free, should so readily lend themselves to a business in which they bear all the sufferings, can gain nothing, and may lose all." That people would act this way, Malcom says, is an "astonishment indeed." "But," he continues, "the chief wonder is that Christians, followers of the Prince of Peace, should have concurred in this mad idolatry of strife, and thus been inconsistent not only with themselves, but with the very genius of their system."

I have heard and read many Christians criticize Obama – and rightly so – for his horrendous policies, but I have heard and read little or nothing from Christians of how Obama has continued the war in Iraq, escalated the war in Afghanistan, and expanded the bogus war on terror to other countries.

The above sign from a church in Maryland can unfortunately be seen almost anywhere in the United States. Although some Christians have begun to criticize Obama and the Democrats for the things that only a short time ago they were silent about when perpetrated by Bush and the Republicans, support for the military among Christians – no matter where it goes, why it goes, what it does, how much it costs, how long it stays, and how many foreigners it kills – is so entrenched, so sacrosanct, that I am at the same time bewildered and embarrassed, angered and ashamed.

The result of this mindset is a perversion of the very Scriptures that Christians claim to believe and follow. So, just as Christian warmongers would, if they were honest, recite The Warmonger’s Psalm (Psalm 23), assent to The Warmonger’s Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12), and pray The President’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), so they would acknowledge that they manifest The Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

In contrast to the works of the flesh (adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, and revellings), the Apostle Paul in the Book of Galatians mentions the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.

But in place of these virtues, warmongers have substituted pride, indifference, vengeance, ignorance, malice, arrogance, lust, foolishness, and blasphemy.

Christian warmongers have pride in the U.S. military – the greatest cause of terrorism and instability in the world. They are indifferent to the tremendous suffering of foreigners who get in the way of the U.S. military. They want vengeance for 9/11 now matter how many innocent Muslims have to die. They have a tremendous and willful ignorance of the true nature of U.S. foreign policy. They have malice toward foreigners who never harmed Americans until the U.S. military starting bombing them. They have an arrogant "USA, USA" patriotism that supports an interventionist and militaristic foreign policy. They lust for the blood of foreigners by supporting bombing, drone attacks, torture, and indiscriminate killing. They make foolish statements like the military is defending our freedoms by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They blaspheme God by asking him to bless and protect U.S. soldiers.

I realize that I am making some serious accusations, but the truth is simply that most Christian warmongers don’t care whether there are Predator drone attacks against Afghan and Pakistani peasants as long as a Republican-controlled government gets to conduct the attacks.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on June 23, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Lev. 19:15

It doesn’t take much time to notice that the world is much darker than what God created it to be. Our world today is a far cry from Eden, a place of peace—often described as shalom in the Hebrew Scriptures—where humans walked with God and knew God intimately. From the beggar on the street to the rich man with no love in his life, the shalom of God often feels distant. There is poverty, hunger, slavery, and oppression all over the world.

The Scriptures reveal to us God’s plan to restore shalom. When Jesus enters the story, he reveals “the kingdom of God,” a peaceful kingdom that stands in contrast to the violent kingdoms of this world. Jesus’ own actions were peaceful and non-aggressive. He personally served the poor, left his own family to serve the needs of others, and made company with the outcasts at his own social and cosmic expense. He called on others to voluntarily sacrifice their lives and follow him. His followers were expected to be beacons of light throughout the world, shining love and peace wherever they went.

As followers of Jesus today, we must address the lack of peace and justice in the world with Jesus as our model. Our task is to seek peace, restore brokenness, and bring to justice those who trample on others. Our calling is to also enroll others to join in this endeavor. Yet with all things involving human beings, there are limits to what we can do with and to others. If we are to engage the world, Christians must ask a very critical question: what boundaries are there to seeking justice?

In order to answer this question appropriately we must deal with the imbalance of power in society. Injustice stems from abuses of power. Libertarians and Christians believe that no human has the right to exercise power over another human by means of force or coercion. In order to truly achieve justice, individual freedom must be promoted. Justice itself hinges on the freedom of individuals to exercise their respective wills. Denying this freedom not only tramples human dignity, it pushes justice farther away.

So then, what should the Christian’s attitude be toward the State’s role in the fight for justice? A consistent ethic of peace would have us exercise the power of government only to punish those who have offended the natural right of freedom. Outside of this we have no right to impose our will upon another. If each person is God’s image-bearer with unsurpassable worth, we are duty-bound to not trample upon them, whether on our own or by leveraging the State to suit our preferences. Leo Tolstoy believed that “Christianity, with its doctrine of humility, of forgiveness, of love, is incompatible with the State, with its haughtiness, its violence, its punishment, its wars.” Christians should resist looking to the State for power to fulfill the mandates of the gospel.

Those who partner with the State in order to achieve a measure of justice have an impoverished imagination. Instead of advancing the kingdom of God peacefully, they seek to restore justice by controlling the rights and property of others. If it is truly the vocation, calling, and responsibility of the people of God to not only live out but carry out God’s justice, why would we want to delegate that responsibility to an entity whose primary mechanism of operation is threat of force? Christians must think long and hard about how they regard the State.

The Kingdom of God is about greatness through servanthood, loving by sacrificing. Changing the world is not done with might or power but through love and sacrifice. This is why we ought to reject government-centered solutions to social justice.

Christians have succumbed too often to the temptation of power, believing that if we are on God’s side, our power over others is justified. It is time that Christians embrace the Kingdom of the Cross (driven by servanthood, sacrifice, and love) and abandon the Kingdom of the Sword (driven by force, violence, and coercion). The power of the gospel to change the world is not made manifest through violence but through the freedom to love and serve others.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Justice, Power, and Boundaries

“Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man.” (Benjamin Franklin)

BURNET, Texas (Dec. 31) – All libertarians should take time at the beginning of the new year to read and reflect on A Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions written by the late Harry Browne, said R. Lee Wrights, libertarian writer, activist and potential presidential candidate.

“Harry was gifted with an ability to communicate libertarian ideas and ideals in a clear, direct and concise way so that anyone could understand what libertarianism is all about,” said Wrights. “His New Year’s Resolutions are one of the best examples of this talent, a classic of libertarian thought.”

“What Harry wrote in 1998 is even more relevant today, and especially relevant to me as I consider seeking the 2012 Libertarian presidential nomination,” Wrights revealed. “So, inspired by Harry’s thoughts and words, and as a tribute to him, I offer these Wrights’ Resolutions as the standard by which I will conduct that effort and my life in 2011:

“First and foremost, I resolve to remain focused on the paramount issue facing the Libertarian Party and our nation – to stop all war. No matter what other issues are raised, I intend to keep returning to the central point that unless we stop all war, whether foreign or domestic, individuals can never truly be free.

“I resolve to remain committed to ensuring that whoever is the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2012, he or she is committed to proclaiming a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war; and be equally dedicated to carrying a solid, uncompromised, unfiltered, unequivocal, and unapologetic libertarian message to all 50 states.

“I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness, and focus on using the tools of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness against the weapons of war, hate, vengeance, and cruelty.

“I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates on inconsequential issues, and to always remember that my purpose is to increase people’s appetite for liberty — not to prove that they’re wrong.

“I resolve to always acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American, to refrain from dwelling on America’s defects and past mistakes, and to focus instead on how we together can realize America’s potential and promise.

“I resolve not to adopt the political campaign tactics of Republicans and Democrats, who use coercion, character assassination, evasions, fear, and intimidation in their unbridled quest for power. Rather, I resolve to remain civil in my political discourse and treat all people I encounter with the dignity and respect that is their due as human beings.

“Lastly, I resolve never to cease working to ensure that the Libertarian Party and our presidential candidate in 2012 is committed to proclaiming loudly, clearly and unequivocally – stop all war.”

Wrights is considering seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 should be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. He has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states.

The 52-year old writer and political activist was born in Winston-Salem, N.C. and now lives in Texas. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Declaration of Peace for the New Year

Last night, I attended “Heal Our Heroes: Ministering to the Military in Our Midst,” an event here in Houston featuring keynote speaker Colonel Oliver North. (I was invited by a friend who had a table.) It was a fundraising dinner for Military Ministry, which provides various spiritual counseling and resources to soldiers. There were parents and a singer who had lost loved ones or suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) etc. from the Iraq or Afghanistan war, various testimonials, etc. It was very Protestant in that Jesus was mentioned repeatedly and they explicitly pushed for us to give money at the end (Catholics are a bit more discreet when they ask for money–they just pass the basket).

I can understand wanting to help those who are suffering from the effects of war–even the soldiers. But after showcasing all the soldiers’ whose lives have been ruined by the military and by war, you would think there might be a word about peace or stopping the fighting that causes such devastation. But no, not a word. I suppose this is understandable: their mission was to raise money, so they focused on that.

But two other things really shocked me, both regarding the degree to which American Protestant Christians have intermingled their faith with patriotism and love of the state. For one, an award was given out, which was a miniature replica of a statue of Jesus hugging a soldier. Now I have no doubt the idea of a loving, compassionate savior giving succor to someone damaged by war is compatible with Christianity, but this seemed to go beyond that. And this impression was reinforced by the words of a young lady who spoke on behalf of MM. She said that in this world there are only two classes of people who have directly given their lives for you: Jesus, who gave his life to save your soul; and the soldier, who gives his life to save your freedom. Jesus comforting and forgiving the soldier–fine. Comparing soldiers to Jesus? Sacrilege. I don’t think Jesus is supposed to have had guilt or PTSD over what He did. Soldiers do, for a reason: War is hell. Jesus didn’t kill and murder people. Soldiers do.

Christians in America, especially Protestants and the “right-wing” types, it seems to me, have their priorities a bit out of place. Statolatry crowds out true faith and religion.

For somebody not a Christian, it seems like he “gets” the idea of Jesus being the Prince of Peace better than most.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Jesus and Soldiers

Featured on LewRockwell.com on September 11, 2010.

“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 will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
2 Chronicles 7:14

People regularly email me with questions about how to communicate with other Christians about liberty and peace. The greatest conundrum the Christian libertarian has, it seems, is persuading other Christians to stop supporting the immoral wars that governments perpetrate across the globe. It is particularly difficult in the United States, where “supporting the troops” is essentially part of the new orthodoxy in most evangelical Protestant churches. You can publicly criticize a minister that he preaches too long and someone will support you, but say one word criticizing the military (or even the police) and you become anathema.

It is not as though we cannot defend our position adequately; the truth is on our side. We can easily bring forth historical data, ethics, and solid theology to make our case that war is wrong. This is good and right! We must never cease reasoning with those who disagree with us, and we should do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). However, we must admit that a large part of the problem is not merely failure to reason, but also a failure to show Christian compassion toward others. Churches all over forget that war really is hell, and neglect the suffering war causes. This is especially reflected in our public prayers.

In the past, even the Southern Baptists took the Word of God seriously and prayed for those affected by war. But when was the last time you heard a church pray for anyone in the Middle East, for instance, other than soldiers? When was the last time you heard a church pray for an end to war?

Recently, I was moved to step out and try something I have never heard of done before: ask the leaders of my congregation to take the lead in praying for those suffering in war. (In the Church of Christ tradition, the elders are the spiritual leaders of the congregation.) After consulting with some of my close friends, I attended the June 2010 elders’ meeting and presented the following letter to them to address the “Prayer for the Church” that we offer every Sunday morning worship service.

*********************

To the Elders of the University Avenue Church of Christ,

We have noticed an unusual trend over the past few months during our prayers for the church in Sunday morning worship. On multiple occasions, we have heard people pray for men and women in the military, that they receive “special measures of protection” as they fight to “protect our freedoms” and “serve our country.” While we understand the concerns of church members who have friends and family in the armed forces, and while we sincerely hope for their safe return immediately, we find that these kinds of prayers are neglectful of another group – those victims who suffer wrongfully from this war, to whom we are indeed responsible in part for their suffering. Regardless of one’s opinion of these wars, we think that all can agree upon inspection that this practice can and should change to be more inclusive.

For instance, we never hear prayers for our fellow Christians who live in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the US invasion in 2003, Christians who were tolerated in the past have been repeatedly persecuted and frequently even killed by indiscriminate warfare or surging extremist groups, and nearly half of the Christian population of 800,000 in Iraq has either fled the country or died. In March 2010 alone, over 4,000 Christians were displaced from their homes following unrest in the northern city of Mosul. Many more have confined themselves to their homes for their own safety.

Moreover, we rarely, if ever, hear prayers for the innocent people in Iraq that die on a daily basis, either from indiscriminate killing by our own military or civil unrest that results from a country torn apart by war. The lowest estimates of non-combatant deaths in Iraq number greater than 100,000. Unfortunately, over time our sensibilities and attitudes toward this war – which is now the longest prolonged conflict in American history – have become desensitized and lackadaisical, and thus we often forget these innocent people.

We appeal to the elders to lead the way toward recognizing this issue with two simple proposals. First, we propose to include in the bulletin prayer requests under “Family Members in the Military” a mention of the innocent and oppressed in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially our Iraqi and Afghan brothers and sisters in Christ, and for an end to these wars. Second, we propose that the elders take the lead in consistently mentioning the same in prayer with the congregation on Sunday mornings. If the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective, then surely instituting this practice will do good both for these victims and for our own spirits.

We support this appeal with Scripture in two ways. First, if you consider these people as we do, that they are innocent victims and have been wronged by their own leaders, by extremists, and by our own military, then may we pray to God as Jesus taught his disciples: to be “delivered from evil.” If we can pray this for ourselves, surely we can do so for others. But second, if you still consider these people our enemies, then may we do as Jesus said in Matthew 5: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” May this be the beginning of understanding what Jesus said moments before, “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Changing our practice to include praying for the oppressed is not a political statement. In fact, this is not a political issue in the least; on the contrary it is a moral and theological issue. If we are to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then we should take seriously that Jesus came and died to proclaim peace on earth and to liberate the oppressed. We may expect that “wars and rumors of wars” will always exist, but this does not require a condoning or defeatist attitude of such events. Rather, this understanding should make us more sensitive and more compassionate toward those who suffer.

To conclude, war is arguably the most destructive human activity ever devised, and it is an intensely serious moral and theological issue because of its finality for those involved either directly as soldiers or indirectly as innocents. It is right to earnestly pray for our family members participating in war, but let us not become callous to the suffering of others, especially those to whom we are indirectly responsible for their suffering. Therefore, we should let our congregational prayers reflect our concern for them.

In Christ,

Norman Horn [Others at my church signed this letter as well, names withheld for privacy.]

Sources:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,587345,00.html
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33940&Cr=iraq&Cr1
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

*********************

The response of the elders was, to my surprise, extraordinarily positive. We discussed some of the ramifications of them taking this position. Only one had any concern for it being “too political.” In response, I emphasized that the effects of war are apolitical and intensely real, and therefore to ignore what’s going on is potentially even more political than standing up for what is right.

The next Sunday morning service, during the “Prayer for the Church,” the elder assigned to the task prayed for peace and for the innocent affected by war. This has continued for many weeks on end, with both elders and non-elders doing the same. It isn’t a perfect record at this point, but something is changing.

Amen!

Now, I have to admit that I have the ear of the eldership already. I am a part-time minister in this congregation, and thus they could have been generally more receptive of my proposal because it came from me. It could be that if you tried the exact course of action I did, it might not work out so well. But I still contend that anyone could work with their church in an analogous manner to change it even a little toward peace. Here are some ideas that might help you:

1) Start by setting the example yourself. When you are asked to pray in public for the congregation and its concerns, include those oppressed by war with any prayer offered for family and friends in the military. Furthermore, make sure that you are praying for peace in your private life.

2) If and when you engage your congregation more directly, initiate it by making a request that requires no justification at all. Don’t be afraid to just ask! Send one of your church leaders a very simple request, something like this: “When we pray for soldiers in Iraq, could we also pray for the Iraqis who are suffering, especially our Christian brothers and sisters there, and that God would bless our enemies and bring them peace.” You don’t even have to justify such a request. That’s straight out of Scripture, right?

3) Find others to make the same request together. Talk to some of your elders/leaders together. Again, keep it simple, but up the ante a little bit each time.

4) Keep it apolitical. You are not trying to “make people into libertarians” or anything of the sort. This message is first and foremost about the people affected by conflict. Our concern is for them, not for our egos or political views.

5) If at first you don’t succeed, try again. You may not get a good hearing initially, but be patient. Gently keep pushing back. If it becomes necessary, use the letter above as a model to give to your church leaders. Keep in mind, I really think this should be a “letter of last resort” to be used if your leaders refuse to listen to simpler reason. I carefully constructed this with feedback from multiple sources, so that it could easily show the self-evident principles involved. It gives no quarter and I don’t apologize for that, but know your audience and appeal to their sensibilities.

Of course, some in your church will respond negatively to this kind of request. They may ask how you can ask a church to pray for this war, for instance, when there are millions of other things for which we could pray. What about apartheid in South Africa, earthquakes in Haiti, or persecuted Christians in China? Could not the list go on forever if we wanted?

Those critics have a point, but our response should be that there is a fundamental difference between, say, praying for apartheid in South Africa – where we are aware of no national influence (and in my church’s case, have none of our church members as missionaries there) – and these wars. The difference is that this country, the United States, claims responsibility for their country now, and hence we are already involved. It is not “our fault” that Haiti had an earthquake or that Christians in China are being persecuted (though we may pray for them anyway), but it is in part our fault that the United States has torn apart the Middle East. Moreover, churches continue to condone and support such aggression with little thought either to the consequences for the Arab peoples or the internal subconscious changes that this has on our own churches. And what better way to change our own hearts than through the power of prayer? And what better way to start that process than through the leadership of the church?

Imagine what would happen if churches across the United States (and internationally!) were to stop praying for the military alone and to begin including those oppressed by war in their public prayers as well. Don’t you think that God will help make our hearts ever more attuned to the oppressed?

If the Bible says that the prayers of the righteous are effective, and if we believe that prayer affects us as much or more than prayer affects God, then let us never cease to pray for and support those who suffer from the horror of war and let us encourage others to do the same.

Think about some ways that you can be a peaceful voice for peace in your church. Maybe emulating the story above is one way you can make a difference. I truly believe this simple idea can change hearts and minds across the world if, with God’s help, we are brave enough to try.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Matthew 5:9.

A modified version of this text will become a permanent page at LCC as an open letter to all American churches.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to Promote Peace in Your Church

Statists are anti-progress. Statists claim their policies are for the common good. For some this claim is just a front to get more power, but for others it is a genuine goal. Nevertheless, even the most well-intentioned statists, who believe that granting government the power to control individual actions will result in a better outcome, violate rights and cause harm. One need only consider historical fact to disprove this statist belief. For most of history, people were not free to decide how to live their lives because they lived in servitude to a noble or king. The vast majority of people were wretchedly poor, worked from dusk until dawn six or seven days a week, were prone to encounter devastating diseases, and died in their twenties or thirties. Even the privileged few — the kings, nobles and clergy — had nowhere near the standard of living that the ordinary worker in western countries enjoys today. It was classical liberalism — the ideas of British Enlightenment philosophers, Adam Smith, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and the American “founding fathers” — that unlocked the true human potential. Classical liberalism set man free from servitude to another and gave him the right and the responsibility to care for his own life. As a result of the emergence and subsequent dominance of liberal democracy and capitalism in the last two hundred years, the world has seen progress unparalleled in human history: according to renowned economist Angus Maddison, “[w]orld per capita real income has risen twenty times as fast since 1820, than it did in the eight centuries from 1000 to 1820.”

Statism is anti-growth. Statists often justify their policies claiming that they want to reduce inequality and poverty. In reality though, statists achieve neither and often exacerbate both because their policies discourage economic growth, which is particularly detrimental to low income and poor people. For one, politicians and bureaucrats are limited in their knowledge, as is any individual. No matter how smart an elected official, bureaucrat, or committee is, there’s no way they could adequately plan and control the actions of millions of individuals to achieve maximal economic growth. Moreover, statism encourages rentseeking and protectionism, the activity of groups seeking government enforced advantages and insulation from the outcomes of free trade. This harms the consumer, who is forced to pay higher prices due to lack of competition and fund the rent through higher taxes. This statist action disincentivizes increases in production and job creation, thus depriving low income and poor people of better opportunities to make a living.

Statism causes conflict. Though statists claim to work for the common good, their actions benefit one group at the expense of another. Nazis favored the “Aryan” at the expense of all other nationalities and ethnicities; affirmative action proponents favor blacks, Hispanics and women at the expense of whites and males; socialists and unions favor workers at the expense of business owners; protectionists favor their native industry at the expense of that in other countries; rent-seekers favor their business, organization, or cause at the expense of other businesses, organizations, and causes at the expense of consumers; many religious people, but especially fundamentalists, favor their followers at the expense of those of another religion and at the expense of atheists; and earth liberation environmentalists favor nature at the expense of humans.

Hence, statists create friction and conflict among individuals, groups, and nations. The long stretch of peace during the mid-19th century was at least in part the result of limited government and laissez-faire economics in places like Britain and the United States. The free movement of people was widespread; Russia, the only country that required a passport, was considered backwards. The bloody wars and atrocities committed by governments during the 20th century were the consequence of a move toward state intervention to control people’s lives, ultimately leading to the emergence of ultra-statist regimes such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia and Maoist China, and many other totalitarian experiments including a United States that interned over 110,000 individuals of Japanese descent, drafted many more individuals, and implemented wage and price controls.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Stop Statism

—–

The Olympic Games have historically represented a time of peace for the world. The sacred city of Olympia, the site of the games of ancient Greece, forbade the possession of weapons within its borders. A special “Olympic Peace” was proclaimed throughout the land to allow spectators and athletes travel safely to and from the games.

French aristocrat Pierre de Coubertin created the International Olympic Committee in 1894 with the explicit goal of influencing the world for peace. Coubertin once said, “Wars break out because nations misunderstand each other. We shall not have peace until the prejudices which now separate the different races shall have been outlived. To attain this end, what better means than to bring the youth of all countries periodically together for amicable trials of muscular strength and agility?” The first Olympic games took place in 1896, but the IOC did not formalize the ideal of the Olympic truce until a century later, in 1992. Since 1993, the UN General Assembly adopts a resolution every two years that invites the member states to observe the truce during the games.

This tradition raises an interesting question: If we can call a truce for sixteen days so that the countries of the world can participate in the Olympic games, why hold the games only once every two years? Why not every year, and for a longer period of time? Why not thirty days? Surely that wouldn’t be very difficult. But then, why not three months? For that matter, why not hold the Olympics year-round? Then we could have peace (and sports) all the time!

“Whoa there, hold on!” you say. “Thirty days might be possible, but all the time? Surely you jest, oh silly Olympics fanatic! How could we afford year-round games? How could we solve international problems? How will disputes be arbitrated? How could we manage our imperialist ways?”

True, holding the Olympics year-round would be incredibly expensive. Running the 2008 Beijing games cost the Chinese over 1.8 billion dollars (1.22 billion Euros) minus revenues – and that’s just for sixteen days! Let’s make a liberal estimate on extended costs. For one month, it would cost roughly 3.5 billion dollars. Multiply that by 12, and you’re talking 42 billion dollars per year. That’s a lot of money… but it’s only a fraction of what the United States spends on Iraq. The war in Iraq has already cost United States taxpayers over $800 billion, and in this year alone the budget for the war is $196 billion. The Congressional Budget Office is even calling it the Trillion-Dollar War. I’m pretty sure it would be more affordable to just fund year-round Olympics than have year-round war.

True, countries could no longer point guns and set up blockades to coerce others into doing their bidding, but there would be a mechanism for resolving disputes – the games themselves! Suppose the United States and Russia get mad at each other (or rather, their governments get mad at each other) and they can’t reach a diplomatic solution. Instead of taking up arms and blowing cities to kingdom come, each country picks an event of their choice, and they agree on a third event. Best two out of three wins! They have to accept the result or other countries will ostracize them for being bad sports. And considering they just avoided massive financial losses the wanton destruction of war, both are now better off!

Yes, it could get complicated, but we surely have to admit that perpetual sports is better than perpetual war. At least in the Olympics, no civilians die from stray shot-puts or loose javelins!

Think of the further advantages of this kind of system. First, the rules are well-defined, unlike in war, and there are no Geneva Conventions you can conveniently ignore when you need to “enhance” your interrogation techniques. Steroids might be a problem, but that could be dealt with if necessary. If an employer can take a urine sample correctly, I’m positive that the governments of the world can figure this out.

Second, the Olympic games are, quite simply, more fun for everyone. War is hell, as they say, and even though the Olympics aren’t heaven they surely are a step up from hell. Who doesn’t like sports? Certainly mothers and fathers would be much more comfortable sending their kids off to learn the backstroke than to learn how to kill en masse. International politics could become a family outing, rather than the untouchable subject at the dinner table. In fact, Olympic games politics might provide just the right incentive to get young people more civically involved – that’s what all the government schools want, right?

Third, the Olympic games could foster a sense of national unity better than a war ever could. Imagine the United States getting behind Michael Phelps swimming his way to resolving territory disputes, or the USA Basketball Team showing Britain that we do NOT want the Kyoto Protocol.

Better yet, why not have the world leaders – the ones who think it’s their right to impose their will upon others – participate in the events? Bush versus Kim Jong-il – who gets to keep his nukes? In the team sports, let the administrations duke it out. Bush Co. [or now, Obama Co.] versus Ahmadinejad-and-other-long-named-guys – be there and watch the Secretary of State leap over Mahmoud to victory! Now that’s drama. Who could ask for more?

Alright, enough of all this strange and silly talk. We all know that perpetual Olympic games could never bring about world peace. Unfortunately, even participating countries have repeatedly broken resolutions they signed regarding the Olympic truce. Did Operation Iraqi “Freedom” stop for one moment during 2002, 2004, or 2006? Are current operations on hiatus? Absolutely not.

So what’s the point?

Politics from the very beginning has marred the renewed Olympic tradition. The paradox of rectifying international peace and nationalism continues to cast an eerie shadow over an experience that challenges people to look beyond borders. Most importantly, few of the participating countries have any desire to honor the Olympic truce, including the United States. Should this be any surprise? Not really. The nature of the state is antithetical to peace, as its very existence depends upon continual coercion against its citizens. As Randolph Bourne says, “War is the health of the state.” The state sets up a completely artificial us-them mentality based upon imaginary lines on a map. Those within the state are the good guys, and everybody else outside it is potentially a bloodthirsty fiend. In some sense, the Olympics could never break through these barriers since it continues to encourage nation-worship. Nevertheless, I think we can appreciate Coubertin’s vision for peace.

Although the symbolic truces of the Olympic games have some value, the nations of earth must realize that lasting peace is preserved not through millions of guns, but rather through the millions of goods and services they can trade with others. When we cooperate non-violently with one another as free people through free enterprise, we build relationships with a foundation of respect and mutual admiration. On the other hand, as we cease to interact peaceably we lay a foundation of enmity. Frederic Bastiat once said, “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers eventually will.” May we take heed of Bastiat’s wisdom and encourage peace through cooperation, Olympian and otherwise.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to Eliminate War (with the Olympics)