- Christians and Violence Revisited, Part 1
- Christians and Violence Revisited, Part 2: Shoot the Thug?
- Christians and Violence Revisited, Part 3: Should Governments Have Militaries?
I wanted to give one more teaser from my book. But before I do, let me give one qualification and one advertisement.
First, the views represented in my book don’t necessarily represent the views of Eternity Bible College. We have a broad range of perspectives on Christians and violence; mine is only one. So if you come to Eternity, or if you send your son or daughter to Eternity, you’ll/they’ll be forced to think biblically through the issue. They won’t be spoon-fed nonviolence.
Second, if you wanted to court my book before you buy it, you can download the first chapter for free on your iPad or iPhone here.
Okay, so back to our topic. One question that often comes up whenever I talk about nonviolence is: do you think America should have a military?
Whatever answer we give to this question must be transferable to other believers living in other nations. In other words, if we as believers in America say “yes, America should have a military” then I think that believers in Argentina, Canada, North Korea, or Iran should say the same thing. That is, unless we think that God has a special place for America and not for other nations, which has no biblical support.
So, should the nations, all nations, have militaries? The answer the New Testament gives is…(chirp, chirp). Nothing. Because the New Testament is not meant to tell secular governments how to operate. (Jesus never seemed to care about Rome’s military, apart from reaching out to those in the military.) After all, people are unable to conform to God’s will unless they are in Christ and have the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3; Rom. 8:5–16). Outside of Christ, they are dead in sin (Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13), which is why Paul has no interest in judging those outside the body (1 Cor. 5:12). The nations will act like the nations.
Neither does the New Testament show much interest in the politics of the day. We are to submit to the governing bodies, pray for them, and pay our taxes. But the kingdom of God is not commanded to make the kingdom of Rome more moral. Interestingly, whenever Jesus was lured into political debates, He always “transformed these kingdom-of-the-world questions into kingdom-of-God questions and turned them back on His audience (Matt. 22:15–22; Luke 12:13–15)” (Greg Boyd). That’s because our mission is not to solve all the world’s problems but to embody and proclaim the kingdom of God as the place where those problems are solved.
So do I think America should have a military? It all depends on what we mean by “should.” If we mean “can,” then sure. They can have a military. Or they can choose not to have a military. For citizens of God’s kingdom, the question is a moot one, because militaries don’t advance the kingdom of God—and neither can they stop it. Jesus’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church didn’t have any footnotes.
The New Testament doesn’t say that Rome should or shouldn’t have a military. That’s because the New Testament isn’t concerned with advancing Rome’s kingdom. Rather, it tells us how to advance God’s kingdom. God doesn’t command America to have a military, nor does He command them to get rid of their military.
I therefore disagree with Wayne Grudem, who thinks that “military weapons for governments are God-ordained” or that “because of the great military power of the United States, we also carry a great deal of responsibility for maintaining world peace,” or even that “superior military weaponry in the hands of a nation that protects freedom … is a good thing for the world.” Such statements are wrongheaded, if not bizarre. World peace comes through Jesus—the one who doesn’t need a military to rule the world.
Should governments turn the other cheek? Sure, that’d be great. If all governments turned the other cheek, there’d be a whole lot less violence in the world. But that’s not the solution to evil in the world. Jesus is the solution to evil in the world. And trying to follow Jesus’s teaching without following Jesus is ultimately bankrupt. The command to turn the other cheek is directly connected to the person and work of Christ, who turned the other cheek when attacked by sinners.
Our hope does not lie in enforcing our ethic upon secular governments. We can’t legislate the kingdom of God into existence. We could end all wars, yet Satan would simply find another way to destroy us. He could use the thin veneer of world peace to make us think we don’t need Jesus. Our hope and victory lie in the crucified Lamb. Jesus is the solution to war and violence.
I’ll leave you with the trailer for my book. If anything, it’s evidence that I made a good choice by not becoming an actor. 🙂
Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence – Preston Sprinkle from Skyline Videography on Vimeo.
I believe Grudem draws from Romans and 1 Peter for his bizarre conclusions (I can’t help but agree there). Do you have any thoughts or specific interactions with those texts?
Yes, Romans 13 is Grudem’s “John 3:16 verse” for his big book on Politics. Unfortunately, I think he’s read a ton of his presuppositions back into the text and made it say way more than what Paul intended.
And yes, I deal with it fairly extensive in my book. You can read a brief summary over at the Jesus Creed blog here:
Thanks for dropping in, Jonathan!
Dr. Sprinkle, I appreciated the book you co-authored with Francis Chan on hell. I suppose much of the rigorous reasoning came from your contribution in the book =). This post interests me, being a former Marine myself! I think it would be a work I’m considering picking up to read and review sometime in the future. Just one quick question that I hope doesn’t sound like I’m picky: If the government was to “turn the other cheek” so to speak against injustice done by another nation, wouldn’t that actually be sin on the part of the magistrate who are not fulfilling their responsibility of protecting the people?
I thought there were no such thing as a “former” Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine?
Just playing. I come from a long line of Marines myself.
You raise a good question. I guess I would say that the “turn the other cheek” command is given to the church and its rooted in the death and ress of Christ. And the government’s use of the sword, etc., isn’t so much an “act of obedience” on their part (that is, if they didn’t bear the sword they would thereby be disobeying God), but a declaration of God’s sovereign ability to work through secular governments.
I’ve got a long section on Romans 13 in the book that may help clarify and explain this. In any case, it’s a great question! Thanks for dropping in.
I’ll keep an eye out for you book Dr. Sprinkle. Good point about Romans 13 of understanding God’s direction of Government via His Providence