|
The answer to the question is obviously "No."
That's why most people will not read this article. They realize instantly that they're not going to agree with it, just from the asking of the question. [Excursus: "About the Author']
Of course, nobody "celebrates" Memorial Day. You're supposed to mourn. But don't mourn too much, because that would imply that they died in vain. (Further thoughts.)
The point of the holiday is to honor those who made the choice to defend the U.S. government and were killed while a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.
And to rephrase the title of this website: "Would Jesus honor those who died defending the U.S. government?"
Many people are going to hate me just for asking that question. I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm trying to start a Bible study.
- Acts 17:11
- "Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true."
- Proverbs 18:17
- "The first to state his case seems right until another comes forward and examines him."
- Proverbs 27:17
- "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."
The first version of this page was created on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, 5:21:42 PM
Here is an archive of the old edition from January 7, 2000: Memorial Day: They Died in Vain
I blogged another version on May 27, 2007: Kevin Craig for Congress: Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?
It's been updated (I increase dates by +1 each year) every year. But the basic message hasn't changed.
Updates for 2024:
Apparently it was Blaise Pascal (not Mark Twain) who said one of his letters was long because he didn't have time to make it shorter. I need to edit this website. Drastically. Here is some updated (but no shorter) material on pacifism:
I would prefer that you read that article first. That contains the Biblical case for pacifism, laid out better than it is on this page. When you finish that article, click here for the argument that pro-war verses in the Old Testament are "ceremonial," not "moral" or "civil" -- if you didn't already encounter the argument in that page. There are no verses which justify war today.
After considering that argument, consider the argument that even if you can find a verse which theoretically justifies some war in our day, no U.S. war in history has been a "just war": No War is a "Just War" That means we should not honor those who fought in those wars.
Then consider the claim that no Christian should kill another human being in defense of the U.S. because the U.S. is the most evil and dangerous anti-Christian government, mafia, drug cartel, or terrorist group on planet earth. Click here.
Then return here and continue reading the section below, "Two Opposing Religions." Some of that material is contained in the article above, "Why Postmillennialists Must Be Pacifists," but it deserves a second thought.
My apologies for not having time to make this mess shorter. The lives of literally millions of people depend on your working through these ideas.
Micah 4:3 says"
they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruninghooks:
nation shall not lift up a sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.
My religion compels me to oppose war. But I have found that those who "support the troops" do so with an equally profound religious fervor. No matter how many Bible verses I quote, and regardless of the military, historical, and geo-political facts I marshal to oppose war, those who support war oppose my pacifism with religious passion.
It is my belief that persuading you to oppose war and support peace will come about only if the Lord gives you a new heart, and you become a "new man." Persuasion unto pacifism is actually conversion to a new religion. It's more massive than a "paradigm shift."
Consider these verses:
1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
An "infidel" is not a Christian. An "infidel" has the wrong religion.
If you join the Mafia to become a paid hit-man, and you get killed, leaving your wife a widow and your children fatherless, you are worse than an infidel.
If you join the U.S. Armed Services to bomb Christians in Iraq, you have the wrong religion.
Here's the Biblical definition of the right religion:
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
The key words in this verse are "visit" and "world."
We all have a moral obligation to "visit" or "watch over" or "care for" "the fatherless and widows in their affliction," not to afflict them, not to create widows and orphans. The military is the enemy of "pure religion": it creates
widows and orphans. It causes their afflictions. It makes widows cry. If you make a widow cry, you are worse than an infidel.
On Memorial Day we are asked to honor those who left their own wives widows and their children fatherless, in service to a false god who orders soldiers to make other men's wives widows. This is a truly sick and false religion. The old expression is "War is hell" -- hell is the home of bad religions.
What is the "world?" President Eisenhower's speech writers originally had the President warning America about the "Military-Industrial-Congressional complex," but on the air the word "Congressional" was left out.
The New International Vine & Fig Tree Version of the Bible has this for James 1:27
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the military-university-media-pharmaceutical-industrial-congressional complex.
That's the idea behind "the world."
People who die for that complex are not "unspotted" by it.
All of us are spotted by it to some degree. We are all victims of educational malpractice in blasphemous atheistic indoctrination centers ("public schools").
If you're not a pacifist like Jesus,
you are "spotted by the world."
You have a false religion.
I want to persuade you to change your religion.
James 4:4
Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
I realize this sounds extremist and inflammatory. It sounds crazy to say that the U.S. military is the enemy of true religion. I used to "support the troops." I used to be patriotic. But then God gave me an open mind. I looked at the Bible. I looked at wars. I looked at the history of the United States, and how a once-Christian nation became a "woke" antichrist.
What would Jesus say to someone -- perhaps someone you loved -- who lost his life killing other people in defense of Washington D.C.? Would Jesus say this:
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:23)
But He answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. (Matthew 25:12 )
Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)
The foolish shall not stand in Thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
When once the Master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and He shall answer and say unto you, "I know you not whence ye are: 27I tell you, depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity." (Luke 13:25 )
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:47)
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me:
But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you. (John 10:11,27,26)Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the City. 15 but outside the City are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Revelation 22:14)
Are soldiers "murderers?" Would Jesus honor someone who joined an enterprise dedicated to killing people and destroying their property?
I do not want to answer that question. That's a scary question.
And maybe what scares me more -- and gets me more depressed -- are the millions who will confidently, zealously, and patriotically answer in the affirmative, and add, "Support the troops!" or "U-S-A!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!!"
If you asked me, "Should I join the U.S. Armed Forces?" I think I could answer with confidence, "No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances."
The prophet Micah spoke of a day when we beat our "swords into plowshares," don't learn war anymore, and everyone dwells safely under his own vine and fig tree.
Jesus came to fulfill the commandment against killing and the prophecy of Micah (see Matthew 5:17-19).
So if you asked Jesus, He would tell you not to join the Armed Services of the United States.
Some people will immediately agree with this claim, and conclude that this is why they don't want to become Christians. Jesus is nice "down in your heart," but it's "unrealistic," "impractical," "utopian," and even "suicidal" to try to apply the teachings of Jesus to government and foreign policy. Keep your religion to yourself. "Separation of church and state."
I would like to prove my case: that no Christian (or any sane person, of any religion) should join the U.S. Armed Forces, or recommend or permit anyone they love to join the U.S. Armed Forces.
And I realize that most people are going to stop reading right about now. I know a few years ago I myself would have stopped reading. I would have said that anyone who casts aspersions on the goodness of the United States and those who "serve their country" is some kind of "commie." Maybe a "heretic." Undoubtedly a person of bad moral character. Someone with a malignant heart.
"A malignant heart."
I've literally been told I'm not even a Christian because I'm a radical pacifist.
And a few years ago I would have agreed that the author of this anti-American website is a bad person and nobody should read what he writes.
I was born in the year of "Sputnik," the Russian satellite that inaugurated "the Space Race" which was a part of "the Cold War." I was raised to believe that "socialism" was evil and "capitalism" was good. I was in junior high school when the Vietnam War raged, and when the nation was divided by anti-war protesters. I believed that the anti-war protesters were a bunch of anti-American commies. They may well have been incited by Communists and used by Communists as tools or pawns in Moscow's attempt to bring down the American/capitalist system. But they were on the right side of an immoral war.
When I was young, I thought those who were protesting the Vietnam War were un-American commies, people of bad character, not to be listened to, and certainly not to be admired.
I still don't admire them, I still think they were un-American commies, and I wouldn't join their protests or read what they write. I don't like protests. A man I would later come to admire, Peter Maurin, said "Strikes don't strike me."
But I have come to agree that the Vietnam War was a bad thing. I can't say that someone is totally un-American if they complain that 50,000 Americans were killed in a war that turned out to be a losing cause. And it seems that most Americans agree that a lot of people died in vain.
Plus a million Vietnamese. Plus 800,000 killed in Cambodia, and more tons of bombs dropped in the area than the U.S. dropped in the entire world during World War II. Cambodia was completely destabilized, and this led to the ascension to power of some dictator named Pol Pot, who then went on to kill one-third of the entire Cambodian population. 800,000 also killed in Laos.
And for what, exactly? Does anyone in 2024 think that killing millions of Vietnamese and napalming their villages was something Jesus would honor?
Then there was "the War on Terror." The United States destroyed the largest community of Christians in the entire Arab world, in Iraq, and overthrew a secular dictator who gave religious freedom to Christians (unlike Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, where preaching the gospel would get you beheaded), and protected Christians from Islamic terrorists. The U.S. replaced this secular government with an Islamic theocracy under Shariah law. Would the hundreds of thousands of Christians who were killed, crippled, or made homeless honor the soldiers we are being called upon to honor on Memorial Day?
During my lifetime, "my" government has killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS OF MILLIONS of innocent, non-combatant, non-white civilians around the world, from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, Panama, Libya, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Congo, and elsewhere. The United States drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes, on average. Barack Obama, who won the Nobel Prize for Peace, dropped tens of thousands of bombs, used drones to assassinate American citizens without due process, and maintained U.S. military bases in nearly 100 nations around the world.
It was only when I became a fundamentalist Bible-believing creationist Christian that I began to question all this. Then I became a "Reconstructionist" and "preterist." Then I became a pacifist. I came to the conclusion that I could trust Jesus and the Bible more than I could trust the U.S. government. A government which banned the Bible from public schools. I came to believe that we should beat our "swords into plowshares." (Micah 4:3)
But "the powers that be" have high-sounding excuses for doing the opposite. We've all been taught that the "experts" know better than Jesus.
The politicians, the university professors, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You can trust them.
Jesus, not so much.
Jesus repeated the command of Moses, "Thou shalt not kill" (Mark 10:19). But refraining from killing and maintaining an attitude of complete indifference is not a fulfillment of God's Law. Jesus added, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). The U.S. spends a trillion dollars a year on death and destruction. What if we gave that money to our enemies and increased their standard of living? Would we be more in danger, or would that make it less likely that our enemies would kill us?
I'm not saying you're not one of "the elect."
I don't know you. I can't make that judgment.
I'm just saying that there is a journey ahead of you.
Andrew Torba, founder of a social media platform called "Gab," wrote a book called Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide to Taking Dominion and Discipling Nations. I agree with a lot in this book, but Torba would say I'm a heretic, and I guess I would have to say the same thing about him. In my view, Torba's "Nationalism" (which I regard as unBiblical) is related to his unBiblical views of the future of war and peace.
Chapter 7 of Torba's book is called "The Time for Lukewarm Christianity is Over." Of course he is completely correct about this. Jesus says that being lukewarm makes Him want to vomit you out of His Mouth (Revelation 3:15-16). If lukewarm Christians aren't calling you an "extremist," you need to worry about what Jesus will call you. If the Pharisees aren't calling you a "heretic," then you need to check with Paul the Apostle -- and "Heretic":
Acts 24:14
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Torba writes:
| For many Americans, Christianity has become a rapidly deconstructed fragment of their actual identity. People refer to themselves as a "Christian" when asked about matters of faith, but you won't find them openly proclaiming Christ as their central identity. How many of us are living according to God's Word and how many are living according to the ways of the world? In my early twenties I was calling myself a Christian, but I was living a very worldly life. God came secondary to my career and worldly desires. I wasn't attending church. I wasn't reading my Bible. I wasn't praying. What part of me was living a Christian life that could justify calling myself a Christian? That all changed a few years ago when the Holy Spirit moved my heart closer to God. I started attending church, got married, became a father, and humbled myself as the worst of sinners before an Almighty God. |
I'll concede that Torba has accomplished more admirable things in his 33 years on earth than I have in my 66. I've never been married. Never had kids. What a loser.
But at least I have repented of "nationalism," a doctrine which has resulted in the murder of millions of innocent people, and the destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals around the world.
And I would contend that the heresy of "nationalism" is related to the heresy of "Adventism."
James 1:27 says that "true religion" is protecting widows and the fatherless. Nationalism creates widows and fatherless children by killing their husbands and fathers.
Micah 4 and Isaiah 2 say that in the age some call the "millennium" we will beat our "swords into plowshares." Adventists believe that we cannot and must not fulfill this prophecy until after the Second Advent of Christ. Until then, we must continue creating widows and orphans. People who object to killing fathers and traumatizing their widows and fatherless children by dropping bombs on their homes and hospitals are called "pacifists" or "anarchists," and are often denounced by nationalists and adventists as "heretics."
I would say that anti-pacifists have a different religion than pacifists. It's a different religion. It's time to "choose" which religion you should follow.
Was Andrew Torba a genuine Christian in his twenties? Was his thinking poisoned by a false religion? Was he missing the "pure religion" of James 1:27? He admits he was "worldly." Was he therefore an enemy of Christ (James 4:4)? Is a lukewarm person a genuine Christian, if Jesus would "vomit" him out of His Mouth?
These are obviously very serious questions.
Torba, a Calvinist, would say that even though he was "lukewarm" and "worldly," and even an "enemy" of God in his twenties, he was still one of the "elect." But he needed to repent of "worldliness." I think he still needs to repent of nationalism.
I think I can prove the following (if not "prove," then "make a persuasive argument").
THE UNITED STATES IS
The Enemy of God and Humanity
|
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy by Ronald Reagan. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was a columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments, including Stanford University, where he was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution, George Mason University where he had a joint appointment as professor of economics and professor of business administration, and Georgetown University where he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and Empire of Lies. Roberts says:
Americans need to understand that they have lost their country. The rest of the world needs to recognize that Washington is not merely the most complete police state since Stalinism, but also a threat to the entire world. The hubris and arrogance of Washington, combined with Washington’s huge supply of weapons of mass destruction, make Washington the greatest threat that has ever existed to all life on the planet. Washington is the enemy of all humanity.
How America Was Lost
Really? Can this astonishing claim be supported by the evidence?
Isn't North Korea or Iran more evil and more dangerous than the federal government of the United States?
|
North Korea may be more evil, but it is not more dangerous. You are more likely to be deprived of your life, liberty or property by an agent of the United States than by a North Korean or a recruit for ISIS. The United States already has a track record for staggering violence, and gives every indication of being willing to unleash even more unimaginable violence on you and your world.
|
This comes as no surprise to anyone who looks at the United States from a Christian worldview.
|
The U.S. Federal Government now seeks to impose its anti-Christian worldview on the entire world.
|
Every single person who signed The Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) would take immediate steps to repeal the Constitution and abolish the government it created.
|
The Declaration of Independence says we have a "duty" to "abolish" any government that becomes a threat to the unalienable rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. We have for too long neglected that duty. The United States denies the existence of the Creator, and is the largest threat to the rights of billions of human beings around the world. Without muskets or violence of any kind, the United States must be abolished. You are not a "good American" if you disagree. You show no respect to America's Founders if you disagree. (Or, you are a victim of educational malpractice.)
Gallup International’s poll of 68 countries for 2014 found the US as the greatest threat to peace in the world, voted three times more dangerous to world peace than the next country.
Among Americans, we overall voted our own nation as the 4th most dangerous to peace, and with demographics of students and 18-24 year-olds also concluding the US as the world’s greatest threat.
July, 2015: The United Nations supports pro-family policy; The United States Opposes it.
“[T]he United States lobbied [against it] with great energy,” says Slater, noting that pushing the LGBT agenda abroad has become a “primary objective of our nation's foreign policy.” She even reports that our delegation threatened to withhold foreign aid to developing nations if they affirmed the natural family.
The West, the Family, and the Big Picture - Break Point | archiveListen Now | Download
What would America's Founding Fathers think about the United States today? Consider these facts:
If he could travel through time, your favorite Founding Father would be amazed at our technology, but when looking at our culture and government, he would go from amazement to disappointment. He's shocked. Horrified.
He asks what you've been doing about it. He reminds you that his generation risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to resist a government that they called a "tyranny," but the "despotic" reign of King George III was a kindergarten class compared to the vile, murderous, atheistic, imperialist, planet-suffocating tentacles of the regime we call "Washington D.C."
"Have you taken up arms?" he asks.
"Oh, no," you answer.
"Wait," I interrupt. "There's more."
I point out that just during the last 50 years, the government created by the Constitution has done the following:
Jesus warned:
At this point your favorite Founding Father is not just horrified, he's angry. Outraged. Fuming.
And not just at "the government."
But at ordinary Americans who are lost in info-tainment, porn, and a video wasteland.
From We Must Not TRUST the Government
The following reasons not to trust the U.S. Government are from an article entitled "World's Most Evil and Lawless Institution? The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government" in AlterNet / By Fred Branfman. I don't know why Branfman limits his discussion to the Executive Branch. The Congress could have stopped all this evil. It didn't. The Supreme Court could have issued an opinion as to its Constitutionality, as well as its morality. It didn't. It's not just the Executive Branch that we can't trust, nor is it just the U.S. Federal Government that we can't trust; it's the entire concept of a monopoly of violence entrusted to depraved men. By definition, every "government" is a criminal enterprise.
Here is a lengthy excerpt from that article:
| It is a matter of indisputable fact that the U.S. Executive Branch has over the past 50 years been responsible for bombing, shooting, burning alive with napalm, blowing up with cluster bombs, burying alive with 500-pound bombs, leveling homes and villages, torturing, assassinating and incarcerating without evidence more innocent civilians in more nations over a longer
period of time than any other government on earth today.
Americans keep this secret because facing it openly would upend our most basic understandings about our nation and its leaders. A serious public discussion of it would reveal, for example, that we cannot trust Executive Branch leaders’ human decency, words, or judgment. And more troubling, acknowledging it would mean admitting to ourselves that we have been misleading our own children, that our silence has robbed them of the truth of their history and made it more likely that future leaders will continue to commit acts that stain the very soul of America. Can Americans Trust the U.S. Executive Branch? Columnist George Will recently summarized the fundamental issue underlying not only Edward Snowden's recent whistleblowing, but all controversies about U.S. Executive Branch behavior: "The problem is we're using technologies of information-gathering that didn't exist 20 years ago... and they require reposing extraordinary trust in the Executive Branch of government." Former Bush aide Matthew Dowd chimed in on the same talk show, saying "what they're saying is trust us, trust us." Trust is indeed the only basis for supporting a U.S. Executive which hides its activities from its own citizens. But can we trust the Executive’s Branch’s commitment to truth, law and democracy, or even basic human decency? Judging its actions, not words, over the past 50 years is the key to deciding this issue. And we might begin with some basic questions: How would you regard the leaders of a foreign power who sent machines of war that suddenly appeared over your home, dropped bombs which killed dozens of your neighbors and your infant daughter, wounded your teenage son, destroyed your home, and then forced you into a refugee camp where your older daughter had to prostitute herself to foreigners in order to support you, your wife and legless son? (U.S. Executive Branch officials created over 10 million refugees in South Vietnam.) What would you think of foreign leaders who occupied your country, disbanded the military and police, and you found yourself at the mercy of marauding gangs who one day kidnapped your uncle and cousin, tortured them with drills, and then left their mangled bodies in a garbage dump? (U.S. Executive Branch officials occupied Iraq, disbanded the police, and failed to provide law and order as legally required of Occupying Powers.) How would you view a foreign power which bombed you for five and a half years, forced you and your family to live in caves and holes like animals, burned and buried alive countless of your neighbors, and then one day blinded you in a bombing raid that leveled your ancestral village, where you had honored your ancestors and had hoped after your death to be remembered by your offspring? (U.S. Executive Branch leaders massively bombed civilian targets in Laos for nine years, Cambodia for four years.) What would you think of foreign assassins whom as Jeremy Scahill reports in Dirty Wars, broke into your house at 3:30am as a dance was coming to an end, shot your brother and his 15-year old son, then shot another of your brothers and three women relatives (the mothers of 16 children) denied medical help to your brother and 18-year-old daughter so that they slowly bled to death before your eyes, then dug the bullets out of the women's bodies to cover up their crimes, hauled you off to prison, and for months thereafter claimed they were acting in self-defense? And how would you feel toward the leaders of the nation that had fielded not only these JSOC assassins but thousands more, who were conducting similar secret and lawless assassinations of unarmed suspects while covering up their crimes in many other countries around the world? (3) How would you view the foreign leaders responsible right now for drone attacks against you if you lived in northwest Pakistan where, a Stanford/NYU study reported after a visit there,
These are not rhetorical questions. Every one of these acts, and countless more, have been committed by the U.S. Executive Branch over the past 50 years, and will continue indefinitely until it is transformed. If we judge them by their actions, not words, we must face the following facts:
And how much can you trust the decency of a US. Executive that treats these millions of human beings as mere nameless, faceless "collateral damage" at best, direct targets at worst, as human garbage barely worthy of mention, as "non-people" as Noam Chomsky has observed? We almost never ask such questions in this country, never try to put ourselves in the shoes of the tens of millions of victims of our leaders' war-making, because doing so confronts us with a grave dilemma. On the one hand, if we would say these acts are evil if done to ourselves they are obviously also evil when done to others. But admitting that would require most of us to challenge our most basic beliefs about this nation and its leadership. And if we are members of our political, intellectual, media, government and private sector elites, it would threaten our jobs and livelihoods. We are divided. The honest part of ourselves knows there is only one word that can adequately describe the U.S. Executive Branch’s indifference to non-American life. It is not a word to be used lightly, for overuse robs it of its power. But when appropriate, failing to use it is an act of moral cowardice that assures its continuation. That word is evil. If we would regard such acts as evil if done to us, they are equally evil if done to others. This is what we teach our children when we teach them the Golden Rule or that America is a nation of laws, not men. It means, simply, that if needlessly ruining the lives of the innocent is evil, the U.S. Executive Branch is the most evil and lawless institution on the face of the Earth today, cannot be trusted, and poses a clear and present danger to countless innocents abroad and democracy at home. We speak of “institutional evil” here because the greatest evils of our time are conducted by often personally decent, even idealistic, men and women. It is not necessary to be hate-filled or personally violent for an American to commit evil today. One need only be part of, or support the police, intelligence and military activities of the U.S. Executive Branch. But the practical part of ourselves, the part that needs to make a living and maintain emotional equilibrium, leads us to ignore the mass evil our leaders engage in. It is so much easier. For accepting this truth means accepting that our leaders are not good and decent people; that JSOC commandos are not "heroes" but rather lawless assassins whose very existence shames us all; that we are not being protected, but endangered by leaders who are turning hundreds of millions of Muslims against us; that we must assume that Executive officials are right now secretly engaging in a wide variety of illegal and immoral activities that would shock and disgust us if they were revealed; and that we cannot believe a word they say when these abuses are revealed as they so regularly engage in secrecy and stonewalling, lying when discovered, covering up when the lie is revealed, and claiming it was an aberration and/or blaming it on a subordinate when the cover-up fails. (8) The issue of trust is key since it is the only basis upon which U.S. citizens can support secret Executive actions about which they are not informed. And the issue of trust is ultimately a moral, not legal judgment. We acknowledge that the citizen actually has a moral obligation to resist an unjust law promulgated by an immoral government, whether in the Soviet Union, South Africa, or, as we acknowledge when we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, in America. Even when the law is used by the likes of David Ignatius, David Brooks, Tom Brokaw, and Nancy Pelosi and to attack Edward Snowden, their key unstated assumption is that they trust the U.S. Executive since they know little more about its secret activities than anyone else. The moral dividing line is clear. Those indifferent to innocent human life and democracy are less angry at Executive mass murder and threats to democracy than at those who reveal this wrongdoing. Although the principal responsibility for the millions of lives U.S. leaders have ruined lies with the Executive, most of America's other organs of power have also participated in keeping the screams of America's victims from reaching the public. Republicans and conservatives have not only shown no concern for America's innocent victims, but heartlessly cheered on its leaders' torment of the innocent. Bush U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, when asked by a New York Times writer about U.S. responsibility to aid the millions of refugees its invasion of Iraq had created, responded that the refugees had “nothing to do with our overthrow of Saddam. Our obligation was to give them new institutions and provide security. We have fulfilled that obligation. I don’t think we have an obligation to compensate for the hardships of war. Helping the refugees flies in the face of received logic. You don’t want to encourage the refugees to stay.” But particularly striking has been the behavior of centrists and liberals who know full well the horrors U.S. Executive Branch leaders have inflicted upon the innocent, espouse humanitarian values, but simply look the other way. The Times, for example, quite appropriately ran photos and small bios humanizing each of the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. But its editors have made a conscious decision not to humanize virtually any of the millions of non-Americans U.S. leaders have killed abroad, as has the rest of the U.S. mass media. David Petraeus became Afghanistan commander on July 4, 2010, and proceeded to loosen General McChrystal’s rules of engagement, triple bombing and night raids and invade southern Afghanistan, leading to a huge increase in U.S. and Taliban violence against civilians. Within months, the Red Cross said conditions for civilians were the worst they’d been for 30 years. A Pakistan newspaper reported that things were so bad at the Kandahar Mirwais hospital that civilian casualties “overwhelm the limited bed space. On some days, the floor is red with blood” and that “the overflow at Kandahar’s Mirwais hospital has forced hundreds of sick and injured Afghans to cross the border into Pakistan every day to seek medical treatment.” It also noted that “many Afghans are unable to get to basic healthcare” because despite hundreds of billions in U.S. spending on war, thirty years of conflict have left the country’s health care system struggling to cope.” The Special Representative to Afghanistan of close ally Great Britain said “David Petraeus should be ashamed of himself ... He has increased the violence, trebled the number of special forces raids and there has been a lot more rather regrettable boasting from the military about the body count," and that “Petraeus has ignored his own principles of counter-insurgency which speaks of politics being the predominant factor in dealing with an insurgency." But none of this reached the American public. No stories of visits to Kandahar Hospital, no interviews with Britain’s Special Representative appeared in the U.S. mass media. Instead, dozens of U.S. journalists visiting Afghanistan praised General Petraeus, and presented his sanitized version of a war in which only “militants” are killed. Petraeus’ greatest accomplishment, Time magazine columnist Joe Klein informed his readers after a Petraeus-managed trip to Afghanistan, was to turn the U. S. army into a “learning institution.” And Democratic Party politicians, while at least voicing concern for those in need in this nation and acting honorably for a few brief moments at the end of the Indochina war, have funded the Executive's killing abroad and limited their own concerns to the wellbeing of America's soldiers. (9) In 1967, Chomsky wrote a landmark essay titled "The Responsibility of Intellectuals," arguing that public intellectuals — who had the time, opportunity and freedom to study the pain its leaders inflicted upon the innocent, and to convey it to the larger public—had a special responsibility to do so. But his argument, by and large, has fallen upon deaf ears, particularly since Vietnam. Thousands of intellectuals, members of Congress, pundits, academics and journalists have turned a blind eye to U.S. mass murder. And many even turned into "liberal hawks", supporting war against Iraq. The likes of the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, the N.Y. Times’ Thomas Friedman, Slate’s Christopher Hitchens, The New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, and many others not only urged a war that brought a living hell to Iraq, but being liberals, justified it on the grounds that it would help the Iraqi people. (See “Bush’s Useful Idiots,” by Tony Judt.) They even denigrated the millions of decent and honorable Americans who marched to try and head off the Iraq war. It is so easy when making a good living and having access to “official sources” to see oneself as smarter and better-informed than “naïve” students and grandmothers in tennis shoes. Hitchens, for example, called war opponents "moral imbeciles," "noisy morons," "overbred and gutless," "naive" and "foolish." And after the war began most of these “liberal war hawks” then turned a blind eye to the civilian carnage resulting from the war they had supported in the name of the Iraqi people, as the body count steadily rose by tens of thousands until over 5 million Iraqis were killed, wounded or made homeless. Nor did they apologize to the millions of their fellow Americans opposing the war whom they had so arrogantly maligned, and who had turned out to be so much wiser and more moral than they were. Executive Evil in Microcosm: A Personal Report I first encountered U.S. Executive evil and lawlessness in September 1969, when I interviewed the first Lao rice farmers to come out of communist zones in northern Laos into American zones around the capital city of Vientiane. I was horrified as these gentle Lao, who did not even know where America was, described living under U.S. bombing for five and a half years. I interviewed people who had been blinded and lost limbs and yet were the lucky ones because they had survived. As I learned of grandmothers burned alive, pregnant mothers buried alive, children blown to bits by antipersonnel bombs, and realized that millions of Lao and Vietnamese farmers were still being bombed, I felt as if I had discovered Auschwitz while the killing was still continuing. As I began to research the bombing, visiting U.S. airbases in Thailand and South Vietnam, talking with U.S. Embassy officials, interviewing a former U.S. Air Force captain over a period of months, I learned it was but a handful of top U.S. Executive Branch leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, who were solely responsible for the bombing. Neither Congress nor the American people had even been informed, let alone offered their consent. The U.S. Executive, I learned, was a power unto its own that could not legitimately claim to represent the American people. From May 1964 until March 1970, U.S. Executive officials constantly denied they were even bombing in Laos. When the evidence became so great that even Richard Nixon had to admit the bombing, Executive Branch officials continued to lie by denying they had bombed any civilian targets at all—even as I was interviewing over 1,000 refugees on dozens of occasions and hearing from each that their villages had been destroyed and that they had witnessed countless civilian casualties. One day I was shocked to feel pellets still in the body of an old grandmother and see a 3-year old girl with napalm wounds on her breast, stomach and vagina. That night I read that U.S. Air Attaché Colonel William Tyrrell had testified to the U.S. Senate that "I recall talking to refugees from (the Plain of Jars) and they told me they knew of no civilian casualties during the operation. Villages, even in a freedrop zone, would be restricted from bombing." (10) I couldn't believe it! How could a U.S. official look a U.S. senator directly in the eye and tell so big a lie? I also read how the Senate had not been told of this mass bombing, how Executive officials had lied to senators even in a closed 1968 hearing. Senator William Fulbright stated at the fall of 1969 hearing that "I think the surprise that is evidenced by the chairman of the subcommittee and others, that they did not know the extent of this involvement until these hearings, is pretty clear evidence that we were not aware of these activities, although we had had some hearings on it." (11) Realizing that a handful of U.S. Executive Branch leaders had the power, all by themselves, to level the Plain of Jars shook me to my core. Every belief I had about America was upended. If a handful of Executive leaders could unilaterally and secretly destroy the 700-year-old civilization on the Plain of Jars, it meant that America was not a democracy, that the U.S. was a government of men, not laws. And it meant that these men were not good and decent human beings, but rather cold-blooded killers who showed neither pity nor mercy to those whose lives they so carelessly destroyed. On a deeper level, it meant that even core beliefs I took for granted were untrue. Might did make right. Crime did pay. Suffering is not redemptive. Life looks very different in a Lao refugee camp looking up than in Washington, D.C. looking down. In those camps I realized that U.S. Executive Branch leaders lacked even a shred of simple human decency toward the people of the Plain. I remember once laying in my bed late at night after returning from an interview with Thao Vong, a 38-year old Lao farmer who had been blinded in a U.S. bombing raid. Vong was a gentle soul, displayed no anger to those who had turned him from a provider of four into a helpless dependent. I contrasted him and the other Lao farmers who had been burned and buried alive by bombers dispatched by LBJ, McNamara, Nixon and Kissinger. The latter were ruthless, often angry and violent men, indifferent to non-American life—precisely the qualities threatening all life on earth. Thao Vong was gentle, kind and loving, and he and his fellow Lao wanted nothing more than to be left alone to raise their families, enjoy nature and practice Buddhism — precisely the qualities needed for humanity to survive. I also thought of sweet-faced Sao Doumma, whose wedding photo had so struck me, and who was killed in a bombing raid executed by Henry Kissinger seven years later. (12) And I found myself wondering: by what right does a Henry Kissinger live and a Sao Doumma die? Who gave Kissinger and Richard Nixon the right to murder her? Who gave Lyndon Johnson the right to blind Thao Vong? I found myself asking, what just law or morality can justify these "killers in high places" who burned and buried alive countless Lao rice farmers who posed no threat whatsoever to their nation, solely because they could? I was also troubled by another thought: if even a Thao Vong and his fellow subsistence-level farmers were not safe from this kind of brutal savagery, who was? If I believed that a society is judged by how it treats the weakest among us, what did this say about my nation? And I found myself particularly reflecting on the question I found most troubling of all: beyond the issue of lawless and heartless American leaders, what does it say about my species as a whole that the most powerful could so torment the weakest for so long with virtually no one else knowing or caring? I was anguished not only about this extreme form of mass murder, but what it implied about humanity. I shuddered in 1969 as I reflected on what I was seeing with my own eyes. I shudder today as I write these words. One particular fact puzzled me during my investigations of the air war. All the refugees said the worst bombing occurred from the end of 1968 until the summer of 1969. They were bombed daily, every village was leveled, thousands were murdered and maimed. But I knew from U.S. Embassy friends that there were no more than a few thousand North Vietnamese troops in Laos at the time, and that there was no military reason for the sudden and brutal increase in U.S. bombing. Why, then, had this aerial holocaust occurred? And then, to my horror, I found out. At Senator Fulbright's hearing, he asked Deputy Chief of Mission Monteagle Stearns why the bombing of northern Laos had so intensified after Lyndon Johnson's bombing halt over North Vietnam. Stearns answered simply: "Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn't just let them stay there with nothing to do." (13) U.S. officials had exterminated thousands of people of the Plain of Jars, destroying their entire civilization, because the U.S. Executive just couldn't let its planes sit around with nothing to do. The fact that innocent human beings were living there was irrelevant. No one hated the Lao. For Executive policy-makers in Washington, they just didn't exist, had no more importance than cockroaches or mosquitoes. And that wasn’t all. Once the planes became available, they did in fact discover a purpose for them, as the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Refugees reported in September 1970: "The United States has undertaken a large-scale air war over Laos to destroy the physical and social infrastructure in Pathet Lao held areas. Throughout all this there has been a policy of secrecy. The bombing has taken and is taking a heavy toll among civilians." Once the planes became available, the people of the Plain of Jars were not "collateral damage" to military targets. They were the target. Chomsky, who interviewed the refugees in 1970 and is the world's expert on U.S. war crimes abroad, has called the bombing of northern Laos "one of the most malevolent acts of modern history," and N.Y. Times columnist Anthony Lewis termed it "the most appalling episode of lawless cruelty in American history." Chomsky has also stated that though U.S. leaders did not achieve their primary goal of winning militarily in Indochina, they did destroy a possible independent economic alternative to the U.S. model for developing countries. "Malevolence." "Lawless." "Cruel." These are not words we normally apply to the Executive Branch as an institution, or the individuals who head its powerful agencies. But if we are to decide whether we can trust the Executive Branch with our own lives we must face the truth of its evil lawlessness. Footnotes (1) Robert McNamara, “The Post-Cold War World; Implications for Military Expenditures In Developing Countries,” in Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, 1991 (Washington D.C.: International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, 1991) (2) See “Dollars and Deaths,” Congressional Record, May 14, 1975, p. 14262 (3) Kindle loc., 7078ff. (4) “The Study Mission Report for the Subcommittee to Investigate Problems Connected With Refugees and Escapees,” January 27, 1975, p. 31 (5) Vietnam in Military Statistics, p. 278 (6) The Deaths of Others, Kindle loc. 3653 (7) The Deaths of Others, Kindle loc. 3311 (8) The Deaths of Others, kindle loc. 5988 (9) The two times Congress has limited Executive war-making were its vote to halt bombing over Cambodia in August 1973, and when it cut military aid to Thieu from $1.2 billion to $700 million in the fall of 1974. (10) "United States Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Kingdom of Laos, "Hearings Before the Subcommittee on United States Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-First Congress, First Session, Part 2, October 20, 21, 22, and 28, 1969, p. 514 (11) “United States Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Kingdom of Laos," ibid.p. 547 (12) Sao Doumma’s wedding photo appears on the cover of Voices From the Plain of Jars, recently republished, which is the only book of the Indochina war written by the peasants who suffered most and were heard from least. (13) ”United States Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Kingdom of Laos," ibid., p. 484 (14) The Untold History of the United States, p. 387, 395 (15) In The Death Of Others, John Tirman makes a convincing case that the 110,000 Iraqi dead estimated by the Iraq Body Count organization is far too law since they were limited to the relatively few deaths reported in English language newspapers, and located in Baghdad is far too low. He notes it depends upon English language newspapers, that most murders occur outside Baghdad in areas where few journalists visit, media coverage of Iraq plummeted post-invasion, and people often do not report deaths, particularly to the Iraqi authorities they mistrust. He also makes a strong case for believing the Johns Hopkins University estimates published in the Lancet scientific journal of more than 600,000 Iraqi dead. (Kindle loc. 5797 ff.) |
Some might disagree with Branfman's conclusion (U.S. = most evil), pointing to Communist governments like the "former" Soviet Union and Red China.
When millions of Chinese were starving to death, the U.S. blocked imports that might have saved them.
The Soviet Union was propped up by technological, economic, and military aid by the U.S. See any of the works of Charles Levinson, or of Antony Sutton, Research Fellow at the prestigious Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Start with The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986) or National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (1973). See also Joseph Finder, Red Carpet (1983).
Senator Joe McCarthy -- for all the invective against him - was right: The U.S. Federal Government was infested with commies:
The prestigious (and conservative) think-tank at Stanford University, the Hoover Institute, published a multi-volume study of de-classified State Department documents and other government records which proved beyond question that the Soviet Union would not have lasted more than a few years without technological and financial aid from the so-called "capitalist" West. Socialism does not work. It must be propped up by capitalism.
WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945
The purpose of World War II -- which was determined not by "the brave men and women" who fought in it, but by the communists in the Roosevelt White House, the State Department and throughout the federal government -- was to extend communism, which was at least 10 times more lethal than Hitler. America only entered the war against German National Socialism in order to further International Socialism under Stalin.
The same is true for America's entry into the Pacific Theater against Japan: the goal was to eliminate a threat to international socialism in the Far East.
FDR and his communist advisors were planning to enter WWII even as they promised to keep our boys out of war, and in Asia they opened the door to Mao Tse Tung, keeping Douglas McArthur from closing it.
As many as 90 million human beings died in World War II,
to protect Soviet Stalinism, which was guilty of murdering a nearly equal amount of human beings, and
to promote Communism in Asia, which again resulted in the murder of a nearly equal amount (best estimate: 40 million murdered under Mao) of human beings. In many ways this massive global destruction of property, liberty, and human beings was led by the United States. It most certainly was aided and abetted.
Many tyrants like Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran are puppets of the U.S. Mao may not have been a "puppet," whose strings were directly pulled by U.S. Puppetmasters (though we don't know everything there is to know), but he was certainly unleashed on the world by the U.S.
Branfman is right to conclude that the U.S. Government is the most evil and lawless government on earth.
No matter how much evil the government commits, too many Americans continue to believe it is good. Indispensable.
This basic belief in America’s good intentions is often linked to “American exceptionalism”. Let’s look at how exceptional US foreign policy has been. Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:
- Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
- Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
- Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
- Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
- Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
- Led the world in torture; not only the torture performed directly by Americans upon foreigners, but providing torture equipment, torture manuals, lists of people to be tortured, and in-person guidance by American teachers, especially in Latin America.
This is indeed exceptional. No other country in all of history comes anywhere close to such a record.
• Why a Bill of Rights? | Walter Williams
• Why Bad Men Rule | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters ... but they mean to be masters."
~ Daniel Webster
A well-governed person, who yearns for a well-governed society, wants to place firm limits on "the government."
But it's not enough to say THIS war was wrong, or THAT war was wrong.
I think we need to say that EVERY war is wrong.
War is a massive destruction of property, killing of people, and shattering of marriages. Nothing human beings do is more starkly a violation of the Ten Commandments. War is total opposition to Jesus.
In all of American history, not a single war can be justified or excused on Christian grounds.
"Thou shalt not kill." "Love your enemy."
On Memorial Day, and Veterans Day, and Armed Forces day, and at airports and sporting events, everyone feels some compunctions of patriotic guilt to pay tribute and say "Thank you for your service" to those who voluntarily joined the undermining of Christian freedom, the strengthening of tyranny, the destruction of property, and the murder of millions.
And to say that EVERY war is wrong is to say that we should abolish the Pentagon, cut the defense budget to ZERO, and close down the "military-industrial complex."
I think we should abolish the Armed Forces of the United States.
And those of every other nation that participated in these evil wars over the last centuries.
Conservatives agree that we don't need government to provide computers, groceries, cars, education, healthcare, or housing. Libertarians can think of likely ways that a free market can provide just about everything that consumers want, without the government getting involved. Even roads. But everyone seems to agree we need a "government" to provide "national defense." That's the one thing that keeps us from abolishing all taxes and all politicians. If the government doesn't protect us, the Bad Guys will invade us, conquer us, and make us their slaves. Libertarian think-tanks have published their White Papers on how "greedy capitalists" will think of innovative ways to keep us all safe and secure -- and make a profit doing so. But nobody wants to try these libertarian theories out. We want to stick with the status quo. We don't want to be enslaved when our enemies learn that we're abolishing the government's armed forces.
I'd like to go way beyond the status quo.
To say that war should be abolished and to say that armies should be abolished is to say that every GOVERNMENT should be abolished.
That's really what the Bible is all about. It's the conflict between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of man. The City of God vs. the City of Man.
The Bible says God should be our King. Not Trump, not Biden.
And so the schools that are operated by Trump and Biden prohibit teachers from teaching students that the Bible is the Word of God and ought to be believed and obeyed. If everyone believed and obeyed the Bible, Trump and Biden and all politicians would be out of a job.
Who is God? The God of the Bible, or Joe Biden? Who calls the shots in your life?
If the God of the Bible tells you not to kill, but the government tells you to kill, whoever you obey is your god.
If anyone asks you to kill or destroy other people's property, shouldn't you ask questions, and make darned sure that you're doing the right thing?
What will the soldiers we are asked to honor on Memorial Day say when Jesus asks them why they thought it was OK to kill people? "We trusted the government." That's very definitely the wrong thing to do. America's Founding Fathers warned us not to trust the government. And that was back when governments all claimed to be "under God."
Politicians are false gods. They want to call the shots in your life. They want to occupy the place in your life that only God should occupy.
Memorial Day is about honoring those who fought and killed and died for false gods.
The consistent "pacifist" will be reviled as an "anarchist." Not because the consistent pacifist is a proponent of disorder, chaos, crime, riots, mayhem and murder. Obviously the pacifist is wholeheartedly against all those things. But the consistent pacifist is opposed to violence, and "the government" is an institution based on violence. Every professor of political science in every university on planet earth will agree with this claim. The most basic definition of "the government" is "A Monopoly of Violence." See here.
We need to talk about that word "anarchism." It comes from two Greek words meaning "not an archist."
So what is an "archist?"
An "archist" is a "ruler." We here at Vine & Fig Tree invented the word "archist," deriving it from a Greek word found in Mark 10:42-45, from which the English word "anarchist" is derived.
In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, Jesus discovers His disciples arguing about who is going to be the "greatest" in the Kingdom of God. Their concept of the Messiah was someone who would use force and violence to vanquish the Roman occupation army that held Israel under tribute. They looked forward to the coming of a Messiah who would enlist them into a Messianic Israeli Army which would "stick it to" the Romans. But just as Micah said we should beat "swords into plowshares," Jesus said His disciples should "love your enemies," and if their soldiers conscript you to carry their provisions for one mile, you should go with the occupation forces two. (This form of pacifism completely refutes the legitimacy of "national defense.") The disciples didn't understand that Jesus' Messianic Kingdom was quite unlike the kingdoms of the world.
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. {43} Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. {44} And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. {45} "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." |
The word translated "rulers" comes from the Greek word from which we derive our English word "anarchist" ("a + archist" -- the first "a" is the Greek letter "alpha," known as the "alpha privative," meaning "not" -- a[n]archist -- the letter "n" bridges the "alpha privative" and the word "archist").
"Lords," "rulers" and "great ones" are "archists."
An "archist" believes he has the right to impose his will on other people by force. He need not rely solely on persuasion. He need not give others anything of value in exchange for what he wants from others. He can threaten violence, and carry out those threats if he doesn't get what he wants. It would be sinful for others to engage in such violent extortion or vengeance, but the "archist" claims a "legal" and moral right to do what others must not do.
Jesus clearly says His followers are not to be "archists." They are to be "servants."
A Christian society is an archist-free society.
We have been brainwashed in "public" schools (run by archists) to believe that an "anarchist" is:
Anyone can be called an "anarchist" by someone who wants to vilify an opponent, but most of those who call themselves "anarchist" have reached their position by their opposition to violence. I am a pacifist, therefore I am opposed to any institution of systematic violence and coercion (e.g., "the Mafia," "the State," etc.).
By etymological definition, the opposite of an "anarchist" is an "archist." By being trained to believe that "anarchists" are bad, we've been subtly inculcated with the belief that those who protect us against "anarchists" (logically, "archists") are good.
But the Bible says archists are bad, and explicitly prohibits us from being archists.
Jesus says His followers are not to be archists. Connect the dots.
www.HowToBecomeAChristianAnarchist.com
|
Mark 10:42-45 (and other passages we're going to be considering in a moment) teaches that
Archism is a False Religion
On Memorial Day we are asked to honor those who allowed themselves to become tools or pawns of the false religion of Archism.
The Bible says love your enemies and leave vengeance to God.
The State says hate our enemies and take vengeance on the enemies of the state.
The State claims the right to threaten me with physical violence if I don't pay for the salaries of the State's archist vengeance-takers.
This is nothing less than a competition between two opposing religions.
If you're not a pacifist like Jesus,
if you're not an anarchist like Jesus,
you are "spotted by the world" (James 1:27).
You are "worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8).
You have a false religion.
I want to persuade you to change your religion.
My first goal is to get every human being on planet earth to believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
There are two big reasons why most people don't take the Bible seriously.
|
If the Bible is actually God speaking to us, we would certainly be obligated to take the Bible more seriously than the word of the Military-Industrial Complex, and the University-Industrial Complex, and the Media-Industrial Complex. When Eisenhower spoke in 1961 of the "military-industrial complex," an earlier draft of the speech had "military-industrial-congressional complex." Congress got left out. But the State is central in every "complex" that wars against the Bible — by tax-funding and/or by enforcement of regulations. The State is symbolized by The Sword. "Swords into plowshares" is a call for a radically de-centralized stateless society. A stateless society is a peaceful society.
But that would be taking the Bible way too seriously, according to the experts in every "complex" above. They claim that if we obeyed the Bible, made a commitment to love our enemies instead of bombing them "back to the stone age," and if we beat all our swords into plowshares, by shutting down the Pentagon, cutting the Defense budget to Zero, and closing the "military-industrial complex," that "the bad guys" would conquer us and enslave us.
Really? Is North Korea going to invade us? Is Kim Jong-un so stupid that he doesn't realize that once the North Korean troops see a Walmart, they're all going to want to defect and become Americans? Why would they destroy the wealth that they themselves could have, and then go back "home" in "victory" to bitter poverty in North Korea?
But let's assume that North Korea would actually invade and conquer us because we were so foolish as to take Jesus and Micah seriously. The North Korean government would take two-thirds of everything we earn and give it to the millions of starving slaves in North Korea.
If America is a Christian nation, why wouldn't we be willing to do this anyway, voluntarily?
Why hasn't America invaded North Korea already -- with millions of missionaries and social workers lifting North Koreans out of poverty and helping them beat their tyrannical dictatorship's swords into plowshares?
Why haven't we already disarmed North Korea? And all other military dictatorships? Why haven't we Christianized those atheistic regimes with an army of unarmed missionaries?
Answer: because we are too busy funding the world's largest military dictatorship: the United States. A dictatorship that already takes two-thirds of everything we earn.
|
During my lifetime, the military dictatorship of the United States has killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS of MILLIONS of innocent, non-combatant non-white civilians around the world. The U.S. military promotes abortion and homosexuality around the world. "Social engineering" is as much a part of U.S. foreign policy as "keeping us safe." The sons and daughters of those who committed all these atrocities are ashamed, and know deep-down these wars, invasions, and "police actions" served no useful purpose. Except to increase the wealth of the military-industrial-congressional complex.
The "experts" were wrong.
No war, invasion, or "police action" by the United States has made any nation freer or richer -- except the tyrants.
Taking the Bible seriously also means taking the facts of the world seriously.
Nobody wants to do both.
My goal is getting everyone to take the Bible seriously, as well as answering the anti-Bible arguments of the military-university-media-congressional-industrial complex.
And by this point, 99% of the readers who clicked the link that took them to this page have already clicked away and moved on.
How do I motivate people to take the Bible seriously, and question "the powers that be?"
I came to a tentative answer and created this website: The Anarchist Bible Bet. I'll wager anyone $1,000 that I can persuade them to become anarcho-pacifists if they will read the Bible from cover to cover and take it seriously. I think knowledgeable internet marketers and advertising gurus will tell me that in order to find that needle in a haystack -- the thoughtful, open-minded person willing to take the Bible seriously and question the so-called "experts" -- I would have to spend about $1,000 in advertising and marketing expenses. So I might as well offer that thousand bucks as a "bribe" to read my website.
Do the troops "protect" us? No.
There are millions of people around the world who hate Americans and want to kill us because their cousin was killed by a bomb that was "Made in the U.S.A." Every 12 minutes, around the clock, on average, the United States rocks a neighborhood with a bomb that kills the innocent and traumatizes the survivors. That does not make us safer.
And nobody puts "Jesus" in a sentence with anything related to the U.S. Armed Forces unless he
Both of those are true in the case of this website.
"Everybody knows" that Jesus commanded His followers to be "pacifists."
Fewer people know that when America's Founders spoke of "the separation of church and state," they did not mean the separation of God and Government. The government -- including the Armed Forces -- must be "under God."
So if we claim to be "one nation, under God," what does God require of us? "What Would Jesus Do?" or better, "What would Jesus command the United States to do in 2024?" What did Jesus command Americans to do for the last 200 years?
The vast majority of people -- atheists, deists, "Christians-in-name-only" -- recoil at the very idea of allowing "Jesus" to dictate our foreign policy or military strategy. The "hidden agenda" of this website is to make those who are "Christian in name only" more consistently Christian. Take the name "Christian" seriously, or don't take it at all. If you're not an "extremist," you're probably not a Christian at all.
I think I can prove:
Jesus commands His followers to be "pacifists."
No war in the history of the United States can be justified as a "just war."
Therefore we should not honor those who were killed while killing.
We should mourn their deaths, and assist their widows or orphans, but we should not honor their decision to "serve" in the military.
"Everybody knows" that if you take the commands of Jesus seriously, you'll be a "pacifist."
So why would Jesus honor those who take up a sword to kill "enemies?"
Obviously my question "Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?" is an attention-grabbing conversation-starting question. Some might think it's a "put-up-your-dukes-and-let's-fight-it-out" kind of question. Designed to start a heated argument.
That's not what I want.
I want to provoke a serious, intelligent, thoughtful, and prayerful conversation, not a fight. I want to discuss how the teachings of Christ can be applied to our military and foreign policy. I'll try not to call my opponent a "hateful" "warmonger" if my opponents won't just shout me down by repeating the mantra "U‑S‑A!! U‑S‑A!! U‑S‑A!" over and over to drown out my arguments.
I find it supremely ironic that many veterans and those who are "Rah! Rah!" about the military, and call me names like "pacifist wimp!" and "flower child!" are afraid -- yes, terrorized -- by the prospect of sitting down and intelligently, unemotionally engaging in a rigorous intellectual and spiritual debate of the issues. They don't want to deal in the area of facts, statistics, and logic to confront questions like:
Life, liberty, and property. War destroys all three. Every time. No exceptions.
I respect those who never asked these questions but believed the claims of the government's military recruiters, and genuinely and sincerely wanted to help their country.
But good citizenship demands that we question the lies of our government and its recruiters.
Really?
Henry Kissinger was one of the great architects of U.S. Foreign Policy. It is reported that "In [Army General Alexander] Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as 'dumb, stupid animals to be used' as pawns for foreign policy."
Another word for "dump, stupid animals" is "sheeple."
We the People cannot be sheeple any longer. We must choose between the government of the United States in Washington D.C. on the one hand, and America on the other.
America, my country, is an ideal: a people who enjoy "Liberty Under God." A "City upon a Hill." A country once identified by the U.S. Supreme Court as "a Christian nation."
The Federal Government of the United States is an atheistic regime at war with the ideal of "Liberty Under God."
Armies do not benefit the American ideal of "Liberty Under God." Armies serve the federal government. They do not even defend our borders. They impose the policies of Washington D.C. on people of other nations.
The government in Washington D.C. does not deserve your service. You should not die, you should not allow your neighbor to die, nor should you kill for, the "Deep State" of the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump regime.
The Federal Government of the United States is anti-American.
It is anti-Christ.
So I mourn the dead, but I cannot honor them.
They died in vain.
Death makes Jesus weep, but Jesus would not celebrate or honor the choice to destroy the life, liberty and property of others by joining the military complex of the U.S. Federal Government.
|
|
|
Look at the death that surrounds these women.
Does Jesus really extend His Kingdom by death and destruction?
Please leave your thoughtful comments or questions here.
(Mindless violent threats or patriotic spam does not honor anyone.)
1. No war in U.S. history can be justified according to the teachings of Christ. This includes the moral, economic, and political teachings of Christ, which every scholar should respect.
2. To understand why Christians should not honor the decision to become a soldier requires an understanding of
For a defense of the proposition that no U.S. war has been morally, economically, or politically justified, see below.
To gain an understanding of
Go here: www.PeacemakerCoaching.org
and sign up for our online home-study program.
The purpose of this program is to help you become a "peacemaker" and enjoy the blessings Christ promises to peacemakers. This program helps you resist the promises of the military recruiters, politicians, and those who are dependent upon government redistribution of wealth. This program will give you a Christian worldview.
| The United States has three holidays which honor those who chose war over peace: Veterans' Day (those who fought and lived); Memorial Day (those who fought and died) and Independence Day (those who took up arms to abolish their government). ("Armed Forces Day"
-- honoring those who are still employed by the military -- is a runner-up.)
Shouldn't a Christian nation like America have a day to honor those who withstood the temptation to violence and vengeance and chose peace instead? "War
will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." |
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
Matthew 5:9
|
|
There are 100 million self-proclaimed born-again evangelicals in the United States. There are 250 million people in America who would call themselves "Christian," which presumably means "follower of Jesus Christ." Given their disposable income, these millions have the electoral and financial power to completely alter U.S. foreign policy and re-shape the world for peace.
But the vast majority don't take the teachings of Jesus seriously. They believe His teachings apply to "saints" and the super-spiritual, or are only for a future "dispensation." Or else they believe that His teachings are for your "heart," but (because they're "religious") don't have any real application in the "real world" of law, economics, political policy or military strategy.
George Bush did not take Jesus seriously. At least not as "Commander-in-Chief." In the third TV debate in the 2000 primaries, Tom Brokaw served as moderator and asked for viewers' questions, getting this: "What political philosopher or thinker...do you most identify
with?" Candidate Steve Forbes came out with John Locke. Candidate Alan Keyes stood with the Founders.
The question was repeated: "Governor Bush — a philosopher-thinker and why."
Bush: "Christ, because he changed my heart."
|
Not because He changed Bush's political policies, foreign policy, or military strategies. Clearly, Jesus has had no impact on Bush's decision to harm children by destroying Iraqi neighborhoods. But Bush may be sincere when he thinks of himself as a follower of Christ, because Bush believes that Christ is Lord in religious areas, just not military areas. After all, it simply isn't "practical" or "realistic" to apply Jesus' teachings to international relations. We can believe Jesus in our hearts, and go to heaven when we die, but applying Jesus' teachings literally in the political or military arena is suicidal. Many people -- even atheists -- agree with Bush in this respect.
This webpage is intended to show that we can and must take Jesus seriously, in every area of life -- even our nation's political life and foreign policy.
The basic issue is: Can Jesus be trusted? If we follow Him, taking His Word seriously, will everything work out OK? Or is the Bible just a fairy tale? Is it just a contradictory collection of feel-good stories and Hallmark-card aphorisms? Something you can believe in your heart, but should keep separate from the State and its foreign policy?
This webpage argues that if we had taken Jesus seriously in the 20th century, things would have worked out better. Many beloved sons and daughters would still be alive. We would not have fought any war in the 20th century, and would not be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan today. If we had followed Jesus and not fought any wars in the last 200 years, the world would be a better place. If you think that's a nutty idea -- less than "5" on a scale of 1-10 -- we guarantee that if you read this entire page, your rating of that idea will go up 50% or more. In short, this webpage is guaranteed to change your thinking on the issue of war and peace, if only a little.
|
Here are three controversial ideas.
First, let's take Memorial Day seriously for just a few minutes. That's controversial because most people don't. Like Christmas, Memorial Day has lost its original significance, and now means going to the beach, firing up the bar-b-que, or maybe watching a parade. Here's the entry for "Memorial Day" from an online
encyclopedia:
|
Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday that is observed on the last Monday of May. It was formerly known as Decoration Day. This holiday commemorates U.S. men and women who died in military service for their country. It began first to honor Union soldiers who died during the American Civil War. After World War I, it expanded to include those who died in any war or military action. One of the longest standing traditions is the running of the Indianapolis 500, which has been held in conjunction with Memorial Day since 1911. Nowadays most Americans use the date as merely marking the unofficial start of the summer vacationing season as many government parks and beaches start their summer schedule on the Friday before. Many outdoor community swimming pools also open on this day.Many Veterans groups are trying to get the observance of Memorial Day shifted back to its original day, instead of being made a part of a "3-day weekend," which tends to focus people's attention on vacationing rather than observing Memorial Day.
There are two ways to take Memorial Day seriously.
The Bible says to mourn the death of soldiers, but never says to honor their choice to fight.
Imagine an immature teenager who sees one of those "extreme" television shows featuring "incredible" stupid stunts. He then tries the stunt at home and dies. We mourn the loss, and console his family. Do we honor his choice? No. We need to warn teenagers like him that it's a sin to endanger the life God gave you. We need to stop honoring people who risk their own lives to kill other lives.
This is an analogy, not a comparison. One can enlist in the armed services without engaging in a stupid stunt, but can be motivated by patriotism, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and other ideals which can be respected. But Nazis and Communists can also serve in their armed forces and be motivated by patriotism, self-sacrifice, love of the "Fatherland" or the "workers revolutionary paradise," and no matter how sincere and well-intentioned they were, we would say they were wrong. While we can mourn their deaths as human beings created in the Image of God, we cannot honor their choice. If the government catches an enemy soldier, it does not honor the passion of his patriotism, it imprisons him.
If a human being chooses to intentionally kill other human beings created in the image of God, does it matter in God's eyes which flag he waves?
If a person pushes a button or pulls a trigger that kills innocent non-combatant civilians, does it matter in God's eyes that the killer was wearing a government uniform?
On Memorial Day, Americans honor those Americans who were killed in uniform.
In other words, Americans honor those Americans who chose to fight in a war.
I say "chose" even though many were drafted (conscripted), as in the Vietnam conflict. But they had the power to refuse, even though they may have lost their status or even gone to jail. Jesus underwent worse forms of torture. Even those who are drafted have a choice, and can choose to "do violence to no man" (Luke 3:14), no matter what the penalties.
Would Jesus honor those who chose to fight (or did not choose not to fight)?
Didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
Jesus never said "Bless and honor the warmakers."
So our first controversial idea on this Memorial Day, is to take the holiday seriously, and effectively mourn those who died.
Second controversial idea: Let's take war seriously.
In his Presidential Radio Address of May 26, 2007, President Bush said the following:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This Memorial Day weekend, Americans honor those who have given their lives in service to our Nation. As we pay tribute to the brave men and women who died for our freedom, we also honor those who are defending our liberties around the world today. On Memorial Day, we pay tribute to Americans from every generation who have given their lives for our freedom. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, from Kuwait to Kandahar, from Berlin to Baghdad, brave men and women have given up their own futures so that others might have a future of freedom. Because of their sacrifice, millions here and around the world enjoy the blessings of liberty. And wherever these patriots rest, we offer them the respect and gratitude of our Nation.
We must challenge the President on every one of these wars. The world was not made a better place by fighting these wars, and Americans should have chosen not to fight them:
| The President gave this list of wars: | We would take a second look at them: |
| Valley Forge | Should Americans have killed Christians from Britain over a petty tax increase? Click here or go here: www.July4th1776.org |
| Vietnam | What did the loss of 50,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese achieve? |
| Kuwait | For whom did these Iraqi children die? |
| Kandahar | How did the United States make Afghanistan a better place by not taking Jesus seriously, including the arming of Osama bin Laden's "freedom fighters" by the CIA? |
| Berlin | Was East Germany and all of Eastern Europe better off after U.S. military involvement? Click here or learn more here. |
| Baghdad | Would America's Founding Fathers have approved of $500 billion to kill millions of Iraqis and create an Islamic Theocracy? Click here or find out more about the use of Phosphorus weapons on the civilian population in Iraq |
|
Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died [in Iraq]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
This is a "cost-benefit" question. To evaluate whether the cost was "worth it," you have to ask, "What benefit did we get for the price?"
What did these deaths bring us?
And throughout the world during the 20th century, hundreds of millions of people have been subjugated under atheistic and socialistic tyranny with the aid of the nation that was supposed to be "a city upon a hill": the U.S.of A.
What causes us to honor those who wore a uniform for the world's largest killing machine? Why do we not honor those who refused to fight, and chose peace? How should the Christian react to "Memorial Day?"
I believe Christians should be outraged, and should vigorously protest the killing. Those who voluntarily don a uniform to kill for money, for college tuition, for "job training," or for kicks, should be excommunicated. As it is, in churches across America, the killers are honored.
With the exception of an occasional sociopath, all the killers in the 20th century believed they were doing good. Germans who killed Jews were protecting "the fatherland," preserving the "national security of Germany," or were just honorably "following orders." For Muslims, killing infidels is a matter of sincere religious duty. Russians who shot Ukrainian farmers carried out "the will of the People." Americans napalmed South Vietnamese villages because "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." Save them from Communism, of course, which Americans believe is a fate worse than death by napalm. 10,000 murders a day requires a lot of people wearing uniforms, and all of them believed they were doing their patriotic duty. None of them thought of themselves as doing "evil" just because they were killing human beings or engaging in violent destruction of property.
I want to think about Memorial Day with a view to creating a plan that will get hundreds of millions of people to think that killing is evil. Given the billions of people who believe killing is justified if ordered by the government or a false religion, this is a huge undertaking.
I can't recall ever hearing a Memorial Day sermon in which the preacher did not dutifully remind the congregation that "Jesus was not a pacifist." But Jesus clearly was a pacifist. He died because He did not defend Himself against evil aggressors, even though He was perfectly innocent. If Jesus was not a pacifist, His followers would have fought to keep Him from being delivered up to death (John 18:36). But He told them, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Here are dozens of verses which strongly suggest that the Bible advocates pacifism (which comes from the Latin word for "peace.").
In fact, the Bible is so strongly pro-peace that we offer you this controversial suggestion: On Memorial Day, let us not honor the dead. Let us mourn and help their widows, but let's not honor their choice to fight. In fact, let's make the suggestion even more controversial:
| Those who volunteer for any branch of America's Armed Forces with the intent to kill another human being should be excommunicated from our churches. |
Wow, that's pretty crazy, huh?
I'm not interested in debating the details of church discipline, excommunicating people, or anything like that, I'm interested in provoking some serious thought about war and peace. If you think it's ridiculous to claim that "Christians should be against war," please keep reading, and I'll wager you won't think the claim is quite so ridiculous when you're finished reading. I'm confident that if you work through this website, focus, pray, take a break halfway through and get a second wind, then continue asking tough questions, you'll be a different person than you are right now.
Another thing I hear in Memorial Day sermons every year is the de rigueur citation of James 4, which says,
1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
This text, like many others in the New Testament, seems to move us to oppose war. But on Memorial Day, the preacher virtually pooh-poohs the verse and goes on to claim that there are some noble reasons to go to war, though there are never any verses quoted which say the ultimate cause of war is holiness and righteousness and following the Prince of Peace.
Consider this controversial claim:
|
Every war conducted by the United States throughout its history has been |
If I can prove this claim, your attitude towards the teachings of Jesus will be radically transformed. If you're like most people, you've been taught that Jesus was at least sort of a pacifist, He said a lot of things about peace that are good for our private lives, but are completely out of place in "the real world." But "the real world" would be a much better place if we followed Jesus literally and became pacifists.
"But aren't some wars justified? Isn't it a positive good to fight in some wars?"
If you believe this, you should take a year to study America's wars. Take an hour a day. Treat it like a college class. In lieu of that large undertaking, let's take a half-hour to quickly review America's wars. Were any justified? Did any have the long-term effect of making the world a better place? Really? Let's look at these wars:
Admittedly, I have cited the highest estimated casualties in these wars. If you find this objectionable, I would ask you to cite the lowest number of casualties which you believe is both (1) accurate and (2) morally acceptable to Jesus.
Let's start with the first war in America's history (though I don't intend to examine each and every one of the over 100 "wars," "conflicts," "police actions," etc. that America has been involved in since 1776). That would be the war that gave birth to the United States of America, the "War for Independence."
What would Jesus say about those who chose to take up arms against "the Redcoats?"
I have created a website that goes into this question in greater detail:
Would Jesus Celebrate Independence Day.com
I heard a Memorial Day sermon in which the preacher asked, "Is it ever right to fight?" He said, "We are free because our Founding Fathers fought." Are we free? Should they have fought?
Consider this parable and a few Bible passages:
Date: April 19, 1775 Imagine a young man about 23 years old. As an agent of the British Empire, he wears a red coat. He believes that the colonies face a situation of "anarchy" and chaos. For generations, the British government has maintained law and order, and he has been told that social
stability is threatened by lawless hordes of colonists who vandalize tax-paying merchants while dressed as Indians. Based on reports of a large cache of arms in Lexington and threats of armed revolution, he has been sent away from his family in Liverpool to help maintain order in the colonies.
As a good Christian, this young man believes that God has ordained government to preserve peace and good order. He believes armed revolution against the government is a violation of Romans 13. He's proud to serve in His Majesty's armed services.
Oh dear. This nice young man has just had a large part of his face and shoulders blown away by the musket fire of an outraged tax-resister. The colonist (and others like him) apparently believed that this young British soldier evinced "a design to reduce them under absolute despotism." As the officer lies dying in a pool of his own
blood, the revolutionary "minute-man" rejoices in his victory over this red-coat's objective of the "establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." (Quotes from the Declaration of Independence)
Is this a loving (1 Corinthians 13:5-7) or righteous (John 7:24; Exodus 23:2; Prov.
24:21) judgment of this young human being? Was this soldier a budding Adolph Hitler, or a "good Christian family man"?
Was this revolutionary killing the beginning, or the end, of a Christian nation?
Consider these Bible passages, which have been slightly altered to fit the context. (Don't just read them, but prayerfully ask yourself, if these are the commands of Christ, how can a follower of Christ justify killing government officials?):
Romans
12-13 {1} I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.1 Peter 2:11-24
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;Matthew 5:38-48
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:Proverbs 24:21
My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those given to change; for their calamity will rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin those two can bring?Exodus 23:2
Thou shalt not follow a crowd to do evil.These verses make obvious what every conservative Christian fears: Jesus was a pacifist. Jesus died a pacifist, telling his followers not to take up arms to defend Him, even though He was sinlessly innocent, and His imminent arrest was totally unlawful and immoral. If His murder isn't a case for justifiable defense, nothing is. But Jesus prohibited it, and then we are told to "follow in His steps" on precisely this issue. The Bible teaches pacifism. The follower of Christ seeks peace. Click here for a few more verses to prove this (they might still be visible in the column at right, depending on your browser and font size).
And history teaches that war is unjustified. Again, something conservatives fear, but don't want to think about it.
The American Revolution would be considered the most "American" of all wars, and no patriotic love-it-or-leave-it American would suggest that the War for Independence was immoral and unChristian. But I would. It was immoral, unChristian, and an obvious violation of Romans 13, which was originally written to Christians living under violent military occupation by the barbaric and pagan Roman Empire, and surely applies to Christians living under a more benevolent government like eighteenth-century England.
If we should not spend Memorial Day celebrating the willingness of Americans to take up arms in the War for Independence, what does it say about Americans who celebrate the "Fourth of July?" Do we expect to impress America's Founding Fathers by honoring their military efforts? They risked "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to rebel against an essentially Christian nation. What are we willing to risk against a secular regime many times more tyrannical?
| Then -- 1776 | Today -- 2012 |
| Scholars estimate that Britain attempted to levy taxes on the colonies at rates somewhere between 3-5%.
The "Sons of Liberty" dumped the tea into the Boston Harbor rather than pay a tax of 3 pence per pound. |
We pay ten times more taxes on a gallon of gas than the tea tax that brought about the American Revolution Our government takes over half of everything we earn -- fully ten times more than the colonists fought against. In addition to money withheld from our paychecks, if you buy a $24,000 Ford Taurus with the money left to you after withholding, nearly $13,000 of that sticker price represents taxes passed on by various levels of manufacturers to you, the consumer. (The taxes you wanted your congressman to impose on "big business" are never paid by "big business," they're paid by their customers, meaning YOU. Your congressman isn't about to tell you this, as long as you keep voting for him.) |
| King George III would never have dreamed of taking tax revenue from the colonies and funding abortions. | From 1987 through 2002, Planned Parenthood received almost two and a half BILLION dollars (or 30% of its entire income) from tax dollars under Title X.
The United States federal government gives billions of US tax dollars a year in "foreign aid" to fund overseas abortions. The tax-dollars go to the largest abortion providers in the world -- as long as they say "abortion is not a method of family planning." (A legal technicality.) |
| Parliament would never have dreamed of ordering the colonies to support schools which prohibit their students from even seeing a copy of the Ten Commandments posted on a classroom wall; the Shorter Catechism was a part of nearly every colonial classroom in America. | The United States Supreme Court banned the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments (privately funded) in government school classrooms in 1980 (Stone v. Graham).
It is illegal for teachers in your neighborhood public school to teach students that the Declaration of Independence is really true. |
| The British government would never have dreamed of compelling the colonies to legalize homosexuality. | The United States Supreme Court overturned all state laws against sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, overruling Bowers v. Hardwick [1986], in which the Court had recognized that homosexuality had always been considered an "abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians"). Today a Christian adoption agency can be compelled to turn children over to homosexuals. |
| The British government would never have dreamed of taxing the colonies hundreds of billions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent non-combatant civilians in an effort to set up an Islamic Theocracy. | We'll get to the War in Iraq in a moment. |
The war that gave birth to America was not justified, but those that rebelled had more integrity than we do, since we do very little against an empire far more tyrannical.
We'll discuss the 20th century and how we can reverse the damage done by America, but let's first consider our most recent disaster, Iraq.
On the left is some information about early America. On the right is some information about the government created in Iraq by the new and improved secularized United States at a projected cost of nearly a trillion dollars and too many human casualties to count:
| John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135.
[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. In 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court surveyed the founding documents of America and concluded:
Every subsequent American charter was consistent with this objective. President James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," issued a proclamation on "the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812," in which he declared,
|
Text of the draft Iraqi Constitution The complete text of the draft Iraqi Constitution, as translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press: In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful "Verily we have honored the children of Adam" (Quran 17:70) Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. 2nd - This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices. Article (90): The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members. U.S. Blood Is Not Buying a Free Iraq |
The USMemorialDay.org website gets us thinking about another of America's disastrous wars. It says:
Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868....
General Order 11 begins:
|
|
Why should the South have not been allowed to secede from the union? Was it really necessary for 700,000 Americans to die to impose by force a compulsory union on a supposedly "free" people? Were blacks less free on a Christian plantation in the South than they are in a drug- and gang-infested Christ-free federal housing project in Chicago, without skills or good character, chronically unemployable, without known father or grandfather, unable even to imagine success for any out-of-wedlock children they may conceive but will never parent, making up for the fact that the federal government is father to their children by joining gangs and puncturing society with acts of violence? The Civil War was completely unjustified.
"But we couldn't allow the South to get away with slavery," some would say. Slavery was legal in all 13 of the original American colonies, and if the North was justified in preventing the South from seceding because they permitted slavery, then Britain was justified in keeping the colonies from their rebellion. Britain abolished slavery decades before the United States, without firing a shot. New York had slaves into the 1850's, and New Jersey did not end slavery until 1865. The first "emancipation proclamation" was Lord Dunmore’s, the Royal Governor of Virginia, in 1775, promising freedom to slaves who would defect against the colonial rebels.
More from General Order No. 11:
| What can aid more to assure this result than cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. |
Why are the soldiers of the North called "defenders" when they were the aggressors? The South just wanted to secede, not take over the North.
| Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic. |
Once again we have to ask, "Was the cost worth it?" Why was it so much better to kill 700,000 human beings, most of them professing Christians, than to have a "United States of America" and a "Confederate States of America?" At the end of World War II the Allies divided the German Republic into East and West. Why did so many Americans have to die to prevent the U.S. from being divided into North and South?
|
Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from dishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan. |
One could argue that both the South and the North dishonored the flag. But was the North justified in creating widows and orphans in the South? Would Jesus honor them for their killings? It is not surprising to learn that
The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). (USMemorialDay.org)
But that was the result of WWII. Eastern Europe was given to Soviet Communism, and much of Asia was given to Chinese Communism. And when the federal government had a chance before 1945 to rescue Jews, it refused to do so. One example: a boat full of Jews escaping Hitler came to the U.S., but Roosevelt prohibited the ship to dock on U.S. soil. The story | The details | More about WWII.
Ask the same question about every war: "Was it worth the cost?" The "cost" is easy to determine, in lives lost and property destroyed. But when we ask "Was it worth the cost," the "it" is usually harder to define. Was it "a war to end all wars?" Was it "to make the world safe for democracy?" Usually none of the stated goals of the war actually were achieved. So what were the actual results of the war, and were these results worth the cost? Not once, I would argue. Not a single time. Click here for a list of all U.S. wars since 1776, compiled by the U.S. Naval Historical Center. Not one of them was worth the cost. Jesus would not have commanded His followers to kill human beings in order to achieve the promised results of these wars, much less the actual results of these wars. And we shouldn't honor those who refuse to follow Christ.
Though if by and large we ignore the debt we owe to those who fell at Saratoga, Antietam, the Marne, the Pointe du Hoc, and a thousand other places and more, our lives and everything we value are the ledger in which it is indelibly recorded.Boaz asks,
Does Helprin think that all of America’s wars have been necessary to American freedom? True, he doesn’t allude to any of our wars since World War II in his list of hallowed places. But he does mention the Second Battle of the Marne, the great turning point of World War I and the first battle in which Americans started experiencing the enormous casualties that Europeans had been facing for nearly four years. The problem is that World War I was a catastrophe, a foolish and unnecessary war, a war of European potentates that both England and the United States could have stayed out of but that became indeed a World War, the Great War. In our own country the war gave us economic planning, conscription, nationalization of the railroads, a sedition act, confiscatory income tax rates, and prohibition. Internationally World War I and its conclusion led directly to the Bolshevik revolution, the rise of National Socialism, World War II, and the Cold War. World War I was the worst mistake of the 20th century, the mistake that set in motion all the tragedies of the century. The deaths of those who fell at the Marne are all the more tragic when we reflect that they did not in fact serve to protect our lives and all that we value.
Our third controversial idea:
Let's Take the Bible Seriously
The same people who tell us that we should honor those who chose to kill and destroy others in defense of "our" government tell us that we can't mix the Bible and politics. We can't use the Bible as the basis for our political, military, and foreign policy decisions.
| The Old Testament is wrong on war. The Old Testament advocates war, slavery, genocide, and vengeful retaliation. |
The New Testament is wrong on war. The Teachings of Jesus are impractical, utopian, and unrealistic. |
| The Old Testament If we followed the Old Testament, we would be a primitive, warlord society. We would exterminate people of other races just to steal their oil. |
The Teachings of Jesus should be relegated to the inner religious meditations of a Mother Theresa, but should be kept away from public policy, especially foreign affairs and military strategy. If we followed Jesus, loved our enemies, and beat our swords into plowshares, we would be invaded by Big Government socialists, fascists, communists, or Muslims. |
|
Both sides of this coin are wrong. |
|
| Jesus quoted the Old Testament. It was the Old Testament prophets who said to return your enemy's ox if you found it (Exodus 23:4), and spoke of a day when we would beat our swords into plowshares and everyone would dwell securely under his own Vine & Fig Tree (Micah 4:1-7) -- not because the military gave them this peace and security -- in fact the real danger is that we will have a huge standing army, and everyone's property will be taxed to fund the "military-industrial complex." | If we were to follow the teachings of Jesus in Washington D.C., we would experience security, peace, and economic prosperity. No war that the U.S. federal government has waged has ever made things better than they would have been without military intervention. |
|
|
| The Declaration of Independence says that we have right -- no, a duty -- to abolish any government that becomes a tyranny. The Old Testament promises that if we obey the Lord our God, He will not send an invading army against us and allow it to set up an imperial regime over us. The Old Testament frowns on Big Government. | The New Testament clearly prohibits us from engaging in the violent overthrow of our government. These commands were given to a people (Israel) that had been invaded and subjugated by a brutal military dictatorship which was now exacting exorbitant tribute. There was nothing moral or legal about this imperialist occupation
government, but the Bible still prohibits revolution against it. If it's wrong to take up a sword against "the powers that be," it's wrong to take up a sword against the powers that might be. |
| We should take both the Old Testament and the New Testament seriously. | |
|
So here's where we are.
It seems obvious to me, but at this point, you may be saying to yourself, "I'm not changing my mind. Sure, some of this is interesting, but nobody's perfect." This is not about achieving some saintly, ethereal level of super-spirituality. This is rock-bottom bedrock minimum level Christianity: "Thou shalt not kill." "Love your enemy." When someone does something you don't like, you don't kill him -- at least if you're a follower of the executed Christ.
"But Jesus was not a pacifist," we're told in pulpits every Memorial Day. This claim is always based on Jesus overturning the tables in the temple. But what are Christians commanded to do in the face of "tables" of warmaking? Shouldn't we overturn them? In fact, Christians have done so. Over the centuries, Christians have applied the teachings of Christ to international conflict, and through the use of such ideas as "just war theory," the world became incomparably more humane than it was in the ancient world, where "an eye for an eye" operated on a national scale. The number of wars recorded in the Old Testament is staggering. When ancient Assyria conquered a city, for example, it left a mound of human skulls at the gates as a lesson to other nations that would not heed Assyria's demands. Up until 1776, Christianity was eliminating this terror, vengeance, and mass-slaughter from civilized society. In fact, civilized society is another word for Christian society.
But during the 20th century, Christians have become more "pacifist" in the worst sense of that misunderstood word, by retreating from the world, yearning for "the Rapture," and passively allowing atheists to secularize this once-Christian nation. Some say this retreat began in 1925 with the Scope's Trial, in which evolution seemed to gain the upper hand over creationism. But the retreat began even before that.
As a result of Christian retreat, formerly Christian nations around the world became secularized, and their military and political leaders -- Christians in name only -- plunged the world into mass death on an unprecedented scale.
Since I became a pacifist years ago, I've talked (debated) with many people. Not very successfully, I confess. I've concluded that there are only two ways to convince most conservative "Bible-believing" Christians to become pacifists.
First, they must be convinced that peace is possible. Right now, the vast majority of Christians believe that peace is impossible because war is predestined. We are moving inexorably toward Armageddon, according to millions of copies of best-selling Christian fiction. We are in the "last days" of earth history, the last days before a billion people are destroyed in the Battle of Armageddon, and the entire planet is annihilated after the Christians are "Raptured."
If war and destruction is predestined, why resist the inevitable? And by "resist" I don't mean "be a pacifist war resister," I mean resist destruction by enlisting in the military and fighting the destroyers, by taking up arms against the "enemy." Why fight a a war to end war if war is inevitable? Why not follow Jesus, and die like He did, without killing anyone on the way out? If we can't create peace on earth, why not go out following Jesus instead of going out killing others?
"Christians" who believe the world is getting worse and war is inevitable still feel the need to participate in those wars, rather than speak out for peace.
I believe something completely different. I believe the prophecy of Micah 4, and I created an organization in 1979 to promote this belief. The organization is called "Vine & Fig Tree," ( http://VFTonline.org ) and here is Micah's vision:
|
I believe the fulfillment of this prophecy was made possible at Christ's First Coming, and we are not to wait for a Second Coming before peace is possible. We should begin hammering our swords into plowshares today.
The Apostle Peter says a thousand years is as a day to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8) so we've just started the third "day" of Christian history, and already tremendous progress has been made. Christian theologians before 1776 tempered the residual harshness of ancient practices like war, even as Christians have continued (though never perfectly) to follow Christ and proclaim His pacifist teachings. If the Apostles were to travel through time into our age, they would see the tremendous effects of Christianity: our freedoms, our health and welfare, and the fact that billions of people in our day are relatively free from war. What we need to do is grow up, mature, be courageous, and eliminate the remaining wars. A hundred million committed Christians in the United States is all that is required to accomplish this.
Coming to believe this requires a major transformation in thinking which can only be accomplished in one way, I've concluded. In order for your average conservative Bible-believing Christian to oppose war and work for peace, he or she must read through the entire Bible in one year, asking a set of specific questions along the way:
Keep a journal, and when you've finished reading the entire Bible from cover-to-cover, go back and re-assess your "yes" answers.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Romans 1 says mankind shows the work of the law written on his heart. All human beings know that God exists, and that we are not to kill and not to steal.
If killing is wrong, and if taking other people's money by force is wrong, then how do we justify government vengeance and taxation to fund it?
We can't. Nowhere in Scripture does God override the commands not to steal ("tax") and kill ("bold new foreign policy").
If you would like to survey the Bible in about two hours, you can see what this year-long Bible study will reveal. I have summarized this view in a format made famous by Martin Luther: 95 Theses.
OK, maybe it will take more than two hours to look up all the verses cited. So let me state two propositions:
Proposition #1 above teaches that laissez-faire capitalism is Biblical, and socialism is not. Some have called this "anarcho-capitalism," and Christians go ga-ga over the word "anarchism." This is because they have fallen prey to the biggest socialist lie in human history. In the Bible, "anarchists" are not bad. "Archists" are bad. Christ commanded His followers not to be "archists" (Mark 10:42-45). Use whatever word you want to describe people who follow Christ, and who do not attempt to dominate others using violence or compulsion. They are not archists.
Proposition #2 above teaches us that Christ's Kingdom grows like a mustard seed into a huge tree. It also teaches us that the Kingdom is not handed to us on a silver platter. Micah says we must move our legs and get on the road to the House of the Lord. We have to beat our own swords into plowshares. None of this is done for us while we watch TV.
Combined with pacifism, these themes completely re-orient a person's understanding of the Bible. But only these themes allow a person to be a dedicated follower of Christ. Otherwise, too much of what Christ says seems misguided, irrelevant, appropriate only for a future dispensation, or directed only to "saints" and "super-spiritual" people, not ordinary Americans.
If you want help reading and studying the Bible, and becoming a true follower of "The Prince of Peace," go here and get a coach:
My goal is to get one hundred million Americans to read or re-read the Bible and specifically ask themselves if "anarchism," preterism, and pacifism are true or not. Then, after this one-year study convinces them that they are true, commit to at least one hour a month working for peace. This will include contacting politicians, generals, and CEOs of the military-industrial complex, along with ordinary voters and workers, and urging them to repent of war-voting and war-making. One hundred million Christian Americans will constitute the most formidable political power on earth. They will be a voting block that will change the way the world's greatest super-power does business.
The sad fact is, that the United States has done more to promote war than any other nation. The encouraging fact is that the United States has the power to become a "City upon a hill," and Christianize the world -- without the sword.
Obviously, nobody would even ask this question if they didn't think the answer was NO.
People who "support the troops" don't believe that the opinions of Jesus matter when it comes to foreign policy and military strategy. Please keep your Jesus "down in your heart" and away from the government.
Those who celebrate Memorial Day but still want to get credit for following the Bible have an answer, and it goes something like this:
"God commanded the armies of Israel in 1451 B.C. to wipe out the Canaanites."
Somehow this premise leads to the conclusion that the United States military in 2003 A.D. should kill, maim, or make homeless hundreds of thousands of Christians in Iraq (which had the largest population of Christians of any nation in the Arab world), who enjoyed freedom of religion under a secular government which prosecuted Islamic terrorists, and convert that Christian-tolerant government into an Islamic Theocracy under Shariah law. Same for the secular government of Syria in 2018.
Yeah, that's seems logical.
Sure, that's what the Bible is saying!
Those who celebrate Memorial Day but do not care about what the Bible says on such subject respond more pragmatically: "If we do not respond to the communists (or the "terrorists," or the enemy du jour) with 'shock and awe' and overwhelming military force, then the communists (or the Jihadists, or the enemy of the day) will enslave us."
In other words, not being "enslaved" is more important than taking Jesus seriously on issues of government policy.
Because not only does Jesus command His followers to beat their "swords into plowshares," Jesus commands us to be willing to be slaves. We can't afford to risk our national security on the babblings of a pacifist Jesus.
We have the account of the disciples arguing over who would be greatest in the coming Kingdom:
Luke 22:24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.
We might guess that one wanted to be a Four-Star General, and another wanted to be "Secretary of Defense." (They didn't really understand the nature of Christ's Kingdom.)
Matthew 20:20 the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons [James and John], kneeling down and asking, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.”
Mark 10:41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John. 42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your slave. 44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
The word translated "rulers" in Mark 10:42 is the Greek word from which we derive the English word "anarchist," which means "not an archist." An archist is someone who believes he has the moral right to impose his own will on others by force or threats of violence. "The kings of the gentiles" imposed their will on entire nations by military invasion, subjugation, and occupation. They imposed their will on individuals by fines, imprisonment, torture, and execution. This is what archists do. That's their "job." (Today's archists can drop bombs and kill far more people and destroy far more hospitals than archists in the past.)
Jesus says, very plainly, it is better to be a slave than to be an archist.
Memorial Day is a celebration of dead archists.
The willingness to love, pray for, and serve our enemies is the best defense against being enslaved by our enemies.
It's a paradox.
"Slavery" really is freedom.
Christians are commanded to accept their role as slaves.It is a common saying among capitalists that "The Customer is King." That means capitalists serve the consumers. The poor benefit from the work of rich capitalists like Rockefeller. If Americans would be even more willing to serve communists, Muslims, and other "bad guys," and if Americans would place a high value on continuing lifelong learning and increasing job skills, America would lead the world in productivity and invention, the "bad guys" would be hooked on our consumer goods and the rising standard of living we provide, and would be less inclined to invade, conquer, and destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. Free trade prevents war. But we must have something to trade, and that means work, and that means serving consumers around the world, and that means "slavery."
Suppose that instead of killing off 50,000 Americans in a senseless war in Vietnam, we simply enslaved them for the benefit of the Vietnamese people. We send them this letter:
Dear Vietnamese:
We have enslaved 50,000 Americans just to prove how much better capitalism is than communism. These 50,000 people will now be working for YOU. Because we have capital (factories, machines, computers, phone lines, etc.), these 50,000 Americans will be far more productive than one million communists who hate capitalism. In addition, instead of spending billions of dollars on bombs to "protect" you in the South from Communists in the North (by destroying your villages in order to "save" them from Communists), we are going to just pass that money on to you. Every man, woman, and child in South Vietnam will receive a check for $10,000 from capitalists in America.
Ask your local communist if he can beat that deal.
Sincerely,
America, a Christian and Capitalist nation
Do you think South Vietnam would go communist with this kind of an "invasion" of American ideals?
But instead of doing this, we bombed the snot out of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and sent 50,000 Americans to their graves. See how much more "practical" and "realistic" our politicians are when they don't allow the "spiritual" teachings of Jesus to influence their policy-making?
The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars in its stupid "war on terrorism." There are one billion Muslims in the world. Suppose we divided up those trillions of dollars and "enslaved" ourselves to the Muslims and sent this money to Muslims around the world, with this letter:
Dear Muslims,In 1892 the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that America was a "Christian nation." We believe in the "Protestant Work Ethic." We believe in capitalism. We believe in loving non-Christians and serving them. Rather than bombing your nations "back to the Stone Age," we have decided to send every Muslim man, woman, and child in the world a check for $4,000 and a copy of the Bible with a study guide showing you how to make your nation a Christian nation so you can have checks to send to people poorer than you.
Sincerely,
America, a Christian and Capitalist nation
You went to a government-run atheistic school, so you can't do math. Four Trillion dollars in war spending divided by one Billion Muslims = a check for $4,000 for every Muslim man, woman and child in the world. Which do you think is a better evangelistic program: "slavery" or armed military archism, murder and destruction? Which program do you think is more likely to receive God's blessing? Should we be celebrating ArchistMemorialDay?
The Apostle Peter said "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:28). The Apostle Paul said "If anyone doesn’t take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the Christian faith and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8). The object of our attention on Memorial Day is those who died because they did not refuse to obey a government that was acting contrary to Christ, and left their wives widows, their children fatherless, and their mothers deprived of their sons.
Would Jesus honor that choice?
It is true, to be sure, that many who have died while killing on behalf of governments and their special interests believed they were doing God's will. German soldiers had "Gott mit uns" as a motto ("God With Us"). These people sincerely believed they are doing something good. Nazis, ISIS, and the Marines all believed they are doing something good, just like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Baal-worshippers all believed they had the truth. "The government" is a cult. "The Armed Forces" are an idol. One of the most interesting capacities of human beings is our ability to deceive ourselves into sincerely and truly believing things we know deep down are not true (self-deception).
The United States is a nation where public school teachers are prohibited from teaching students that God says "Thou shalt not kill." Any government that puts its own laws ahead of God's Law and refuses to be a government "under God" is a government that thinks it is God. The United States is a false god.
|
Would Jesus honor their willingness to go to war?
No. Any Christian who willingly kills or dies for an atheistic government should be excommunicated. Better to be in prison with "the least of these" than to kill "the least of these" in an unChristian war. Better to be in prison for 5 years than leave your wife a permanent widow and your children fatherless. The fact that churches don't excommunicate soldiers explains why most Christians lack the discernment and knowledge of the facts to make the right decision. Church-goers are not taught to put God ahead of government, and peace ahead of the military-industrial complex.
A Christ-follower would rather be sodomized in a violent, drug-infested prison run by the government
than kill another human being in defense of that same government.
A Christ-follower would rather suffer PTSD from prison rape
than PTSD from blowing the arms and legs off a screaming little child.
Since I was born, two significant things have happened.
As a result of being banned from public schools, nobody takes the Bible -- and Jesus the executed pacifist -- seriously.
As a result of not taking the Bible seriously, the United States has become the most evil and the most dangerous government on planet earth.
Is this something Jesus would celebrate?
No.
Jesus said His teachings were in perfect harmony with "the Law and the Prophets" (the Old Testament - Matthew 5:17-20). So how would Moses and the Prophets judge our honoring those who died while killing people for the government of the United States?
I suggest that any person who is a member of a Christian church and joins the U.S. military should be excommunicated by that church as being guilty of idolatry, as well as whatever crimes were committed while on duty, such as murdering people, destroying their property, rape, etc. I would like to suggest to you that the military is an idol, and people who join or support the military commit idolatry.
That sounds crazy, I know.
So let me propose a little online "wager."
I'll bet you $1,000.00 (One Thousand Dollars) that I can persuade you that the Bible requires you to become a "pacifist," and condemns the military as an idol. For purposes of this "wager," being a "pacifist" would mean something like writing a letter to your Congressman demanding that all "defense" spending be cut. 100%.
In fact, a consistent pacifist -- that is, a consistent opponent of violence, like extortion ("taxation"), locking someone in a cage to be sodomized ("incarceration"), bombing schools and water treatment plants in order to cause a cholera epidemic ("Spreading Democracy") -- would advocate cutting 100% of all government taxation, credit expansion, and spending. This is because "government" itself -- not just the government's military -- is an idol. Therefore a consistent Christian is a pacifist, and a consistent pacifist is an "anarchist".
In fact, I'll prove to you that the Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto, which regards "government" as an idol, a false god.
Obviously, this is not the perspective you'll hear in any "organized church."
But think about it for just a minute. 60 seconds.
In the Bible, human government is a rebellion against God's Government.
The word "anarchist" comes from two Greek words meaning "not an archist."
An "archist" is one who believes he has a right to impose his own will on others by force or threats of violence. Chiefly, the "archist" imposes his will on others through the machinery of "the State," whose tactics
include
• fines,
• prisons,
• torture,
• executions,
• armed invasions, and
• terrorism.
The Christian, on the contrary, believes it is always sinful to impose your own will on others by initiating force or threatening violence.
A logically consistent Christian pacifist is an anarchist, for two reasons:
• First, a pacifist is against violence, and "the State" is institutionalized, systematic violence;
• Second, Jesus prohibits His followers from being "archists"
I know, that sounds "weird." "Anarchism?" Aren't "anarchists" bad people?
As I read the Bible, the bad guys are the "archists." Chapter after chapter in the Bible says "archists" are false gods.
From cover to cover, the Bible opposes violent people, like Cain, Lamech, violent men that provoked the flood in Noah's day, Nimrod, and so on. These evil, violent people are the ones who created "civil governments."
The Origin of "the State" ("Civil Government") - Political Philosophy 101 According to the BibleChristians who strongly oppose "anarchism" (I used to be one of them) believe the Bible prescribes (not just describes) civil governments. They believe God's Law contains laws for "governments."
Every political science professor in every university on planet earth will agree that the essential nature of "the State" is violence. It claims a "monopoly on violence." Wikipedia || Encyclopedia Britannica || Oxford || More: The State as Monopoly of Violence
Using the Greek word from which we derived the English word "anarchist," Jesus plainly says His followers are not to be "archists." Mark 10:42-45. We are to be servants, not "archists." "Not" + "archist" = "anarchist"
Only Jesus is a legitimate Archist.
People who don't see earthly "archists" as bad guys are themselves guilty of idolatry.
The Bible is an "Anarchist Manifesto."
God says "Thou shalt not steal."
You would never go up to your next-door neighbor, put a gun to his head, and say "give me some of your money."
But you vote for people who promise to do this on your behalf, and give the money to you or people you approve of.
There is no ethical difference between "taxes" and "extortion."
Even the United States is a rebellious substitute for the Government of God. The three branches of the U.S. Government are seen in
- Isaiah 33:22
- For the LORD is our Judge,
The LORD is our Lawgiver,
The LORD is our King;
He will save us
The Bible says that if we obey God's commandments, we will enjoy the blessings of peace, prosperity, security, and everything the Bible conveys in the word "salvation." Every human government is a pseudo-savior. Every human government is a rebellious substitute for the Kingdom and Reign of God. Every human government is anti-Christ.
The word "Christ" has many meanings. The basic meaning is "anointed," as in "king" (Matthew 21:5 ), e.g., "King of Israel" (John 1:49). Jesus is also called a "Ruler" (Micah 5:2), a "Potentate" (1 Timothy 6:15 ), a "Governor" (Matthew 2:6 ), a "Captain" (Hebrews 2:10 ), a "Prince" (Isaiah 9:6 ), and many other words (some of which we aren't familiar with in our day, like "Horn" [Luke 1:69 ]) which are political in nature.
Many political terms can be inferred:
Our point is that Jesus is the -- THE -- the ONLY -- legitimate king, prince, ruler, president, prime minister, governor, legislator, judge, and potentate. If we simply practice what we preach -- by obeying His commandments -- we will have a peaceful, orderly, and prosperous society. All other earthly kings, princes, rulers, presidents, prime ministers, governors, legislators, judges, and potentates are illegitimate usurpers and anti-Christ.
If we will obey the Commandments of God, we will not need a visible, physical, man-made "government" at all.
I believe the Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto. That's a shocking claim, but very easy to prove. (Just hard to accept.)
Click here for more info.
Israel was commanded to destroy the idolatrous images.
We are commanded to destroy the idol of "the government," but we do so with the "Sword of the Lord," which is the Bible. By preaching the Gospel, we provide the means by which the Holy Spirit converts archists into anarchists. Conversion is peaceful, not revolutionary (though often people are "dragged kicking and screaming" into the Kingdom of God. In other words, it's a personal, psychological, religious struggle. The Bible describes it as "agonizing.")
To really persuade you that Christians are morally obligated to totally disarm the military and completely disband "the government," I need you to read the Bible from cover to cover and ask questions you've probably never asked before.
Then I need to you read the U.S. government from cover to cover -- that is, to examine how the entire concept of "the government" has become the most dangerous idolatry in our lives today.
In your life.
If you're interested in that "wager," go here:
Not a gambling type? Try this:
www.HowToBecomeAChristianAnarchist.com
Want to think about war from a Biblical perspective? Try last year's edition of this website, which looks at many U.S. wars.
The question, "Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day" is designed to be a conversation starter. Please leave a comment here:
More verses proving that Christians are commanded to be pacifists.
For deeper understanding, look up these scripture verses in your own Bible and read them in context.
Thou shalt not kill
See the verses in the Exposition of the 6th Commandment in the Westminster Larger Catechism (1646)
Matthew 5
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Luke 6
27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
The Sovereignty of God - Providence
Deuteronomy 20:1
“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the LORD your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.
1 Samuel 8:11-13
11 And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He
will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; But we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 46:9
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariot in the fire.
Psalm 76:6
At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, Both the chariot and horse were cast into a dead sleep.
Isaiah 31:1 Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!
Matthew 10.28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you
are of more value than many sparrows.
Romans 8.37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Colossians 1.16 for in him [the son] all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.
Hebrews 1.2-3 In these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on
high,
Luke 12:22 And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on.
Overcoming Evil
1 Peter 3.8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. :9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
Romans 12.17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the
Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good .
1Thessalonians 5:15 See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.
THE ROOTS OF WAR
James 4
4 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3
You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
Galatians 5.19-23 Now the works of the flesh are clear, which are these: evil desire, unclean things, wrong use of the senses, 20 Worship of images, use of strange powers, hates, fighting, desire for what another has, angry feelings, attempts to get the better of others, divisions, false teachings, 21 Envy, uncontrolled drinking and feasting, and such things: of which I give
you word clearly, even as I did in the past, that they who do such things will have no part in the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, a quiet mind, kind acts, well-doing, faith, 23 Gentle behavior, control over desires: against such there is no law.
Matthew 6.24 You cannot serve God and mammon.
Luke 4.5 Then the devil led Jesus up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And the devil said to him, "To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."
THE WAY OF PEACE
Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good-will.
John 14.27. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you.
Matthew 5.9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
James 3.18. The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace.
Romans 10.15. How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace.
Ephesians 6.14 f. Stand therefore . . . having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
Ephesians 4.1-3 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Hebrews 12.14 Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord.
Romans 16.20. The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
2 Corinthians 13.11 Finally, brethren . . . be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
Philippians 4.7 The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus..
THE VICTORY of SELFLESSNESS
Matthew 11:29. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Philippians 2:5 10. Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. He humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name
which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow.
Matthew 5:3, 5. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:25-28. You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life
a ransom for many.
Matthew 23.12 Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.
1 Peter 5:5 -6. God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble. Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time.
THE COMMANDMENT OF LOVE
Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Galatians 5.14 The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Romans 13.10, 8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments ... are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Matthew 5.44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
John 13:34 f. A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples.
1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
I Corinthians 13.4 f. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; ... bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.
1 Thessalonians 3.12. The Lord make you to increase and abound in love toward one another, and toward all men.
1 Peter 1:22. Seeing you have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently.
1 Peter 4.8. Above all things be fervent in your love among yourselves; for love covers a multitude of sins.
THE DUTY OF FORGIVENESS
Luke 23:34. Jesus said, 'Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.'
Mark 11.25 Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
Luke 17.3 f. If your brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he sin against you seven times in the day, and seven times turn again to you saying, I repent; you shall forgive him.
Colossians 3.12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.
Ephesians 4:31f. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and railing, be put away from you, with all malice: and be you kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you.
CHRIST S WAY OF MEETING EVIL
1 Peter 2.21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.
Matthew 26.47 And while [Jesus] was still talking, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a band armed with swords and sticks, from the chief priests and those in authority over the people. 48 Now the false one had given them a sign saying, The one to whom I give a kiss, that is he: take him. 49 And straight away he came to Jesus and said, Master! and gave him a kiss. 50
And Jesus said to him, Friend, do that for which you have come. Then they came and put hands on Jesus, and took him. 51 And one of those who were with Jesus put out his hand, and took out his sword and gave the servant of the high priest a blow, cutting off his ear. 52 Then says Jesus to him, Put up your sword again into its place: for all those who take the sword will come
to death by the sword. 53 Does it not seem possible to you that if I make request to my Father he will even now send me an army of angels? (BBE)
John 18.36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (KJV)
John 12:47. I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Luke 9:54 f. When his disciples saw this, they said, Lord, would you that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? But he turned and rebuked them.
1 Corinthians 4:12. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we intreat.
James 4:12. One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who are you that judge your neighbor?
Matthew 7:12 In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.
Luke 6:27 f. Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.
Matthew 5.39. Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smites you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
I Corinthians 6:7. Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
2 Timothy 2:24. The Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all forbearing in meekness, correcting them that oppose themselves.
Romans 12:14 f. Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not. . . . Render to no man evil for evil.... If you can, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with all the world... Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." But if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he
thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
1 Thessalonians 5.15 . See that none render unto any one evil for evil; but always follow after that which is good, one toward another, and toward all.
1 Peter 3:8 f. Finally, be you all like-minded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, : humble minded not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for hereunto were you called, that you should inherit a blessing.
THE WAY OF THE CROSS
Romans 5:8. God commends his own love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Hebrews 12 :2. Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame.
1 Peter 4.1. Forasmuch then as Christ suffered in the flesh, arm you yourselves also with the same mind.
2 Corinthians 4:8 10. We are pressed on every side, yet not straitened; perplexed, yet not unto despair; pursued, yet not forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body.
Matthew 16:24 If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me....
Hebrews 13.12f. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us therefore go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION
Romans 5.8,10 8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.... 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;
and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Colossians 1:19 f. It was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross.
Ephesians 2:14 17. He is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity . . . that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and he came and preached peace to you that were far off,
and peace to them that were nigh.
2 Corinthians 5:18 f. All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave .unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
THE FAMILY OF NATIONS
Ephesians 3.15 I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.
Ephesians 4:25. Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak you truth each one with his neighbor: for we are members one of another.
1 Corinthians 12:13. In one spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Romans 10:12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him.
Galatians 3:28. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male or female: for you are all one man in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3.11 There cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.
THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF WAR
1 Timothy 6.12. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on the life eternal.
1 John 5.4 This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strong holds ; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
Ephesians 6.12f For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand.
2 Timothy 2:3. Take your part in suffering hardship, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 4:7 f. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his appearing.
Doesn't Exodus 22:2-3 allow for lethal "self-defense?"
"If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.
But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder.
The verse says you will be executed as a murderer if you kill in "self-defense." Unless it happens at night.
Matthew Henry
Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (Exod. 22:3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life. Note, We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men;
Reformation Study Bible
The daytime thief was readily identifiable and killing was not justified.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
Clarke's Commentary on the BibleIn the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exodus 22:1 and Exodus 22:4.
Barnes' Notes on the BibleIf a thief be found - If a thief was found breaking into a house in the night season, he might be killed; but not if the sun had risen, for then he might be known and taken, and the restitution made which is mentioned in the succeeding verse
If a thief, in breaking into a dwelling in the night, was slain, the person who slew him did not incur the guilt of blood; but if the same occurred in daylight, the slayer was guilty in accordance with Exodus 21:12. The distinction may have been based on the fact that in the light of day there was a fair chance of identifying and apprehending the thief.
Why not buy a stun-gun instead of a weapon that will kill?
Why do so many have such an eagerness to kill rather than to redeem?
Luke 22
All Christians Should be Theonomists
All Theonomists Should be Pacifists
In a nutshell, "Theonomy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God's Law," and stands for the proposition that the Christian should obey the entire Bible -- all the Scriptures, including "the Old Testament." Obviously, the laws concerning the Levitical priesthood, temple sacrifices, etc., can now (under the New Covenant) only be obeyed through Jesus Christ, "a priest after the order of Melchizedek."
"Pacifist," derived from the Latin for peace, usually means "opposition to all war." We begin our definition with the 6th Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." If someone comes at you with a sword, every pacifist believes you may defend yourself with a shield. If you're Capt. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise, set your phaser to "stun" and put the sword-bearer to sleep. But do not kill him. Witness to him of Christ the Savior. The English word "witness" translates the Greek word "μάρτυς" (martus), from which we get the English word "martyr." Christian ethics teaches that it is better to witness and be killed than to kill. "When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him." Proverbs 16:7
"Anarchist" means "not an archist." An archist believes he has the right to impose his will on others by force or threats of violence.
A Christian is a Theonomic Non-archist, which is to say, a Theonomic Pacifist.
"Everybody knows" that Jesus taught His followers to be "pacifists."
Many people who call themselves "Theonomists" support war and lethal self-defense because of the presence of many wars and military imagery in the Old Testament. But this is as logical as a Theonomist supporting the Roman Catholic Church because there are lots of priests and sacrifices in the Old Testament. There is, in fact, a clear relationship between the ritual shedding of blood which Theonomists call "the ceremonial law" and the shedding of blood involved in the so-called "judicial law." This is explained here. But it takes more than one webpage to really understand this complex issue. That's why we have a complete program offered on this website.
Most "Theonomists" believe that the Bible requires a strong state to execute all the homosexuals and defend us from Commies. Certainly left-wing Theonomist-watchers believe Theonomists believe this. Why do so many Theonomists give the misleading impression that the Bible defends acts of mass violence and doesn't command Christians to be pacifists?
Because Theonomists are Victims of
Educational Malpractice
The entire concept of "public schools" some 350 years ago was created by Bible-believing Christians following the Protestant Reformation in order to make sure every citizen could read the Bible. But you never had a chance to go to such a public school, because the now-atheistic U.S. Empire banned the Bible from public schools.* And because you're not a pacifist, you haven't taken effective action against the anti-pacifist atheistic U.S. Empire.
One of the first public school laws in America is known today as "The Old Deluder Satan Act" because it began with these words:
It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted...; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth.... It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general....
"The Old Deluder Satan Act," Massachusetts, 1647
The 1636 rules of Harvard declared:
Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17.3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Prov. 2, 3). Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein
Did you do this for 12 straight years: Read the Bible twice a day? If not, you didn't get a Harvard education like Samuel Adams. You're a victim of educational malpractice. No wonder you're not a pacifist.
The 1690 Connecticut law declared:
This [legislature] observing that... there are many persons unable to read the English tongue and thereby incapable to read the holy Word of God or the good laws of this colony... it is ordered that all parents and masters shall cause their respective children and servants, as they are capable, to be taught to read distinctly the English tongue.
You were denied this kind of Bible-centered Education. In the early 1960's, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the Bible* from public schools, along with voluntary prayer. One of the Justices who concurred in this secularization was honest enough to admit that removing religion from public schools was directly contrary to the intentions of America's Founders:
- Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in Article III that
- "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
Most Americans have never heard of the "Northwest Ordinance" (1787). It was a benchmark for the drafting of state constitutions by Territories when they applied for admission to the union. The states often repeated those words verbatim in their state constitutions. Nebraska in 1875 was the last state to copy these words into their constitution.
The Government today prevents students from being taught the Bible, "religion, morality, and knowledge." Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would say that secular schools are a threat to "good government and the happiness of mankind," and a government that imposes secularism on the people should be "abolished," just as they abolished the British government over the colonies for offenses far less serious.
Samuel Adams, the "Anti-Federalist," did not always agree with his cousin John Adams, the "Federalist." Sam wrote:
| Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity . . . and, in subordination to
these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
1790 Letter to John Adams, |
The "Christian system" is different from the Secular Humanist system, the Moslem system, and the Soviet system. If you'll follow my argument for Theonomic Pacifism to the very end, you can compensate for what the federal government denied you as a little boy or girl by committing to "the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system," as laid out by the Prince of Peace, Jesus the Executed Pacifist.
It's true that America's Founding Fathers believed that violent revolution was justified even though taxes in 1776 were about 1/20th what they are today, and our government is more tyrannical than theirs.
If America's Founding Fathers could travel through time, what would they say is America's Most Pressing Problem?
Not taxes or tyranny. I think they would say it is the fact that America is no longer a nation "Under God," but is an atheistic nation ("secular" sounds so much nicer than "atheistic"). The nation that once sent missionaries and Bibles around the world is now the world's greatest exporter of weapons and pornography.
And the root of this problem is a national system of compulsory atheistic education for all children 5-17 years of age. America's Founders would be horrified, outraged, apoplectic. Princeton professor Archibald Hodge saw the trend back in 1887, and sounded this alarm:
He was right. If our Godly and virtuous ancestors could see schools and culture today, they would be screaming: "What are you doing about this!?!?". . . I am as sure as I am of Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.[1]
What are you doing about this? Of course, you are paying for this propagation of atheism and immorality. Are you doing as much to stop it or counter it as the danger warrants?
Then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Have you taken your own kids out of public schools? Terrific. But you yourself are still a victim of educational malpractice.
Because of their Biblical education, America's Founding Fathers realized that "the Divine Right of Kings" was not a Biblical doctrine. You have been denied this education by an imperialist regime that can only be described as "the enemy of mankind." You don't see half of what America's Founders saw. If they were here today, they would see not only that the "divine right of kings" is an unChristian concept, but the entire concept of "the nation-state" is a complete failure, having been invented by rebels and nowhere commanded or endorsed in the Bible. "The State" is institutionalized violence, and utterly contrary to Christian pacifism.
That Christianity teaches non-violence is almost as universally acknowledged as it is universally ignored.
Moses gave the command of God, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). John Calvin recognized that "The sum of this Commandment is, that we should not unjustly do violence to any one. [U]nder the word 'kill' is included by synecdoche all violence, smiting, and aggression."[1] More than 50 other texts in the Bible which explicitly mention "violence" clearly condemn violence to our neighbor.[2] And Leviticus 19:18 informs us that life begins in our hearts: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."
Affirmatively, the Command "Thou shalt not kill" includes acts which promote or restore life, even among those who do not share our citizenship or political philosophy.[3] The Bible forbids violent acts even toward our enemies. The ethic of Love of Enemy receives the classic statement in Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount,"[4] which is almost universally known and understood, even among those who do not claim to be Christian.
It is to be conceded that there are many sincere Christians who do not believe that the Bible condemns all acts of violence, but I believe these beliefs result from "practical" (read: "political") considerations. These and other clear commands of non-violence are set aside as "utopian," "unrealistic," or as unattainable "counsels of perfection" even by those who claim to be Christians. Elizabeth Flower, of the University of Pennsylvania, writing in The Dictionary of the History of Ideas, observes,
The perplexing issue is why such straightforward and unambiguous teaching came to be ignored, or at least taken as a counsel of perfection impossible of realization in this world. In any case, . . . Christians began to accommodate to the social realities of civil government, military service, taxation, etc.; and then to develop their own political power. Yet the literal directives of the Sermon [on the Mount] were time-resistant and Christian pacifism has not lacked for bold and uncompromising advocates in such early Church Fathers as Clement, Justin, and above all Origen, in sects such as the Quakers, Schwenkenfelders, and Doukhobors, and in such modern proponents as Leo Tolstoy, Jacques Maritain, and A.J. Muste. . . . Yet historical Christianity generally compromised its pacifist commitments.[5]
Many Theonomists associate pacifism with deviant theological camps, like the "Schwenkenfelders and Doukhobors" mentioned above. But there is no inherent connection between pacifism and bad theology. A pacifist can be a 5-point Calvinist.
Probably you already know all the verses from God's Law that command pacifism:
If you're open-minded on the subject of pacifism, you might review those passages and similar ones to become persuaded of pacifism. But if you're not open-minded, it's probably because you believe there are a handful of "exceptions" to the rule against violence that inevitably swallow up the rule. The Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the 6th Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") is a veritable treasure-trove of pacifism, but with three exceptions:
Take your pick: review the pacifism verses in Biblical Law, or click through to the "exceptions" and we'll see if those are valid exceptions to the rule of "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love your enemy."
|
The word "pacifist" does not mean "passive." It is related to the word "pacific," from the Latin pācificus literally, peacemaking, from pāx, peace
- 1. tending to make or preserve peace; conciliatory:
- pacific overtures.
- 2. not warlike; peaceable; mild:
- a pacific disposition.
- 3. at peace; peaceful:
- a pacific era in history.
- 4. calm; tranquil:
- The Wabash is a pacific river
My favorite pacifist passage is Micah 4:1-7
And it will come about in the last days
And the peoples will stream to it.
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,That He may teach us about His ways
And He will judge between many peoples
And that we may walk in His paths."
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And render decisions for mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their
swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation
And never again will they train for war.And each of them will sit under his
Though all the peoples walk
Vine and under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid.
For the LORD of hosts has spoken.
Each in the name of his god,
As for us, we will walk
In the Name of the LORD our God
forever and ever.
In that day, saith the LORD,
will I assemble her that halteth,
and I will gather her that is driven out,
and her that I have afflicted;
And I will make her that halted a remnant,
and her that was cast far off a strong nation:
and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion
from henceforth, even for ever.
[See also Isaiah 2:2-5]
Pacifism is not about a few verses here and there. It is about a Biblical Worldview. An anarcho-pacifist worldview looks at the world very differently from one who supports mass murder and destruction of private property. To see how a Biblical Worldview interlaces pacifism and anarchism, see this critique of the political theory of John M. Frame. The non-pacifist American can criticize Bill Clinton, but fail to see that the United States is the most evil and most dangerous entity on the planet. Indeed, the U.S. is the enemy of Christianity and the enemy of mankind.
Pacifism requires a wholesale reformation of one's worldview.
"Theonomy" (God's Law) means that every word of the Scriptures is the Word of God, and every Word of a Sovereign is Law. The whole Bible must be consulted. At one point, our Sovereign declared that the blood of a spotless lamb must be shed in order for sins to be forgiven. Later, our Sovereign declared that Jesus Christ was "the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world." That means you don't need to buy anything from your neighbor's flock to sacrifice.
At one point God commanded, "Thou shalt not kill." Did God subsequently or additionally say something that could lead a rational and faithful Christian to go to the Gun Show, stock up, and start killing?
Jesus certainly never said anything that could lead someone to that conclusion. He commanded His followers to be "pacifists." The word "pacifist" in this context means loving one's enemies and being willing to be killed rather than to kill.
Matthew 5:9,38-48, Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Pacifism is described in the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the 6th Commandment.
Question 134: Which is the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others,
except in case of
• public justice,
• lawful war, or
• necessary defense;
the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
Click those links above for a fuller exposition of the 6th Commandment.
You do not love your enemy if you kill your enemy. The Apostle Paul says that Biblical "love" is defined by obedience to God's Law, including the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."
Killing is "working ill" to your neighbor.Romans 13:8-10
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
The New King James Version adds this caption to Romans 13:8-10:
Love Your Neighbor
The English Standard Version's caption reads:
Fulfilling the Law Through Love
This is misleading. If I kill my neighbor, steal his stuff, and rape his wife, can it still be said that I fulfilled God's Law with respect to my neighbor if I had a warm fuzzy feeling of "love" in my heart? You cannot fulfill God's Law through the feeling of "love." What Paul is saying is if you want to obey the command to "love thy neighbor," obey all of God's Commandments with respect to your neighbor. "Love" is the opposite of killing and stealing.
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
You do not love your neighbor if you kill him.
You do not love your enemy if you kill him.
Therefore a Christian is a pacifist who would rather be killed than to kill.
If I give your daughter a "date-rape" drug, like Rohypnol, without her consent, it is legally considered an act of violence, even if no sexual assault occurs. If I see your daughter being assaulted and I use a tranquilizer gun with Rohypnol to quickly and gently "pacify" the attacker, no pacifist would consider that an act of violence. It would not violate Jesus' command to "resist not evil." The context is the mis-use of the Old Testament guard against excessive vengeance, "one eye for one eye." If Smith does damage to one of your children, you don't get to inflict damage on four of his, or compel four times the amount needed for fair compensation.
I believe "turn the other cheek" is hyperbole. Jesus did not really command anyone to pluck their eyes out (Matthew 5:29). Jesus did not say that if you are a victim of assault and battery, you should say to the evil-doer, "please commit another crime against me." And in fact, Jesus did not say this when He was slapped:
one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?”
John 18:22-23
The Apostle Paul, when he was ordered to be slapped, also appealed to God's Law:
Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?
Acts 23:3
There are non-violent ways to prevent crimes, if we are creative (and love motivates imagination), but if you can't employ a non-violent method of protection, you should be willing to suffer rather than inflict suffering.
The context of this axiom is the military occupation of Israel by Italy (Rome), Roman law permitted a Roman soldier to "conscript" (enslave) any Israeli to carry the soldier's provisions for up to one mile. The "Zealots" hated this pagan occupation and were plotting a violent overthrow of the Empire. Jesus repudiated this idea. He told His followers to go an extra mile with the forces of military occupation.
Romans 13 adds to this by commanding us to "be subject" to "the powers that be." If we are to be subject to an invading force, we are not allowed to kill them while they are invading us. This rules out "national defense." Who cares if our socialist government is led by Barack Obama or the Supreme Leader of China. Jesus didn't care. (That's not to say that invaders and politicians will not be judged by "the Supreme Judge of the World," it's only to say that the governed must behave as pacifists toward the governors.
"But if we don't defend ourselves, foreign invaders will enslave us."
Then we must get used to being slaves.
Jesus did not defend His life by killing those who threatened Him (John 18:36), and we are commanded to follow His example:
1 Peter 2:21-24
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 “Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; [Isaiah 53:9]
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.
Matthew 26:47-53 And while [Jesus] was still talking, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a band armed with swords and sticks, from the chief priests and those in authority over the people. 48 Now the false one had given them a sign saying, The one to whom I give a kiss, that is he: take him. 49 And straight away he came to Jesus and said, Master! and gave him a kiss. 50 And Jesus said to him, Friend, do that for which you have come. Then they came and put hands on Jesus, and took Him. 51 And one of those who were with Jesus put out his hand, and took out his sword and gave the servant of the high priest a blow, cutting off his ear. 52 Then says Jesus to him, Put up your sword again into its place: for all those who take the sword will come to death by the sword. 53 Does it not seem possible to you that if I make request to my Father he will even now send Me an army of angels?
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Some have misunderstood Jesus' words in Luke 22:36. Here's an example from a group called "The National Reform Association":
|
No it wouldn't have, because Christ really wasn't telling the disciples to sell their clothes and buy a sword, any more than he was telling the disciples never to take an oath (Matthew 5:34) or to pluck their eyes out (Matthew 5:29). Christ used hyperbolic language which is not easily understood by victims of educational malpractice. By saying the disciples should sell their clothes and buy a sword, Christ was vividly telling the disciples that persecution was coming. By saying, "Look, Lord, here are two swords!" the disciples exasperated the Lord, Who said, in effect, "I've had enough" (Luke 22:38). Two swords would hardly have been sufficient for twelve disciples. Jesus was not telling them to buy weapons, as Greg Bahnsen has taught. These were "disappointing disciples." John Calvin commented:
In metaphorical language He threatens that they will soon meet with great troubles and fierce attacks; just as when a general, intending to lead the soldiers into the field of battle, calls them to arms, and orders them to lay aside every other care, and think of nothing else than fighting, not even to take any thought about procuring food. For He shows them -- as is usually done in cases of extreme danger -- that every thing must be sold, even to the scrip and the purse, in order to supply them with arms. And yet He does not call them to an outward conflict, but only, under the comparison of fighting, He warns them of the sever struggles of temptations which they must undergo, and of the fierce attacks which they must sustain in spiritual contests.
It was truly shameful and stupid ignorance, that the disciples, after having been so often informed about bearing the cross, imagine that they must fight with swords of iron. When they say that they have two swords, it is uncertain whether they mean that they are well prepared against their enemies, or complain that they are ill provided with arms. It is evident, at least, that they were so stupid as not to think of a spiritual enemy.
Luke 22 is not commanding us to abandon pacifism. More on Luke 22.
R.J Rushdoony has said:
If you were to go through scripture and collect the passages that deal with peace, you would find it surprising how many such passages there are. Very clearly, peace is a central purpose of God's plan for man and the earth. Peace as scripture describes it is first and foremost peace with God. Then when man is at peace with God, there is peace between man and man, and man and nature.
Let us now look a little further into the doctrine of peace. Peace is a translation of a Hebrew word, Shalom. We have it in ‘Jerusalem’. Salem. It is the greeting in Hebrew. Instead of saying hello, it is: ‘Shalom’. Peace. Now, peace, shalom, in Hebrew, comes from the root ‘to be whole’ wholeness, soundness, health, well-being, prosperity, peace as opposed to war, concord as opposed to strife.
As a result the Biblical doctrine of peace is very closely related to the Biblical doctrine of salvation. This is why throughout the New Testament, as well as in Old Testament prophecy, the culmination of Christ’s work is peace. And Christ even in the midst of trouble and of strife and turmoil, gives us peace.
“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”
Peace, thus, is a present possession in Christ; and it is a future possession as Christ’s reign is extended throughout the world
Peace is thus, that order of peace and prosperity, a salvation of health, which flows out of our reconciliation to God in Jesus Christ, and our restoration to life under God. Life in Eden was a life of peace with God, therefore peace with yourself, peace with nature. The source of that peace is the primary relationship with God, and Christ having restored it, all other forms of peace shall flow out of that peace we have with God, in Jesus Christ.
Statist peace, on the other hand, is simply an absence of hostility. It means that war has ended. That there has been a suppression, perhaps, of criminal activity. The state cannot regenerate man. It cannot even establish the limited peace it aims at, because the power of the state is essentially the power of the sword. The state cannot order [compel] men to love one another, or to live in peace, and when it tries to do so it only aggravates the situation.
The state therefore can never bring about peace. As a matter of fact, the state, when it tries to make peace its goal, only destroys the peace of citizens and usurps God's peace and the free-man’s peace in Christ. The state can only be an instrument of peace when it ... acknowledges that peace can only come when man is redeemed by God in Christ.
Thus the doctrine of peace is a very important one in law, because it is first of all important in terms of the doctrine of salvation. The vine and the fig tree imagery are thus essential to scripture. They are God-centered doctrines, God-centered symbols, setting forth the peace, the salvation, the fulfillment of man in prosperity, in joy, and in wellbeing. In God through Christ.
There is no peace, no fulfillment for man in any other way.
You can read some of those "peace" passages here.
"Thou shalt not kill" and "Love your enemy" provide an air-tight case for pacifism. But most people find excuses for using violence, probably because everybody would rather make the other guy suffer than to suffer themselves. The Westminster Larger Catechism spells out the demands of the 6th Commandment, but then leaves three exceptions.
As a result of those three exceptions, we have replaced the “Vine & Fig Tree” society with Socialism, Fascism, Keynesianism, the military-industrial complex, the murders of hundreds of millions of human beings, the enslavement of billions, and the destruction of trillions of dollars of private property in the 20th century alone. Because pacifism is "unrealistic" and "impractical."
Let's give those three exceptions a Theonomic analysis.
Does a Theonomic follower of Jesus Christ have a right to kill someone in the name of "public justice?"
For a consistent pacifist (opponent of violence), there is no such thing as "public justice."
"Public" is a euphemism for "the State," which is systematic, institutionalized vengeance, theft, murder, kidnapping, and other forms of violence.
A consistent pacifist is an "anarchist."
A consistent Theonomist is an anarchist.
Many will claim that "capital punishment" can only be meted out by a "civil magistrate."
But God never commanded the creation or maintenance of "civil magistrates."
Many will object to a stateless society based on Romans 13, contending that Romans 13 commands the creation and continued maintenance of a "civil government" or "State," which is authorized by God to kill people and behave in a notably un-pacifist manner. In fact, Romans 13 commands pacifism, not patriotism. It does not condone the organized violence which we call "the State," it simply commands us to "be subject" to it. Romans 12:9ff is a pacifist passage. Romans 13 is a continuation of the pacifist argument which began in Romans 12. For an anarchist analysis of Romans 13, see www.Romans13.com.
There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits "private justice." There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits a man from "executing" his brother if his brother commits a "capital crime" -- solely because he is the criminal's nearest relative.
When a murder takes place in our day, politicians and police can often be heard saying things like, "We are working hard to bring the killer to justice." That is, to kill him.
The Bible, taken as a whole, is against "capital punishment."
|
"Capital punishment" in western civilization is historically derived from Biblical passages* which demanded that the blood of capital criminals be shed:
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
Genesis 9:4-6
Smaller sins could be atoned for through the temple sacrifices: lambs, turtledoves, etc., but some crimes were so serious that atonement could not be made in any other way than by the shedding of the blood of the criminal himself:
So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
Numbers 35:33
That God does not require the shedding of blood after Christ's work on Calvary is seen in the case of an unsolved homicide; Deuteronomy 21:1-9 required the tribal elders to shed the blood of a heifer in order to atone for the shedding of innocent blood, following the directions of the priests:
{5} Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to bless in the name of the LORD; by their word every controversy and every assault shall be settled.
{7} "Then they shall answer and say, 'Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it.
{8} 'Provide atonement, O LORD, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.' And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood.
{9} "So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD.
Nobody advocates the literal application of Deuteronomy 21 after the Cross. Christian theologians for 2000 years have rightly concluded that in our day only the blood of Christ can provide such atonement in cases of an unsolved homicide. Yet they persist in requiring the shedding of the criminal's blood when the homicide is solved.
What politicians call "capital punishment" is actually part of the "ceremonial law," overseen by the Levitical priests.
Deuteronomy 17
8 “If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 9 And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the word [dâbâr] of judgment [mishpâṭ]. 10 You shall do according to the mouth [peh] of the word [dâbâr] which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they teach you. 11 According to the mouth [peh] of the law [tôrâh] in which they instruct you, according to the judgment [mishpâṭ] which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the word [dâbâr] which they pronounce upon you. 12 Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.
This has foreign policy implications. "Holy war" in the Old Testament was "capital punishment" on a national scale. The Promised Land was
being cleansed of heinous sins committed by the pagans who inhabited the land promised to Abraham. Anyone using Old Testament texts to justify U.S. invasion of a non-Christian land is denying the efficacy of Christ's blood as the only means of atonement, and abusing the Bible.
I believe the Bible should be used as a blueprint for all political policies. I don't believe it should be mis-used, however.
There are many Christians who use Old Testament "holy wars" as a justification for war, capital punishment, and self-defense in our day. This is a mistake. These wars were not "military" in the modern secular sense. They were religious and priestly. They were part of the "ceremonial law."
Bible scholars often divide Old Testament laws into three categories:
• "Moral,"
• "ceremonial," and
• "civil" (or "judicial").
The category of "judicial law" presupposes that God commanded mankind to form empires or "states." This is a mistaken assumption. When we hear the phrase "separation of church and state" we understand a priestly or religious institution ("church") and a "secular" institution of
power and violence ("state"). Go through the Bible from cover to cover. You will never hear God say to man, "Form a State." The formation of "the State" was and is an act of rebellion against God's
commandments against murder, theft, and vengeance. "The State" does what we all know is sinful if it were to be done in our families, businesses, churches, and charities.
There really is no "judicial law." Only "moral" and "ceremonial" law.
The "ceremonial law" is priestly law. It is generally about cleansing from sin, or making "atonement" for sin. And this generally involves the shedding of blood. The "ceremonial law" was fulfilled by Christ when He shed His blood on the Cross. In our day, no other blood has any power to atone for sins.
In the Old Covenant, before Christ shed His blood, God required the shedding of blood of both man and beast to atone for sins. Some sins required more than the shedding of the blood of a dove or lamb. They required the shedding of the blood of the perpetrator himself. Today we call these ritual acts of bloodshed “capital punishment,” or in the case of entire nations in the Promised Land, "holy war." Old Testament wars were acts of cleansing or atonement on a national scale.
Neither “capital punishment” or "holy war" are required or even permitted under the New Covenant.
Christians who justify modern secular militarism and imperialism with Old Testament "holy wars" also use Romans 13 as an excuse for war in our day. This too is a mistake.
| The word “sword”[1] in the Bible does not usually (if ever) refer to individual penal sanctions (e.g., “capital punishment”). When the Bible says God is going to send “the sword” against a people, the reference is to an army, which will invade and plunder and/or take captive. The shedding of a criminal’s blood[2] performed the functions of all other ritual acts of bloodshed, prefiguring the atonement for sin secured by Christ’s blood in His execution.[3] “The Sword” often refers to national “capital punishment” (i.e., a shedding of blood[4]), which is the sacrifice of a sinful people who will not accept the Lord’s sacrifice and righteousness by faith. The sword of vengeance, which belongs to God[5], is the warfare whereby God slaughters a disobedient people in a fiery sacrifice,[6] relegating these idolatrous self-sacrifices and their dreams of Empire to the “dung-heaps” of history.[7] | 1. cf. Romans 13:4 2. Genesis 9:4-6 3. Numbers 35:31,33; Deuteronomy 21:1,9 4. Ezekiel 35:5-6 5. Romans 12:17-21; #81: 6. Deuteronomy 32:43 [NIV]; Judges 20:40; Isaiah 34:5-8; Jeremiah 46:10; Ezekiel 39:17-20; Zephaniah 1:7-8; Matthew 23:35 + Revelation 19:3 7. Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 16:27; Zephaniah 1:17-18 |
For Further Reading:
www.GodandtheDeathPenalty.com
God Ordains Evil
Is War Ever "Just?"
This thesis is a linchpin.
If true, it destroys both war and capital punishment as legitimate functions of "the State," and effectively destroys the necessity or even legitimacy of "the State."
If false, it is still true that all legitimate social functions (which would include vengeance, war, and capital punishment if this thesis is false) can be carried out by the Family (patriarchy) in a Freed
Market rather than the State (polis).
What follows are excerpts from leading "Christian Reconstructionists" showing that "holy war" was priestly and religious, not secular/civil. [Skip and go to "self-defense"]
Gary North,
Inheritance and Dominion
An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy
LIMITS TO EMPIRE
The Whole Burnt Offering and Disinheritance
The Israelites were told to show no mercy to the nations inside Canaan's boundaries (Deut. 7:16). These nations had practiced such great evil that they had become abominations in the sight of God. "For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee" (Deut. 18:12). The language of Deuteronomy 20:10-18 indicates that every living thing inside the boundaries of Canaan was to be killed: "thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." With respect to the first city to fall, Jericho, this law applied literally (Josh. 6:15-21). But it did not apply literally to the other cities of Canaan. After the destruction of Jericho, the first city inside Canaan to be defeated, cattle became lawful spoils for the Israelites. "And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush for the city behind it" (Josh. 8:2). The word "breatheth" did not apply to Canaan's cattle; it applied only to the human population. "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe" (Josh. 11:14).
Jericho was the representative example of God's total wrath against covenant-breakers who follow their religious presuppositions to their ultimate conclusion: death.(3) Jericho came under God's total ban: hormah.(4) This was the equivalent of a whole burnt offering: almost all of it had to be consumed by fire. In the whole burnt offering, all of the beast was consumed on the altar (Lev. 1:9, 13), except for the skin, which went to the officiating priest (Lev. 7:8). Similarly, all of Jericho was burnt except for the precious metals, which went to the tabernacle as firstfruits (Josh. 6:24).(5) Nevertheless, because God wanted His people to reap the inheritance of the Canaanites, He allowed them to confiscate the cattle and precious goods of the other conquered Canaanite cities. This illustrated another important biblical principle of inheritance: "A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just" (Prov. 13:22). Canaan's capital, except in Jericho, was part of Israel's lawful inheritance. The Canaanites had accumulated wealth; the Israelites were to inherit all of it. This comprehensive inheritance was to become a model of God's total victory at the end of history. Their failure to exterminate the Canaanites, placing some of them under tribute instead (Josh. 16:10; 17:13), eventually led to the apostasy of Israel and the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, just as Moses prophesied in this passage (vv. 17-18; cf. 7:1-5; 12:30-31).
The annihilation of every living soul in Canaan was mandatory. "And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee" (Deut. 7:16). This was a model of God's final judgment. But it was a model in the same way that Jericho was a model: a one-time event. Jericho was to be totally destroyed, including the animals; this was not true of the other cities of Canaan. Similarly, the Canaanites were to be totally annihilated; this was not true of residents of cities outside Canaan. In this sense, Jericho was to Canaan what Canaan was to cities outside the land: a down payment ("earnest") on God's final judgment -- final disinheritance -- at the end of time. This earnest payment in history on the final disinheritance is matched by the earnest payment in history on the final inheritance. This is surely the case in spiritual affairs.(6) Debates over eschatology are debates over the extent to which these earnest payments in history are also cultural and civilizational, and whether they image the final judgment, i.e., to what extent history is an earnest on eternity.(7)
James B. Jordan
Judges: God's War Against Humanism
Hormah
17. Then Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they struck the Canaanites living in Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. So the name of the city was called Hormah. Now we see Judah making good her bargain with Simeon. The destruction of Canaanite Zephath was total, so that the place was called Hormah.
This is not the only “Hormah,” for we read in Numbers 21:1-3 of a place that was also “devoted to destruction,” and as a result was called Hormah.
Hormah means “placed under the ban, totally destroyed.” To be placed under the ban is to be devoted to death. Just as the Nazirite was devoted to God in life (for instance, Samson, Samuel), so the banned person or city was devoted wholly to God in death. To put under the ban means to curse and to devote to total destruction.
The preeminent example of a city devoted to total destruction is Jericho, the story of which is recorded in Joshua 6:15-19. Everything living was to be killed, all the treasures brought to the house of God, and the city was to be burned with fire. No personal booty was allowed.
More light is shed on this matter in Deuteronomy 13:12-18. The apostate city is to be banned, and “then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt sacrifice to the LORD your God; and it shall be a ruin forever. It shall never be rebuilt” (v. 16).
From this we learn that it was God’s fire, lit by Himself from heaven (Lev. 9:24; 2 Chron. 7:1), kept burning perpetually on the altar, which was used to ignite the city placed under the ban. (See also Gen. 22:6 and 1 Ki. 18:38.) The fact that God starts His fire shows that the sacrifice is His sacrifice, the sacrifice that He Himself provides to propitiate His own fiery wrath. Man has no hand in it, and only an ordained priest may handle it. Man is impotent in his salvation, so that man cannot even light the sacrificial fire. If he dares to do so, God destroys him (Lev. 10:1-2).
All men stand on God’s altar. Those who accept God’s Substitute, the very Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, can step off the altar and escape the fire. Jesus takes the fire for them. He becomes the whole burnt sacrifice. Those who refuse the Substitute, however, are left on the altar, and are burnt up by the fire of God. (See Gen. 19:24; Rev. 18:8; Rev. 20:14f.; and for further study, Heb. 12:29; Ex. 3:2-5; Heb. 12:18; Num. 11:1-3; Num. 16:35; Num. 21:6; Gen. 3:25; 2 Pet. 3:9-12; Rev. 8:3-5).
Thus, the destruction of Hormah was a priestly act, issuing from the flaming swords of the cherubic (priestly) guardians of the land, a revelation of God’s direct fiery judgment against the wicked. Not every city was to be destroyed in this fashion, but certain ones were, as types of the wrath of God. This horrible judgment, introduced here at the beginning of Judges, comes again in Judges 20:40, when it is an apostate Israelite city that is burnt up as a sacrifice to God.
- R. J. Rushdoony argued that Exodus 30 -- a man's payment of half a shekel upon reaching age 20 -- was a head tax. He was incorrect. The payment went to the priests, not to a civil magistrate ("captain"). The tip-off was that it was calculated as a shekel of the sanctuary, which was a separate, ecclesiastical coin. This was blood money. It was paid on a man's entry into God's holy army, which was both priestly and civil. I discuss this in Chapter 32 of Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (1990).
(That the army was "priestly" can be seen directly from Scripture. That the army was "civil" may be reading modern categories into the text.)
- The military was not necessarily a state function over against a Church function in the Old Covenant. Indeed, holy war was a specifically priestly function. The torching of cities is to be understood as taking God's fire off from His altar and applying His holy fiery wrath to his enemies. Thus, the torched cities were called "whole burnt sacrifices" in the Hebrew Old Testament (Deut. 13:16; Judg. 1:17, 20:40, in Hebrew). During the holy war, the men became temporary priests by taking the Nazirite vow (Num. 6; 2 Sam. 11:11 + Exo. 19:15; Deut. 23:9-14; Judg. 5:2, "That long locks of hair hung loose in Israel. . ."). This is all to say that the rendering of specific judgments is a sabbatical and priestly function, not a kingly one.... The sword of the state executes according to the judgments rendered by the priests....
Thus, the military duty is priestly, and a duty of every believer-priest. Both Church and state are involved in it, since the Church must say whether the war is just and holy, and the state must organize the believer-priests for battle. The mustering of the host for a census is, then, not a "civil" function as opposed to an ecclesiastical one, and the atonement money of Exodus 30 is not a poll tax, as some have alleged.
James Jordan, "Appendix D: State Financing in the Bible," in The Law of the Covenant, 231-32 (1984), at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/: HTML, DjVu.
Biblical salvation entails not simply the establishment of the Church, but entails the restoration of the whole fabric of life, including social life. Perhaps then we should expect to find God giving us a blueprint of the perfect civil government, of the Christian state. Some people in history have thought that the Bible, in the Mosaic law, was doing just that, but in fact there is no corpus as such of judicial laws in the Bible. The reason why so many people have erred in looking at the Old Testament laws as if they were judicial laws designed for some state is that since the rebellion of man, the human race has been infected with Statism, and thus men tend to look at the Bible through glasses tinted with this Statism.
This explains why we do not find a set of judicial laws in the Bible. All the laws of Scripture, including the social laws, are religious. The social laws are God-centered. Some of them relate to Christian civil government, but there is no corpus of civil law or judicial law because the Bible is not a Statist document.
James Jordan, "Appendix E: Salvation and Statism," in The Law of the Covenant, 240-42 (1984), at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/: HTML, DjVu.
“In the literature of Protestantism, it is assumed that the law of God comes in three categories: moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The criticism rightly shows that this category scheme is erroneous. What has been termed ‘judicial law’ is not in fact a legal code, but rather is a set of explanations of the moral law.”
James B. Jordan, “Calvinism and ‘The Judicial Law of Moses': An Historical Survey,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 5(1978-79):19:
THEONOMY: AN INFORMED RESPONSE
Gary North, p. 259-60At this point, I am suggesting a weakness in the Westminster
Confession's tripartite division of biblical law: moral, ceremonial,
and judicial. The moral law is said to be permanently binding
(XIX:2). The ceremonial law is said to have been abrogated by [260]
the New Covenant (XIX:3). The judicial law is said to have applied
only to national Israel and not to the New Covenant era,
except insofar as a law was (is) part of something called the
"general equity" (XIX:4) This formulation assumes that the
judicial law applied only to Israel's "body politic." But what of
the family? It is a separate covenantal administration, bound by
a lawful oath under God. Which civil laws in Israel protected
the family? To what extent have these laws been annulled or
modified (perhaps tightened) by the New Covenant? And why?I am here suggesting the need for a restructuring of this
traditional tripartite division into civil, ecclesiastical, and familial.
In other words, the divisions should match the Bible's tripartite
covenantal and institutional division. There are continuities
(moral law) and discontinuities (redemptive-historical applications)
in all three covenantal law-orders. It is the task of the
interpreter to make these distinctions and interrelationships
clear. The church has been avoiding this crucial task (exegetical
and applicational) for over three centuries. The result has been
the dominance of ethical dualism in Christian social theory:
natural law theory coupled with pietism and/or mysticism.
related: Swords into Plowshares
The final justification for not being a follower of the Prince of Peace is the idea of "self-defense."
The Christian position is that it is better to be killed than to kill. You should not take someone else's life just to preserve your own.
If someone threatens to kill you, you "witness" to him, announcing the good news of the Gospel. "Witness" here includes the demand for repentance from violations of God's Law, including, obviously, the harm being threatened. The Holy Sprit promises that God's Word will not return void. "When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" (Proverbs 16:7). If the Lord does not do this, then you may become a "martyr," which comes from the Greek word for "witness." There is no evidence in the New Testament than any faithful Christian chose to kill someone in "self-defense" rather than be a martyr. They followed the example of Jesus.
This means "defense of the State." Since the State is an unlawful entity, killing someone created in the Image of God in order to protect systematic rebellion against God is not an ethical option. Christ clearly taught it was better to be occupied and put under tribute than to engage in violent revolution against "the powers that be," or "national defense" against the powers that wanna be.
Some will quote Old Testament verses on protecting the poor and oppressed, and use these verses to defend killing people. In most cases, these verses command us to protect the poor and oppressed from the State and its corrupt judges. The same State whose existence is defended by the anti-pacifists. If pacifists had their way, "the State" would be abolished and 99% of the oppression of the poor would cease. Of whatever oppression remains, most can be dealt with without killing the oppressor. God does not require killing to deal with the tiny, infinitesimal amount of oppression that remains. We are commanded to do our best to protect the weak, but there are limits to that. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of those limits.
A Theonomic analysis of the three most popular exceptions to the Theonomic rule of pacifism shows they don't stand up. Jesus came to bring "Peace on Earth," not what we have as a result of dismissing pacifism.
| Myth: The Old Testament advocates war, slavery, genocide, and vengeful retaliation. |
Myth: The Teachings of Jesus are the impractical and pacifist platitudes of an unrealistic, utopian hippie, and should be relegated to the inner religious meditations of a Mother Theresa, but should be kept away from civil matters, public policy, and especially foreign affairs and military strategy. |
|
|
Both sides of this coin are wrong. |
||
| Jesus quoted the Old Testament. The prophets spoke of a day when we would beat our swords into plowshares and everyone would dwell securely under his own Vine & Fig Tree -- not because his property was being taken from him to fund the "military-industrial complex," which "keeps us all safe" and "protects your right to be a pacifist," but because nobody was training for war any more. | If we were to follow the teachings of Jesus in Washington D.C., we would experience security, peace, and economic prosperity. No war that the U.S. federal government has waged has ever made things better than they would have been without military intervention. | |
|
||
|
Conclusion: |
We should take both the Old Testament and the New Testament seriously. | |
(1) Cited by R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, 219 (1973). See the discussion, below, p. 7. [Back to text]
(2) From the King James Version (1611): Genesis 6:11-13; Genesis 21:25; Leviticus 6:2-4; Deuteronomy 28:31; 2 Samuel 22:3; 2 Samuel 22:49; Job 20:19; Job 24:2; Psalm 7:16; Psalm 11:5; Psalm 18:48; Psalm 55:9; Psalm 58:2; Psalm 72:14; Psalm 73:6; Psalm 86:14; Psalm 140:1; Psalm 140:4; Psalm 140:11; Proverbs 4:14-17; Proverbs 10:6; Proverbs 10:11; Proverbs 13:2; Proverbs 16:29; Proverbs 28:17; Ecclesiastes 5:8; Isaiah 53:9; Isaiah 59:1-15; Jeremiah 6:7; Jeremiah 22:3; Jeremiah 22:15-17; Ezekiel 7:11; Ezekiel 7:23; Ezekiel 8:17; Ezekiel 12:19; Ezekiel 18:7-8; Ezekiel 18:12-13; Ezekiel 18:16-18; Ezekiel 28:16; Ezekiel 45:9-10; Joel 3:19; Amos 3:10; Amos 6:3; Obadiah 1:10; Jonah 3:8; Micah 2:2; Micah 6:11-12; Habakkuk 1:2-4; Habakkuk 1:9; Habakkuk 2:8; Habakkuk 2:17; Zephaniah 1:9; Zephaniah 3:4; Malachi 2:16; Luke 3:14. [Back to text]
(3) Exodus 22:4-5 ("If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. [5] If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it.") Luke 10:33-34 ("But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, {34} And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.") [Back to text]
(4) Matthew 5-7, passim. ("Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemy," "Turn the other cheek," etc.) [Back to text]
(5) "Peace, Ethics of," 3 Dictionary of the History of Ideas, 441 (1973). [Back to text]
Public school students can certainly be taught that the Bible exists. But they cannot be taught that it is true, and that it is a "sacred" book because it is the Word of God. In other words, the Court banned the teaching of the Bible as the Bible would be taught by those who wrote it. The Court also banned the Bible as the Supreme Court ruled 150 years earlier it "must" be taught.
An 1844 U.S. Supreme Court case involved a wealthy Frenchman who left a large sum of money in his will to the City of Philadelphia to build a school in which no clergy would teach. (Virtually all schools back then were run by churches or Christian organizations and clergy often taught the classes Mon-Fri.) There was a great controversy over whether the will of this obviously deistic Frenchman should be enforced. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that just because clergy couldn't teach, didn't mean that lay teachers could not continue to teach the Bible as the Word of God in a school administered by the city government. In fact, the Court said -- and the City of Philadelphia enthusiastically agreed -- that teachers "must" teach Christianity and the Bible as a "divine revelation" and a "sacred volume." Here are the words of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1844:
But the objection itself assumes the proposition that Christianity is not to be taught, because ecclesiastics [clergy] are not to be instructors or officers. But this is by no means a necessary or legitimate inference from the premises. Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics. There is no restriction as to the religious opinions of the instructors and officers. They may be, and doubtless, under the auspices of the city government, they will always be, men, not only distinguished for learning and talent, but for piety and elevated virtue, and holy lives and characters. And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college -- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay-teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the will, that proscribes such studies. Above all, the testator positively enjoins, "that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instil into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that on their entrance into active life they may from inclination and habit evince benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer." Now, it may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of Christianity? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume? The testator has not said how these great principles are to be taught, or by whom, except it be by laymen, nor what books are to be used to explain or enforce them. All that we can gather from his language is, that he desired to exclude sectarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, by all appropriate means; and of course including the best, the surest, and the most impressive.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which forced the Supreme Court in the early 1960's to repudiate Christianity and remove the Bible "as a divine revelation" from public schools.
Because I studied law, passed the California Bar Exam, and was denied a license to practice law because I'm a pacifist. If the government took a blood test of my parents, and concluded that my parents were a high-risk to burden the Medicare and Social Security systems, and the government ordered me to put my parents to "sleep" in order to help ensure the solvency of the entitlement system, I would defiantly (but respectfully) disobey the order. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill," so I'm a pacifist. The Bible says "Honor your father and mother," and "We must obey God rather than man." I normally obey all government laws and pay all taxes, but if there's a conflict between God's Law and man's laws, I know in advance that I'm going to disobey the government. Based on this case, a Federal District Court in Los Angeles ruled that my predisposition to disobey the government's mandatory violence disqualified me from being permitted to take the oath to "support the Constitution" which all attorneys must take. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the District Court. My Pro Bono Legal Dream Team before the 9th Circuit included the current Dean of the Law School at the University of California, Irvine, two of the authors of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed by Congress during the Clinton Administration), and a former California State Supreme Court Justice. They lost. The United States Supreme Court would not hear my appeal. So I am not a lawyer, I am a pacifist. A fair trade, if you ask me.
Other than that, the United States Empire is the enemy of mankind because it rejects pacifism.
A Christian Defense of
Anarcho-Capitalism
and Biblical Critique of
“National Defense”
Pacifists are often told that pacifism is "unrealistic" and "impractical," because if it were even implemented across an entire society, that society would immediately be invaded and enslaved.
We now set about to prove that "national defense" is sinful, by proving that:
Let's review. The word "pacifism" comes from the Latin word for "peace." It is not related to the word "passive." Christians actively oppose violence and evil, and are willing to give their own lives to save another, but Christians are commanded to
• love their enemies (Matthew 5:44),
• put away their sword (Matthew 26:52), and
• follow Christ's example of non-defense (1 Peter 2:21-24).
I used to believe in "just wars," but I think my views are more Biblical now. Here is how I became a pacifist. The verses quoted in that deposition constitute a "prima facie case" for pacifism.
An anthropologist from another planet, here to study the human race, specializing in the teachings and influence of Jesus Christ, would see immediately that Christ and the Bible advocate pacifism. Christ did not defend Himself against attack, and we are to follow "in His steps" (1
Peter 2:18-24). "Thou shalt not kill" and "love your enemies" are clear commands. Elizabeth Flower, of the University of Pennsylvania, writing in The
Dictionary of the History of Ideas
The perplexing issue is why such straightforward and unambiguous teaching came to be ignored, or at least taken as a "counsel of perfection" impossible of realization in this world. In any case, . . . Christians began to accommodate to the social realities of civil government, military service, taxation, etc.; and then to develop their own political power. Yet the literal directives of the Sermon [on the Mount] were time-resistant and Christian pacifism has not lacked for bold and uncompromising advocates in such early Church Fathers as Clement, Justin, and above all Origen, in sects such as the Quakers, Schwenkenfelders, and Doukhobors, and in such modern proponents as Leo Tolstoy, Jacques Maritain, and A.J. Muste. . . . Yet historical Christianity generally compromised its pacifist commitments.
"Just War Theory" is one such accommodation to "social realities." It is an attempt to escape the clear teaching of Christ and the Scripture.
Jesus Christ commanded His followers to be "anarchists."
The word "anarchist" literally means "not an archist."
But what's an archist?
An "archist" is someone
who believes he has a right to
impose his will on others by force.
Jesus told His disciples not to be "archists." Christians are not to impose Christianity on the world by government force ("the sword")
In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, Jesus discovers His disciples arguing about who is going to be the "greatest" in the Kingdom of God.
They didn't understand that Jesus' Kingdom was quite unlike the kingdoms of the world.
|
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. {43} Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. {44} And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. {45} "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." |
The Greek word translated "rulers" is the Greek word from which we derive our English word "anarchist."
"Lords," "rulers" and "great ones" are "archists."
Jesus clearly says His followers are not to be "archists." They are to be "servants" instead.
The same Greek word for "servant" in Mark 10 occurs in these passages:
|
Matthew
22 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants
to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are
killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized
his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those
murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore
go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ 10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with
guests. John
2 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of
Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” |
As "servants," Christians are to do whatever the boss says to do (unless the boss orders the servant to disobey God [Acts 5:29]).
It is often objected that if Christian pacifists had enough votes to abolish "national defense," that America would be invaded and taken over by the Communists, the Jihadists, or the enemy-du-jour, and we would all be enslaved.
Christians are commanded to accept their role as slaves.
- refers to acts of service for others that go beyond what is required or expected. The expression probably comes from the Bible, when Jesus declares in his Sermon on the Mount, "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two." (Matthew 5:41, (NASB))
But then Wikipedia accurately notes that:
The verse is a reference to the practice of "impressment" which, among other things, allowed a Roman soldier to conscript a Jewish native to carry his equipment for one Roman mile (milion = 1,000 paces, about 1,611 yards or 1,473 metres) -- no easy task considering a Roman soldier's backpack could weigh upwards of 100 pounds (45.4 kg).
"Going the extra mile" is thus not a feel-good Hallmark Card. As Wikipedia used to note:
Jesus' point was that his followers must relinquish their individual "rights" in order to advance God's kingdom through self-sacrifice.
We as Americans don't want to hear that last point. We don't want to "relinquish our rights." We don't like to hear anything about "self-sacrifice."
If you want an example of "oppression," imagine Jews in first-century Israel being subjected to military occupation by unclean pagans from Rome. Then imagine Americans having their one-party government of Democrats and Republicans replaced by members of ISIS.
Are you ready for that?
Do you think the government will protect you from ISIS? Mitch McConnell is not going to grab a gun and personally protect your neighborhood from ISIS. He might conscript you to grab a gun and go protect someone else's neighborhood from ISIS. Will you obey the government and go fight ISIS? Will you be like the
"zealots" and attempt to overthrow the military occupation of your "homeland?"
Or will you obey Jesus?
|
Matthew 5:41 |
Romans 13:1-7
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except by God, and those that exist are put in place by God. 2 So then, the one who resists authority resists the ordinance which is from God, and those who resist will receive condemnation on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, 4 for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid, because it does not bear the sword to no purpose. For it is God’s servant, the one who avenges for punishment on the one who does what is bad. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God, busily engaged in this very thing. 7 Pay to everyone what is owed: pay taxes to whom taxes are due; pay customs duties to whom customs duties are due; pay respect to whom respect is due; pay honor to whom honor is due.
Titus 3
3 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
1 Peter 2:13-17
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
- Anarcho-Pacifist Apologetics in Peter's First Epistle
Social Apologetics A Theonomic Critique of Logic Apologetics Without Aristotle Benjamin Rush Quote On Building the Kingdom- Listen to Audio
Being "subject" is not something Americans are very good at.
Matthew 26:52
King James Version (KJV)52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Matthew 22:15-22
New King James Version (NKJV)15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. 16 And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. 17 Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? 19 Show Me the tax money.”
So they brought Him a denarius.
20 And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”
21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.
Render Unto Caesar - R.J. Rushdoony
Jesus on Paying Taxes to Caesar
During this time many Jews were locked in conflict with Roman authorities. Many wanted to establish a theocracy as an ideal Jewish state and for them any Gentile ruler over Israel was an abomination before God. Paying taxes to such a ruler effectively denied God’s sovereignty over the nation. Jesus couldn’t afford to reject this position.
On the other hand, the Roman leaders were very touchy about anything that looked like resistance to their rule. They could be very tolerant of various religions and cultures, but only so long as they accepted Roman authority. If Jesus denied the validity of paying taxes, then he could be turned over to the Romans as someone encouraging rebellion (the Herodians were servants of Rome).
The Bible prohibits violent revolution against "the powers that be." (The prohibition is not based on the goodness of the powers, but the ordination of God.) "National Defense" is violent revolution against "the powers that wanna be."
Update September, 2013
Syria is in the news.
Suppose I am the "anarchist" you learned about in government school. Suppose I am outraged that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against "its own" people. I want to overthrow the government of Syria by detonating a bomb in the Syrian capitol, killing off members of the government, so they can be replaced by my friends.
The traditional interpretation of Romans 13 prohibits the violent overthrow of the government, such as I've described.
Suppose, then, that I renounce my Syrian citizenship and become an American citizen and vote for Barack Obama and the United States Congress to drop lots of bombs on Syria in retaliation for the Syrian government crossing "the red line." Is this prohibited by Romans 13? Why not?
Why is it that if I'm a Syrian citizen I am not allowed to overthrow my government by force and violence, but if I'm an American citizen I can overthrow the government of Syria, Iraq, Guatemala, Iran, or any government I want? Isn't it the case that in a "Representative Republic" such as the United States, that the actions of Congress and President Obama reflect the will of "the People?" If "We the People" are Christian, doesn't Romans 13 prohibit the United States government from representing "the will of the People" and therefore from overthrowing governments, fomenting civil wars, prosecuting military invasions or "police actions" around the world?
Obviously very few people in Washington D.C. have read Romans 13 in the last 50 years.
|
|
All governments -- even the most lawless and tyrannical -- are "ordained" by God.
Rome invaded and conquered Israel a few years before Christ was born.
Matthew 5:41
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)41 And if anyone forces[a] you to go one mile, go with him two.
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 5:41 Roman soldiers could require people to carry loads for them.
Reformation Study Bible
5:41 if anyone forces you. The possibility of a Roman soldier coercing a person to serve as a guide or burden carrier was real. Even if compelled by force to do something for someone, one can demonstrate freedom by volunteering more than was demanded rather than begrudging the service.
Generously provided by Ligonier Ministries
Matthew Henry:
Some give this sense of it: The Jews taught that the disciples of the wise, and the students of the law, were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king’s officers, to travel upon the public service; but Christ will not have his disciples to insist upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government.
The IVP New Testament Commentary Series
Love Even Your Oppressors (5:41)
Here Matthew probably means submission to a Roman soldier's demands. Because tax revenues did not cover all the Roman army's needs, soldiers could requisition what they required (N. Lewis 1983:172-73; Rapske 1994:14). Romans could legally demand local inhabitants to provide forced labor if they wanted (as in Mt 27:32) and were known to abuse this privilege (for example, Apul. Metam.9.39). Yet "going the extra mile" represents not only submitting to unjust demands but actually exceeding them—showing our oppressors that we love them and take no offense, although our associates may wrongly view this love as collaboration with an enemy occupation. The truth of this passage is a life-and-death matter for many believers.
Such courageous love is not easy to come by and is easily stifled by patriotism. To take but one example that challenges my own culture, many white U.S. citizens may wish to rethink the patriotic lens through which they view the American colonies' revolt against Britain in the 1770s-did they really have grounds for secession of which Jesus would have approved if they had been his disciples? Past oppression is also easily recalled. British Christians might consider their feelings for Germans; Korean and Chinese Christians, for the Japanese. In some form the principle can apply to most national, racial and cultural groups. While early Christians responded to their persecutors with defiant love (a humility the persecutors often viewed as arrogance), many politically zealous Christians in the United States guard their rights so fiercely that they are easily given to anger (which opponents also view as arrogance).
Rather, Jesus' teaching does mean that we depend on God rather than on human weapons, although God may sovereignly raise up human weapons to fight the oppressors. If we value justice and compassion for persons rather than merely utopian idealism, we must also calculate the human cost of opposing various degrees of injustice. In first-century Palestine, few "safe" vehicles existed for nonviolent social protest against the Romans; Romans viewed most public protest as linked with revolution, and punished it accordingly. In a society like ours where Christian egalitarianism has helped shape conceptions of justice, nonviolent protest stands a much better chance of working. Neither violent revolutionaries (whose cause may be more just than their methods) nor the well-fed who complacently ignore the rest of the world's pain (and whose cause is merely personal advancement) may embrace Jesus without either distorting him or transforming themselves in the process.
Yet Jesus' own life explains the meekness he prescribes. When the time appointed by his Father arrived, Jesus allowed people to crucify him, trusting his Father's coming vindication to raise him from the dead (Mt 17:11; 20:18-19). He was too meek to cry out or bruise a reed until the time would come to bring "justice to victory" (12:19-20). Yet he proclaimed justice (12:18), openly denounced the unjust (23:13-36) and actively, even somewhat "violently," protested unrighteousness although he knew what it would cost him (21:12-13). Jesus was meek (11:29), but he was not a wimp. He called his disciples to be both harmless as doves and wise as serpents (10:16)-in short, to be ruled by the law of love (22:39). Love of neighbor not only does no harm to a neighbor but bids us place ourselves in harm's way to protect our neighbor.
IVP New Testament Commentaries are made available by the generosity of InterVarsity Press.
Zealots and Sicarii - The "Second Amendment" crowd of first century Israel.
- I Repudiate the Second Amendment
- The 2nd Amendment vs. Family Values
- Why I Would Give Obama My Guns If He Asks
- Pink Pistols Survey
- Immigration and Gun Control
- Guns in Churches
- A New Civil War?
- What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control
If the Bible prohibits violence against those who are in authority over you, how can you justify using violence against these very same people when they are in the process of putting themselves in authority over you -- by invading your nation and conquering it?
If Christian ethics prohibits you from "standing up for your rights" against "the powers that be" (using violence), why do you think you would be permitted to "stand up for your rights" against "the powers that wanna be?" Against those same powers when they are becoming "the powers that be?"
Answer: you are not permitted to use violence against invading powers.
God sent the invaders.
God "Ordains" Evil: A collection of dozens of Biblical references to God sending "the sword" as a judgment against evil nations. This is the Old Testament background of Romans 13.
Governments are evil (sinful; violations of God's Commandments against theft, murder, enslavement, vengeance).
God "ordains" evil, sinful governments, commissioning them to violate His Commandments as a judgment against evil doers, stealing from those evil doers, depriving them of life and liberty, "serving" God as an instrument of God's vengeance.
It's not your business who the "powers" are. God puts them in place, and changes them whenever He wants.
Of course, if "the powers that be" invite your opinion of them ("voting," "referendum," "town hall," etc.) take advantage of the opportunity to speak the truth, and invite them to repent of their confiscation of property, murder, deprivation of liberty, and vengeance.
And of course, if "the powers that be" order you to sin against God, "We must obey God rather than man." (Acts 5:29). In other words, it's a sin to disobey a direct command from God, but it's not a sin to be a victim of governments that disobey direct commands of God (by stealing, murdering, kidnapping, taking vengeance, and everything else the State does routinely). Most Christian teachers fail to make this elementary distinction.
Hebrews 10:32-34
English Standard Version (ESV)32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one.
Matthew Henry
They were afflicted in their estates, by the spoiling of their goods, by fines and forfeitures.
Jeremiah 29:7
7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Jeremiah 27
27 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
2 Thus saith the Lord to me; Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them upon thy neck,
8 And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.
9 Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon:
10 For they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish.
11 But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the Lord; and they shall till it, and dwell therein.
"National Defense" is the attempt to avoid "bringing your neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon." Or China.
"National Defense" is a very expensive lie.
"National Defense" is not Biblical. It is Humanist. It is socialist. It is fascist.
Matthew Henry
Nebuchadnezzar was very unjust and barbarous in invading the rights and liberties of his neighbours thus, and forcing them into a subjection to him; yet God had just and holy ends in permitting him to do so, to punish these nations for their idolatry and gross immoralities. Those that would not serve the God that made them were justly made to serve their enemies that sought to ruin them. [Jeremiah] shows them the vanity of all the hopes they fed themselves with, that they should preserve their liberties,
Those that will bend shall not break. Perhaps the dominion of the king of Babylon may bear no harder upon them than that of their own kings had done. It is often more a point of honour than true wisdom to prefer liberty before life
"Better Dead than Red!"
Old Testament "Holy Wars" are not a valid basis for "National Defense" in New Testament times. They were offensive, not defensive, and ceremonial, fulfilled in Christ.
- No "Holy Wars" in Our Day
- Holy War: Ceremonial Atonement by Destruction
- Humanist Holy War
- Holy War: National Capital Punishment
- Capital Punishment: A Ceremonial Shedding of Blood
"National Defense" really means "Government Defense," that is, not the defense and protection of the American People, but the perpetuation of the power of Washington D.C. insiders. Google "Continuity of Government"
Pure "Patriotism" is un-Christian
The United States is not the Christian's Nation.
Our real citizenship is not in this nation-state.
Our allegiance is not to this government.
The State recognizes the conflict, even if most "Christians" do not:
- A Christian cannot hold public office under the Bush-Obama regime.
- A Christian cannot even become a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Why should any Christian kill or die for an atheistic tyranny like that in Washington D.C.? Why would any educated Christian participate in "National Defense?"
National Security, Swiss-Style by Nick Bradley
For years I opposed pacifism as "unrealistic" and "impractical."
I claimed that God imposed a moral requirement on me to "defend my family" in the event of a home invasion, and that pacifism in the face of such an attack was immoral, not just cowardly.
To discharge my moral responsibility, I voted for a system of self-defense called "The State." This was the only "realistic" view. I was "practical." Not like those crazy pacifists.
Now, as I begin my second half-century of life, I look back on a bad decision. Since I was born, the machinery of self-defense called "The United States Federal Government" has murdered, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians. Children, grandmothers, and breadwinners.
It started with my fear of an attack on my family by a random, anonymous home invader.
- Statistically, this event is wildly improbable. Millions of American homes have never been invaded.
- "The State" doesn't even promise to prevent such an event. Some police departments have the slogan "To Protect and to Serve." They have been sued in court for failing to protect after victims called 911. Courts have always thrown these cases out. The State has no duty to protect, and citizens have no legal expectation to be protected. So much for "defense."
- The State only claims to "deter" such an event to some extent by taking vengeance on the attacker -- after the invasion has taken place and my family is dead.
- But my family was never really in danger. Most attackers attack their own families or friends.
- All such violent criminals are then warehoused by the State in atheistic penitentiaries (where no one is helped to become "penitent") so that their dysfunctional character and bad morals can spread and multiply among the prison population.
- If my home was ever actually invaded, I would probably not be in the same room as my gun, and I would have no idea how to respond to the invader. I would never have imagined myself preaching the gospel to him, engaging him in a way that psychologically disarmed his anger or fear, and praying at the same time. I have been trained by media and academia to be a "tough guy" and blow the attacker's brains out, and this leaves me silent and dependent.
- Every year hundreds of unarmed Christians pray and preach their way out of violent attacks.
- I have never been systematically trained by church or state to know the commands and example of Christ and to "follow in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21) in case of a violent confrontation. I just keep voting for "the State."
From this crippled, unrealistic, skewed vision of "self-defense" comes the global disaster known as "national defense."
- There is no danger of America being invaded. No totalitarian foreign government would ever let a million of its soldiers step foot on American soil, and witness our high standard of living. The entire army would immediately defect.
- We spend a trillion dollars a year, but have no realistic defense against incoming nuclear-armed missiles.
- What "the State" defends is not the "homeland," but the assets of multinational corporations abroad and the jobs they create for foreigners.
- "The State" also uses the armed services to advance the agenda of atheistic Communism and Secular Humanism.
- Churches are often ground-zero for military attacks by the U.S. armed services. A prominent church steeple was the target in Nagasaki, which had the largest Christian population in Japan. Iraq also had the largest Christian population of any Arab nation.
- Christians in America have trillions of dollars of disposable income. "Obamacare" is God's judgment on Christians, who have failed to carry out the "works of mercy" which are supposed to characterize Christians. Christians have given liberals an excuse to step in and give glory to the State. Christians alone could eliminate all health and welfare problems -- not only for other Americans, but for the world's poor. Prof. Ronald J. Sider notes;
“If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlogWe could bribe half the world into abandoning Jihadism and becoming Christian. But American Christians prefer the delusion of "national defense" and comfortable entertainment in their mega-churches.
American Christians have the economic muscle to bring in "the millennium." But we waste it on "defense."
- The tentacles of "the State" -- the institution of "defense" -- now choke Christianity around the world.
- Home invasions occur ten thousand times a year. Governments kill ten thousand people every single DAY, on average.
- In order to protect myself from a statistically improbable act of violence, which could probably be defused by a courageous and prayerful Christian witness, and vainly gambling on the State to give me an extra 20 years of life, I'm willing to create an institution of "defense" to protect me from an equally improbable foreign invasion, and this institution is responsible for killing tens of millions of human beings around the world since I was born. [body count] This is so radically self-centered and barbaric that it staggers the imagination of a Christian worldview.
Conclusion: "Self-defense" is irresponsible and unChristlike. "National Defense" is unmitigated evil.
I'm not saying Putin -- or any other leader of a "government" -- is a good guy. But he is not against Christianity, and for this, he must be destroyed, according to the atheist U.S. empire. Should a follower of Christ kill Russians in support of a corrupt Ukrainian dictator?
Nobody "celebrates" Memorial Day.
You're supposed to "observe" Memorial Day.
You're supposed to "remember" those who were killed because they joined the Armed Forces of the United States.
"Mourn" would be a better word than "celebrate."
But you're not supposed to mourn too much. If you mourn too much, you will be implying that their deaths were in vain.
On Memorial Day we're supposed to "remember" or "observe" the deaths of soldiers in a way that honors or applauds their choice to become a soldier.
You "mourn" if your neighbor's kid dies from mixing all kinds of chemicals together to get a new "high." Or if he skateboards off the roof in an "Xtreme" manner and dies. We mourn the loss of life, but we don't honor their actions.
On Memorial Day, "remember" means to "honor."
We are supposed to "honor" those who made the choice to join the Armed Forces of the United States and were killed while fighting.
So . . .
. . . would Jesus "honor" those who took up a sword and died?
51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
52 But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:51-53
(Luke 2:8-14) And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them ... and the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a
Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased.
(Luke 1:77-79) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, {78} Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, {79} To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
(Matthew 5:9) Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
(Luke 6:27-28) But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, {28} Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
(Hebrews 12:14) Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
(Leviticus 26:6) I will give you peace in the land, and you will be able to sleep with no cause for fear. I will rid the land of [tyrants and those who seek to impose their will on others by force] and keep your enemies out of your land.
(Proverbs 16:7) When man's ways please the LORD, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
(Hosea 2:18) And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of the heavens, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the bow and the sword and warfare out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
(1 Peter 3:9) Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called--that you might inherit a blessing.
(1 Peter 2:21-23) For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: {22} Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: {23} Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously:
(Romans 12:17-20) Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. {18} If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. {19} Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. {20} Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink:
(Psalm 34:14) Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
(Psalm 35:20) For they do not speak peace, but they conceive deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land.
(Psalm 37:11) But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
(Psalm 37:37) Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.
(Psalm 72:7) In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.
(Psalm 85:10) Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
(Psalm 119:165) Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
(Psalm 120:2-7) Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.{5} Woe is me, {6} My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. {7} I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.
(Psalm 122:6-8) Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. {7} peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. {8} For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say, peace be within thee.
(Proverbs 3:17) The ways of Wisdom are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.
(Proverbs 12:20) Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellors of peace is joy.
(Isaiah 9:6-7) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of peace. {7} Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
(Isaiah 26:12) O LORD, you will ordain peace for us, for indeed, all that we have done, you have done for us.
(Isaiah 32:17-18) And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. {18} And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;
(Isaiah 48:18) O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:
(Isaiah 48:22) There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.
(Isaiah 52:7) How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
(Isaiah 54:13) And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
(Isaiah 55:12) For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
(Isaiah 57:19) I create the fruit of the lips; peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.
(Ephesians 2:14-17) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; {15} Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; {16} And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: {17} And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
(Isaiah 59:8) The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.
(Isaiah 60:17) For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness.
(Isaiah 66:12) For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.
(Ezekiel 34:25) And I will make with them a covenant of peace
(Ezekiel 37:26) Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
(Daniel 4:1) Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; peace be multiplied unto you.
(Daniel 6:25) Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; peace be multiplied unto you.
(Nahum 1:15) Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.
(Haggai 2:9) The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
(Zechariah 6:13) Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
(Zechariah 8:16) These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates:
(Zechariah 8:19) Thus saith the LORD of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace.
(Zechariah 9:10) And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
(Malachi 2:5-6) My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. {6} The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
(Malachi 2:6) The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
(Romans 1:7) To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Romans 2:10) But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
(Romans 3:10-18) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. {12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. {13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: {14} Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: {15} Their feet are swift to shed blood: {16} Destruction and misery are in their ways: {17} And the way of peace have they not known: {18} There is no fear of God before their eyes.
(Romans 8:6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
(Romans 10:15) And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
(Romans 14:17-19) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. {18} For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. {19} Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
(Romans 15:33) Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
(Romans 16:20) And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
(1 Corinthians 1:3) Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(1 Corinthians 14:33) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
(2 Corinthians 1:2) Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: {4} (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) {5} Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
(2 Corinthians 13:11) Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
(Galatians 1:3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
(Galatians 5:22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(Galatians 6:16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
(Ephesians 1:2) Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Ephesians 4:3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
(Ephesians 6:15) And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
(Ephesians 6:23) peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Philippians 1:2) Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Philippians 4:9) Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
(Colossians 1:2) To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Colossians 1:20) And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
(Colossians 3:15) And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
(1 Thessalonians 1:1) Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Thessalonians 1:2) Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Thessalonians 3:16) Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.
(1 Timothy 1:2) Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
(1 Timothy 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
(2 Timothy 1:2) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
(2 Timothy 2:22) Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
(Titus 1:4) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
(Philemon 1:3) Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(James 3:17-18) But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. {18} And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
(Hebrews 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
(1 Peter 1:2) Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
(1 Peter 3:11) Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
(1 Peter 5:14) Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.
(2 Peter 1:2) Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
(2 Peter 3:14) Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
(2 John 1:3) Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
(3 John 1:14) But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.
(Jude 1:2) Mercy unto you, and peace and love, be multiplied.
(Revelation 1:4) John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Swords Into Plowshares
Ozarks Virtual Townhall
It's a war between mothers and "archists"
Click here for notes and resources
Blog posts
A few years ago, I myself would not have read the article I am now writing. Any article critical of the U.S. military could only have been written by some anti-American commie fag. My intellectual life consisted of patriotic bumper-stickers and soundbites -- not "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4) and "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Most of the 30,000 verses of the Bible were a fog for me. I only needed a handful of those verses to see that I should "support the troops."
Then I met an author/speaker named Rousas Rushdoony, who founded a "think-tank" called Chalcedon. He convinced me that all 30,000 verses in the Bible should be taken seriously, as they are the Word of God, and the Word of a Lord and Sovereign is law and must govern us in every area of our lives. As a historian, Rushdoony showed me that America's Founders sought to build America on a Biblical foundation, but today's "statesmen" have replaced America's Christian heritage with atheism. Rushdoony was intensely critical of today's humanistic State. Rushdoony quoted free market or "capitalist" economists who demonstrated that a free market economy works better than a socialist economy. I wondered why we shouldn't just get rid of the State altogether, but Rushdoony replied that the Church has always taught (based on Romans 13 and similar passages) that God requires mankind to have a State. I was not entirely convinced by this.
Then I read the writings of a free market economist named Murray N. Rothbard. Rothbard was a capitalist who hated the State. He called his view "anarcho-capitalism." 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism, 0% socialism. This seemed like an intellectually consistent position. The same economic laws which show why government should not be in charge of creating computers and automobiles show why government should not be be in charge of creating anything. To say nothing of the fact that the government cannot even get started "governing" without violating God's Law against theft (taxation).
Rushdoony had also read Rothbard, but rejected anarcho-capitalism because of the Church's interpretation of Romans 13, as requiring the creation and maintenance of "the public sector." "Anarchism" was a word Rushdoony could not stomach, even when baked up by a brilliant chef like Rothbard. Rothbard made the word "anarchism" palatable to me. I was probably already an anarchist before reading Rothbard, based on the Bible and Rushdoony's trenchant critique of statism (worship of the State), but I wasn't averse to using the word a"anarchist" after reading Rothbard. I became a Chalcedon Scholar and began writing a column in The Chalcedon Report, the monthly publication of Chalcedon. I don't think Rushdoony realized I was an anarchist at this time. I wouldn't have called myself a "pacifist" at this time, because I still believed in lethal self-defense.
Then I read the writings of the Anabaptists, especially the Swiss Anabaptists, who broke away from Zwingli in Zurich. They made me willing to be called a "pacifist" just as Rothbard gave me "permission" to call myself an "anarchist." I wrote about my journey through the world of the Anabaptists (on an IBM Selectric), and I'm in the process of putting these writings on the internet: www.TheonomicAnabaptists.com.
I'm a Calvinist, a creationist, a Theonomist, and a Christian Reconstructionist, and have been excommunicated from Calvinist, Theonomist, and Reconstructionist groups, including Chalcedon.
I've worn a uniform. I didn't exactly volunteer, but I wasn't drafted. My parents insisted. At their strong urging ("You will or we're disinheriting you.") I donned the uniform of the U.S. Air Force. I confess my obedience was not cheerful, but grudging. When I had an opportunity to get out before doing any "active service" of any kind, I left. But I actually have an "Honorable Discharge" from the U.S.A.F.
I was not raised a pacifist. There was a time when I would have not even read, much less agreed with, the article I am now writing. People who spoke out against war and the U.S. government were "commies." My father was part of what President Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex." Dad was not pleased when I turned my back on a full college scholarship from the military.
But in my junior year of high school I became a six-day creationist. A decade after getting out of the military, in a deposition before a federal district court in Los Angeles, I explained how my becoming a creationist led me to become a pacifist. You can read it here. I was in court because I was being denied a license to practice law in California, even though I successfully passed the California Bar Exam (which I've been told is the toughest bar exam in the world). I discovered a fact of which most Christians are not aware. America was once a Christian nation, but now is an atheistic nation, and if your allegiance to God is greater than your allegiance to the now-secular government, you cannot take the oath to "support the constitution" which is required of all attorneys, all public servants, all members of the armed services, most public school teachers, and many other occupations. I tried to get an exception to this rule in my case, but was turned down by the federal courts and the Supreme Court of California.
So the first thing we have to deal with is the fact that anyone who volunteers for the armed services must take an oath which identifies them as an "infidel," or unbeliever.
I know that sounds crazy. Every single person who signed the U.S. Constitution would say that's crazy. But it's true. My final brief was written by three well-known professors of Constitutional Law and a former California State Supreme Court Justice. It was denied by the same court that ruled that California school children could not say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Another decision which I would describe as crazy, but true. Details on my case are here.
I say again that on Memorial Day Americans do more than mourn the dead and assist their families. They honor the choice to fight. They honor their choice to be warmakers instead of peacemakers. Speaking as a six-day creationist pacifist, I would rather go to prison and be sodomized than kill a human being. And there are a lot of Veterans who are still traumatized by what they were ordered to do by their government. We need a holiday to honor peacemakers, based on the Biblical idea that war is evil. [more] [top]
If you'll give me a chance to prove to you that Christians should abolish all wars, and that you should become one of those "extremist" Christians, I guarantee that
the most profound, beneficial,
massive, and lasting
personal transformation
of your entire life.
I'm selling an online home Bible study course. It has a double your money back guarantee. If you don't agree it's the most life-changing course you've ever taken, I'll return 100% of your tuition and then add my own check for that same amount.
Find a Wall St. Investor who will take your money and make that same promise.
100% ROI.
Guaranteed.
Double your money back for any reason.
Or no reason at all.
If you wish, I'll put the money in an account for you at Escrow.com. It will be waiting there for you to complete your assignments.
This extraordinary guarantee is sponsored by a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization called “Vine & Fig Tree” The purpose of this organization is to promote the fulfillment of the “Vine & Fig Tree” prophecy of the prophet Micah:
Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation
And never again will they train for war.
And each of them will sit under his
Vine and under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid.
Micah 4:3-4
This online home Bible study course is designed to persuade and encourage you to get on board with Micah's “Vine & Fig Tree” vision.
This is an outline of a 16-week sermon series on Micah 4:1-7. This series of sermons has never been preached in any church on planet earth.
Here is the text for the series:
| Micah 4:1-7
1 But it shall come to pass, |
|
|
Here are the key concepts in Micah's prophecy:
0. Bibliolatry: God speaks, we worship the Word
1: Calvinism/predestination: "It shall come to pass"
2: Preterism: "in the last days"
3: Creationism: The "mountain" = Eden
4. Optimillennialism: "Peoples will stream; nations will come"
5: Theonomy: "the Law of God"
6: Theocracy / Christocracy: "He shall judge"
7: Pacifism: "swords into plowshares"
8: Archistlessness: no violence = no state || Jesus is the One True Archist
| Family Education | Family Business |
| 9: Patriarchy: "His Vine"
10: Education: Family does the teaching 11: Character: ethics is more important than genius |
12: Agrarianism: Vine & Fig Tree
13: Property/Communism: Compulsory sharing is theft, but sharing is Christian |
14. Socialism/Community: the ones "God has afflicted"
15: Eternity: forever
Numbered "0" because it undergirds the next 15 subjects.
Focus Text:
Micah 1:1
The Word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.Micah 4:4
For the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.Micah 4:6
“In that day,” says the Lord,
I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
Jesus is the Word of God incarnate; the Bible is the Word of God inscriptured.
Some people call this "Bibliolotry." I worship the Bible.
I am a "Bible-believing" Christian. Feel free to accuse me of engaging in bibliolatry, fundamentalism, extremism, creationism, Calvinism, Theonomy, etc. Guilty as charged.
|
|
The first text I want to impress upon you is Acts 17:10-12
Now these [The Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the Word with all readiness of the mind,
searching the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
The Bereans appeared to be like modern libertarians, with their bumper-sticker that says "QUESTION AUTHORITY." The Apostles gave them the Gospel of Jesus Christ but the Bereans didn't just take the Apostles' word for it, but checked what they were told against a higher authority, the Scripture. The Bereans are more dogmatic authoritarians than those who mindlessly accept the word of clergy or creeds.
Additionally, the Bereans studied the Bible "daily." The verses on that link show that daily engagement with the Bible is an imperative.
|
This attitude makes one a better Christian, as seen in our second text.
Just as iron sharpens iron,
friends sharpen the minds of each other.
Proverbs 27:17
My goal in this article is to be your "friend." I hope you'll be my friend as well, and challenge my thinking in a loving way.
|
I am not against "authorities" or "experts." I rely on them and quote them. An "expert" can be your friend and sharpen you, but you might have to pay the expert ("mentor," "professor" "seminary"). This article is free. May you be sharpened. May we be friends.
The Word of God is the Sword of the Lord, and is more powerful than the military sword of man:
Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Micah 4:3
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruninghooks:
nation shall not lift up a sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.
Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
Ephesians 6:17
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;
Isaiah 11:4
4 But with righteousness He shall judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked.
Isaiah 49:2
2 And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword;
In the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me,
And made Me a polished shaft;
In His quiver He has hidden Me.”
Hosea 6:5
5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,
I have slain them by the words of My mouth;
And your judgments are like light that goes forth.
2 Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
Revelation 1:16
16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.
Revelation 2:16
16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.
Revelation 19:15
15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Revelation 19:21
21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.
This is why we are commanded to read, study, and meditate on God's Word daily. My case for "The Real Meaning of Easter" will only be persuasive if you read the verses of Scripture.
Focus Text:
"It shall come to pass"
How does Micah know what will "come to pass?"
Answer: God told him (see "Bibliolatry" above).
How does God know what will "come to pass?"
Answer: He predestinated it.
God is omniscient, and knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), because the future has already been created.
Some say that predestination "makes man a robot." But you and I both know that we are not robots. We were created in the Image of God. We have the capacity for reason, to plan for the future, to compose and appreciate symphonies. We understand God's Commandments, and we have a moral obligation to obey them. No other animals can do these things.
Futurists say that "prophecy" reveals a grim future. War, tribulation, and Armageddon are all predestined (though not all futurists would use that word -- but what's the difference between "prophesied" and "predestined?").
Micah does not say that tribulation has been predestined, but a Vine & Fig Tree world.
Focus text: "in the last days"
And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
According to Peter in Acts 2, and elsewhere in the New Testament, the Apostles were living in "the Last Days" of the Old Covenant. This is when Jesus was made the Christ: in the past. He came a second time in judgment against those who rejected Him as the Christ. The claim that Jesus is the Messiah today (not just in the future) is the claim that Jesus was made "Lord and Christ" in the past. The Latin word for "past" is praeter, and saying a prophecy was fulfilled in the past is called "Preterism."
Rules for Interpreting Scripture:
Applying these simple and universally-agreed upon rules leads to this controversial conclusion:
The Second Coming of Christ happened in the past
and there is no prophecy of a Third Coming of Christ in our Future
The focus of the New Testament is on the generation that rejected Jesus as the Christ, not any generation thousands or millions of years in the future. The "Second Coming" of Christ -- a coming in vengeance against those who murdered Him -- is said to be imminent everywhere in the New Testament. Atheists say Jesus was wrong about His Second Coming, but that's because atheists ignore those rules above. Jesus never predicted the imminent end of planet earth. He predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the end of the Old Covenant, and the beginning of the New Covenant. This all took place in the past, hence "preterism."
| There is not a single verse in the New Testament which was intended by its author and understood by its original audience to be prophesying an event thousands of years in the future. |
Preterism vs. Futurism:
Which Theory Brings the Greater Glory to God?
The word "Preterism" comes from the Latin word for "past."
Every Bible-believing Christian is a "preterist" when it comes to interpreting Isaiah 7:14, which predicts the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 1:23 teaches that this prophecy was fulfilled in our past. There's no evidence in the Bible that there will be a future fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. A "preterist" interpretation is orthodoxy.
"Full Preterism" or "Consistent Preterism" teaches that there are no events in the Bible which are prophesied to occur after A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem and the Old Covenant came to a complete end. The consistent preterist believes there are no prophecies in the Bible that remain to be fulfilled in our future. All were fulfilled in the past. This is decidedly not orthodox.
Some full preterists teach that while all prophecies have been fulfilled, some prophecies predicted the inauguration of on-going conditions. Isaiah 65 predicts a "New Heavens and New Earth." A preterist can hold that this new world was inaugurated in the past, but is also a "world without end" (Isaiah 45:17; Ephesians 3:21, KJV). Similarly,
the age predicted in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 is said to be one which, while inaugurated in our past, continues into our future, "from now on, even forever" (Micah 4:7). The government of Christ was established in our past, but
"Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end"
(Isaiah 9:6-7).
Some theologians have come to preterist conclusions, but don't call themselves "full preterists." They put the traditions of the church on a par with Scripture. So they might say that while the New Testament is dominated by prophecies about the coming of Christ in vengeance against the Jews in AD70, and while there are no prophecies about any events in our future, they still believe in a future coming of Christ "because Holy Mother the Church has taught that doctrine for 2,000 years." I call such theologians "ecclesiastical preterists."
The question should always be, "What saith the Lord," and in particular, "What saith Scripture."
Let's suppose that the full preterists make a prima facie case for their view, and futurists make a prima facie case for their perspective. One way to decide between two equally-Scriptural views might be to ask, "Which view gives greater glory to God?
"Christian Reconstruction" is the view that Christians should work to make society more obedient to God's Laws in the Bible.
"Christian Reconstructionists" tend to be preterists. Futurists tend to oppose Christian Reconstruction.
Hal Lindsey is a well-known futurist, and wrote back in 1970:
There used to be a group called "postmillennialists." They believed that the Christians would root out all the evil in the world, abolish godless rulers, and convert the world through ever-increasing evangelism until they brought about the Kingdom of God through their own efforts. Then after 1000 years of the institutional church reigning on earth with peace, equality and righteousness, Christ would return and time would end. These people rejected much of the Scripture as being literal and believed in the inherent goodness of man. World War I greatly disheartened this group and World War II virtually wiped out this viewpoint. No self-respecting scholar who looks at the world conditions and the accelerating decline of Christian influence today is a "postmillennialist."
Hal Lindsey, The Late, Great Planet Earth, 1970, p. 176
The idea that Christians would bring about the Kingdom of God "through their own efforts" is a real red-flag for Christians like Hal Lindsey. They say it reeks of "secular humanism."
"Christian Reconstruction" was not well-known back in 1970. Lindsey was speaking more of liberals and progressives in the early part of the 20th century who promoted "the social gospel." His criticisms miss the point if directed toward Bible-believing inerrantists, 5-point Calvinists, and 6-day creationists like the Christian Reconstructionists.
Futurists tend to be "New Testament Christians," while Christian Reconstructionists put an emphasis on the whole Bible, from cover to cover, including the Old Testament.
Most Futurists today believe Jesus came to give us a ticket to heaven when we die. In the meantime, Satan rules the planet. Their story of the Bible goes like this:
In other words, Satan wins.
Pretty dismal story, isn't it?
Not much of a "gospel" ("good news") is it?
Sure, God sent His Son, who died on the cross, so that some of the players can be forgiven for their rebellion and go home with God, but God's original purposes for man and the creation were thwarted by Satan, the ultimate victor.
Didn't God know that His plan of giving human beings dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28) was doomed to failure?
Didn't God know that His plan of sending His Son to establish a Kingdom of Peace would be defeated by Satan and the human beings that Satan won to his false gospel?
The popular Christian writer Dave Hunt has written:
In fact, dominion – taking dominion and setting up the kingdom of Christ – is an impossibility, even for God. The millennial reign of Christ, far from being the kingdom, is actually the final proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart, because Christ Himself can’t do it.[1]
"Impossible even for God." Wow.
The Creator's idea of creating man in His Own Image and telling man to exercise dominion over the earth, converting the earth to God's Temple, building the City of God, was a mistake. Progress is not possible. Only regress. Earth is a failure. Jesus' prayer ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven") is just tilting at Satanic windmills. As Hal Lindsey put it, "Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth." And always will be. Poor God.
In contrast to a "futurism" (which really has no future), is a radical preterism. It looks like this:
Many futurists -- even those who acknowledge that there may not be any verses of Scripture which were intended to predict an event thousands or millions of years after the closing of the canon -- believe there must be a radical, discontinuous event in our future in order to reverse the curse that was brought about by the First Adam. But this is not a claim made by the Bible itself. There's no Biblical reason why universal sanctification cannot reverse the curse.
Childbirth is an interesting case in point. When God announces that Satan's temptation has resulted in pain for women in bearing children, it is clear that this is a change from the way things originally would have been: joyful, pain-free childbirth. Futurists believe that "in the resurrection" (Matthew 22:30) there is no marriage, no sex, no childbirth. (While futurists do not take literally Paul's claim that "there is neither male nor female" [Galatians 3:28], they generally take Jesus literally on this point.) That means that during all of human history, Satan triumphs over God's original plan of joyful pain-free childbirth. Women will never experience God's original vision, not in history, nor even in eternity. Never. Satan wins.
So here's the question:
Which perspective gives more glory to God:
Focus text:
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
The Bible says four rivers flowed out of (downhill from) Eden, indicating that Eden was on a "mountain" or elevated plateau. Ever since then, and throughout the Bible, the mountain has been a reminder of Eden.
Was there actually a Garden of Eden in history? Are the first few chapters of Genesis a chronicle of history, or a "religious" poem of some kind? How would Jesus answer that question?
If you can believe that Jesus rose from the dead, in violation of "scientific law," why can't you believe God created all things a few thousand years ago?
Politicians who feel threatened by the Bible, seeing it as an "anarchist manifesto" want you to believe the Bible is "pre-scientific" and cannot be trusted. Karl Marx said his "scientific socialism" was grounded in history. Jesus grounded His teachings in the history in Genesis. Marxists and Christians have very different views of history.
One of the biggest tests of Biblical character is the ability to stand against "the science" of evolution. "Listen to the science" we are constantly told. Is your faith informed and able to stand against the crowd?
Evolutionism is not science; it is a religion; it is the religion of archism. It is one example of a "Mass Formation Psychosis." ("Archism" is the belief that members of a ruling class have the right to impose their will on others by force or threats of violence. Jesus said His followers are not to be archists "like the kings of the gentiles" (Mark 10:42-45).
The New Jerusalem is a New Creation.
Micah 4:1-2 says Jerusalem (Mt. Zion, the mountain of the House [temple] of the Lord) will be "established." This is actually the creation of a New Jerusalem. This is the restoration of the conditions that originally existed in the Garden of Eden.
Evolutionary premillennialism sees a vast past and no future. It's all going to end in our day.
Creationist preterism sees creation in a recent past, re-creation in Christ "the Last Adam," and a vast future building of the Kingdom of God (the New Jerusalem) ahead of us.
Planet earth is a miracle, not an accident. Supernatural design, supernatural creation, supernatural administration. There is no such thing as "nature."
Creating/Building the New Jerusalem will be a supernatural act, but we (you, I, and all God's Image-Bearers) still have moral obligations to expend energy on behalf of this work of edification. We cannot be passive. But in the end, Christ gets all the credit and glory.
Focus text:
"Peoples will stream; nations will come"
And the peoples will stream to it.We have often heard that all religions are equal; we're all headed up to the top of the same mountain, just climbing along different paths. But in the last few decades, it has become obvious that one religion is not like the others, and one religion is superior to the others. Our attention has been caught by the religion of Jihadism. This religion is not going up the same mountain as those who say all religions are equal. The religion of Jihadism wants to blow-up the entire mountain with everyone on it; even if this kills the suicide bombers. They don't believe in converting others to their religion by persuasion/reason, but by force.
The World must be Christianized. | "All nations, all peoples"
Optimillennialism is optimism about the future progress of the Kingdom of God on earth. It defies entropy, and is not evolutionary. Therefore Optimillennialism depends on Creationism.
Focus Text: "Law of God"
That He may teach us about His waysThe word "Theonomy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God's Law."
It stands for the proposition that the entire Bible is the Word of God and we are to be governed by it.
This is controversial because many Christians do not believe they have to obey laws in the Old Testament,
and they do not believe they are obligated to obey God's commands during the work-week, but only on Sunday mornings or in their "spiritual life."
When Americans learned the Bible in public schools (and public schools were Bible schools), America was the most prosperous, most admired nation on earth. Now U.S. exports weapons and pornography.
• The God who gave you life deserves your respect
• Every Word this God speaks deserves your attention/obedience
• Bible is not just for "private" religion, "down in your heart"
• Also for public policy
• Textbook for every area
Being "judgmental" vs. Hitler
"Those who will not be governed by God condemn themselves to be governed by tyrants" -- William Penn
Micah says the law of God must be taught, and people will stream to learn God's Law. Therefore Theonomy leads to Education (#10 below).
When we obey God's Law, God Governs us
Theocracy = God Governs
Theonomy leads to Theocracy
Our moral obligation to obey God's Commandment counters those who complain that our advocacy of predestination leaves man without "free will." You are morally obligated to choose to obey God's Law. I don't know whether you have been predestined to be obedient or not. But you know what you must do, and you will eventually admit that you chose to do what you wanted to do. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that our Sovereign God is perfectly fair (Philippians 2:10; Romans 14:11).
Focus text: "He shall judge"
And He will judge between many peoples
And rebuke mighty, distant nations.
"Theonomy" = "Theocracy"
He
will teach us of His
ways,
and
we will walk in His
paths:
3 And
He
shall judge among many people,
and
rebuke strong nations afar off;
The Law-Giver is our Judge and King (Isaiah 33:22). If you don't believe in Theonomy, then you don't believe Jesus is a Christ-King. He's just a homeless story-teller. He has nothing to say to Pharaoh, Caesar, Hitler, Stalin, Trump, or Biden. Jesus cannot command them to repent if there is no Theonomy.
Micah is prophesying a global Theocracy.
The word "Theocracy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God Governs."
God "governs" us when we obey His commandments.
America was originally a Theocracy.
James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution," is reported to have said,
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
America was originally a Christocracy.
Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence and served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison -- each of whom came from a different political party. And of what party was Rush?
I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power . . . will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone Who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him. [An Eulogium Upon Benjamin Rush, M.D. - Google Books ]
Only our Redeemer should be our Ruler.
America was originally a Trinitarian Christocracy.
On March 6, 1799, President John Adams proclaimed a national day of prayer in which Americans would
Everyone lives in a theocracy. Either the God of the Bible governs us, or some other god, or everyone gets to be his own god.
John Adams invited us to think about a world where human law-makers are put out of business, and God's Theonomy replaces man's law-books and creates God's Theocracy. R. J. Rushdoony wrote the following:
This is what John Adams, later second President of the U.S., wrote in his diary on February 22, 1756:
Like others of his day, Adams was a theonomist! |
In principle, Adams is advocating "Theocracy." Adams is saying we should be governed by God and His Law Book, the Bible.
In principle, John Adams is advocating "anarchy."
No, he wasn't advocating "anarchy" directly. Adams' purpose was just to praise the Bible.
But nobody in government today would ever say what Adams said: We should take the Bible for our only law book.
That's too "radical." It's "homophobic." Or something. Only a "domestic terrorist" would say something like this.
Focus text: "swords into plowshares"
Then they will hammer theirI was born in the year of "Sputnik," the Russian satellite that inaugurated "the Space Race" which was a part of "the Cold War." I wasn't yet in high school when the Vietnam War raged, and when the nation was divided by anti-war protesters. I was raised to believe that socialism was evil and capitalism was good. I believed that the anti-war
protesters were a bunch of anti-American commies. (They may well have been incited by Communists and used by Communists as tools or pawns in Moscow's attempt to bring down the American/capitalist system. But they were on the right side of an immoral war.*)
During my lifetime, "my" government has killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS OF MILLIONS of innocent, non-combatant, non-white civilians. The United States drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12
minutes, on average. Barack Obama, who won the Nobel Prize for Peace, maintained U.S. military bases in nearly 100 nations around the world.
It was only when I became a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian that I began to question all this.
The message of this sermon is that a person is not a real Christian if that person is not a pacifist. You may not agree with the conclusion, but following the argument will stimulate thought. You will be glad you gave the argument some attention.
Most people would agree that a person who says we should hammer our "swords into plowshares" and "never again train for war" (Micah 4:3) is a "pacifist." Is this a "fringe" belief or is it central to the Christian faith?
Consider James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
|
If it's wrong to fail to "visit" or "watch over" widows, it is certainly wrong to create widows by killing their husbands.
The United States is the greatest Widow-Maker on earth. This makes the United States the enemy of pure religion.
But I had been raised to believe that all good Christians were to "support the troops."
In the last section of Matthew 25, Jesus says the way you treat widows and orphans and the sick and homeless and illegal aliens and those in prison is a measure of how Christian you are. People who traumatize widows and orphans and cause them to cry themselves to sleep at night are probably "goats," not "sheep."
Take an American child who has not yet entered government-run schooling and show the American child a photo of a child in Yemen or Iraq who has had her arms blown off by a U.S. bomb. That American child will know that something is wrong. Show that same photo to that same child after the child has graduated from Harvard University and has a prestigious job in the U.S. State Department. Watch the five-dollar words start flying: "Collateral Damage." "Realpolitik." "U.S. Partners and Allies." "National Security Interests."
Some might say that we are not commanded to take care of women and children if their husbands and fathers are our "enemies." That is, if those poor men have been conscripted at gunpoint by a tyrannical dictatorship and forced to fight against "U.S. armed forces" invading their homeland. After all, they are our "enemies." "Kill the commies." "Support our troops."
But Jesus commands His followers to love their enemies.
| “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,” Matthew 5:43-44 |
Jesus sacrificed Himself to save His enemies.
| Christ died for the ungodly God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. Romans 5:6,8,10 |
The heartfelt desire of every true Christian is the
Regeneration,
Repentance,
Restitution,
Reconciliation, and
Redemption
of "the enemy."
Not the destruction of the enemy.
In short: "Love your enemy." (Matthew 5:43)
"Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13).
You cannot love your enemy after you kill him.
It is better to be killed than to kill. Jesus chose to be killed rather than to kill.
1 Peter 2:21 commands us to follow "in His steps" at precisely the point where physical violence is unrighteously threatened against us. Whether by a home invader or a nation invader.
All of this is obvious to a child, but we adults don't buy this nonsense.
The word "pacifism" comes from the Latin word for "peace." It does not come from the English word "passive." Supporters of the Vine & Fig Tree worldview are active in beating swords into plowshares.
The dictionaries usually give two definitions for "pacifist." First, an opponent of war. Second, an opponent of self-defense. That second definition is inaccurate. I know of no pacifist who would say that if you have a shield and someone comes after you with a sword, you cannot defend yourself against aggression with your shield.
The real issue is lethal "self-defense." If your sword-bearing attacker gets tired of whacking his sword against your shield, and lies down to take a nap, the pacifist would say you should defend yourself against further attacks by running away, not by cracking your attacker's skull open with your shield.
Our definition of "pacifist" is "one who keeps the commandments of Christ."
Here's what "swords into plowshares" pacifism means:
Jesus said ("Thou shalt not kill." Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13). John Calvin recognized that
"The sum of this Commandment is, that we should not unjustly do violence to any one. Under the word 'kill' is included by synecdoche all violence, smiting, and aggression."[1]
Jesus also said "Thou shalt not steal," (Matthew 19:18; Exodus 20:13-16; Deuteronomy 5:17-20), meaning, Thou shalt not confiscate someone else's property.
So can we all agree that basic Christian morality includes this:
But Jesus goes further.
He says we are not to hurt our enemy. Even if our enemy hurts us first.
We are not allowed to confiscate the stuff belonging to our enemy, even if he's our enemy because he did not join us in voting for the winning candidate. Consider these commands:
So how does the world get to the “Vine & Fig Tree” world? According to the Bible, just follow basic Christian morality:
Then if someone else decides to hurt you or take your stuff.
That means that if someone hurts you or takes your stuff, and you seek reconciliation, but you're rebuffed, then you cannot hire a Mafia "hit-man" to take vengeance against your unrepentant enemy.
Most Christians will agree with that.
But here's the kicker:
If someone hurts you or takes your stuff, and you seek reconciliation, but you're rebuffed, then you cannot "vote" for a "representative" to tax your neighbor and build a "military-industrial complex" to take vengeance against your unrepentant enemy. You will vote such politicians out of office. If you vote all non-pacifists out of office, you will no longer have a "government."
That claim causes many people to do a double-take. Your Sunday School teacher never put it quite like that.
All pacifists are anarchists.
Myth:
Fact:
Peace through Peace, not through "Strength." | "Swords into Plowshares"
Pacifism leads to Anarcho-Theocracy
Peace is possiblePeace is the opposite of Violence. The State is a monopoly of violence. Therefore pacifism produces anarchism or archistlessness.
Micah 4:3
And He will judge between many peoples
And rebuke mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their
swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation
And never again will they train for war.
The word "anarchist" comes from two Greek words meaning "not an archist."
Q.: What is an archist?
A.: A bad person. A person who lacks Godly character. Seeks to be god, impose vengeance, regulation by threats of violence.
Let's examine the word "anarchism," which is even more offensive to most Christians than "preterism."
Even more offensive to modern Christians than the belief that Jesus IS the Christ (today) (and we shouldn't be waiting around for a second advent of Jesus) is the claim that Jesus is THE Christ today; that in our day there is no other legitimate Christ, no other legitimate king.
Nobody believes in "kings" anymore. So let's update our language.
As we will see below, Isaiah 33:22 confirms this:
For the Lord is our Judge,
The Lord is our Lawgiver,
The Lord is our King;
He will save us
As we will see below, it was a mistake for Israel to want an earthly king to replace God (1 Samuel 8).
And as we will see below, Jesus prohibits His followers from aspiring to rule over others. Jesus said a Christian must not be an "archist."
An "archist" is a "ruler." We here at Vine & Fig Tree invented the word "archist," deriving it from a Greek word found in Mark 10:42-45, from which the English word "anarchist" is derived.
In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10 (see more below), Jesus discovers His disciples arguing about who is going to be the "greatest" in the Kingdom of God. Their concept of the Messiah was someone who would use force and violence to vanquish the Roman occupation army that held Israel under tribute. They looked forward to the coming of a Messiah who would enlist them into a Messianic Israeli Army which would "stick it to" the Romans. But just as Micah said we should beat "swords into plowshares," Jesus said His disciples should "love your enemies," and if their soldiers conscript you to carry their provisions for one mile, you should go with the occupation forces two. (This form of pacifism completely refutes the legitimacy of "national defense.") The disciples didn't understand that Jesus' Messianic Kingdom was quite unlike the kingdoms of the world.
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. {43} Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. {44} And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. {45} "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." |
The word translated "rulers" comes from the Greek word from which we derive our English word "anarchist" ("a + archist" -- the first "a" is the Greek letter "alpha," known as the "alpha privative," meaning "not" -- a[n]archist -- the letter "n" bridges the "alpha privative" and the word "archist").
"Lords," "rulers" and "great ones" are "archists."
An "archist" believes he has the right to impose his will on other people by force. He need not rely solely on persuasion. He need not give others anything of value in exchange for what he wants from others. He can threaten violence, and carry out those threats if he doesn't get what he wants. It would be sinful for others to engage in such violent extortion or vengeance, but the "archist" claims a "legal" and moral right to do what others must not do.
Jesus clearly says His followers are not to be "archists." They are to be "servants."
A Christian society is an archist-free society.
We have been brainwashed in "public" schools (run by archists) to believe that an "anarchist" is:
Anyone can be called an "anarchist" by someone who wants to vilify an opponent, but most of those who call themselves "anarchist" have reached their position by their opposition to violence. I am a pacifist, therefore I am opposed to any institution of systematic violence and coercion (e.g., "the Mafia," "the State," etc.).
By etymological definition, the opposite of an "anarchist" is an "archist." By being trained to believe that "anarchists" are bad, we've been subtly inculcated with the belief that those who protect us against "anarchists" (logically, "archists") are good.
But the Bible says archists are bad, and explicitly prohibits us from being archists.
Jesus says His followers are not to be archists. Connect the dots.
www.HowToBecomeAChristianAnarchist.com
Mark 10:42-45 (and other passages we're going to be considering in a moment) teaches that
This isn't just a "fringe" idea. In fact, "Anarcho-Preterists" go much further. They claim:
From cover to cover, the Bible is an "Anarchist Manifesto" and urges mankind to eradicate the institution of "civil government" or "the State." It will take approximately 90 minutes for me to lay out my arguments and for you to follow them Biblically in a loving (1 Corinthians 13:5-7) way.
Every government on earth agrees: The Bible is an "Anarchist Manifesto."
Theocracy is the necessary precondition for anarchism. The abolition of the State requires society-wide moral elevation. Not because we can only survive and thrive in the absence of the State only if there are no bad guys to threaten us, but because the people who worry in this way will never vote against violence unless they first trust God.
If you take Jesus seriously, you will not only be a "pacifist," but you'll be an "anarchist" -- that is, an advocate of no "elected representatives." No "civil government." "The Bible as our only law book."
If Jesus commands you to
why would you not obey the command to beat your swords into plowshares? Why would you not be a "pacifist?"
Jesus said, When the enemy government enslaves you for one mile, Go a second mile (Matthew 5:41). If you take this verse seriously,
it means "national defense" is a sin.
But nobody takes Jesus that seriously. That's "taking things to an extreme." Well, it's taking things to 100%. We believe in obeying Jesus with 100% of our heart, 100% of our soul, 100% of our mind, and 100% of our strength (Mark 12:30).
We believe God should be the government over every area of our life. Being pacifists, and letting God govern us, is the path to Utopia.
If you approached your next door neighbor and demanded money, and threatened to lock your neighbor in your basement with a psychopath who will repeatedly sodomize your neighbor if your neighbor doesn't give you the money you demand, your neighbor would rightly conclude that you are a criminal. "The Government" does this. "The State" is an organized crime syndicate. It claims the right to commit the acts that you and I would call "crimes." Systematically. As an institution. As a monopoly. Every political science professor in every university on planet earth will agree that the essential nature of "The State" is a Monopoly of Violence, or a monopoly of crime. No other criminals are allowed by "the State" to compete against the State in its commission of crimes. (Ironically, no criminals claim to have a right to your patriotic devotion to their immoral practices. Only "the State" demands that from you.)
The Prophet Micah says we should beat our swords into plowshares and not engage in war any more.
That is a prescription for "anarchy." That would eliminate "The State."
Virtually every political theorist in the last two thousand years has said that the central justification for "the State" is to protect citizens against invasions. Typically this means in "war." But Jesus says we are not to resist foreign invaders. We are not to make the wives of foreign invaders widows.
The median income in China is about $2,000 USD. Half the population makes more, half the population makes less. Suppose the U.S. beat our swords into plowshares and took the approximately one trillion dollars we spend on the military each year and gave it to the Chinese people, with a letter that said "It's nice living in a Christian capitalist nation. You all should try it." That would double the income of hundreds of millions of Chinese people. It comes out to about $714 for every man, woman, and small child in China. Would China bomb the U.S. if we beat our swords into plowshares and did this?
In short, you are commanded to be the slave of other nations. You can do so voluntarily, as a charitable act, out of love, or even in fair, tariff-free trade of your productivity for theirs, or God will send them to invade you and destroy you.
There was actually never any danger that Russia would bomb the United States during "the Cold War." Socialist economies are always dependent upon the vastly more productive capitalist economies. But if the U.S. was taken over by Russia or China, how would you know? What would be the most visible evidence that the machinery of the U.S. government was suddenly being administered by Chinese Communist satraps appointed by the People's Republic of China? Is there really a noticeable difference between the socialism-fascism we now live under in the U.S. "Republic" and the socialism of the "former" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the People's Republic of China? All of these "Republics" ban the Bible and the Declaration of Independence from their "public" schools. Does it really matter which atheist runs a tyrannical government, whether Caucasian (as in the U.S. and Russia) or Asian?
Eschatology
Micah's “Vine & Fig Tree” vision is a prophecy about a future in which people beat their swords into plowshares and don't learn war any more.
When does this take place?
In the last 100 years, many Christians have been deeply interested in prophecy, and themes like the "rapture," the "antichrist," "armageddon," and the "great tribulation" have been on their minds. These Christians would probably agree that swords will not be hammered into plowshares and war ended until the second coming of Christ (which
the preterist says would be His Third Coming). In the meantime, we have no moral obligation to end war. "Support the troops!" these Christians might say.
The fastest growing school of eschatology is called "preterism," from the Latin word for "past." It holds that this prophecy began to be fulfilled in the past. The "establishment" of the Messiah's reign began in "the last days" of the Old Covenant, at the first coming of Christ. Christians who are waiting to be "raptured" don't usually spend a lot of time reading the books of Micah, Isaiah, Kings, and Judges. The focus on the book of Revelation and a few other prophecies they believe speak of a yet-future coming of Christ. A whole-Bible Christian finds it easy to believe that if Micah could travel through time from his day 700 years before the birth of Christ to our day, 2000 years after Christ's first coming, Micah would be astonished, and would fall on his knees in gratitude and praise to Jesus the Messiah for bringing worldwide peace. The pages of the Old Testament are filled with violence, war, captivity, and idolatry. Today there are 8 billion people on the planet -- itself an astonishing fact -- very few of whom face the prospect of war and captivity, very few of whom worship idols of stone, most of whom engage in capitalistic commerce, and enjoy a standard of living that Micah could not have dreamed of. Historians have concluded that most human beings living in Micah's day faced unspeakable violence, and a third or more died violent deaths or died from the effects of violence. Today, most human beings die peacefully, of old age. This would have been unimaginable to Micah, Isaiah, David, or Moses. The world of the Old Testament was uncivilized, and the Egyptians with their pyramids, and the Greeks with their Olympics, are no exception. It is Jesus the Messiah who has given human beings civilization:
The mainstream secular media want us to believe that the word is filled with war and viruses. But COVID kills only a fraction of a percent of human beings, as does war. Both COVID and war are created by governments. We could end the few wars that still exist tomorrow. But too many Christians do not believe we have a moral obligation to do so. In fact, some have said that any attempt to make the world a better place will only postpone the rapture and second coming of Christ, so better not get involved in social improvement.
If we eliminated this pessimistic eschatology, then another question arises: which nation will be the first to obey the command to beat swords into plowshares? Most Americans -- and everyone at the Pentagon -- will say "not us!" We expect evil nations like Russia and China and Iran to be the first to obey God's command to end war. Only after the evil nations obey God will we Americans obediently beat our swords into plowshares.
Eschatology is critical. It has to be dealt with.
No university or Bible college covers eschatology from a "preterist" perspective.
End digression.
Two simple questions:
Simple, but profound. And Vine & Fig Tree University is the only university on planet earth that requires students to research and formulate answers to these questions.
It goes without saying that you never heard the anarcho-pacifist “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview in Sunday School or church. No organized church or denomination agrees with John Adams the Theonomist and Micah the anarcho-pacifist.
As we explain elsewhere, Vine & Fig Tree University stands squarely on this proposition:
Very few church-going Christians agree with that. We explain how this is true on this website:
Most theologians would agree that the "Jesus" of today's televangelists (e.g., Joel Osteen) is not the same Jesus as that of the Protestant Reformers (e.g., John Calvin) or the Calvinist Founders of Harvard University. Perhaps Joel Osteen is just creating a "Jesus" in his own image. Maybe Calvin did too. Maybe I am too. But I'm willing to put my cards on the table so you can see what I'm holding. Maybe this will change your impression of Jesus.
"Swords into plowshares" logically implies the abolition of all "government." Every professor of political science in every university on planet earth -- even so-called "Christian" universities or "Bible colleges" -- will denounce or scoff at the idea of taking Jesus seriously in the political realm. They will warn us that taking the Bible seriously, following Jesus consistently, will lead to "anarchy."
Focus text: "His Vine"
And each of them will sit under hisThis verse assumes "family values" taught elsewhere in the Bible in more detail.
The monogamous heterosexual family is the root of civilization. "Patriarchy" is a hated word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Pierre Joseph Proudhon: Patriarchy and Agrarian Jurisprudence
The modern concept of "separation of church and state" -- which really means the "separation of God and the Public Square" -- denies the concept of Biblical Theocracy. This website not only denies "the separation of church and state," but promotes "the abolition of church and state."
The Bible uses “Vine & Fig Tree” imagery to describe a time when we beat our "swords into plowshares" and everyone dwells peacefully under his own “Vine & Fig Tree.” The New Testament describes Christians as "sons of Abraham" the Patriarch. Abraham and Sarah were not under the rule of any State or Empire. The desire to have a creaturely king is a rejection of God the Creator as King (1 Samuel 8; Romans 1:25). The real meaning of Easter is that Jesus is now -- in 2024 -- the only legitimate King. Every king on planet earth should immediately abdicate and get a real job in "the Private Sector." This is one reason why every government in the last 2000 years has eventually banned the Bible. Even the United States, where The Supreme Court has ruled that public school teachers cannot tell students that Jesus the King says "Thou shalt not steal" (Matthew 19:18; Exodus 20:13-16; Deuteronomy 5:17-20). Creaturely kings are "false gods" in the Bible, and they correctly view the Bible as a threat to their idolatrous reign: to them, The Bible is an "Anarchist Manifesto." According to the Bible, creaturely government is "The Most Dangerous Idolatry." It will take me a while to convince you that the Real Meaning of Easter is “Vine & Fig Tree.” I'll have to persuade you to read a lot of Bible verses through new eyes.
Abraham and Sarah did not "go to church." Their priest was Melchizedek, as in ours.
Family = "undemocratic" says progressives
When families are functional, the State is unnecessary;John Adams: importance of mothers
The Family is God's central unit of society. The family is commanded to teach God's Law. Therefore next installment: Education
Supplemental texts:
Deuteronomy 4:9f.; 6:7f., 20f.; 11:18-21, etc.
Family teaches the Law
http://bit.ly/teach-your-children
Education must be Theonomic/Theocratic: the central command is to teach God's Law
Law-teaching the nations through hospitality and open borders.
Micah 4:2
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Different from evangelism - Converting the existing generation vs. teaching the next generation
"Education" includes "character" by way of "apologetics" and service.
Lifelong learners / lifelong teachers
"Character" is the ability to stand against the crowd, in faith, in obedience to God.
Though all the peoples walk• What you do when nobody is watching
• What you do when everybody is watching (and mocking)
Micah highlights the importance of teaching God's Law.
Ethics is more important than genius.
An ethical society with average IQ has a higher standard of living than a pervasively unethical society with many Einsteins and "geniuses." Egg-heads can spend their time slicing and dicing arcane questions in science and philosophy -- which may be "true" in some sense -- but miss "the weightier matters" of God's Law -- Justice, Mercy, and Faith
(Matthew 23:23).
True education enables a Christian to stand against unbelief.
The ability to stand against the crowd, in faith, in obedience to God.
Ethics is more important to civilization than intelligence.
Character and pacifism - forgiveness, nurture vs. rule
Character and Kingdom-building/optimillennialism | leadership
Focus Text: Vine and under his fig tree,
And each of them will sit under hisThe story of the Bible is "paradise lost" and Paradise Restored.
The blessings God promises in Deuteronomy 28 are (on the surface) primarily agricultural.
Would you be willing to live for hundreds of years in the Garden of Eden with a community of sanctified people . . . but no cell phone?
Agrarianism vs. technology
"Salvation" in the Bible means the restoration of the conditions of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1-2)
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy: Industrialism vs. Decentralism -- The Role of the State
Agrarian Man vs. Industrialist Man: Political vs. Economic Man
Pierre Joseph Proudhon: Agrarian Jurisprudence
Compare first three chapters in Genesis with last three chapters in Revelation: Edenic imagery - Garden of Eden / City of GodWilderness vs. Garden: Garden = Order
Living off land depends on owning the land. Therefore Agrarianism is related to Property.
Focus text:
Micah 4:4
The Bible holds out the ideal of property free from princes and pirates.
"Dwell safely" -- "none to make them afraid"
The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal" stuff that pertains to another. This means someone possesses something and should not be dispossessed. The world "Property" comes from the Latin proprietas, from proprius ‘one's own, particular.’ Related to the word "proper." Someone representing himself in court comes before the court "In Pro Per" or In Propria Persona. Your person is your basic property. If you turn a wilderness into a garden, the garden is your property. It was wrong for Jezebel and Ahab to steal Naboth's vine and fig tree. Naboth said to Ahab, “The Lord forbid that I should give the inheritance of my patriarchs to you!” (1 Kings 21:3)
But the Bible is also communitarian (or some English word that substitutes for κοινωνία, koinōnía).
If you turn wilderness into a garden, you "own" the garden.
But if a garden is held communally, the pirate is not permitted to say that it is not anyone's property because it is not held as an individual under Lockean homesteading theory.
Some opponents of archism are also opponents of private property. The French anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon famously said, "Property is theft." But what he meant was what Isaiah likely intended: "Woe to you who add more houses to your houses and more fields to your fields. Finally there is no room left for other people. Then you are left alone in the land" (Isaiah 5:8). Some people hire archists to prevent farmers from living off the land. Accumulation without use and productivity is not the ideal. But one individual accumulating more property than others and producing more than others and becoming richer than others need not be discouraged. See Abraham, Genesis 13:2. God's creation consists of unlimited wealth.
How some Christians practice "communism": Bruderhof – Community of Goods
Focus text: the ones God has afflicted
In that day, saith the LORD,I was raised to believe that "capitalism" was better than "socialism." Unquestionably, freedom is better for humanity than centralized control and planning. State "Socialism" has resulted in poverty and mass death wherever it has been tried: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
But in 2024, young people who are unaware of the history of State Socialism in the 20th century have been victims of "Mass Formation Psychosis" and pay lip service to "socialism" and criticize "capitalism." What they criticize under the name "capitalism" is not freedom from archists. It is not 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism with 0% socialism. They are criticizing a "mixed economy."
Before the rise of monopoly capitalism in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century, critics of the State were also champions of the poor, the weak, and the oppressed. These anarchists have also called themselves "socialists." 19th-century anarchists and socialists were critical of economic policies like usury (interest of any amount secured by a legal privilege), which the Bible also criticizes. In addition to usury, anarchists and socialists like Benjamin Tucker were critical of
Too often, "anarcho-socialists" have been envious of the rich, regardless of whether the rich accumulated their wealth fairly in the service of others, or by state-assisted exploitation.
We can learn from "socialist" opponents of archism if we are also discerning.
"No man is an island." Community: Serving the weak rather than the powerful | The "driven out" and "afflicted"
God "afflicts" and "drives out" using "archists."
God restores using servants.
The world's poor are best served by a division of labor under a Free Market, directed by an "Invisible Hand" who "assembles," "gathers," and "makes strong" using members of the Body of Christ.
forever
Micah 4:5
As for us, we will walk
In the Name of the LORD our God
forever and ever.
and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion
from henceforth, even for ever.
| Preterism | Futurism |
| B.B. Warfield: Complete evangelization: every human will be converted/Justified Why will not complete sanctification: every justified human discipled and sanctified. |
No Future. No evangelization, no discipleship, no swords into plowshares |
| This would roll back the curse
We have not rolled back the curse because we refuse to beat swords into plowshares. We need ThePerfectClub.org |
Jesus failed at first coming and second coming in AD 70. "Third time's a charm."
Except He still fails. Satan ends the millennium. |
| The Kingdom triumphs.
But what about ME? I won't be alive in a million years after swords have been hammered into plowshares. What about ME? You can believe every individual who has not beaten swords into plowshares will be resurrected and get to participate in a peaceful world. You can believe anything you want. "It's a free country." But there is no Bible verse that supports a 3rd coming in our future.. |
Why no long-term optimism about what Christ can accomplish through the Church?
What does the Bible actually say, on its pages: process or discontinuity? |
We've made a lot of progress Christianizing the earth, but there's still a lot of work to do.
But most Christians today want the reign of Christ to end.
Too many Christians are just standing around watching the clock, waiting for their shift to end.
But there isn't a single verse in the Bible which says that the Vine & Fig Tree world (which was "established" when the Old Covenant world came to an end [AD 70]) -- will come to an end.
The New Testament Scriptures are filled with this post-Easter message: Jesus is the Christ, and the first big act of His reign will be to return ("Second Coming") and take vengeance against those who murdered Him at His First Coming. The end of the Old Covenant overlapped the beginning of the New Covenant. The end of the Mosaic Age overlapped the beginning of the "New Heavens and New Earth."
It comes as a surprise to those who engage in a "Berean" study of the Bible:
| There is not a single verse in the New Testament which was intended by its author and understood by its original audience to be prophesying an event thousands of years in the future. |
Most Christians view eternity as somewhere other than earth, on the other side of "the pearly gates." But who is admitted into those pearly gates? Do you even want to spend eternity with a God and with people who believe in:
0. Bibliolatry
|
|
Some people are honest enough to admit they would rather spend eternity in hell than with people who believe these things. Everybody gets what they want. Nobody is forced to go to hell.
If you don't like the "oppressive," "patriarchal," "pre-scientific" Bible, God will not force you to spend eternity in heaven with those who love it.
Obama and Romney spent over a BILLION dollars on their 2012 campaign. America moved not one iota closer to the peaceful ideal of Micah 4.
Better than a donation to any political candidate is a tax-deductible donation to a non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization called "Vine & Fig Tree"
Or mail your check to
This non-profit educational organization has over 3,000 webpages on the Internet, and doesn't waste a single penny of donations on political candidates or campaigns. Our offices were destroyed by a tornado in 2012. Thanks for your help.
