I am neither an expert policy maker, nor an expert theologian. That's my caveat going into what I think is key as a Christian struggling (yes, struggling) to apply both my sense of maintaining national security and maintaining Christ as the frame for my entire world view. Not too many would argue that a nation-state has both a right and a responsibility to maintain its national security, and therefore, providing for the safety and security of its citizenry. Even the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13 that...
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)
If Paul can write these words during the rule of Emperor Nero (granted at this point, according to Craig Keener, Nero hadn't yet begun his persecution of Christians), then they certainly apply under the presidency of Geo. Bush, himself a professed follower of Christ. All of that's to say that the President (along with the Congress and the Supreme Court) has a God-given authority and responsibility to govern the country and punish the wrong-doers (in this case, Al-Quida).
Yet there is a specific problem I find with this particular course of actions. A few years ago, I was sent a political journal article via email that spoke to a growing influence of what the author referred to as the pagan pragmatism of neo-conservatives like then Asst. Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. The article spoke to how [Dept. of Defense] policies were being shaped more according to a pagan warrior ethos rather than the Judeo-Christian ethos, and in point of fact, how disconcerting this really was. In my opinion, this has always been the case in some way, shape, or form. But this author's point should be well taken, for this sort of pragmatism is "wonderfully" illustrated for us in much of the way the war in Iraq started, and our policies regarding the maintainance of this war, vis a vi the interrogation of prisoners, among other things. While I cannot claim to be one who is completely against war - I do believe in Just War theory; just not to the point of ease that many of our leaders and their supporters have used it to justify their policies - I think that upon its necessity, war's prosecution must be carefully and wisely monitered. Interestingly, I don't think it's mere coincidence that prior to Paul's words about submitting to authorities, he writes this in Romans 12...
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.(NIV)
And that is to say that the Love of God and the hatred of evil must frame not only the way we individually live out the Gospel and respond to Christ, but also, and as importantly, our understanding of what makes right policy on a national and international level. The context of the 'whos' and the 'whats' that Paul was concerned with were obviously different than the context we find ourselves in as we view today's war in Iraq and its collateral policies. However, there are truths that transcend time, space, and context. The question arises, based on Romans 12:21, have we resorted to overcoming evil with evil, rather than overcoming evil with good? I would submit that we have compromised.
I'm drawn to the last court scene from 'A Few Good Men', where Lt. Kaffee (Tom Cruise) has Col. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) on the stand, and gets him to confess to ordering the code red that led to the death of Pvt. Santiago. In that scene, Col. Jessup speaks (with pride) of a pagan warrior pragmatism that illustrates the sort of dichotomy that we find in the prosecution of this war on terror. Behold the words of Col. Jessup to Lt. Kaffee and the court...
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Lt. Kaffee demands to know the truth, and Col. Jessup responds with the now famous line, "You can't handle the truth!!!"
In many ways, I think that many American Christians are like the people Col. Jessup generalizes in his testimony. We "don't want the truth because deep down in places [we] don't talk about at parties, [we] want [people like Jessup] on that wall, [we] need [him] on that wall." In essence, we can't handle the truth regarding how much of our national security is maintained.
I'm all for national security; and I don't think that's a "pragmatic" cop-out. But opting for a dichotomy that allows us to praise God on Sundays, read the pages of scripture any day we want, and just plain ole try to be faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ on one hand, and to turn a blind eye to possible injustices carried out by our own government or military on the other is not consistent with who God has gathered us to be as His Church. In short, we have given in to the very pagan pragmatism our faith goes against. We have soiled our Christian ethic. I do not claim to have easy answers, but I do leave you with the thought that any policies, personal or national, that are derived from an ethic that is rooted in something other than God and His Word, should be nothing less than unacceptable to those who claim Jesus as Lord. Naive? Perhaps. I don't claim to be an "expert". But I do claim to be a follower of Christ, and I trust in Him to safe-guard me and my family. And my nation.
What do you think?
