This is a response to the article, "To Our Military Christians Deployed to War Zones". A previous exchange may also be read at "Friendly Exchange Concerning....

Message to Me

Keith,
I like the way you deal with controversial issues in a fair way in "Mediate on These Things." I would like to comment on the war issue, and feel free doing so with you because I'm confident that you will deal with my comments fairly and without sarcasm that sometimes characterizes brethren on both sides of this issue. I'll make two comments and then ask how to deal with a very real issue.

(1) I think that perhaps you're missing the fact that in Romans 13:1-7, Paul assumes that the Christian ("you") will not be a part of the avenging power, "it." Notice the contrast all the way through between "you" and "it." "You" is never expected to become "it."

(2) I think that God in his wisdom uses evil powers in history to fulfill his purpose. He used the terror of the Assyrians and Babylonians, even their brutal torture, to punish Israel and Judah. That doesn't mean that he wanted godly people of the O.T. to join the Assyrian or Babylonian armies in their brutal torture. If he used evil powers to fulfill his purpose without wanting holy people to join them in the O.T., I think it is even easier to see how he can use less brutal (though often imperfect) regimes to fulfill many of his purposes today, without wanting his saints to join in that avenging action.

(3) Perhaps it is easier to see some spiritual problems in promoting the saints' participation in the avenging process, when we step back from considering it in regard to our own country which we love so much, and considering it in foreign countries where we work.

(a) I've preached in England and in Argentina. Should I have preached in both countries that Christians should (or could) participate in their armed forces? If so, then you could have had English Christians shooting at Argentine Christians (and vice versa) in the Falkland Islands, each believing that their country was defending their national territory. Or, wasn't I rather correct in teaching that Christians should not entangle themselves in such carnal warfare to dedicate themselves completely to the spiritual warfare? Shouldn't I teach the same thing here that I teach there?

(b) I teach brethren today in countries like Cuba and Venezuela. It is not inconceivable that those countries' armies might fight ours. Should I teach them that Romans 13:1-7 gives them permission to fight in their armed forces?

I'll meditate more on your points as I ask you to mediate on these.

My Response

I've been back from Nigeria for over a week now, so it's time for me to consider the points you made concerning the Christian serving in the military. I have tremendous respect for you and am confident we can discuss this or any biblical issue amicably. I take your points seriously and will not just casually dismiss them. I appreciate the compliment, especially since I know you are an honest, straightforward man.

(1) Yes, Paul consistently speaks of the "governing authorities" in the third person in Romans 13:1-7 in contrast with the Roman brethren whom he addresses in the second person. This is because his primary purpose is to tell the Roman brethren their proper relationship to civil government. This no more implies that brethren could not be government officials than the third person of Hebrews 13;7,17 would imply that Christians may not be the rulers in the church of the passage. In fact, Romans 16:23 states that Erastus, a brother in Corinth, was "treasurer of the city." So there most certainly were Christians in the apostolic age who served as "governing authorities" with apostolic approval.

(2) Yes, the Lord most certainly used and uses ungodly nations to accomplish His will. An excellent example is Assyria (modern Iraq!), whom the Lord called "the rod of My anger" (Isaiah 10:5). Yet Assyria was not consciously serving the Lord (Isaiah 10:7), nor did the Assyrians even believe in the Lord (Isaiah 10:12-15). But, it does not follow that the Assyrians were wicked because they accomplished the Lord's will. The Lord's use of wicked nations to accomplish His righteous ends simply demonstrates His omniscience and omnipotence. But if they were evil because they accomplished the will of God, then the will of God is evil. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25) The Lord used these nations to accomplish righteous punishment; their cruelty was of themselves (Habakkuk 1:6-7) and for their cruelty they were in turn punished (Habakkuk 2:8).

(3) Yes, you are correct in this, and we must be very careful not to equate Americanism with the gospel. Our country can be and has been in the wrong just as other nations. That is one reason I have refused to be drawn into a discussion of the war in Iraq. We must do our best to discuss biblical principles without the blinders of patriotism (or hate of a country).

(a) The same thing must be preached everywhere (1 Corinthians 4:17). Right and wrong are the same in the UK and in Argentina. The fact Christians might be involved on both sides is an emotional point rather than a legitimate objection. If killing in warfare is murder, it's just as much murder to kill an unbeliever as it is to kill a Christian. The fact the ruler "is God's minister to you for good" (Romans 13:4) proves that the legitimate use of deadly force by civil government is not murder. When a soldier goes to war, he must not leave his conscience at home. He must be sure that he is fighting to uphold justice. "For rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil." Usually, police work is more cut and dried, though not always, as when police were used in the old South to uphold "Jim Crow" laws or in Rhodesia and South Africa to enforce apartheid. Regardless, whether soldier or police officer, and in biblical times there was no distinction between the two, the one who "bears the sword" must punish only those who do evil while rewarding those who do good.

(b) The same thing I said in point "a" applies here. The key is justice. That is the purpose of civil government, the upholding of justice.

May the Lord bless your continued labors in His vineyard, my friend and brother.

With brotherly love,
Keith

Answer to My Response

Dear Keith,
Thanks so much for me to allow myself to sharpen my iron and understand better those who disagree with me about this issue. I can only think of one, maybe two detailed conversations I've had with people that disagree with me on this issue. I've grown to respect you a lot from the writings you've sent me in the past few years.

I think you're right that Christians (such as Erastus) can work for the non-sword wielding arm of the government since God gives us liberty to work in any way that wouldn't violate spiritual principles. My problem isn't working for the government per se, but rather wielding the sword for governments, when I believe other texts show that such violence is incompatible with imitation of Christ.

I made this point because Romans 13:1-7 is cited by brethren as authority to serve in the sword-wielding arm of the government. My rebuttal is that I believe they take it out of context, because in the text disciples aren't assumed to belong to that sword-wielding arm.

To use the same terminology we sometimes use with our brethren who believe in instrumental music, I'm not looking so much for prohibition in Romans 13 as I am authority. Prohibition in my mind would come from other texts. If Romans 13 doesn't authorize the Christian's participation in the sword wielding arm of the government, then I would believe that the prohibition about violence in other texts would prohibit that participation.

I think we somewhat agree here, but maybe you didn't get the parallel I was making. If God uses the armies of the nations to accomplish his purposes, does that necessarily give Christians the right to personally participate in the violence associated with that? I believe not. God used them (Babylonians, Assyrians, etc.) to punish, but would not have wanted his people, his saints to participate in their violence. I would apply the same principle to Romans 13. God uses governments to punish evildoers without wanting Christians to participate in violence that may be associated with it.

I think we agree that God's use of the evil Babylonians doesn't (of course) make him evil, but simply demonstrates that he can even use evil to accomplish good purposes in the long run. I think you could even say that he used evil Pilate to accomplish his long-term purpose. That doesn't mean that he approved of Pilate or would want a saint to have been in Pilate's position.

I'm glad we agree on this, but this puts the Christian in the military in a difficult situation. He is committed to kill if necessary for his country, but has no choice as to which wars he may be sent. He may be sent to an unjust war. (I believe that all carnal wars are not the Christian's business, but I'm accepting for the sake of argument here that some may seem just from a human perspective.) Christian soldiers are at the mercy of superior officers who often care nothing for God's principles, to determine what is just and when and how they must kill! I strongly believe that Christians should avoid putting themselves in that position.

The fact that a point may be emotional doesn't in and of itself discredit it or make it illegitimate. I believe that you are right that killing an unbeliever would be just as wrong as killing another Christian, but for some reason it doesn't seem as distasteful for some to think of killing those with odd customs. However, the thought of killing brethren is unimaginable to almost everyone. That's why I bring up the possibility.

I think it is patently absurd that Christians could be shooting at other Christians and therefore bring up the very real possibility that such could happen if Romans 13 is used to justify a Christian's participation in the military. If it justifies such in the United States, it justifies it in all of God's universal kingdom and therefore you could very easily have this inconceivable scenario. Pointing out that our emotions are associated with this line of reasoning doesn't really answer it or deal with it.

You say that a soldier shouldn't "leave his conscience at home" but that implies that he has a choice of who he will bomb or shoot and who he won't. However, military service leaves those choices in the hands of superiors, not soldiers. If he is in combat, he just shoots and bombs at nameless faces according to the orders of his superiors.

"Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil" is a general rule, with some exceptions as you point out. But again, in Romans 13 we're not talking of Christians, but sword wielding authorities. The very fact that there are exceptions to a government's not being a terror to "good works" should give the Christian pause before joining its sword wielding arm.

But the question remains, do the Cuban armies or Venezuelan armies uphold justice? Looks like there might be some skirting the issue here, so I'll ask again, should I say that it is acceptable for Cuban Christians or Venezuelan Christians to join their military service? (I won't demand a "yes" or "no" answer, but such might be helpful along with included explanations.

And thanks to you for this sharpening exchange (no pun intended).

My Second Response

I assure you the respect you have for me is reciprocated. I would love to have the opportunity for us to work together more closely, and perhaps we can do that in future years. I feel the same way you do about "iron on iron." And, believe it or not, I sympathize with your position. If we only had the Sermon on the Mount, I probably would be forced to agree with you. But I do believe other passages, especially Romans 13:1-7, amplify the Sermon on the Mount. This is parallel to what the Lord teaches about oaths in Matthew 5:33-37.

The parallel I drew with Hebrews 13:7,17 on the grammatical construction of the passage still applies.

To admit that Christians may serve in any capacity in civil government is logically to admit they may wield the sword. Civil government can no more enforce its rule without the use of armed might than a father can enforce his rule without punishing the disobedience of his children (Romans 13:4; Hebrews 12:7-10). Worldly people, who comprise over 99% of society, pay their taxes and obey traffic laws through fear of punishment (Romans 13:3). And, of course, the purpose of all law is to restrain evil people (1 Timothy 1:8-11).

For example, an executive of a liquor company might argue he does no wrong since he personally neither produces nor sells liquor. But, of course, his job depends on producing and selling liquor, so he shares in the guilt (Ephesians 5:11). All government officials depend on law enforcement personnel (both police and military) to enforce the laws they administer. If there is guilt in law enforcement, all government officials share the guilt.

Brethren who were conscientious objectors in the nineteenth century, such as David Lipscomb, saw this and opposed Christians being involved with the government in any way. I think this is a mistake. When good people refuse to be involved in government, then public service is left only to evil people.

Romans 13:1-7 is general authority for Christians to be police officers and soldiers. Police officers and soldiers upholding and defending just laws in a just manner are God's ministers for good (Romans 13:4). Anyone, including Christians, may be God's ministers for good (Matthew 20:25-28; Romans 2:7-10). Therefore, anyone, including Christians, may be police officers and soldiers upholding and defending just laws in a just manner.

I do not use God's employment of evil nations to accomplish His will as proof Christians may be soldiers. I simply contend it doesn't nullify that liberty. It was not their use as God's instruments that made them evil. And, it is not right to do evil that good may come (Romans 3:7-8). God was not responsible for any evil done by the Assyrians, Babylonians, or Pilate, but He did turn their evil to good purposes. And, of course, He also used Israel, His own people, to accomplish His purposes pertaining to punishing evil.

To a limited extent you are correct here. I urge young people who are considering the military (or law enforcement) as a career to think about this. Modern soldiers in America, European countries, and other nations that are signatories of the Geneva Convention are blessed in that their military, if they follow the treaty, are forbidden to engage in the evil conduct that too often is associated with war. This is written into the American Uniform of Military Conduct. But after all is said and done, soldiers or police officers must not leave their consciences at home. If a soldier or police officer is called upon to fight against justice or to act unjustly, he must refuse, even if it means his own imprisonment or even death.

You are correct in what you say about emotion.

I think you underestimate Christians who serve in the military. I have been encouraged to learn of Christians at Fort Drum, and about half the people who attend the Tri-County Church of Christ are connect to Fort Drum, who have expressed the unwillingness to "pull the trigger" unless they are sure the target is an enemy soldier.

One thing for sure. The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan are not Christians, in fact they hate Christians, and they are doing evil, killing randomly Iraqi and Afghani civilians - men, women and children.

If the standard for the use of lethal force is upholding justice in a just manner (Romans 13:1-7), then faithful Christians will only be one one side of the conflict.

Please don't take that to be a defense of all American military action. There are many examples of injustice by the American military and by American law enforcement personnel.

The problem with both Cuba and Venezuela is whether the government itself is upholding or undermining justice. I do not want to become involved in political issues, and though the principle is sometimes difficult to apply (as is true in all areas of serving God), the principle for the acceptable use of lethal force by police officers or soldiers remains the same - the just enforcement of just laws.

May the Lord bless your continued labors in His vineyard, my friend and brother.

With brotherly love,
Keith

Message from another brother

Hi Keith,
I corresponded with Peter Vandebuerie this week concerning the discussion you and he had about Christians and war. I felt compelled to share my thoughts with Peter on this issue mainly because it appears from his letter that he and his brethren (and perhaps many other Christians outside the US) are under the false impression that all Christians in the US take your position on Romans 13, and I wanted to assure him that this was not so. Below is my letter to him as well as his response. I thought I should send you a copy only because in it I quote some of your statements, and because he has asked for permission to post my letter on his website next to the correspondence he had with you. I'm sorry that we don't agree on this vital issue. Perhaps in the future we'll have time to sit down and study it together.
I hope your recovery from surgery is going well. You're in my prayers, as well as the prayers of the church here.
Best Regards,


Dear Mr. Vandebuerie,
I read and very much appreciated the thought you shared in Keith Sharp's latest two editions of "Meditate On These Things". It is clear that you have devoted a great deal of Bible study and meditation to the important question of the Christian's relationship to civil government. I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion from the Scriptures that the Christian must not take up arms to kill the enemy of his nation. It is because of this personal conviction that I feel compelled to write to you, especially because of one particular statement in your first response to brother Sharp's article: "This teaching of authorized killing is only taught by American brethren and by the congregations throughout the world with American evangelists. America and the American Christians have taken a position that they think they are the just tool in God's hand." I appreciate this alternate perspective, especially because I had never really considered what brethren in other countries believe and teach on this subject - although I have often considered the paradox that if a Christian is authorized to kill for his government, then Christians from two different countries may kill each other at the command of worldly nations, which totally contradicts every passage in the New Testament dealing with love, peace and unity between brethren (Isa 11:1-9; Mark 10:50; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph 4:3, etc.)! As you pointed out, if a doctrine necessarily leads to false conclusions, the doctrine itself must be false, for the word of God harmonizes perfectly with itself (Cf. Psalm 119:160, see NAS).
However, I thought it important to write to you simply to reassure you that there are many Christians, even in the United States, who believe and teach that Christians must not harm, kill or commit any other sin at the command of their governments. There are many preachers, myself included, who teach that the Christian is to “do good to all men” (Gal. 6:10), “pursue peace with all men” (Heb. 12:14), offer “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks” on behalf of all men (1 Tim. 2:1), all the while “warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). These passages concern the Christian’s behavior toward every person on earth, and certainly condemn the very idea of taking up arms to kill anyone – including the person who makes himself my enemy, and the person my government decides to call an enemy of my country. Whatever Romans 13 may imply concerning the Christian’s relation with civil government, it absolutely does not contradict these explicit and all-inclusive statements in Scripture!
Of the many unsettling statements brother Sharp makes in his response, probably the most troublesome is this: “I hope you realize that, while sending me questions that I admit are difficult, you simply are refusing to deal with the text that proves my position true - Romans 13:1-7. Rather than dealing with Scripture, you ask entrapping questions (cf. Matthew 22:15-40)” (Sharp, “Third Reply”). First of all, in your defense, the accusation made in this statement is obviously untrue – to any open-minded reader of the letters involved you clearly are “dealing with Scripture,” and in a very comprehensive way, considering the entirety of the Scriptures rather than stubbornly clutching on to a single passage. The method of posing pointed questions to test a particular doctrine was one used as often by Jesus Christ as it was the Pharisees and Sadducees (see Luke 2:46; Matt. 11:29-30, 15:3, 22:41-46, etc.)!
Brother Sharp’s statement is an old debating tactic – and an unwise one at that when it is applied to the Bible, for the simple reason that the truth of the Bible does not contradict itself: it stands or falls as a whole. If just one passage absolutely contradicts a supposed interpretation of another passage, that interpretation must be false! In this case, the burden of proof most definitely does not fall upon you to interpret every nuance and intricate detail of Romans 13, because it is clear from the rest of the New Testament that this passage cannot advocate the Christian in killing people for the sake of his carnal government. There is a poignant example of this principle of Bible interpretation in Matthew 4: here the devil quotes Scripture in trying to tempt Jesus, twisting the meaning of Psalm 91 to advocate a sinful action. Christ was ready with a response, but notice that He does not give an interpretation of Psalm 91 – the Master Teacher simply quoted another passage (Deut. 6:16) to show that the devil’s use of Psalm 91 was incorrect. No matter what Psalm 91:11-12 means, it cannot contradict the simple, explicit command of Deut. 6:16. In the exact same way, whatever Romans 13 teaches, it cannot possibly contradict the plain and overwhelming evidence in Scripture that the Christian is bound by God to love, pursue peace with, pray for, do good to, and teach the gospel to all people in all circumstances.
This controversy is not new, and even the handful of churches in New York State have been affected by it. It is so tremendously unfortunate that a matter of such carnal nature should cause schisms between brethren, either those nearby or those oceans away. Alexander Campbell has been quoted as saying: “But that a Christian can take up arms, kill his fellowman, make widows and orphans and cripples of innocent people, is in our opinion wholly unacceptable and irreconcilable with the very genius and nature of the Christian economy.” I certainly agree.
May God richly bless you as you continue to study His word and strive to do His will!

My Response

I hope you are well, and I appreciate your concern for my medical condition. I especially appreciate your prayers and those of the brethren. I am doing well. Thanks for sharing your correspondence with Brother Vandebuerie with me. I was in Nigeria when your message arrived and am just now managing to fit in some time for a reply. I hold you and your family in high esteem.

The belief that Christians may bear arms in a just cause is by no means limited to American Christians, nor would it be germane if it were.

The emotional issue of Christian fighting against Christian is completely irrelevant to the biblical issue. If killing in warfare is murder, it's just as much murder to kill an unbeliever as it is to kill a Christian. The fact the rule "is God's minister to you for good" (Romans 13:4) proves that the legitimate use of deadly force by civil government is not murder. Christians are to love their enemies as well as their brethren (Matthew 5:43-48) and are to live peaceably with all men not just with other Christians (Romans 12:18).

I do not equate America with the kingdom of God (John 18:36). Brother Vandebuerie was the one who attempted to inject international politics into this biblical discussion, and I have steadfastly refused to be drawn into this.

Immediately before the apostle taught that civil government is ordained of God, is God's minister for good, and oes not bear the sword in vain (Romans 13:1-7), he commanded,

Replay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceable with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselfs, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. Therefore, 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21).

Obviously, the inspired apostle saw no conflict between a civil officer using deadly force to promote good and the injuction against personal vengeance and living peaceably with others. It is a shame some brethren seem unable to see the crucial difference between avenging yourselves (personal vengeance) and the divinely ordained role of civil government as God's instrument for vengeance against evil doers.

Immediately after the apostle taught that civil government is ordained of God, is God's minister for good, and does not bear the sword in vain (Romans 13:1-7), he commanded, "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8). Obviously, the inspired apostle saw no conflict between bearing the sword to uphold good and loving one another.

I most certainly have not been “stubbornly clutching on to a single passage.” In my last response alone to Brother Vandeburie I employed ten passages, and neither of you have responded to my use of any of them.

Dear brother, when Satan misused Psalm 91, he offered no explanation of the passage, so the Lord had no argument to which to respond. In everyone of my articles on civil government I have offered explanations of Romans 13:1-7, and neither of you have either responded to these explanations or offered your own exegesis of the passage.

My friend, I certainly have not consciously employed “an old debate tactic,” but in refusing to deal with Romans 13:1-7 you are the one who arrays scripture against scripture.

I most certainly did not ask Brother Vandeburie “to interpret every nuance and intricate detail of Romans 13,” nor have I attempted to do so myself. But I would like someone to explain why it is a sin for a Christian to be God’s minister for good.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a matter of such carnal nature.” Is being God’s minister for good “a matter of such carnal nature” ?

I think we will all agree that what Alexander Campbell taught is irrelevant to our faith.

Dear brethren, I think both of you fail to realize the implications of your position. If it is sinful for civil rulers to use force to uphold just laws, whether against internal or external foes, then the proper state of the world is anarchy. That’s what existed before the Flood (Genesis 6:11,13), and the Lord instituted the principle “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6) after the Flood to prevent this state of anarchy from occurring again. Ever since the Flood the legal taking of the life of a perpetrator of evil for the greater good of all has been a command of God and has never been murder. Civil government is the divinely appointed institution to take the life of evil doers and to prevent anarchy (Romans 13:1-7). If you really think my position justifies making “widows and orphans and cripples of innocent people,” and it most emphatically does not, just think what it would be like to return to the violent state that existed before the Flood. The carnage of Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq are examples of what happens when civil governments fail to enforce just laws. Please do not slander divinely appointed civil servants who maintain a peaceful society by enforcing just laws by calling them murderers. Rather, pray for them that they will do their jobs well (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

The conscientious objector position shows emotional but not biblical love for the perpetrators of crime but callous unconcern for the innocent victims. It makes Christians parasites on a peaceful society, where we enjoy the benefits provided by just, civil law but refuse to help uphold those laws and even slander divinely ordained civil servants as murderers.

With Sincere Brotherly Love,
Keith

Additional Observations
Keith Sharp

Usually people object to Christians serving as soldiers or policemen for two reasons: they view all taking of human life as murder, and they believe all taking of human life violates the highest principle of ethical conduct, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8). Both objections are plausible, and I sympathize with conscientious objectors as they wrestle with this difficult moral problem. But the Scriptures demonstrate each objection to be invalid.

Not all killing of humans is murder. The Mosaic law forbad killing, i.e., murder (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), but the Lord commanded the death penalty for a number of crimes (e.g., Exodus 21:12-17), and the people of God were commanded to fight just wars (Judges 6:11-14, 34). No, America is not the kingdom of God, and God has not sent us to destroy another nation, but the just, legal taking of human life is not murder. The only difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament concerning the definition of murder is that the Lord now condemns the attitude and words that could lead to the overt act of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Murder is unjust or unlawful killing of people.

Furthermore, love does not eliminate all taking of human life. The highest standard of love and our example to follow is the love of God for all mankind (Matthew 5:43-48; 1 John 4:7-11). There is no higher standard of love than the love of God ( John 15:13; Romans 5:6-10). But God has taken human life Himself many times (e.g., Leviticus 10:1-3), not only authorizes but has commanded the taking of human life (e.g., 1 Samuel 15:1-3), and Himself ordained civil government to uphold justice with lethal weapons and declared this to be good (Romans 13:4). Yes, the law of God changed, but His essential nature is unchanging and unchangeable (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; James 1:17). If legal, just killing did not violate His nature of love under the Old Testament, it does not now.

I can understand how good, honest people have an exceedingly difficult time reconciling the just, legal taking of human life with love, but the Lord teaches both, and faith in the Lord and diligent study of His word will lead us to accept both.

I can also understand how a tender conscience against killing causes many Christians to refuse to serve in the military and law enforcement fields. I don’t want you to violate your conscience (Romans 14:23), and I don’t despise you (Romans 14:1-3). But please don’t let your conscience problem cause you to condemn those who are God’s ministers to you for good (Ibid).