Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 38, No. 11 Home Page
NATO's relentless bombing raids in Yugoslavia are forcing Christians, especially in NATO countries, to ask some fundamental questions. The most basic one is this: Should Christians, especially those committed to Christian pacifism, condemn this massive bombing assault by their governments? Further, if we condemn this deluge of destruction, do we do so because we think that any military response was unwarranted in Yugoslavia, or because the NATO response is out of proportion, or because we condemn all military action, no matter what the situation may be?
A thoughtful response to these questions can be formulated best, I suggest, by asking a series of basic questions and, to the best of our ability, discerning biblical answers.
1. Does anarchy please God? Scripture is clear on this point. Anarchy does not please God. Following the first recorded murder, God put a mark on Cain (Genesis 4:15) so that not just anybody would take the law into his own hands and start meting out punishment. I see this divine action as the beginning of civil government (political structures to control evil, to administer punishment and to do good).
Throughout the Old and New Testaments the divine intent is consistently evident. God gave Moses a set of laws, He appointed judges, He assisted in the selection of kings, and He sent prophets to provide moral guidance. In the New Testament, the rejection of anarchy is equally documented, from Matthew to Revelation.
2. Can government exist without having the capacity to use violence? The answer is a categorical "No". Throughout the Bible, I can find no instance of a government functioning without the capacity for coercion. That reality is hardly surprising when we reflect on the essential traits of a government. The dictionary reminds us that to govern is to rule, control and have authority, to shape policies and to enforce laws. To put it another way, government is that agency which actually or potentially controls the outward actions of all individuals and all other agencies in society. Government thus, by definition, must have coercive power. How it should use this power is another question, but its need to possess power must be recognized. When a government ceases to possess coercive power, it quickly ceases to be the government because it can no longer maintain law and order or enforce the laws of the land.
3. Does God affirm the existence of government? The answer is a definite "Yes". Initially, in the Garden of Eden, God established direct God-rule, a theocracy. This arrangement was undermined by human misuse of free moral choice and the rejection of this arrangement. But God did not give up on His human creation. He invoked Plan B. As we have already noted, human government was established.
In the New Testament, this affirmation of government comes through loud and clear. Jesus strongly endorsed the existence of government, even ungodly and evil government, when He supported the payment of taxes to such a government (Matthew 17). The apostle Paul addresses this matter at length. In Romans 13, he instructs believers to submit to government because it has been established by God: Government "is God's servant to do you good" and "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to submit to the authorities."
In I Timothy 1, I Peter 2 and elsewhere, we are urged to pray for governments and to be thankful for governments. If governments, necessarily possessing coercive power, were displeasing to God, then the biblical writers would not have required us to be thankful for them and to pray for them.
4. Should Christians affirm governmental possession of coercive power? On the basis of our analysis thus far, and much additional evidence, my answer is a definite but qualified "Yes". Government, in order to be the government, must possess some coercive power. But that does not mean "The more power, the better" or that we must support the acquisition of all types of power. Thus, for example, for various reasons, I oppose the possession of poison gas, nerve gas, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. There are times, many times, when responsible citizens, and especially Christian citizens, must object to the acquisition of weapons, to military policies and to militarism.
In its exercise of coercive power in civilian and military spheres, government has the inherent right to take life, but that does not mean it should do so. Alternatives may be wiser. That is why I oppose the use of capital punishment and, in many instances, the use of military power.
5. Should Christians participate in the governmental use of coercive power? The discussion of this point cannot be pursued here except to say that in this realm, as in all others, the Christian participates only to the extent that Christian discipleship and servanthood permit. Some difficult decisions have to be made, preferably by congregations and denominations rather than only by individuals, about employment in the bureaucracy, the police forces and even the military (e.g., the medical corps).
6. Is it proper for Christians ever to give advice to inherently subChristian governments? The answer is "Yes". God Jehovah certainly gave such advice. He even told the ungodly King Belshazzar that he had been "weighed in the scales and found wanting" (Daniel 5). We can say the same thing to governments, partly because Christians understand government roles and responsibilities, under God, better than governments themselves do.
We quite properly give counsel here as in all of subChristian society. We counsel drunk people not to drive. If they still insist on driving, we plead with them to drive very slowly. We counsel unmarried people not to have sexual intercourse, but if they reject such wisdom, then we advise them to use condoms. Similarly, we can give counsel to governments even though, as Christians, we are preoccupied with a different and more important agenda. What we should not do, however, is indiscriminately condemn governments for acquiring and possessing coercive power. Nor should we indiscriminately condemn every use of such power.
Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 38, No. 11 Home Page