One of the problems that arises out of pro-life phrases like “sanctity of human life” is that it makes human life the standard. But God’s law is the standard, not human life. We should rather speak of the sanctity of God’s law, and the resultant dignity of human life.
Neglect of this principle is why pro-lifers often walk into a trap when they are asked if they are pacifists or if they support capital punishment under any circumstances. When they reply that they are not pacifists or if they show support for capital punishment, they are then charged with inconsistency. “Pro-life, huh?”
But life can never be the standard. God’s law (revealed or natural) is the only possible standard for public righteousness. Speaking of which, I am currently reading a good book on the subject of God’s law — we live in lawless times, and this book would be a good refresher for a lot of people.
A defenseless child in the womb is always to be protected, and never assaulted. That is the case across the board. The child has done nothing that could possibly warrant a just execution, and this is true in the very nature of the case. All we need to know is that we are talking about abortion. If we are talking about abortion, then we know what side we are on.
When it comes to capital punishment, we actually need to know the additional circumstances. That is why we have things like lawyers, evidence, juries, and trials. Capital punishment is a horror when the accused is innocent. Capital punishment is the work of God when the accused is worthy of death, and has been found worthy of death in an honest trial. Capital punishment is what God’s civil deacons are required to administer in appropriate cases.
So when someone accuses a pro-lifer of inconsistency because he supports the death penalty as biblically defined, a moment’s reflection should reveal how absurd this is. “You oppose killing innocent people without a trial, and yet you support killing guilty people who have had a fair trial?” Right. What’s the problem?
War presents a similar challenge, only a thousand times more complicated than the trial of one murderer. I am responding here to some very glib comments online from libertarians who want to level abortion and killing in warfare, putting them on the same footing. But this is beyond facile, and is not serious moral reasoning at all.
If an elective abortion is performed on the other side of the country, in order to be opposed I don’t need to know the doctor’s name, I don’t need to know the mother’s name, and I don’t need to know the circumstances that led to the abortion. I am pro-life, which means that the nameless child deserves a defender. Period. This is the case because of the very nature of abortion and the abortion controversy.
But if I read about a drone strike in Yemen that took out a terrorist leader, I don’t have any idea what I should think about it. It may have been an atrocity, and it may have been the best thing we have done in that region for ten years. I don’t know, and I am really in no position to know. I cannot in good conscience accuse anyone involved of murder, because — I return to the theme — I don’t know.
I can have a general approach to foreign affairs that governs my voting, and I do — and that general approach would be on the non-interventionist side of things. So I am not saying anything here about whether war x is a just one or not. I am not saying anything about whether our presence in Yemen is in our national security interest. I dare say that it might not be, and that had I been consulted on the matter — I wasn’t — my advice might well have been to stay out. But a Christian man can still go there and fight honorably. He cannot be a “Christian” abortionist.
The just war issue divides into two categories — jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Roughly speaking, the first refers to just cause in going to war in the first place and the second concerns just conduct in the course of war. When soldiers capture a town, if they spiral out of control, looting and raping, this would be a violation of jus in bello. If they massacre a bunch of civilians because they didn’t want to transport them anywhere, this would be a war crime, and a violation of jus in bello. Every Christian military man must be ready, on a daily basis, to wreck his career, or to forfeit his life, rather than go along with atrocities.
But the question of jus ad bellum is a question for those who are actually making the decision — in our civil polity, the president and Congress. This is not a decision that requires the approval of individual sailors and soldiers — or citizens. In the nature of the case, they cannot know all the relevant factors. They can know what they would do, and should vote for people who agree with them, but they cannot know what the actual decision makers know. This does not mean that the actual decision makers cannot be evil, for they can be, but it does mean that people who don’t know anything about the details cannot talk as though they do. War is not evil in the very nature of the case, the same way abortion is.
So Christian libertarians need to be far more careful with their flattening rhetoric. In their opposition to abortion, they are well within the Christian moral tradition. But on war, they are currently well outside it. That is not the same thing as opposition to a particular war, which can be defended in all kinds of ways that could be consistent with biblical thinking. But to drag pro-life rhetoric into the Middle East does nothing more than add one more casualty to that sorry region.
I am in total agreement regarding the differences between abortion and capital punishment. I like you initial thought – sanctity of God’s law leading to dignity of all life. I’ve never thought of it in quite those terms, though the majority of the rest of the thinking are things I’ve thought before. I’ve thought a step further – what if every abortion required a trial or at least a hearing before a judge and with a doctor represented at least by medical notes if not in person. If carrying the child to term presents – beyond a reasonable doubt –… Read more »
God’s law and the dignity of life is a helpful comparison.
Though I have never been much bothered by the comparison that pro-life should be anti-capital punishment. So you are going to compare killing the innocent with killing the guilty? Really?
I have frequently also found them far more vehemently opposed to capital punishment than to abortion. Not being able to rightly order wickedness does speak against one’s ability to to make moral judgments.
I don’t think you need a law to allow an exception. If the mother is about to die you deliver the baby as it is the only chance for the mother and baby to survive. If she dies baby dies. If baby dies she may not. And if baby is 23+ weeks you may be able to save him also.
That’s where the SUM of Gods word comes in play and you buttress the statutes judgements in harmony with whole.
How you gonna get humanistic man to be governed by Gods Law, since most professing Christians are deluded enough to think it repugnant to be under them and would rather go to hell in their words rather than obey HIM whom they claim they love.
Does abortion constitute jus ad bello for armed conflict with Washington?
Did the grievances in the Declaration of Independence constitute jus ad bello for armed conflict with England?
Excellent questions. I think I would have said no to the latter if I had been around at the time (but thats just a guess – its really hard to say what you would have done in another time period). I think I would have said no to the former as well before last September. Now I’m not so sure.
I think the abortion holocaust could constitute jus ad bellum, and active disobedience to Washington D.C., but I would not want that decision being made by every hot headed Christian individual with a pitchfork. When the time comes to cross that kind of bridge, it needs to be representative and organized. I believe pastors should start thinking about where this line is, and how to represent Christ’s people using their authority and duty as shepherds.
Most don’t even teach the whole Bible nor what the New Covenant is – how could wolves in steeple clothing get it right?
“This cup which is poured out for you IS the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20 & 1 Cor. 11:25)
2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8 both teach the new covenant in present tense due to God in Christ declaration of His blood specifically new covenant blood. ( Jesus Himself is our new covenant–Isaiah 49:8, 42:6-7, 59:21)
Everything in the old needs to be read and understood in Light of the new as this is exactly how the Bible itself was written!
Not to picks Latin nits, but wouldn’t you mean jus ad bellum (as opposed to jus in bello)? Or am I jus missing something?
Sounds good to me. I have a hard enough time keeping up with English.
And another thought regarding capital punishment… It seems that you are much more likely to have that penalty if you are poor than rich and maybe if you are minority vs being white. If that is truly the case – and I dont know the statistics – then it seems like capital punishment may be an affront to true justice and a form of oppression against the poor (and maybe minorities). That seems like a reason to be against capital punishment in the here and now, in our contemporary times. I’m not against it in theory, but I am against… Read more »
If you don’t know the statistics, what leads you to this speculation?
Seems like if you are poor and have a PD, you wouldnt get as good of a lawer or defense and be more likely to get capital punishment – vs being able to afford the best legal counsel around. I’m not sure about the minority thing. That seems less likely. But the financial thing seems like it would play a role. I’ve searched for stats but havent really found anything to stand on firmly. You have to look at similar crimes in states with similar laws and the outcomes separated by what financial resources they have/how expensive legal counsel they… Read more »
The US system seems a mess. It is an argument against capital punishment practiced poorly. Better not to have this when gross injustices occur and innocent frequently are executed. But the solution is reform. God hates the punishment of the innocent. But he also does not like the criminally guilty to go free. Of course he wants them to repent and be forgiven: mercy triumphs judgment. Yet they still can receive judicial punishment for their crime.
I used to have a friend who was against capital punishment because Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. Yet I could never get turning the other cheek and locking you up for the rest of your life to mean the same thing in my mind.
If they really knew Jesus – they’d known he fully supports the death penalty – that’s true love in practice. Leviticus 20.13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I believe Wilson has said that he would put a moratorium on capital punishment for a government that legalizes abortion, demonstrating that they cannot discern the very basics of civil guilt and innocence. In other words, Wilson would say that they disqualify themselves entirely from judging capital cases until they can get the case of the unborn right.
For those who don’t think race is a factor, I’m interested to know at what moment they believe that the death penalty stopped being dependent on race? It was obviously dependent on race during the days of slavery. It was obviously dependent on race during the era of lynchings. It was obviously dependent on race during the Jim Crow era. It was obviously dependent on race even though the midst of the Civil Rights Movement itself. So while the issue might not be quite so obvious today, at which moment in history do they believe that everyone’s hearts were suddenly… Read more »
Jonathan, let me suggest when you ask “I’m interested to know at what moment they believe that the death penalty stopped being dependent on race? ” you appear to make an overblown statement. I read “dependent on race” and it implies to me that race was always all that made the difference, or even that white men are never executed and black men are never exonerated, which we know is not the case. It might not be what you intend, but that’s the way you make it sound. Wording matters, because you lose people you want to persuade when you… Read more »
I’m sorry you read it that way. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that. When we use the phrase “dependent on” in statistics, it simply means that it is factor for which a clear statistical relationship can be drawn which implies some causation – it certainly doesn’t mean that it must be 100% the only factor. Someone can say, “Your chances of making it into the NBA are heavily dependent on your height”, but that certainly doesn’t mean that no one under 6′ can make it in, or that everyone over 7′ will. I believe that it is impossible for… Read more »
Appreciated.
I would think, in the shadow of the cross, we would never again put the nails and the hammer in the hands of mortal men.
The cross and grace has been used to nullify much of God’s Word. That is a shame. I will stand with the Lord who spoke through Paul and say God put the sword in the hands of mortal men. The government is his minister who bears the sword Romans 13. Paul also agreed with capital punishment when he said if he did anything deserving of death he would submit.
jsm, I understand where you are coming from. Certainly when we see terrible and barbaric crimes committed our souls cry out for justice. And yes, Romans 13 says what you say it says. And, in a way, we have taken the hammer and the nails out of the hands of mortal men in that we have laws that prohibit cruel and unusual punishment, so we can no longer torture a man to death in a public display. And yes, we have a lengthy process in place to ensure the innocent are not unjustly sent to their deaths. I realize the… Read more »
God commanded us to implement justice, and told us what that was. Capital punishment is part of his plan.
Life is also not a right but a gift and a responsibility. Only the Creator has a right to life and everything that comes with it.
Google blog article “Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity.”
I watched on old Piers Morgan video interview of Ann Coulter, wherein Ann complained of how conservatives like you need to be cattle-prod reminded to insert the exception to all this: where there’s the disgusting result of rape or incest.
Which shows how little she cares about the Word of God.
It also shows why Christians should stop thinking conservative talking heads and scribblers are with us.
Didn’t she say a while back that she liked Trump’s immigration policy so much that she would not care if he performed abortions in the White House?
The word “disgusting” is telling.
I added “disgusting” as an attempt to clarify what I think is hidden under the exception clause.
I’m going to guess that if that word gets inserted by others, it might give Ann pause. I hope.
Sly sarcasm is just hard to catch online. Thanks for clarifying your position. Peace.
I sometimes wonder how many pro-life conservatives are actually closeted pro-aborts. Anyone who makes exceptions for rape or incest has very different foundational principles on the matter than I do.
I used to think the same way but it’s really not that simple with respect to rape. In that situation, the woman has not consented to the fetus’ use of her body, and therefore violating her rights by forcing her to carry the fetus to term, with all of the pains and health risks that entails, when her body has already been violated once, presents some ethical quandaries to say the least. I’m not saying that I’m 100% sure that it is morally OK for her to evict the fetus (which is distinct from an abortion in which violence is… Read more »
If someone dropped an infant outside your house, even though the situation was not of your making, do you believe you have an obligation to the child?
I feel an obligation to stray dogs and cats. How much more should we cherish and protect little children who are so dear to the heart of our Lord.
My problem with Ben’s argument is that I think there is only one valid reason for requiring any woman, no matter what her circumstances, to carry her pregnancy to term: that she holds within her body a human person made in the image of God. I think laws which make distinctions between innocent and not-innocent pregnant women are unintentionally suggesting that pregnancy is a punishment.
The fact that you feel an obligation to care for stray animals doesn’t make it a binding moral principle. Feelings don’t determine principles. When dealing with these very difficult questions, we need to think about the objective validity of the arguments being made, not how the arguments make us feel. Is the woman herself not also made in the image of God? Does she not also have the right not to be physically harmed? It’s no small matter to force someone against their will to allow some other person to feed off their own body, putting their own safety at… Read more »
I understand the argument. But the fact remains that the only way to relieve the rape victim of the burden of pregnancy is to kill the child. It is grievously unfair that the victim must endure a pregnancy that is a daily reminder of the rape. But I can’t think of any other situation in which we agree to kill a helpless and innocent child in order to spare the feelings of a crime victim. I am always troubled by language about pregnancy which seems to portray the unborn child as an alien invader or a malignant growth. This is… Read more »
Amen,Jillybean! There is this never ending attempt to define pregnancy as punishment and that has resulted in dire consequences for the whole world! President Obama doesn’t want women punished with a baby,,,but go to the far right of the aisle and you see the same kind of thing, all women should be punished with babies!
Blech! Call me crazy, but until we go back to the idea that a pregnancy is a great blessing, a gift, a valuable calling, things will never get any better.
I agree with you completely. There is still the idea that women who engage in irresponsible sex “deserve” to be punished with an unwanted pregnancy. The good girl who didn’t consent to sex should be let off. I think that pregnancy is a wonderful thing, but I completely understand that there are times when it is not a welcome blessing. But whether the pregnancy is wanted or not, there is no way of ending it without killing the child. Everything else is irrelevant, and leads us down dangerous paths. Contemplating exceptions leads us to think that some babies’ lives are… Read more »
The obverse of that question is, if I didn’t have an obligation to that child, does someone else have the right, nay, obligation to force me to take it in at gunpoint?
If the only alternative is for you to engage in a deliberate lethal act against that child, I would say the answer is yes.
There so often seems to be this tendency to paper over the fact that to “de-impregnate” a woman, you have to actively kill a child. There is no other way to do it. No matter how difficult the circumstances of conception, there doesn’t seem to be any way to make this a legitimate moral act.
What if, at some point in the pregnancy, it was determined that the mother’s life was in danger if she carried the fetus any longer? The question boils the issue down to who has a greater right to life, the mother or the child. I don’t believe you, me, or any of the greatest religious or secular thinkers could answer this question. What if you woke up one morning in a hospital, with your body hooked up to someone else’s in such a way that your own fluids were keeping them alive? Since you didn’t agree to this arrangement, is… Read more »
If we are expected to bear one another’s burdens, to go the second mile, to love our neighbors as ourselves, I would think it immoral to unhook myself solely on the grounds that my consent had not been sought. That does not mean I would unquestioningly spend the rest of my life hooked up to that person. But it would mean not causing a death I could otherwise prevent simply because of a violation of my “rights”. In that situation, my duty would be much more compelling than my rights. Many pro-life people will accept abortion if it is the… Read more »
OK, so if it’s your duty to stay hooked up to that person, then why do you say that you wouldn’t stay hooked up to him forever? How long is long enough until you’ve done your duty and your personal rights now take over? Is it a week? Nine months? Fifty years? The difference is that once the child is born, the mother has the option to unload her responsibility to sustain the child onto someone else. Her relationship with that child, once born, is now voluntary, and the fact that it was conceived by rape would make it no… Read more »
In the mother dies the baby dies. So in the case of impending maternal death the baby is delivered and kept alive if possible. And the mother is treated.
In the first paragraph, that’s a completely different question. First, you don’t deliberately kill the child, you do what’s possible to save both is possible. Second, self-defense is different from “I don’t want to do something, so you have to die.” In the second paragraph, that’s a tougher question, but even if I agreed it was okay to unhook myself, you’re talking about a person who will die without extreme measures, not one that I have to kill deliberately. Also, a normal pregnancy is not comparable to having to lie in a hospital indefinitely keeping someone alive. It’s time limited,… Read more »
And one more thing I should have mentioned: your hypothetical is not grounded in reality. God did not design reality such that there is a situation in which you could sustain the life of another person by being hooked up to them. He did design reality such that judicially innocent human beings sometimes temporarily inhabit the bodies of other human beings due to the commission of a crime against the second person, and there is no way to change that without killing an innocent person. We have to deal with the situation in terms of the way it exists, not… Read more »
If someone dropped off a baby in a basket on your front porch on a cold night, the law would certainly blame you if you knew the baby was there and you did not take it in. If the baby died from exposure, you would be facing some very serious charges. But, Ben, can you imagine anyone so callously depraved and indifferent to human life as to ignore the endangered child?
The problem is that in that situation, I could simply call the cops and they would take the baby off my hands. That’s about as far as my obligation to the child would go. It costs me practically nothing. That’s very different from the situation with the pregnant woman. Bethyada’s hypothetical isn’t really analogous.
Are we talking about law or morality now? Because if you want to set the standard by a cold-hearted person who sees no value in the gift of a child, then that might work as a standard of law, but has nothing to do with a Christian approach to ethics. And again, the fact that you have to execute the child isn’t a trivial incidental aspect of the problem, it’s the whole root of it. Abortion is not like having a baby dumped on your doorstep for *precisely* the reason that you have to kill the baby to absolve yourself… Read more »
Exactly. But the point is that you still have some obligation in this situation for the welfare of the baby even the the situation was created by another’s sin.
You can’t call the cops and leave the baby out there until they arrive, without being in trouble. You have to take measures to keep the child alive as far as it is within your power, for as long as it is necessary to keep the child alive.
Which is EXACTLY what a pregnant rape victim has to do.
Even the creepy guy in Hunchback knew that much.
I am getting at the fact that while I don’t generally think men can easy absolve themselves of duties by neglecting them and leaving them to others, in the case of people we can still have obligations even if the problem is predominantly someone else’s. God obligates men help with the care of animals, even housing them until they can be returned to the owners. I don’t think you need to adopt the child, but regardless of the neglect of another toward a child, we still have an obligation to prevent a child on our porch dying from exposure. It… Read more »
the woman has not consented to the fetus’ use of her body, and therefore violating her rights by forcing her to carry the fetus to term, with all of the pains and health risks that entails, when her body has already been violated once, presents some ethical quandaries to say the least. You are right that the woman’s rights have been violated, and that she’s going to be living with ongoing reminders of that, some of which are painful and risky. I hope that woman can find support and encouragement during this very difficult situation. But please, don’t say that… Read more »
I never said the fetus was violating the woman’s rights. I said that the rapist violated her first, and then the state (or whoever forces her at gunpoint to carry the child to term) is violating her rights a second time.
I never said the fetus was violating the woman’s rights. I said that the rapist violated her first, and then the state (or whoever forces her at gunpoint to carry the child to term) is violating her rights a second time. When you said: … the woman has not consented to the fetus’ use of her body, and therefore violating her rights by forcing her … , it seemed (at least to me) that you connected “use” with “violating” in a way that the subject doing the “using” (i.e. the fetus) was identical to the one doing the “violating”. I’m… Read more »
Ha! Forgive my gallows humor here, but actually we as people don’t really have “rights.” Every breath we take, every heart beat is on loan from God. So while rape is a terrible thing, so is cancer or getting hit by a bus. Life sometimes deals us a crappy hand.
What if the victim lives in a state where there are no abortion clinics? Does her right not to carry the rapist’s child impose a corollary duty on a physician to perform an abortion?
Of course not. It’s never morally acceptable to force someone to provide a service which they do not consent to.
So it isn’t really forcing the rape victim at gunpoint if there is simply no one willing to provide the abortion. In a society without abortion, your belief that a victim has a right not to continue a pregnancy she didn’t consent to would become irrelevant. So, for this right to be meaningful, there would still need to be abortion doctors and abortion clinics. Even the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute estimates pregnancies resulting from rape at less than one percent. As a Christian, would you want to leave the machinery of death in place to handle this one percent? When a… Read more »
Your hypothetical scenario of having no abortionists around would be the ideal scenario, as the baby would live yet no violation of the woman’s rights (apart from the initial rape of course) would take place. Refusing to provide a service is not a violation of the non-aggression principle. Using force to prevent someone from receiving an available service is. But this brings us back to the initial question of whether or not it’s possible to avoid violating the rights of any of the persons in question in a scenario where the woman has conceived through rape, and doesn’t want to… Read more »
I’ll ask you the same question I asked above: Are you in favor of killing a child for its parent’s crimes?
So you are in favor of killing children for the crimes of their parents?
It’s not necessary to know a lot of details about X war. All that needs to be determined is whether or not it is morally just. Either it is of a purely defensive nature and therefore morally just, or it is not, meaning that the soldiers are by definition hired killers.
The degree to which each soldier bears individual responsibility (and the standards to be used to gauge this) is something that ought to be discussed.
I’m having trouble understanding how the conquest of Canaan or Saul’s extermination of the Amalekites could be considered “purely defensive”. Or, indeed, defensive at all; the Amalekites do not seem to have been a very serious threat militarily. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Using that defense, there would be nothing morally questionable about slaughtering every last woman and child in a war as the Israelites did in certain places. Surely you acknowledge the difference between that situation and ours?
Thank you for acknowledging that, in fact, it’s not sufficient merely to know whether a war is defensive or not: that there are other factors. One of these other factors is, of course, whether God specifically commands it, but the reasons He gave are also instructive. Canaan was a war of conquest and extermination, to give Israel a land and to wipe out abominably sinful cultures. It is not beyond reason to imagine other cases where similar principles could be cautiously applied. As far as wiping out every last woman and child… I’ve heard it said that that was a… Read more »
When I say that a war should be only of a purely defensive nature, I’m taking for granted that theocratic ancient Israel is an exception, seeing as how they were being directly commanded by God. I assume that everyone else takes that for granted as well, but apparently that’s not the case. So no, I don’t acknowledge that there are other factors to consider for non-theocratic societies such as ours. And even if hypothetically there could be, the ruling classes in our current statist paradigm are by virtue of their very positions of power not morally capable of carrying the… Read more »
In that case, it would seem more consistent to simply state that you don’t think *any* war decided on by the current system of government is legitimate. If a government is fundamentally incapable of deciding when it should use the sword, it’s fundamentally incapable of doing any of its basic duties. Regarding theocracy: David was a king, not a judge. Israel was already well beyond theocracy at that point. But more to the point, God’s specific commands do not somehow stand all apart from His more general rules and guidelines. Paul says in I Cor 10 that we are given… Read more »
So then where would you draw the line between a morally just and unjust war? When is it OK for a state to engage in war against a nation or group which does not pose a threat to the safety of its subjects?
I’ve provided what I think is a clear, reasonable, easy-to-understand principle. I ask that you reciprocate.
Refusing to go to war against a nation or group which does not pose a threat to the safety of its subjects is not the same as a purely defensive war in which you wait to attack until you are attacked first. Arguably, the ‘war on terror’ we have been a part of could be construed as both of these, though I am not a fan of much of the strategy embarked upon in it.
I never said a purely defensive war was one in which you had to be physically attacked first. If someone calls you and says they’re coming to your house to kill you in two hours, it would be, in my estimation, perfectly in line with the just war theory to go after that person before they came after you. There’s nothing about that that could be construed as you taking offensive, aggressive action against an innocent person.
If you’re asking me for a formula as simple as yours is, well, my original point was that it wasn’t that simple. But even your formulation is not as clear as it could be; it’s been phrased in several different ways with different meanings. “Purely defensive” sounds as though enemy troops have to be pouring across the border before the army is called up, but you’ve clarified that that’s not it. And the difference between “defensive” and “[potential] threat to citizens’ safety” is enormous. The latter can and has been used to justify probably every war the US has ever… Read more »
Perhaps we could tweak it this way: war is only moral if it is defensive, or if there is a command from God in an audible voice to prosecute it.
Possibly. I don’t think we have any specific knowledge of whether God was speaking audibly or not, though, and in general it’s dubious to rely solely on extraordinary revelation; God’s principles aren’t so mysterious that it’s impossible to have any idea what exceptions to defensive warfare are reasonable.
Jane, what about the morality of wars that come about as a result of treaty obligations? And what about something like World War II where you could argue that England could not wait to be invaded before declaring war on Hitler?
Doug, I am broadly in agreement with you, except for your final paragraph. To anyone who questioned my pro-life views upon hearing my pro-capital punishment views, I would simply argue that capital punishment is a necessary means of upholding a pro-life principle any way. The same goes for a just war. In a sinful world, both pacifism and failure to execute murderers are intrinsically anti-life positions since they fail to protect and defend innocent life. The problem, however, is that too many “pro-life” politicians, in the U.S. especially, have no concept of just war, no understanding of regional circumstances, and… Read more »
On Christian Libertarianism and the mentioned book/author: http://truthstudies.blogspot.com/2016/03/warning-to-biblical-conservatives.html
On another thread, the justification for the death penalty or abolishing it has come up. I will leave it to those who think that it should be abolished to defend this scripturally. My take on why it stands for murder at least. The principle behind the death penalty is in God’s command as Doug says, though this command is because of how he made men, in his image. Thus no man has any right to defile God’s image (Gen 9). An exception seems to be in the context of men who have defiled God’s image in others (and thus defiled… Read more »
Taking Genesis 9:4-6 as a literal command to Christians is odd, for God himself does not take it as such even in the Old Testament context (see the response to the shedding of blood by Cain, Moses, Phineas, David, and on and on). God ensures that no one kill Cain, calls Moses to serve without ever mentioning his murder, decrees that David shall not die for his crime, saves Paul from his life of sin without requiring his blood. If even prior to Christ’s death God can show mercy and forgiveness for such sin and build His nation on such… Read more »
War is not evil in the very nature of the case, the same way abortion is. I get what you’re saying, but I think it should also be said that while war is sometimes necessary, and while, in certain circumstances it would be sinful NOT to go to war, war itself is bad. It’s a consequence of the curse and of our sinful natures, and one day we will indeed, as the old song says, study it no more. Even the most righteous wars that God’s people carried out were, by definition bloody and sickening and gruesome. God does not… Read more »
Pro-life has uses as a label, but pro-justice might be more comprehensive. Innocent babies live, guilty murderers die, guilty armies get fought in a necessarily messy way.
I think a good principle is to always assume that, with regards to war, the Powers That Be are guilty until proven innocent, in other words, that their cause for fighting a war is unjust until they can provide very hard evidence to the contrary. I think this is important simply based on how much they have lied in the past and how much they have to gain by perpetual war. And even in the unlikely event that they can provide this evidence, the populace (led of course by Christians) should be constantly pressuring them to find some other way… Read more »
“And even in the unlikely event that they can provide this evidence, the populace (led of course by Christians) should be constantly pressuring them to find some other way to avoid the incalculable cost of war, and if all other options are exhausted, to chastise them and make them pay dearly from a political standpoint for their failure as politicians to do their job.”
Meaning you consider the powers that be guilty even when proven innocent.
You’re right, that statement might have been a little overkill. Guilty of ineptitude, I might clarify, but not necessarily corruption.
This blog doesn’t mention anything about collateral damage. Is it Christian to drop an atom bomb on Japan knowing full well hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, children, and babies are going to get fried? Drone strikes have killed plenty of innocent people as well, which this blog doesn’t mention. No, I do not believe Christians are supposed to be pacifists, but we no longer fight our wars with swords or muskets.
A lot more innocent women and children would have died in an invasion. Would you prefer the, to have died like the six million Germans especially women and children from starvation from winter 45 spring 46 through neglect?
Is there a place in the Bible where it says murder of innocent life is justified if you think it will prevent future deaths? And no, I wouldn’t want to have died like the six million Germans you mentioned any more than I would have liked to have died in Stalin’s Gulag. How many bombs should we have dropped on the Soviet Union? After all, Stalin killed millions too. Why are the lives of Ukrainians less important than the lives lost because of the actions of Germany and Japan?
Japan’s entire ability to fight was completely gone – navy and air force completely destroyed. They had been making overtures for months that they would retire if just given reassurances that they could keep their emperor and that the US wouldn’t occupy them indefinitely (both terms we were willing to agree to anyway). And they DIDN’T surrender due to the atomic bombs anyway – they surrendered due to the impending invasion of Japan by Russia. The meeting at which the Japanese leadership chose to surrender was brought about immediately after the Russian declaration of war against Japan. Truman knew this… Read more »
Re your last quote, I know that Churchill in his Memoirs specifically stated that the purpose of the bomb was largely to push the Japanese surrender before the Russians got mobilized. His impression seems to have been that they were still stubbornly hanging on despite an utterly hopeless military situation, but that Russian invasion would have put paid to that at the price of allowing Russian influence just like in East Germany.
That definitely could be part of the explanation, but I don’t think it actually explains the Japanese surrender. Since when did nations start surrendering because they got bombed, or because their civilian population was hurting? The whole history of warfare suggests that mere aerial bombing or civilian losses don’t drive wartime decisions – those are decided based on control of territory (which requires ground forces) and political considerations that directly effect the governing bodies. In fact, the US army had already proven that they could launch a bombing JUST as devastating as the nukes when the fire-bombed Tokyo (an equally… Read more »
I am not saying anything about whether our presence in Yemen is in our national security interest. I dare say that it might not be, and that had I been consulted on the matter — I wasn’t — my advice might well have been to stay out. But a Christian man can still go there and fight honorably. Perhaps. But shouldn’t the moral standard that undergirds honorable fighting be something more than, “Because the president told me to”? American citizens only learned several decades later that the Tonkin Gulf attacks were fishy. But we found out right after Gulf War… Read more »
Frank, there is a huge difference between the oath of office taken by commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers or enlisted men. Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution and must make constitutional decisions. NCOs and enlisted men are sworn to uphold the Constitution, the orders of the President and the orders of the officers appointed over them. The latter part is the tough part because if you are given an order to go, you must go because it is a lawful order. So Tillman stayed in theater because of lawful orders. Watada refused on a Constitutional basis.
“Non-interventionist side of things”
Working this out myself currently. Can anyone educate me: any difference between that and isolationism?
Isolationism refers to the leaders cutting their nation off from the rest of the world, whereas non-intervention refers to not getting involved in foreign entanglements (like, for example, toppling regimes in the middle east). Non-interventionism still allows for the possibility of free trade between nations, whereas isolationism does not.
I recently heard Tim Keller use the phrase, “justice for the unborn,” rather than “pro-life.” I think it packs some punch in the war of words.
More nonsense from Wilson. Because when entire families are slaughtered by drones, we can’t possibly know if the children were actually terrorist leaders or not.
This piece was written for you: https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08/nobody-knows-the-identity-of-the-150-people-killed-by-u-s-in-somalia-but-most-are-certain-they-deserved-it/
A false teacher declaring who is and who is not within the Christian moral tradition is rather ironic.
Is this a case of “skim until offended” or a case of “pretending that someone has said exactly the opposite of some horrible thing you wish he’d said”?
I think there needs to be clarification…..God`s word is the standard and rule for believers…..not for societies. The Bible never calls us to make theocracies. In fact, in the NT there is no mention of believers changing societies in any other way but the gospel.
God’s word is the standard and rule for every human who ever lived, including those with political authority. The Bible doesn’t call us to make theocracies, but it does call all men to obedience in everything they do.
True, but nobody follows that rule. That’s why we proclaim the gospel.
Yes, of course. But that doesn’t change the fact that the law needs to be proclaimed. Men won’t even know they need the gospel, if they don’t know that they’re guilty. Also, if the question is, “What shall a godly ruler do?” the answer comes from what God says about things — not in the sense of a strict following of laws that no longer apply, but in the sense that the answer to what someone should do in a given situation is always, “What God wants.”
But there is the difference…..roclllamation of the message is not enforcing he message.
I really like this idea about the sanctity of God, His holiness being what leads us to value human dignity and to assign value and worth to human life. There really is no sanctity of life, there is only the Holiness of God which than leads us to respect human life, to treat people with some dignity. I am not a fan of the DP, although not really for moral reasons, but because I don’t believe the state is worthy of making those kind of life and death decisions and it is also outrageously expensive, not cost effective at all.… Read more »
I don’t believe the state is worthy of making those kind of life and death decisions
Paul says otherwise (Rom 13), as does the Mosaic Law and the Noachic Law.
Your other objections are pragmatic. I think they have some merit.
Paul says otherwise? I think the fact that we executed our Lord and savior, might be all the evidence needed to demonstrate the state is not worthy.
Yes, Paul says so in Romans 13 in Acts 25.
That the state abused this does not mean that the state cannot do it rightly. We don’t forbid fathers disciplining their children rightly because some fathers abuse their children.
But we do forbid fathers from disciplining their children because some have abused them! I’m not saying we should, but we have. We have created no fault divorce laws,domestic violence laws, child abuse laws, in response to that very thing. I’m speaking of cause and effect here and the way a civil society operates. We’ve created a bit of a monster, but we have done so in response to assorted abuses.
We stop abusive fathers but we don’t stop all fathers. Are you really arguing that because some fathers are abusive we should ban all discipline of children from all fathers?
No, I’m saying that our culture’s response to abusive fathers was to come very close to banning all discipline of children. It’s not about what I think we should do, but about what has already been done.
Scripture has frequently been used to justify child abuse, such as “spare the rod and spoil the child.”
So you now take Paul’s words, Mosaic Law, and Noachic Law and use them all as justification for the DP. I’m curious how that differs from someone taking scripture and trying to use it to justify child abuse?
Except in some countries that have banned all corporal punishment of children, parents are still free to use reasonable discipline. The kind of punishment that leaves bruises and attracts the attention of law enforcement is probably not what you and I would consider reasonable. I have read that there is a strong correlation between supporting the death penalty and supporting corporal punishment, even among people who do not take scripture literally. These two issues make me happy to be a Catholic because I don’t have to interpret Proverbs as an order from God to beat my child and spare not… Read more »
Causing pain without causing damage is not abuse Jill. And I suspect that most kids suffer more from less painful discipline done in anger than more painful discipline done in love.
ME, I was saying that the abuse of right discipline is not a reason to ban good discipline. In the same way, bad implementations of capital punishment do not justify banning the death penalty outright. It merely says that the death penalty should be implemented rightly. I am not using Paul’s words, Mosaic Law, and Noachic Law as justification of the death penalty per se, I am saying that these passages actually say that the death penalty is right. I am not inferring from them I am quoting them. At the most I am saying that Paul assumes the death… Read more »
The hermeutic you have decided upon allows you to design a self-serving code for moral conduct. I don’t think you meant to do that consciously, but that is how your decision tree developed. If the “rules” you use to decide what does and doesn’t apply were used for the whole Bible, then the Scripture ceases to have meaningful authority for our lives at all. You say that any verse from the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, can be taken out of context and applied to the issue at hand whether that issue was the express purpose of the verse in… Read more »
Where did I say the Mosaic Law still applies to us? I don’t think we live by the Mosaic law, we are to live by the Spirit. But I am aware that the Mosaic Law was written by the Spirit so the principles behind any law are eternal principles. That is why we can look to various laws in Moses and come up with reasonable principles. I think that enforcing fences around pools is a good idea and that an appeal to building parapets on roofs confirms this. As to the earlier laws (Gen 9), this tells us what God… Read more »
At the risk of quarreling over words I still like the term “sanctity” of human life. If you are correct in saying: “God’s law (revealed or natural) is the only possible standard for public righteousness” and the works of the law are written on every heart / conscience (so much so that we can do by nature the things contained in the law) then every human life is not only a recipient of divine revelation, but they would each be an agent of divine revelation, as well. This vindicates the use of “sanctity”. I’m wondering why you must question the… Read more »
Pretty flimsy, morally speaking. In the case of war, this is the same wishy-washy “I was only folllowing orders” crap that sent German soldiers to the gallows for doing the same thing that the Allied soldiers did.
Agreed to a degree, but how could a soldier ever fight? What are the limits of his conscience? Perhaps the Private is held responsible for the crimes of his leaders? If you cannot be sure how to think or act, perhaps it is best to remain undecided. The soldier does not have this luxury.
At any rate, I think we can all agree that Bush should be on trial for war crimes.
Doug Wilson has given a satisfactory explanation for a Christian listener: We do what God says and we value what God values. But what if you’re trying to convince an unbeliever of your views? Is there a way to demonstrate even to a non-Christian that there is no logical inconsistency in rejecting abortion yet accepting war and capital punishment? Are there non-Christians who hold such a combination of views without holding a direct contradiction on the topic? If we can find a good answer, we are a step ahead. For no longer do we need to convert a person to… Read more »
“Every Christian military man must be ready, on a daily basis, to wreck
his career, or to forfeit his life, rather than go along with
atrocities.” Like Bowe Bergdahl did.
Actually, not that way at all. Endangering the other soldiers whose job it is to try to rescue you, and making yourself a pawn, is not the way to go.
Calmly refusing orders is I believe the appropriate action when necessary.
Jane D is correct. Deserting your post is neither a Christian nor honorable course of action.
I agree that there isn’t a secular case to work from opposition to abortion over to opposition of the death penalty, and your points on that argument are strong in a secular context. It’s silly that the argument is even being used by Christians, because the New Testament case flows in the opposite direction. The New Testament says a great deal that applies to the sanctity of life of even the most degraded person, love of even the worst sinner, forgiveness to extreme limits, our humble need to wait for the proper time and place for such judgment, and even… Read more »
You’re severely confused. You do realize that Jesus IS Yahweh who came in the flesh don’t you? Numbers 35.31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. Psalms 139.17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O El! how great is the sum of them! I John 5.2 By this we know that we love the children of יהוה, when we love יהוה, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of יהוה, that we keep his commandments: and his… Read more »
Truth does not change, but responsibility does. The laws given to the Israelites were truly the laws given to the Israelites. But they are not the laws given to the people of Christ. Jesus has fulfilled the law, replaced our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, imbued us with the Holy Spirit, and clearly given us a new responsibility. As long as you believe that you are still under old covenant laws as they are written in the Old Testament, you will certainly have issues with my interpretation of the words of Christ and seek to minimize or distort… Read more »
Firstly and most importantly I ask since you are so INTO IT: What IS the ‘New Covenant?” AND since you SHOULD be able to answer that according to scripture I hope you will HEAR what it says! Then, in obedience to the harmony of the Scriptures, go find the SUM of it. You do realize THERE IS NO NEW RELIGION? Does the “Church” somehow replace the ‘Jewish people” in God’s plan? You do realize that JUDAISM was never the religion of the Ancient Israelites such as Moses don’t you? WHAT WAS ADDED 430 years after? (GAL 3.17) If THAT WHICH… Read more »
The New Covenant is foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures and spoken about throughout Jesus’s ministry and by his apostles. Your question is a little vague, so I can just point you towards the book for which it’s the entire direction. “Religion” is what humans do to demonstrate their obedience to God. We continue to follow the same God. We certainly do it in very different ways. Beyond that, once again your question is a bit vague. No, “the Church” does not replace the “Jewish people” in God’s plan. It is the old guardian which has been replaced by Christ’s Law.… Read more »
The APPROVED by God Religion… because it was added mixed up with humanists perversions and came back from babylon
Ah, I just realized that you’re a Seventh Day Adventist (or someone in that line of interpretation).
That makes sense now. You’ll have a lot more fruit talking to some other people in the recent discussions – their way of viewing the New Covenant is already much closer to yours, you just apply it more consistently.
You’re misinformed.
What IS the New covenant?
Jonathan’s post Taking Genesis 9:4-6 as a literal command to Christians is odd, for God himself does not take it as such even in the Old Testament context (see the response to the shedding of blood by Cain, Moses, Phineas, David, and on and on). God ensures that no one kill Cain, calls Moses to serve without ever mentioning his murder, decrees that David shall not die for his crime, saves Paul from his life of sin without requiring his blood. Cain antedates Noah. The circumstances around Moses are a little ambiguous, there may have been an element of defending… Read more »
“Do you think that men should not steal? Do you think that we no longer have to sacrifice animals? Well why do you agree with part of the Law and disregard other parts of the Law?” Because I look to the obedience that Christ has given us. I find it odd that you’re using this particular argument against me, since it applies much more clearly to yourself. I have a clear metric for what I obey from the OT commands and what I do not – the metric of Christ’s Law. You have no such Biblical source for your own… Read more »
And yet Jesus’ rebuke of sodomy is indirect, and many deny that sodomy is wrong from natural law (what you are appealing to in the case of bestiality), so now men are arguing that sodomy are permissible.
I don’t hold that the OT laws are given for Christians, but I do hold that the Spirit who authored the Mosaic Law is the same Spirit who indwells believers. We can clearly learn from the OT. Jesus appeals to it to refute his opponents. Paul appeals to the OT in his arguments.
If you don’t believe that a strong argument for sexual morality can be made from the New Testament, I really, really, really strongly recommend that you read Richard B. Hays’s “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”. There’s lots of reasons to read this book, but one chapter specifically covers exactly what you seem to say is not there. I agree that we can learn from the OT. You haven’t seemed to notice, but I’VE been appealing to the OT in MY arguments. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. Richard B. Hays does it… Read more »
Jonathan Romans 12:9-13:10 was already dealt with in length in the previous post, and I’m not going to repeat that here. But I will make the minor point (little to do with the overall passage), that the sword named in the Greek there had nothing to do with the death penalty or war, but was the sword wielded in everyday patrolling by soldiers. We can be quite aware of the methods the Romans actually used for their death penalties, and the profound brutality and injustice of those acts. Whatever Paul is saying in these verses (and I think I made… Read more »
Thank you for quoting my passage so clearly and replying directly to it – that’s extremely fair of you. I think that much of your retort is answered in the words already there, so I’ll mostly just let them stand. A few small points. I’ve never been a judge of murderers, so I have to admit that I haven’t spent enormous time thinking about that exact question, and the three Christian ethics books I’ve read (of which Richard B. Hays “The Moral Vision of the New Testament” was by far the best) have all failed to mention it directly. I… Read more »
“If we’re not called to send people to hell, and we’re not called to judge those who have been redeemed, then what is the point of killing them?”
Taking this to the extreme: if someone scentenced to be executed repents should christians prevent the execution?
I had a friend who took part in a specific protest against a specific execution and was arrested for it. He believed that Jesus Christ had taught him to stand up in that manner and be willing to pay the consequences for it. There are a LOT of unjust or non-Christian things going on in the world, especially when it comes to the actions of states. I don’t think there’s any major state that isn’t doing thousands of things that Christians would want to prevent on any given day. As I don’t believe that our salvation is going to be… Read more »
I don’t believe in the death penalty and I support much of what you say. But, even so, I can see the argument for killing even the repentant and redeemed murderer even though I disagree. First, there is retribution. Not all punishment is intended to rehabilitate; some is straight retribution. Secondly, there is deterrence. Thirdly, there is the need to express society’s indignation and outrage over the crime. The penitent murderer is not being killed for who he is now, but rather for what he did. And is death really an enemy to a Christian believer? If he is going… Read more »
On the retribution side, I don’t believe that is a proper motivation for Christians. I agree that it’s really hard to come to believe that and mean it though. You only need to look at the retribution cultures, like the Middle East, to see how poisonous it is. The first step in controlling retribution is to limit it and legislate it into official channels, as the Mosaic Law in part did. The second step is to purge if from our hearts, as Christ’s Law actually can. On the deterrence side, the death penalty doesn’t work that way. The kind of… Read more »
I’ve never been a judge of murderers, so I have to admit that I haven’t spent enormous time thinking about that exact question,… If I were a judge, I think I would do my best under God to apply the law in such a way that would maximize the good done to society and the likelihood of rehabilitation for the offender. I would not sentence anyone to death, for the reasons given. If that led me to lose my post, I would lose my post. So you are willing to punish them, just not execute them. Given the repentance is… Read more »
“Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir.” “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” “For judgment will be without mercy… Read more »
The issue is our desire to condemn
In as much as men desire from their hearts to condemn another; I am in agreement.
As to your other comments I have given my perspective previously. I disagree about how you interpret James as our Lord says to judge with right judgment.
I do not have a problem handing over murderers, or telling them to hand themselves in. I don’t feel I have to hand over everyone so accused. I would not have handed over Paul in the context of Damascus.
Also, regarding abortion and the death penalty:
Almost every Pro-lifer I know would be happy to get rid of the death penalty if it mean also ending abortion.
I very much doubt that anti-death penalty advocates would give up abortion if it would allow them to end the death penalty.
What are your thoughts Dr. Wilson, regarding jus post bellum? (I’m particularly referring to the ideas presented in Gary J. Bass’ article Jus Post Bellum.)