I received the following e-mail based on a discussion on the Evangelical Outpost concerning the values vote. Namely, whether values were limited to abortion and the gay marriage debate. Since this is such an excellent question, I am posting my reply publically:
I'm sure that gay marriage and abortion are not the only moral issues for evangelical Christians. Can one of you tell me if evangelicals have a unified stance on the death penalty, torture, and pre-emptive war? These three items are basically condoned by President Bush from his record in Texas, his exemption of America from the Geneva Conventions, and his war against Iraq (which had neither WMD nor anything to do with 9/11). What do evangelicals generally have to say about these? Are they considered less important than abortion and gay marriage? Do you have any quotes from the New Testament on these issues?
This is an excellent question. All the issues you stated above are of interest and importance to evangelicals. However, there is disagreement on those issues (except for maybe torture which would be condemned). So, don't interpret the lack of a unified message as meaning they are not important, but rather we disagree amongst ourselves.
Before I start I will give the two basic philosophical perspectives. The politically conservative view is called the multiple spheres doctrine. That is, institutions were established by God to achieve different goals. The goal of church is to propogate the Gospel. The goal of the state is provide peace for the society in order for the church to achieve its goal. The church does not have the power of the sword, rather the state does. Thus, the state is allowed to wage war and to administer the death penalty. The church does not have the death penalty nor can it wage war, because its "death penalty" is the power of excommunication, where it excercises the keys of the kingdom. Nevertheless, there is a separation of the institutions and theocracy is really not in view here.
The other perspective I label the consistent pro-life stance. Here life is affirmed in all of its facets. So, these evangelicals also oppose abortion, but they also deny the death penalty and some are either total or partial pacifists. This perspective derives its authority from the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in the Ten Commandments.
Now I am going to look at the two cases in particular.
- Death penalty. Since the death penalty was condoned in the OT, then it is allowable now. Romans 13 establishes that the government has the right of the sword possibly implying that the death penalty is still operative. [N.B. Romans 13 also tells believers that they should pay their taxes which counters some in the Religious Right] Generally speaking, the death penalty advocates limit the OT death penalty regulations to murder since that was established prior to Sinai. The reasoning is that the Sinai regulations expired when Jesus came. But, since the death penalty for murder was established prior to this then it is a creation regulation and thus did not expire.
The counter argument stems from two passages in the Gospels. John 8:1-11 records where Jesus contermands the death penalty for adultery and frees the adulterous woman. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus claims to fulfill the law rather than abolish it. In this case, the death penalties that are rightly applied to all who do wrong (i.e., all of us) fall on Jesus on the cross. To reapply the death penalty in a civil context would be to resacrifice Jesus. - War. This is very complicated question. Evangelicals follow for the most part Augustine's theory of just war. This also derives itself from Romans 13. The question with respect to Iraq is whether this war classifies as such. One possible justification is the oppostition to tyranny. Individual Christians are called by and large to simply endure tyranny. But, as Calvin says below there are sometimes intermedieries whose calling is to deliver others from tyranny:
"Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants, and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny, and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, - Cyrus having previously subdued the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their impious contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished, - at one time by the Assyrians, at another by the Babylonians. All these things, however, were not done in the same way. The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not at all violate that majesty with which kings are invested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power, curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts."
On the other hand, Hebrews 13:12-13 says "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore." Thus, Christian people and by extension Christian nations need to endure reproach for Christ's sake. Christian nations are not to hastily wage war nor are individual Christians to mount a rebellion against their own government.
Comments