Selectivism

Selectivism: It Is Right to Participate in Some Wars (Just Wars)

In our last class we talk about Activism and Pacifism and both the Biblical and philosophical/Social Arguments for them. We have discovered the nuance in both ideas and the reason that many Christian identify with Selectiviam.

Norman Geisler says in his book Christian Ethics,

Not all people are content with the blind patriotism of activism that would kill upon their government's request while shouting, "My country, right or wrong" ( Stephen Decatur [1816]). Nor is everyone satisfied with a naively passive attitude that would permit a Hitler to attempt genocide without lifting a gun in resistance. Even the otherwise pacifist Dietrich Bonhoeffer finally concluded that Hitler should have been assassinated. Out of dissatisfaction with the easy solutions of declaring all wars just or unjustifiable, a view is emerging called selectivism, which holds that some wars are justifiable and some are not. This view offers a more satisfactory alternative for a Christian ethic.”

Response to the 6th Commandment.

Exodus 20:13 (NASB95)

13 “You shall not murder.

Murder in the Hebrew is rātṣǎkḥ meaning to murder, kill, i.e., take the life one another so as to cause a state of death

This word is often to use to imply, premeditation. Wayne Grudem in his book also titled Christian Ethics says, “this verb is used in the Old Testament to refer to the unlawful taking of a human life.”

Numbers 35:16–19 NASB95

16 ‘But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17 ‘If he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he will die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18 ‘Or if he struck him with a wooden object in the hand, by which he might die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19 ‘The blood avenger himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall put him to death when he meets him.

Grudem adds, “The verb is also used to speak of "causing human death through carelessness or negligence." But “ratsakh” is not the ordinary word for judicial execution,' and it is never used to refer to killing in war.”

Question: If the 6th Commandment applies to war why would God command the people of Isreal to go to war?

Deuteronomy 20:1 NASB95

1 “When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you.

Question: Is all life-taking murder?

Geisler says, “All murder involves taking life, but not all taking life is murder.”

Notice the command God gives for one who murders

Exodus 21:12 NASB95

12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

Likewise what He says about the one who defends himself.

Exodus 22:2 NASB95

2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

Question: If murder in self-defence is not murder, would war to defend against an unjust aggressor be the same thing?

Response Matthew 5:39

Matthew 5:39 NASB95

39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Individual conduct vs. Civil duty

Jesus’ command in Matthew speaks of our personal responsibility.

Geisler make an interesting point when he says, “Further, the blow on the cheek was probably only a slap on the face with the back of the hand, as indicated by the fact that the normal right-handed person could only use the back of his hand to slap another on the right cheek" (5:39). So Jesus is speaking more of insult than injury. The Greek word is “thapizo,” meaning to "strike with open hand" or "slap on the cheek."

Question: If we take Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek literally, should be also take the command to pluck out ones eye or cut out ones hand as stated a few verse prior.

The seletivist often makes the point that turning the other cheek might be our personal responsibility, but the government’s civil responsibility is to “bear the sword”

Romans 13:4 NASB95

4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Notice what Jesus tells His followers

Luke 22:36 NASB95

36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

Jesus tells them to carry a sword for protection.

John and Paul Feinberg (American theologian) stated,

“A fundamental problem with pacifist interpretations of Jesus's teachings is the failure to distinguish between private and public duties, personal duties, and duties of a state. As a private individual I may turn the other cheek when unjustly attacked. However, my responsibilities are quite different when stand in the position of a guardian of a third party as a civil magistrate or parent. Because I am responsible for their lives and welfare, I must resist, even with force, unjust aggression against them. Moreover, loving my neighbor or enemy does not mean I must stand idly by as my child is kidnapped and murdered. I am to use whatever force is necessary to protect his or her life and safety. The state stands in this third-party relationship to its citizens. Texts that pacifists typically cite for nonresistance are verses that have to do with private or personal duties, not public duties.”

Wayne Grudem response to list 6 arguments commonly used by Pacifist

1) Jesus commander us to turn the other cheek

(See Above)

2) Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves

“If we truly love our neighbors, then we will be willing even to go to war to protect them from evil aggressors who are attacking the nation.”

3) engaging in military combat involves failure to trust God

“Christians have no right to tell others to trust in God" for things that are different from what the Bible teaches, and Romans 13:1-4 teaches that God authorizes governments to use deadly force if necessary to oppose evil. Therefore, at this point the pacifist argument is telling people to disobey what Romans 13 says about government, and then to trust God to protect them anyway. This is like telling people they should not work to earn a living, but should "trust God" to provide their food anyway!

4) we should depend on international law rather than going to war

“An effective worldwide government has never occured in the entire history of the human race.”

It will not occur until Jesus returns.

5) the use of violence always leads to further violence, and pacifism should be adopted to stop that vicious cycle

“It is simply untrue to say, as pacifists do, that violence always leads to more violence. The deadly force used by local police in restraining or killing a murderer brings that murderer's violence to an end. It is the same situation when armies are used to defend nations against aggressors. In fact, the use of military power stopped Hitler from taking over all of Europe and ultimately all the world in World War II. It stopped the North Koreans from taking over South Korea in the Korean War. In the American Civil War, it stopped the Confederate armies from establishing a separate nation in which slavery would be preserved and protected.”

6) more genuine Christian pacifism would have prevented previous wars.

“the task that God has assigned to governments that "bear the sword" (Rom. 13:4).

Response to the Activist

Activism holds that Christians are duty-bound to obey their government and to participate in every war for which that government enlists their support.

As, we have discuss in a previous class the bible teaches is not always right to follow the government in every command.

“The Bible never tells people always to obey every command of a secular civil government. Instead, Paul wisely says, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1). To "be subject" to a government in general does not mean that one always must obey every command of that government.” Wayne Grudem

4 Examples

1. The Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah, who disobeyed when Pharaoh told them to kill the baby Hebrew boys

Exodus 1:15–22 (NASB95)

2. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who refused to bow down to the golden image that was made by King Nebuchadnezzar

Daniel 3:16–18 (NASB95)

3. Daniel, who disobeyed the king's command not to pray to anyone but the king

Daniel 6:13 (NASB95)

4. The apostles, who disobeyed the Sanhedrin when they were commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus

Acts 4:18–20 (NASB95)

Acts 5:29 (NASB95)

“Since government is not sovereign in its commands regarding the taking of life, it follows that not all wars waged by one's government are just. Indeed, even within a just war, officials may give unjust commands that should be disobeyed. Thus if there are times when one should not obey one's government's command to kill. then total activism is wrong. Not all wars or all acts of war are morally justifiable on the grounds that one is acting in obedience to one's government.” Norman Geisler