The Cornerstone

Do we hate the things God hates?

Carl R. Trueman, Issue Number 19, March 2008

Not many people today regard hate as a virtue. Even the great hatemongers of the last century, the Hitlers and the Stalins who so poisoned the history of modern Europe, presumably regarded themselves not as peddlers of hate so much as righteous crusaders for their respective causes, sick and perverted though those causes were.

Yet hate is indeed virtuous. There is, of course, a wicked form of hate to which Christians are prone and which has deeply damaged the image of Christianity. This form has given endless material to the anti-Christian propagandists of the present age.

But there is another form of hate, one that actually reflects an aspect of the very being of God, and is one which Christians should aspire to reflect.

In the 19th century, the brilliant radical thinker and essayist William Hazlitt wrote one of his most famous pieces, On the Pleasure of Hating. With his usual wit and devastating ability to observe the worst aspects of human behavior, he waxed eloquent about the fact that, while love was often transitory and—let’s face it—rather boring, hate was something which both possessed a perennial fascination and had seemingly limitless energy and creativity. As Hazlitt put it, “Love turns, with a little indulgence, to indifference or disgust; hatred alone is immortal.” Needless to say, when he came to give examples of real hate in action, he zeroed in on religion, citing the particular example of Edward Irving, the brilliant but tragic preacher of the early 19th century. Irving’s preaching of hellfire and damnation, according to Hazlitt, was a classic example of creative hatred in action; and his popularity was indicative of the appetite for such among the London crowds who flocked to hear him.

Hazlitt is, I think, right. Hatred is far more interesting than love. This can be seen throughout pop culture. Films and soap operas which tell simple stories of girl meets boy, girl and boy fall in love, girl and boy live happily ever after, simply do not exist. Nobody would want to watch such a storyline. Even at the level of entertainment, we need tension, drama, uncertainty, and excitement; and one way of achieving all of these things, perhaps the most obvious way, is to inject a little—or a lot of—hate into the equation. Hate, the very antithesis of love, stands so close to it as to be its evil and far more entertaining twin. Boy meets girl; they fall in love; then girl falls in love with someone else; then first boy hates both girl and second boy—that’s a more typical and marketable storyline.

As Hazlitt argued, hating is indeed pleasurable. But why? Well, on one level, hate represents the quintessence of fallen humanity. It is that aspect of fallen human nature which is the necessary counterpart to the central human difficulty: our insatiable need to love ourselves rather than God. To grasp this, we need to backtrack a little and analyze the problem of fallen humanity. Human beings were designed to find their full meaning and satisfaction in loving the infinite God. The Fall disrupted that and created a situation where the basic question of human existence—what should I love if I am to be fully human?—remained intact; yet the answer—You should love yourself! You should love the creature rather than the Creator!—left human beings perpetually dissatisfied and roaming from one experience or creaturely object to another, striving to satisfy with finite things that which can only be satisfied by the infinite God. Creaturely loves, if you like (and to borrow a memorable phrase from Top Gun), write checks that their bodies can’t cash. They promise satisfaction, but they serve only to exacerbate the human hunger further. Like crack cocaine, loving that which is creaturely can bring momentary satisfaction, but it is illusory—a fleeting sense of fulfillment which soon departs and leaves the individual craving more.

The Danger of Hate

And therein lies the dilemma for the Christian. Hate is not wrong. Forget the smug bumper sticker wisdom that informs us, “Hate is not a family value.” There are, in fact, many ways in which hate is a family value. I hate poverty; I hate pedophiles; I hate those who would seek to do my children harm. Indeed, the safety of my family depends on my hatred of precisely certain values and certain individuals committed to them.

Then, looked at through a more strictly theological lens, there are many things we must hate. We must hate all that stands in rebellion against God. And yet we also know that hate is a dangerous, seductive virtue, as easy to misdirect and to use for our own pleasure as anything. Indeed, hate as an aesthetic value can give endless amounts of entertainment, both as we witness it in others and as we indulge in it ourselves. Christians must hate; yet such hate is dangerous.

Of course, our non-Christian friends and neighbors are adept at spotting our tendency to hate. Most of my friends outside of seminary and church circles are those who would characterize themselves as liberal Democrats, with all of the social views that implies. And most, if not all of them, do not like evangelical Christianity. This is not because they find its worldview implausible; I doubt that many of them have a real understanding of the core theology of evangelical Christianity. It is because for them evangelical Christianity is synonymous with hatred, distinguished by what it is against—and passionately, unreasonably against—than anything it is for. And on this level, even the embarrassingly sub-Hazlitt prose of those condescending bumper stickers may have a valid point.

The problem with so much Christian hate is not that hate is wrong, but that it is perversely the object of our love. We can find ourselves loving to hate. Why? Because hate can be another of those creaturely objects to which we look for our fulfillment. Indeed, hate is the highest example of such self-love. We love to hate because it feeds that central myth of fallen humanity—that we are the answer to our problems, that we are the center of the universe.

Evaluating Hate

Two things are pertinent here, and point to the problem with so much of Christian hatred. First, there is the motivation of our hatred. Second, there is the selectivity of our hatred.

As to the first, all evangelical Christians would (I hope) say they hate homosexuality. Often, we try to soften the bluntness of this statement by drawing a distinction between loving the sinner and hating the sin. There are problems with that simple distinction, particularly when it comes to sexuality. In a world where people increasing identify themselves by their sexual orientation, it becomes more difficult—both practically and conceptually—to maintain this distinction. But we must try, especially if we’re to have any real loving concern for those outside the church.

The problem with hating homosexuality (and anything else forbidden by God) is not the hatred, simply considered. Rather, it is that the human heart will inevitably take this hatred and turn it into an object of love, which then serves to reinforce our belief in our own righteousness. “I thank you Lord that I am not like other men,” said the Pharisee in the temple, as he turned his contemptuous eye on the tax gatherer. Hatred of the corruption and greed which marked this other man’s life was driven by, and served, the Pharisee’s own desire to make himself a big man in his own eyes, in the eyes of others, and even in the eyes of God Himself.

On this level, I have a sneaking suspicion that much of what passes for evangelical hatred isn’t really hatred at all. Rather, it is love of self—a kind of love that is expressed through the idiom of hatred. For example, I hate gays so that I can feel as if my own heterosexuality makes me that much more acceptable to myself and thus God (whom I make in my own image). I hate atheists so that my own theism allows me to imagine I’m just a bit better. In other words, it’s all about me, it’s all about self-worship. And the hate I typically exhibit, even as a Christian, is rooted in love of myself – which is the very problem that lies at the core of the human predicament.

This is evident in the selectivity of hatred as well. There is plenty of evangelical hatred of homosexuality out there. One has only to insert the relevant words into Google to come up with dozens of Web sites devoted to such. Yet, while we are quick to hate certain things which bolster our own self-image as being zealous for the Lord, there are other matters which never seem to cross our horizons. Materialism, greed, anger, to name just three, are matters which could scarcely be described as the objects of our hatred. Again, the love of self is surely key in this. These are things which cut a little too close to home. To hate anger involves hating myself, the very thing I want to avoid.

Good Hate

So what constitutes virtuous hatred? We know that God hates certain things, since Scripture makes this clear. For example, Proverbs 6:16-19 outlines six things that the Lord hates and seven that are an abomination to Him, including those who commit murder and those who sow dissension. Hatred is, in a sense, an attribute of God. It is something which is essentially characteristic of God in relation to these things. And, as Christians and those made in the image of God, it is right, proper, and, indeed, virtuous that we too hate what God hates.

So how do we do this, bearing in mind that hatred in itself is a deeply and dangerously seductive thing which can more easily lead one into paths of self-righteousness than into the way of truth?

The first thing we need to recognize is that God’s hatred is not an end in itself, nor is it merely instrumental to some other end. He does not hate because He enjoys hating for its own sake. Nor does He hate in order to feel good about Himself. Rather, His hatred is directed toward that which does not reflect His own glory but in fact derogates from that glory. We might say that, for God, hatred is the natural, active, personal response to all of the havoc which willful human disobedience has introduced into the world.

It is analogous to my hatred, as a father, of pedophiles and poverty. I hate the former because of the potential damage they can do to my children, and I hate the latter for much the same reason. For me, hatred of such is rooted in a deeper commitment to and love for my children. Were I, on the contrary, to trust pedophiles and to desire poverty, then I would expose my children to danger or to hardship, something that no loving father should do. Hatred is a virtue in this situation. And Christian hatred is good hatred when it is motivated at the deepest level out of love for God, jealousy for the name of God, and for protecting His glory from those who would seek to insult Him.

So if the virtue of hatred lies in its motivation, how can I know that my hatred is driven by the right motives? The answer is: I can’t. One thing you can be sure of is that your motives for hating – on this side of eternity – will always be mixed. But the mixed motives I might have for loving my wife do not render my love to her equivocal, and so it is the same with hate. We are to hate what God hates; we are to work each day at bringing our minds into conformity with the mind of God; and we are humbly to seek His forgiveness that even the purest act of hatred on our part is horribly contaminated with self-love and personal agendas. In short, we are to sit under the regular preaching of the Word, where God’s Spirit can search us, try us, and transform us, and where we can be regularly reminded of the glory of God and the contrasting evil of human disobedience to His will. We are to expose ourselves each day to God’s holy Word in the safe and certain knowledge that doing so will give us the necessary reality check both on ourselves and our relationship to the world around us.

Opposition to God

Finally, we should bear in mind one crucial reason for virtuous hatred, particularly as it relates to other human beings — the thought that anybody might be able to remain adamantly and arrogantly opposed to God. This is where our hatred of the homosexual, for example, should become the flip-side of our love for the homosexual. It is not so much that we hate the sin and love the sinner. It is that we hate the fact that any sinner could continue to defy God.

Therefore our hatred is to be connected to persuasion. Hating the idea of rebellion against God, we should do our best to persuade those who are rebels to change their allegiance. Do we do this by screaming slogans at them across the barricades? Doubtful. Most likely we do it by behaving in persuasive ways of the kind laid out in Scripture: turning the other cheek, giving of ourselves to our enemies, making sacrifices to help those who despise us. We need to call them to account before our holy God, but we need to make sure we do this because our hatred of them as rebels manifests itself in love to them as lost sheep who are in urgent need of a shepherd.

Hatred is indeed a Christian virtue, but only when it is rooted in a deep love and jealousy for the glory of God. Such hatred can never be used as a means of idolatrous self-love, and it will always manifest itself in a manner that tries to persuade those in rebellion to repent and submit to God. Given this, hate is indeed a Christian family value, and one we should nurture and cherish.

Carl R. Trueman is vice president and professor of historical theology and church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pa.

Copyright 2008, all rights reserved, byFaith magazine. This article first appeared in the February 2008 issue of byFaith and is reprinted by permission.

The idea that human nature is universal might seem simple to you, and it is. All true ideas are simple, because anyone can grasp them. Yet, believe it or not, you are about to enter a world that treats the idea of a universal human nature as simple-minded foolishness. The really sad thing is that your professors will not try to complicate this idea. To complicate an idea, you have to first take it seriously. Rather than argue about this idea, most of your professors will simply ignore it. You see, the idea of a universal human nature is contrary to everything most professors, at least in the humanities, believe. And that makes it one of the most radical ideas you can hold as a student.

The central dogma of higher education goes by many names, but its basic thrust is as easy to grasp as it is hard to miss. Whether it is called multiculturalism, social constructionism, or left-leaning liberalism, the bottom line is that higher education in America these days promotes cultural relativism. Colleges do not advertise this fact for obvious reasons, but look closely at what they say in their promotional literature. Colleges talk about broadening your perspective, expanding your horizons, and offering you new experiences, but they do not talk about teaching you how to make moral judgments, how to distinguish the beautiful from the ugly, and how to seek the truth. That is because secular liberal-arts colleges and public universities do not believe you should make moral judgments, contemplate the beautiful, or acknowledge universal truths. And they don’t believe these things because they do not believe there is something called human nature.

To read the entire article, click here

by Joel Pelsue

Remember The Da Vinci Code? Consider the astonishing impact this fictional book had on our culture: It has 60 million copies in print, was translated into 44 languages, and the movie earned $215 million in the domestic box office and $540 million in overseas receipts.

The Christian community rallied by writing pamphlets and books, establishing Web sites, and hosting lectures and forums. All brought clarity and truth to the novel’s claims, which were based on myths and the author’s rich imagination. Many great thinkers, writers, and pastors worked hard to react to the false “facts” in Da Vinci.

It was wonderful to see the Christian community taking the book and film seriously. That’s the first step in taking back culture—what should be ours to impact, as the people of God.

But believers can go much further—by creating films and other media as well as responding to them. While it’s healthy to critique and assess the trends and dangers within our culture, we need to do more. We need to create the new stories, movies, and anthems that inspire and shape culture in America and—because entertainment is one of our major exports—the rest of the world.

When will Christians assume the role of culture shapers, instead of mere reactionaries? Why do we hesitate—are we afraid? Don’t we realize the scope of the problem and the opportunities God is giving us? What biblical passages can equip us for such a task?

The Church’s Response to Hollywood

The Church has had two basic responses to Hollywood: 1) conservative Christians have seen it as the enemy and responded with boycotts and picket signs; 2) liberal Christians have embraced the culture, often taking a social “gospel” to it—one that lacks the power to transform.

Both options fail to be redemptive or transformational. Conservative Christians pursue purity while abandoning the culture. Liberal Christians pursue relevance while abandoning the heart of the gospel. Hollywood sees these dynamics and concludes that the gospel of the conservative church is irrelevant because it is disconnected, and the gospel of the liberal church is irrelevant because it’s merely a social club.

The good news? There’s another approach.

As Jonathan Edwards would claim, a biblical Christian is one who pursues not only personal piety and doctrinal orthodoxy but also cultural relevance. These pursuits are not mutually exclusive, but the one we talk about the least is the responsibility to engage culture.

The Cultural Mandate

From the beginning, God has called us to tend the culture as we would tend a garden. He defined the parameters for Adam and Eve and gave them a mandate: God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” He commanded them “to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.”

Just as God brought order out of chaos during creation, He commanded this man and this woman, made in His image, to pursue and maintain order as they established their family, who eventually would populate the earth and create culture.

We were never called to merely focus on ourselves in a pietistic ghetto. Man’s responsibility was to tend creation, so that it would be fruitful, and for man himself to be fruitful. When they were planting seeds, digging irrigation, creating economic systems, or establishing governments, they were fulfilling their calling as men and women made in the image of God and called to create and “subdue.”

So it is today. As we are fruitful, we must tend to our families and society at large, just as Adam and Eve were to tend to their garden.

Abraham Kuyper, one-time prime minister of the Netherlands and founder of The Free University in Amsterdam, brought great clarity to the meaning of this mandate: “In the total expanse of human life there is not a single square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare, ‘That is mine!’”

If we understand this correctly, then it’s embarrassing to realize how few Christians engage and transform our culture by way of media and entertainment. Though we may have been involved in other valuable pursuits such as mercy ministry and missions, we may have neglected journalism, the arts, and business—and the impact their transformation might bring.

If we fed all our homeless and sent millions of missionaries overseas but failed to engage the most powerful communication networks in our own backyard, we would fail to transform this culture and thereby fail to carry out God’s first command.

Bezalel: An Artist Called by God

What does it look like to transform culture? One answer lies in the story of God redeeming His people when they left Egypt. After centuries of their immersion in the pagan idolatry of the Egyptians, God transforms the Israelites’ understanding of culture by commissioning an artist.

In Exodus 31 we read: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I have chosen Bezalel … and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability, and knowledge in all kinds of crafts—to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver, and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship.’”

So the first person in the Bible “filled with the Spirit of God” is an artist, yet many Christians barely notice him.

Why? We may skip over his name, because, as good modernists, we assume that art and artists are incidental instead of integral to God’s redemptive plan. So, when pastors, theologians, and churchgoers read this passage, we may simply miss it—like we gloss over genealogies, lists of cities, and other information for which we see no direct link to our daily life. By doing so, we miss something about God’s plan for redemption and a vital connection between our spiritual life and life in the world around us.

Though this is not a commonly preached passage, it was pivotal for the Israelites. After Moses led them out of Egypt, they crossed the Red Sea (Exodus 13-15) and three months later were at the base of Mount Sinai, awaiting God’s directions.

God gave Moses the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), but something else happened on that holy mountain. We find this amazing passage where God specifically calls an artist to do the work of building artifacts for the tabernacle. In fact, a third of Exodus is spent describing the artwork.

When the Israelites heard that God wanted them to build a tabernacle, imagine their shock. Why build anything akin to a temple? They had been rescued from slavery, oppression, and the task of building temples for kings and idols. Their memory was still fresh with the blasphemy that could take place in temples.

It’s easy to imagine a smile on God’s face. Even this act tells of His character as One who redeems—art, artists, temples, and entire cultures, as well as individuals and a whole people group called the Israelites.

In Exodus we learn that God would redeem everything they knew of culture. He did not look at the misguided and misdirected worship of the Egyptians and conclude that it was too corrupt to redeem. Quite the opposite. God rejoiced over the opportunity to show that He redeems all things (Colossians 1), including pagan temples and pagan hearts.

God placed worship at the center of the Israelites’ desert camp, just as it was at the center of Egyptian culture, but now He directed His people to worship the Creator, not the created. He changed the rules and the focus, so they could see how they were designed to be worshipers of the God who made them in His image.

Revolution in Redemption

As God redeemed the Israelites, reshaping the culture they were commanded to tend, artists continued to play a critical role. In battles to come, the ark of the covenant, made by Bezalel and his helper, would be the primary visual reminder of the glory and power of God.

All the artwork—representations of angels, animals, plants, and structural components—were made to help Israelites remember that their God is the One who created everything. He is the One we worship; the beauty we see throughout creation is a reminder of Him.

Not once does God diminish the role of art in worship, nor the value of the artist to reshape their culture. God loves to redeem, and He loves to use the arts.

Bezalel is a model for Christians today, a picture of God’s heart for the art world, for New York, Los Angeles, Hollywood, and the entire entertainment industry. God is not calling us to abandon the arts but to become His hands and feet as He redeems the very center of our culture.

In fact, as we consider this dynamic we may recall other characters in the Bible who were called to be salt and light in the heart of pagan environments. Whether we consider the life of Daniel and how he was called by God to be second in command for idolatrous kings, or how God called Joseph in a similar manner, it’s clear that God does not call us to retreat from working in hostile environments.

This should not sound like a new concept, but to many Christians today, it does. The Church has fallen asleep in the area of engaging culture. It’s as if we are culturally dead, and like Lazarus, need to hear afresh the voice of our Savior calling us to awaken and thrive.

For too long the Church has seen Hollywood as a modern-day Nineveh, and hoped for its destruction. However, God is the great Redeemer, and we are reminded not to be like the prophet Jonah who was angry when the Ninevites repented.

Instead, we must reflect God’s heart to redeem Hollywood and the arts world, realizing there are “other sheep not of this fold.” We must stop demonizing those who don’t know the Savior’s voice. And we must stop minimizing the influence and power of art and entertainment.

It’s time to engage. It’s time to be at the forefront of creating songs, novels, and films that inspire our nation, and ultimately our world. Then we’ll begin to lead the way to a revolution in redemption.

Joel Pelsue is founder and president of Arts & Entertainment Ministries in Los Angeles, Calif. Pelsue holds a B.A in Philosophy from Westmont College and an M.Div. from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando. A teaching elder in the PCA, Pelsue has been ministering to artists for more than 15 years.

Perspectives that Keep Christians Away from Pop Culture

Scope of Redemption. Evangelical Christians often focus on the Great Commission at the expense of the cultural mandate. Yes, God redeems individuals (Ephesians 2:4), but Christ also died to redeem entire people groups (Isaiah 43:1)—thrones, powers, rulers, things visible and invisible (Colossians 1). Creation itself awaits redemption (Romans 8:20-22).
If our view of redemption is focused solely on evangelizing people, we’ll miss our responsibility to tend to the culture. But if our vision of redemption mirrors the Bible, then we’ll realize our obligation to engage culture in every facet, believing God will redeem components of the art world and encourage our children to be part of His plan.

Sacred/Secular Dualism. Many Christians have been dualistic in their thinking, compartmentalizing their world into sacred and secular.
This sacred/secular dualism has led to a separatist mentality. The only way to remain pure was to separate ourselves from any hint of evil within our culture. Therefore, instead of engaging the culture, we withdrew.
This separatism pushed us to the point of creating our own subcultures, including independent “Christian” music labels and production companies. Then, even within the subculture, artists could not write music or create art that was not explicitly religious.
God’s Word speaks of topics such as sensual love between husband and wife, even murder, rape, and lust. However, if “Christian” artists explore these topics, they are harshly criticized and their work usually is not accepted in their marketplace.
Francis Schaeffer lamented, “About all that we have produced is very romantic Sunday school art.” A friend of ours who is a stand-up comedienne does a bit on stage about this sentimental art, and she keeps Christian and non-Christian audiences in stitches. Why? Because it is just as ridiculous as it is true.
Sentimental, nostalgic art can send the message that the “best times” are in the past, while the core of the gospel proclaims the opposite: the best is yet to come. It may require suffering, death, and sorrow, but God will be victorious. Biblical Christians are not pessimists about life or about our culture but believe in God’s sovereignty and His promises of hope.

Discerning Between Form and Content. Some Christians remain separate from culture because of difficulty discerning between content of the artwork and the form in which it’s presented.
If words in a song are bad, then the entire piece, and sometimes the entire genre is condemned (think of the judgment on jazz and rock music). If the words are godly, then the genre may be perceived as holy.
Of course, this doesn’t really work because there is no holy genre. We falsely assume that classical music and high art are pure forms. However, it does not take much research to realize that classical music, operas, and “high art” have their own forays into pagan mythology and graphic themes.
As Gene Veith writes in State of the Arts, “That the arts can be corrupt does not mean that Christians should abandon them. On the contrary, the corruption of the arts means that Christians dare not abandon them any longer.”

This article may be found in its original context here

Copyright 2007, all rights reserved, byFaith magazine. This article first appeared in the December 2007 issue of byFaith and is reprinted by permission.

by Desiring God Ministries

The attacks of September 11 and the resulting war against terrorism have brought to the front once again the question of the Christian view of war. The question is particularly complex because it is hard to see how war can be consistent with the biblical emphasis upon forgiveness and forebearance and love. This emphasis is perhaps most pointed in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 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. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:39-44)

Does Jesus’ teaching that we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies mean that it is always wrong to go to war? Should the world have turned the other cheek to Hitler and tried to love him into surrender? When Osama Ben Laden ordered the attack on the World Trade Center, should the U.S. have responded by sending him the Sears Tower as well? Or does Jesus allow a place for both loving our enemies and yet, in certain situations, using force to restrain life-threatening wickedness?

What follows are some of the primary reasons we believe that it is right for the military (and Christians who are a part of the military) to engage in wars that have just cause–namely, self-defense, the restraint of life-threatening evil, and the punishment of nations and individuals who have committed unjust acts of war against one’s country. This is called the just war theory. We will close by seeking to explain how this fits with the command to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and not resist him who is evil.

Pacifism is harmful
To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism.

Consistent pacifism would have to eliminate the police, not just the military
In fact, if we were to conclude that governments should always turn the other cheek and never resist evil, then we would be logically committing ourselves to getting rid of not only the armed forces, but also the police force and criminal justice system. For police officers arrest criminals, using force against them if necessary, and put them in jail. That is not turning the other cheek. Does Jesus intend his command to turn the other cheek to apply to the police? Surely not as their primary way of responding to evil. God does not want evil to run about in our society unchecked (cf. in the OT the numerous civil laws and in the NT Romans 13, to be discussed below). If one accepts the legitimacy of police using force in some instances, there can be no objection to the military using force in some instances, either.

Luke 3:14 allows military service
It is significant that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to leave the military when they asked him what it meant to repent: “And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, ‘And what about us, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages’” (Luke 3:14). Since it is, therefore, possible to live a godly life and yet be in the military, it must be because engaging in war is not always sinful.

John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
In this passage, Jesus says: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of “two kingdoms”–our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

Romans 13:3-4 grants governments the right to use force to restrain and punish evil
Paul writes: “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 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 upon the one who practices evil.”

Here Paul affirms the government’s right to use force in two ways. First, he says that it “does not bear the sword for nothing.” Second, he states that government is a “minister of God” when it executes vengeance against evildoers.

Governments, of course, do not have the right to use force for any purpose whatsoever. They do not have the right to use force in order to lord it over their citizens and impose unnecessary restraints upon freedom. There are two purposes for which this text says the government is justified in using force: the restraint of evil and the punishment of evil. The purpose of force is not just to prevent further evil from happening, but to punish evil acts by bringing the perpetrators to justice. Government is acting as a “minister of God” when it serves as “an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”

Does the right of the sword in this text extend to the case of war? The immediate context does have in mind the use of physical force in regard to a government’s own citizens. But by extension this also implies that if one nation commits an act of war against another nation, the offended nation has the right to engage in self-defense and to avenge the wrong. Would it be consistent to say that a nation has a right to restrain and punish evil committed against it by its own citizens, but not to restrain and punish evil committed against it by another nation? The mere fact that the civil offense was committed by another country does not remove their accountability to the country they attacked.

1 Peter 2:13-4 confirms the teaching of Romans 13:3-4
In 1 Peter 2:13-14, we are taught: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” Once again, the right of governments to punish evil is affirmed.

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?
Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war. Some have argued that non-Christians may fight in wars but believers may not, but this distinction is not found in Scripture. Scripture teaches that it is not sin for a government to engage in a just war, and there is therefore nothing that forbids Christian from being involved in just wars.

Church and state must be distinguished
It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role.

What about turning the other cheek?
What, now, are we to make of Jesus’ radical commands in Matthew 5:39-41? “Do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two.” How does this fit with what we have seen above?

First, we need to clarify what the problem is not. The problem is not that Jesus appears to be telling us to lie down and let evil overtake us. That is clearly not what he is saying. Instead, he is telling us what it looks like “not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). We have all seen the wisdom of Jesus’ words here in our everyday lives. Much of the time, the most effective way to overcome evil is by not resisting. If someone says a mean word, it is far more effective to respond with kindness than with another mean word in return. If someone tries wrongly to cut you off on the freeway, it is usually best just to let them do it. If we would learn these principles, our lives would be much more peaceful and, ironically, we would be vindicated more often.

So the problem is not that it looks as though Jesus is telling us to let evil steam-roll over us. The problem is that it looks like Jesus is telling us that the only way we should ever seek to overcome evil is by letting it go and responding with kindness. It looks as though he leaves no place for using force in resisting evil.

Part of the answer to this difficulty lies in understanding the hyperbolic nature of much of the Sermon on the Mount. I don’t think that Jesus is telling us never to respond to evil with force (such as in self-defense) or always to literally turn the other cheek when we are slapped any more than his command later in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:6 means that we should only pray when we are completely alone or his command in 5:29 means that some should literally gouge out their eyes. Jesus himself drove the thieves away from the temple with a whip (John 2:15) and Paul at times insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11; cf. also the interesting instance of 16:35-40). Jesus is using hyperbole to illustrate what our primary disposition and attitude should be, not to say that we should literally give in to every attempt to do evil against us. That is part of the answer.

The main part of the answer, however, lies in remembering that Jesus is speaking primarily to individuals. He is not mainly addressing governments here, but is primarily speaking at the personal level. This text, then, shows that an individual’s primary response to evil should be to “turn the other cheek,” while the other texts we have seen (e.g., Romans 13:3-4) show that government’s God-given responsibility is to punish those who commit civil crimes (murder, terrorism, acts of war, etc.). While it is sometimes appropriate even for individuals to use self-defense, it is never appropriate for individuals to seek to punish others. But it is right, however, for governments both to take measures of self-defense and to execute retribution.

There are, in other words, various “spheres” of life. God has willed that some spheres include responsibilities that are not necessarily included in other spheres. Personally, it would be wrong for us to execute retribution on people who harm us. But passages like Romans 13:3-4 and John 18:36 show that Jesus is not denying governments the right to execute retribution on evildoers. Therefore, when a Christian is under the authority of the government and authorized to fight in a just war on the nation’s behalf, it is appropriate for him to fight. For he is not fighting as a private individual, but as a representative of the government to which God has given the power of the sword.

In doing so, a Christian soldier should strive to love one’s opponents in war as people, remembering that he opposes them as agents of the opposing government/system, not as private individuals. When at war, we need to look at people in the opposing army/terrorist group at two levels–the private, and governmental/public. Because of the private level, the soldier should pray for and love the opposing soldiers. And because of the public level, the soldier fights against them–not as private individuals, but as public representatives of the system and evil that is being opposed. That distinction, I am sure, would be hard to maintain in battle. Neither would it remove the pain and difficulty of being involved in fighting against other human beings. But it is perhaps a faint reflection of how the personal and governmental spheres overlap and involve one another while still remaining distinct.

by Alex Chediak

And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate
place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going,
and they had no leisure even to eat. – Mark 6:31

* * *

My wife and I recently had one of those free two-week subscriptions to Netflix. They offered to extend it for another two weeks, but we cancelled. The lady on the phone wanted to know why, but our reason wasn’t on her list. She asked, “Have you enjoyed it?” We said yes, and thanked her. “Are you finding the movies you want?” Affirmative. “Are you able to find the time to watch the movies?” Again, yes. “So, why are you canceling?” she asked incredulously.

The worldview in our culture is straightforward: you’ve worked long and hard, sacrificing your preferences to do what others need you to do, and come quitting time, you should reward myself. You’ve earned it. And when you’re sitting by the pool with a diet Coke and a great magazine, you can remember that this is what you were working for. It doesn’t get any better than this…

To read the rest of this article, follow this link.