Category: Ethics

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part IV

cslsmoking_thumb.jpgThe second book entitled What Christians Believe deals with alternatives to the Christian faith. Lewis first establishes that though other religions are inherently wrong as a whole, yet Christians cannot categorically affirm that they have nothing to offer that is good and wholesome. This is a valid point as far as it goes. If by affirming some good in other religions, Lewis refers to their commitment (as in Islam), their good behavior in public (Mormons; though they would be a “cult” in my perspective), or good moral teachings (like Judaism), then I think it is a fair assessment. Nevertheless, Christians reject any alternative to Christianity, because God says, “You shall have no other gods before me.”[1] By allowing any other religion opposed to the God of the Bible, the right to instruct us on how we ought to live is to break the first commandment. God Himself has the authority to instruct us and all that we need is found in His Revelation. In the end of the day, all truth is God’s truth, but when any other truth, besides the Scriptures becomes authoritative in our daily instruction, we have deceived ourselves.

Before delving into a few specifics of this section of the book, there is a humorous section where Lewis discusses one reader’s complaint about his constant usage of the word “damned.” Lewis writes:

One listener complained of the word “damned” as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say-nonsense that is damned is under God’s curse, and will (apart from God’s grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death.[2]

This is somewhat humorous in light of the contemporary evangelical fear of using language that would be considered cursing. This is in my estimation a hangover from fundamentalism. Lewis is right, but does not go far enough. Lewis is correct that the use of the word “damned” is reserved and can be used for all things and people that are worthy of curses and damnation. (for my article on cursing click here)

Among the great rivals for the conception of God, is the concept of No-god. This is atheism (a-No; Theism-God). Lewis develops his critique of atheism by saying that atheism is too simple. Atheism leads to meaninglessness. But if it is meaningless, then how do we know that statement to be a meaningful expression of what atheism signifies? But also, Christianity can fall into that same category. It can also be too simple and fall short of a proper alternative to atheism. This is what Lewis calls Christianity and water. He writes:

Christianity-and-water, (is) the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right-leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption.[3]

This, of course, is convenient Christianity. “Just tell me when I must come to church and how much I have to give, and then leave me alone.” As Lewis argues later in the book, you cannot have a religion with no ethical demands. God plus no duty equals no Christianity. Unfortunately, millions prefer to serve this God that is only good. It is natural to assume why the natural man does not want to pursue God at any depth. If he does so, then he must be confronted with his many responsibilities before the government of the family and the civil government as well. Further, he will come to grasp with the horrible consequences of not submitting to Christ as Lord. To put it simply, doctrinal depth can lead to a God that is not so convenient to the modern mind.

It is here also that the atheist “inquisitor”[4] wants to have it both ways. The intellectual atheist sees the gospel message and says, “This is too simple.” It does not match their criteria of what a respectable religion should be. On the other hand, when they are presented with the great knowledge of the church throughout the ages, they say, ” This is too hard.” At this point the atheist reveals what is truly in his heart. As Romans 3 says: “There is none who seek after God, no not one.”

The apologetic of C.S. Lewis would be considered to be evidential in nature.[5] Though, he may also be influenced by classical apologetics.[6] Lewis seems to use the latter in proving the existence of God. He begins by proving the God of theism and then perhaps the resurrected Christ.[7] Lewis asserts that the atheist cannot deny the existence of God. Everything that he assumes proves God. Lewis uses the example of a robber. He is considered by society to be bad, but where does badness come from? According to Lewis:

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.[8]

He continues:

All the things, which enable a bad man to be effectively bad, are in themselves good things-resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.[9]

The bad does not exist apart from the good, there can be no real dichotomy in this world.[10]

Briefly, I shall speak to an area of Lewis’ writings that I despise, his treatment of free will. But before doing so, I want to relish on his idea of the great king’s purpose for the Advent (His Coming). Lewis sees the present world as “Enemy-occupied territory.” Surely since the fall we have lost the innocence of the garden and have allowed the enemies of God, the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), to have dominion over what rightly belongs to God. Nevertheless, those who have seen the end of the story are fully aware that God’s secret plan will crush Satan’s armies. Lewis beautifully summarizes the story of the Great King:

Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you may say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.[11]

A great sabotage; this is a great plan to take over the planet that rightly belongs to the King of Kings. This calls for activism in every sense of the word. We cannot remain silent in this world pretending that what will be will be; this is fatalism, not Calvinism. Having dominion requires a plan; and only God’s plan can nullify the enemies’ tactics.[12]

Allow me to speak to Lewis’ view of free will. Lewis writes:

God created things, which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating.[13]

This form of argumentation you see ad infinitum. In fact, it may have been this exact argument from Lewis that has influenced notable Arminian scholars throughout the last 30 years. I can see the validity of it, if one looks merely at the existential level. All of us want to be free, autonomous, not bound by anything outside ourselves, the captain of our ship and masters of our own souls. Nevertheless, the Bible presents an entirely different picture. When Lewis speaks of free will being the ability to go either wrong or right, he is misleading the reader (certainly not on purpose). If by freedom, Lewis simply meant the physical ability to do one thing over another, to have pizza instead of spaghetti, then there would be no dispute. But Lewis uses freedom in a spiritual level. How can man choose good or evil, if he is dead (Ephesians 2:1)? Or how can he choose the good when he does not seek the good (Romans 3:10-21)? The fall brought humanity to a perplexing stage. He can no longer desire the things of God, unless they are given to him by the Father (John 6:44). For Lewis free will is necessary because without it, we are mere robots. But would that not be a glorious thing? Imagine doing God’s will at every breath and at every stage of life. To be a robot is only drudgery to those who do not know the wonder of being led by God at every moment. Nevertheless, the Biblical picture is that we are not robots, but responsible beings. God is sovereign and we are responsible, but lest we find some sense of pleasure in that fact, Paul tells us that even our deeds (our good works) is a gift from God. He works in and through us. Apart from God we are nothing. Only the regenerate mind can do good and even then we cannot claim it for ourselves, for God receives all the glory. This I believe is the right perspective on the matter, though incomplete in its treatment.

Finally, in this final section, Lewis speaks rightly about the inability of man to speak without divine consent. That is, man speaks because God grants Him the ability to do so. In Lewis’ words:

When you are arguing against Him (God) you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.[14]

How is it like to breathe because God gives you breath? How is it to speak against your Creator? And how is it to make a “case” against the existence of God while being upheld by His power to do so? Indeed, what is man that God is mindful of him.

[1] Exodus 20:2.[2] Mere Christianity, pg. 45.[3] Ibid. 47.

[4] I am very careful with this idea of an atheist inquiring about the faith. Calvinism teaches that unless the Spirit of God changes the heart no one can truly seek the things of God. Generally, when the atheist “seeks” God, they are seeking what they can gain for themselves.

[5] John Warwick Montgomery and Gary Habermas hold to this position.

[6] Held by R.C. Sproul and others.

[7] I am not aware of Lewis using arguments from the resurrection in his apologetic. I am willing to be corrected.

[8] Mere Christianity, pg. 50.

[9] Ibid., pg. 50.

[10] In the world to come, all bad is abolished and all things will be perfectly good.

[11] Lewis, pg. 51.

[12] Only an optimistic eschatology is capable of accomplishing this. I doubt Lewis dealt at all with the issue of eschatology, but if I had to guess he would probably be some sort of Amillenialist like most Anglicans

[13] Ibid. 52.

[14] Mere Christianity, pg. 55.

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part II

csl2.jpg 

C.S. Lewis begins his discussion by applying the argument from morality. The general idea is that man in whatever circumstance he finds himself, is fully aware of a standard. For the atheist, that standard is circumstantial (or so he thinks). For the Christian, that inherent Law of Right and Wrong has been written on the hearts of man, because the Creator has established fixed laws of morality, by which man must comport.

Indeed, if there are no fixed set of laws (of morality) then we enter into the realm of the absurd. As Lewis writes:

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find that same man going back on this a moment later.[1]

No one can live consistently within a worldview that does not operate within the laws of morality. These laws guide man, so that when he does wrong, he senses and knows that he has broken some law. Of course, the unregenerate continues throughout his life to suppress this reality to the point of death (ultimate death; Romans 1).

C.S. Lewis summarizes the inescapability of man before this Cosmic Law:

First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.[2]

The Law of Nature for Lewis is a law derived from the Creator. This concept of the Law of Nature has two general meanings, a) that, it is the revealed Law of God to all people and is clear in Nature and by our experiences and b) It is the revealed Word of God found in Scriptures and witnessed in Creation. There ought not to be some unnecessary dichotomy here. Both explanations answer the problem, but one is incomplete without the other. Many during the Scholastic period claimed that the Laws of Nature were clear and therefore, we were in no need of some special, divine revelation. This is foolish, since Natural Revelation is never as clear as Special Revelation.[3]

This was the climax of the Enlightenment that autonomous man is not in need of divine assistance. Descartes, himself, sought to see the starting point of all things in the Self. Truth is found everywhere. It is not confined to the Biblical Revelation. But when the Self of Descartes replaces those two revelations,[4] then autonomy has once again replaced the authority of God’s unique revelation in Scripture and Nature. Hans Kung summarizes Descartes’ journey:

The two books in which medieval man had sought truth—the book of nature and that of the Bible—appear to be replaced here by those of modern man: the book of the world and that of his own self.[5]

This is at its inception the decline of a proper view of Morality that Lewis sought to follow.[6] How is man able to know right and wrong if he is the standard of right and wrong? A true standard must be greater than self, if it is to judge other “selves.” Continue reading “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part II”

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I

180px-merechristianity.jpg Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. A Touchstone Book, Published by Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1952.

This classic is drawn from three separate parts. The first is The Case for Christianity, then Christian Behaviour, and finally Beyond Personality. All three were given on the air as introductory lectures on the Christian religion. To the glorious benefit of the readers Lewis has taken his talks and with a few additions, put together this marvelous work that has served to lead many to consider the claims of the Christian God.

In this series of 15-20 articles, I would like to discuss some of the crucial aspects of Lewis’ writings and make some observations, which, I deem to be important in this day and age. I would like to begin where all good books begin–the preface.

Here we are, removed from C.S. Lewis thirty-three years since God called him. Yet, we are still moved by the brilliance of his works and are amazed by the enormous wealth his famous works[1] still bring to publishers and the movie industry alike. It is crucial to realize that Lewis’ intention in this volume is not to put Christian against Christian, but rather to make a case for the Christian faith. But before doing so, there are several observations in his preface that are worth mentioning.

The relevance of C.S. Lewis is seen in his efforts to unite the body of Christ. Granted, in modern theological language, Lewis would be considered an ecumenicist. That is, one who seeks unity at all cost. As such Lewis avoided dealing with certain issues. It is not that despised them, but that they were not important enough as he sought to defend the faith. To some, to be ecumenical is to flirt with the devil. Nevertheless, Lewis’ ecumenicism is healthy and needed. Lewis is not someone who would compromise the Creedal statements of the church, nor would He compromise other significant elements. However, it is important to see Lewis as someone who was very aware of the non-believing world. He was indeed, an apologist for the Christian faith to the un-Christian masses.[2]

C.S. Lewis was conscious of how the world perceived Christians and he wanted to train believers to be not just intelligent and sophisticated thinkers, but kind and gentle as well.[3] One example of this occurs in Lewis’ preface, in which he writes how we ought to behave if unbelievers are present. He writes:

Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His Only Son.[4]

This is a lesson in what I call “Christian prevention.” If the reader will keep in mind that the unbeliever is at most times completely naïve about the most basic element of the Christian faith, then why would he debate another Christian in areas of the faith that are beyond foreign to the unbelieving ear? The sad state of the church is due to unnecessary fights and inflammatory language that divide and tear asunder the unity of the church. Lewis, in this instance gives us an initial caution mark of what to do in a particular situation. It is better in my estimation to deal with general issues of worldview thinking, unless an unbeliever is curious about something he has heard.[5]

One common critique of C.S. Lewis is that he rarely dealt with controversial Christian issues. He speaks briefly about this when he says:

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ…to say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions.[6]

This is crucial to understand about the nature of Lewis’ writings, and that is, that he was called to be an apologist.[7] As an apologist his audience was not primarily Christian. Lewis wrote in insightful and provocative ways to call the atheist (which, he was before embracing Christ) to see the claims of Christianity. C.S. Lewis made the Christian message appealing to the Oxford philosopher as well as to the children. Of course, Lewis was an Anglican; he never denied it, but he was a reserved Anglican. He never cared too much about presenting the claims of the Church of England versus Methodism or Presbyterianism.

There is a short illustration used by Lewis, which has been used elsewhere, that may shed some light into his thinking about decisions concerning religions.[8] Lewis’ desire is to get an unbeliever into the hall. He writes that if he can “bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted.”[9] Here, once again, Lewis reiterates his passion to draw unbelievers to the Christian message. But once you get into the hall, then the individual is confronted with several doors from which to choose. But which religion, or perhaps which communion should they enter? C.S. Lewis answers: “And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “ Do I like that kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”[10] The language Lewis uses seems to indicate that he is referring to what communion of saints one must enter once he sees the light of the Christian faith. Whether this is the case or not, one needs to analyze internally the reasons to enter into a particular door. Certain doors may seem attractive, but they may be deadly. C.S. Lewis calls for caution and wisdom in these decisions.[11] Continue reading “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I”

Posted on

To Curse or Not to Curse, that is the question. Analyzing the usage of “God” and cursing in our conversation

This paper will intend to deal in an inconclusive manner with the question of the use of “God” and general “cursing”[1] in the life of the Christian. Though it is foreseeable that some will disagree, nevertheless it should help to bring the issue to the forefront. Of course, this is not the last word, nor would I want it to be. I will be constantly revising this article in the days and months ahead in order to come to a more reasonably presented position.

The Use of God’s Name

Having experienced a good portion of my life in South America, I understand some of the crucial cultural differences. Brazilians, for example, tend to be laid back and very comfortable with their way of life. Americans, on the other hand, tend to be generally unsatisfied with their lives and are always looking for some form of improvement. Whether their homes, cars, or any other gadgets, they seem never to be satisfied.[2] Another interesting difference relates to the language they use in communicating with one another. Brazilians are not satisfied with a “How Are You?” type of dialogue. They are curious about your well being to the point of annoyance at times. They are by nature very curious, so they may have other motives for wanting to know how you are. On the other hand, Americans tend to be individualistic and concerned primarily with themselves and if necessary with the needs of those closest to them.[3] I remember in college as the multitudes rushed to get to the cafeteria for lunch and there I was taking my God-given time to the cafeteria while my peers literally sprinted to get to the front of the line. They would glimpse at me and ask how I was doing and before I could even answer they were beyond capacity of hearing my response.

In Brazil, it is very common to express frustration out loud, whereas Americans tend to be more reserved and keep emotions to themselves. It is always amusing to meet a second generation American from Greece or South America; they express themselves loudly just like their first generation parents.[4] As a personal illustration, it was common to hear my godly mother say: “O My God, we need to get these checks sent out today.” To which my dad would respond: “Oh, Lord, I better send them out now before I forget about it.” In case you’re wondering, my parents were devout Christians and beyond that they were ardent fundamentalists who didn’t drink, smoke or danced. In fundamentalism, anything that has any remote connection with evil associations (Hollywood, bars, etc.) is forbidden. Nevertheless, the use of “God” or “Lord” in daily conversation was never an issue of church discipline in church meetings. As far as I am concerned when my mom used the name “God” outside of distinctly “religious” conversation[5] she never meant it with disrespect nor did she mean that God was guilty for whatever happened. It was just shorthand for expressing her fears or dismay at a particular situation. I noted a few distinctly cultural differences in the beginning not for the sake of defending one over the other, but to point out that cultures express themselves differently. We find this even in Biblical examples where after the death of a loved one, some wept bitterly for days, while others tore their clothes in grief. Some cultures are superior to others, but perhaps we can learn something from those that are not as Biblically literate or intellectually oriented. Christians ought to be more concerned about those who call themselves Christian but are far from it (Matthew 7:21-24).[6] Those who call him Lord, but betray his very name in service.

But isn’t that a direct abuse of the third commandment which says that: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain”?[7] Not at all! I think that we ought to be very careful about criticizing certain people for saying things that are common to them. The danger is that in the process of accusing someone’s motives, we may be breaking the ninth commandment.

I remember having a speaker come to our church one time wearing interesting attire to preach. In my estimation, he should have been wearing a suit and tie, and I was clueless as to why he would should such an outfit. I was literally enraged at this pastor’s lack of reverence. After the service was over I politely sought him to thank him for his ministry to our congregation. Suddenly, I heard him speak to an older gentleman and the older gentleman replied: “I wore one just like that when I was in Africa. It is the most expensive suit I had when I was there.” At the moment it occurred to me that the pastor was wearing a common Kenyan suit that pastors wear on their Sunday worship. I felt ashamed; he was actually wearing the best they had to offer.

The common misconception of American evangelicals is that the utterance of the word “God” in any sentence that does not have to do with a particular theological doctrine is therefore wrong. What leads them to think in this manner? First, there are certain background preconceptions about the word “God.” Some believe the word “God” to be some sort of magical word that brings blessings when uttered in a proper conversation and curses when used randomly. This may be so with the unbeliever who disgraces the name of God at every moment by living as if His name did not rule His life. Secondly, some Christians treat the English equivalent of “Elohim” or “Yahweh” as if that were His real name. The Jews feared speaking even the name for fear of irreverence, but the Old Testament saints knew that God was not the far away God of the foreign nations, but a personal God. In this sense, God was theirs, just as they were God’s. They could call upon Him when they desired and they could be righteously angry with God when they could not understand their circumstances. God’s Name is comprehensive and covers the entire world, but the utterance of that name is reserved without curses to God’s people alone.[8] Thirdly, Americans in general have learned to impose their pietistic and fundamentalist[9] ways upon Sacred Scriptures. Some have said that drinking, dancing and smoking are clearly opposed to Christianity because it leads to such and such and is a bad witness to the world. But since when is Christianity’s orthopraxis dependent upon the world’s impression of our lives? Christianity frames the way the world lives, not vice-versa. Adding to the Word is also a condemnable heresy (Deut. 4:2, Rev. 22:18).

The Use of “Cursing” and brief commentary on the Third Commandment

But what is the “Name?” Doesn’t it particularly involve a spoken word? Certainly, but it isn’t the exact meaning of it. John Frame summarizes thus:

We usually think of the commandment as a commandment about language, about what we may say and how we should say it. Certainly that is an important part of our obligation, since “name,” literally and narrowly understood, is a piece of language. But the verb here is not amar or dibber, one of the common Hebrew words translated “speak.” Rather it is nasa’, a term usually translated “lift up, bear, carry.

The idea focuses on bearing God’s name. Nowhere will you find in any of the case laws (which, are detailed expositions and applications of the moral law) someone condemned for using “God” in a conversation where amusement was expressed. It just isn’t the intent of the commandment. To make this the intent of the commandment is to rob the third commandment of its actual meaning. We should be cautious of assuming a command says something that is not explicated elsewhere in the text. For instance, Thou Shalt Not Steal[10] refers in a narrow sense to the idea of taking something from someone else. But taking material things is not the only intent of this command, for we see in II Samuel 15:6 that Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel. The broad meaning of this command is found in the Scriptures to mean that one can break the eighth commandment by stealing the affection of someone else. In the same manner, to assume that the third commandment disallows the use of God’s name in a conversation is absurd. Where is this idea found anywhere in the text?

What about cursing? Cursing always has a different meaning at a different place. If a man should curse without the intention of belittling my family or me, I would feel perfectly comfortable with him; but if he cursed my wife I would probably feel a serious tension at that moment. John Frame tells the story of his early days in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church[11] in the following words:

There are other subcultures in which these terms are understood differently. When I left my boyhood church and joined the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I discovered a very different subculture, a subculture in which the etymologies of “gosh,” etc. were taken very seriously. In that subculture, the meanings of these terms were different. And, wishing to maintain fellowship with these brothers and sisters, I soon eliminated these terms from my vocabulary. In matters of language and vocabulary, we should certainly be as Jews among the Jews and as Gentiles among the Gentiles (I Cor. 9).[12]

This respect helps to analyze this concept on a broader level. The idea of respect for others who are more sensitive plays a major role when discussing this issue. For the record, cursing is not appropriate in all situations. This is where wisdom plays a crucial role. It is almost equivalent to the common frustration of some (particularly in Reformed circles, though not restricted to it) who finds alcoholic beverages to be a great compliment to a meal or a great drink for a social event. When they have a family member in their home that holds to a different idea of how Christian liberty ought to be exercised, it is at most times wise to refrain from drinking. Though, I would argue at times that it is perfectly legitimate to attempt to teach those who are weaker. Sometimes a bottle of wine on the table can be lead to a helpful conversation.

The Third Commandment condemns false swearing or false cursing. Rushdoony writes that it is “taking the name of the Lord in vain, or “profanely” (Berkeley Version) that is forbidden. Clearly, not all swearing or cursing is forbidden.”[13] The term “profanity” means literally something that is “outside the temple.” So in this sense any speech, actions or living that betrays the God of the temple is blasphemous. Furthermore, even polite language, which does not recognize His Lordship over all of life is a breaking of the third commandment.

Throughout history various terms that were once used for common everyday language are now used for sensual or sexual intent. One obvious example of this is the word “gay.” The New American Handy College Dictionary defines “gay” as 1) high-spirited; merry 2) bright; colorful; showy. 3) dissipated; loose 4) homosexual. Now definitions 1-3 seemed very common 40 years ago, but “gay” is exclusively used as the fourth definition. Language has certainly gone through change.  Rousas Rushdoony in his famous exposition of the Ten Commandments has this interesting analysis of swearing:

If swearing and worship are so closely related, and if trifling and false usage of the Lord’s “name,” His wisdom, power, justice, truth, mercy, and righteousness constitutes blasphemy, then we must count most preaching of our day to be thoroughly blasphemous. It is amusing to note that some clergymen regard the expression, originally English, ” I don’t care a dam,” in America, usually “not worth a dam” as profanity, but they fail to see how profane much of their preaching is. This expression, ” I don’t care a dam,” came from India through the Duke of Wellington. The dam is the Indian coin of least value; the expression is thus related to, “not worth a sou,” i.e., the lowest of French coins, now long since gone. Thus, “I don’t care a dam” means “I couldn’t care less.[14]

So what are we to say? If my theses is correct, the third commandment has nothing to say concerning cursing as an ordinary day-to-day manner of expressing frustration, worry, anxiety, relief, concern, etc. Rather it has the idea of directly attacking the character of God in action and word. The great blasphemers of history are certainly aware of this now. If a committed Christian happens to use the word God in normal day-to-day conversation, one can be certain that he is not taking His name in vain. However, if he uses God in the context of sexual innuendo and other unacceptable practices, then it is our duty to rebuke our brother. [15]

I recall watching the late Professor Greg Bahnsen debate a Jewish atheist named Eddie Tabash. In the debate, Bahnsen’s opponent blasphemed the God of Scripture from beginning to end. Indeed, the fool says in his heart there is no god. I will never forget Tabash’s confrontational tone. At one point he uttered, “That if there is a God let him come down right now and show Himself!” When Professor Bahnsen stood up to give his response he simply said: “Well, Mr. Tabash ought to feel very fortunate that God did not reveal himself, because if He did it would be in judgment.” Indeed God will not hold the Tabash’s of this world guiltless.

[1] Cursing here is not synonymous with Biblical cursing as found in Scriptures. Biblical cursing is condemnatory and in some cases worthy of death. It entails a high degree of disappointment, public rebellion, and so on. Keep that in mind in the reading of this paper.

[2] Thankfully, my experiences with the Christian community here in the US in the last 10 years have been overwhelmingly positive.

[3] I realize these tend to be generalizations, but I am speaking from personal experience. Bear with me.

[4] In their case, their families were highly motivated to maintain a certain level of pride in their heritage.

[5] It would probably be appropriate to argue as Van Til did that nothing is irreligious. However, for the sake of communication I am going to distinguish religious conversation from non-religious conversation like politics, sports, family and so on.

[6] A modern example of this is found in Word of Faith healing services, where so-called pastors use God’s name for their own profit. This is blasphemous and a breaking of the third commandment.

[7] Exodus 20:7.

[8] Lest I be misunderstood (which, will probably be the outcome of this article), God’s people are cursed at times, but never for mentioning His name in a conversation. It is the unrighteous use of His name that is considered sinful.

[9] These two movements are reactionary movements. They, in some sense arose out of frustration to the liberal attacks on the Bible, and as a result they separated themselves from society at large and embraced a holy life, a life fully committed to God, and as a result they abandoned the Cultural Mandate and turned extra-Biblical regulations into commands. This is a dangerous reaction and we are seeing the result of that retreat decades later.

[10] The Eighth Commandment.

[11] A small Reformed denomination.

[12] Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Christian Life, pg. 118.

[13] Rushdoony, R. John. The Institutes of Biblical Law, pg. 107.

[14] Rushdoony, pg. 117.

[15] Galatians 6:1.

Posted on

Alito on Abortion

I realize I may be making statements that are too obvious for those who are committed the Christian world and life view. But again, most America evangelicals do not boast on their commitment to a distinctly Biblical view of life. It still befuddles me to find anyone who is open-minded about issues that require no open-mindedness. As many know, I am referring specifically to the new Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito. I confess that there is much more noble in this nominee than the previous one. Of course, that does not mean much. Granted, the political arena is much like the gladiatorial games, one false move and you’re gone. Perhaps Alito is playing it safe so he can make it through the game (hearings) and then take off his mask, however we are still waiting for a voice in the wilderness crying:
“I am not open to anything that betrays my conscience and ultimate moral standard!” Is this too much to ask?

Posted on

The Just War Theory and the War in Iraq

The purpose of this paper is to interact with the war in Iraq; whether it is justified or not in light of the Just War Theory and examine both positions before coming to a reasonable conclusion. Since the question at hand is one that is passed, the topic may seem futile. However, this discussion is still of great benefit since we know that in future wars (sad reality) this question will once again become predominant. The question before us is: “Is the War in Iraq just or unjust?” The answer to this question will determine if Christians should or should not support the current war in Iraq. Our duty as Christians is to pray for our leaders no matter if we agree or not (I Timothy 2:2). The conclusion one reaches on this pertinent question must not hinder the biblical mandate to pray for our leaders. The issue of the war in Iraq has caused some division in the Church of Christ. This debate is primarily limited to the United States, since it is unanimous that Christians throughout Europe are adamantly opposed to this war. However, here in these United States the debate rages on with some very intellectual thinkers expressing their positions on both sides. Formal discussions on what constitutes a morally justifiable war can be found in many religions but the Church of Christ draws primarily on classic Just War theory, which finds its origins in Christian writings in the early church and medieval thinkers. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) is generally acknowledged as the first to offer a considerable treatment of the war and justice in his famous work The City of God. While realizing the enormous loss of life that accompanies war, Augustine notes that a just war is better than an unjust peace. Augustine affirmed the biblical mandate to love our neighbors, but at the same time, he drew from Paul’s injunction to submit to governing authorities, “who do not bear the sword for nothing” (Romans 13:1-7). Augustine acknowledged this tension but maintained that the use of force is necessary–though always regrettable in a fallen world.[1]

There were many voices in establishing the tradition of the just-war theory, but none so significant as medieval scholar and thinker Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He contributed significantly to the development of Just War theory in his Summa Theologica in the 13th century. He formalized three criteria for a Just War – 1) The cause must be just, 2) The chances of success must be reasonable and 3) the authority to wage war must be competent.[2] Further Aquinas laid the groundwork for other criteria that would eventually be integrated into this tradition. Nevertheless these three criteria have served as a standard when referring to the Just War tradition.

After September 11, 2001, this issue has come to the core of religious discussion. In examining these two perspectives it is fundamental to frame the debate. In order for this to take place there are a few preliminary comments that need to be made. First, it is unequivocal that the United States was attacked by terrorists that belong to Middle Eastern descent. Secondly, terrorism in general is an abomination to most countries in the world. Thirdly, Osama Bin Laden is the master mind behind the attack in the US. Fourthly, our foreign occupation has led to severe hatred of American policy in the Middle East. Finally, it is also undeniable that this war is religious in nature and has as its purpose the advancement of a religious cause.

This context makes at least one issue absolutely clear, and that is, that terrorists are responsible for the massacre that occurred on 9-11. Hence, the issue at hand is how a nation responds to terrorist attacks. A large number of Christians believe that this war is unjustified. This paper will now explore the arguments used by those who do not favor the war in Iraq following the same three criteria given by Aquinas.

According to the Bush administration, the preemptive strike in Iraq was another installment in its war against terrorism.[3] A preemptive war will bring about a highly desired regime change ousting Saddam Hussein and bringing freedom to the Iraq people. However, according to those who deny the necessity of a preemptive strike, the criteria used to determine the justification for war oppose the Iraq invasion. In fact, none of them have been met. The first criteria requires the nation to have a sufficient cause to preemptively strike. Historically, the church believed this involved a) self-defense b) against an act of aggression and c) used as a last resort.

The right to preempt an anticipated attack can be extrapolated from the self-defense principle if preemptive strikes meet a high standard of justification.[4] In other words, the attack being prevented must be imminent, not just speculative. If there is to be a preemptive strike mere conjecture or a vague fear of another attack is not sufficient reason to launch an attack. Of course, there are at least a couple of questions that can be raised at this point; does Saddam Hussein possess the weapons of mass destruction (known as WMD)? And also, if he does, does he intend to use them in the near future against the US or her allies? In light of recent discoveries, inspectors have produced a massive document commenting on their search and have discovered that Hussein does not possess WMD’s. This has been confirmed by numerous sources including Secretary of State Colin Powell and recently by President Bush. It seems that as a result of the Gulf War, Iraq had virtually its entire weapon’s program destroyed– including its nuclear weapons’ capability.

The second criteria in a Just War is a reasonable chance of success. Though this requirement is not decisive by itself, it proves to be another argument against the war in Iraq. George Husinger writes that any one who has read Tolstoy’s War and Peace or who remembers the Vietnam War should know that when success is made to sound too easy, skepticism is the order of the day. Precious human lives and scarce economic resources are at stake.[5] This is a considerably powerful argument since the US has her own example of a war that was thought to be easily won. The Vietnam War caused thousands of casualties and further pummeled the US economy for years. In the same manner, promises of prosperity and peace that were made regarding Iraq are now being postponed. In fact, there is even talk that the first elections ever held in Iraq may have to be postponed. So the war that appeared to be easily won is turning out to be similar to that of Vietnam. In this case, the money numbers are higher reaching, almost 200 Billion dollars spent in a war that in a sense has just begun.

One final criteria for a Just War is that there must be legitimate authority. If the US possesses legitimate authority then there may be some basis to launch a preemptive strike, but, here again, the facts are against it. Unilateral action by the United States to overthrow the government of another sovereign nation, writes George Bisharat, would constitute a grave breach of international law.[6]Yet this is exactly what the administration did. With the exception of England and Israel (and Poland) almost all other countries are adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq. It appears that even in the domestic front major American political figures have spoken out against the war. In the end, it seems clear that the position held by those who deny a preemptive strike in Iraq seems very powerful and relatively convincing.

But, as in all fair discussions, there is another side of the story to which we now turn. President Bush has made the WMD’s a primary reason for invading Iraq post 9/11 (It is important to notice that there have been alterations in Bush’s arguments to invade Iraq since the WMD’s were proven to not have been in Iraq when war was declared). Once again the question at hand is: Was the war in Iraq justified? For those who affirm that war was justified– although the weapons were a key rationale for removing Saddam–the case was always broader. Robert Kagan writes that,

Saddam’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction was inextricably intertwined with the nature of his tyrannical rule, his serial aggression, his defiance of international obligations, and his undeniable ties to a variety of terrorists, from Abu Nidal to al Qaeda.[7]

This combination of evil behavior and a lack of compliance with international law such as the Geneva Convention made Saddam Hussein’s removal necessary and desirable. Both former President Bill Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin affirm that this is the case. It is true that the weapons of mass destruction were a main factor resulting in the invasion of Iraq; however Hussein’s behavior and ties to terrorism were also justifications for the invasion, according to the Bush administration. Was there reasonable chance of victory? The answer here is a resounding yes. After all, the American troops alone boast of the most powerful military in the world. Further, with the removal of Hussein the chances of a faster triumph increase tremendously. The logic is simple: if the leader falls so does his army. But the US was well aware of the loyalty of Saddam’s military and that they would not give up. The objective here was to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyrannical rule of a man who has achieved through brute force total dominance at home; who raged war against Kuwait in 1990 and who spent billions of dollars on weapons, both conventional and unconventional. Behind the horrors of a dictator rests the even greater threat that Saddam would rebuild his military capability, including WMD’s, and use this arsenal against other nations and his own people. If the US did not move when it did, the consequences would have been horrific. Then, chances of winning the war would have decreased substantially.

Lastly, was there legitimate authority to wage war against Iraq? Perhaps this is the most controversial point. Though most of the world believed the US should not have invaded Iraq, President Bush and the Coalition had made a broad declaration of war on all “Terrorists.” The Iraq Liberation chronicled Saddam’s use of chemical weapons and declared that Iraq has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs. It continued:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.[8]

Then September 11th occurred, which shocked the nation and the president. The attacks caused the administration to take a closer look at international threats, since it was clear that little attention had previously been given to them. In fact, neither of the candidates in 2000 gave any attention to Iraq as a threat even though there had been 10 years of confrontation with Iraq. This may appear to be more of a justification than an argument for legitimate authority, but this leads to the support received by the president to attack Saddam’s regime. With this threat in mind, it was no surprise that as President Bush began to move toward war with Iraq in the fall of 2002, he gained substantial approval and support from Democrats as well as Republicans. A majority of Democrat Senators including John Kerry and John Edwards voted in favor of the resolution to use force against Iraq. The President had all the authority he needed. At this point who would not support him, since the previous administration (Clinton) was a major voice in setting the tone for the demise of Hussein’s regime.

This analysis is anything but complete, but it reveals the strengths and weaknesses of both con and pro war positions. The pro war position has both emotional and factual appeal. When one considers the despair of a people who has been suffering under a tyrant for over a decade, it is a compelling argument to invade, remove and set people free. Factually, there is overwhelming support from both Democrats and world leaders such as Putin from Russia, that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s and that he was a threat. Further, even if the WMD’s are never found, still the question remains, “what should a president do with all the data in front of him confirming that Saddam Hussein has WMD’s and that he is an imminent threat?” These questions must be carefully considered.

On the other hand, the position that disagrees with the invasion of Iraq is appealing on numerous grounds. First, it appears to follow more closely the Just War Theory. The arguments for not fulfilling the Just War criteria seem to be more thorough and convincing. Secondly, the conclusion that the WMD’s were not present in Iraq at the time of the invasion gives credence to the idea that the preemptive strike was too hasty. Thirdly, if the concentration was on the War on Terrorists as Bush and the Coalition affirmed, then the war should be fought where terrorists were known to live such as in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (though there are a small amount of troops on the latter location). Finally, the consequences of this war may be catastrophically dangerous. The economy has suffered immensely because of this war and countless lives have been lost. Though the people have been “free” from Saddam’s regime, the people still live in fear. The world continues to be divided and hatred towards America increases. The terrorists are still increasing in large number and the war shows no signs of ending. Augustine says that the use of force is necessary–though always regrettable–in a fallen world in order to restrain evil, but that its ultimate goal must be to restore peace.[9] Is the war in Iraq restoring peace to the world? Only time will tell. As of now, this war appears to be unjustified. It is not fulfilling Augustine’s goal in the use of force, but rather it seems to be decreasing the chances to restore peace.

———————————–

BibliographyAugustine, The City of God, Book 19

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. II-II, Question 40, “On War.

Kagan, Robert and William Kristol “American’s Responsibility.” The

Weekly Standard, 15 September, 2003, 9-10.

Kagan, Robert and William Kristol “The Right War for the Right

Reasons.” The Weekly Standard, 23 February 2004, 20-28.

Hunsinger, George “Iraq: Don’t go there.” Christian Century, 14 August 2002, 10-11. Augustine, The City of God, Book 19Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. II-II, Question 40, “On War.

Hunsinger, George “Iraq: Don’t go there.” Christian Century, 14 August 2002, 10.

Ibid.,10.Ibid.,11.Kagan, Robert and William Kristol “American’s Responsibility.” The Weekly Standard, 15 September, 2003, 9.

Kagan, Robert and William Kristol “The Right War for the Right Reasons.” The Weekly Standard, 23 February 2004, 20.

Kagan, Robert and William Kristol “The Right War for the Right Reasons.” The Weekly Standard, 23 February 2004, 20-28.

Augustine, The City of God, Book 19