The American Spectator : Is Any War Just, Dr. Keown?

Text Size

Is Any War Just, Dr. Keown?

By Mark Tooley on 9.2.10 @ 6:07AM

A final reply to Georgetown University ethicist John Keown.

Georgetown University ethicist John Keown has failed to succumb to the rigor of my logic that the American Revolution did meet Christian Just War criteria! Once more, he leaves the same suspicion as when our enjoyable debate began. Does he believe any war is ever just? Or does he join many others in recent times who have largely reinvented Just War standards into a rhetorical tool against virtually all force? This subversion of traditional Just War teaching has become even more pronounced in many circles since 9-11, with religious critics of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts often solemnly citing Just War, without fully admitting that they do not find any war just.

Keown hints at the stratospheric standard he demands for Just War when he argues the American Revolution did not abolish slavery. Must a war redress all injustices to be legitimate? If so, no war is just. Traditional Just War teaching, beginning with St. Augustine, never insisted on such perfectionism, knowing it would have invalidated this teaching. Both sides in the American Revolution maintained slavery. Most of the new United States abolished slavery before the British Empire did. And the Revolution’s aspirations of human equality and rights for all certainly animated abolitionism in America and Britain. Keown’s cynicism is revealed in a quote he cites from one historian, who harrumphed that the Revolution allowed wealthy “white men” to advance while leaving virtually all others behind, amid much persisting “discriminatory” legislation. “Discriminatory” compared to what? Among discriminations that the American Revolution almost immediately removed from the old regime were religious tests for public office, military rank, academic tenure, and suffrage.

No, the American Revolution, like every war, and every human endeavor, did not create utopia. Christians typically do not anticipate the extinction of all injustice until God reigns on earth. But in the years immediately following the war, most northern states abolished slavery, and all states vastly expanded the franchise. The dramatic economic growth after the Revolution, fueled by low taxes and limited government, benefited virtually all classes, with the population quickly doubling, tripling, and quadrupling, thanks to high birth rates and high immigration. Women’s rights were a natural extension of the Revolution’s promises. Alexis de Tocqueville observed how the early Republic highly regarded women, who enjoyed a degree of independence unusual in Europe.

Keown tries to limit the American Revolution’s origin to a trifling tax dispute, with all the British repressions simply the reasoned reaction to misbehaving colonists. Taxation without consent of elected representatives, the abrogation of colonial charters, the eventual dismissal of legislatures, the usurpation of colonial courts, the quartering of hostile troops, the seizure of colonial arsenals, and the suppression of trade were all assaults on liberty that the colonists, no less than for their English cousins in their own earlier struggles, found intolerable.

Keown blames the victims for starting the spiral by not passively accepting injustice from their ruling sovereign. Will Keown more daringly, and with more political incorrectness, next condemn Gandhi’s revolt, which, though, pacifist, ultimately killed and destroyed far more than did the American Revolution?

Incongruently, Keown dismissed my reference to Britain’s own parliamentary led revolts against unbridled royalism, saying the colonists were rebelling against both Parliament and King. But the colonists had their own legislatures, already long recognized in British law, not to mention a trans-colonial Continental Congress. The American Revolution easily fit the Christian Reformed tradition’s understanding that revolt against tyranny is legitimate if led by responsible lower magistrates. This understanding informed the British parliamentary rebellion in the 1640s, and no less the American colonists in the 1770s.

Great British statesmen like Edmund Burke and the Earl of Chatham recognized this principle and openly opposed the British suppression of the colonists. Keown dismisses their points, rooted in the British constitution. Instead, in his original article, he relied heavily on John Wesley, an evangelist, and Samuel Johnson, a literary gadfly, both of whom were themselves initially sympathetic to the colonists. Why do Wesley and Johnson trump Burke and Chatham? And when exactly would the colonists have been justified to rebel? What more should they have endured? Interestingly, Keown never explains. He likewise ignored my suggestion that he justify the British military suppression of the colonists, according to Just War criteria. He complains that it’s not clear that I abide by the “standard just war tradition as set out in [his] paper.” But it remains unclear that his interpretation is in sync with historic Just War teaching, or instead reflects the modern subversion of it. He briefly observes that Just War’s seven criteria have been met “on occasion.” When exactly? His insistence on the American Revolution’s injustice would be more persuasive if he could point to a similar conflict, or any conflict, that was just. Revealingly, he has not.

One of the earliest masters of the Just War tradition, Thomas Aquinas, argued that “disturbing” a “tyrannical government” is “no sedition,” unless disturbing it creates greater harm than the original tyranny. Even earlier, Augustine reputedly wrote, “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” The parameters of traditional Just War are considerably wider, and more humanly attainable, than what Keown now suggests. His insistence on a pure “right intention,” which is impossible among fallen humanity, effectively means that no war qualifies as just, nullifying the whole purpose of Just War teaching.

In their “Olive Branch Petition” of July 1775, several months even after Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress appealed as “still faithful colonists” to King George III for peace. The monarch peremptorily responded with a declaration of war against the “traitors.” America’s Founders and patriots were not angels, as they themselves readily admitted. But their defensive war, waged against a foolish monarch who had rejected compromise and peace, was just, according to the rules of faith then available. Those rules remain more persuasive than what Keown now proposes.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kenny| 9.2.10 @ 6:36AM

Yes, it's obvious that, as you put it, Keown has twisted Just War standards into a rhetorical tool against virtually all force.

The good news is the man's arguments are so weak and superficial that he is without influence save others of his ilk.

I don't know way The American Spectator gives a fool like Keown any space.

Patrick| 9.2.10 @ 3:09PM

Because the greater portion of readers, and likely yourself included, read the Spectator for a number of reasons, with advancing Team Conservative and/or Team Libertarian as being only one.

As much as I denounce John Keown's absurd argument, that such a debate exists on this forum gives us a scholarly rigor long forgotten in the halls of academia.

Unlike liberals, we do not have the benefit of vulgar emotional judgment held together by a mass media peddling paper-thin sophistry. We conservatives do not have recourse in displaying the full depth of our beliefs on a bumper sticker.

Still waters run deep, and the conservative argument demands right reason, impervious logic, and continual internal debate in order to defend against the onslaught of hedonistic liberalism.

In this matter, we are presented no straw man as an opponent. John Keown is using a theory of moral philosophy, and while it may be disingenuous, and that many of us may not ascribe to its authority, the mental exercise is no less challenging or productive.

Likewise Mark Tooley's defense nurtures our own rhetorical fitness and historical knowledge. That he also displays the absurdity of his opponent's position is only a further benefit. As such, these articles present a greater edifying experience for the conservative movement, or Western Civilization for that matter, than say, the internal dynamics of a given primary in a given state.

drudge ette obama| 9.2.10 @ 6:58AM

Ethicists? There's a real market out there for ethicists. Professional students created the field, then hopped into it. Ethicists remind me of politicians.

I know an ethicist. After practicing law for a couple of years, he got bored (it was too much pressure) and became an ethicist. Now he gets to read a lot and teach college students that it is ethical to abort babies.

Stuart Koehl| 9.2.10 @ 8:55AM

My answer, from the perspective of Byzantine Orthodox moral theology, is no war is "just", in the sense that it is not evil and sinful. The Orthodox Church never developed a formal doctrine of "just war", as did the Latin Church, in part because, with the continued existence of a central secular authority, much of the motivation for just war doctrine (e.g., the need to contain endemic "private wars") did not exist.

Another factor might be the different understandings of the nature and effects of "sin" in Eastern Christian (vs. Western) theology. Whereas Western theology tends to view sin from a juridical perspective (a violation of objective law that requires imposition of a punishment), Eastern theology views sin as a spiritual disease in need of healing. Thus, from the Western perspective, it was possible (indeed, necessary) to devise a set of "objective" criteria whereby certain acts (e.g., killing) were not sinful. The Eastern Church, on the other hand, continued to view all killing as sinful, insofar as man is created in God's image and likeness, hence taking human life is an indirect attack against God. The Canons of St. Basil the Great (4th century) prescribe the same penalty for soldiers who kill in war as for murderers--abstinence from communion for two years. And the Byzantine Church refused, on several occasions, imperial requests to grant absolution of sins to soldiers killed fighting the infidel.

The Byzantines, however, were no pacifists. While they refused to recognize any war as "just", they did recognize that some wars are necessary--to defend the Empire, to defend the Church, to protect the weak and the innocent--and they fought very well indeed, for close to a thousand years. Yet they never pretended that war was a positive good. It always remained evil--a necessary evil on some occasions, but evil nonetheless.

Given the logical and ethical gymnastics in which one must engage to make Western just war theory (devised in the Middle Ages to address the nature of war in that era) conform to the nature of modern war, it strikes me that the Byzantines were far more realistic and honest in their assessment of the morality of war, but I doubt that Westerners, raised in the Western theological tradition (even if they eschew Christianity) would have the moral courage to follow their lead.

JP| 9.2.10 @ 10:30AM

Great points. And I might add, Byzantium, despite it glorious culture and deep thinkers fell to the Muslims. Their great Cathedral is now a mosque -has been for 600 years.

The Just War Theory is just another hobby horse where fetishists waste time disagreeing over abstractions no one can understand.

Stuart Koehl| 9.2.10 @ 1:13PM

"Great points. And I might add, Byzantium, despite it glorious culture and deep thinkers fell to the Muslims. Their great Cathedral is now a mosque -has been for 600 years."

All cultures and empire fall, eventually, because nothing that is of this world lasts forever. But the Byzantines had an exceptionally long run--from the 4th to the 13th centuries, at a minimum. We should be so lucky. The fall of Byzantium was not entirely due to the Turks--the Fourth Crusade undoubtedly inflicted a slow-acting but mortal wound that greatly hastened the end.

Evanston2| 9.2.10 @ 2:04PM

Soldiers penalized as murderers? This is entirely un-Biblical. Neither the Old nor the New testament teach this. Jews fought wars and established government at God's command, Jesus encountered soldiers and never told them to stop "and sin no more"...Paul often uses soldiers and war in analogies in the fight for good, hardly appropriate if killing is always a sinful activity. Keep your absolution.
The juridical perspective is also Biblically valid. The law reveals sin, clearly. Your "healing" perspective is valid as well but the opposite bookend. The law reveals, Christ heals.

Stuart Koehl| 9.2.10 @ 2:54PM

"Soldiers penalized as murderers? This is entirely un-Biblical. "

How truly good, then, that the Byzantines weren't a "Bible Only" bunch. Also, the penalty was not legal, but spiritual--soldiers who killed in battle had to abstain from the Eucharist for two years, just like anyone who took a life.

Why?

Because the object of human existence, in Byzantine theology, is "theosis", or "divinization", taking seriously the word of 2 Peter that Christians "have become partakers of the divine nature", becoming by grace of filial adoption what Christ is by nature--sons of God.

Doing so requires man to restore the image and likeness of God within, which, in Byzantine (as opposed to Latin) theology, is not broken, but merely marred and soiled. Through baptism, we die with Christ and are reborn in Him. Through chrismation (confirmation), we are sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit (i.e., with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Himself), and (again in distinction from Western theology), it is incumbent upon each individual person to pick up and accept the gift of divine grace by cooperation (symphonia) with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Anything which interferes with our theosis is hamartia, a word used by St. Paul commonly translated as "sin" but which is in fact derived from archery, and literally means "missing the mark". Hamartia thus implies falling short of perfection.

Killing causes us to fall short of perfection, regardless of the circumstances, and thus requires healing, which must be worked out with tears and sorrow. For the Byzantines, there could be no greater sorrow than being barred from the Chalice of Redemption, the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Byzantines also believed that all sin has a cosmic dimension. When we sin, we offend not only God, but our brethren and neighbors, and indeed, all of creation. The Mystery of Reconciliation is not, therefore, something we do in order to "get right with God"--God forgives a contrite heart at the moment of contrition--but for us to be reconciled with our fellow man, with creation, and also with ourselves.

You should recognize that the early Church was militantly pacifist. Military service, despite the examples of the Centurion of the Gospels, or Cornelius in Acts of the Apostles, was seen as inconsistent with Christian life, mainly because being a soldier required participation in the pagan rites incumbent upon all soldiers serving in a pagan army. After the Constantinian settlement, the Church accepted that military service could be appropriate for Christians serving a Christian Empire--but this acceptance was not universal, and a strong pacifist thread continued to be in dynamic tension with the more secular elements of the Church that saw the need for a military defense of the Church and Empire. This dynamic tension is, I think, responsible for the balanced approach to war found in Byzantine Orthodox theology. For instance, the shedding of blood was considered so antithetical to service at the Holy Altar that clerics who did so reverted to the lay state--no "Battling Bishops" like Odo of Bayeux in the Eastern Churches, and the presence of monks, priests and bishops in full knightly panoply among the ranks of the first Crusaders was considered scandalous by the Byzantines (cf. Anna Comnena, "The Alexiad").

Anthony| 9.2.10 @ 8:30PM

The problem is, we'd all be in the state of Byzantine Church if we didn't fight the muslim horde. I'm no theologian, but I don't think pacifism would've rid Spain of its Moors. Perhaps if the Byzantines had looked more favorably on the "legalistic" western theology we'd all be able to vacation in Constantinople and attend mass at St. Sofia's.

Stuart Koehl| 9.2.10 @ 10:01PM

I fail to see your point. The Byzantine Empire was the bulwark against Muslim expansion from the seventh to the 11th century. By the first half of the tenth century, it had recovered much of the territory lost to the Roman Empire in the initial Muslim conquests. Without Byzantine assistance, the Crusaders would never have made it to Jerusalem, and the Crusader states would have perished much sooner than they did because they were backstopped by Byzantium.

The causes of Byzantine decline have nothing to do with their theological approach to war--the Byzantines were among the most advanced and consistently successful military powers in history, else they would not have lasted as long as they did. But assailed from both East and West--by Turks on the one hand, and Franks and Normans on the other, in the end they were simply overwhelmed. As, inter alia, were the Franks in the Middle East. The Hapsburgs of Austria found themselves defending the gates of Vienna as late as 1685, and even as late as 1916, the Turks were handing the British their asses at Qut and Gallipoli, while the Russians were freezing theirs off in the Caucasus.

Theories of just war are no real help against capable enemies, nor do they compensate for one's own incompetence.

Ryan| 9.3.10 @ 9:14AM

Don't forget the 4th Crusade, either. "Christians" - using the term loosely here - invading Constantinople instead of Jerusalem...mostly because...ummm....yeah.

No real good reason.

Louie723| 9.3.10 @ 2:35AM

"the Byzantines weren't a "Bible Only" bunch. "

You can say that again. With concepts such as "working out healing with tears and sorrow" which are not found in the Scriptures that I am aware of.

Stuart Koehl| 9.3.10 @ 6:49AM

And your problem is. . . ?

Ryan| 9.3.10 @ 8:36AM

Read the next paragraph - I think that you're seeing that phrase a little out of context.

There's something to be said here - the act of killing, for anyone - does, in a sense, break somebody emotionally and spiritually. Anyone that it doesn't affect is either lying or has some serious mental issues.

I'm not arguing that there is some moral equivalent between murder and a soldier defending his own against another soldier (that line may be a little less distinct with Orthodox theology) - and I don't absolutely agree here with Stuart on the theology of the matter, but I think we're closer in agreement deeper down than you realize.

Evanston2| 9.3.10 @ 2:27PM

Stuart, there's a difference between "Bible only" and adopting beliefs that are specifically antithetical to the Bible. One allows room to make up your own stuff ("Tradition") around the edges of Scripture, the other seeks to overwrite its teachings with your own made-up righteousness. What you described, taking a snippet of a text from Peter to launch your own BS, is the latter. You can call it "Christian" but the term loses definition if you include practices that counter the Bible. It would be accurate to call such religion "Whatever" you want it to be -- the worship of self.
Question: you say that I "should recognize that the early Church was militantly pacifist." Was it? This is not reflected in the writings of the Apostles, unless you are addressing martyrdom (which is a separate issue -- death levied by the state against witnesses to the Gospel -- as opposed to participation in wars against other states). Did Christian converts in the Roman army (such as those witnessed to by Paul) cease their service? There is no indication of such in the Apostolic writings. Are there Roman accounts of mass defections from the legions? Or do you depend on some obscure "church" tradition for this position?

Stuart Koehl| 9.3.10 @ 2:50PM

So, what you really mean is you are utterly ignorant of Eastern Christianity, which has been around a lot longer than, well, Christianity almost anywhere else, certainly including the American midwest. There is no disgrace in not knowing about Eastern Chritianity--our light has been hidden under a bushel basket for some time, overshadowed by the dominant Western Protestant faith. We need to make our presence better known.

But, overall, your provincialism reminds me of Time Magazine film critic Pauline Kael, who complained about the election of Richard Nixon in 1968: "How could he win? Nobody I know voted for him!"

Stuart Koehl| 9.3.10 @ 3:02PM

"Did Christian converts in the Roman army (such as those witnessed to by Paul) cease their service? There is no indication of such in the Apostolic writings. Are there Roman accounts of mass defections from the legions? Or do you depend on some obscure "church" tradition for this position?"

Even most Protestants accept the sub-apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers as having some sort of special witness, so I imagine they would give some credence to the ancient martyrologies which include numerous instances of soldiers who, upon their conversion, announced their Christianity, threw off their armor, and submitted themselves to their legate for judgment.

It would have been exceedingly difficult for a Christian to serve in the legions, given that every legionary would have to swear the oath of service (sacramentum) to the Emperor, which would be sealed by making a blood offering (or at the least, an offering of wine and incense) to the cult of the Emperor. A Christian cannot, under any circumstances, make offerings to pagan deities. Paul said Christians could (but ought not) eat meat that had been butchered in pagan ceremonies (most meat in ancient Greco-Roman cities came from the various temples) but drew the line at actual participation in the rites themselves.

Furthermore, from time to time, a Roman Emperor would take it into his mind that he did not have to wait for death to enter the pantheon. Thus, Domitian insisted on being addressed "Dominus et Deus"--Lord and God. No Christian could do that, and this accounts for the persecution of AD 95-96. Usually, when Emperors got that into their heads, they began by checking the loyalty of the army, requiring the soldiers to make a sacrifice to their cult. When the great persecution began under Diocletian in 303, he started by making all of his imperial staff make sacrifices, then the Praetorian Guard, then the rest of the army.

How did that one turn out for the Christian soldiers?

Early Church disciplinary manuals effectively prohibited soldiers (as well as actors) from continuing in their past profession after their baptism, and required the community to look after them until they could find a new one. A similar early canon barred Christians from serving as urban magistrates, because that, too, involved participation in pagan rites, not to mention something of an organizational conflict of interest. When, in the later Empire, it became impossible for the well-to-do to dodge service as magistrates, the Church softened its approach, allowing them to do so, provided they did not participate in pagan rites (the clever ones found someone to stand in for them), and they abstained from communion for their term of office (fortunately, just one year).

As you can see, while Scripture may be silent, there is a host of historical evidence indicating the attitude of the early Church.

Now, I've been more than patient with your manifest bigotry. I suggest you let the matter drop.

Ryan| 9.3.10 @ 3:02PM

Remember that the NT only covers about the first 50-75 years after Christ....and simply because it's not in the Bible doesn't mean that it didn't happen....and if it did, it more likely happened AFTER the Biblical record in any case.

Why argue the point, anyway? It doesn't exactly clash with your theology, and early Christianity didn't exactly have everything ironed out (the Epistles weren't exactly written to congratulate people that had everything right). There have been PLENTY of good Christians who were pacifists throughout the centuries. It doesn't exactly provide a major clash with even Evangelical theology ("counter" as you put it). Actually, scripture barely - if ever - touches on it at all.

BTW - I'm no pacifist, either.

Being Reformed Baptist, I'm no proponent of Tradition, but you VASTLY overstate what it is (it's not exactly "make up your own stuff"); I think also

Stuart Koehl| 9.3.10 @ 3:08PM

If Evanston had read what I wrote, instead of overwriting his own narrative upon it, he would see that I spoke of a shift in attitudes after the Constantinian settlement--but that a dynamic tension continued to exist between the radical pacifism of the monastics and the more pragmatic attitude of the secular (non-monastic) clergy, to say nothing of the Imperial administration and the Church hierarchy. Since the state was no longer opposed to the Church, but had taken on the role of guardian of the true faith, it was incumbent on Christians to serve in the ranks to defend Empire and Church against the enemies of both. But there were still many Christians who felt that war was antithetical to Christian morality and interfered with theosis. And, as I said, those two approaches being held in tension explain the development of the Orthodox understanding of war, and the lack of a doctrine of just war in the Orthodox Tradition.

Patrick| 9.4.10 @ 12:58AM

Stuart, interesting as ever. I would love to go over the finer minutiae of the Council of Florence with you some day.

I suppose there is one Biblical type (as in typology) for the Byzantine approach to killing. Kind David, while held greatly in favor with God, was not permitted to build the First Temple.

In the Chronicles, it was made clear that he, though beloved of God, was a man of bloodshed. Only his son, Solomon, was permitted to seeing through this great enterprise, as unlike his father, reigned in peace. This did not mean that David languished in privation of God's love or even the earthly celebrations of God's goodness before the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, the New Covenant draws from and perfects the Old. As such, the warrior's contrition is not rebuffed, nor is grace denied him. The impression of the deep scar of "wrongness" that is caused by destroying that which is created by the hand of God within the womb in His image (even if he is a heathen) must be healed with time and yearning.

There are many reasons why Eastern and Western Christianity are so alien in approach and perspective, and they alone fill books and even libraries. To paraphrase though, the East grew and prospered as a flourishing empire for centuries, even assisting the hard pressed Latins with some of their barbarous threats. The West, however, was in a demographic tailspin, surrounded and conquered by opportunistic savages, only to later be beset by other savages, and yet other savages. While much of the Eastern patrimony passed onto those few strongholds of the West, much of it was inaccessible to the bishops. Even worse, what scant patrimony that the West could offer was rarely if ever translated to the Greek, and when it was, was of terrible quality.

For instance, St. Augustine was honored as a saint in the East, his writings were never received until the Jesuits were banished to Russia in the 1700's. This is a deep problem, as St. Augustine was immensely relied upon by the West in the development of theology during the Middle Ages.

Evanston2| 9.4.10 @ 4:22PM

Stuart, I agree that Roman soldiers had to take oaths (since oaths are common to any soldiering throughout history) and that such would have raised troublesome questions for Christians, as even our non-sacramental oaths do for servicemen today. Still, do you have any specific references regarding Christians who avoided service (i.e., their contemporary version of "the draft") altogether or who were already serving and found this obligation so objectionable as to renege on their prior oaths and suffer penalties?

Or conversely (from the church's perspective), can you provide a link to any of the "early church disciplinary manuals" that you mention?

In reference to the early church, I agree that Protestants give such writings special attention. But just as there were heretical beliefs in the Apostolic era, the "special witness" (as you call it) of the early church depends on how you define "church" (e.g., inclusion or exclusion of gnostics). Some sort of standard is applied, whether there is a direct link to the Apostles (e.g., students of students of the Apostles) or whether that teaching treats Scripture as such. Your attempts to be even-handed about a variety of positions (e.g., "the radical pacifism of the monastics") can be taken as a lack of such standards...or perhaps you just prefer a scholarly, arms-length tone where all viewpoints are equally valid, you stand for nothing and you can then describe others as narrow-minded bigots. Okay then.

Patrick| 9.4.10 @ 5:29PM

While my knowledge of church history is only just beginning, St. Martin of Tours comes to mind. As for ancient disciplinary manuals, I am not familiar other than the Didache by name.

As for Stuart's comments, perhaps his arms length approach is to express his views in a way that does not automatically trigger a defensive, emotional response.

As for the radical pacifism of the monastics, you fail to comprehend that monasticism is by its very nature, radical.

Evanston2| 9.4.10 @ 4:24PM

Ryan (regarding Pacifism), "Actually, scripture barely - if ever - touches on it at all." Well done, you just answered the pacifism question. The Orthodox position (as described by Stuart) that all killing is sin (whether in service of the state or not) is what it is: made-up. Your assertion that there were "PLENTY" of good Christians who were pacifists is just that. The early church had the OT to guide them in this regard, your treatment of the NT era as a separate animal is at best, inappropriate. Why argue the point? I dunno, because sin is serious and we should define it Biblically. That's why.

Patrick| 9.4.10 @ 5:59PM

Evanston2, the pacifism of the Eastern Orthodox is not the same as the pacifism of the unwashed hippies smoking weed in the park.

Stuart makes it clear that war is sometimes necessary, and with it fighting and killing. That does not mean that spiritual scars are not formed from this.

Evanston2| 9.4.10 @ 10:16PM

Patrick, I don't disagree with what you're saying, as far as it goes. What I've tried to point out, starting with my first comment here, is that to consider warfighting itself as a sin is not Biblical. This is a simple point, and no doubt I've repeated it a lot. Still, I've failed. What I find missing within Stuart & Ryan's comments is a respect for "sin." And when you yourself refer to "spiritual scars" are you referring to the same thing, to sin? To the extent that, as Stuart states, Orthodox warfighters required absolution? I'm hoping for some precision here because of the wrenching reality of sin and the Christian claim that Christ had to bear our sins in His body to save us. Simply put, sin is a serious matter. I don't doubt that you share this perspective, but when I say that I agree with you "as far as it goes" it's because you're not dealing with the core issue of my disagreements with Stuart and Ryan. I disagree with them due to their clinical, "all things considered" approach to the topic. When you say that Stuart expresses "his views in a way that does not automatically trigger a defensive, emotional response" I presume you find that to be commendable. Apologies to all, but I don't believe we're talking about the color of the church carpet here and I believe the antiseptic approach is entirely inappropriate.
Finally, the words "radical monasticism" are a quote from an earlier post by Stuart . When you say that "monasticism is by its very nature, radical" I agree. Please take up the alleged failure "to comprehend" this with Stuart.

Patrick| 9.5.10 @ 11:45AM

And Stuart has made it clear that there is a difference between sin and "missing the mark" as it were. Intent is very important in the determination of what is and what is not sin. The Byzantines do not take a juridical approach as they know it, as they leave whether a given act is sinful to God, and to the conscience of the individual.

That the Eastern Church(es) address the damage as opposed to the intent is where the confusion lies. The importance of the intent is not forgotten, just not addressed as we are accustomed.

For the sake of argumentation, let us suppose that a soldier, on the battlements of Constantinople, is fighting off the Turks. He fights and kills three men in the battle, yet he too dies. Did the soldier sin, and is the soldier in a state of grace?

These are interior questions, and we do not have the capacity to judge as God does. There are just men, saints even, who fight and kill in unjust wars. There are wicked men who fight and kill in just wars.

Stuart Koehl| 9.6.10 @ 2:33PM

"Did the soldier sin, and is the soldier in a state of grace?"

The question, in the context of Byzantine Orthodox soteriology, makes no sense. We don't speak of dying in a state of sin or a state of grace, just as we do not distinguish between "mortal" and "venial" sins. We would say that the soldier who has killed the enemy in battle and then is slain himself will be judged on the entirety of his life by the Eternal Judge who is both all-just and all merciful. In our funeral service, the following prayer is repeated several times:

"O God of spirits and all flesh, Who have trampled death and overthrown the devil, and granted life to Your world: now, O Lord, grant rest to the soul of your servant, in a place of peace, a place of green pastures, a place of refreshment, where all pain, sorrow and sighing have passed away. As a good God Who loves mankind, forgive every sin committed by him in word or though or deed [Notice the order here!--SK], for there is not a man who lives and does not sin. Your righteousness is everlasting, and Your Word is truth."

In short, all of us who depart this life have sinned, and all will be called upon to account for those sins, but we trust that God will not condemn those who believe in Him and have faith and trust in Him, but will grant them life everlasting.

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 9:42AM

Patrick,
Baloney. When a man fights for his country it is according to his own conscience that he does so. A "spiritual scar" would not be formed because it is no sin.

Patrick| 9.5.10 @ 11:53AM

So there is never an instance of a good, saved, Evangelical soldier coming back home with for instance, a case of PTSD?

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 3:03PM

Spare me, Patrick. You want to play games about the difference between PTSD and a spiritual scar(s)? If you truly cannot tell the difference then you are no enlightened man.

For those who don't know, a spiritual scar is something that you receive if you consciously choose sin.

PTSD is caused, obviously by no choice of one's own. Patrick ought to know better but he's too busy wanting to play games and pontificate.

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 9:32AM

Amen to that!

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 9:49AM

My Amen was to Evanston2's comment @ 9/4~4:24 p.m.

If you call yourself a Christian you would want to be Biblical. Otherwise you become a haughty intellectual and prescribe whatever strikes your fancy. That includes making up theories and purporting them to come from Christians. Such as "Just War Theory."

Another term the many and various Religions try and prescribe upon us Biblical Christians is the term "Protestant." This is also a phony term used to describe Christians who are not in lock step with their form of Religion. We are supposedly "protesting" theirs, thus we are "Protestants." When in fact, they with their unBiblical doctrines of men are the real Protesters~ they protest the Bible and those who cling to it.

Ah, yes! We, the bitter clingers!

Patrick| 9.5.10 @ 12:51PM

The NT has very little to speak of matters of state. During its writing, the Church had very little in the way of temporal power, and so Christendom presents a great number of practical problems. The OT does not always provide a very clear answer either, as Israel/Judah is always justified in fighting heathen nations, except when it is ruled by a wicked king. As such, is a war just, provided a Christian king provokes a Christian king into war because he thinks the other king is naughty? Do you really think that is of the same spirit as the Good Samaritan?

The Just War Doctrine is not a replacement for the Bible, nor was it ever meant to be. The Just War Doctrine was not made to stroke the egos of university professors. It was made as a tool to help leaders determine if they were in the right to declare war.

As for Biblical, from whence does your Bible come?

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 3:08PM

"As such, is a war just, provided a Christian king provokes a Christian king into war because he thinks the other king is naughty?"

Oh please.

You MUST be in darkness if you have to ask a question like that. Either that or you just really enjoy playing some sick games.

Where does my Bible come from? You don't know?

Patrick| 9.5.10 @ 5:13PM

Margie, is it a sick game or darkness that poses a very real question that already has been asked, and mind you, applied.

For instance, which parties are justified in the First World War? Was Protestant England justified by warring against Protestant Germany, for daring to war against Catholic Belgium? Was Protestant Germany justified to march through Belgium, that it may save the lives of thousands of troops in defeating Catholic France? Was France justified to war against Protestant Germany because it was allied with Orthodox Russia? Was Protestant Germany justified in warring against Orthodox Russia for the sake of its Catholic ally, Austria-Hungary? Was Orthodox Russia justified to war with Catholic Austria-Hungary to aid its Orthodox ally Serbia? Was Catholic Austria-Hungary justified to war against Orthodox Serbia because it would not bring Serbian terrorists to justice?

This comes from neither sickness nor darkness Margie. 16,000,000 people died in that war, most professing to be Christian. This is not the only war in which Christian blood was spilled from Christian hands in war. So don't "Oh please" me.

Actually I do know where your bible comes from. Christianity is a historical religion. Every aspect of it, whether true or heretical, occupies a historical place.

The King James Bible, the foundation of most newer versions, was completed in 1611 (complete with Apocrypha), as a single authoritative translation. Prior to that was a number of different Protestant versions, leaving some dispute over the particulars. Prior to this, many Protestants hold the translation of John Wyclif of the Catholic Vulgate to be Protestant, yet Protestantism didn't exist yet.

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 8:37PM

Wow. Was that supposed to make me feel bad or something, because it didn't! Your question above, was: "As such, is a war just, provided a Christian king provokes a Christian king into war because he thinks the other king is naughty?" To which I still give you the same reply: Oh, please!

I think you know that is a phony question with a phony intention. Why? Because you already know the answer.

Patrick, if you truly labor over the issue of war I simply do not understand it. You can only do what your own conscience tells you to do~ or not do. "For we all must appear before the Judgement seat of God." Rms. 14:10.

Perhaps the true definition of Sin will help you: "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." Jas. 4:7.

It therefore has more to do with NOT doing the right thing! How simple God's way is. He makes it clear, and it isn't hard. Because even if we fail Him, "But there is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared. A man I once knew said "Let all of my mistakes fall on I tried too hard." And so, if a man believes he should to go to war for his country, to war he must go! And I am talking about OUR country.

Conscience~ it's all about conscience.

As to "which" Bible I read from, if that was what you were asking me~ it is the Interlinear Greek/Hebrew. Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc.

http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubeca.....d_700.html

The Bible comes from God. Though man has tried to change it, added to and taken away from it, God has still made it available to us as is His will. He is not a God of confusion, but of peace! (1 Cor. 14:33.)

Stuart Koehl| 9.7.10 @ 6:10AM

Aside from the Didache (late first century), other early Christian writers who saw military service as antithetical to Christian life included Hippolytus of Rome (late 2nd century), Canon 14:

"A Christian is not to become a soldier. A Christian must not become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is not to partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God."

Slightly later, we have Tertuullian (mid-3rd century), "de Corona Militis"; Lanctanius (late 3rd century), "de Institutiones", 6. 20. 16). Even as late as AD 325, the First Council of Nicaea, for which most Protestants express the greatest respect, could write in Canon 12:

" As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time."

It is on the basis of Nicaea 12 that Basil the Great could write in his Canon 13:

"Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean."

This, then, became the basis for the classic Byzantine Orthodox attitude towards war: sometimes necessary, never "just". A soldier who kills in war is not, legally speaking, a murderer, but from a spiritual perspective, his shedding of blood has caused him to fall short of divine perfection and requires healing through prayer and fasting before he can be readmitted to communion.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 2:52PM

Well Mr. K here you have it again. This is not Biblical. It is Religious doctrine.

Thankfully there is no such thing in the Bible as these men write. There is no "falling short of divine perfection" and having to pray & fast before "being readmitted to communion." IT ISN'T Biblical!

You place a heavy burden on yourself and others that is not necessary. Ah but it makes one feel better somehow, doesn't it? To be Religious! But the Bible says that all of our "righteous deeds are but filthy rags to Him! What then?

"For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,instructing us to deny impiety and worldly lusts, that sensibly and righteously and piously we might live in the present age, expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God and Saviour of us, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself on behalf of us in order that He might cleanse for His own possession , a people zealous for good works. Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:11-15.

Hey Mr. K~ how come you rarely quote the Bible but often quote the nonsensical doctrines of men?

Ryan| 9.2.10 @ 12:36PM

I like this idea because it acknowledges the sinful nature of man in all aspects;.

I WOULD say, however, that a juridical aspect of sin isn't invalid - there are several instances where legal language is used in the NT in reference to sin and its consequences. I would also say that though seeing sin as a disease has some merit, the problem there is that it can be skewed to view the sinner as a victim (where liberation theology points) rather than the perpetrator of sin.

Stuart Koehl| 9.2.10 @ 1:18PM

It is important to understand that, while juridical language is used in the New Testament, it is generally metaphorical and not literal. Christ sits upon his awesome seat of judgment like the magistrate in a Jewish legal proceeding, and all are called to give account of themselves. But is it a strictly "legal" proceeding? That is, do certain offenses incur certain penalties? Can mitigating circumstances be considered? Can witnesses be called on one's behalf? It does not seem likely. Rather, at the last judgment, we shall see ourselves as we truly are, and at that moment, we as much judge ourselves as we are judged by God.

The medieval Western Church, for pastoral reasons, liked to employ legal language, which over time, evolved into a legal mindset. But Saint Paul had the final word, when he said that the letter of the law brings condemnation, but belief in Christ brings life everlasting.

Vern Crisler| 9.2.10 @ 9:04PM

Huh? Juridical language in the NT is metaphorical? Can you say Book of Romans? Can you say justified by faith and not by the deeds of the law? It would require a great deal of bowlderization of the NT to remove its legal and juridical framework.

Margie| 9.2.10 @ 9:40PM

Excellent comment! When you live in Fantasy Land as in the case of Mr. Koehl, you get to make stuff up.

Stuart Koehl| 9.2.10 @ 10:05PM

You're not advancing the Evangelical reputation for scholarship, Margie. You may think my theology is incorrect, but you can hardly say I am "making it up", as it represents the 1700-year old Tradition of the Orthodox Churches.

You have no idea what I'm saying, do you? No matter, people who matter know what I say is true.

Louie723| 9.3.10 @ 2:22AM

Margie could say the same thing couln't she? "People who matter know what I say is true".

Stuart Koehl| 9.3.10 @ 6:52AM

No, because what she said was objectively and demonstrably untrue; i.e., that I "live in fantasyland and get to make stuff up". There is such a thing as the Orthodox Church, it has a highly developed theology which is extensively documented, and I draw upon that theology in regard to war because it is the theology of my Church.

But, while we are on the subject of "just war theory", how does a "Bible-only" Christian justify employing a doctrine which is also not biblical and which was developed in the Middle Ages by scholastic theologians using the methods of St. Thomas Aquinas? Or do you owe more to the dreaded papists than you care to admit?

Evanston2| 9.4.10 @ 10:27PM

Stuart, who among the "Bible-only" Christians here is (as you say) "employing" Just War doctrine? Put another way, at whom are you aiming this comment? I'm admittedly being lazy here but it looks like you're posting on a number of different threads with a number of different people. I'd be grateful for your help, because depending on how exactly this person is "employing" the doctrine I may (God forbid...just kidding) agree with you.

Margie| 9.4.10 @ 11:16PM

"Knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up." 1 Cor. 8:1.

You're full of yourself. Along with your Theologian pals.

And as to your arrogant statement~ "People who matter"~
"God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." 1 Cor. 1:28 & 29.

I boast in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who saved me from Sin, Death and Hell, and mostly from myself. He brought me up out of the depths of despair and set my feet upon the rock. According to the Bible~ YES the Bible~ I am saved by Grace, through Faith, and it is not my own doing, but is the gift of God.

To me, that's pretty special. To Him, that makes me a daughter of the Most High. And that my dear man, is good enough for me.

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 9:30PM

Scholarship you say? Since when does God require intellectualness above repentance?

"He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8.

Notice that word humbly...

Stuart Koehl| 9.7.10 @ 6:18AM

Evangelicals have always at least given lip service to scholarship, recognizing that if one is going to put a premium on individual interpretation of Scripture, the individual ought to be properly prepared to do so; they would never have expressed such denigration towards learning as you do.

As for your dismissal of theologians, in the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition, only three men were ever granted that exalted title: St. John the Evangelist; St. Gregory Nanzianzen; and St. Simeon the New. They are accounted as having found words truly "appropriate to God".

For the rest of us, Evagrios of Pontus wrote, "A theologian is one who truly prays, and if you truly pray, then you are a theologian".

By the way, I noticed the pride with which you emphasized the word "humbly".

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 2:33PM

Stuart,

It is YOU who has done the denigrading. I don't denigrade learning. I've studied the Bible for many years and still learn every day. What I despise though is your haughty better than thou attitude and your lying. You twist the Bible to suit yourself and hate Biblical Christians. THAT will get you nowhere.

So, you lie again when you say I denigrade learning.

How about learning God's Way? Repent from man's thoughts about God and listen to what God says.

You're still lying, Mr. K.

You have knowledge about Him, but do you know Him?

Stuart Koehl| 9.2.10 @ 10:06PM

If we were all Evangelical Protestants, we might have some agreement on this, but as I am not, please do not assume that I am bound by your theological presuppositions.

Ryan| 9.3.10 @ 8:48AM

I think that you're seeing the word "metaphorical" as "untrue." That's not the case.

Legal terminology aids in showing us our position before God, but there's a hyper-literalness there that maybe could be a step too far.

Are we LITERALLY on trial - or going to be - before God, in a robe and holding a gavel?

Or is it simply a very good way of describing our souls?

Stuart Koehl| 9.3.10 @ 3:11PM

You should hear the squeals when I refer to elements of the Bible--particularly in the Pentateuch--as being largely "mythical".

Good thing I have C.S. Lewis on my side for that use of the word "mythical". I mean, Clive Staples is the closest thing to a Protestant saint, isn't he?

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 12:10AM

If you are actually stating that aspects of the Bible are mythical, you are then calling God a liar. Since the definition of mythical means something that is not true. What kind of genius would do this?

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him." Pro. 30:5.

Stuart Koehl| 9.6.10 @ 9:01AM

Like many Evangelicals, you seem utterly devoid of imagination and incapable of dealing with such things as complex symbols and higher truths, which is why you take the word "myth" a synonym for "lie".

What is a myth? A myth is a story that explicates a truth so profound it cannot be explained except by story. All myths are fundamentally true, though some myths do use the medium of fiction.

C.S. Lewis, to expand on the incident I referenced, was born a Presbyterian, but by university had become a militant atheist. As he aged, and he explored the literature of many different cultures, he found himself attracted to the ideals expressed in their mythology.

One day, he was having an evening stroll with two of his friends and fellow Oxford dons, J.R.R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson, about why Lewis just could not bring himself to believe in God. They pointed out to him how much he admired the pagan myths, and then told him:

"Christianity is a myth that happens to be true".

That is, the Gospels are mythic books: they illuminate profound truths. They also happen to be historically true: Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem in the reign of Caesar Augustus, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, Praefect of Judea, and rose from the tomb on the third day.

All of the Bible is mythic. All of it is a revelation of God's divine economy of salvation. The various books use different means of doing so. Some are straightforward history (Joshua, Kings, Chronicles, many of the prophetic books and Maccabbees); others are the Hebrew foundational epic (Exodus, Samuel); Genesis is a straightforward creation myth the purpose of which is to demonstrate God's unique authority over all of creation, man's unique role in God's plan, and the unutterable consequences of man's moral collapse. Yet others are poetry (Psalms, Song of Songs), or wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), prophesy and eschatology (Isaiah, Daniel) and yet others are inspirational romances (Jonah, Job). All are divinely inspired. All thus speak truth. Not all are factually true in the way that some biblical literalists would have it be. And, in fact, few people prior to the mid-19th century ever read the Bible as being nothing more than a history book of the Jewish people. God is much more profound than that. Which is why we are not Muslims.

Evanston2| 9.6.10 @ 11:44AM

Stuart, in one sense I get it. Let's face it, in describing Himself (and His relation to man) it is always necessary for God to use metaphors. In another, you make sense into nonsense. If the metaphors are little more than suggestions that you can pick and choose from (these books or incidents are "mythical"), or into which you can pour your own beliefs (this is what the myth means), you are again worshiping yourself. Further even your use of the words "myth" and "mythical" re-define language to the point that it loses any real, actionable meaning. Conversely, you accuse many Evangelicals as "being utterly devoid of imagination." That's right, we believe in a wooden literalism. We all know that Christ is a door, right? And that he has wings that chicks can gather under, and a sword coming out of his mouth. We just don't get it, right, this whole metaphor thingy...and thank you for explaining that the Bible contains history, poetry, and prophecy. Wow, wouldn't know it without a revelation from Stuart. Thank you as well for mentioning C.S. Lewis, who wrote for non-believers who wouldn't crack open a Bible. No wonder you identify him as "the closest thing to a Protestant saint." He may be to you, for most of us he's just another guy.
Evangelicals preach Christ, and Him crucified. You're right, many of us lack your lofty speech and wisdom (oops, I mean mastery of "complex symbols and higher truths") -- 1 Cor 2:1. God, thankfully, understands that Evangelicals are "incapable" so the themes of the Bible are main and plain and repeated in many different ways so that we can't miss them. For you, however, the Bible is incomplete and requires the addition of your wisdom. I believe you have much more in common with Muslims than you think. After all, they believe that the OT and Christ's message have been perverted. They have Mohammed (supposedly as a heavenly channel/amanuensis) to correct and augment our myths. I wonder where he got the idea that the Trinity is the Son, the Father and the Mother? Who blew up Mary beyond all proportion, those you smilingly call the "dreaded papists" or from the Orthodox? Indeed, you may find you hold much in common with Muslims.

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 4:08PM

Stuey baby,

I have one thing to say to you, that is after you finish looking down your haughty nose at me.. if you can:

"If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." 1 Jn. 4:20.

Oh and one other thing,

You are living in fantasy. I hope you come to your right mind some day.

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him." Pro. 30:5.

Stuart Koehl| 9.6.10 @ 6:44PM

""If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." 1 Jn. 4:20."

Perhaps you should take this to heart, as well as the injunction to point not to the mote in thy neighbor's eye and missing the beam in thine own.

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 7:03PM

Love means telling liars the truth whenever I happen to come across them. And that is what you are. You deliberately twist the Bible and proclaim certain parts untrue, along with deliberate misrepresenting of Bible believing Christians. Sad and disgusting.

And now, I will refer you back to Evanston2's post, above. He says it so much better than me.

Stuart Koehl| 9.6.10 @ 8:50PM

"Love means telling liars the truth whenever I happen to come across them."

I gave it my best shot, but you just won't listen.

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 9:26PM

Listen to a warped man who perverts the Bible? Who outright lies? Who says that it doesn't mean what it says it means? Who says "I (Mr. Great & Wonderful) don't have to interpret it that way?" No, Stuey.

Like the old hymn says~ "On Christ the solid Rock I stand. All other ground is sinking sand. All other ground is sinking sand."

Evanston2| 9.7.10 @ 4:41PM

Thank you Margie, particularly for your perseverance as a warrior for the Truth. You have the full armor of God. It is thrilling to put on but also humbling, isn't it? Our war, as it was in both the OT and NT, is within the church. The worst thing you could say to Stuart is "keep on going the way you're going." But you have cared and tried. Stuart says that he, too "gave it my best shot, but you just won't listen" to all the wisdom he has to offer. You both understand each other. That's all we can do, offer a faithful witness. I thank God that He showed me who I was and changed my heart. What a miracle! This is truly THE Just War and thank God it doesn't depend on our eloquence or looks or even our character. Instead, we look to the founder and perfecter of our faith (Heb 12:2). Carry on, warrior.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 1:40PM

Evanston2,

I am nothing but refuse. Stuey is right. I don't deserve to be called Christian. Yet God in His mercy saved me. He drew me with the cords of compassion to Himself almost 35 years ago. it wasn't by me reading and finding knowledge, though I was seeking truth and tried reading everything I could in order to find it. But nothing worked. I knew I was in darkness and sinking fast. At such a young age I had the awareness that something was utterly wrong with me. Yet I didn't understand that it was the guilt of my sin that was destroying me. No matter how hard I tried to be good, I couldn't hold to it. I was powerless against sin. Like every human being does I tried and tried only to keep failing. Then when I was at my lowest He saved me. He filled my heart with His love and took away all my sins. He changed me from the inside out and made me realize that apart from Him I could do nothing! I then began a relationship with God through Jesus, as it says in the Bible, relying on Him for everything. Every human being is created to give glory to God. He intended it so back before Adam sinned. Adam actually walked with God, and talked with Him. But now the Bible says there is a separation between us and Him because of sin. And Jesus is the Way to cross over the chasm. The ONLY Way.

Thank God for Jesus. What a wonderful Saviour.

Right, Stuart?

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 10:12PM

Hey Stuey,

How many more nails do you want to put in that coffin of yours? Let's see your list of "myths" in the Bible.

Is Hell a myth to you? How about the Lake of Fire?

Do you think that God will not throw you into Hell for calling Him a liar?

Stuart Koehl| 9.7.10 @ 6:22AM

Both are myths. That does not mean both are not true. Since man has free will, the existence of hell is a necessary concomitant. But can you say with assurance that it is presently occupied by any man? How can you presume to judge.

And what, precisely, is hell? The consensus among the Greek Fathers was hell is the absence of God. The fire hell is in fact the same divine light perceived as radiant warmth and love by the righteous, just as the illuminating light of the sun is perceived as blinding pain by those who live in darkness.

God also says something about those who bear false witness, and those who judge the spiritual state of others. Be wary yourself!

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 1:17PM

"God also says something about those who bear false witness, and those who judge the spiritual state of others. Be wary yourself!"

I see, you mean like you saying I'm an anti-semite when it's not true? Hmm.

Now why do you go round n' round about what Hell is and if it's real, etc. Why don't you just read the Bible? You act like you're a Christian but then you fight with Christians who are Biblical. Why is that?

Why do you choose to get caught up in the doctrines of men? Sure, they may be fun to read, but they aren't the genuine article. That's what I study. That's how I can recognize what's false. If you mock and deride and absolutely seem to hate Biblical Christianity~ what does that really say about you?

I say it means you must be in darkness. You are groping around in the dark and only Jesus Himself can save you from it.

" I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

Church can't save you. The early church Fathers can't save you. Knowledge can't save you. Only Jesus.

"Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Mt. 11:28-30.

Ryan| 9.3.10 @ 8:45AM

I think that the metaphorical/literal line here is a little blurred, at best. I agree with your final summation, and I think that you're very much in agreement with James 2:10:" For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

That we'll all face some sort of personal trial at judgment is probably metaphorical, but the pronouncements of guilt that Christ already made (John 3:16-18 - "condemned already")...

Anyway, we're driving at the same thing. Legal language is used in describing our position before God - we have an "accuser," and we DO have a "witness" (Christ).

Ryan| 9.3.10 @ 8:52AM

I AM going to hold on to one position, though - seeing sin as a "disease," I think, doesn't hold well with scripture. That's how the liberation theologists look at sin, but maybe their view is a step further.

I think such a view can make us see ourselves as victims - and therefore not responsible - for the sin we commit.

I DO get your point on the legalism angle, though - it's why I am glad I attend a Presbyterian (PCA) church - even though I am "technically" I guess a Reformed Baptist - they don't have the legalistic viewpoint that my Southern Baptist roots tend toward at times.

Vern Crisler| 9.3.10 @ 11:03AM

Seems to me the idea of sin as a disease is metaphorical -- not that there's anything wrong with that....

Stuart Koehl| 9.3.10 @ 3:24PM

" I think such a view can make us see ourselves as victims - and therefore not responsible - for the sin we commit."

Oh, no--and here we run into the problem compressing a very complex matter into a small amount of space--the Orthodox Church is very specific: all sin is personal, and we are responsible for our every thought, word and deed before the awesome judgment seat of Christ (you'll have to attend one of our funerals to get just how much we stress that).

In Orthodox theology, there is no such thing as "original sin" inherited from Adam; we are not born into a "state of sin", nor is human nature irreparably broken (as was taught by Augustine and adopted by Martin Luther, a good Augustinian friar). Rather, we inherit from Adam our mortality, a propensity to death and corruption, consciousness of which caused man to develop instincts for self-preservation. These instincts--for food, for warmth, to propagate the species--can turn into disordered "passions of the flesh"; e.g., the desire for progeny and for companionship with the other sex can turn into lust; hunger can turn into gluttony; knowledge can turn into pride and vainglory.

Orthodoxy considers man a psychosomatic being, consisting of a body, soul and animating Spirit. Rightly ordered, the soul and the body are subordinated to the Spirit, but the passions cause the flesh to have dominion over all, and these passions inevitably cause us to sin. Sin, in turn, mars the indwelling image and likeness of God. As the Apostle said, and we repeat endlessly, "There is not a man who lives who does not sin".

Through baptism, we are reunited with Christ, through whom we can begin to restore the image and likeness within, and embark on the path of perfection. But the passions are strong (for which reason, we fast and pray often in order to master them), and we constantly fall back into sin. As a monk once remarked when asked what they do in the monastery all day, "We fall and get up again, fall and get up".

The East does not distinguish between "mortal" and "venial" sins, as does the Latin Church, but instead sees a difference between sins, committed volitionally and with forethought; and transgressions, committed by accident or without thinking. Both are considered hamartia--a failure to hit the mark. And both require healing, and to some extent, restitution. A metaphor I like to use is the difference between deliberately throwing a rock through a neighbor's window, and accidentally breaking it while playing with a ball. The former is a sin, the latter is a transgression, but in both cases, the window is broken and needs to be replaced.

Margie| 9.4.10 @ 11:34PM

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." ! Cor. 15:22.
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--" Rms. 5:18.

Stuart Koehl| 9.6.10 @ 9:29AM

But I don't have to interpret those the way St. Augustine did (you do realize how much Protestants share with Roman Catholics on this matter, don't you), but can follow the majority of the Fathers who disagreed with Augustine. For in the original Greek (Augustine only read Latin), Psalm 50 (Septuagint numbering, we Byzantine Orthodox Christians recite it innumerably in all our services), reads "in SINS did my mother conceive me", and is seen not as pointing to an inherited stain of guilt passed on through sexual propagation (the reason behind the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary) but of the fallen state of humanity in general resulting from the disordered passions of the flesh.

Also, the Orthodox look to Romans 5:12, not 5:18: "As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned" (eph ho panton hermarton).

The great Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff has written at length on this in his book "Byzantine Theology":

"In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as 'in quo omnes peccavarunt' (in whom [Adam] all men have sinned, and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek--the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form "eph ho"--a contraction of "epi" with the relative pronoun "ho", can be translated as "because", a translation accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds. Such a translation renders Paul's thought to mean death, which was the 'wages of sin' (Rom 5:23) for Adam is also the punishment applied to those who, like him, sin. It presupposes a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but does not say his descendants are guilty as he was, unless they also sin as he sinned.

"A number of Byzantine authors, including Photios, understood the eph ho to mean because, and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners, death being the normal retribution for sin. But there is also the consensus of the majority of Eastern Fathers, who interpret Romans 5:12 in close connection with 1 Corinthians 15:22--between Adam and his descendants there is a solidarity in death, just as there is a solidarity in life between the risen Lord and the baptized.

"This interpretation comes, obviously, from the literal grammatical meaning of Romans 5:12. Eph ho, if it means 'because', is a neuter pronoun; but it can also be masculine, referring to the immediately preceding substantive 'thanatos' (death). The sentence may then have a meaning which seems improbable to a reader trained in Augustine: 'As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and BECAUSE OF DEATH all men have sinned. . . "

"Mortality, or corruption, or simply death (understood in the personalize sense) has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease that holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is 'murderer from the beginning' (Jn 8:44). IT IS THIS DEATH THAT MAKES SIN INEVITABLE, AND IN THIS SENSE, 'CORRUPTS' NATURE." (pp.144-145)

It's interesting that you continue to hold onto the Augustinian understanding of original sin, dependent as it is upon a faulty Latin translation of the original Greek which is no longer sustained even in the Bible translation that you use, which shows, if nothing else, the long hold of "tradition" on the exegesis even of those who profess to be "Bible Only" Christians.

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 6:52PM

I am not a "Protestant." I am a Christian, so get that straight, ok? I do not follow a man, any man, but Christ Himself. I care not what lofty individuals who call themselves Theologians say, including yourself. God requires none of it. In fact, He actually hates Religious ceremony & included garbage. According to Him, if you care to read it~ He despises it, along with those who count themselves so much better than we lowly Bible based Christians. Oh, but that's right~ you think the Bible is "mythical" and pick and choose which parts of it to reject. That's your choice, and your stupid and foolish problem.

But for anyone who has ears to hear and may be interested in what God says about Religious ceremony and pomposity and pride take a listen:

"When you come to appear before Me, who requires of you this trampling of My courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies--I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they have become a burden to Me, I am weary of bearing them.When you spread forth your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before My eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken." Is. 1:1-20.

I'm not sure what your problem is other than a sheer hatred for the Christian that sticks to the Bible~ is it that we put you to shame with our bold preaching of the Gospel? The fact that we don't bow to your haughty holier-than-thou self when you claim to know better than Jesus? How dare you pick apart what He says to suit your own leanings and yet set out to demean those of us who cling to His words as they are written and as closely as humanly possible?

You act like you are so much better than me but God says this:

"But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at My" word." Is. 66:2.

Stuart Koehl| 9.6.10 @ 8:51PM

"In fact, He actually hates Religious ceremony & included garbage. "

Really? So I guess the Apostles got it wrong, then?

Oh, well, good help is hard to find. Christ even admitted such ("How long must I put up with you?")

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 9:18PM

The Apostles? You mean the ones whose words you say are mythical? I see. Oh and just where in the Bible yes the Bible did they practice what you mockingly insinuate they did? As in Isaiah 1. Hmm?

Come on Stuey, get with the program and name it.

Stuart Koehl| 9.7.10 @ 7:01AM

"Oh and just where in the Bible yes the Bible did they practice what you mockingly insinuate they did?"

One need look no further than the Acts of the Apostles, 3:1, "Now Peter and John went up to the Temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour": Jews prayed daily at the first (0600), third (0900), sixth (1200) and ninth (1500) hours every day, a practice continued by the Apostles, and carried down by the Christian Church. As an Orthodox Christian, I endeavor to the best of my ability to uphold this Tradition, both privately and communally, for the Jews, in both the Temple and the Synagogue, saw worship as a community as primary, and the Apostles followed their lead and taught their followers in their turn.

Furthermore, Acts 6 speaks of the ordination of the first deacons, "It is not desirable that we [i.e., the Apostles] should leave the word of God and serve tables", but term translated as "word" in the Greek original is "leitourgia", a word that means "public work" or "work of the people", which in the religious context of the time was used by the Jews to refer to their public worship services--Talmud speaks of the Temple liturgy and the synagogue liturgy; the Christian Church, from the earliest days, also called their public worship "litourgia" (see, e.g., Justin Martyr, ca. 150, Hippolytus of Rome, ca. 175-200, both of whom provided an outline of Christian worship in their time; see also Pliny the Younger, ca. 110, whose letter to Trajan also outlines Christian liturgical worship). All liturgy has an order or taxis--certain things are said or done in a certain order; all involves a degree of ritual. Christ did not condemn ritual, he condemned empty ritual--which ought to include the empty ritual of condemning those who worship liturgically.

There simply is no way of supporting the assertion that the first Christians were aliturgical, a bunch of Palestinian non-denominational free-churchers doing their own thing. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, in which he attempts to regulate charismatic speakers of tongues and the role of women in worship, only make sense within a liturgical context.

As for all the fancy titles, well, the Apostles in Acts 1 do select a replacement for Judas Iscariot, citing their Scripture (the Old Testament, LXX version), "Let another take his office". But the word for office is "episkope", meaning "oversight" or "stewardship", which is done by someone called the "episkopos" or "steward", but which has come down to us in English as "bishop". The office of episkopos was adapted by the Christians from the Synagogue--he was the person who was supposed to ensure to health and good order of that institution. The Christian Episkopos did that in his local Church, and was also responsible for passing down unchanged the Tradition received from the Apostles--which Paul himself describes in his letters to Titus and Timothy.

Stuart Koehl| 9.7.10 @ 7:14AM

I forgot one other key passage, Acts 2:42:

"And they continued steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers".

First, the reference to the "breaking of the bread" is an explicit reference to the Eucharistic orientation of the Apostles: doing that which which Christ had commanded at the Last Supper; and as Paul's injunction that those who partake of the bread and the wine unworthily do so for judgment and condemnation indicates a high Eucharistic theology--the bread and wine are indeed the Body and Blood of Christ. Second, in the Greek original, the word "prayers" is actually "THE prayers", i.e., the communal, liturgical prayers of the Jews, adapted and amplified to reflect the New Covenant of Christ. The Psalms were at the heart of this Christian prayer, just as they were in Jewish liturgy, because the Christians saw the Psalms pointing to the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ.

Margie| 9.7.10 @ 2:06PM

Well you've lived up to your reputation of adding things to the Bible and making things up. You answered with a bunch of baloney as usual. My question was where did they practice as in Is. 1? To try and say they behaved in like manner with that chapter where God says that that form of behavior He HATES is absolutely weird!

You actually try to pull that off! It figures though because you are using it to try and justify yourself. But it won't work. God still hates what He hates and if you disregard His words and try to bend them to suit yourself, well as you can read in the same chapter~ "if you refuse and rebel you'll be devoured by the sword." Lotsa luck, bud.

Very deceitful of you to present such a fallacy! And in Acts Chapter 3 they did NOT GO INTO THE TEMPLE, nor did they intended on going in to the temple! Ah, but you left that out! The rest of the chapter speaks about how they healed the lame man in Jesus' name outside the temple and stayed there PREACHING the GOSPEL! Something YOU ought to be doing instead of making things up about the Bible and the intentions of God outside of it. The lame man who was healed by the power of the Holy Spirit through them, walked into the temple proclaiming what God had done for him. THEY never even went inside.

In fact the Jews came out of the temple, angry at the preaching of the gospel and of how the man was healed in Jesus' name, and then arrested Peter & John.

So, so much for your first try. And so much for the lie that the Apostles followed the traditions of the Jews! I will be back later about the rest.

Stuart Koehl| 9.7.10 @ 2:28PM

Margie says, "God wrote the Bible in English, or could have, if he had wanted".

She also reveals herself as a ignorant know nothing and an anti-semite to boot.

Margie| 9.7.10 @ 3:05PM

I never said that. You prove to be a despicable liar, Mr. Koehl, but then, I already knew that.

And as for the ridiculous charge of being an anti-semite? That's laughable. But I say let us take a poll!

If anyone is ignorant it is you. I notice you completely disregarded all that I said. Typical Liberal. I stand on the Bible for the Truth, which you despise. You lie and name call. That is good. For you reveal your true character.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 3:01PM

Actually the passage says "in the teaching" of the Apostles, not the "doctrine." I want to be Biblical, remember.

And so what of it? Yes, Christians partake in communion with one another as Jesus said to do. He said to "Do this in remembrance of Me." He did NOT call it a Eucharist. THAT is a lie and a fallacy. It is NOT in the Bible.

Taking communion is NOT actually eating the flesh of Jesus. That is sick and perverted. Do you really believe God can be cannibalized? How disgusting. No, He said to do this in remembrance of Him.

If you want to be a Christian, you must obey the Word of God, not man!

Margie| 9.7.10 @ 3:28PM

Acts 6 has absolutely nothing to do with "ordaining deacons." My word Mr. K~ what are you reading from? Shall I post the entire chapter for all to read for themselves? They got together and picked seven from among them to serve the widows daily. And they did so, all the while doing great works (miracles) and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and leading many to Him. They never stopped. In fact later they stoned Stephen to death for doing so. He was the first martyr I believe from among them.

You try and "Religiousize" everything. Why? Again, it is in order to try and justify yourself and your ridiculous antics and claims not found in the Bible.

Margie| 9.7.10 @ 3:48PM

His office let another take." Acts 1:20.

And what on earth does this have to do with you trying to say that the Apostles behaved in such a way as to displease God as in Isaiah chapter 1?

Your whole thing here is to try and say that they did, right? You are insane.

Yep, again~ they got together and prayed about it and asked the Lord to show them which of the two (Joseph or Matthias) should be chosen, as they had also been witnesses of Christ's Resurrection. And you know what they did? They cast lots! (Acts 1:26). Wow! What pomp! What circumstance! What Ceremony! LOL.

You see, Mr. K., God does not require any such thing. But He does require a simple faith in Him, and trust and obedience to His word.

What say you?

Stuart Koehl| 9.7.10 @ 6:01PM

I'd say there is no such thing as do-it-yourself Christianity, and you ought to stop trying to invent it.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 1:00PM

I say you're a liar. Number one for trying to subvert the gospel of Jesus Christ. Number two for your misrepresenting what I stand for and who I am. And I suggest you get right with God. You need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. To believe in Him means that you take what He says and follow it and not make up your own doctrine. The choice is yours.

"Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. "Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew. 'The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit. "Nicode'mus said to him, "How can this be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into Heaven but he who descended from Heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil.For every one who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the Light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God. Jn. 3:3-21.

Do YOU receive His testimony, Mr. K?

JimP| 9.2.10 @ 9:07AM

Frankly, who cares what Keown thinks anyway? He is just another ivory tower leftist egghead who wants to bash America. His type of Christian ethics is why the pews are empty in so many mainstrean churches. Plus, isn't he a Brit? He was educated there. Maybe this explains his rancor over our revolt.

Bob Miller| 9.2.10 @ 10:29AM

Many academics who argue for a position cherry-pick existing theories and data to back it up. If that won't suffice, they simply misrepresent the theories and data.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.2.10 @ 1:06PM

Mr. Tooley,
Thanks.

Let me put a coda on the debate: We are in a war of necessity...right the hell now.

Our grandchilderen will be free Christians ...and/or whatever...free to find Christ, or they will be enslaved like every Muslim in their heart of hearts.

Let us "gird up our loins for battle", as did Gideon and troops.
God bless.

Ryan| 9.2.10 @ 4:55PM

Unlikely. I don't see any sort of ability of Islamofascists to enact ANY physical takeover of the US.

Maybe they can pull off some shady political stuff here and there, but nothing that you may be insinuating.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.3.10 @ 3:26PM

Stuart,
Thank you for reminding me of "Orthodox" theology issues.
Extremely accurate, at least so far as me and my profs at Baylor could discern. Finally, as Paul noted: We all "See through a glass darkly, but one day we will be known as we are known."
Again, thank you.

Ryan,
for some 40% of our population, the murderous Islamic .....murderers, are already "morally equivalent" to Christians.
What could go wrong.......................stupid?

Margie| 9.4.10 @ 11:19PM

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." 1 Cor. 13:12.

fsilber| 9.2.10 @ 2:04PM

Wouldn't aKeown consider war to be just if it defended the Soviet Union or attacked its enemies?

Patrick| 9.2.10 @ 3:20PM

Not likely. While he may or may not be a fellow traveler with the communist philosophy or cause, he does not strike me as communism ergo pacificism so much as trying to be the very clever in the opinion of his fellow academics. Armchair quarterbacking an event that happened beyond living memory, then reversing decades old settled judgment is a particular favorite of such elites.

In a few decades, academics will use post-modern techniques such as deconstructionism to rehabilitate Hitler. Perhaps not even that long.

Alan Brooks| 9.2.10 @ 7:35PM

Ask Keown if the countless Indian wars were just. Whites fighting Indians
AND indians fighting each other.

Patrick| 9.4.10 @ 6:41PM

That one is too easy for someone of Keown's intellectual pride. An intellectual must put forth all efforts in being clever and new, or he will never get to be dean of ethics.

Alan Brooks| 9.2.10 @ 7:38PM

...er, Native Americans-- far be it from me to not be PC.

Ryan| 9.3.10 @ 9:15AM

If you want to be even MORE insensitive, mark it by saying "dots" or "feathers."

John Flaherty| 9.4.10 @ 5:41AM

Technically, since I was born and raised here in the US, I'm a "Native American" myself, but I don't have a drop of indian ancestry in me.

Just call them "indians" and be done with it, will you? We all know very well who you mean!

Patrick| 9.4.10 @ 6:46PM

You have to prefix that, however with "American". Also, placing American after Indian would refer to Americans who trace their ethnicity from India.

Tex Expatriate| 9.3.10 @ 1:11PM

More Baloney and More Baloney!

The war that your side wins, that is a just war. There is no other kind.

John| 9.4.10 @ 5:46AM

Or more precisely, the winner always provides the reason why it was just and right; the loser always provides the reason why it was neither.

While Just War Theory provides useful criteria for aiding in spiritual discernment about whether a war ought be fought or not, declaring a war "Just" or "Unjust" requires some recognized authority.

It's effectively a POLITICAL decision, not a spiritual one.
Ultimately, then, while there are healthy spiritual arguments made within Just War theory, the determination of a war's justice--or lack thereof--requires an arbiter,

John| 9.4.10 @ 5:48AM

My apologies, I didn't notice the last 2 1/2 lines were still in there. I don't typically end thoughts with commas......

D. Singh| 9.6.10 @ 4:51AM

Sir

Mr Tooley wrote:

‘The American Revolution easily fit the Christian Reformed tradition's understanding that revolt against tyranny is legitimate if led by responsible lower magistrates. This understanding informed the British parliamentary rebellion in the 1640s, and no less the American colonists in the 1770s.’

My I suggest a deeper analysis with regard to the English Civil War?

The fundamental issue was either Lex Rex or Rex Lex.

That is either law was supreme and the King was under the law or the King was supreme and law was under him. Because the latter position was adopted by James I and then his son who succeeded him, King Charles I, tyranny was (and in consequence the Puritan rebellion) inevitable.

Despite the Puritans triumphing in the Civil War many fled to the American colonies at the time of the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution of 1688’. It was their sons and grandsons that took up arms against King George III.

Today, in Europe we are experiencing a new tyranny that has consolidated its power by stealth, deception and lies: the European Union.

The British people do not have the moral and spiritual capital to resist tyranny that their forefathers once summoned on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, the vast majority do not even know the meaning of ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.’

That is precisely why nearly every revolution (the European Union is a legal as well as a federal revolution) on European soil has sought to destroy Judaeo-Christianity as it is the only moral and intellectual force capable of resistance.

Today’s Left-liberal ruling class know that unless they destroy the Judaeo-Christian heritage on both sides of the Atlantic their project of building ‘Heaven on Earth’ will not succeed (of course it will end in tyranny).

Raving Rabbi| 9.15.10 @ 8:48PM

WOW, I CAN HAVE THE LAST WORD ON THIS OVERLY VERBOSE ARGUMENT:

The answer is: *** YES ***

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:36AM

Keown hints at the stratospheric standard he demands for Just War when he argues the American Revolution did not abolish slavery. Must a war redress all injustices to be legitimate?

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|50 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|55 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|101 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|29 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|46 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?