Military Intervention & Islamic Terrorism, pt. 1

This past week has given us two conflicting turn of events in the Republican camp. First, Gov. Chris Christie criticized Sen. Rand Paul for his non-interventionist foreign policy. This lead to an entertaining, back-and-forth feud between the two that still has the media talking. Secondly, Newt Gingrich – a self-proclaimed neoconservative – admitted on Sunday that he admires Paul’s non-interventionism and that he now questions the validity of our military adventures around the world. On one hand, we have a big government politician simply being himself. On the other hand, we have a big-government politician openly suggesting that his views may need to be reformed. If this shows us anything, it shows us that militarism and terrorism will be major topics in the Republican primaries of 2016. It’s important that Christian libertarians and constitutionalists have a firm position on both. Today, we’ll discuss military intervention.

I’ve written previously on what a biblical war policy looks like. In summary, God revealed to the Israelites that military violence should be a last resort and always defensive rather than aggressive. We might say the only exception to this rule was in regard to the inheritance nations listed in Deuteronomy 20:16-18. Israel was to destroy these nations in order to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham. This was the only type of aggressive war God allowed Israel to be involved in. They did defeat the nations and received their rightful inheritance (Jos. 21:43-45). In the New Covenant, the only type of aggressive war we are told to partake in is the Great Commission, converting people to Christianity through evangelism. The conditions for aggressive war have been fulfilled but the defensive-only policy still stands.

The next obvious question is: “…but what about dictators around the world? Can a defensive-only foreign policy include the defense of civilians in other countries?” While this sentiment certainly is noble and compassionate, we must recognize that fulfilling such an obligation is impossible. No government can be an omnipotent, omnipresent defender of all people. Practically speaking, any military intervention has to be selective. Picking-and-choosing which countries to intervene in inevitably leads to judging the loss of life in one place as more tolerable than the loss of life in another place. We have to seriously ask ourselves if America is in the position to make this type of judgment considering we turn a blind eye to atrocities within our own country. Maybe one day, when we have repented as a nation and turn back to the King, we’ll be in the position to make such judgments. Until then, we’re only bringing judgment on ourselves.

Furthermore, God never gave this responsibility to Old Covenant Israel. We never see the Israelites searching for monsters to destroy or intervening in the civil affairs of other nations. It would be impossible for Israel to do so, as they were not to have standing armies or a vast supply of horses and chariots (Deut. 17:4-20; Deut. 20:1-9). Instead, Israel was to be a light to the nations (Is. 42:6) as an example of God’s righteousness and the blessings associated with obeying him.

So, what does this mean for us? Shall we do nothing? Of course not. Christians cannot stand-by as atrocities are committed around the world. Churches, missionaries, private organizations and free individuals must be active in defending those who suffer from injustice. This includes volunteering to fight alongside those oppressed if you wish to do so. Perhaps America can be known as a defender of the defenseless by the charity and responsibility of its citizens, not its horses and chariots.

Next time, we’ll take a close look at Islamic terrorism and what our response to it should be.<>размещение рекламы на авторазмещение рекламы в газете метро

chris christie, constitution, foreign policy, interventionism, islamic terrorism, libertarian, neoconservative, newt gingrich, noninterventionism, rand paul, war in the bible