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. (more…)
