×

As our nation debates the merits of beginning military strikes on Syria, I’ve had the privilege of discussing Christian non-violence with Preston Sprinkle, associate professor of Biblical Studies at Eternity Bible College.

It would be easy, but mistaken for our conversation to dive into mere caricatures, so that Preston comes across as the wimpy, flower child from the 1970’s and I come across as the warmongering soldier for God and country. While those extremes are not our positions, we do hold to differing viewpoints on this issue.

In his book Fight: A Christian Case for Non-ViolencePreston lays out his case for why Christians should be non-violent and how far that stance should go. I agree that the default position for Christians should be non-violence (and have written along these lines here, here, and here). That said, I am still a proponent of the idea of a Just War.

Today, in the first of a two-part conversation, Preston explains common ground between the differing opinions and explains his view on what must ground discussions of ethical specifics.

Trevin:  As you’ve dialogued with other conservative evangelicals on this issue, what are some of the elements of common ground you’ve discovered, and where do you see the distinctions?

Preston: I think everyone says they desire peace on some level. So we agree that peace is the goal. We disagree, however, with the means of accomplishing that goal.

Most Christians I know believe that violence and warfare are often times the best or only means of confronting evil and attaining peace, like World War II for example. “Some thugs just need a bullet to the head.” The question I raise is whether the New Testament allows Christians to pull the trigger. I don’t think it does.

Trevin: In your book, you call out Christians who use militaristic warfare images of the Old Testament and apply them to the United States. I agree with your take on this. But then, it seems like you turn around and apply Paul’s instructions for the church to American foreign policy. So, on the one hand, you’re right to say that Americans have been shoddy with their application of warfare texts in the Old Testament. But on the other hand, it seems like you’re applying non-violence texts from Paul to America as well, instead of to the church. Is this not an inconsistency?

Preston: I don’t see how my argument could be taken the way that you have summarized it. For the record, no, I don’t believe that non-violent texts about spiritual warfare should be applied to America. How could I? America isn’t indwelt with the Spirit! They don’t have the means to fight a spiritual war. In the chapter you’re thinking of (chapter 8), I argue that we, Christians, should see our war in terms of a spiritual fight against evil, rather than a physical war on some national enemy.

Now on pages 164-166, I do apply this to how we view America’s political enemy – be it al-Qaeda or whomever. But I argue that Christians should not “buy into the American narrative that focuses on ‘flesh-and-blood enemies.'” I wasn’t at all trying to apply Paul’s spiritual rhetoric to America’s national policy; rather, I was trying to correct those Christians who invest their energy in confronting America’s enemies with violence.

Trevin: That’s a good clarification, Preston, and it’s possible I read more into that section than what you were saying. Still, it seems to me that applying your position consistently would effectively remove all Christian influence from decision-making. A Christian could not be president of the United States, for example, if he would be forced to make decisions on national policy that lead to war. Or it would at least seem conflicting for a president to order troops to war for the defense of the nation if he is bound to make decisions by an ethic that says “Our enemies are spiritual, not flesh-and-blood.” In my mind, that’s applying God’s vision for the church (our war IS spiritual) to the nation. 

Preston: Once again, you’re asking really good questions, ones that I don’t think I can easily answer. The intersection between Christian ethics and secular politics is a complex debate. Quick and easy answers usually stem from ignorance.

Just to point out to our readers, my book does not focus on questions like, “Can a Christian be the president,” or “what sort of influence can Christians have on their government.” I’ll leave those to Wayne Grudem. Rather, I focus 80% of my work on, “What does the Bible say about violence and warfare,” in particular: “Are Christians ever allowed to use violence?”

So before we ask the question, “Can a Christian be president,” we need to first ask the question, “Does the Bible, especially the New Testament, allow Christians to use or command others to use violence to confront evil?”

Put more broadly: “Is there anything in the New Testament that encourages believers to put aside their Christian ethic for the sake of their vocation?” Luther said yes. And though I think Luther knocked it out of the park in his view of Paul (the subject of my other book), I think he’s dead wrong here. Christ is Lord over all areas of life and I don’t think He gave a Gumby ethic that we can bend around our vocation. The Sermon on the Mount didn’t come with footnotes and I don’t think it should be amended.

I know I haven’t actually answered your question. But again, we need to back up and develop a robust ethical framework of living Christianly in the public sphere before we can answer specific questions about Christians serving as president or any governmental positions. As I argue in the book, I have not come across a convincing biblical argument that says a Christian can kill if his or her vocation demands it.

Tomorrow, we’ll continue this conversation. For now, I’d love to hear what you think?

  • Is it legitimate for a Christian to serve in the military? In what capacity?
  • Does allegiance to Christ and His Church mean we cannot fight for the good of our neighbors?
  • How do we handle the radical, unwavering vision of non-violence in the Sermon on the Mount?
LOAD MORE
Loading