We decided last year that we wouldn’t do the Santa Claus thing with our kids. That doesn’t mean that we just say “santa isn’t real”. No, we just decided to handle it a little bit differently. We tell our kids the true history of St. Nicholas and that he used to be a real person and we commemorate his kind acts of Christian charity today as a Christmas tradition. We are very careful to tell them that some people like to have fun with the idea of Santa Claus and act like the presents come from him, so they shouldn’t spoil it for other kids. But what’s our motivation for this in the first place? Well, there are several.

First, it’s the truth. I’ve heard all the arguments for and against pretending that Santa Claus is real. I’m just not compelled by them enough to trick my kids. I want them to have total faith in what I tell them; that it’s the truth, as fully and complete as I know it to be. When kids finally do find out that Santa isn’t real, it is usually from other kids. I remember when I found out that Santa wasn’t real in the lunchroom at school back in the 3rd grade. I was so embarrassed. I remember a couple of bullies, Anthony and Brian making fun of me for “still believing in Santa Claus” and the other kids at the table laughing at me. A child’s self-esteem is so fragile and I don’t want them to feel like I tricked them, and that’s what got them embarrassed in front of their friends.

Second, I want them to know that their presents came from us. Maybe it’s a little selfish, but I want them to know right now that we care about the things they like and that it’s we who love them and know just what to get for them. I don’t want that love and care to be laid at the feet of some made up character who doesn’t exist. Kids get lots of gifts during the holidays and if you’re not careful, Christmas will be over and they have gotten lots of gifts from lots of people, but the gifts they should be getting from their parents are instead coming from Santa Claus.

Thirdly and most importantly, to a child, Santa Claus and other fictional holiday characters are just too similar to the secular view of God for my taste. On one hand you have Santa Claus whom you never see but he evidently knows everything about you and keeps up with whether you are being good or bad. He gives you good presents if you’re good and bad presents if you’re bad. He loves you and brings you toys (which God doesn’t even do). And Mommy and Daddy tell you all these stories about him and how he is real even though you never see him. My question is what in a child’s mind makes that any different than God? If Mommy and Daddy lied to me about this person who I can’t see but who loves me nonetheless, why should I believe them when they tell me that we can’t see God but he sure does love me?

If you think that’s far fetched then just read this article about some teachers in the UK who told their students that Santa Claus was not real, and then read the very first reader comment in the feedback section:

“I think next they should start going to funeral homes and telling the loved ones of the recently deceased that there is no Heaven or afterlife and that their loved one will just rot in the ground and they’ll never see them again. This would be especially good to do to any small children who lose a parent.”

- Peter, Houston TX

The fact that Peter from Houston associates Santa Claus as being the same as Heaven and Hell proves my point. The secular world today lumps Christ in right alongside Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I see no reason to give them extra ammo with my kids.

Now for the disclaimers: I Dave Jones, being of semi-sound mind and unsound body do willingly acknowledge the following:

• Millions of people believed in Santa Claus as kids and were not made fun of when they found out.
• Millions of people believed in Santa Claus as kids and did not lose their belief in God.
• Millions of people believed in Santa Claus as kids and still knew their parents loved them.

That is why we don’t get all preachy about it with other parents. As far as I’m concerned, issues like this should be decided by each parent based on what they think is best for their children. It doesn’t bother me one bit when a parent tells their kid that Santa Claus does exist. But my conscience won’t let me tell that to my own kids, because my mind tells me they might not handle it as well as other kids. If you want to say that I’m an insane, overprotective, right-wing, puritan worshipper as a dad, then you would probably be right. As a dad, it’s my job to be overprotective and to worry. That’s what dads do. But I also think my points make good sense, and reason should always accompany concern as a parent’s guide.

The first premise of my argument is:

What I’m basically saying is that the most readily accessible information about war is predominantly some form of propaganda. And, by propaganda, I don’t mean some sort of tin foil hat kind of thing. I just mean that the narrative of the information we read and watch is guided in a certain direction so that a particular impression is given. This does not mean that there is a secret person, or group of people within government that exert this control over the narrative. Instead, there are groups of people at every level of government, business and media that benefit from misinformation about war. And, because of this, they are all coincidentally on the same page.

I think, that war information is propaganda, is obvious if we consider these facts about such information(news):

1. Fear causes people to be less interested in the veridicality of news and information they receive about war.
2. Self-interest at every level of government produces an organic filtering of news as it travels through the bureaucracy.
3. Civilians naturally flee active and potential war zones, leaving only the military and embedded journalists behind.
4. Battlefields, thus being controlled by militaries and absent of competing news interests will inherently provide only curated news.

These seem fairly obvious to me, and provide a context that we can use to judge history as we look at a few examples.

There are four phases of war propaganda that we can look at:

1. The Leadup to War
2. The Ground War
3. The Actors Involved
4. Post-war Justification

I’ll cover the first two here, and go over the next two in the next post of this series.

1. The Leadup to War (Justifying initiation of hostilities)

“The deception of whole peoples is not a matter which can be lightly regarded. A useful purpose can therefore be served in the interval of so-called peace by a warning which people can examine with dispassionate calm, that the authorities in each country do, and indeed must, resort to this practice in order, first, to justify themselves by depicting the enemy as an undiluted criminal;”

–Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in War-time: Propaganda Lies of the First World War

Proper justification for the initiation of a war is absolutely critical for gaining the popular support necessary in a democratic system. Therefore, the lead-up to war is where the narrative is the most controlled. There are many examples of this, and whole books have been written on the topic. So, for the sake of brevity, I’ll share three examples that I feel are the most easily explainable: the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin and the killing of babies in Kuwait. These three events cover a large time period and show that lead-up propaganda is nothing new and hasn’t really changed much.

• The Sinking of the Lusitania

  The latest studies of the Lusitania wreckage confirm that the ship was indeed carrying munitions. The Germans were right. Wilson had been warned by the Germans in advance that they considered the Lusitania to be a valid target since it was carrying war supplies and munitions to and from England. Wilson, instead, did not warn Americans sailing on the ship about the threat, and publicly denounced the German action in a series of three “notes.” The sinking of the Lusitania was widely used in war posters and recruiting propaganda to whip up sentiment for America joining the war.

  Churchill, for his part, in a confidential memo said, “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany. For our part we want the traffic – the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.”

• The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

  It’s widely known now, due to the recent de-classifying of material, that Lyndon Johnson lied about the gulf of Tonkin incident that justified, in American eyes, the full scale invasion of Vietnam by U.S. forces. The declassified NSA report that describes the lie says, “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi’s navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.” Robert Mcnamara corroborated this in the documentary The Fog of War.

• Killing of babies in Kuwait

  Like the Gulf of Tonkin event, it is now known that the George H.W. Bush administration lied about the killing of babies by the Iraqi Republican Guard during the lead-up to the first gulf war. It was widely reported, and repeated by Bush himself, that Iraqi Republican Guard troops, during the invasion, had gone into a Kuwaiti hospital, removed babies from incubators and left them to die. The eye witness(known at the time simply as Nayirah) that testified to the event was later found to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and her story was coached by P.R. firm Hill & Knowlton. The story was false, but it was used readily by the Bush administration to justify the first gulf war. George W. Bush would later use a similar tactic (claiming Saddam was pursuing material for nuclear weapons) to justify the second gulf war.

2. The Ground War (Controlling the narrative)

As long as the lead-up propaganda was properly executed, the narrative of the ground war is fairly easy to control. Once the justification is made to actually start a war, many things will be forgiven in the mind of the public that might be inexcusable in another context. Let’s again look at three events from twentieth century wars.

• The Katyn Forest Massacre

  In 1938, Russia killed 22,000 polish intelligentsia and buried them in mass graves in Katyn Forest. Stalin blamed the Germans for the atrocity after the Nazi government discovered the mass graves at a later date. The massacre was used widely in Europe during the war to reinforce the view of Germany as evil. Of course, German officials would indeed turn out to commit atrocities, but the Katyn Forest massacre was propagandized in a way that covered up war crimes by an ally(Russia) and blamed it on the enemy(Germany). It’s also clear from now-public dispatches between Churchill and F.D.R. that they knew with fair certainty that Stalin was to blame for Katyn, but kept the matter quiet.

• Vietnam Body Count

  This is not an event, but rather an interesting observation that, even to this day, there is almost no awareness of the true death toll in a major U.S. war. Very few average citizens know how many Vietnamese were killed during that decade of active war(nearly two decades of U.S. involvement). The total number of deaths due directly to the war is over 1.2 million. But, the only numbers most Americans are aware of are U.S. troop casualty numbers. This protocol of not reporting on enemy death counts is still in place today, and for good reason. The numbers are shocking.

• Iraqi Body Count

  Again, like Vietnam, the lack of knowledge is what’s so fascinating. The best count we can get on the number of dead as a result of the Iraq war is from the government itself. The number of war dead, according to leaked documents, is placed at well over 100,000, with over 60% of those being civilians. This is a number that virtually no American citizen on the street is aware of because it’s never given to them in a mainstream news broadcast.

  Controlling the ground war narrative in this way is very easy. Since active war zones are under military control, it’s a simple matter to keep journalists out of those areas. And, the reporters who are “embedded” with various troop units have very little incentive to report information that would reflect negatively on military operations, since that would get them sent home.

I’ll examine the propaganda surrounding the personalities of war and the post-war justification period in the next post of this series. These take a long time to research, so it might be slow in coming. I have to get the facts straight however, so I’m taking my time.

1. It’s likely that we cannot trust the information being given to us about wars.
2. Most of us can’t make an informed decision about the history, or context that lead to conflict.
3. It’s likely that the motives of those leading the wars are not focused on human dignity and natural law.
4. The result of war is less freedom for the vanquished and the victor alike.
5. War requires the demonization of fellow image-bearers and a disregard of God’s common grace.
6. War kills the innocent.
7. War requires the aligning of the Christian with the collective at the expense of his duties to his fellow man.
8. War enlarges government, which necessarily results in less freedom.

I’ll go over these in future posts. Each one is requiring a load of research.

I’ve been trying to develop my thoughts on the topic of Christianity and War for a long time now. And, what I’ve found is that the reasons that I do not support any war for any reason have more to do with probabilities than scripture. On the topic of war the Bible is inscrutable. For instance, our Lord is mostly silent on the issue. And while the Old Testament is filled with war history. It’s simply that. History. There’s little to be found by way of guidance on whether the wars recorded are proscriptive for our own behavior as believers. And further, does it have any bearing on how we respond to wars carried on by modern governments in the church age. For that reason, arguments based on Old Testament references are simply not compelling.

When we consider war, modern American evangelicals, on the whole, tend to support them. They may say that certain wars, like Viet Nam, were ill advised. But, even the criticism of the Viet Nam war tends to be more about errors in prosecution rather than an aversion to the operation of the war itself. You often hear statements like, “we didn’t have a clear goal in Viet Nam.” Or, “we got bogged down.” Or even, “we weren’t committed to winning.” All of these statements may be true. But, they have no relevance to whether Christians should have supported the war itself.

So, why do modern American evangelicals support U.S. led wars in such large numbers? I believe there are two general reasons:

1. More weight is given to the virtue of justice than mercy.
2. The truth about war is obscured in propaganda.

Much can be said about each one of these. But, what I want to point out first is that they are both honest mistakes. There is a strong commitment to justice within evangelicalism, and within Christianity itself. The satisfaction of justice is the entire basis of our need of a saviour. It’s very easy to carry that over into many other areas of life. And, justifiably so. It would be strange for a Christian not to desire justice for something like 9/11.

On the second point, the old saying holds true: truth is the first casualty of war. The average prime time news viewer/newspaper reader is going to be fed a steady diet of highly curated news about war. By the time that news gets into the living room in the form of a news cast or syndicated article, it’s been passed through many filters(political, corporate, ideological) along the chain. Naked truth from the front lines is very hard to come by. Especially in this age of constant media manipulation.

From a thousand foot view, I think these two points are the reason so many American Christians support our wars. What I hope to do next is explain why I believe they are wrong to do so, and drill down into a little more detail on these two points. I’m not going to rely heavily on scriptural references. I’ll just touch on biblical points in passing when making a point that I think is obvious from a “mere christianity” standpoint.

I’m going to throw out a few questions to you, and I want you to answer them to yourself honestly:

1. When you hear the cookie cutters(Bachman, Romney, Perry, etc.) speak about issues, do you think they actually formulated those opinions themselves and believe them, or do you think they were given a list of talking points from their campaign management based on the results of focus groups?

2. If the cookie cutters(Bachman, Romney, Perry, etc.) were to get elected, do you think that, at the end of their first term, any real change would have taken place? Would taxes be substantively lower? Would the national debt be any lower? Would government be any smaller?

3. Can you research the background of the cookie cutters(Bachman, Romney, Perry, etc.) and see a decades-long commitment to the ideas they are putting forth, with a voting track record to back it up?

4. Do you ever see the cookie cutters(Bachman, Romney, Perry, etc.) make decisions or votes that give primacy to ideals and principles at the expense of political expediency?

5. If you went into business privately with one of the cookie cutters(Bachman, Romney, Perry, etc.), would you be surprised if they screwed you over or cheated you out of some money somehow?

6. Would you be shocked if it was revealed that any of the cookie cutters(Bachman, Romney, Perry, etc.) had major problems in their personal life like affairs, tax evasion, shady business deals, etc.?

What I’m getting at is that the cookie cutter candidates are your typical insincere, in it for the money, plastic politicians. Ron Paul is the only one that is different. Read his books(start with Revolution, then read End the Fed) to find out what he thinks about the most important issues facing us. He’s got lots to say about them. Even if you don’t agree with his reasoning, you have to respect that he actually HAS arguments that he himself has researched and developed. And, yes, he’s actually written books about issues, not autobiographies.

So my wager is this: given that Ron Paul is the only candidate that is different from the typical politician mold we’ve endured for decades. And, given that the typical politician mold we’ve endured has resulted in the largest, most debt-ridden leviathan government the world has ever known. Wouldn’t it be worth taking a chance on the guy who’s different, even if you don’t agree with every position he holds?

Sincerity, character, honesty and a deep commitment to liberty are worth voting for. I’m willing to take the chance.

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

–Matthew 27:51-54

In Licona’s most recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, he says this about the above passage:

This brings us to that strange little text in Matthew 27:52-53, where upon Jesus’ death the dead saints are raised and walk into the city of Jerusalem. During Jesus’ crucifixion and upon his death, Mark and Luke report two phenomena that occurred: there is darkness and the temple veil is torn in two (Mk 15:33, 38; Lk 23:44-45). John is silent on the matter. Matthew likewise reports the darkness and tearing of the temple veil but adds four more phenomena: the earth quakes, the rocks split, the tombs are opened, and the dead saints rise up and walk into Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 27:51-54).

Raymond E. Brown notes that similar phenomena were reported at the death of Romulus and Julius Caesar.296 Confining himself only to those who wrote within one hundred years on either side of Jesus’ death, his examples include Plutarch (Rom. 27.6; Caes. 69.4), Ovid (Fast. 2.493), Cicero (Rep. 6.22), Virgil (Georg. 1.466-488), Josephus (Ant. 14.12.3; 309) and Pliny (Nat. 2.30; 97). In a clearly poetic account, Virgil reports that the following sixteen phenomena occurred after Caesar’s death: prolonged darkness, dogs and birds acted unusually, Etna erupted, fighting in the heavens was heard, the Alps shook near Germany, a powerful voice was heard in the groves, pale phantoms were seen at dusk, cattle spoke portents, streams stood still, the earth opened up, ivory idols wept and bronze idols were sweating in the shrines, dark intestines appeared outside of animals in their stalls, blood trickled in springs, wolves howled, lightning appeared in a cloudless sky, a bright comet was seen.

…

Given the presence of phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature related to a major event such as the death of an emperor or the end of a reigning king or even a kingdom, the presence of ambiguity in the relevant text of Ignatius, and that so very little can be known about Thallus’s comment on the darkness (including whether he was even referring to the darkness at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion or, if so, if he was merely speculating pertaining to a natural cause of the darkness claimed by the early Christians), it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as “special effects” with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.

There is further support for this interpretation. If the tombs opened and the saints being raised upon Jesus’ death was not strange enough, Matthew adds that they did not come out of their tombs until after Jesus’ resurrection. What were they doing between Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning? Were they standing in the now open doorways of their tombs and waiting?

–Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus

In contrast to Licona’s critics, I have not cherry picked fragments of his comments to make him look glib. I quoted a large part of what he said in full. When you read the entire text, you see the flow of his argument much more clearly than you would when reading Geisler or Mohler’s commentary on it. I’m a stickler on large quotes. Especially when you’re going to to call somebody down in public. It just will not do to quote sentence fragments when someone’s reputation and career is on the line. But that seems to be Mohler and Geisler’s motif. Mohler’s article in particular reads like a political op-ed in the Washington post, rather than a technical critique of the argument’s merits or lack thereof. It contributes nothing to the debate except rhetoric.

I, for myself, have no problem with a literal interpretation of this passage. I also don’t mind it being taken as period-accurate embellishment. I’m agnostic on the matter. If I had to pick one side or the other I would fall on the literal historical event side. But, like I said, it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. The reason I have no problem with either side is that this is simply a hard passage.

The fact that this is a hard passage of scripture seems non-controversial to me. I mean, what are these raised dead? They clearly are not glorified bodies since the passage indicates they were raised prior to Christ himself(the “firstfruits” of the resurrection). So, sans glorified body, what did they eat and drink in the tombs while they were waiting for three days to come out? What happened to them when they finished walking around Jerusalem? Did they continue on living, aka Lazarus, or did they return to their tombs and re-die? Why are these details missing, when in every other case in scripture resurrection from the dead is treated with the utmost detail? Mohler addresses this line of questioning by saying:

This is a very troubling argument. First of all, if we ever accept the fact that we are to explain what anyone in the Bible was doing when the Bible does not tell us, we enter into a trap of interpretive catastrophe. We are accountable for what the Bible tells us, not what it does not.

–Albert Mohler, Blog

Of course, it’s not that simple. When an event is described, we have no choice than to make deductions about intervals between beacon points within the narrative. If someone says “Joe stood in the doorway, staring at the sun.” And the very next line says, “One day, six years later, Joe heard the phone ring. He picked it up…,” are we to believe that Joe stood in the doorway for six years until the phone rang? Of course not. It’s perfectly valid to mentally fill in that gap with something akin to normal everyday life.

When Matthew says, “the tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many,” this is not easy to interpret. There is a gap with no clear indication from the preceding or postceding landmarks as to what could have happened in the middle. The harder it is to bridge that gap, the more likely it is that the passage isn’t meant as a historical event. You could say something like “if God raised them then he would have given them food and water for a few days while they waited, or miraculously made their bodies not need these things.” But, that seems like a dodge. The fact that none of these details are present is rather odd when compared to the other resurrection accounts.

Like I said, I believe the account is historical. But it’s still a tough passage. Admitting that doesn’t sabotage inerrency in the slightest.

It’s also worth noting that the most probably cause that I can see of Geisler picking up his pitchfork against Licona in the first place is because Licona mentions Robert Gundry in his discussion of this passage. Robert Gundry was expelled from ETS after a push by Geisler in the early 80′s. This fact makes me wonder if Geisler simply had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing Gundry’s name as a reference. Who knows?

My biggest concern, however, is a broader one about on-line theological debate. This whole thing smacks of the NT Wright controversy all over again, as we have prominent evangelical leaders calling out a well-respected New Testament scholar publicly over one controversial statement in a massive work. And, just like with Dr. Wright, it’s all being done at lightning speed on the internet. This has the effect of speeding up the debate to a break neck pace, so that there is very little room for charity and thoughtfulness.

Evangelical leaders need to learn how to use their internet voices in a responsible way. Careers and reputations can be ended overnight with a single 500 word blog post from a person with the right pedigree. That type of power must be treated with care. Debates such as this one need to be initiated and incubated at ETS, or within theology journals. Or, heaven-forbid, in private discussions. Email still works, and so does the phone.

NT Wright got the chance to eventually clarify his position at last year’s ETS. This is partly because of his very long body of work and immense level of respect within the evangelical community. My fear is that Dr. Licona will not get that same opportunity. The veiled threats from Mohler of being expelled from ETS are simply mean spirited and extremely premature.

In much the same way that John Piper set his will against NT Wright early on in that discussion and never stopped publicly savaging him, it seems that Mohler and Geisler have unilaterally decided that Licona is unorthodox with virtually no input from other textual scholars. This is not a good sign for the state of public evangelical debate.

8. That we again declare our unwavering belief that the United States Senate ought to ratify without further delay the protocal of the International Court of Justice, commonly known as the World Court, so that our government may have official representation on that Court and may contribute directly and efficially to the maintenance and promotion of World Peace. This has been recommended repeatedly by several Presidents, has been concurred in by each of the major political parties, and is demanded we believe by a great majority of the American people. We can see no sound reason for continued delay by the Senate and we urge prompt action.

–1933 SBC Resolution on Peace, Bham, AL

Of course, I think a world court is a horrible idea. Interesting that the SBC supported this “progressive” plank. Somehow I doubt they would support this today. At least, I hope not.

And what was it that they finally used to blackmail Pilate into going along with this sham of a death sentence?

From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”

–John 19:12

The Jewish leaders that manufactured Christ’s death used political blackmail against Pilate to ensure His crucifixion. To them it was all political.

We can discuss the wrongs of the state, but let’s always remember that trying to take control of the state isn’t going to solve anything. Politics corrupts all who touch it. On this day when we celebrate a risen saviour, remember that what Jesus resurrection conquored was not the state. He destroyed the power of death itself. The political class, which included the Jewish leadership that had him killed, missed the whole point. Let’s not make the same mistake today.

It is nice to know that there are others who have the same problem with the standard interpretation of Romans 13 that I do. It really just doesn’t make sense. Especially when you consider what empire it was written during. This was the empire that fed people to lions for sport, that crucified conquered peoples, that glorified every kind of wickedness… it just doesn’t make sense.

I really struggled with reconciling the commands to love your neighbor, love your enemy, etc with being a part of something that is objectively evil. Military involvement, or government involvement of any kind seems to strongly conflict with what the rest of the New Testament teaches about how a Christian is to live. That dissonance is what really prompted me to look into other means of understanding the issue, and through my older brother I discovered anarcho-capitalism. I think it is easy to argue logically the shortcomings of statism, but as a Christian, I’m not interested so much in that perspective because I want to convince fellow Christians to stop being so enamored with the state. Stop worshipping people like Sarah Palin, or thinking that somehow we can “redeem” our culture by just getting a righteous government. The problem is that for so many years Romans 13 has been used to “sanctify” state action, and for centuries the Church allied itself with and manipulated state activity to horrible ends. Look at the outcome: decades of religious wars, a completely spiritually dead Europe… not to mention that some of the biggest European philosophers… Marx, Nietzsche, Darwin, etc, that have tremendous impact on world events of the last 100 years… all blatantly were reacting to really crappy Christianity that had meshed with the State.

I want to pull away from that. I don’t want the name of Christ to be associate with Agent Orange, or Depleted Uranium, or the countless thousands of “collateral” deaths in Iraq, or anything else like that. Aligning myself/ourselves with America means identifying with that stuff.

My take on Romans 13 takes a different turn than yours does, though. I’ve coined the phrase that “ordination does not equal sanctification,” and what I mean by that is that God sets up human governments (we can look to the OT for clear support of that), but that there are varied purposes behind all of that. With Pharaoh, it clearly states that God raised him up to show how powerful He (God) is to all of the nations on the earth at that time. Or, he has used governments as pawns to punish other peoples. But, the fact that he ordains them to be does not mean that they are inherently good, or the “best” option from our perspective. Babylon was evil… but it is described in Habakuk as God’s servant. From a Sovereign perspective, God is the first cause of everything… does that mean that sin is okay? Of course not. Can the devil do anything but what the Lord allows him to do? Obviously not.

I don’t look to Romans 13 as being the model of a perfect government and only when it is perfect are we expected to submit. It is the focus of the submission that counts. Our submission isn’t really to Obama and his stooges… it is to God. This point is made hugely clear in 1 Peter. In 2:12 (I believe, or right around there) it says that we submit to government “for the Lord’s sake.” Almost every time submission to human authority, or to violence (as in turning the other cheek), it is couched in terms of bringing God the glory and especially making sure there is no hinderance to the Gospel. Peter outlines that in the verse just before by saying that we should keep our conduct “honorable” among the gentiles so that they’ll glorify God. This theme of proper ambassadorship is heavy through the NT… my brother and I are working on a study of Christian response to violence, and we kept coming across that theme. Our response to government isn’t because government makes economic sense, or anything like that, it is so that we have a pure witness to those around us. Which highlights the point that submission does not equal condoning, or supporting.

Someone commented on your blog about Lew Rockwell. I agree that we can intellectually and morally bemoan government, but we never actually call for revolution. Doing so would fault our witness.

–Reader Feedback from Anonymous