(This is a column posted today on www.TownHall.com)
I like to strike up conversations with people I meet while traveling. Last Tuesday, on the way back to San Francisco airport, I asked the driver where he was from. “Jordan,” he replied.
In an effort to make a connection, I mentioned that I haven’t gotten to Jordan, but I went to Iran in 2006 and served in Saudi Arabia with the Navy twenty years ago.
“What do you do?” he asked.
“I’m a writer and a speaker. I co-authored a book defending the truth of Christianity called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.”
“I’m a Christian too,” he said. Then, just as we were pulling into the terminal, he asked, “What do you think about the Iraq war?”
With less than 90 seconds left in the ride, I quickly said, “I think it was the least bad choice we had. Saddam used WMD, invaded Kuwait, and then violated 17 straight UN resolutions and the cease fire. What other choice did we have in a post 9-11 world?”
He didn’t answer the question. Instead, he claimed that Iraq had nothing to with 9-11, and that we just should have gone after the bad guys in Afghanistan. He then said, “Jesus told us to love our enemies.”
Leaving the issue of 9-11 aside, was his inference correct? In light of what Jesus said about loving our enemies, should Christians be pacifists?
I don’t think so. In fact, sometimes the use of force is not only justified, it can be a dereliction of duty not to use force.
First, “loving your enemies,” like “turn the other cheek,” is a command for individuals in personal relationships. It is not a command for governments or for individuals put in grave bodily harm. As individuals we should pray for our enemies and “turn the other cheek” instead of returning insult for insult. Such behavior demonstrates supernatural love aimed at securing the offender’s conversion to Christ. But those commands do not mean that we have no right to personal self defense, nor do they mean that a nation shouldn’t protect its people from other hostile nations.
With regard to self defense, not only does the Old Testament affirm the right to self defense (Ex. 22:2), Jesus himself told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Jesus later told Peter “put your sword away” so Christ’s sacrifice would go forward and the scriptures would be fulfilled (Mt. 26:54). But the very fact that Jesus told Peter and the other disciples to buy a sword shows that its use for personal protection is appropriate. (By the way, Jesus never condoned the use of the sword as a means of religious conversion. It’s impossible anyway. Genuine conversion, by definition, is freely accepted. It cannot be coerced.)
With regard to war, the New Testament does not order newly baptized soldiers to get out of the military. Instead, John the Baptist told them not to abuse their power and to be content with their pay (Luke 3:14). Soldiers are needed because, as Paul pointed out in Romans 13, governments have a God-given responsibility to use “the sword” to protect their people from harm. In fact, Paul himself accepted military protection when he was in danger (Acts 22:25f), and Jesus affirmed the right of governments to impose capital punishment, saying that such a right was given by God (Jn. 19:11).
Second, “love your enemies” cannot mean that all use of force is prohibited because such an interpretation would contradict the passages just cited and result in absurd conclusions. It would be absurd to say that “love your enemies” means “allow them to kill your family.” How would that be loving to your family?
It would be absurd to say that “love your enemies” prohibits all wars. What about the war against Hitler? Not justified? Please. How would that be loving to the Jews or the countries overrun? (Notice that even my driver friend isn’t against all wars. He thinks that the war in Afghanistan is justified. But if “love your enemies” meant you could never use force, then how can Afghanistan be justified?)
With such an absurd interpretation, we couldn’t even have police protection, a court system, or prisons. Why believe that police can use force but not Armies? There’s not much of a difference. Police use force to protect people from enemies inside a country. Armies use force to protect people from enemies outside a country.
Without the proper use of force, we’d have anarchy, and innocent people would be hurt or killed. That’s why complete pacifism is not only unbiblical, it is a dereliction of duty. Individuals have a responsibility to protect themselves and their families from harm, and governments have a similar responsibility to protect their citizens.
Christians can and should, of course, oppose specific wars that don’t meet what theologians call “just-war theory.” As I mentioned in my last column, I believe the Iraq war is just. But I didn’t get enough time with my driver friend to hear his complete case against the Iraq war. Maybe he knows something I don’t, but it didn’t seem so.
One thing is for certain: Christians contradict scripture and common sense when they say no war or use of force can ever be justified. As terrible as it is, war is sometimes the least bad choice available. In other words, it’s not that Christians are for war; it’s that we’re against the alternative—the oppression and death of the innocent. And in a fallen world like this, sometimes the use of force is necessary to protect the innocent. Without it, we wouldn’t even be able to love our friends.
Would Jesus Vote for That?
Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, TV ShowMcCain or Obama? What principles should Christians use to make their decision? What issues comprise the “weighter matters of the law” (Mt. 23:23-34)?
That’s what I cover in this program called “Would Jesus Vote for That?” It will air this Sunday at 6 pm ET and Monday at 2 am and 8 pm ET on DirecTV channel 378. (A side-by-side comparision of McCain and Obama begins at minute 33.)
http://vimeo.com/2094724&sec=2094724
Frank Turek – Would Jesus Vote for That from Andrew on Vimeo.
Obama is "The Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever"
Culture CrossExaminedEthicist Robert George of Princeton University exposes Barack Obama’s militantly pro-abortion views in an new article found here. George says that any claim that Barack Obama is the more pro-life candidate is simply “delusional.” He writes: “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”
Indeed, Obama said that the first thing he wants to do as President is to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) which would nullify every modest restriction on abortion in the land–including bans on partial-birth abortion, parental notification, and even conscience clauses that allow doctors and nurses to opt out of performing abortions (they would have to perform them or risk firing!). FOCA would also overturn the Hyde Amendment which would mean that taxpayers would be forced to pay for abortions!
Read George’s entire article here.
New Book on Same-Sex Marriage
Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsMy new book Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Will Hurt Everyone is now available as an e-book by clicking on the link. The paperback is coming soon. Here is the writeup from the back cover:
Hitchens-Turek Debate VIDEO
2. Does God Exist?, College Events, DebatesThe debate is over two hours, so get comfortable. If it gets hung up on our site, you can also view it here: http://www.vimeo.com/1904911. Please return here to post your comments. It will be on You Tube soon as well (but there you can only view it 10 minute segments). Thanks!
Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist? from Andrew on Vimeo.
Hitchens-Turek Debate
2. Does God Exist?, College EventsOn Tuesday night, I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, at Virginia Commonwealth University. The topic was, “Does God Exist?”
Thanks be to God (and to you for your prayers) because I don’t think the debate could have gone much better. There were several atheists who approached me afterwards to say that I had won. One young lady actually apologized for being an atheist! Her position was not well represented, and she said that the arguments for God were.
Hitchens was his usual charming and witty self (I really like him and said as much), but he did not answer any of the eight arguments that I presented for the existence of God. And as many in the audience acknowledged, he dodged nearly all of my questions.
Here is the introduction of a long e-mail sent to me two hours after the debate by a VCU Philosophy professor who attended (this professor told me that he is completely “non-religious”):
Dear Dr. Turek, I wanted to say once again that I greatly enjoyed your talk and that, in my judgment, you clearly and unequivocally prevailed against Hitchens. Your two mind-body arguments were, I thought, very good, as were your modernizations of the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. I was also moved by your argument that, given how vanishingly close to zero are the chances of there being any sort of life, let alone intelligent life, it is more reasonable to infer that there is a God than it is to infer that there isn’t — the first an inference, but not the latter, being an ‘inference to the best explanation’, as philosophers of science would say.
This is from a Christian student who has doubts:
My name is Jeremy and I was at your debate tonight. I will tell you what, you opened up a new can of worms at the VCU campus. You have opened the eyes of many of the “atheists” that go to VCU and well, you did an amazing job. You have really opened my eyes up a little bit more to the fact that God exists. As a Christian, I still have my doubts sometimes. I am not going to lie. But by faith I believe. Something that Mr. God himself Chris does not comprehend. (That was a great closing statement that you made) But thank you so much for coming to Richmond and actually answering questions and having a reliable debate unlike Chris who beat around the bush and really bashed you when he did not have an answer. People on the group said you did a good job and you made up some minds.
Here is an account of the debate from an atheist and a Hitchens fan who was very disappointed: http://rudyhenkel.livejournal.com/2726.html. (Note: This gentlemen erroneously thinks I do this for money. My honorarium for the debate goes to CrossExamined.org. He also dismisses my arguments without answering them and mischaracterizes a few things, but he tells the truth about Hitchens.)
We video recorded the entire debate, and interviewed many who attended. As soon as we produce the final version, I’ll let you know where you can see it (we intend to post it on You Tube and put it on our TV show).
Thank you again for your prayers and support. Our next college event is September 23 at UNC Charlotte.
What Would Barack Do?
Culture CrossExaminedOn June 28, 2006 Illinois Senator Barack Obama addressed the Call to Renewal’s “Building a Covenant for a New America” conference. Call to Renewal publishes Sojourners, a magazine of the Christian left that provides sustenance for those committed to the Social Gospel movement, which began in the late 19th century under Walter Rauschenbusch. Sojourners routinely publishes articles by members of Christianity’s liberal faction such as its founding editor-in-chief Jim Wallis, along with articles by Emergent Church leaders such as Brian McLaren.
Rauschenbusch was greatly influenced by the writings of Charles Sheldon, such as the classic work In His Steps, which gave rise to the modern maxim”What Would Jesus Do?” While there is nothing inherently wrong with asking such a question, the Social Gospel movement has strayed from evangelical orthodoxy in its focus on social works to the exclusion of foundational Christian doctrines. A balanced Christian view can be found in the Evangelical Manifesto of May 7, 2008. See especially page 6:
http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf
It behooves Christian Evangelicals to read Senator Obama’s speech carefully.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
About 2/3 of the way through the speech, in a paragraph that begins… “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst…” Senator Obama asks, “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”
If Senator Obama hadn’t presented this speech three months prior to the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion I would have suggested he borrowed from Dawkins. He presciently iterates the same misguided rhetoric the New Atheists have now brought into the mainstream. In any case, his comments make it quite clear that he is among those “folks who haven’t been reading their bibles,” at least not beyond a superficial level. Sadly, Call to Renewal’s Christian left failed to recognize the blatant error in Barack Obama’s remarks. As Evangelicals, I suggest we share this speech with any Christian friends who find his candidacy compelling.
Life Begins at Conception
Culture CrossExaminedGeorge Weigel writing for NewsWeek points out what we’ve known as a scientific fact for decades: that human life begins at conception and any other suggested point for its beginning is arbitrary: http://www.newsweek.com/id/155564/output/print. This is not a matter of religious faith, but cold hard science.
In my opinion, anyone running for President who thinks that such a fact is “above his pay grade” ought not be seeking the highest political pay grade in the world.
Atheist Diversionary Tactics
Culture CrossExaminedThe new atheists are a tumescent bunch, unquestionably articulate, yet consummately misguided. Their incendiary rhetoric can’t help but stir the emotions of the majority of America’s religious. Yet why do they ultimately choose to target Christianity above all other religious systems, when radical Islam presents the clear and present danger?
They routinely build a straw man version of Christianity based not upon the Ten Commandments and the morality of the Christ, but rather upon Old Testament Levitical laws that have long since been abrogated. They cannot be so naïve as to believe that Christians condone the murder of back talking children. Yet they must presume their audience is just so naïve, since this is exactly the sort of rhetoric they routinely tout.
In the latest books by avowed atheists, such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great and Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, the crux of the problem lies undisturbed. It never seems to surface amongst the pestiferous rhetoric of the atheist leaders.
They call for a secular America that mimics the “least religious societies on earth,” such as Norway, Denmark, Belgium and most of Western Europe, believing that the “end of religion” is an achievable goal. Yet, Western Europe has undergone an unprecedented decline in population that threatens its very existence. Conversely, the Middle East and Africa saw the greatest population growth during the 1990s, in nations that are predominantly Islamic.
The new atheists applaud Western European openness toward matters of gender equality and abortion, yet both of these departures from traditional religious mores have contributed to the dwindling population problem. Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation, submits that “seventy percent of the inmates of France’s jails are Muslim.” He obtusely observes that Western European Muslims are generally not atheists, implying that atheists are not part of the “problem.”
However, by not recognizing the real problem, and by diverting attention toward Christianity rather than Islam, neither are they part of the solution. France’s tolerance has permitted their Muslim population to exceed 10%. Their hospitality has already been reciprocated with Islamic car bombings and gang riots. In America, the Muslim population is generally estimated at less than 2% of the population.
The increase in Europe’s Muslim population, along with population decline among European nationals, is changing the demographic climate in the cradle of continental philosophy. Rather than a progressive transformation toward analytic scientism and a consummately secular society, Europe is slowly and methodically regressing by embracing the ancient Mesopotamian culture that has emigrated from the cradle of civilization.
The new atheists aren’t the only ones with an agenda. While Sam Harris wants to see “the end of faith,” Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to see the end of Israel and the United States. Saudi Arabian oil money is pouring into our nation’s colleges and universities, mosques and Islamic day schools, at an alarming rate. Saudi monies don’t fund new science labs, libraries or gymnasiums, but rather Middle Eastern Studies programs, many of which have become bastions of radical jihadist thought. There is one thing virtually all Muslims have the same opinion upon, radical or otherwise. They agree with Shari’a Law and the emergence of an Islamic caliphate that will rule the entire Middle East and, if possible, the entire globe.
President Bush entered Iraq with the goal of liberating the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, much like President Roosevelt entered Europe to liberate that part of the world from the maniacal control of Adolf Hitler. Our presence in Iraq has two very reasonable purposes: to aid the Iraqis in stabilizing their nation and to keep an eye on their next door neighbor, who unabashedly considers us the “Great Satan.” The new atheists are diverting our attention from America’s real problem by blurring the distinct boundaries between monotheistic religions.
Jesus and the Case for War
CrossExamined(This is a column posted today on www.TownHall.com)
I like to strike up conversations with people I meet while traveling. Last Tuesday, on the way back to San Francisco airport, I asked the driver where he was from. “Jordan,” he replied.
In an effort to make a connection, I mentioned that I haven’t gotten to Jordan, but I went to Iran in 2006 and served in Saudi Arabia with the Navy twenty years ago.
“What do you do?” he asked.
“I’m a writer and a speaker. I co-authored a book defending the truth of Christianity called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.”
“I’m a Christian too,” he said. Then, just as we were pulling into the terminal, he asked, “What do you think about the Iraq war?”
With less than 90 seconds left in the ride, I quickly said, “I think it was the least bad choice we had. Saddam used WMD, invaded Kuwait, and then violated 17 straight UN resolutions and the cease fire. What other choice did we have in a post 9-11 world?”
He didn’t answer the question. Instead, he claimed that Iraq had nothing to with 9-11, and that we just should have gone after the bad guys in Afghanistan. He then said, “Jesus told us to love our enemies.”
Leaving the issue of 9-11 aside, was his inference correct? In light of what Jesus said about loving our enemies, should Christians be pacifists?
I don’t think so. In fact, sometimes the use of force is not only justified, it can be a dereliction of duty not to use force.
First, “loving your enemies,” like “turn the other cheek,” is a command for individuals in personal relationships. It is not a command for governments or for individuals put in grave bodily harm. As individuals we should pray for our enemies and “turn the other cheek” instead of returning insult for insult. Such behavior demonstrates supernatural love aimed at securing the offender’s conversion to Christ. But those commands do not mean that we have no right to personal self defense, nor do they mean that a nation shouldn’t protect its people from other hostile nations.
With regard to self defense, not only does the Old Testament affirm the right to self defense (Ex. 22:2), Jesus himself told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Jesus later told Peter “put your sword away” so Christ’s sacrifice would go forward and the scriptures would be fulfilled (Mt. 26:54). But the very fact that Jesus told Peter and the other disciples to buy a sword shows that its use for personal protection is appropriate. (By the way, Jesus never condoned the use of the sword as a means of religious conversion. It’s impossible anyway. Genuine conversion, by definition, is freely accepted. It cannot be coerced.)
With regard to war, the New Testament does not order newly baptized soldiers to get out of the military. Instead, John the Baptist told them not to abuse their power and to be content with their pay (Luke 3:14). Soldiers are needed because, as Paul pointed out in Romans 13, governments have a God-given responsibility to use “the sword” to protect their people from harm. In fact, Paul himself accepted military protection when he was in danger (Acts 22:25f), and Jesus affirmed the right of governments to impose capital punishment, saying that such a right was given by God (Jn. 19:11).
Second, “love your enemies” cannot mean that all use of force is prohibited because such an interpretation would contradict the passages just cited and result in absurd conclusions. It would be absurd to say that “love your enemies” means “allow them to kill your family.” How would that be loving to your family?
It would be absurd to say that “love your enemies” prohibits all wars. What about the war against Hitler? Not justified? Please. How would that be loving to the Jews or the countries overrun? (Notice that even my driver friend isn’t against all wars. He thinks that the war in Afghanistan is justified. But if “love your enemies” meant you could never use force, then how can Afghanistan be justified?)
With such an absurd interpretation, we couldn’t even have police protection, a court system, or prisons. Why believe that police can use force but not Armies? There’s not much of a difference. Police use force to protect people from enemies inside a country. Armies use force to protect people from enemies outside a country.
Without the proper use of force, we’d have anarchy, and innocent people would be hurt or killed. That’s why complete pacifism is not only unbiblical, it is a dereliction of duty. Individuals have a responsibility to protect themselves and their families from harm, and governments have a similar responsibility to protect their citizens.
Christians can and should, of course, oppose specific wars that don’t meet what theologians call “just-war theory.” As I mentioned in my last column, I believe the Iraq war is just. But I didn’t get enough time with my driver friend to hear his complete case against the Iraq war. Maybe he knows something I don’t, but it didn’t seem so.
One thing is for certain: Christians contradict scripture and common sense when they say no war or use of force can ever be justified. As terrible as it is, war is sometimes the least bad choice available. In other words, it’s not that Christians are for war; it’s that we’re against the alternative—the oppression and death of the innocent. And in a fallen world like this, sometimes the use of force is necessary to protect the innocent. Without it, we wouldn’t even be able to love our friends.
The Presidency is not an Entry-Level Position
Culture CrossExaminedIn my opinion, both presidential candidates have their problems. But one has more problems than the other. Here is a column I wrote for Townhall.com: The Presidency is not an Entry-Level Position.