At the
church where I serve, we are in the midst of a sermon series entitled “Vote for
Jesus”. During this series, our hope and our prayer is to accomplish three
specific goals. First, our hope and our prayer is to demonstrate that Jesus is
not a Republican and Jesus is not a Democrat. Instead, Jesus is God and as God
Jesus is the one that we are to place our hope in, not a political party.
Second, our hope and our prayer is to equip and empower us to think critically
and Biblically when it comes to the issues that our culture is faced with that
often find themselves expressed in the political process. And third, our hope and
prayer is to provide a framework from the message and teachings of Jesus when
it comes to how we as followers of Jesus are to engage in the government and in
the political process in way that reveals and reflects Jesus to those around
us.
This
week, I would like to
address the issue of defense and foreign policy. Specifically, I would like for
us to ask and answer the questions “What should be the policy of the United
States when it comes to the issue of national defense? How should the United
States relate to the other nations in the world? Like so many of the political
issues that we have been looking at during this series, in
our current political climate, the conversation surrounding national defense
and foreign policy can best be described as emotionally charged and highly
divided.
At one
end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of national defense and
foreign policy are politicians and others who advocate what is often referred
to as a non-interventionist or isolationist view. Non-interventionists advocate
a foreign policy that is characterized by the absence of interference in the
external affairs of another nation without its consent, or in its internal
affairs with or without its consent. Non-interventionism is different than
isolationism as isolationism also involves the economic component of economic
nationalism.
Isolationism
advocates that a nations' interests are best served by keeping the affairs of
other countries at a distance. The common motivation of both positions is the
desire to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts.
Both non-interventionism and isolationism believe that nations should avoid
alliances with other nations but still retain diplomacy and avoid all wars
unless related to direct self-defense. Those who advocate for
non-interventionist or isolationist foreign policy, who would be viewed in our
culture as being on “the left” or “libertarian” often paint those who are
against their policy proposals as being war mongers or imperialists.
On the
other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of national defense
and foreign policy would be politicians and others who advocate what are often
referred to as interventionist policies. Interventionists advocate for a
foreign policy that is characterized by a proactive engagement in the internal
or external affairs of another nation with or without their consent.
Interventionists advocate for instances of nation building politically and
economically, as well as military action in order to advance a nations
interests. Those who advocate for an interventionist foreign policy, who would
be viewed in our culture as being on “the right” often paint those who are
against their policy proposals as being isolationists and not concerned with
national security.
Now,
with all that background in mind, let’s take a look at what the message and
teachings of Jesus have to say when it comes to the issue of national defense
and foreign policy. Specifically, what do the letters that make up the Bible
reveal about a nation’s role and responsibility when it comes to national
defense and foreign policy? Would Jesus be hawkish on the issue of national
defense and foreign policy? Would Jesus
advocate an interventionist foreign policy? Or would Jesus be dovish on the
issue of national defense and foreign policy? Would Jesus advocate a pacifistic
isolationism?
A
thought that could be running through your mind is “Well Dave, didn’t Jesus say
somewhere that whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him
also. So Jesus obviously was a pacifist. So wouldn’t Jesus advocate for a
pacifistic isolationist foreign policy?” So let’s take a minute and look at that very
statement together to discover the answer to that question. We see Jesus make
this statement as a part of perhaps the most famous sermon that Jesus ever
preached, which we refer to today as the Sermon on the Mount. So let’s look at
this section together in Matthew 5:38-39:
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR
A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever
slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Jesus
begins this part of His Sermon on the Mount by quoting a part of Leviticus
24:19-20. Let’s take a moment to look at the entire verse:
If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to
him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.
Now
these verses were referred to as the Law of Retaliation, which was used in the
Jewish legal system to enforce proportional retribution for offenses that
occurred between two people. The Law of Retaliation was designed so that there
would be the right amount of justice in order to prevent private vengeance or
revenge from taking over their legal system. Much of our legal system here in America
But
notice what Jesus what Jesus says next. Jesus, after quoting part of the Jewish
Law of Retribution, states, but I say to you do not resist an evil person. But what is Jesus getting at here? When Jesus uses the word resist, He is
literally stating that we are not to place ourselves in a place of opposition
towards someone, in this case an evil person. This evil person that Jesus is
describing is literally a person who is bent on doing wrong. Jesus then gives
us an examples of a situation in which we are not to place ourselves in
opposition to someone who is bent on evil by stating that if someone slaps us
on the right cheek, we are to turn the other also.
To
understand the situation that Jesus is referring to, we first need to act this
scenario out. You see, the vast majority of people are right handed, just as it
was in Jesus day. Now can I hit someone’s right cheek with my right fist? No I
can’t. I would have to use a backhanded slap to do what Jesus is talking about.
Now, in the Jewish culture of Jesus day, this form of a backhanded slap was a
common way that people disrespected or insulted someone.
You
see, the issue that Jesus is addressing here is not self defense. And the issue
that Jesus is addressing is not national defense or foreign policy. The issue
that Jesus is addressing is not between nations. The issue that Jesus is
addressing is between individuals. The issue that Jesus is addressing here is
about being dishonored and disrespected by someone.
The
issue is not about being a pacifist, as many people in the anti-war movement
attempt to use this passage. The issue is about someone’s personal honor being
insulted. Jesus point is that they were not to seek retribution by suing in
court, which was their right under the Law of retribution. Jesus states that
they should accept the personal insult without responding. We see this reality
further reinforced in a section of a letter in the New Testament of the Bible
called the book of Romans. Tomorrow, we will look at this reality…
No comments:
Post a Comment