Brock/Francis Debate on Christians and War

 
 
Proposition:
The N.T. teaches a Christian must obey the call to war by his government..
which results in killing other people.

Affirm: Dennis (Skip)Francis
Deny: Nelta Brock

First point to consider: Using the O.T. to show how God works cannot be 
included in this debate because God dealt with His physical nation (Israel) in a 
completely different way than He does under the new covenant, which is a 
covenant of His love for all mankind. "For God so loved the world that He gave 
His only begotten Son....."

Under the O.T. God chose to deal with the nations around His people in a way HE 
wanted to deal with them. His purpose in preserving Israel is not the purpose 
today. He has no physical nation, as was discussed in the first proposition. His 
spiritual nation is made up of Christians in the whole world. There is no 
disagreement concerning how God chose to deal with the nations who were 
enemies of His physical nation, Israel.

Second point:

There is no disagreement on whether Christians are to obey the government under 
which we exist, just as there is no disagreement that a wife is to obey her 
husband.....until or unless that authority exceeds the authority of Jesus. Jesus has 
all authority, given Him from above.  His authority is first and foremost.

Is there ever a reason a wife CANNOT obey her husband? Suppose he insists that 
she drive the get-away car while he robs the bank. Must she do that? Of course, 
not. That goes against the authority of God, who says we cannot take what does 
not belong to us.

That fits in with the authority of civil government. If the government commands a 
Christian to go to war and kill other Christians or unbelievers must the Christian 
do that? Of course, not. That breaks the law of our Lord. Peter said, "We must 
obey God rather than man." The very character of a Christian would show whom 
he would obey.

The fact that we are to pay *tribute* does not mean we carry out the commands of 
the government when they conflict with God's. Jesus gave us the example of 
paying our taxes...which belongs to Caesar. Our allegiance, however is to the 
heavenly Father and not to civil government except to obey....to the point of 
disobeying God. 

To say that one must carry the sword of the civil government is saying one can 
hop in and out of the character of a Christian as developed and taught by our 
Lord.

It has yet to be proven by an example, a command, or a necessary inference that 
someone is to go to war and do the work God gave to the civil government whose 
job it is to take care of the evils of the world which is *for good* for the 
righteous.

Again, there is no disagreement that the civil government is *a ministry for 
good.* I believe there is a misunderstanding of just what *for good* is talking 
about. Earlier it was mentioned "he that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to 
him it is sin." To take that scripture and try to prove that because the civil 
government is a minister directed by God for the good of His children shows that 
a Christian must take part in the carrying out that *for good* is a misapplication. 
In Rom. 13, inspiration is talking to Christians concerning what authority the civil 
government has. We do evil, we face the sword. We do good we will be protected 
by God's minister....the civil government.

It is easy to understand that God gave different directions to different elements of 
His creation. No one is denying that God gave the authority to the civil 
government to use the sword in carrying out the keeping of order in the world.

Again, God has given some authority to different people. However, all authority 
belongs to Jesus and His teaching stands above any earthly authority....even the 
civil government. It has been mentioned that the word *subject* means *under 
control.* To say that one is under the control of the civil government in all things 
is going against the teachings of our God. Suppose you were to move to Iraq. 
With the reasoning given here the Christian who moved under that government 
would be obligated to obey THAT civil government in killing... for it. If war 
breaks out between the US and Iraq after someone moved *over there* would he 
be required to fight on the side of that government? Killing Christian Americans 
who were fighting on THIS side? Would there be any reason a Christian over 
there might refuse to kill *our boys* during the war? According to the argument 
the Christian over there could not refuse to kill a Christian over here. 

This brings us back to the basic point of this debate. Can a Christian kill another 
Christian for the government? Can a Christian kill an unbeliever for the 
government? Can a true Christian take off his Christian character (as Christ lives 
through him) and put on the killing character? Then when the war is over (if he 
survives) put back on his Christian character and expect Christ to take up 
residence once more in his heart? 

What keeps being brought up in proposition #2 is the fact that because the 
government is a minister of God by divine instruction, the Christian must be 
under the control of the government to the extent of whatever the government 
tells the Christian to do he must do. Same then....the wife would be under the 
control of her husband to do ANYTHING he directed her to do. None of this 
washes. This is not good biblical reasoning.

Summing up: If a Christian can/must engage in carnal warfare, the kingdom is 
subordinate to the human government. Human thinking is contrary to God's 
thinking. 1 Pet. 2:11 calls us aliens and exiles.  Because of this the Christian does 
not become involved in the affairs of the secular government.

Nelta