(Note from Rowland: I count both Bill and Jim amongst my friends. Here’s an interesting discussion, which you might like to join. They would both love that!)

~~~

(sent to you by Jim Reiher)

A very conservative Christian friend has a web site with right wing articles on it (you may or may not be in that same broad area on the left right spectrum). He and I argue a bit – in love and charity of course…. – and a lot of the time I just don’t read him because I know it will lead to long and frustrating discussions. But I let my guard slip recently and read the following article. “Is it ever right to kill”? It led me to reply on the blog, and he replied back and then me and then him and then me….

At the time of sending this email, here is the article and the blog discussion going back and forth, if you are interested! Your thoughts on this very complex and obviously emotional debate, are welcome!

Jim Reiher

Is it Ever Right to Kill? Bill Muehlenberg.

What does it mean to be pro-life? There is some confusion as to what the term implies. If a person is opposed to abortion, must that same person also be opposed to war, or the death penalty?

Indeed, religious conservatives tend as a whole to be anti-abortion, but also pro-death penalty and pro-just-war theory. Some on the religious left argue that to be consistently pro-life, you have to oppose all these things.

But there are other mixes: many of the secular left who are pro-abortion are also anti-war. And they are happy to denounce pro-lifers for what they perceive as inconsistencies on their part. A case in point is an article that appeared in the Canberra Times on August 21, 2006, later reprinted in onlinopinion.com (as “Embryos versus soldiers,” 8 September).

Ben McNeil, a lecturer in environmental issues at the University of New South Wales, takes the pro-life camp to task for opposing abortion but not opposing the war in Iraq. In his blurb it says he has “expertise in the global carbon cycle”. He may have that, but he does not seem to have expertise in moral reasoning or clear thinking.

His argument is brief and slight: “Particular politicians always seem to bring the sanctity of life issue to the forefront of the stem-cell debate. But if they supported the moral argument for the war then they must also support the moral argument for stem cell research.”

He continues: “To avert the reign of terror and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, those in favour of the war in Iraq argued that the human sacrifice of soldiers was a worthy and necessary initial cost to save many more lives in the future. Surely the same sacrifice principle is central to the debate over stem cell research?”

And he notes that some religious groups are, in his view, more consistent here than politicians like Tony Abbott: “The Anglican and Catholic Churches, however, have been more consistent in their views, opposing both the war and stem cell research. This gives them a respected stance in the debate.”

What are we to make of this argument and others like it? Are the critics right? Does one have to oppose all killing to be truly pro-life and not be hypocritical?

The answer to these questions depends in part on how we define our terms. For example, what do we mean by killing? Of course any court of law worth its salt makes fundamental distinctions here. Murder is not the same as accidental death. Manslaughter is not the same as self-defence. Courts and laws recognize that not all killing is the same, and that not all killing is wrong, or of equal moral censure.

And many of the world’s great religions also make such differentiations, such as Judaism and Christianity. Indeed, go back to the sixth command. It literally says, “you shall not commit murder”. It does not proscribe killing. This is for the simple reason that God authorizes killing on various occasions, including the death penalty, the judgment of Canaan, and self defence.

So religious critics who argue that Christians must oppose all killing are simply wrong here. The Bible does not enjoin that, nor should we.

And just war theory, as it has developed over millennia, argues that defensive wars and wars to stop aggression can be morally justified. Pre-emptive strikes are a more difficult case, and people can argue over the merits of whether intervention in Iraq was justifiable. But Christian tradition has long recongised the right to kill under certain circumstances. And that is usually done by the state, not the individual. Thus governments have a right to implement the death penalty, to raise up armies, and to arm police forces. And individuals may have a right to self defence in certain circumstances.

Thus McNeil makes some conceptual errors here, and muddies the waters when more clarity and nuance was required. But there is another major error that needs to be addressed here. McNeil argues that if some soldiers can be sacrificed to save many people, why not sacrifice some embryos to possibly save many people? Several things can be said about this.

First, he may be unwittingly conceding some ground here to the pro-life camp. If the early embryo is just a clump of cells and not a person, then there is no sacrifice being made. So his analogy falls down completely. There is only sacrifice if the embryo is indeed a person, a very young member of the human race. Does McNeil believe this? If not, he needs to come up with a new argument.

Second, he makes a monumental error of judgment here by seeking to equate the two. Australia does not have conscription (at least not now). Thus every soldier in the army (and by extension, in Iraq) is there by free choice. Individuals volunteered to join the army, knowing that this would mean being willing to sacrifice one’s life for one’s country. It is all voluntary, all volitional. There is nothing of the sort happening with the hapless embryo. He or she is being destroyed without permission or consent. This runs against the basic ethical code of medical research: patient consent is always crucial, and obviously an embryo cannot give consent.

Thus the analogy is without substance, and McNeil’s whole argument comes down like a house of cards. As such, he will have to try much harder if he wants to add anything of substance to this important debate.

________________________________

6 Comments

Jump to comment form <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/11/is-it-ever-right-to-kill/#com ment-form#comment-form> | comments rss <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/11/is-it-ever-right-to-kill/feed /> [?]

<http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/11/is-it-ever-right-to-kill/#wha t-is-comment-rss#what-is-comment-rss> | trackback uri <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/11/is-it-ever-right-to-kill/trac kback/> [?]

<http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/11/is-it-ever-right-to-kill/#wha t-is-trackback#what-is-trackback>

1. Benjamin Soderlund 12.9.06 / 11am

That is a well put and logical argument Bill.

Benjamin Soderlund

2. Stan Fishley 13.9.06 / 9pm

Bill, I agree with Benjamin. He describes the argument as well put and logical. I would add that I will be using it as an example to show what proper analysis is. Stan Fishley, Wantirna

3. Jim Reiher Victoria 28.2.07 / 8am

Just wondering where in the Christian scriptures it says we can kill in self-defence? Did not Jesus say “if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other also”? And to keep relying on Old Convenant texts when Jesus fulfilled the Old and changed so much, is dangerous exegesis. In the very passage where he said he fulfilled the Old, (Matt 5) he gives 6 specific examples of how he changes things in that fulfilment, (the rest of chapter 5) and one of those very examples is now to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. I am not convinced Bill – if we really believe in the sanctity of life (because all humanity is made in the image of God) then there is a logical consistency that we would be opposed to killing (not just murdering) but killing as well – from the embryo to the Sadams. God is still on his throne and he can do as he pleases. But us imperfect humans? And to say “I am killing because God wants me to” is the oldest excuse in the book to justify all kinds of evil. I agree that some people are hypocritical in their support for abortion and opposition to capital punishment, but likewise people are (I am still convinced) hypocrites in their support for capital punishment and opposition of abortion. Jesus in John 8:1-11 demonstrated opposition to the implementation of capital punishment that was demanded by Moses very law in our Old Testament. He got the woman off the punishment. Jesus changes so much! We live as followers of Jesus, not as followers of the Old Covenant. Jim Reiher, Victoria

4. Bill Muehlenberg <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com> 28.2.07 / 9am

Thanks Jim

No I am not a hypocrite. I have written on these topics elsewhere. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. What are seriously suggesting Jim? Do we Christians just follow 27 books of the Bible (NT), and throw out the other 39 (OT)? Or do we just follow Matther 5-7?

As to God taking care of us: He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15) Those who trust God work for a living, as they are instructed in 1 Timothy 5:8. For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was “trusting God” would actually be to defy God.

So here you are talking like a Calvinist (God is in control and he can protect us if He wants, so we should do nothing about it). But elsewhere you talk like an Arminian (eg., social justice: it is up to us, not just God alone, to work to make this world a more just and humane place). So which is it?

Concerning self-defence, yes the Bible clearly allows it. Consider especially Exodus 22:2,3 for starters.

Of course resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance, which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). That seems to be the point of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you refer to. He is warning against taking personal vengeance. He is not repudiating any OT command (he does not say “It is written”, but “You have heard it said”. There is no OT command to hate your enemies.) And many scholars feel that “if anyone strikes you” is an idiom for personal insults, rather than a physical attack.

And it is Jesus who said that his disciples should arm themselves (buy a sword – Luke 22:36). This is not nullified by Matthew 26:52-54. Jesus had a mission to perform, and Peter was not to prevent it. And Jesus did not tell him to throw his sword away, but simply to put it back at his side.

Jesus never condemns any soldier for being a “killing machine” even though he had a chance to do so, as when he told them what they must do to inherit eternal life (eg, Luke 3:14). He even tells one soldier he has great faith (Luke 7:1-10).

And the NT is full of military imagery. If killing were absolutely wrong for the believer, much better images could have been selected. The truth is, the Bible does not teach that killing is never allowed.

Thus if you want to argue that all killing is wrong, you may, but then you can no longer claim to be following the Bible as your guide for ethical behaviour. Both Testaments sanction killing (not murder) so I will follow Scripture here thanks.

And John 8 may not so readily be used to say that capital punishment should be abolished. If anything, Jesus is affirming the strict requirements of OT justice here (according to Deut. 22:22-24 the man was also to be included in the punishment).

And if Matt 5 is your favourite text in this regard, then you should no so readily dismiss Matt 5:17.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

5. Jim Reiher Victoria 28.2.07 / 10am

Thanks for your thoughts Bill. I am not pursuaded that you have shown that the New Testament allows us to kill. I dont disagree that police forces are necessary in any society (for the sake of keeping society safe and functioning). In fact, in Jesus’ day, the Roman presence in much of the world, was really a police force role. On the edges of the empire there were wars being fought, but most soldiers in the Roman army, stationed in subdued territories, were acting as police forces. When John the Baptist (not Jesus, as you claim) spoke to soldiers about what they must do, we can see into that a little. On a broader issue: your use of some scriptures is a bit worrying to be honest. To use Luke 22:36 to justify Christains using violence in self-defence is particularly disturbing. The context tells us why Jesus told Peter to bring a sword along to the garden: the very next verse says “For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And he was numbered with transgressors’.” Jesus knew that he was to be considered a sinner, a transgressor. He was fulfilling a prophecy and had to “look like” he was hanging around with sinners – sinners carry swords, in this particular passage. Not Godly followers of the Lord of Lords. So when Peter goes to use it at the garden, in self-defence, Jesus rebukes him. And you are right: Jesus did not say “throw it away”. He said “Put it away.” But again Bill, you leave out a bit. Jesus said: “For all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” That is rather telling, isn’t it? You highlight that Jesus had a mission to fulfil and had to die on the cross and so he did. But that is not said in the garden to Peter. What is said, is “he who takes up the sword will die by it.” So you are not addressing what is actually said, here. And reinterpreting it to fit your preferred view (that Christians can carry weapons and use them in self-defence). And finally, your approach to John 8:1-11 is very disturbing. Are you really suggesting that Jesus would have agreed to have both the man and woman stoned to death, if the man had been brought to him as well? Have I read you right here? That is not the flow of the story or the nature of Jesus in the gospels. You are changing Jesus to be just like people who want capital punishment Bill. I thought we were meant to try to change ourselves to be more like Jesus.

Jim Reiher, Victoria

6. Bill Muehlenberg <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com> 28.2.07 / 3pm

Thanks Jim

But you err in equating violence with force. We can all legitimately use force, while violence is to be eschewed. You acknowledge that police can use force. But can’t you as well? If a rapist enters your home and attacks your wife, will you stand by and do nothing, arguing that the police can use force, but not you? So will you then be complicit in the evil action of rape by refusing to resist it? Please explain your understanding here.

I did not proof text Luke 22, I simply meant that it was a passage that needed to be dealt with in this discussion.

And while probably no one has a complete grasp on how we are to understand all of Matt. 5-7, my main point was that contrary to the usual custom of dragging someone off to court because of a personal insult, Jesus was here pleading for non-retaliation: that is, to not go through with the law court, but rather take the insult, which was a big ask in such a strong honour/shame culture as first century Palestine.

The Sermon on the Mount is part of the Christian ethic, but not all of it. It must be understood in the context of all of the NT, indeed, all of Scripture.

As to John 8, of course it is not part of the original gospel of John, but a later addition. So if you seek to use it as a chief pillar against capital punishment, you will be on wobbly ground. But having said that, the point is Jesus nowhere says the law is wrong. He nowhere implies taking up stones is wrong. And he may well be following the procedure of Mosaic law that says a case can be dismissed when witnesses lack integrity. Thus he in effect gives permission for the stoning to begin, provided the right conditions have been met (which were not). He is in fact upholding the law here, not denying it.

He is making a point about judgementalism and taking the law into one’s own hands. I did not say he was arguing that both should be stoned. But I do not see a denial of the divinely-appointed death penalty being made here.

Plus there are related questions. To what extent could Jews then even carry out the death penalty under Roman rulership? Were the accusers also witnesses of the crime? (Deut. 17:7) And there is no explicit mention of Jesus forgiving the woman here, only to not go on with this sinful activity

Lastly, a little thought exercise. In the light of your rejection of any sort of self-defence, tell me which of these four scenarios is wrong or sinful? 1. A tree is falling down and you must use force to defend yourself from being hurt by it. Is that OK? 2. A man has temporarily gone insane and is whipping around a baseball bat, hurting you and others. Can you use force to protect yourself, defend others, and disarm the madman, so you and others are no longer hurt? 3. An assailant attacks you with a baseball bat. Can you defend yourself and seek to disarm or immobilise your attacker? Or must you just take the beating, and possible death? 4. A terrorist bomber is about to detonate his explosives in a crowded school. Can you legitimately seek to stop him in this, by use of force, and protect yourself and the children from the massacre?

Since you are the one who seems to be absolutising the wrongness of self-defence, I would appreciate which of these, if any, you think are acceptable from a Christian standpoint.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

7. Jim Reiher Victoria 1.3.07 / 11pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Thanks for taking the time to respond again Bill. I dont think you have really addressed the unusual use of various NT scriptures that your earlier comments made. I still see no mandate in the New Testament to take up weapons as disciples of Jesus, to use in self defence. The verses you used were used wrongly, out of context, and ignoring clear surrounding qualifying material.

And you seem determined to push me into an extreme positon, so that it is easier to ignore my comments. I have told you before Bill, that I am not a 100% pacifist, but I think Jesus was, and I am not one because I am still not like Jesus perfectly. I wont pretend that my less than Christ-like life is really the Christ-like way to live.

You and I both know that throughout church history many Christians have been 100% pacifists. And some people have watched their families be killed rather than deny Jesus, and rather than use violence to prevent it. Are you saying that they were deluded or immoral? The Anabaptists, or the Amish or the Mennonites or many others? Should the apostle Paul have used violence to prevent himself being arrested? Or should the other Christians used violence to prevent it, or to rescue him? What of the women arrested before Saul became Paul? Should the church have risen up and fought to have them rescued?

You ask me extreme and emotive questions instead of addressing the Scriputes and Jesus in particular. To answer one of your scenarios: I am pretty sure that I would jump in and probably kill an intruder who wanted to hurt or kill my family members. But I dont know if that is the highest way to live as a Christ follower. Let me ask you an extreme and emotive scenario: If you are held down by some strong men, and they threaten to rape and kill your wife unless you deny Jesus verbally and clearly – what would you do? Now this is not a question of self defence. You are pinned down and cant fight. This is a question of whether or not you can deny Christ. I dont think you would want to deny Jesus – in theory – am I right? But you just might, in practice, and then repent of it later. Maybe. I suspect I would be very tempted to do just that. But again, some people in history have not denied Jesus and they and their loved ones have suffered greatly for it. Well, extending that idea: some people have also found that to use violence against another human being (made in the image of God) is just not an option no matter what the consequences. It is as bad to them as denying Jesus is to us. It is as bad to them because it is effectively denying Jesus, to deny imitating him. To not love their enemies. To not turn the other cheek. It is the same as saying “I deny Christ and his way.”

Now as I said, Bill, I am not a 100% pacifist. I dont think it is really debating a question to try to pigeon hole me with extreme scenarios. Nor is it good debate technique, to try to justify using violence by painting extreme and emotional pictures. Rather than emotional scenarios, lets keep grappling with scripture.

And I dont think I have ever said that “force” cant ever be used. I do see a difference between the two (force and violence) though of course it is grey and they overlap. (Jesus used force the day he cleansed the temple). It is not a black and white debate and I have not meant to give anyone the impression that I think it is. But in reading Jesus in the gospels, he is much more the pacifist than the man of violence. He is much more the one calling on us to imitate him, than to take up swords and be like those in the world. He let his enemies hurt him. He did not retaliate. He calls on us to be like him.

Let me take up the discussion about John 8. Jesus would not have wanted the man and the woman both stoned. The actual content of the passage does not follow the argument you try to develop. Jesus no where says “I would just like to affirm that we must fully obey the law in all ways and an injustice is happening here today because only the woman is here. So let her go.” No. He says “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is a very overarching statement. It is burying the ability of people to actually implement capital punishment because no one can claim to be without sin. This is profound. And has huge implications that you are not acknowledging, on the whole capital punishment debate.

And to say “the passage was not in the original text” is not the whole story either. To be more accurate, it is not in some of the early manuscripts, but is in others. What does that mean? Did it not happen and it is a fabricated story so we can ignore it? No. What it means (according to most commentators) is that maybe John Zebedee did not write it, but one of the early disciples copying Johns gospel put it in, so that we would not lose that story over time. Virtually everyone agrees that it probably did happen (it sounds exactly like the Jesus we see in all the other stories of the gospels – brilliant answer, grace flowing towards sinners, etc). So the truthfulness of the story is not in question, just who authored it. And God in his soverignty oversaw the writing of the whole gospel so that it is what he wants us to read and apply. Just as an editor added the last chapter of Deuteronomy and it is not Moses writing, but it is still God inspired scripture, so too John 8 is God ordained and inspired, despite who wrote it.

I am not sure we are getting very far in this discussion Bill. You probably think I am not hearing you, and I am feeling like you are not hearing me. But hopefully anyone reading our comments will sift all that we are both saying, and prayerfully reflect on the issues. (Me and you too hey!)

God bless mate. Jim.