Why I am a Conservative - The Sword

One of the key planks in conservative thought is a strong national defense.  Critics on the left, including the Christian left, often suggest the conservative position is nothing more than feeding a lucrative war machine at best and a direct contradiction of Jesus command to turn the other cheek at worst.  And typically the accusation against Christian conservatives is that they are dupes of the Republican party on this issue as well as others.

But I have to disagree.  Once again, I think the position of the Christian conservative has a matter-of-fact view of humanity as fallen and in rebellion against what is true and good, and because of the fall, because of the corruptibility of human nature, it is necessary to have both a police force at the local level and a standing army at the national level precisely because there are those whose aggression cannot be restrained by anything less.  (More)

Over the weekend a story was printed about a man in Florida, who apparently in a drug-induced insanity stripped off his clothes, attacked another man and began eating his face.  When a police officer came on the scene he shouted to the assailant to back away.  He did not.  The officer shot him.   The man continued the attack after having been shot.  The officer shot him again.  The victim is at the moment clinging to life and is horribly disfigured.  Did the officer to the right thing - the necessary thing to protect the innocent from an assailant who could not be stopped any other way?  (Reports indicate this particular drug induced mania gives those affected seemingly double their normal strength, meaning an attempt to restrain the man would have been most unwise.)  I think the officer acted properly.    The power of the sword, or the police firearm, is sometimes the only way to prevent unspeakable evil.

There are practical reasons, generally unrelated to religion or theology, and distinctly Biblical reasons for taking this view.  As one who takes the Biblical record as a unity, so that Old Testament and New both give glimpses into the character of God, I cannot completely separate the Old Testament record from the gospels, nor can I separate Jesus from Paul.   Though there is a dramatic shift when the New Covenant comes into existence with the death and resurrection of Christ, that shift in how God deals with humanity does not require a shift in God's character.  And nothing in either Testament suggests God is opposed to the judicious use of force.

In the Old Testament, Israel was a theocracy.  The Jewish nation was surrounded by nations that often practiced horrific bloody religious rites, often were aggressive at war, and were a real threat.  I think of much of the Old Testament law as a way of regulating and restraining human recklessness - behind it all are ideals, but on the surface Old Testament saints are making the most of a less than ideal reality.  Capital punishment existed in the Old Testament, Israel had an army.  To my mind both are responses to the reality of real threats,  physical, moral and spiritual, dealt with under God's direct direction, at times in direct judgment.   One cannot read the Old Testament and conclude that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob endorsed pacifism, however one feels about specific incidents or actions taken.

In the New Testament, Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more".  No such words were spoken to Roman soldiers who came in contact with Jesus.  And Paul specifically states the state has the power of the sword to restrain evil and punish evildoers.  There is a consistent testimony that in a fallen world, the sword is at least a necessary evil.

In Romans 13::4 Paul explicitly states, "for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."  This is consistent with the Old Testament, where God is simply not a pacifist.  In Luke 3, John the Baptist tells soldiers "Don’t extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay."  There is no hint that being a soldier is in itself wrong.

What to make of the command to turn the other cheek?   In a personal confrontation, if someone wrongs me, it is often disarming to accept insult and injury with grace and forgiveness.  But it does not follow that if I see someone mistreat someone else, that I should allow the aggressor to continue the assault.  Love for the victim requires a response.  When I am assaulted, love for someone who insults me or rips me off may well cause me to seek no recompense.  When another is victimized, I must weigh love for the victim against love for their attacker.  

We have police at the local level to deal with situations that go beyond a personal response.  At the national level the stakes are simply higher.  Whether the bully is a dictator with a massive army or a terrorist with a small band of underlings, the state has a duty to protect and defend the innocent, and it may well be that the only way to do so is through the use of force.

One other matter in Romans 13.  In the context of the state bearing the sword, Paul says:  "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."  Those on the Christian left who suggest a tax revolt to protest the evils of the military industrial complex may be on thin ice here.  Conservatives on the other hand who oppose exorbitant taxes, it seems to me, are on solid ground in saying that one of the first duties of government is national defense, therefore paying taxes for military preparedness is proper. In fact, conservatives tend to put defense near the top of the list of priorities.  Many things need to be cut from the national budget if we are to survive in face of crippling debt.  The left would cut the military first, possibly a position connected to a belief that humanity is not fallen, but that evil is a result of cultural and environmental pressures.  Those who see the darker side of human nature are less optimistic. 

One can of course reasonably argue that the size of the military is too large or that specific military actions are unwarranted or unjustified.  One can argue that rulers use the military or police improperly, and conservatives will be the first to object if there is evidence of a head of state carrying out assassinations of political opponents.  Of course the military can be corrupted - which is why we have separation of powers that extend to the declaration of war and specific restraints on military action as relates to our own citizens.

But one cannot argue that God is opposed to the principle of having an army or a police force.   If the purpose of the sword is to defend the innocent from violent aggression, then there is nothing unreasonable or unchristian about supporting the military or police.  Both have their place in a world that is often frightening and dangerous.