We should also recognize, however, that there is another level. Some people among us, whether or not they are called to be among the elect of God, are also called to be officials of appropriately constituted government, charged by God and the people with the ‘defense of the realm’, so to speak. It is the very proper duty of some of these people to hunt down and, in the proper circumstances, ‘terminate with extreme prejudice’ the people who, however we characterize their motivations, are endangering the lives of our citizens.

I often wonder: what should be, and (possibly a different question) what will be, the response of the United States if/when we suffer another attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse? I seldom hear this question addressed.

Here’s one possibility: inform every single nation that is majority Muslim (i.e., all the ones in which a significant portion of the population danced in the streets on 9/11), from Algeria to Indonesia, that we’re taking over. We’re going to invade, but not initially with soldiers. We’re sending administrators who will form a provisional government that will, among other things, work on significantly reducing the teaching of children that it’s OK to kill infidels. We might beg and plead with these nations not to resist, informing them that, should they do so, the B-52’s will fly, reducing their capital city first (I suspect that we’d actually have to do this at least once; maybe twice at the most. That’s pretty much all it took with the Japanese, and the Muslims don’t have the same ‘death before surrender/dishonor’ ure, AFAICT). At that time, whatever one might think of the wisdom of the war against Saddam Hussein and his forces, I think that our airmen would be glad that they wouldn’t have to fly off the Kitty Hawk; they’d have Baghdad International, convenient and centrally located.

Lest anyone accuse me of being ‘vengeful, thirsty’ etc, one must ask: what’s the alternative? Roll over and say, “Hit us again?”

Doc

Blessings in Christ Jesus!

I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of and questions about my from-the-gut post. Hopefully my response will refect the same thoughtfulness and consideration.

“If I serve the enemy, does that not also make me the enemy? If I have joined forces with the enemy, am I not one with the enemy I have joined and therefore am I not also the enemy? . . . Those who choose darkness, serve darkness and as darkness are the enemy of the Lord, darkness is also our enemy and those who readily serve darkness are our enemy as well.”

Let me pick on the verbs in your questions above: serve, joined, choose. It is true that those who are without (i.e., outside of) Christ are servants of the enemy, but is it true that they have joined enemy? I think they – like you and I – were born into a condition of slavery, having no choice in the matter originally, and – as Paul says – “free in regard to righteousness” (Rom 6:20). They are also blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) and dead in their sins (Eph 2:2). (I know you are familiar with these references, but include them in case one or two others that might read this are not.) Have they really chosen one side over the other, or are they slaves?

“Those who are the enemies of the Lord are also our enemies.”

Yes, but who is the real enemy? Are the pawns in the game making their own moves, or does the final responsibility fall upon the hand that moves them? But more on this in a minute.

“I do not believe that text used above [Eph 6:12] eliminates for any of us our own personal accountability for whom we are serving, whoever it is . . . But, we are not called to whitewash their actions as simply and only the product of satan, as if they had no personal responsibility in their actions.”

You are certainly correct and have raised an important balance which I failed to include. People do have responsibility for their actions and no one will be able to hide behind a the-devil-made-me-do-it excuse. My post could have been was construed to mean I was absolving them of any culpability for their actions. That is not true, as you thankfully point out.

More importantly, though, is another point you raise that is related to the question of responsibility: salvation. For what will unbelievers be judged and condemned (well, OK: they’re already condemned)? It will not be for murdering other people – as reprehensible as that is – but for their failure to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, the Lamb of God, the payment for their sins. This is the failure that causes them to continue in their blindness, deadness, and murderous sin.

But – again – I do not want to stray too far from your corrective. People are responsible for the choices they make, and Christians are exponentially more responsible since we – and we alone – are free to choose whether we will be slaves to sin or slaves to obedience. If we only see the slaves of Satan as enemies, however, I fear we will have trouble feeling compassion for them or struggle in developing a desire to share the gospel with them. We – or, at least, I – will be happy to leave them to their just fate. But they are as I once was, and the only difference between them and me is that I was saved (passive tense) by God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

I want vengeance, but I don’t have the right to exact revenge on anyone; I want to judge, but I am guilty of sin and my hand ill-fitted for casting stones. God will hold the terrorists responsible and He will judge them. He may work through established means (i.e., governments) to do that in this lifetime, but the judgment is solely His. His will be far more horrible than anything man can muster.

I know that not all of my anger is unrighteous and neither is yours. When we fail to get angry about such things, it means we have lost our moral compass. But my anger/judgment will not achieve the righteousness of God. I must leave that to Him.

Again, thanks for balancing this post. It was silent in some very significant ways and your voice filled in the quiet places. I appreciate it.