Dr Greg Bahnsen - A Christian View of War: The End of Wars (Part 3)

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. I'm glad all of you could be back for this, our third evening of the discussion of a Christian view of war. Perhaps you will remember what we have been talking about our last two evenings. By way of background, I just want to review that before we open our Bibles and read some passages that I hope will be as exciting to you as they are to me. Just reading them over makes my soul thrill inside to know that the day is coming when wars indeed shall end. In our first discussion, we looked at the source of war and saw that the Bible teaches that we have wars and fighting among us because of inner desires and lust, which are sinful, cannot be satisfied. This is the basic source of war. We see this in the case of Cain and Abel. The first World War was fought not for any rational reason, not for any economic reason, not because of poor behavioral training. It was fought pure and simply because of sin and selfishness and animosity. Sin is the source of war because it's from sin that wars arise. Aggressors, assailants, come because they are sinful in their desires and their motives. However, war is also brought about because sin has to be dealt with. In some cases, war is the remedy that is necessary for the sinful violence of men, and I have argued from that. The defense of war is therefore just in the eyes of God. This means that pacifism cannot be categorically the Christian moral position with respect to warfare. Pacifism is unloving, pacifism is unrealistic, I argued, and pacifism is unbiblical. On the other hand, war must be just if it's to be fought with the approval of God. War must be just in its end, that is, we are engaging in war for the sake of self defense and war must be just as to its means. We must fight in a way which is approved by God and not think that we are outside of moral boundaries. We have to battle in such a way that we show, for instance, proportion and discrimination in the use of violence. Things like that were discussed last evening. I told you last night that God's word lays down moral standards for war and that those standards are not found in the holy war provisions given to Israel of old. Because we are not an elect nation, a geopolitical entity like Israel, chosen by God and exacting his punishment upon wicked nations according to his special direction. We do not have revelation to that effect. We are not in the same position. However, there are laws with respect to warfare that do apply categorically or commonly to the nations. And what we have learned is that a war would be defensive in nature if it is a just war rather than an interventionist war. Because civil magistrates must honor the question of their jurisdiction, the issue of their jurisdiction. God has not granted them jurisdiction over any other nation than their own. And consequently, for them to wield the coercive power of the sword in another nation, or for the sake of another nation, or against another nation that has not attacked them is to really go beyond their calling and ordination by God. This leads us to see, then, the right of selective conscientious objection. It is appropriate for the Christian when sufficient information has been given, when the Christian sees by that information that a war is not being fought justly or for a just reason, or it is a war where we have no right intervening in, the Christian has the right to object to that conscientiously as being something that is ungodly and immoral. At the end of last evening's discussion of the conducting of wars, I reminded you, however, that we should as Christians distinguish between the moral responsibility and support that is given to the political high command of the nation and the moral support that we would give to the troops that are under that command. The troops are not morally responsible for what the powers that be decide they should be doing. And even when we cannot approve of our political regime and the decisions it has made, we might still yet support our troops and pray for their safety and victory in battle. Moreover, after a primary immoral decision has been made, I tried to point out that it is not a simple matter for us then to say, well, everything that follows upon that immoral decision means we must oppose it as well, in the sense that if it's wrong for us to be involved in the Middle east, that the repentance of the President calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops. That doesn't follow automatically. It may in some cases, but in other cases it might not, because subsequent moral questions have to be answered that are not automatically answered by the first or primary immoral decision that was made in the case of withdrawing troops from the Middle East. Right now I would suggest to you, as worth consideration, that the bringing back of our troops would leave that region in a worse condition than when we found it, and therefore entering them for a just cause, although it was none of our business. Nevertheless, we would be leaving that in a worse situation than we found it, even more unjust situation. It would also be in an indirect and subtle way an offense against the people of this nation if in fact a show of military weakness and a lack of political resolve led the other nations of the world that are enemies of our country to think that we are open to attack because we don't have the will to survive or to fight or to prosecute a war, endeavor to victory. And so if that is the message we send by withdrawing the troops and therefore lay ourselves open to become more vulnerable to attack, that would not be a moral thing for the higher command to do either. It's a very complicated matter, and I know that bothers many of us. We would like to have very simple ABC answers. But in God's world and in the complexities of our sinful entanglements, they're not always available just that way. Which is all the more reason why we need to be spending the time that we are, and even more trying to forge a clearly articulated biblical understanding of the Christians view of war. I've tried to tell you then in the last two evenings about the source of war and how war should be conducted. And tonight's my privilege to speak to you about the end of wars. And toward that end, let's read three passages in the prophecy of Isaiah, beginning in Isaiah the second chapter at verse two, Isaiah two at the second verse and it shall come to pass in the latter days. For the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem and he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples. And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. And now please turn to Isaiah, the ninth chapter. I'll begin reading at the second verse. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death upon them hath the light shined. Thou hast multiplied the nation Thou hast increased their joy they joy before thee according to the joy and harvest as men rejoice when they divide the spoil for the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor thou hast broken, as in the day of Midian. For all the armour of the armed man in the tumult and the garments rolled in blood shall be for burning for fuel of fodder. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon his shoulder. And his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace, there shall be no heir upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness, from henceforth, even forever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this. And then one more passage. Isaiah, the 11th chapter, beginning at the first. And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, and the spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah. And his delight shall be in the fear of Jehovah. And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears. But with righteousness shall he judge the four and decide with equity for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid and the calf, and the young lion and the fatling together. And a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed the young one shall lie down together. And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the otter's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy at all. My holy mountain. For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea. And thus far the reading of God's word. Will wars ever end? Do we have any reason to hope that this complicated situation which we find ourselves today will no longer be a threat to our children or our grandchildren? Is there ever going to be a time in Earth's history when the nations will stop appealing to might to take care of their problems? Is there going to be a time when the right shall rule internationally and nations will stop going to war with each other. Well, we've just read three passages of Scripture, all three of which answer the question I think rather directly, categorically, explicitly saying yes. And yet we don't hear much of that in Christian circles these days. And I think that's a shame, because when we've lost sight of what God plans to do in history, then it's very easy for us to think we have to find our own way through the course of history. Or sometimes when we have the false view of what God's going to do in history, for instance, rapture, his people away from the greatest difficulties spiritually the earth has seen, or God has called for his people to defend some particular geopolitical entity as a spiritual obligation, regardless of questions of right and international justice, such as the support of Israel. When we have false ideas of what God is doing in history, then we are led to make false ethical conclusions, to draw false ethical conclusions about moral matters such as warfare. The Bible tells us the day is coming indeed when war will, to put it, and prophetic exaggeration, but very poetic and beautifully, war will end. The nations will no longer learn war. They won't have a need for weapons of war. They'll turn their weapons into tools for dominion, for agriculture, and for doing the constructive, positive things in subduing the earth that God originally called man to. The day is coming when the Prince of peace will be acknowledged by the nations, and they will bow the knee to him, and they will learn his law and walk in his ways and therefore exemplify the very peace which he himself has brought into this world. That day is coming, then, when wars will indeed end, when a time of victory for God's kingdom will be enjoyed by all nations and we will be characterized as peaceful people and peaceful nations. Tonight we want to talk about how that is going to happen and how we should look upon efforts to bring about an international peace among men. I want to start this evening's discussion by warning you against what I will call a false messianism, a pseudo messianic drive that has always been with the earthly nations and unfortunately can even come to characterize our own nations, the United States of America. A false messianic complex that leads us to think that world peace is dependent upon our efforts, dependent upon our reasoning, dependent upon our moral judgments and our ways of doing things. It is immoral, I want to suggest to you, as well as foolish for any nation, including our own, to try and to play God by acting as the international policeman as the savior of the downtrodden nations, using the means of might and military superiority to establish that in the world. I suggest it is immoral for us to try to play policemen of the world to intervene where God has not given us the right to intervene. And it is foolish for us to to try to be the savior of the downtrodden nations by using might to bring about their rescuing and liberation rather than appealing to matters of right and righteousness to do so. I think we see this foolishness and this immorality if we look at the United States involvement and intervention in Vietnam. Our intervention and our efforts there cost thousands lives, cost millions of dollars. And tragically, that loss of life and property was not worth it. For, you see, we went and intervened in an affair that was not our own. And we didn't improve the situation. We made it worse and we lost. It was a vain effort to play policeman of the world. I think we see the immorality and foolishness of that in our present intervention in Kuwait. As bad as the butcher of Baghdad is, God has not made us the policemen of the world. God has not authorized us to kill and to spend money and to expropriate property for the sake of going in and setting things right there. It is not under our jurisdiction. And I think you can see the foolishness of this. If you just stop and think. Even if we are to win this, which for all present appearances we will, even if we are to win the military encounter, do we think that we will have established peace in that region after we have the troops withdrawn from Kuwait and then we all come home? Is this region that is characterized by Arab upon Arab hostility and Arab upon Jewish hostility going to be any more peaceful when we leave? Will the peace we have established by getting troops out of a very small area called Kuwait remain that peaceful when we leave and are not there to police the situation? Well, if that is possible, then why did we get into this in the first place? The fact is, this area is not able to be policed by us, not able to be policed successfully. And so, again, I would suggest there is a tendency toward a false messianic complex in the nations of the world, and especially in nations with very good intentions such as that of the United States. If God in his wisdom has not morally authorized the use of violence in helping another nation, the civil magistrate may not usurp the authority to do so, coercing his citizens to carry out what he has no legitimate right to do. And when the magistrate does usurp the authority which God alone has to coerce citizens into a life and death struggle for the sake of another nation. That magistrate becomes a false savior of nations, a false messiah. Of course, good intentions make it very hard to resist that messianic temptation. As I told you in previous discussions, a war effort may indeed have a just cause. There may be a very wicked man or group of men, or a wicked regime behind what is happening, in which case the war effort against them is just. But that doesn't mean that any means to accomplishing the just end is justified. After all, we don't say that the end justifies the means. In Christian ethics, even when the end is a just and a good one, not any means to that end is appropriate. It is probably much better for this particular congregation to have more money than less. Enough money, say, to pay for a building project, or to increase their pastor's salary, or to call someone else on staff to buy more supplies to fix the plumbing. Whatever it may be, there are very good things that can be done with more money by this congregation. The fact that it would be just and good to do those things, however, does not mean we can go out and rob a bank to bring it about. Not any means to an end is just, even though the end itself is a good one. It may very well be that your next door neighbor should paddle his son for his bad mouth or his unwillingness to be subject to authority, or whatever it may be, it is a good thing for that child to learn discipline and to be punished in an appropriate biblical way when he doesn't honor his mother and his father and obey them. However, the fact that it would be good for that son to be paddled doesn't mean it is your job to go in and paddle him. You understand, then that not every good thing that can be done in this world and is to be done by people who don't have any business doing it. The goodness of the end does not establish the rightness of the means to it. Now the question might arise as I speak of this false messianic complex of entering into wars and battles that are not ours, even with the good end of lifting the oppressed nations and liberating them from that oppression, the question may arise, well, what about the United Nations? Does not the United nations and its judgments and evaluations sanction the intervention of the United States? In this particular case in Kuwait, may we look to the United nations as kind of an international tribunal under whose authority the intervening nations are operating? And I would like to point to four things about the United nations you must keep in mind, lest you fall into that line of reasoning in the first place, the United nations does not have any lawful jurisdiction or authority to enforce its judgments. God has not brought about the United nations and commanded the nations of the world to submit to it. If the United nations, as a deliberative body of individual nations, gets together and condemns the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, and in so doing gives a cloak of legitimacy to any nation, including the United States, that would enter in to enforce that judgment against Saddam Hussein, we have to ask, does the United nations have the right to authorize that kind of. Well, what? Or who make up the United Nations? Well, the various nations of the world. So let's start one by one. I don't know how many nations there are in the world right now, but there are quite a few. Let's just begin with Germany. If Germany decides that it's all right for the United States to intervene, does that make it all right? No, because Germany doesn't have jurisdiction there, either over Kuwait or us for that matter. How about France? What if France were to decide that it would be all right to intervene? Would that make it morally legitimate? Well, no. Well, how about Argentina? What if Argentina did? So you see where we're going now. The question is, if France doesn't have the authority to do that, if Germany doesn't have the authority to do that, if Argentina doesn't have the authority to do that, why would they collectively have the authority to do that? Let's go back to your intervening in your neighbor's family affairs, butting in, meddling. If I don't have the authority to go into my neighbor's house and paddle his son, who is talking back to his mother, and you don't have the authority to go into that home and do that or direct me to do that, and if the next neighbor down the street doesn't have that, then I would ask you, what if all three of us get together, can we corporately usurp the authority to enter into the home and to paddle the unruly son? Of course we cannot when we individually don't have that right from God. We don't gain it by getting a number of other people who don't have that right together and then voting on the map. Secondly, with respect to the United nations, you must remember that the United nations is honored, I think, probably by all nations, but especially by the United States is honored in only a fickle fashion. You see, the United nations condemned our intervention in Panama, and we thumbed our nose at the United nations and said, we think it's right. We're going to do it anyway. Now the United nations has authorized their intervention in Kuwait. And we. Hypocritically, I believe if I could have prophetic integrity before you. Hypocritically, we then appeal to people and say, the United nations has sanctioned it. And so it is all right. Well, now, which is it? When the United nations condemns us, are we truly condemned or are we all right only when the United nations supports us? We can't have it both ways. And this shows that the United nations is not really an acknowledged opponent authority to which we as a nation or other nations submit. The United nations is at best a public relations tool for whoever can manipulate the decisions of the United nations and their press. Thirdly, we have to remember as God's people that the United nations legislates a law and decrees judgments and evaluations which are not based upon the word of God. They are not based on what we consider to be the proper and universal standard of right and wrong. The United nations does render judgments, but they are not judgments rendered on the basis of God's word or God's law. They are judgments based upon what is considered to be the neutral, pluralistic, humanistic consensus of the nations. And this brings me to an interesting question that was submitted to me in writing last evening afterwards. And that is, well, is the 51% vote a form of might rather than right? And the answer is absolutely. A majority vote may be what gives might and power and the ability to do something, but a majority vote doesn't make something right. For all I know, the majority of people in our nation today would say that under some circumstances elective abortion is acceptable. That that wouldn't make it morally right. However, there is a difference obviously between the standard of right and wrong and the question politically, how do you govern a people? We do have to follow a majority opinion when it comes to the governing of a group of people that don't agree on things. It wouldn't make any sense to let the minority tyrannize the majority. So I am a majoritarian when it comes to, say, voting for representatives for office or something like that. But I would say that supporting a 51% approach to making decisions as a corporate body does not mean that as an ethicist, a 51% vote establishes right and wrong. And 51% of the world nation, even if you have a consensus of these nations, judging in a humanistic, pluralistic, allegedly neutral fashion does not establish right and wrong. The United nations uses the wrong standard and has the wrong aims. The United nations has the dream of a one world government and achieving international peace. I often hear Christians condemn the United nations as being a return to the false ideology of the Tower of Babel. And they are right for the most part because since the United nations will not honor the universal king that God has given among them, since the United nations will not bow the knee to the king that God has established upon his holy throne upon Mount Zion, as Psalm 2 says, since they are in tumult together against the Lord and His anointed, God will laugh at them in derision and he will break them in pieces. God is not pleased with the United nations with its allegedly neutral, humanistic and pluralistic aims to achieve a one world government and bring peace without the Prince of peace. Yet on the other hand, that dream of a one world government achieving international peace is a proper goal. The UN has a false basis for it, but it is a proper goal. The United nations has become another pseudo messiah that shoves up side the true Savior tries to put Jesus out of the way and not acknowledge him as the king over all the nations, but then achieve what is the work of Jesus, and that is reconciliation among men and peace among the nations. And so I have begun this evening by suggesting we have to be careful of a false messianic context. Whether it is in this nation that intervenes where God isn't given the right to, or if it's found even in the United nations, all of the false messiahs of the world getting together and voting the majority opinion, it still doesn't make right or wrong. The second thing I'd like to talk to you about tonight, which may sound like I'm stripping ears intellectually and going the opposite direction. I'd like to say something in favor of pacifism. How can that be? After all, the first evening I told you pacifism is not biblical, it's not loving, it's not realistic. Well, that's all true when you're speaking of categorical pacifism. Pacifism says that war under all circumstances is in essence immoral, that there is no circumstance under which war can be waged, and that a Christian can engage in that I do believe is unbiblical. However, having said that, I'm afraid that many of us who are theologically conservative and many of us who are sociopolitically conservative, having seen that pacifism categorically as wrong, fail to hear the very proper message of the pacifist. There are things about pacifism that we ought to affirm and that we ought to be, it seems to me, leading the way in trying to achieve Jesus says that if a man comes up to you and smites you on the right cheek, that you turn to him the other. And many of you have heard pacifists appeal to this very improperly not interpreting the passage correctly, illogically trying to apply interpersonal ethics to international ethics and so forth. Many of us know the answer to the pacifist about that position. But you know what I've also seen in my life and the lives of so many other people? Once we see that the passivist is wrong about the passage, then we just put the passage on the shelf and don't listen to what it says. What does the passage say? It does tell us we should be peacemakers, doesn't it? It does tell us we should be self sacrificial and willing to suffer wrong and do whatever we can to avoid confrontation, even if it means humiliation. I do not think the passage means that we cannot defend ourselves in a life and death circumstance. I think that is a moral right and an obligation that we have. But I also know that for the most part, most people don't want to think about that very fine line defending my own integrity and honor and where I'm really defending my life. Having dismissed the pacifist approach to that passage, then we don't think we have to live according to the very strict ethic that the passage does teach anyway and in the same way international ethics. I'm afraid that once Christians have dismissed the pacifist or the categorical pacifist position, then we just put all those considerations of peace and reconciliation and so forth aside and don't ask ourselves very seriously what does God want us to do about these things and how should we live in light of them. I want to suggest to you that the pacifist ideal is indeed the biblical ideal, the ideal of peace. We don't have time by any means to do an adequate job of studying the biblical approach to peace tonight. But just as a reminder of certain things the Bible would teach us, remember that Jesus comes, according to Isaiah, the ninth chapter, as the Prince of Peace. He is the one who is going to bring it about. The nations do not war against each other anymore. Jesus in the best known sermon that he ever preached on earth, the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes of that sermon tells us very clearly that those who are peacemakers are the sons of God. Suggestion being that if we are not peacemakers, we are not related to God in that familial way at all. When Jesus was born, the angels proclaimed peace on earth. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem the final time, the week that he would then be crucified, we remember that he fulfills the prophecy of Zachariah, that God will bring peace to the nations, and he will do so by sending the Messiah riding upon not a beast of warfare, but a beast of burden. Humble Jesus laid down his life that we might have peace with God and peace with one another. In Romans, the 14th chapter, Paul tells us this is the kingdom of God, that we should have righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Spirit. In Galatians, the fifth chapter, Paul tells us that it is the fruit of his purity to see love, joy, peace among us. We are to be blessed as peacemakers because we follow the Prince of Peace who establish peace and the Bible promises will one day inaugurate a reign of peace upon earth. I really would like to say much more about that. I'm thinking someday, maybe even of writing a systematic theology entitled the Theology of Peace, because there is so much in the Bible that ties together theological themes around this notion of peace. But let's ask ourselves, in light of our assigned topic this week, what does it mean that we as Christians should be following the Prince of Peace and should be peacemakers? What does it mean that Jesus intends to bring peace to the world? Are we then to be warmongers? Are we to just take it very naturally and easy that our nation goes to war? Or should we, as the pacifist does very rightly feel uneasy with that? Should it bother us that war is always a sign of spiritual failure? What should we be doing to prevent wars rather than just gladly engaging in them, even when they are just and right? Because, after all, the goal for God's people is not just that war should be fought only when they're just, but that they should not be fought at all? And so this evening I'm going to give you five steps toward this peace, which I think ought to be our proper pacifist goal. We should be pacifists in the sense that we prefer peace over war, and we prefer the way of peace to the way of confrontation. We look for reconciliation rather than alienation in this world. What should be the path to peace internationally? Five points one and I have a little way of summarizing each one, but I want to elaborate. The first question that we have about the path to peace is going to be that of guns or the gospel. Is our interest in guns, in exporting guns and Artillery and armies and troops? Or is our interest in the exporting of the gospel the source of wars? I argued in our first message in the series, the source of wars are men's sinful, selfish lusts. If war is to end, therefore, war must deal with the sinful internal problem of man. War will not end with appeal to might, even though war is sometimes called for. And might must meet might in the name of justice. But war will not end in that way. All those who take the sword shall die by the sword. The source of war is man's sin, man's lack of satisfaction in this world, man's antagonism to God and therefore antagonism to his fellow men. And until that sinful source of war is dealt with, war will continue. We must remember that the fruit of salvation which the Bible says is peace, peace with God and peace with each other. The fruit of salvation cannot be achieved here and cannot be achieved elsewhere, be it Vietnam or Kuwait or anywhere else. The fruit of salvation, the peace that comes through salvation, cannot be achieved without the source of salvation itself. We cannot have international peace without the Prince of Peace. We cannot see reconciliation between men and nations without the one who establishes reconciliation by the work of the cross. And so we have to ask, if we're going to follow the path to peace as God's people, whether we should do so by means of guns or the gospel. The preaching of the gospel, the preaching of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ the Savior, who, the preaching of the whole counsel of God and the nurture of sanctification that comes from the word of God, is going to be the way of peace for the nations as well as for individuals within those nations. Friends, God is not mocked. Don't forget. God will not be mocked. We will reap what we sow. And if what we sow is military money, we will reap the effects of that. Taking the sword, we. We will continue to be a warlike people and we will die by the sword. In the long run, the only way to reap peace is to sow it. So do we export political military might as a nation and therefore commit ourselves to perpetual warfare? Or do we export the message of right and righteousness that we find in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? The preaching of the gospel of Christ and his world transforming redemption is the only hope we have to establish peace in this world. And so we should be asking ourselves as God's people, if we really are interested in peace. And it isn't a shame that we only talk about it. It seems like we only talk about it when we have a shooting war going on or the threat of it. If we're really interested in peace, we should be sending missionaries with a long term vision that will go to the heart of mankind's problem and therefore teach the nations to lay down their weapons of warfare. Or are we satisfied simply to send army troops? The short term approach that deals only with the symptom of the problem and not with the problem itself. Now I know that I put it this way and it's such a a rhetorical and obvious thing, but I want you to examine your hearts both individually and corporately. What is our strategy for peace on earth? Have we been thinking about the necessity of Christian missions if we would like to reconcile the nations and bring peace on earth? Have we made it our long term strategy to which we are committed and persevering? Or do we only worry about these sorts of things and want to see the Gospel preached when we finally have a theater of war established somewhere in the world? I taught you last night that we are not engaged in the way that Israel was anyway in a holy war. We are not a redeemed elect people, a geopolitical entity chosen by God to go out and execute his vengeance in this world in a military way. But there is a way nevertheless. Christ's people and his kingdom, the international Church of Jesus Christ is involved in a crusade, is involved in a holy war even in this day. And the Bible speaks of it. Turn with me if you will, first to Ephesians 6:12. Ephesians 6:12. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual host of wickedness and the heavenly places, wherefore take up the whole armor of God, that she may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand. And then we have of course, Paul's well known description of the Christian soldier. The Christian soldier. God has called us to battle. He says the battle is a spiritual one and you need to be equipped for that battle. Turn as well to Second Corinthians, the tenth chapter and the fourth verse, Second Corinthians 10. Paul's words beginning at the third verses. We go, we walk in the flesh. We do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God. To the casting down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. The weapons of our warfare are not earthly weapons. They are not the sword and the bow, the tank and the bazooka. The weapons of our warfare are spiritual weapons. And for that reason they are mighty before God to accomplish the task of changing men's hearts and bringing them to bow the knee to the King, the Lord Jesus Christ, and to be subdued to him, so that every thought is now active to his service. That's the kind of warfare we're involved in. I'm afraid that many of us, American Christians, evangelical Christians around the world, are very lazy people. We are not committed to the war. We are not good soldiers who are looking for the battle to go ahead and to be won. We are not willing to sacrifice for that battle. I realize in one way this is such a very simple message, but it's also very profound. If you would be a peacemaker in the earth, get missions going and successful. Support missionaries, those who know the word of God, who preach the gospel in its purity and its fullness, because only missionaries are ultimately going to be able to change the outlook and therefore the social fabric of foreign nations, that they will be at peace with us. So the first thing I would say in terms of the path to peace internationally is that we must put our emphasis in the gospel and its propagation rather than in guidance. Secondly, we need to return to the question of whether might or right are going to bring about international peace. Believers in Jesus Christ need to proclaim and they need to exemplify the unchanging ultimate standard of God's law, because it is the universal moral absolute which shows us what is right and resolves our disputes. If we would see international peace established, we must also see international law be there to help establish it. Now, notice I put the gospel before I talked about the law. That's very purposeful, because if you only proclaim the law, you have not done anything to change the hearts of men or make them compliant. The gospel is the first point. But with the gospel comes the preaching of God's moral standard, not only to indict us for our sins, but to show us as converted sinners, how we should now walk. Christians who do not support a universal absolutistic ethic are at fault for the wars we see about us in a sense, because they are not supporting an outlook, a point of view that is necessary for peace to come. If there is not an established and universal absolute standard of right and wrong, there cannot be peace. Because then every man does what is right in his own eyes, and then they resolve their problems by appealing to violence rather than to right. Thirdly, we must be committed as those who follow the gospel and want it propagated and those who support the universal absolute standard of God's law. We must be committed to what I have described to you as a just war theory of warfare. We must be committed to warring and to military encounter only when it is Just think about this. If all of the nations practice the policy of only involving themselves in just wars, which I have said are defensive wars. If all the nations practiced the policy of involving themselves only in defensive warfare, warfare would automatically end. A simple thought, but a profound thought. If the nations were to be taught in their socio political higher command to honor the law of God, war would end. Well, not just taught, they would have to also obey it, obviously. But if the law of God were governing the nations, the nations would not fight with each other because God doesn't give them the right to do so. Fourthly, we need to learn how to extend military aid to the weaker nations. We need to learn how to help the oppressed of the earth. That may surprise you because I think I've hit pretty hard already in my messages on the idea that it is wrong for us to be in the military way in the affairs of another nation. And so we're going to take just a moment or two here to talk about how from a Christian standpoint, a stronger nation could indeed help a weaker nation to achieve peace and protection against an aggressor. You see, I firmly believe that the Christian ideal when it comes to warfare is neither internationalism, which I have been condemning, nor isolationism, which it may seem to some people I've been promoting. I do not promote the idea that we as a nation, especially as Christians in this nation, should be promoting an isolationist ethic, although I do believe from a military standpoint we have no right to intervene just because a cause is just. We need also the right to intervene. And so that brings us then to how would we get the right to intervene in another nation's affairs if we had a smaller nation that was being aggressed upon by a stronger, ungodly nation? What could we as a good Christian nation, if we are to try to be that, what could we do to help in such a situation? Well, some people have said that what we can do is have a treaty, a mutual defense treaty with such a nation. And though that looks like a promising alternative, I have to tell you I think that it does not analytically work out. It is not morally justifiable to enter into a Treaty to do something which God doesn't give us the right to do. You see, if God tells me that I am not to engage in sexual relations for someone to whom I'm not married, it doesn't become all right if I go to some woman and say, let's make a treaty to have sex with each other. Understand that if God doesn't allow you to do something, you can't go and say, well, it's all right because we agreed to do it. And God will say, you both agreed to do something immoral. And so the idea of just having a mutual defense treaty doesn't really help. It doesn't help because we as a nation cannot become surety and guarantee for the freedom and the safety of another people. We're not able to do that. But on the other hand, if people that are in need of defense were willing to become part of the war effort and part of the nation that is defending them, then the situation would change entirely. That is to say, if a weaker nation on earth were to say, we will now submit to the United States of America and become citizens of the United States of America and pay the taxes that all Americans pay. And submit to the Constitution that all Americans must uphold and obey. If they were to become, to use the United States model, another State of the Union, then you wouldn't have a temporary alliance or treaty that God doesn't give you the right to engage in. What you would have is the expansion of your nation through peaceful, legitimate, lawful appeal to rights and the voluntary agreement of the people, not military conquest. And with the expansion of your nation, you would also have now the obligation to defend these people and of course, their obligation to defend themselves and the other states of the Union as well. Stop and think about it. Is that not, in fact, the original conception of the United States of America? I know that you have to go back from the days of federalism in our country and remember what the founding ideals were of this nation to kind of pick up this point. But originally we were a confederation of individual states which had certain things in common, the mutual defense being one of them. But we also granted latitude to the states to do their own individual thing. And although we're getting close to the day where you can hardly see that individuality anymore, the fact is that those of you who live in Ohio live under at least two constitutions. The United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Ohio. And the Constitution of the State of Ohio is not the same as the Constitution of the State of California. I won't bother to talk about which is better. It probably goes pretty bad. But the fact of the matter is we can both be part of one nation and yet have our local distinctives, our local constitution. I believe as one student of history, there was a day way back when the United States would have envisioned different states having different denominational distinctives, a state being a Roman Catholic state or a Baptist state, or a Presbyterian state, or whatever it may be. Now we're beyond that. And now we think states shouldn't honor one denomination over another either. And whether that's right or wrong, the fact is, originally the United States was a perfect conception, it seems to me, of how international peace can be achieved by having local distinctives, different constitutions, and yet every one under a common federal constitution that provides for mutual defense. And so let's say that the United States has been blessed and fostered of God and has not only a very high standard of living which is attractive to the other nations, but has also built up its military might and technology so that it can protect that higher standard of living. Now, what do you think other nations of the world are going to think about the United States of America? They're either going to be jealous and hateful, or they're going to say, we sure wish we had it that way, too. If we are sending missionaries into these lands to teach them where the source of our prosperity and blessing is, if these people are of one mind, for the most part, with us in our world and life view, what would keep them from coming and saying, we'd like to be one of the states of this United States. No longer will I call it the United States of America. That's the model. But I don't want you to think that the way of world peace is through the usa. The world peace that I'm thinking about, where you have a federation of Christian nations, will not necessarily be the United States of America, but it will be something along the same lines where those who cannot defend themselves will gain the defense of a larger body by coming under a permanent constitutional obligation, as it were coming into not just a treaty, but an oath of citizenship in a nation that is able to do that. Now, the Bible tells us that we are not as God's people to be in an alliance and to take an oath of ungodliness. Exodus 23:32 and others tell us that, well, in the first place, I think we should learn from this that we cannot help a nation that is hostile to the gospel. When a nation says, as we are seeing in Saudi Arabia, we want you to come and spend your money, expend your property and spill your blood in our defense and to establish justice in our region. But we do not want your religion. We do not want it even freely practiced or heard of here. Then we must say no, we don't come bearing the fruit of peace without the source of peace, which is the gospel. Where the gospel is not freely preached, where it is resisted politically, we cannot enter into that kind of an alliance. Obviously, that shows again that missionaries must pave the way for world peace. Because before we could have a federation of nations, we are going to have to share a common ethical order and more broadly, a common worldview that comes through the revelation of God and the preaching of the gospel. And one other point about how we should help oppressed nations. Let's remember as God's people that our enemy, the enemy that we're fighting right now, even in the case of Iraq, our enemy is the aggressor nation's leadership. Our enemy is not the domestic citizens of that leader, except to the point that they are heart and soul in line with him in pursuing same immoral course with him. In many cases, nations, we will have to fight in a defensive way when it is appropriate. In many cases, the people of that nation are as much the victim of that political leadership as those that are now being victimized by the war. And if we don't remember that we are led into a very simple nationalistic and sometimes racist understanding of things where we hate the people, say, of Russia rather than hating the ungodly leadership of the Russians, there is a big difference. How can we help oppress the nations? How can we extend military aid to weaker nations? We can do so by entering into a covenant where they submit to, for the sake of peace and order, the Constitution, which I would like to see to be a Christian document in the case of our nation, submitting to the Constitution the obligations of our own nation and in so doing, enjoying the privileges as well, which would include their military defense. Fifthly, let's remember that our vision for world peace has to do with the kingdom of God and does not have to do with political machinations. It is one of the great heresies of our day, as many Reconstructionists have told us, and I think they're right on this point. One of the great heresies of our day, that political government is the be all and end all to men's problems. I am not looking to international peace being established simply through even such a device as a federation of Christian nations. As I talked to you about this evening I'm not looking to political solutions, finally. But we must look beyond just politics and beyond the family and beyond the church, beyond the free market, to the kingdom of God itself. It should be our goal as God's people to see God's kingdom built up in all areas of life and in all places of the world. We need to experience God's grace in order to be saved and to be part of this kingdom. We need to learn to be submissive to the Prince of Peace, who is the king in this kingdom, and to pursue its righteousness above all. And we need to learn to practice peace and lawful obedience in our families, in our church, and in our state. And we need to see that vision of God's kingdom which applies to every area of life, also sent out and applied to every region of the world. And it's this path I want to suggest to you tonight that will lead us to success. It is this path that will accomplish what the pacifist very legitimately wants and appeal to right rather than to might in order to achieve peace and peace among the nations. It is this path that gives us the biblical alternative to the United Nations. It is this path that leads us away from patriotism to an honoring of the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords and bowing the knee to him. In Isaiah, the second chapter, we read that the day is coming when the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established on the top of the mountains and will be exalted above the hill hills and all nations shall flow into it. That's not the United States of America, and that's not the United Nations. That mountain of Jehovah's house is the church of Jesus Christ, exalted above every other earthly institution with all nations now flowing into it. And many people shall go and say, come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob. And he will teach us of his way ways, and we will walk in his paths. And out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. And as the church of Jesus Christ, an international kingdom that has all nations flowing into it does its job, it will nurture the nations in God and teach the law of God and show them how to walk in such a way as to please God. And in so doing, verse four says, he will then judge between the nations and will decide concerning many peoples. And when that day arrives, when we have what I will call now an international theocracy bowing the knee to Jesus Christ the Savior. And in that day they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning cups, because in that they will honor a just war theory that shows there's no need for war. In that day they will have a common law by which to resolve their dispute. In that day they will have learned the ways of peace rather than the ways of war. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. Amen. Well, I've taken you longer than I had thought this evening, but I guess I have to learn that. That's my proclivity. I've done three nights in a row now. I do think it would be inappropriate for us to stop just at this point, not give you the opportunity to ask questions by way of clarification or perhaps wanting to challenge or test what I have taught you in these last three evenings and especially tonight. So let me give just a few minutes. Be great before you're able to get your question in. I will wait a few moments afterwards and see if I can help you in front. Who would like to ask a question? Yes, sir. Senior Southern California center for Study Given the fact that we're in a different station time, heavy, predilent law of God is not accepted even many reformed churches, how are you prioritizing the efforts of this organization and what would you suggest? The question has to do with the Southern California center for Christian Studies, where I'm presently, I've just become the resident scholar. And how are we prioritizing our efforts in light of the day in which we live that is so dispensationally oriented and so forth? And then also what would I suggest to those of you who are lame? Well, it wouldn't be too easy to put in a plug here and say, I would suggest you layman support the Southern California. So I won't do that. We do think that we have in the work that I've been able to in the past, something of a resource for Christian apologetics, for Christian ethics in general and specifically sociopolitical ethics and also biblical exegesis in terms of the totally reformed view of life, including distinctive like post millennialism and theonic ethics and so forth, though that's a wide enough. I mean, you might say, well, that's too much for one person too. In one sense it is, but we are hopeful that we can be stressing the defense of the Christian faith in a world that really has come to despise the lordship of Jesus Christ, even in the area of scholarship. Sadly, many people who name the name of Christ and I think are true believers, nevertheless don't do a good job of scholarship and do bring reproach upon the cause of Christ for that reason. So we do think Christian apologetics as the general framework is very important to show that we have a credible approach to things. And then within that framework we believe that only the Reformed faith is found in the Westminster Confession. Faith adequately summarizes the whole council of God. And so we want to promote that kind of theology, which includes the kind of post millennial vision that I have been preaching tonight. When the church gets away from the whole council of God, it's not ever merely an academic matter. It has effects in the life of the church and the way people live and the way they think and what they feel and how they're going to deal with each other. And so we're going to be doing work in promoting Reformed distinctives. I have a number of writing projects along the line, not only in apologetics, but also in the artist of systematic theology. And then we will be looking specifically at how the ethic of scripture comes to bear on the issues of our day. That's why when I go out speaking, I like to be famous, as we've done here in Akron, talking about a contemporary event and putting it in a broader biblical perspective for evaluation. I don't wish to flatter myself or pat myself on the back. I don't mean it in that way. But I would guess that most everyone who has come has heard something they didn't expect they were going to hear in one way or another. You find that when you look at the Bible, it isn't a simple republican answer, isn't a simple democratic answer, isn't a simple libertarian answer, and so forth. The Bible has a way of kind of cutting through all of that and stepping on all of our toes in one sense, and encouraging us in our better instincts as well. And so we think it's important that confident Christian scholarship with a sound theological base be advised of the issues of our day, priority wise. Beyond that, I would say that what we do at the study center is going to be governed by the opportunities God gives us. If I have a publisher who writes to me and says I want a book on such and such a matter of and my which is really writing in something else, I have to understand in the providence of God that if I'm going to feed my family, I'm going to have to take the opportunity as it has arisen. So in a certain extent, the market also determines the priorities and things that we are going to be getting into. And as I do more traveling and speaking around, I hope to get a better feel for what people in the church is, what God's people would like to have. It's not always what I'd like it to. I mean, sometimes I'd like to work in a certain area, but what is really needed is something else. So in that sense it's really kind of a market demand situation that will set our priorities. Now, what should the layman do? Well, first, what I was giving you tonight, my five steps of the path toward world peace. I think God gives certain burdens to people that other people don't have. Certain priorities people don't have. I've been called to a ministry of Christian scripture. Others have been called to the mission field. Now let's ask ourselves which is more important? And then having done that silly thing, let's answer it by saying neither one is more important. They are both necessary if the job is going to be done. We need all sorts of people working in the kingdom. Hands and feet and noses and eyes and every part of the body working together in harmony. And so laymen will also, it seems to me, be called to give their financial and time support to various kinds of ministries. Not everyone is called to be a supporter of international missions. Some people are called to support study centers. Some people are called to support the work of the church internally, youth programs or things like that. And it would be probably nothing less than self serving for me to try to pretend that I know which of those is the most important for you or anything else. But we do need in our day a strong, strong biblical witness. We do need in our day that biblical witness not only in defense here on the home front, but we need it, as I've said with the sending out of missions, we do in our day need a much stronger church, a much stronger reformed, I think, denomination. Whether it's the one you're in here or another one, the church is in a very bad time. We need the theological centers of education in our country change because the more that you teach, the more kind of dispensationalism that has governed Christian churches. The more we're going to have problems dealing with the problems one day because they aren't God's answers. So now that I've spun this web, what have I spun? I'm not sure if I've answered your question, but I think it comes down to where your interests lie, the opportunities God has given you and what is a burden upon your heart. To do. But I would say this, that all of you, if you really believe in world peace and didn't want simply to come in here, your political party supported one way or another, all of you ought to be doing something with respect to the advance of God's kingdom in this world. You see, those who are called upon as pastors and teachers cannot bear all of that. We are here to build up the body of Christ and to equip the body of Christ. We don't take the place of the body of Christ. And so if you don't take it upon yourselves to advance God's kingdom in these various ways that I've mentioned and obviously it's going to be a futile task in our generation. I got another sermon if you didn't even pay for that one. Yes sir, doctor Twice international alliances records. On the one hand he said the United nations and the current structure of God and essentially improper. On the other hand, you seem to be implying that under a certain structure of covenant nations that could be proper. And could it not be the United nations would be the logical conclusion to at around the world trying to separate that out. Well, I think you've done a very good job of doing it. That's exactly right. But for those listening by tape, I should repeat the question. The question had to do with I've indicated that the United nations is in proper winner, criticized it for society. On the other hand, I suppose something which would lead to it seems like the United nations, however with the right authority structure and so forth. And to that I'd say you've heard the message correctly. I don't believe we can go to the present structure of the United nations and just make some cosmetic changes and then everything is going to be okay. In the first place, the United nations cannot be simply an advisory body. The United nations will have to be a duly constituted authority, authority that has a standing army if need be or whatever to enforce its judgments. And the nations must voluntarily put themselves under the constitution of that, let's call it reformed United nations so that they are morally obligated to participate in its judgments and to abide by its conclusions. Therefore, I don't know. It's going to take many years obviously to establish the worldwide peace that I'm talking about. I don't have any any hope to see that in my own lifetime, which is short enough as it is. But down the line I would suggest that when we get around to nation helping nation, that will have to take the form if it's moral of submitting to a common constitution of authority. And if that keeps going, it will come out looking very much like the United Nations. But now with the law of God being the foundation and the hearts of God's people being in this, because the people in Uganda and Iraq and so forth are sharing a common religious foundation with me and with my countrymen. And that's why you fancy Mitch Lawfully. I don't think eschatology has ever been a standard orthodox in the three primary views. Yet in a sense, what your eschatology obviously in this really determine what direction to go areas I guess I'm trying to struggle with is that how do we deal with that? Is it should it be pushed forward in terms of getting more of a clear answer on ecology in order to have a better vision for the tree, or do we just stay away from it? Yes. The question is, if eschatology has not been a standard of orthodoxy in the church, should we shy away from that, pressing that matter, or is this important for us in order to achieve the goals that I talked about tonight? 1 I believe that the kind of moral order that I have set before you should be pursued by people of all eschatological positions because I think that the moral standard for all Christians ought to be recognized to be the law of God. And if it's the standard for us in this country, it ought to be the standard for people in Germany, France and Argentina as well. And if we're going to follow that standard, we're going to want to cooperate certain things. And if we're going to cooperate to the point of defending each other, we should come under a common constitution. And that constitution ought to be governed by the law of God. So you could say that in one sense the eschatological question could be left out altogether and you might still have this ideal moral order that the Bible supports we all should be striving after. However, I do believe that God who has made us knows what we need and God did not give us that eschatological vision which is so thorough in the Bible, I believe just for us to be satisfied about what the newspapers will read someday. I believe that in reading these passages from Isaiah, our hearts ought to leap for joy and in so doing way to say we're going to go out and aim for that because I am confident that my labor is not in vain in the Lord Jesus rose from the dead and he's going to raise his people from the dead and there's going to be a resurrection order that exemplifies the justice and righteousness of God. And until that day, he is putting every enemy under his feet, subduing them until the last end we get is conquered at that day of resurrection. Until then, I will labor in hope that he will honor my efforts and will bring these sorts of things to God. So I think when God gives us that, I mean, even as I think about it, I'm getting excited about it. When God gives us that kind of message, that motivates us to get out of the pews and to get out of our complacency and to start doing something concrete, to see the kingdom of God more victorious on earth. So should we push it? Yes, I think if we don't push it, what will happen by default is people like the dispensationalists will come in and confuse God's people with this kind of Israel centrism, which is not biblical at all and will give us really strange ideas about the Middle east and what God's plans are there and therefore what we should be doing. If we don't push it, then we'll be subject to that. Isn't that what has happened? I mean, the dispensationalists are taking the field. We need to drive them from the field. We need to show that they are wrong. Does that mean it should become a standard of orthodoxy? Yes. However, that doesn't mean that it is or even should be now the standard of orthodoxy. There was a day in the history of the Church, if you look at its doctrine of growth, where I think it would have been wrong to make predestinarian soteriology a standard of orthodoxy. After all, questions about the substitutionary atonement were often botched by the early fathers and so forth. And so we do see progress in Dawson. And I, for one, don't think that that progress ended at the Reformation, although I do think that's the high point that we've seen thus far. And the Westminster Confession is very dear to my heart. I think it ought to be enforced in the churches. But I do think, as a post, millennials today will come and we will improve upon the Westminster Confession. That may not mean renouncing what is there, but I think we will certainly add to it. And in that day, eventually I think we will add postman eschatology. But no, I don't want anyone to worry in the Church. That means that I'm looking in my presbytery to examine candidates on that matter. In our day and age, that is not a standard of orthodoxy, but once it is preached, taught and understood after generations, I think People will say, if you don't hold to debut, then that's deficient biblically. And when God's people in large measure see it that way, it will become a standard of orthodoxy. So, yes, push it now, even though it's not a standard of orthodoxy. And my own personal opinion is someday, many years from now, but someday it will become a standard of orthodoxy right here. Once again, what should the denomination's responsibility be? Oh, what should the PCA, or I guess any denomination's responsibility be in bringing to the civil magistrate an awareness of his responsibility? I think it's the church's job to preach the whole counsel of God for the whole of life and for all men. And therefore I do believe that it's the church's job at some point, not necessarily to make it a hobby horse, but the church, if it's going to declare the law of the king, the word of God for all of life, will have to preach to the civil magistrate as well. And consequently, there is a place for the pulpits of the PCA and the OPC and other reformed denominations, actually any Christian denomination, there is a place for that pulpit being used as a prophetic soapbox to tell the powers that be, here's what God would say to you. Here's what God's Word teaches on these important matters, whether they be about abortion or homosexuality or war in the Middle East. I would worry that a Christian pastor would make that somehow the hobby force or the mainstay of his preaching, because after all, he is called upon to minister to God's people. And God's people are more than political creatures. They need to be dealt with in a full range of their life, obligations and responsibilities. But I do think a church which is shy about proclaiming God's prophetic word for the supposing of political affairs of men will probably right then and there, if not eventually, be a church that is shy about proclaiming anything. It will become a church that is basically a social club and we get together and feel good. And so I do want to see the church take an active role. Now, on the other hand, I want to say that those who are in this state need to hear that preaching, take it into account, compare it to the Word of God, and make their own informed Christian judgment as to whether it's right or wrong. I don't believe that when the church preaches even a political message from the Word of God that those who are politicians must then bow automatically and submit to that they as individuals are responsible to go to the Word and See if that's true. When wouldn't it be great if someday instead of counting votes and constituency and political organizations that may be behind you and the lobbyists and so forth, and on the floor of the Senate and the House, we were doing biblical acts of Jesus and someone actually pulled out a Bible and said, well, I think the reason why we have to do or not do is because it's my understanding that God says this. That would be a great day. When that day comes, then these people will not only hear the prophetic words voice of the church, my guess is they will come and sit in a pew and say, I want to hear it. Help me. Well, I think, okay, one more question then I judge from your face as I'm wearing you out. So we'll stop for the evening. Go ahead. The nation's responsibility to do when somebody sees his members of that country. Very good question. What is the nation's responsibility when another nation takes hostages from the First Nation? That is, if U.S. citizens are elsewhere and they are made hostages, say in Iran or what have you, then what is our obligation? Well, as things presently stand, it is our obligation to defend our citizens. And so where hostages are taken, obviously we should pursue the way of peace first. We appeal to the overseeing government in that land to do what is right and righteous and to see that these people are freed and to use their police powers to effect that end. If that's what it takes. If they refuse to do so, then they become guilty by complicity in the kidnapping. And at that point they've entered into a state of war with us. So as things presently stand, conceivably the taking of hostages would be an occasion for a limited object war to free them. Of course, one has to consider, as I said last night, the prospects of success. If, as in the case of Iran, it didn't appear that we would be able to go in and to save sufficient number of these hostages in the first place, then the effort is futile to begin. I mean, you don't do that to make a political statement about how macho we are and then lose all the hostages anyway plus a number of other people. So you have to weigh all of those things. There's no real simple answer. But I have to add very quickly in closing that I think that's an answer based on the way things now are. And I am inclined to think that probably when people from the United States or any other nation, similar situation, people from the United States are traveling in other lands or working in other lands, it may be the just and right thing for the government of the United States to tell them we cannot protect you and will not take it upon ourselves to do so. When you go to Iraq, Iran, Argentina to work, then you are under the laws and protections of that nation. And if those laws and protections seem inadequate to you, then so be it. That's part of the cost you have to calculate in going or in not going. And the reason I think that we have to think more in those terms of telling people we will not protect US Citizens, citizens around the globe is because if we are committed to that, if we become surety for every US Citizen traveling either for purposes of location or vacation in other places, then what we are doing is really exporting the prospect of war everywhere. What we are saying is, in a sense, we are becoming international policemen. At least international policemen for our people. And I think that is probably stretching it to think that God has given us jurisdiction everywhere, just in virtue of the fact that our citizens can travel everywhere. But that's for further reflection. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I would think that it's worth consideration. I do thank you for having me again and for being so patient in my going overtime. But let's take just a moment to close and thank God. Heavenly Father, we come to you tonight thankful that we are your people and that we have not been left in the dark to figure out these very complicated moral issues on our own. Because we confess that we would not do them right. We would not figure things out in a way that is truly glorifying to you and beneficial to us. We thank you so much that you have not left us in the dark and you have revealed yourself to us. We thank you that you have revealed yourself to us and not only in showing us the truth of what we should do, but in setting before us the promise of salvation. Because with Jesus Christ and submit to him as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, we do pray that you would bless us as your people and follow the Lord Jesus Christ, that you would give us a greater understanding of what he teaches us by means of His Word. That you would give us a greater heart and ability to obey those things. Things and to count the cost of doing what is right and to live for principle rather than pragmatism and convenience in this world. We do thank you that among your promises, Holy Father, you have given us as well the promise that the King of your dear Son shall indeed one day dominate the affairs of this world and that nation by nation will come to know him as the King of kings and submit to him, and that in that day your word will go forth and will be followed by the nation, and they will no longer need to learn war, but they will learn the ways of peace, the ways of constructive dominion. For your glory in this world. Make us agents of that international peace. Make us agents of it by helping us to think clearly and biblically about issues that are before us and that will come before us as the nations turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. Make us agents of that peace by demonstrating that Jesus does indeed, through the power of His Holy Spirit, bring peace between his people and that that will become a model illustration and encouragement to those who do not yet know him as the Prince of Peace. Make us agents of that peace. As we pursue affairs in our churches and in our political affairs, we do pray that you would help us to make those decisions, decisions which are wise, those decisions which are faithful to your word and those decisions which promise to bring peace to men on earth. We ask that you would forgive us for our warlike tendencies. Forgive us for our selfishness. Forgive us for our sinful lust. Forgive us for our laziness as your people. Forgive us for our irresponsibility. Forgive us. Because this world yet does not know the way of right and the way of peace to the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet we hold the answers do help us to get those answers to this world and do hasten today when the kingdoms of this world will indeed be the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that you stand with us. This this recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.