Worldview & Culture

Question: Is Just War Theory Impossible in Practice?

Kirk E. Miller

Question: If just war theory acknowledges that not all military action is justifiable or acceptable, then how does this get worked out practically for individual Christians involved in military service.

It would be (at worst) naive and (at best) presumptuous to assume that one’s nation and military will, without exception, engage in actions and ventures that are deemed allowable according to the strict criteria of just war theory. Inevitably, some things (more likely: most all things) will not meet just war theory’s rigorous criteria.

If this is the case, then how can the just warrior participate in military service if it will potentially (likely; assuredly?) mean becoming complicit in unjust military action? Can you conscientiously object to certain actions, missions, wars, and tactics and not others, i.e., only the ones that you deem “just”?

How does this get worked out? Or is just war theory just an ideal, and we admit we are willing to do unjust things, or at least become complicit in them, because “It’s better than the alternative”? (Honest question)

People often point out the perceived practical problems with pacifism; but the difficulties — as far as I see them — seem to be of equal opportunity.

Christian, Stop Sharing Fake News (Recommended Articles)

Kirk E. Miller

Fake News

Unintentionally timely. This week my sermon happened to be on truthfulness, honesty, and integrity.

We live in a society and culture in which truthfulness is severely under attack and corroding quickly.

We can look at our political scene — where this word ‘post-truth’ largely originates — where we have this odd paradox between the rise of fact-checkers and yet the reality that very little seem to care about those facts. We live in our social media echo chambers and simply choose to believe whatever we find convenient. We use to say, ‘You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.’ Now it seems like everyone can have their own facts too. ‘Truth’ is flexible and agenda driven.

~ Sermon (An Integrity that Needs No Oaths, James 5:12), South City Church

As Christians, we must be those who resist such things, not succumb to them. #FakeNews #AlternativeFacts

Recommended:

Facts Are Our Friends: Why Sharing Fake News Makes Us Look Stupid and Harms Our Witness, by Ed Stetzer

‘Alternative Facts’ and Christians as Gullible Skeptics, by Trevin Wax

What’s Wrong with Swearing Oaths? (Matthew 5:33-37; James 5:12)

Kirk E. Miller

Why is swearing a roadblock to honesty? What is the problem with swearing oaths (Mt 5:33-37; Js 5:12)?

Oaths divide speech into two camps — honest speech, and less honest speech.

It is not that the oath is in itself wrong, but that it divides speech into two levels. Some statements are sworn to and thus must be true, while others are just normal speech and may not be. … Oaths are dangerous, for they make some speech more honest than other speech. (Peter Davids)

As such, to use an oath (or to swear) is to admit that you are someone who is normally dishonest, someone who can’t be trusted. It is an admission that, outside of using oaths, you are a less than trustworthy person, that your commitment to truth is suspect and needs to be buttressed and strengthened. Oaths are only needed because your speech is unreliable.

Swearing (i.e., oath-taking) is really a pathetic confession of our own dishonesty. Why do we find it necessary to introduce our promises by some tremendous formula? … The only reason is that we know our simple word is not likely to be trusted. (John Stott)

Oaths seems to imply that some speech is more lax and less serious with regards to honesty. The use of oaths implicitly downgrades the expectations for honesty elsewhere. But we are a people who believe that all speech is binding — we are held accountable for the integrity all of our speech, not just sworn speech.

Thus, as people who are called to absolute honesty, swearing and oaths should have no place among Christians. Our commitment to truth should be so consistent and dependable that there is no need for us to buttress our speech with swearing or taking oaths. Our plain speech is good enough. It’s trustworthy as it is.

Sanctity of Human Life Sunday: Reflections

Kirk E. Miller

Our society worships the gods of sex, convenience, and freedom and makes human sacrifices on the altars of abortion. I know it’s controversial. But we need to call it what it is — murder. And deep down, I’m convinced we know exactly what we’re doing.

At the same time, none of this can be used to ignore for one moment the very real, tough, and distressing situations that many expectant mothers face — the sort of circumstances that prompt so many mothers to consider abortions in the first place. As much as we care for the life the baby, we should care about the welfare of the mother. And we should extend grace to those who have had abortions.

Finally, as evangelicals, we must work towards a more wholistic and consistent ethic of life. “Sanctity of life” should mean all life, certainly pre-born babies’ lives, but not *just* pre-born babies’ lives. Until we do so, our fervent cries on behalf of life will ring hollow with the reverberations of hypocrisy.

Ethics. Compassion. Consistency. #SOHLS

73-17 from Desiring God on Vimeo.