The irony is that this current war does not fit into the qualifications of a just war according to that theory. Nor did almost any of the Crusadesโฆ orโฆ a LOT of them.
Doctrine of Double Effect (Aquinas): Good intention can justify unintended harm. Strikes targeted hostile assets, not innocents. ClaudeAI was used to sift through thousands of satellite targets to identify the highest priority with the least cost of collateral damage.
But take this and ask AI if the war in Iran fits why or why not:
An action with both good and bad effects can be morally permissible if:
The act itself is good or neutral.
The bad effect is not intended (only foreseen).
The good effect is not achieved by means of the bad effect.
The good effect outweighs the bad effect.
Proportionality Principle (also Aquinas): Preventing nuclear war (millions saved) vs. hundreds lost = morally permissible. e.g., Catechism, Vatican II: โThe damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain; the response must not produce evils greater than the evil to be eliminated.โ
Is this where I say something like โOh, because you shared some heavily disputed opinions and justifications that have changed numerous times by government agents, it must be trueโ?
Not many opinions in my post, mostly facts. Better than magically thinking if you say something it must be true without any actual rational support. But I suppose a rhetorical response is easier than supporting your position with any amount of reason.
Which ones werenโt facts so I know which ones to ignore and then I will provide examples as to how one could reasonably reject the assertion that this current war in Iran falls outside the scope of what is considered a Just War.
I certainly want to avoid the non-facts. And since you acknowledge there were some, itโd help to know which ones.
But, to explain why I think it's likely *not* a Just War, the initial question related to just cause is hard to make since government officials acknowledged it was preemptive and based on pressure of knowing that Israel was going to attack first. Moreover, we were told that our last attack completely destroyed their nuclear capabilities and all of the reporting I have seen has confirmed this still being true from intelligence. Therefore, this *is* contested on a number of fronts.
No argument related to legitimate authority because I agree with you on that.
Regarding intentions, that's where things get a lot dicier. Is this regime change? Is it to further American interests in the region? Again, the current administration has given multiple answers to this question and not all of them confirm a Just War approach.
This certainly wasn't a last resort. I mean... we were literally in the middle of negotiations when we attacked. So diplomacy wasn't fully exhausted and I find it hard to argue that they were given... we... were... in them.
The probability of success question gets a lot trickier too. Initially there were LOTS of military commentators that noted the economic challenge of cheap drones versus expensive missiles used to defend against them. This is why recently game theory experts believe that we will lose the war in the long run.
For these reasons... and others, I don't think this fits into the qualifications of Just War Theory. That obviously doesn't mean much... and I'm not at all losing sleep over Iran or a progressive by any means. I'm just calling it like I see it based on evaluating the various questions that classic Just War Theory raises.
Thank you for a more substantive reply. Far more helpful than your rhetoric lol.
I think weโre using the same Just War categories, but weighting them differently. Youโre treating โlast resortโ as absolute, โjust causeโ as already resolved, and โintentionโ as invalid if mixed. Classic Just War thinkers (Augustine, Aquinas) didnโt apply them that rigidly. They allowed for preventive defense, acknowledged mixed motives (all politicians have mixed motives! but if the primary one is just that is the driver), and defined last resort as reasonable exhaustion of diplomacy, not literal finality.
IMO the U.S. meets at least 4โ5 of the 7 criteria (just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, proportionality). The contested ones are last resort and intention, but those are always debated no matter what anyway.
"Legitimate Authority." In other words, the "King as said so". The Constitution of the United States puts legitimate authority for war in Congress. President's are authorised to take action, but only as demanded by the immediate situation. That means an actual or imminent attack, not something that might or might not happen in the undefined future.
"Punishing Wrongdoers". I have studied Just War Theory, and that's a new one on me! But if we are to take that seriously, what about Israel bombing packed hospitals because there MIGHT be a handful od 'terrorists in the basement? Or standing around as settler gangs kill and burn Palestinians on the West Bank?
"Protecting the Innocent".
Bombing Iran has not protected anyone from the Iranian regime. They are still as unhindered as ever to kill their own people.; in fact, they even have a credible pretext now!
"Collateral loss is tragicโbut part of war."
All the more reason to NOT go to war unless it is unavoidable.
"Preventive Justice."
This leaves a thinking man gaping in shock. What is America doing to exercise 'preventative justice' in Gaza and the West Bank? What are they doing to prevent Israel from having nuclear weapons? And why do you think Iran might be developing nukes anyway? Perhaps for the same reason every other nuclear power has developed them; as a self-defence deterrent. So why is Iran not permitted that right? Not that I'm saying they SHOULD have the bomb; but I suggest that the hostility of the united States is actually making that seem a much higher priority than would be the case if there was an agreement such as Obama negotiated, Iran was adhering to, and Trump tore up.
"Doctrine of Double Effect (Aquinas): Good intention can justify unintended harm"
Yes, Israel bombing hospitals because there might have been a terrorist in the basement is a good example of this. The deliberate discounting of likely harm is NOT a 'good intention'.
"Proportionality Principle - Preventing nuclear war (millions saved) vs. hundreds lost = morally permissible."
Again, my jaw hangs slack at the boldness of this claim. It assumes there would have been a nuclear war had this bombing campaign not happened. But how? Haven't we been told that Iran's nuclear capacity had been put back several years? And then, if they re-build their project, bomb the nuclear capacity again! Unless, of course, another agreement can be put in pace that WON'T be broken unilaterally by a President who resents his predecessor's successes. No need to pre-emptively wipe out city blocks! THAT is the Proportionality Principle. Wha you are proposing is the 'What The Heck! Principle".
When there is violence against civilians, questionable motivations behind their cause (politics), Christians killed (like Eastern Orthodox folks in the battle at Constantinople), and forced conversions... I think those undermine my understanding of Just War Theory and some of the historians I recall note that language was less "just war" language and more "holy war" language.
At least that's my general understanding from reading church history. It obviously depends on *which* Crusade we are talking about and, like all war, is far more complex than a substack comment :)
I personally agree with Just War Theory. I just don't see it as being applicable in what is currently happening in Iran.
Weren't non-combatant Muslim and Jewish people killed at the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099? And weren't the intentions of some of the Crusaders to further their land conquest and wealth, not to mention the political powers struggle? I was under the impression that this was the tension with the Byzantine Empire during the first crusade... or am I missing something?
The first crusade certainly had a lot of the possible criteria but it doesn't seem to be across the board... but again, it certainly wasn't *all* of the Crusaders that fell out of line with classic Just War Theory (as I understand it). The Fourth Crusade, as you likely know, was DEFINITELY not in line.
The Albigensian crusade was particularly horrific to my mind, targeting other Christians (seen as heretics), burning their towns to the ground, singing โcome Holy spiritโ as they went, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, and prefiguring the Nazi holocaust in many details.
When doing fact checking using ai on google pry deeper ask for the true objective facts especially known prior to the 1900s. Ai will admit it is giving a narrative of โnoble liesโ.
I just searched up prophetic protests in the Hebrew Scriptures. Fascinating to think about how those ancient seers went about making their grief, outrage, and desire for a better way known.
The only way out of cycles of violence is through love. Not my idea at all but one that is demonstrated by the life and stated by the reported words of Jesus of Nazareth. This article reflects the loving approach and even though I do not describe myself as Christian, never mind evangelical, to me it is the only way to transform our world.
How does the notion of love translate between nations. Or countries. Your comment makes sense if we are taking about inter personal relationships. The teachings attributed to Jesus were intended to be expressed amoung ourselves. Jesus was not concerned about intragovernmental affairs. It is folly to put biblical values when talking about wars. Nations have made some strides in developing what is permissible when killing one another. Bombs good. Toxic gas not so much.
Thanks for commenting on my comment Stephen. My reading of the Bible suggests that Jesus was very much concerned with how government affected people, something that he had in common with the Prophets of the 'Old Testament'. The message was clear, base your society on love and compassion for all within it particularly the poor and powerless. But you are right, intra- governmental affairs were not explicitly part of what he spoke about, just the implication that if there was a 'kingdom' based on love then many.of the problems of empires and countries would cease to matter.
God is being very patient with us all right now, but plans to return, separate sheep from goats, take down the enemy with the Word รฒf His mouth. Revelation 19. How we live, fight, make peace, apply grace, patience, right now, might speak to that part of Christโs kingdom. People may need grace, truth, patience, warnings, forgiveness, discipline, punishment, all these as loveโฆ., so they want their souls ready.
Should those of Christโs kingdom grow impatient if some are not being loving, patient, etcโฆ, like Ayatollah?
Did we not seek to discuss terms at several conferences or, at least two?
Did we suggest ways to take war ร nd atomic bombs off thรฉ table, over the years?
Yet, thรฉ Ayatollah killed his own people. Are Christians to go to bat for others? I thought Romans 13 is to say, โGo further, and you will run into our swordโ.
Iโm not sure I like how itโs playing out. But is it right to let Christians or any people, be slaughtered? Like Hitler ร nd the Jews?
Or none of our business?
Iโve been pretty much ร peace-Nik, but the last few years, think one canโt use family dynamics for government ones.
I will, respectfully, disagree with you. Jesus's message was radical, revolutionary and upended the violence and repression that the systems of government used to maintain and extend power. Our current systems of government can be traced back to the imperial systems of ancient Rome, Jesus lived and died advocating for a different approach, one based on love. Trying to retrofit love onto our current systems is very difficult, very hard, but not impossible.
But he did sayโฆgive to Caesar what is Caesarโsโฆ.Christ wanted our hearts definitely but wasnโt this scripture to separate what govt wanted and what God wantedโฆ? Curious but very interesting discussion here. Thanks๐
I am not convinced , even if Jesus wanted a government to be based on love and compassion, that the teaching of Christ apply to providing a framework for how governments interact with one another. Putin's violance cannot be repelled by turning the other cheek for example. Or invoking the golden rule. As an interesting observation, the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution have philosophical similarities to many of the basic teachings in the old and new testaments. I go along with that notion of a compassionate government through public policy concerns.
I think itโs helpful to imagine what we could do that isnโt violent and destructive and harmful to innocent lives. Then try all the things we can imagine that MIGHT help. For instance, what if one million of us walked into Tehran together and asked to have tea with the person in charge? Or what if we all made space for every single person that wanted to escape Iran to a similar place with greater opportunities for freedom and peace? Orโฆ
I cannot imagine that which you have suggested. Except as an intelectual excersize. You are obviously a good man. Someone whom I respect because of your humanity. But, and there is always a but isn't there, we must do that which is possible. I am around profoundly religious people. Praying for all sorts of things to happen or not. Suggesting that one walks and talks with Jesus. What in the world are these people doing by diluting reality. And by thinking that if Christians can take over government that the Kingdom of God will prevail. When they can't even agree on which denomination is the authentic version. I maintain that all Christianity can do is help us interact with one another. Fo me my approach is not to do unto someone that which I do not want done to me. Politics is run by the ends justify the means. Once we agree, perhaps an honest government has a chance.
Was not Jesus teaching the people of Israel not to provoke their Roman oppressors for fear of bringing terrible destruction on their heads - the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple? Turn the other cheek or your house (temple) will be washed away by a flood (of Roman soldiers). We have a bad habit of reading the Bible through modern individualistic and narcissistic lenses - itโs all about me.
Back in 2012, former Congressman Ron Paul, during a Republican primary debate, suggested that the โGolden Ruleโ (treat others as you would want to be treated) should be applied to American foreign policy. He was booed by the audience which, if statistics are accurate, was made up largely of evangelical Christians. His remark was immediately preceded by Newt Gingrich saying, โAndrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about Americaโs enemies: Kill them!โโ The same crowd roared with approval.
Anyone else else getting echoes of the crowd at the trial of Jesus by Pilate?
As a former pastor and one who has largely parted from the Christian faith, I (after almost a decade away from all of it) am more and more convinced that the issue is that we view everyone who is not Christian as an enemy. It used to be that they were an enemy that we needed to convert and save and now itโs an enemy that we need to overcome, subdue and defeat.
the heart of the matter is that the language we use (while Jesusโ use of โenemyโ likely had no connotation of competition or violent opposition), is largely unchristian. It dehumanizes the โenemyโ and makes them sub-human. Or at least the wrong kind of human.
Christianโs would be better served if we viewed those not like us on an even plane with us, merely as human beings. Humans, who all deserve dignity and respect. Where no one human is better than another, for any reason, least of all, what that human believes vs what we believe.
Christianity continues to beautify language and say things like โwe are all made in the image of Godโ, but that conversation rarely comes up any more and when it does itโs usually to defend anti-abortion stances. But when we view all people as people who were made in the image of God, and if we truly believed that to be the case and lived like it, these kinds of conflict would find their end relatively quickly, if they ever found their beginning.
Brian, what you rightly call prophetic imagination is based in part on what psychologists call moral imagination. There is a large literature on it. One conclusion is that it is both an ability and a skill and it involves rational and emotional elaboration and, crucially, practice. One can practice it in tribal survival mode and then war seems inevitable. One can practice it in open compassion mode and many possibilities open up, as you suggest. This asymmetry in imagination has also been studied. And it drives a self fulling prophecy, helping to create the thing we imagine.
Great article. I am so outside the evangelical culture wars lately that I cannot believe Piper was accused of being woke, which is hysterical. I was raised in this background and find it fascinating that my ancestors moved here specifically because they were pacifists (Church of the Brethren) so they were woke many generations before term was coined then!
I am new to your work but this piece caught my attention. Given what โevangelicalโ has now become, (the image of hands on the Orange in the Oral Office comes to mind) if one follows Christโs teachings, why would you still put yourself under that umbrella, descriptively? Donโt you (DIRELY) need a new handle/label/descriptor? The best Iโve come up with is โTrue Christiansโ.
A fair question. Currently I still wrestle with the biblical model in which the prophets all identified with fallen Israel in responsibility, consequences and repentance. I am my brotherโs keeper (and my sisterโs too.)
Is evangelical really Christian? At least to the extent evangelicals are committed to retributive justice (which they are - not just final judgment, but interpreting Romans 13 as a justification for punitive actions by the state, and seeing punishment as essential to disciplining children), are they not actively opposing Christโs teaching on the sermon on the mount?
That makes your marketing rather problematic. In the way Republican no longer has anything to do with โmoralโ majority. Christian now wears the stench of Christian Nationalist. The โchurchโ has a VERY long road to rebuild trust. I know some remarkable true Christians. Many of them are Buddhist.
Unfortunately or fortunately itโs important that Christians maintain solidarity with believers across time and space and not seek to come up with a new name. We have a new name and self in Christ. More important than solidarity with other believers is a trust in Christ, holding fast to Him, regardless of the fleeting ebbs and flows of โcurrentโ culture.
The title Christian(or follower of Christ) though often marred with our imperfect representations, our faith maintains a grace for others knowing that God alone knows the heart and who loves him. โAnd we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.โ Romans 8:28.
Putting the word โTrueโ in front of Christian is something we must trust is redundant. As much as I find it easy(wrongly) to cast judgement on who is Christian and who is not, Thank God that He alone is judge.
Noah, thanks for responding. I understand your points and sense humility in your words. I cannot help but judge so I am thus relieved of carrying such a mantle as an identity. If identifying as a Christian reduces ones ego and increases ones compassion - Iโm all for it. Unfortunately too many using this name keep doing irreparable harm. In THIS life.
For centuries, Christians believed the Bible was the authoritative Word of God. But now weโve entered a thrilling new phase of church history where certain verses are now considered progressive propaganda.
Somewhere, a right-wing MAGA โChristianโ is furiously typing, โFirst, John Piper goes WOKE. Next thing we know, Franklin Graham is going to tell us to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR."
Beautiful. I hear the cri de couer beneath the analysis and it echoes my own. It is heartbreaking to see so many who claim to follow Jesus call war peace and peace โwoke.โ
The interesting part of that Scripture struck me: the stranger that sojourns WITH YOU. Sojourns = stay somewhere temporarily, Latin = under. A sojourner does supplant and take over a country, a culture and demand their way of life must be honored. I personally donโt like child rapists or mutilating little girlsโ privates or my tax dollars used to support fraud. The Scripture says sojourner, not criminal invader.
Hereโs the NASB โThe stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.โ I think the interesting part of this verse is โyou shall love him.โ
Love involves frank speech, itโs not just mamby pamby unicorns and rainbows. Love involves respect, ie, following rules and laws, not overstaying visas or milking the system. Love involves teaching one to fish, not just giving him a fish or allowing him to steal one. Love means many things.
Do your homework. There are plenty of Muslim women shining a light on what happens to little girls in their country and religion. Trump, Trump, Trumpโฆgood grief.
Iโve done my homework. Youโre projecting what the people you put into power have actually done to little girls onto people whose cities are now being bombed because of you. When you face your maker, you will see all the horrible sins of the white man you violently hid from yourself in this lifetime and projected onto Muslims and black hoodlums and transgender perverts and all your other scapegoats and you will realize that you were part of the mob crucifying Jesus every time you did that. And then you will feel sorrow that will last as many eternities as you persist in your unrepentance.
At the most we had 15% of our population in undocumented migrants. Overwhelmingly majority of which intend to just quietly work and woukd participate in our society if allowed to do so. We don't want open borders, and we can reform the borders while giving most of these people a fair chance to become legally compliant.
Instead, because they are brown, white Evangelicals voted for and support wonton cruelty...
And make no mistake, if you support the current immigration policy, you are a fake christian.
Scripture tells us to obey the authority placed over us, put in place by God himself, no? Good or evil, right?
If a country has laws for citizens and visitors, I follow those laws. Itโs not uncomfortable at all. The kingdom of God has walls, gates, and keys right? There are commands to follow to get in, no? Iโm not here to gain converts, the Holy Spirit can do that way better than I. My โreligionโ does not advocate for the atrocities I listed previously, so Iโm not uncomfortable at all.
Scripture also calls authority to be just. And since we live in the richest country in the world while many suffer from poverty and persecution, a just authority would reform the system to welcome the stranger in need. Since the current authority is disregarding God's call for justice, I join many of the prophets in resisting that authority.
While Romans 13:1-7 commands submission to authority as established by God, it frames this obedience around authority acting rightlyโnot as a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Acts 5:29 provides the limit, stating, "We must obey God rather than men," if authority commands injustice
Yes Hebrew ger would be closer to our understanding of Resident Alien. Someone here legally, following the laws of the land, trying to assimilate. The Israelites were resident aliens in Egypt for hundreds of years and they were mistreated and enslaved. There are other Hebrew terms that better map to our concept of illegal invader, "foreigner" in the OT was often a category of an outsider who brought their idolatry into the nation and did not assimilate and who wanted to see the nation fall.
I'm not imposing, I'm mapping an ancient category to something analogous to our day today.
The Gฤr (Resident Alien/Sojourner): This individual was recognized by the host culture, assimilated into the laws of the land, respected the local religion (even if not fully converting), was NOT allowed to practice idolatry, and was granted specific legal protections. Their presence was orderly and regulated. They might be analogous to a resident alien/Green Card holder.
The Nokri or Ben-Nekar (Foreigner): A transient outsider who did not assimilate or fall under the covenantal protections of the gฤr. The law treated them differently (e.g., Deuteronomy 15:3 permits charging interest to a nokri, but not to a fellow Israelite; Deuteronomy 17:15 forbids a nokri from ruling over Israel). The nokri maps precisely to modern foreign nationals, tourists, temporary work visa holders (e.g., H-1B).
The Zar (Stranger/Hostile Outsider): Often used to denote someone foreign to the covenant, sometimes carrying connotations of threat, hostility, or illegitimate presence. In Isaiah 1:7, the zarim are the foreign invaders devouring the land. The zar is not defined by vulnerability, but by their illegitimate presence or adversarial posture toward the established order. I'd map these to illegal immigrants but esp. the one's actively engaged in criminal networks.
But that's not really the point. The point is Israel recognized different categories of people that interacted with the nation and they had different laws for them and the U.S. does the same. Both are legitimate. It is therefore not "unchristian" or "unloving" to deport illegals nor can any single verse like Piper's be used to condemn such practice.
If you reread this post you will hopefully detect how clearly you are imposing a modern lens on your interpretation and application of the Hebrew. But neither I nor Piper were suggesting that deportation is inherently evil or unloving.
You don't actually know what Piper was suggesting dropping that grenade into the immigration debate do you? I mean, are you friends? Did he give you the inside track? In fact, no one does because he has offered no explanation. Completely irresponsible.
Imposing a modern lensโฆโ = This is exactly what Piper is doing when he appeals to โsojournerโ implying it has relevance and implication for modern illegal immigration debate. The verse only works if it maps to modern day immigration in some way! I donโt hear you calling him anachronistic for this though. This is what I was trying to correct in my response. To show that there is a closer mapping of ger than the one he implied. I was working within his framework. I assumed this was self-evident but we can tease it out.
โSojournerโ (ger) roughly correlates to what then for Piper? If it correlates to nothing then itโs a non-sequitur of a tweet. If it correlates to all people that doesnโt make any sense. Maybe to racial minority groups as in DEI philosophy? No, not the national debate at the moment. Immigrants? Ok, all immigrants? Well all immigrants are not being deported and treated โharshlyโ by ICE. So that leaves one group for which he is referring? Illegal immigrants being deported.
Ok, next, โtreat them as native among youโฆlove them as yourselfโ = without commentary this could mean an array of things.
A. Does this mean treat illegal aliens as โnative among youโ in the spirit of the law or letter of the law, i.e., treat them as citizens even though they are not in terms of care, concern, etc. or grant them green cards and/or citizenship? Idk.
B. Does it mean treat illegal aliens in a humanitarian way? Sure, thatโs fine, but it begs the question who is NOT doing that? Where are they NOT doing that? How widespread is this egregious โmistreatmentโ? By hiding behind this verse Piper doesnโt have to take ownership for a specific case that likely he got from watching too much liberal media and that is easy to overturn.
C. Or does he view it as a humanitarian crisis to deport illegals? The New York Times and The Washington Post have repeatedly described mass deportations and immigrant detention as a โhumanitarian crisis.โ In that case stopping the humanitarian crisis = stop all deportations either formally, informally, or functionally by slowing them down to such a degree they will take decades to process in the judicial system.
D. Orโฆhe could argue that he does not mean to map the specific Hebrew term/category but heโs after an underlying principle like: God cares for the vulnerable outsider; illegal immigrants are vulnerable outsiders; therefore, God commands us to care for them. Ok, again this has a slew of issues, not least is that the verse is stripped of its historical context and we know that all people groups were NOT treated equal in Israel so the premise is sus as this verse was never used like that in the first place. Then ofc, what does โcareโ entail? Can they be arrested? Can they be deported? Why does he think they are not being โcaredโ for? Again, stop avoiding specifics, lay it out, whatโs the issue.
If you follow Piperโs Twitter, heโs just doing what he does all the time. A verse or two, little or no commentary and his comments afterwards feel like they make that clear.
I have often wondered if a nation state actually acted like Jesus and turned the other cheek, prayed for its enemies, laid down it's life, then we might actually see the revival so many long for.
So many who call themselves Christians have a sense of evangelical entitlement. -To wealth to be served to own the world.
We need to restore the heart of the Kingdom is that of service.
Where are the stories of those living in Iran prior to this war who were already working for peace and liberation? They did not do it to loud acclaim for that would surely have bought trouble. But they were and still are there, praying, serving, dying. They do not need bombs from the Western "Christians" but love, good words and encouragement.
As followers of Jesus are vilified for calling โChristiansโ to actually follow Jesus, and as prophet voices are called anti-Semitic when they dare call evil evil when inflicted by the state of Israel, I find comfort in knowing I am on the side of Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and Jesus when I attempt to speak truth to power.
The irony is that this current war does not fit into the qualifications of a just war according to that theory. Nor did almost any of the Crusadesโฆ orโฆ a LOT of them.
Good post, friend.
Oh, because you say so it must be true? Ok. Well here is some just war:
๐ก๏ธ ๐๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐จ.๐ฆ. ๐๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป (๐ฅ๐ผ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ญ๐ฏ ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑ)
Legitimate Authority: U.S. rulers have authority to wield the sword. Expanded โimminent threatโ definitions have been used for 20 years.
Punishing Wrongdoers: Iran killed 30k protestors, sponsors terrorism, and violates nuclear agreements.
Protecting the Innocent: Striking Iranโs nuclear program protects millions from nuclear war. Collateral loss is tragicโbut part of war.
Preventive Justice: Romans 13 allows rulers to act against those preparing evil.
โ๏ธ ๐ฃ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ผ๐๐ผ๐ฝ๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐
Doctrine of Double Effect (Aquinas): Good intention can justify unintended harm. Strikes targeted hostile assets, not innocents. ClaudeAI was used to sift through thousands of satellite targets to identify the highest priority with the least cost of collateral damage.
But take this and ask AI if the war in Iran fits why or why not:
An action with both good and bad effects can be morally permissible if:
The act itself is good or neutral.
The bad effect is not intended (only foreseen).
The good effect is not achieved by means of the bad effect.
The good effect outweighs the bad effect.
Proportionality Principle (also Aquinas): Preventing nuclear war (millions saved) vs. hundreds lost = morally permissible. e.g., Catechism, Vatican II: โThe damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain; the response must not produce evils greater than the evil to be eliminated.โ
Iran = Morally acceptable war.
Is this where I say something like โOh, because you shared some heavily disputed opinions and justifications that have changed numerous times by government agents, it must be trueโ?
Asking for a friendโฆ
Not many opinions in my post, mostly facts. Better than magically thinking if you say something it must be true without any actual rational support. But I suppose a rhetorical response is easier than supporting your position with any amount of reason.
Mostly facts?
Which ones werenโt facts so I know which ones to ignore and then I will provide examples as to how one could reasonably reject the assertion that this current war in Iran falls outside the scope of what is considered a Just War.
I certainly want to avoid the non-facts. And since you acknowledge there were some, itโd help to know which ones.
Thanks!
But, to explain why I think it's likely *not* a Just War, the initial question related to just cause is hard to make since government officials acknowledged it was preemptive and based on pressure of knowing that Israel was going to attack first. Moreover, we were told that our last attack completely destroyed their nuclear capabilities and all of the reporting I have seen has confirmed this still being true from intelligence. Therefore, this *is* contested on a number of fronts.
No argument related to legitimate authority because I agree with you on that.
Regarding intentions, that's where things get a lot dicier. Is this regime change? Is it to further American interests in the region? Again, the current administration has given multiple answers to this question and not all of them confirm a Just War approach.
This certainly wasn't a last resort. I mean... we were literally in the middle of negotiations when we attacked. So diplomacy wasn't fully exhausted and I find it hard to argue that they were given... we... were... in them.
The probability of success question gets a lot trickier too. Initially there were LOTS of military commentators that noted the economic challenge of cheap drones versus expensive missiles used to defend against them. This is why recently game theory experts believe that we will lose the war in the long run.
For these reasons... and others, I don't think this fits into the qualifications of Just War Theory. That obviously doesn't mean much... and I'm not at all losing sleep over Iran or a progressive by any means. I'm just calling it like I see it based on evaluating the various questions that classic Just War Theory raises.
Thank you for a more substantive reply. Far more helpful than your rhetoric lol.
I think weโre using the same Just War categories, but weighting them differently. Youโre treating โlast resortโ as absolute, โjust causeโ as already resolved, and โintentionโ as invalid if mixed. Classic Just War thinkers (Augustine, Aquinas) didnโt apply them that rigidly. They allowed for preventive defense, acknowledged mixed motives (all politicians have mixed motives! but if the primary one is just that is the driver), and defined last resort as reasonable exhaustion of diplomacy, not literal finality.
IMO the U.S. meets at least 4โ5 of the 7 criteria (just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, proportionality). The contested ones are last resort and intention, but those are always debated no matter what anyway.
Nothing you said overturns that core.
The
Hi Corey,
Let's parse your justification:-
"Legitimate Authority." In other words, the "King as said so". The Constitution of the United States puts legitimate authority for war in Congress. President's are authorised to take action, but only as demanded by the immediate situation. That means an actual or imminent attack, not something that might or might not happen in the undefined future.
"Punishing Wrongdoers". I have studied Just War Theory, and that's a new one on me! But if we are to take that seriously, what about Israel bombing packed hospitals because there MIGHT be a handful od 'terrorists in the basement? Or standing around as settler gangs kill and burn Palestinians on the West Bank?
"Protecting the Innocent".
Bombing Iran has not protected anyone from the Iranian regime. They are still as unhindered as ever to kill their own people.; in fact, they even have a credible pretext now!
"Collateral loss is tragicโbut part of war."
All the more reason to NOT go to war unless it is unavoidable.
"Preventive Justice."
This leaves a thinking man gaping in shock. What is America doing to exercise 'preventative justice' in Gaza and the West Bank? What are they doing to prevent Israel from having nuclear weapons? And why do you think Iran might be developing nukes anyway? Perhaps for the same reason every other nuclear power has developed them; as a self-defence deterrent. So why is Iran not permitted that right? Not that I'm saying they SHOULD have the bomb; but I suggest that the hostility of the united States is actually making that seem a much higher priority than would be the case if there was an agreement such as Obama negotiated, Iran was adhering to, and Trump tore up.
"Doctrine of Double Effect (Aquinas): Good intention can justify unintended harm"
Yes, Israel bombing hospitals because there might have been a terrorist in the basement is a good example of this. The deliberate discounting of likely harm is NOT a 'good intention'.
"Proportionality Principle - Preventing nuclear war (millions saved) vs. hundreds lost = morally permissible."
Again, my jaw hangs slack at the boldness of this claim. It assumes there would have been a nuclear war had this bombing campaign not happened. But how? Haven't we been told that Iran's nuclear capacity had been put back several years? And then, if they re-build their project, bomb the nuclear capacity again! Unless, of course, another agreement can be put in pace that WON'T be broken unilaterally by a President who resents his predecessor's successes. No need to pre-emptively wipe out city blocks! THAT is the Proportionality Principle. Wha you are proposing is the 'What The Heck! Principle".
Ughh what about the fact that Islam has violently taken over 9 Christian nations before the crusades started?
the crusades were a response to militant Islam destroying nations
Were the Muslim invasions of the ME just wars?
How were the crusades nit just wars in general. Also they weren't generally wars.
When there is violence against civilians, questionable motivations behind their cause (politics), Christians killed (like Eastern Orthodox folks in the battle at Constantinople), and forced conversions... I think those undermine my understanding of Just War Theory and some of the historians I recall note that language was less "just war" language and more "holy war" language.
At least that's my general understanding from reading church history. It obviously depends on *which* Crusade we are talking about and, like all war, is far more complex than a substack comment :)
I personally agree with Just War Theory. I just don't see it as being applicable in what is currently happening in Iran.
He is the Prince of Peace.
Even though some of those things happened, this seems like a charicatire of what the crusades were.
Idk about Iran being a just war, but thats not what I was commenting about.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0VhLR4CnSS15A7FA95wTMw?si=-69XPSU3RkeabQ_BI4ywlg&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A312eXMI31liKUHSx6U5p1H&t=0&pi=IIQGw8_cS5OqV
So your contention is that the Crusades were by and large example of situations that *were* Just Wars and fit the criteria?
I think the first one is like textbook.
Weren't non-combatant Muslim and Jewish people killed at the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099? And weren't the intentions of some of the Crusaders to further their land conquest and wealth, not to mention the political powers struggle? I was under the impression that this was the tension with the Byzantine Empire during the first crusade... or am I missing something?
The first crusade certainly had a lot of the possible criteria but it doesn't seem to be across the board... but again, it certainly wasn't *all* of the Crusaders that fell out of line with classic Just War Theory (as I understand it). The Fourth Crusade, as you likely know, was DEFINITELY not in line.
Yea pretty much.
The Albigensian crusade was particularly horrific to my mind, targeting other Christians (seen as heretics), burning their towns to the ground, singing โcome Holy spiritโ as they went, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, and prefiguring the Nazi holocaust in many details.
When doing fact checking using ai on google pry deeper ask for the true objective facts especially known prior to the 1900s. Ai will admit it is giving a narrative of โnoble liesโ.
I just searched up prophetic protests in the Hebrew Scriptures. Fascinating to think about how those ancient seers went about making their grief, outrage, and desire for a better way known.
The only way out of cycles of violence is through love. Not my idea at all but one that is demonstrated by the life and stated by the reported words of Jesus of Nazareth. This article reflects the loving approach and even though I do not describe myself as Christian, never mind evangelical, to me it is the only way to transform our world.
How does the notion of love translate between nations. Or countries. Your comment makes sense if we are taking about inter personal relationships. The teachings attributed to Jesus were intended to be expressed amoung ourselves. Jesus was not concerned about intragovernmental affairs. It is folly to put biblical values when talking about wars. Nations have made some strides in developing what is permissible when killing one another. Bombs good. Toxic gas not so much.
Thanks for commenting on my comment Stephen. My reading of the Bible suggests that Jesus was very much concerned with how government affected people, something that he had in common with the Prophets of the 'Old Testament'. The message was clear, base your society on love and compassion for all within it particularly the poor and powerless. But you are right, intra- governmental affairs were not explicitly part of what he spoke about, just the implication that if there was a 'kingdom' based on love then many.of the problems of empires and countries would cease to matter.
At the very least, this could be an admonition to look forward to The coming Kingdom.
God is being very patient with us all right now, but plans to return, separate sheep from goats, take down the enemy with the Word รฒf His mouth. Revelation 19. How we live, fight, make peace, apply grace, patience, right now, might speak to that part of Christโs kingdom. People may need grace, truth, patience, warnings, forgiveness, discipline, punishment, all these as loveโฆ., so they want their souls ready.
Should those of Christโs kingdom grow impatient if some are not being loving, patient, etcโฆ, like Ayatollah?
Love is patient, love is kind. A good place to start and a good place to finish. It has been interesting interacting with you, God bless.
Did we not seek to discuss terms at several conferences or, at least two?
Did we suggest ways to take war ร nd atomic bombs off thรฉ table, over the years?
Yet, thรฉ Ayatollah killed his own people. Are Christians to go to bat for others? I thought Romans 13 is to say, โGo further, and you will run into our swordโ.
Iโm not sure I like how itโs playing out. But is it right to let Christians or any people, be slaughtered? Like Hitler ร nd the Jews?
Or none of our business?
Iโve been pretty much ร peace-Nik, but the last few years, think one canโt use family dynamics for government ones.
I will, respectfully, disagree with you. Jesus's message was radical, revolutionary and upended the violence and repression that the systems of government used to maintain and extend power. Our current systems of government can be traced back to the imperial systems of ancient Rome, Jesus lived and died advocating for a different approach, one based on love. Trying to retrofit love onto our current systems is very difficult, very hard, but not impossible.
But he did sayโฆgive to Caesar what is Caesarโsโฆ.Christ wanted our hearts definitely but wasnโt this scripture to separate what govt wanted and what God wantedโฆ? Curious but very interesting discussion here. Thanks๐
I am not convinced , even if Jesus wanted a government to be based on love and compassion, that the teaching of Christ apply to providing a framework for how governments interact with one another. Putin's violance cannot be repelled by turning the other cheek for example. Or invoking the golden rule. As an interesting observation, the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution have philosophical similarities to many of the basic teachings in the old and new testaments. I go along with that notion of a compassionate government through public policy concerns.
I think itโs helpful to imagine what we could do that isnโt violent and destructive and harmful to innocent lives. Then try all the things we can imagine that MIGHT help. For instance, what if one million of us walked into Tehran together and asked to have tea with the person in charge? Or what if we all made space for every single person that wanted to escape Iran to a similar place with greater opportunities for freedom and peace? Orโฆ
I cannot imagine that which you have suggested. Except as an intelectual excersize. You are obviously a good man. Someone whom I respect because of your humanity. But, and there is always a but isn't there, we must do that which is possible. I am around profoundly religious people. Praying for all sorts of things to happen or not. Suggesting that one walks and talks with Jesus. What in the world are these people doing by diluting reality. And by thinking that if Christians can take over government that the Kingdom of God will prevail. When they can't even agree on which denomination is the authentic version. I maintain that all Christianity can do is help us interact with one another. Fo me my approach is not to do unto someone that which I do not want done to me. Politics is run by the ends justify the means. Once we agree, perhaps an honest government has a chance.
Was not Jesus teaching the people of Israel not to provoke their Roman oppressors for fear of bringing terrible destruction on their heads - the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple? Turn the other cheek or your house (temple) will be washed away by a flood (of Roman soldiers). We have a bad habit of reading the Bible through modern individualistic and narcissistic lenses - itโs all about me.
Back in 2012, former Congressman Ron Paul, during a Republican primary debate, suggested that the โGolden Ruleโ (treat others as you would want to be treated) should be applied to American foreign policy. He was booed by the audience which, if statistics are accurate, was made up largely of evangelical Christians. His remark was immediately preceded by Newt Gingrich saying, โAndrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about Americaโs enemies: Kill them!โโ The same crowd roared with approval.
Anyone else else getting echoes of the crowd at the trial of Jesus by Pilate?
As a former pastor and one who has largely parted from the Christian faith, I (after almost a decade away from all of it) am more and more convinced that the issue is that we view everyone who is not Christian as an enemy. It used to be that they were an enemy that we needed to convert and save and now itโs an enemy that we need to overcome, subdue and defeat.
the heart of the matter is that the language we use (while Jesusโ use of โenemyโ likely had no connotation of competition or violent opposition), is largely unchristian. It dehumanizes the โenemyโ and makes them sub-human. Or at least the wrong kind of human.
Christianโs would be better served if we viewed those not like us on an even plane with us, merely as human beings. Humans, who all deserve dignity and respect. Where no one human is better than another, for any reason, least of all, what that human believes vs what we believe.
Christianity continues to beautify language and say things like โwe are all made in the image of Godโ, but that conversation rarely comes up any more and when it does itโs usually to defend anti-abortion stances. But when we view all people as people who were made in the image of God, and if we truly believed that to be the case and lived like it, these kinds of conflict would find their end relatively quickly, if they ever found their beginning.
What ever happened to "and enemy that we love"? Are conversion or death really the only options?
Brian, what you rightly call prophetic imagination is based in part on what psychologists call moral imagination. There is a large literature on it. One conclusion is that it is both an ability and a skill and it involves rational and emotional elaboration and, crucially, practice. One can practice it in tribal survival mode and then war seems inevitable. One can practice it in open compassion mode and many possibilities open up, as you suggest. This asymmetry in imagination has also been studied. And it drives a self fulling prophecy, helping to create the thing we imagine.
Thanks for bringing some light to dark corners.
Great article. I am so outside the evangelical culture wars lately that I cannot believe Piper was accused of being woke, which is hysterical. I was raised in this background and find it fascinating that my ancestors moved here specifically because they were pacifists (Church of the Brethren) so they were woke many generations before term was coined then!
I am new to your work but this piece caught my attention. Given what โevangelicalโ has now become, (the image of hands on the Orange in the Oral Office comes to mind) if one follows Christโs teachings, why would you still put yourself under that umbrella, descriptively? Donโt you (DIRELY) need a new handle/label/descriptor? The best Iโve come up with is โTrue Christiansโ.
A fair question. Currently I still wrestle with the biblical model in which the prophets all identified with fallen Israel in responsibility, consequences and repentance. I am my brotherโs keeper (and my sisterโs too.)
Is evangelical really Christian? At least to the extent evangelicals are committed to retributive justice (which they are - not just final judgment, but interpreting Romans 13 as a justification for punitive actions by the state, and seeing punishment as essential to disciplining children), are they not actively opposing Christโs teaching on the sermon on the mount?
That makes your marketing rather problematic. In the way Republican no longer has anything to do with โmoralโ majority. Christian now wears the stench of Christian Nationalist. The โchurchโ has a VERY long road to rebuild trust. I know some remarkable true Christians. Many of them are Buddhist.
Unfortunately or fortunately itโs important that Christians maintain solidarity with believers across time and space and not seek to come up with a new name. We have a new name and self in Christ. More important than solidarity with other believers is a trust in Christ, holding fast to Him, regardless of the fleeting ebbs and flows of โcurrentโ culture.
The title Christian(or follower of Christ) though often marred with our imperfect representations, our faith maintains a grace for others knowing that God alone knows the heart and who loves him. โAnd we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.โ Romans 8:28.
Putting the word โTrueโ in front of Christian is something we must trust is redundant. As much as I find it easy(wrongly) to cast judgement on who is Christian and who is not, Thank God that He alone is judge.
Very well said Noah. It seems we have more Christian philosophers in this discussion than Christians.
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/2026/03/how-christian-nationalist-became-epithet/686279/
Noah, thanks for responding. I understand your points and sense humility in your words. I cannot help but judge so I am thus relieved of carrying such a mantle as an identity. If identifying as a Christian reduces ones ego and increases ones compassion - Iโm all for it. Unfortunately too many using this name keep doing irreparable harm. In THIS life.
For centuries, Christians believed the Bible was the authoritative Word of God. But now weโve entered a thrilling new phase of church history where certain verses are now considered progressive propaganda.
Somewhere, a right-wing MAGA โChristianโ is furiously typing, โFirst, John Piper goes WOKE. Next thing we know, Franklin Graham is going to tell us to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR."
Franklin would never tell you to love one another. Unless you were a white heterosexual born again Christian.
Right--but if he did, his ultra-conservative base would go nuts, claiming he became "woke" simply because he echoed Jesus' words.
Beautiful. I hear the cri de couer beneath the analysis and it echoes my own. It is heartbreaking to see so many who claim to follow Jesus call war peace and peace โwoke.โ
The interesting part of that Scripture struck me: the stranger that sojourns WITH YOU. Sojourns = stay somewhere temporarily, Latin = under. A sojourner does supplant and take over a country, a culture and demand their way of life must be honored. I personally donโt like child rapists or mutilating little girlsโ privates or my tax dollars used to support fraud. The Scripture says sojourner, not criminal invader.
Hereโs the NASB โThe stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.โ I think the interesting part of this verse is โyou shall love him.โ
Love involves frank speech, itโs not just mamby pamby unicorns and rainbows. Love involves respect, ie, following rules and laws, not overstaying visas or milking the system. Love involves teaching one to fish, not just giving him a fish or allowing him to steal one. Love means many things.
Wait are you talking about Trump and his billionaire pedophile friends mutilating little girls or something else?
Do your homework. There are plenty of Muslim women shining a light on what happens to little girls in their country and religion. Trump, Trump, Trumpโฆgood grief.
Maybe the problem isn't so much the religion but men.
Exactly. And men, untouched by Holly Spirit, claiming the mantel of religion!
Iโve done my homework. Youโre projecting what the people you put into power have actually done to little girls onto people whose cities are now being bombed because of you. When you face your maker, you will see all the horrible sins of the white man you violently hid from yourself in this lifetime and projected onto Muslims and black hoodlums and transgender perverts and all your other scapegoats and you will realize that you were part of the mob crucifying Jesus every time you did that. And then you will feel sorrow that will last as many eternities as you persist in your unrepentance.
At the most we had 15% of our population in undocumented migrants. Overwhelmingly majority of which intend to just quietly work and woukd participate in our society if allowed to do so. We don't want open borders, and we can reform the borders while giving most of these people a fair chance to become legally compliant.
Instead, because they are brown, white Evangelicals voted for and support wonton cruelty...
And make no mistake, if you support the current immigration policy, you are a fake christian.
https://jdredbeard.substack.com/p/cruelty-is-the-point-ice
Better yet. I am a 100% deconstructed Christian, non-Theist on an intellectual, historical basis
Choose to ignore the parts of your religion that are uncomfortable for you. That's sure to win converts.
Scripture tells us to obey the authority placed over us, put in place by God himself, no? Good or evil, right?
If a country has laws for citizens and visitors, I follow those laws. Itโs not uncomfortable at all. The kingdom of God has walls, gates, and keys right? There are commands to follow to get in, no? Iโm not here to gain converts, the Holy Spirit can do that way better than I. My โreligionโ does not advocate for the atrocities I listed previously, so Iโm not uncomfortable at all.
I actually believe the current administration is a test from God. A test most Christians are failing.
Well said
Scripture also calls authority to be just. And since we live in the richest country in the world while many suffer from poverty and persecution, a just authority would reform the system to welcome the stranger in need. Since the current authority is disregarding God's call for justice, I join many of the prophets in resisting that authority.
While Romans 13:1-7 commands submission to authority as established by God, it frames this obedience around authority acting rightlyโnot as a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Acts 5:29 provides the limit, stating, "We must obey God rather than men," if authority commands injustice
Yes Hebrew ger would be closer to our understanding of Resident Alien. Someone here legally, following the laws of the land, trying to assimilate. The Israelites were resident aliens in Egypt for hundreds of years and they were mistreated and enslaved. There are other Hebrew terms that better map to our concept of illegal invader, "foreigner" in the OT was often a category of an outsider who brought their idolatry into the nation and did not assimilate and who wanted to see the nation fall.
You are imposing a modern lens on the ancient text.
I'm not imposing, I'm mapping an ancient category to something analogous to our day today.
The Gฤr (Resident Alien/Sojourner): This individual was recognized by the host culture, assimilated into the laws of the land, respected the local religion (even if not fully converting), was NOT allowed to practice idolatry, and was granted specific legal protections. Their presence was orderly and regulated. They might be analogous to a resident alien/Green Card holder.
The Nokri or Ben-Nekar (Foreigner): A transient outsider who did not assimilate or fall under the covenantal protections of the gฤr. The law treated them differently (e.g., Deuteronomy 15:3 permits charging interest to a nokri, but not to a fellow Israelite; Deuteronomy 17:15 forbids a nokri from ruling over Israel). The nokri maps precisely to modern foreign nationals, tourists, temporary work visa holders (e.g., H-1B).
The Zar (Stranger/Hostile Outsider): Often used to denote someone foreign to the covenant, sometimes carrying connotations of threat, hostility, or illegitimate presence. In Isaiah 1:7, the zarim are the foreign invaders devouring the land. The zar is not defined by vulnerability, but by their illegitimate presence or adversarial posture toward the established order. I'd map these to illegal immigrants but esp. the one's actively engaged in criminal networks.
But that's not really the point. The point is Israel recognized different categories of people that interacted with the nation and they had different laws for them and the U.S. does the same. Both are legitimate. It is therefore not "unchristian" or "unloving" to deport illegals nor can any single verse like Piper's be used to condemn such practice.
If you reread this post you will hopefully detect how clearly you are imposing a modern lens on your interpretation and application of the Hebrew. But neither I nor Piper were suggesting that deportation is inherently evil or unloving.
You don't actually know what Piper was suggesting dropping that grenade into the immigration debate do you? I mean, are you friends? Did he give you the inside track? In fact, no one does because he has offered no explanation. Completely irresponsible.
Imposing a modern lensโฆโ = This is exactly what Piper is doing when he appeals to โsojournerโ implying it has relevance and implication for modern illegal immigration debate. The verse only works if it maps to modern day immigration in some way! I donโt hear you calling him anachronistic for this though. This is what I was trying to correct in my response. To show that there is a closer mapping of ger than the one he implied. I was working within his framework. I assumed this was self-evident but we can tease it out.
โSojournerโ (ger) roughly correlates to what then for Piper? If it correlates to nothing then itโs a non-sequitur of a tweet. If it correlates to all people that doesnโt make any sense. Maybe to racial minority groups as in DEI philosophy? No, not the national debate at the moment. Immigrants? Ok, all immigrants? Well all immigrants are not being deported and treated โharshlyโ by ICE. So that leaves one group for which he is referring? Illegal immigrants being deported.
Ok, next, โtreat them as native among youโฆlove them as yourselfโ = without commentary this could mean an array of things.
A. Does this mean treat illegal aliens as โnative among youโ in the spirit of the law or letter of the law, i.e., treat them as citizens even though they are not in terms of care, concern, etc. or grant them green cards and/or citizenship? Idk.
B. Does it mean treat illegal aliens in a humanitarian way? Sure, thatโs fine, but it begs the question who is NOT doing that? Where are they NOT doing that? How widespread is this egregious โmistreatmentโ? By hiding behind this verse Piper doesnโt have to take ownership for a specific case that likely he got from watching too much liberal media and that is easy to overturn.
C. Or does he view it as a humanitarian crisis to deport illegals? The New York Times and The Washington Post have repeatedly described mass deportations and immigrant detention as a โhumanitarian crisis.โ In that case stopping the humanitarian crisis = stop all deportations either formally, informally, or functionally by slowing them down to such a degree they will take decades to process in the judicial system.
D. Orโฆhe could argue that he does not mean to map the specific Hebrew term/category but heโs after an underlying principle like: God cares for the vulnerable outsider; illegal immigrants are vulnerable outsiders; therefore, God commands us to care for them. Ok, again this has a slew of issues, not least is that the verse is stripped of its historical context and we know that all people groups were NOT treated equal in Israel so the premise is sus as this verse was never used like that in the first place. Then ofc, what does โcareโ entail? Can they be arrested? Can they be deported? Why does he think they are not being โcaredโ for? Again, stop avoiding specifics, lay it out, whatโs the issue.
If you follow Piperโs Twitter, heโs just doing what he does all the time. A verse or two, little or no commentary and his comments afterwards feel like they make that clear.
But Brian, you're forgetting two important `scriptures`.
1 Bastards 23:4-5, "Strike first, for not even the children of your enemy are worthy of life. It is better to kill today and live tomorrow."
2 Hesitations 10:17, "He who sleeps with the suspicion of the threat of possible aggression will surely die in the night."
I'm sure I heard somewhere that "might is right, and love has no place in the world."
I have often wondered if a nation state actually acted like Jesus and turned the other cheek, prayed for its enemies, laid down it's life, then we might actually see the revival so many long for.
Deconstructing Boomer here.
So many who call themselves Christians have a sense of evangelical entitlement. -To wealth to be served to own the world.
We need to restore the heart of the Kingdom is that of service.
Where are the stories of those living in Iran prior to this war who were already working for peace and liberation? They did not do it to loud acclaim for that would surely have bought trouble. But they were and still are there, praying, serving, dying. They do not need bombs from the Western "Christians" but love, good words and encouragement.
As followers of Jesus are vilified for calling โChristiansโ to actually follow Jesus, and as prophet voices are called anti-Semitic when they dare call evil evil when inflicted by the state of Israel, I find comfort in knowing I am on the side of Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and Jesus when I attempt to speak truth to power.