Lux Lucet

Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress, 3/3/15.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech before Congress, punctuated as it was with over twenty standing ovations, is the latest act in the decades long drama of US involvement in the Middle East. Growing up as I did in the 70s and 80s, America’s presence in the Middle East seemed a lot like the war between Oceania and Eastasia in 1984, we had always been there. The question was never raised whether this was a good idea. The only acceptable debate was over how much and what we should do.

An endless parade of American diplomats, military equipment, and of course, money flowed eastward, all which, we were told, were needed to make the world safe for democracy. But the funny thing was, no matter how much time money and effort was expended, the region never seemed very safe or very democratic. If someone did occasionally suggest, even mildly, that maybe, just maybe, the US should reconsider its activist foreign policy and perhaps at some future date possibly consider option of thinking about reducing our presence in this or that country or region, the poor fellow was immediately denounced and labeled with that most heinous of swear words – what really amounted to a scarlet letter for intellectual sinners. He was called the “I” word. He was dubbed an “isolationist.” And an isolationist was, by definition, someone so unstable, so untrustworthy, so obviously out of touch with reality that no serious person need pay him any attention whatsoever. Except, of course, to make him the butt of jokes.

This same mode of thinking is alive and well today. If anyone had any doubt, Netanyahu’s speech the past Tuesday, and the reaction by Congress, should have dispelled it. But is so-called isolationism really the foolishness the foreign policy establishment, the press, and much of the public say it is? What does the Bible have to say about foreign policy? These are questions worth asking. Some may find the answers surprising.

Israel in the Old Testament

God’s dealing with the Israelites is instructive for determining what is a proper, Christian foreign policy. In so many words, God told the Israelites to live in the land of Canaan, keep his commandments, and mind their own business. He did not command them to make the world safe for theocracy. He did not send the prophets to rally the 12 tribes to smite the pagan Egyptians with the sword and impose upon them the law of Moses. He did not command them to conduct offensive wars against the Ammonites to save the children in the land of Molech, or fight against the Assyrians in the name of women’s rights. The Israelites were to live in the land God had given them, conduct peaceful commerce with those who would have it, and treat the foreigner with dignity.

As for foreign alliances against a common foe, these were soundly condemned by God in the Old Testament. Jehoshaphat was denounced for making peach with Ahab. To those who sought alliance with Egypt, Isaiah said, “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, , who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but who do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the Lord…Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh and not spirit. When the Lord stretches out his hand, both he who helps will fall, and he who is helped will fall down; they all will perish together (Isaiah 31:1, 3). Isaiah, it would seem, was someone the neoconservatives of today would deride as an isolationist.

Empires of the of Old Testament

In contrast to the Hebrew republic, the pagan nations of the ancient world had activist foreign policies. They engaged in empire building. In Daniel’s vision, four great pagan empires were represented – the Babylonian, the Persian, that of the Greek and finally the Roman – all which were built and maintained by the blunt instrument of military force. From the safe distance of 2,000 years, notions of the Roman legions may conjure up a sort of heroic vision in some, but to those who lived under them, they were a terror. The following words about the Roman Empires, attributed to a Caledonian chieftain by Tacitus, are a good summary pagan imperial policy, “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

That these four ungodly empires of force are ultimately destroyed ought to give any empire builder, American or otherwise, pause to stop and consider. But it seldom seems to work that way.

America’s Founders

Many conservatives are under the impression that America has a mandate from God to be involved in every corner of the globe, and view as un-American anyone who advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy. If one is not ready to spend American treasure and spill American blood in the pursuit of some high sounding ideal in some far off place, then clearly that person must be unpatriotic. But if enthusiasm for foreign wars is the standard by which patriotism is measured, then many of America’s greatest founding fathers were terrible unpatriotic. Consider the following quotes,

• “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” – George Washington, Farewell Address
  
• “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
  
• “Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. The is the champion and vindicator only of her own. – John Quincy Adams
  

Machen on foreign Alliances

While it has not been uncommon to find American ministers at the forefront of those pushing for US foreign military intervention, some have remained faithful to the Scriptures. For example, Gresham Machen commenting on US entry into WWI wrote,

The country seems to be rushing into two things to which I am more strongly opposed than anything else in the world – a permanent alliance with Great Britain, which will inevitable mean a continuance of the present vassalage, and a permanent policy of compulsory military service with all the brutal interference of the state in individual and family life which that entails, and which has caused the misery of Germany and France.

As a consistent Christian, Machen loved liberty and hated tyranny. And it was his love of liberty that caused him to oppose big government both domestically and abroad. Unfortunately, while many Evangelicals today will readily denounce socialism at home, they embrace militarism with a fervor that is best describes as religious. But militarism, as Machen understood, was productive of a whole host of evils, including state interference in the private lives of citizens.

Argument Against Noninterventionism

When the interventionists deign to acknowledge the existence of those who question their activist foreign policy, they quickly dismiss noninterventionist arguments based on Jefferson and Washington by saying, “Oh, those were fine principles in their day, but the world has changed.” Ron Paul, the most consistent American noninterventionist politician in recent memory, responded to this argument by writing,

It is easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as that quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it’s not so easy to demonstrate how our current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the twentieth century, from Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think ( The Revolution, p.10).

The recent rise of the collapse of Libya, the rise of the Islamic State in Syrian and Iraq (ISIS) and the low level war currently underway in Ukraine are just three recent US foreign policy disasters brought about by the interventionists. These people never learn. And if their errors affected only them, perhaps they could be viewed as objects of pity. But as it is, their foolish foreign policy theory has led them to take actions that have endangered not just this country, but the whole world.

Paul has been castigated over the years by both Democrats and Republicans for his foreign policy views, and yet reading what he has to say on this issue reveals him as one of the soundest thinkers on this vital subject in modern times. As to the charge of isolationism, Paul turns the table on his accusers, making the point that those who promote embargoes, sanctions and foreign wars are the real isolationists. Writes Paul,

Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I myself have never been an isolationist. I favor the very opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needles belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns (The Revolution, pp. 10, 11).

What the neo-conservatives want to do with, intrigue, revolution, guns and bombs, Paul would do with honest commerce, diplomacy and by setting a good example. Some would call Paul naive. The Bible calls him wise.

Conclusion

Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress to, among other things, promote war against Iran. Not that this is anything new. He’s been promoting the war for the last 20 years. And it is not just any war he is hawking, but a religious war pitting medieval Judaism against medieval Islam. John Robbins, foreseeing this eventuality wrote in 2006,

Barring dramatic divine intervention, such as a new Reformation, or the second coming of Christ, the wars of the twenty-first century will be religious wars. They will be worse than the secular wars of the twentieth century. The three principal protagonists will be the three medieval religions that have warred with each other for centuries. Already the battles have begun.

It is important to realize that the Christian has no dog in this fight. Neither Romanism nor Judaism nor Islam is Christianity, yet many who profess to be Christians support either Judaism or Romanism. The so-called Christian Right in the United States, influenced by Romanism, Dispensationalism, and Reconstructionism, has been a supporter of Israel, Judaism, and Rome for decades. The principal figures in the American conservative movement have been Romanist, though their source of funds has largely been Protestant. The principal figures of the so-called Neo-conservatives (Neo-cons) are Jews. The U. S. government, in violation of the U. S. Constitution, has taken tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars from American taxpayers and given them to the government of Israel over the past 50 years. We have fought wars and spent billions trying to prop up various Roman Catholic dictatorships. (More recently, the U. S. Government has started sending money taken by force from the American people to Arab and Muslim nations as well.) The conservative movement in the United States has abandoned the American (and Biblical) foreign policy of strategic independence pursued by our government since 1776 for a policy of global interventionism that has angered many foreign nations and peoples, most recently the Muslims.

Because Christianity is neither Romanism nor Judaism nor Islam, there is no need for the United States, a historically, if not currently, Christian nation, to be involved in the religious wars of the twenty-first century. But because of the influence of American citizens (and non-citizens) who are Jews, Catholics, and Dispensational Evangelicals, we are already involved. In fact, because of our foreign policy of interventionism developed in the twentieth century, and because of our more recent policy of pre-emptive war, the United States has become the primary target of militant Muslims worldwide. And not of Muslims only. Agents of both Israel and Rome are active in the United States, both gathering intelligence and influencing policy. The U. S. government is manipulated by foreign interests. Both Israel and the Vatican see the United States as their proxy in this religious war….

Because this false thinking is so widely accepted, there is, humanly speaking, no hope for peace or freedom in the twenty-first century, but rather the spectre of global religious war. The theology of the Prince of Peace, who is the author of liberty, has been rejected even by most of those who call themselves Christians. If the Lord Jesus Christ does not return from Heaven soon – and not 10,000 years from now as the Postmillennialists say he will – devoutly religious, Antichristian men will kill hundreds of millions of souls in the bloody wars of the twenty-first century. The Protestant Reformation is indeed over; the respite of peace, freedom, and prosperity it afforded the West from the long history of human brutality is drawing to a close; and the world is about to enter a new Dark Age of slavery, brutality, and war. Only the second coming of Christ or an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit can prevent religious totalitarians from imposing their will on billions of people…

The servants of Muhammad fight, just as Muhammad did, because his kingdom is of this world. The servants of the papacy fight, just as the popes do, for their kingdom is of this world. The servants (not children) of Abraham fight, just as the Maccabees fought, for their kingdom is of this world (Robbins, The Religious Wars of the 21st Century).

That members of Congress would receive Netanyahu’s speech so favorably is proof, not only of the power of the Israel lobby, but also, and more fundamentally, of just how far removed their thinking is from Biblical principles of foreign policy. If Netanyahu and his acolytes have their way, the religious wars predicted by Robbins will be at our doorstep, sooner than we would care to think.