After reading this short article from Dr. Charles Kiker of Tulia,TX, I felt the strong need to respond (link to full text below):
Churches bear witness to nuclear arsenal | Amarillo Globe-News
Dr. Kiker expresses what I feel is a genuine desire for a world more in line with God's ultimate will for men, and I respect that. Dr. Kiker supports his objections to the United States of America (or any country) having a nuclear arsenal based upon this passage from Scripture:
Secondly, by Dr. Kiker's reasoning, no government could have any type of armed defense force. If "killing" is wrong by nuclear bomb, it would have to be equally wrong by missile, mortar or small arms fire, too. However, the Apostle Paul teaches the exact opposite in this passage:
I will concede to Dr. Kiker that causing indiscriminate death of a civilian population does raise serious questions in my own conscience; indeed this may be the point that he was trying to make. Today's military is much, much more sensitive to these considerations due to the more advanced technology available. Now, we can launch a cruise missile off an aircraft carrier from 500 kilometers away and put it through some terrorist's living-room window without waking the neighbors. I'd say that beats Vietnam-style carpet-bombing any day.
Finally, since the ability to violently split the atom can't be un-developed, nuclear weapons are here to stay. I wish that no weapons big or small of any kind were needed on Earth. However, if all the good guys make neat little treaties and agree not to have them, they face certain annihilation at the hands of the bad guys who have no qualms about destroying the lives of millions of innocent non-combatants. Here's where loving your neighbor comes in:
Churches bear witness to nuclear arsenal | Amarillo Globe-News
Dr. Kiker expresses what I feel is a genuine desire for a world more in line with God's ultimate will for men, and I respect that. Dr. Kiker supports his objections to the United States of America (or any country) having a nuclear arsenal based upon this passage from Scripture:
Exodus 20:13 KJV: Thou shalt not kill.While I sincerely respect Dr. Kiker's desire for peace and nuclear disarmament, his positions and reasoning are too simplistic and do not provide sufficient consideration for a comprehensive Christian "worldview" approach. First, when God gave the command telling Moses and Israel not to kill, He is actually prohibiting murder. This must not be construed as a blanket prohibition against ending another person's life under any circumstances. God also commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath (Saturday). When a man was discovered gathering firewood as recorded in Numbers 15:32, God specifically told Moses that this man should be killed--stoned to death--by the community. So obviously, God draws a distinction between murder and taking of life as a function of government. So, Exodus 20:13 does not apply in such a case.
Secondly, by Dr. Kiker's reasoning, no government could have any type of armed defense force. If "killing" is wrong by nuclear bomb, it would have to be equally wrong by missile, mortar or small arms fire, too. However, the Apostle Paul teaches the exact opposite in this passage:
Romans 13:3-4 NKJV: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.When governments use measured violence to restrain evil and pursue justice, it isn't against God's will. Paul says rulers actually serve God in this way. Making such a case against nuclear arms doesn't solve the important and fundamental question of deadly force--it just moves it to a different weapon.
I will concede to Dr. Kiker that causing indiscriminate death of a civilian population does raise serious questions in my own conscience; indeed this may be the point that he was trying to make. Today's military is much, much more sensitive to these considerations due to the more advanced technology available. Now, we can launch a cruise missile off an aircraft carrier from 500 kilometers away and put it through some terrorist's living-room window without waking the neighbors. I'd say that beats Vietnam-style carpet-bombing any day.
Finally, since the ability to violently split the atom can't be un-developed, nuclear weapons are here to stay. I wish that no weapons big or small of any kind were needed on Earth. However, if all the good guys make neat little treaties and agree not to have them, they face certain annihilation at the hands of the bad guys who have no qualms about destroying the lives of millions of innocent non-combatants. Here's where loving your neighbor comes in:
Matthew 22:39 KJV: And the second [command] is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself...When countries who already have nuclear arsenals keep and maintain them, it makes the world a much, much safer place. The assurance of mutual nuclear annihilation raises the stakes of open war between nuclear states to an unacceptable level for the entire world. In other words, if everyone in the room is pointing a shotgun, then no one will start shooting. This forces countries like Russia, China and the United States of America to work hard to overcome tensions and prevent war at all costs. What could be more neighborly than that?
