The National Intelligence Estimate and the Biblical Worldview, Part I

The New York Times leak of excerpts of the National Intelligence Estimate has been one of the main headlines this week. Yesterday, President Bush declassified a condensed version of that report. I will leave it to others to discuss the many political issues involved (and the fact that once again the New York Times has breached this nation's security). For our purposes here, what is important is the opportunity to think biblically about the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Specifically, the reality of the world as portrayed by the NIE brings up two important points. First (and the subject of Part I of this article), it makes the discussion of the Christian ethic of war a very important one. If we choose pacifism over just war, and we are wrong, then we are guilty of much innocent blood that we could have protected. Second (and the subject of Part II of this article), the biblical worldview fully accounts for this kind of uncertainty and danger. Not only this, but it also provides an answer to the most fundamental questions that people inevitably ask when confronted with the realities of uncertainty and danger.

The NIE (or at least the declassified condensed version) reveals several important points about the state of the world (through the lens of intelligence officials):
1. Terrorism is a continuing, real threat to America and the rest of the world.
2. Terrorists are adapting their methods to account for our counter-terrorism tactics.
3. We can expect more attacks on "soft targets" (aka, people) in urban areas via IED's and suicide bombings.
4. Increasingly, more nation-states will be unable to prevent terrorists from exploiting their territory and resources - meaning that in addition to intentional supporters of terrorism (Syria and Iran), many weaker governments will be unable to prevent terrorists from operating freely within their borders (ie, Lebanon?).

Do these things sound scary to you? They should. The world is a scary place. The reason is because there are people bent on destruction and death. Regardless of how we approach the war on terror, for their part the terrorists view this as a clash of civilizations, holy war against those who are not Muslim or Muslim enough (as pointed out on Sober Truth). What's important to note is that there is no room for negotiation and no room for "diplomacy." Negotiation only works when war is not desired.

In a scary world where people are trying to hurt my family, it is entirely appropriate (and in fact expected) that my government will defend innocent life. After all, the government carries the power of the sword for a reason (Romans 13:1-4). What virtue is there (besides self-righteousness?) in being a pacifist when a murderer is at your neighbor's door? The foundation of all Christian ethics is (1) love God, and (2) love your neighbor. How loving is it to say that only wicked men may shoot guns, drop bombs, and employ real physical force? Remember, after all, the context of this whole discussion is the reality that there really are wicked men intent on killing. The question is - who will stop them?

I talked with a woman this week who was very passionately pacifistic. It was her opinion (and the opinion of most pacifists) that "violence is not the answer," implying that discussion will reap the hopeful result of peace. Further, it was her contention that as she tries to raise her son not to resort to violence, our public policy contradicts what she is trying to teach her son. I say all of this to ask this question - what does the Christian say to such a person?

First of all, if she is teaching her son not to be a violent person, then any actions the government takes to protect her family (including the local police, by the way) are in no way contradictory to what she is teaching. If she is teaching him to be a true pacifist, however, then I guess there really is contradiction. But not being a violent person and being a pacifist are not the same. I am not a pacifist, but I also don't use violence to solve my personal problems. Scripture gives us reason to distinguish between what we are called to do when we are offended or threatened (turn the other cheek, love and pray for our enemies, rather be wronged than to wrong, etc.) and what responsibility a civil power has to restrain evil (execute justice, for example).

Secondly, her assumption is that there is another way to solve the problem of terrorism. But what is it? If nothing else, the NIE reinforces the reality that we do have enemies, and they want to kill us. Is this not clear enough to us yet? What could we offer them in negotiaton? Mass converstion to Islam? I'm sorry, that's not in the cards for me or my house. The root of the issue is, after all, human wickedness. Out of this wickedness springs idolatry, the lust for power, and the desire for blood that motivates our enemies.

It is not as though we are at war because we dislike certain people, or even because we disagree with certain people. If those were the causes, then certainly negotiation would be preferred over war. However, we have avowed enemies. Any cease-fire would be one-sided.

So where does this leave us in terms of the gospel of Jesus Christ? What can we say to the pacifist as we try to share the gospel? To answer this, we must turn to the deeper issues of the biblical worldview that begin to make sense of such an uncertain and dangerous world. To this topic we will turn in the Part II of this article.