Our President has advised Israel and the Palestinians to go back to the 1967 borders between the territories where Jews and Arabs dwelt. Don’t plan on it!

What is in those territories now is not what was there before 1967. An example of this is the Golan Heights in Northeast Israel. Before 1967 it was a vast undeveloped area other than as a military buffer. When I went to Israel first in 1969 at night the lights of one small settlement could be seen at night from Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. Now the entire range is aglow with villages.

The vast expanse of the Heights was basically a mine field left over from Syrian occupation. Sitting in those fields were rusty burned out Syrian vehicles all facing toward Damascus to which they were retreating when destroyed. Today they are lush orchards, vineyards, and highly productive agricultural land. Recently developed Israeli villages dot the area.

Before 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city. An idea of how developed the two sections were is illustrated by traffic lights. The Arab section was so lacking in modernization they had no traffic lights. When the border went down young Arab boys would stand on the street corner in the Jewish section and applaud the traffic lights when they would change. Last week while there I marveled that a rapid commuter rail line was being tested along much of the route of the former border.

Modern Israel is very modern; highly progressive. The bordering Palestinian territory is not. Cities like Jericho and Bethany are filthy with little development since 1967. Bethlehem is more advanced. Tourism has made it more viable.

The vacant hillsides that existed between Jerusalem and Bethlehem before 1967 and the present are now one vast city uniting the two towns. The occupants are Jews. To expect Israel to vacate these newly developed areas is unrealistic.

These two nationalities have contested each other from the time of Abraham. Regrettably they are likely to continue to forever. There is enough wrong on both sides to go around.

Driving through part of the Gaza area one side of the road is Israeli-occupied, the other Palestinian. The same type soil is on both sides of the road. The Jewish side is green and highly productive. The Arab side is dry and barren. The Israeli government says the water rights between the two is equally divided 50-50, and it is. The challenge arises from the fact there are more than ten times as many Arabs living on their side that there are Jews on their side. The Arabs have to use so much of their water for human consumption there isn’t enough for irrigation.

A cartoon in the Jerusalem Post illustrates the challenge. It depicts an old Native American chief talking with the Prime Minister of Israel saying, “Let me tell you about swapping land for peace.”

The Psalmist said it well: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”

This video is taken from a gathering in Times Square on the Sunday evening it was revealed that Osama Bin Laden was dead….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4__MYjh64YE

The demise of this terrorist, the man behind financing the bombing of the World Trade Centers, brings with it a mix of emotions for me. Therefore, there are aspects of his demise that sadden me as well as aspects that gladden my heart.

The Aspects that Gladden my Heart

Many aspects of this capture/killing certainly gladden my heart. It certainly is a just war theory that brings about the searching for and destroying of al-Qaeda. It is also a principle of war that if one cuts off the head of the snake, the snake dies. While al-Qaeda is certainly a freak of nature in that other heads seem to be a part of this snake, the death of Bin Laden certainly has dealt a tremendous blow to the organization. Bin Laden is no longer among the living so can never again plot such a despicable, diabolical deed as the one this nation endured.

I am also glad that justice seems to have been meted out for the families of the victims in the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and the victims on the airplanes. Forty some passengers lost their lives, in a Pennsylvania field, trying to recover Flight #93. Their lives, while thwarting an attack, also meted out justice for those who had hijacked the flight. The best selling book authored by the wife of one of the passengers, Let’s Roll, expresses how Todd Beamer’s children were only 3, 18 months, and one still in the womb. Today we have children nearly 14 years old, 12 years old, and 10 years old that will only know their dad through published accounts. These are the children made famous because their mom had the where-with-all to put her emotions and thoughts in written form. What about those children whose parents never came home? What about those spouses who never came back that morning? What about that loved one who walked out of the house that day and the first thing their loved ones found was the half empty coffee cup left on the counter? These people have experienced just a small piece of justice with the death of Bin Laden.

I am glad that we have a President that made the call. This is a shock to many that know me as I have not always been one that believed in our current Commander-in-Chief. However, when the call needed to be made, he made it. Many have argued he used this for a political advantage. Others have chastised the media for giving our President credit when it was the Navy Seal Team 6 that went in. Whatever argument one comes up with, one only needs to be reminded this invasion would not have been possible without an affirmative word from the President of the United States of America. Thus, I am glad our President made that call.

I am glad that our nation, for a brief time, was brought together. For a brief time on that late Sunday night speech our nation was no longer Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent. For that brief time on that Sunday evening we were Americans. We were not African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-American, Native-American or any other adjectival American; we simply were Americans.

The Aspects that Sadden my Heart

As the story grows about the invasion and killing of Bin Laden I am saddened on various fronts.

First, it is the spiritual front. I am sad that Bin Laden did not know the true living God–Jehovah. Bin Laden devoted his life to the false God, promoted and adhered to by the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. Mohammed proclaimed the false God, Allah, as one who holds in balance the works of man. According to the Quran, Allah rewards good deeds and punishes evil deeds. Thus, Bin Laden had a life of works he depended on to get him to the false prophet’s heaven. I am grieved and saddened that Bin Laden has to spend eternity in Hell separated from the love of the one true God, our Heavenly Father. This separation is not due to Bin Laden’s lack of good works it is due to his rejection that Jesus Christ is God.

Second, I am sad by the way some have responded to the news of Bin Laden’s death. As a Christian I am instructed by the Bible not to take pleasure in the death of the wicked. It gives me no pleasure to see a wicked person die. Should they die in order for justice to be served? Yes, they should. Should I shout and holler praises for someone’s death? No, I should not. It is this type of celebration that brings me to another reason I am sad.

Third, I am sad that various celebrations across America seem to delight as if some sort of vigilante justice has been achieved. The celebrations in the street, such as the one in the video, appear to be out of vengeance instead of patriotism. Yes, they are shouting “USA,” but it is in response to a man being killed, not the war on terror being advanced. Patriotism in America was founded on justice, not vengeance. The American Revolution was a revolt against the king for the right to separate from the Crown; it was not a result of a vengeful heart. Certainly December 7, 1941 is a day that will forever live in infamy. However, we entered WWII, not to revenge the attack on Pearl Harbor, but to see that justice was meted out on those responsible. Navy Seal Team 6 was sent into that compound, not to seek vengeance, but to implement justice.

If we are attributing our celebration to the death of Bin Laden then we are failing miserably in understanding the theory of a Just War. This theory contains within it, not only the criteria for entering a war, but also the criteria in the manner by which we fight the war.

a)     Just Cause – A war is not justified merely for revenge or to punish those you believe have done wrong, but only when there is an immediate threat to life.
b)    Just Intent – A war is not justified by hatred or economic advantage, but only by the effort to secure justice and peace.
c)     Last Resort – A war may be begun only after every other viable alternative, peaceful solution, conflict resolution, or negotiated settlement has been attempted and proven futile.
d)    Legitimate Authority – A war cannot be declared by just anyone, but only by duly elected officials and leaders of a country who secure the appropriate approvals to initiate the war.
e)     Proportionality – The benefit of waging the war must be proportional to its cost.
f)     Comparative justice — The injury suffered by the offended nation must be sufficiently one-sided as to justify the cost of the war in life and property.
g)     Limited goals – The battles must be only for military aims, not for total destruction or for disproportionate civilian casualties.
h)    Probability of success – There must be some reasonable chance that the evils can be redressed by the war; it cannot be a futile effort to exact revenge.
i)      Avoid Hurting Noncombatants – Every effort should be made to avoid hurting or killing noncombatant civilian populations, such as bombing civilian residential areas.

If the killing of Osama Bin Laden was the purpose for America entering the war on terror, we have failed miserably in fulfilling the criteria for a just war. America never enters a war merely to destroy or remove a dictator or terrorist. Unless, by removing that dictator or terrorist, the criteria of a Just War has been satisfied.

Conclusion

How does one respond when the emotions are at such opposite ends of the emotional spectrum? One responds carefully and cautiously. Carefully because one certainly wants to remember that people died and there needs to be some justice regained for those who lost their loved ones. Let’s not forget as one who did lose a loved one said; “Bin Laden’s death will not bring back my son.” Cautiously, because the hurt we experienced as we witnessed the carnage of the Twin Towers falling, the Pentagon’s gaping hole in her side, and the burned area of the plane crash in the Pennsylvania field has the ability to bring about a bitterness of spirit.

Let us be glad that we have taken down one who had no problem killing his fellow Muslims and certainly took pleasure in killing Americans. But, let us be filled with grief that a human being had paid the ultimate price for his destructive, killing spree. While his deeds are too terrible to mention in some places those Navy Seals are reported to have placed their hands over the eyes and ears of the children in the room. They did this because they had compassion on those children and they did not want the last image of their father to be one of a bullet going into his head. That is what makes us Americans; we show compassion even in the process of meting out justice.

As Americans, we do not place the lives of innocent civilians in jeopardy to fulfill some sort of gratification of vengeance. America entered the war on terror under the Just War Theory for alleviating the world, not of Osama Bin Laden, but of a terrorist network that has infiltrated many of the Middle Eastern countries. Thus, if our celebrations are due to Osama Bin Laden’s demise we are no more than Wild West vigilantes. Let us celebrate that Bin Laden’s death is a milestone achieved in the war on terror and let us remain resolute to rid the world of terrorist organizations.

We need to pray for our nation.  We need to pray for God to watch over us.  We need to ask God to give our national leaders some good sense and wisdom.  And, we need to look to God for our strength.  Also, in November, we need to remember who it was that tried to lead our country into socialism and bankruptcy.   At the next Presidential election, we all need to remember who it was that caused our nation to take such a drastic step in the wrong direction.  We need to remember who these people were who wanted our tax dollars to fund abortions.  We need to remember the ones who wanted our country to make this big change in direction towards socialism, and higher taxes, and more government control over our lives.  I will remember.  Will you?

You can listen to the podcast right from the site using the player below, or, as many folks have done, subscribe to our podcast in iTunes and have it downloaded immediately when it becomes available each week. Click the podcast image in this post or the link in the sidebar to be taken to our iTunes page, and while you’re there, give us a rating and/or a review. We’d appreciate feedback, which you can put in a review there, or in a comment here. Let us know how we can improve the podcast.

Below are some links to the items we discussed in this episode. See you next week on the podcast.

• Trevin Wax’s blog discussion with Romanian Baptist leaders
• Oklahoma’s ultrasound law struck down
• Tornado warnings
• Richard Dawkins equating evolution skeptics with holocaust deniers
• Southwestern prof resigns to retain membership in Broadway Baptist Church
• National health care as moral concern

Whether it is Fred Phelps picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers with his “God Hates Fags” signs or Rev. Jeremiah Wright making outrageous statements about the US government inventing the HIV virus as a genocidal attack on people of color, one thing is certain, the union of the church and politics is always a perilous thing. There is a debate raging currently among evangelicals over what planks belong in the political platform of the movement. A new group is emerging which calls for the inclusion of environmental issues, poverty, AIDS, and fair wages. The old guard continues to focus on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and family. With no consensus evangelical candidate in this election cycle, there is a scramble between Republicans and Democrats for the evangelical voting block. Controversial endorsements are creating troubles for candidates in both parties. Whether it is John McCain having to distance himself from the likes of John Hagee or Barack Obama having to deflect the statements of Jeremiah Wright, the union of church and politics is creating quite a stir.

Is the pressure to use the influence of the church for political power really a biblical mandate? I don’t think so. To be sure, there is an emphasis in the New Testament on the church making an impact on its culture. Jesus did talk about His people being salt and light. He did emphasize the fact that the church ought to penetrate culture and make a difference. The question is “how does the church influence culture?” The New Testament answer to this question says almost nothing about political clout as a method for influencing culture. In fact, the early church had absolutely no political clout. The early church had a much greater impact on its culture than we do. Yet, they did it with no candidates, no voting privileges, no lobby, and no opportunity for involvement in the political process.

The early church influenced its culture by bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. It is clear that the goal of the church in the New Testament was not getting their man into office. Rather, it was getting the life-changing news of Jesus Christ to sinners. The gospel reminds us that the world’s problems are not primarily about broken social structures or economic inequities. The primary problem begins on an individual level with human sin. Hearts darkened by sin and separated from God are the fountain of all sorts of moral corruption. This cannot be repaired by legislators, presidents, or even judges. Christ alone changes the sinful heart. Societal change begins with heart change.

It also appears that the early Christians understood that Christ’s agenda for them was not a political one. Following Jesus’ lead, they realized that the kingdom of God was not going to be realized through the political machinery of the world. Jesus refused to let the people of His day make Him their king. The church understood that the gospel transcends the political systems and philosophies of the world. Their task was to make disciples of all nations, regardless of political persuasions or governmental structures. Theirs was an evangelistic task, not a political one. Their priorities were gospel priorities, not governmental ones.

Adopting a political agenda in the church leads to the confusion of our priorities. Too often the value of theological clarity is pitted against the value of broad-based political cooperation. Think of the fact that evangelicals have been so eager to join forces with Roman Catholics on political issues while downplaying their deep theological differences. One can hardly imagine Calvin and Luther promoting a coalition with the Pope to win victories in public policy. The forces of political expediency put great pressure on the church to trim our message. Too often evangelicals have sold their theological birthright for a bowl of political clout porridge.

Any genuine Christian prefers righteousness over wickedness. Christians in the USA have a great privilege to vote and participate in the formation of public policy. These are worthy duties of Christian citizens. However, let us not forget that the King of the Universe does not need the platform of the Presidency to accomplish His agenda for the church (or the world for that matter). As I heard Phil Johnson say recently at a conference, “If the question of who wins the presidency changes your shepherding agenda, you don’t have a sound strategy.” Pastors need to get back to their calling of teaching people the Word of God and challenging their congregations to adopt Jesus’ agenda for the church. Salt and light are metaphors of gospel penetration not political pressure.

He is a gracious man to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. His faithfulness to the Lord’s call to minster to His people, to lead his family to honor God, and to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those who are lost, is a worthy example for us all to emulate.

In the course of this interview, Dr. Vines shares his thoughts and convictions regarding why he is Southern Baptist, the impact of the current trends of Calvinism in our convention, our response to the challenge of postmodernism, and other issues.

Enjoy!