Is the Israeli Claim for Homeland, Reasonable, and War Beneficial?

Continuing on the subject of ethics and moral choices, let us think if war is a beneficial option. As a case in point, we shall consider Israel – a nation constantly at war. Israel is a country many hate to love and love to hate. Some Christians hate Israel! These are often ardent supporters of the notion that the Israelis have been unjustly awarded occupation of their homeland by the UN.

If the Israelis were not given the land for habitat, the Christian animosity against Israel would be nonexistent. If Israeli occupation is reasonable, the Israelis and the UN ought not to be blamed, and the Christians are being unreasonable in their animosity towards Israel. Conversely, if Israeli occupation is unjust, Israelis and the UN have erred, and the Christian animosity could be considered reasonable.

May the following questions lead us into a conclusion. First, are the Jews a legitimate race? The answer is an uncomplicated YES. Unlike other races such as Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Philistines that were either destroyed or merged into another culture to lose their identity,¹ the Jewish race survives to this day. 

Second, ‘where were the Jews before they converged into their homeland?’  An undisputable answer is that they were in other parts of the world - America, Germany, Russia, Sweden...

Third, ‘why did the Jews disperse to the various parts of the world?’ Biblical and extra-biblical history affirm that the Jews lost possession of their homeland due to the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusaders, Mamluk, and Ottoman conquests, hence had to disperse.

The Jews indeed lived in their homeland before the Roman conquest. Prior to the Roman conquest, the timeline of Jewish history was:

1. Exodus from Egypt

2. Settlement of the Israelites in Israel.

3. Establishment of Jewish monarchy with Jerusalem as capital (King Saul to King Solomon). The first temple built in Jerusalem by King Solomon.

4. United Israel divides into Northern (Israel) and Southern (Judah) Kingdoms.

5. Israel crushed by Assyrians and Judah by Babylonians. Jerusalem and the first temple destroyed, and Jews exiled.

6. Many Jews return from exile during Persian and Hellenistic periods; the temple rebuilt.

7. Israel suffers further conquests; Jews exiled.

           

Although the Jews were exiled to different parts of the world, they began to immigrate into their homeland during the Ottoman rule. In 1909, Tel Aviv – an all-Jewish city - was founded.

Given these facts, one can deduce that:

1. The Jews are a race with a homeland from as early as the 13^th – 12^th century BC/BCE. The Jewish race survives to this day, maintaining its national identity. (Israel was rechristened to Palestine in 5 BC.²)

2. The Jews were exiled to various parts of the world due to foreign conquests, but they returned in parts even before the UN legitimized Israel’s homeland in 1948.  

3. Therefore, the Jewish claim to Palestine is not utterly outrageous as some Christians propose, but vastly reasonable and legitimate. The decision of the United Nations, to grant Israelis the land, was reasonable and credible.

“If the Arabs put down their weapons there would be no more conflict, but if Israelis put down their weapons down there would be no more Israel.” ³ If this quote is valid, we concede Israel’s right to defend herself against any aggression. Alternately, there is a possibility that the UN erred in awarding the land to Israel (should be substantiated through objectively credible evidences). This presents a situation of an aggressor and a defender. So we ask, ‘Is there morality in war?’ Can war be justified (Just War) or is “Pacifism” (no violence in a war) the only answer to peace in the world?  

The first existential reality is the presence of evil in this world (all forms of unjust aggression that destroys people and societies rather irreparably).  When evil is existent, do we remain quiet or oppose? To what extent are we to oppose evil?

In case of a communal violence, if armed police are present on the scene, should they be pacifistic and allow the carnage or should they curtail the evil aggression even if it warrants elimination of evil elements? This situation is a no-brainer, I vote for the armed police to use their weapon. Translating this into a context of national security, ‘how should one nation respond to an evil neighbor’s war against it?’ Should the defending nation remain pacifistic to allow the evil nation to maraud and massacre or should it defend itself at the cost of a few or many human lives? Once again, I vote for an adequate defense than being pacifistic.

Let us consider another case in point for the purpose of examining pacifism and the Just War theory. In June 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. These nations had amassed their troops on the Israeli borders. Based on sight and intelligence that these nations were out to destroy, Israel destroyed the Egyptian air force and moved into the Golan Heights (held by Syria) and the West Bank (held by Jordan).When aggression is evidenced by military amassment, a preemptive strike is a better option, for it prevents loss of lives from the defending nation.

A conflict between two pure and righteous entities is not an existential reality, as both entities will abstain from destruction. In conflicts, we observe a lesser and a greater evil, or shall we say, lesser and a greater good. In such cases, one would prefer lesser evil or greater good. While determining the lesser evil or the greater good, people disagree and a conflict ensues. This is predominantly due to subjectification of a latent or an obsessive bias intrinsic to an individual. Permit me to contextualize this thought.

When Christians think on Israel, they could reason through dispensational or covenant theology (Replacement theology / Supersessionism).  The former espouses Israel and the church as distinct entities, and the latter replaces Israel with the church. But these doctrines are associated with specific methods of biblical hermeneutics. The dispensationalists adopt literal hermeneutics and the covenant theologians allegorize the prophetic passages. Thus, we sense a complex web where one leads to another – literal hermeneutics leads to Dispensationalism, which leads to supporting Israel unequivocally.

I have attempted to investigate this subject by scrutinizing Israel from a non-theological standpoint, to determine if there is reasonability in the Israeli claim to their homeland. Through a factual examination, I understand Israel’s claim to be reasonable. If Israel employs unjust violence to pursue her valid and reasonable claim, I disagree with their modus operandi.

Finally, does a Just War betray the Lord Jesus Christ’s teachings on love and turning the other cheek? Is the Lord a Pacifist? Of course, the Lord advocates pacifism in many contexts. However, one should diligently observe the deeds of an immutable God in the past, present and the future. The Bible does not teach absolute pacifism, for we are called to love good and hate evil (Romans 12: 9). The Bible narrates numerous contexts where God used war to eliminate evil. In fact, God designed our immune system to constantly wage war against any alien intrusions so to keep us healthy. Thus the following can be reasonably postulated:

1. There is evil in this world.

2. Presence of evil posits a source of evil, namely Satan.

3. God eliminated evil through the means of war (E.g.            

Deuteronomy 7).

4. A holy and a Just God will eliminate Satan/evil permanently 

(Revelation 19 & 20).

5. Pacifism posits non-violence, but the Lord, in eliminating Satan forever, will wage war (Revelation 19: 11bff).

6. Thus, Christ, the second person of the blessed Godhead, does not posit absolute Pacifism.

If an individual preaches absolute Pacifism, he ought to answer many questions, of which some are: would he allow a violent mob to massacre and loot the innocent? If the pacifist responds in affirmative, does he really love his helpless society, so to obey God’s commands, or is he merely in love with his pacifistic ideology?

As individual Christians we are not to battle evil with arms. If that were the case, our perpetual task will be militancy against evil. Just War, from a nation’s perspective, is acceptable only when there is an evil/unjust aggression involved that strives to destroy the sanctity of lives. Just War should also involve: just cause, just intent, last resort activity, formal declaration of a war, limited objectives, proportionate use of force, and respecting noncombatant immunity.

Here is my conclusion:

1. The award of homeland to Israel was a reasonable and a legitimate decision, so Christians’ hatred for Israel is an exaggeration. However, any nation’s (Israel included) use of unjust violence is to be opposed.

2. The Bible does not teach absolute Pacifism. A nation can defend itself from any unjust/evil aggression.

3. Individual Christians are not to battle evil with arms, but should cooperate with the State and be law abiding citizens.

References:

¹ http://www.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/existence-of-the-jewish-people-today-is-objective-evidence-that-the-bible-is-true/

² According to some views. Another view states that Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name to Palestine.

³ Quote ascribed to anonymity, as far as I am aware of. 

Birth Control: A Christian Perspective in Sexual Ethics

A young woman uses a birth control pill and seeks to know if her act was sinful or not. A newly married couple desire temporary birth control to avoid early pregnancy. They believe the Bible’s teaching that children are a gift from God, so they seek advice about the validity of birth control from a biblical standpoint. Likewise, couples who believe their family is just the right size, may seek permanent birth control. Being in their forties and done with having children, they believe their family is just the right size. These real life questions seek not blind dogmatism, but reasonable answers to quench our soul’s thirst to please God by remaining on the godly side of ethics.

To gain better understanding, two questions should be answered: Is birth control acceptable, and if so, which methods are within the biblical framework?

In general, culture and religious adherents desire birth control for they deem it acceptable. However, the Roman Catholic teaching forbids birth control. Aquinas in his work Summa Contra Gentiles candidly rejected the practice of contraception, for it was ‘unnatural’ and a grave sin. Aquinas firmly believed that procreation is the natural physical outcome of a sexual intercourse.¹ Thus, any moral disputes regarding birth control is more from a religious standpoint, since nonbelievers take birth control for granted. However, since 1951, the Roman Catholic Church has provided official backing for the ‘rhythm’ method (sexual intercourse during the infertile phases of a woman’s reproductive cycle). The unreliability of the rhythm method, however, is a valid concern.

Does the Bible prohibit birth control? Scott Rae emphatically denies any form of biblical prohibition against birth control. He states that Onan’s crude form of employing birth control (Genesis 38: 9-10) was not to fulfill the duty and the responsibilities associated with raising a child.²

Some religiously mandate procreation to be the duty of man, thereby imposing religious shackles on birth control. However, marriage was primarily designed by God as a union of two individuals into one flesh. Procreation was the secondary aspect of marriage. Sexual intercourse has a twin purpose, ‘generative’ (to produce life) and ‘relational’ (enriching a marriage relationship). The generative purpose cannot always be attained because of various reasons such as, medical conditions, age of the wife etc. Thus, “married couples can have sex without procreation without violating any moral norm,” states Scott Rae.³

Some religious adherents could contend that God’s purpose for marriage was to ‘fill the earth’ (cf. Genesis 1: 28). A mere glance at the recent population statistics and its future predictions is concrete enough to present a persuasive case for the earth being ‘houseful’ now! Thereby the mandate to ‘fill the earth and subdue’ is already realized. This entails that the married couples who choose not to have children for all the right reasons need not be morally guilty for violating this biblical mandate.

The Bible is silent about the size of a family. When or how many children a couple should have is not stated in the Bible. One can argue either for a generous or a tight spacing between children. But stewardship is the key essence in spacing between children. If a couple decide to employ birth control techniques to avoid bearing children in tight spacing, one can argue that this couple is doing good to their own home (to pave way for proper parenting) and their society (not taxing the world’s resources). We can also justify this from the perspective of the family’s economical situation. If a family cannot provide for two children in a tight space of two years, then they need only to bear one. Having many children in an unaffordable situation damages the family’s financial situation, and thereby the peace and the health of the family. Thus birth control to space out or stop having children in a family is a profitable act of stewardship.

There is another delicate divine side to birth control. A couple can decide to use birth control to be good stewards of their God given resources. However, the sovereign God can overrule birth control procedures and gift this couple with a child. The birth of an unplanned or unwanted child does not offer the couple any incentive to abandon or neglect the child. They should trust in God to provide for the holistic wellness of this child.

The sovereign God who overrules birth control enforces birth control through HIS creational intent - the menopause of a woman, where she stops releasing eggs monthly. Thus the same God who mandated procreation also terminates procreation in HIS creation. Or we could infer that there is a God-ordained time limit for a couple to bear children.

If temporary birth control is ordained by God, there should be no valid reason against permanent birth control for the right reasons. There could be medical reasons prohibiting a woman from bearing children or a couple may even decide against having more children. In such instances, women or men may rightly employ permanent birth control. But what method of birth control can be employed?

Any ‘contraceptive’ method (preventing conception) is morally acceptable. But ‘abortifacient’ (causing abortion) methods are morally problematic. “IUDs prevent implantation, and RU-486 causes an implanted embryo to evacuate the uterus. Both are problematic from the view that embryos have full moral status” writes Scott Rae.⁴ (My previous blog “The Dilemma of Abortion” offers an insight into the moral problems in abortion.)

What about birth control pill or the morning-after pill? Many women use a birth control pill to avoid pregnancy. There is a contraceptive aspect to these pills which is not problematic (suppressing ovulation and thickening the cervical mucous to prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg in the case of birth control pill, and a very high dose of oestrogen & progesterone in the case of morning-after pill). Some medical professionals argue that there is an abortifacient aspect to these pills, which if proven, presents a valid moral problem. But the presence of an abortifacient aspect still remains inconclusive. If one considers usage of these pills, it is wise to consult a morally credible physician and be honest with him/her about your moral values and concerns about birth control. It is not a matter of one’s personal preference, but it is a matter of one’s conscience, which is consumed by God, until medical science proves the nature of these pills.

Thus, one can employ contraceptive methods for birth control, since sexual intercourse between married couples has a primary creational intent which is to enrich a marriage relationship.

In today’s world we see, read, and hear of unmarried youngsters gulping birth control pills to satisfy their sexual lusts. This reality has to be dealt with by considering the ‘premarital’ aspect of the sexual intercourse, and not the ‘birth control’ aspect. I will communicate my comprehension about premarital sex in my next blog.

The good Lord will always bless and keep you and yours. Amen.

References:

¹ Richard Higginson, Dilemmas: A Christian Approach to Moral Decision-Making, p87-89, 1988.

² Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p287-288, 2009.

³ Ibid., 288.

⁴ Ibid., 289.

⁵ Ibid.

The Dilemma of Abortion.

           Some situations we may face regarding abortion are: a decision to abort or to teach/advise or express an opinion. Whatever the case may be, our fundamentals on abortion should be architected on a solid foundation.

Two positions exist in the abortion debate: pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (accepting abortion). The pro-life position argues that the unborn is a person (a human being with life), hence should not be killed. The pro-choice groups have posited many arguments favoring abortion with one central assumption - that the unborn is not a full person. A few important pro-choice arguments are presented here:

1. The woman has the right to choose:

If the woman can choose what she wants to do, then by the same logic one should not condemn drugs, prostitution, suicide or the likes. Simply speaking, if a person can do what he wants, then all actions against one’s own body should be permissible. But we do not have an absolute claim over our own body! For example, a prostitute cannot justify her profession under the guise of poverty, a married man cannot solicit a prostitute for the sake of his pleasure, and a person cannot abuse his body through illegal drugs. Similarly, the woman has no absolute right over her body to make any choice.

Moreover, the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body, as a hand or an eye is a part. The fetus is attached to the mother through an umbilical cord but is not a native part of her body. The fetus, in many cases, has a separate gender identity (male). Thus, it is nonnormative to include a differently gendered part (fetus) as a native part of the woman. Only through a denial of its own identity can the fetus be considered a part of a woman’s body. This is a confusingly ridiculous proposition. Since the fetus is not an innate part of woman’s body, she loses her right to do what she wants.

2. The woman should not be forced to continue her pregnancy from rape or incest:

This is an emotionally compelling argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion. This argument posits justice to the woman for she cannot be punished with a child due to imposed pregnancy (lack of consensual sex). But justice is applicable to the fetus too! If the woman should not be penalized on account of imposed pregnancy, how can the fetus be penalized with death over the sin of his/her father? Furthermore, it would be more difficult to verify the rape claim of a woman seeking an abortion. Thus, this argument tilts in favor of pro-life or shall we say that the pro-choice lacks strength in this argument.

3. The woman should not be forced to deliver severely handicapped children:

As in the previous situation, the woman lacks the fundamental right to choose abortion. If killing a severely deformed fetus is valid, then killing a severely deformed or a handicapped child is also valid. Just as no one would accept killing a severely handicapped child (because of his personhood), the unborn fetus cannot be killed because of its personhood.

The personhood of the Fetus:

If the fetus is inanimate and not a person (with life), then discarding it is not a concern. After all, discarding something without life is tantamount to shredding a paper to bits or dumping garbage. But, if the fetus has life, then discarding it is tantamount to killing a child that cannot defend itself - a serious sin.¹

If the fetus has life, then it is a person with full human rights. But the contention is to determine the time during gestation when the fetus becomes a person. Pro-choice groups often delineate an arbitrary distinction between the fetus being a human being and the fetus being a person. But, the fetus does not undergo a change in its essence during its gestation, and even into adulthood. Moreover, science is yet to discover the time when actual personhood begins in the fetus. If that be the case, one should err on the side of life, for one should not risk the life of a fetus for it could well be a person. As Scott Rae writes, “uncertainty about the status of the fetus justifies caution, not abortion.”² 

Pro-choice groups have posited several breaks during the gestation of the fetus for the time of the beginning of its personhood to justify the killing of the unborn. ‘Viability,’ ‘Onset of brain activity,’ Sentience,’ ‘Quickening,’ ‘Implantation,’ and ‘Birth’ are these stages. But none of these breaks are empirically sufficient to justify the killing of the fetus.³ Scott Rae presents a compelling case for the personhood of the fetus from the time of conception:

 (A) An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception (this premise has hardly any debate).

(B) From conception to adulthood, this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus (this is the debatable premise, but…all proposed breaks do not have a bearing on the nature of the fetus).

(C) Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (this conclusion follows from the above two premises).⁴

The fetus has a unique and a separate genetic identity from conception. It possesses all capacities to mature into a full adult, thus the fetus is a full human being. The full personhood of the fetus compels the mother to bear all responsibility for the wellness of the fetus. Any failure on the part of the mother incriminates her.

Is abortion a sin? What does the Bible teach?

(1) God is actively involved in the creation and sustenance of the fetus from conception (Jeremiah 1: 5; Isaiah 49: 1; Psalm 139: 13-16).

(2) Bible uses the terms ‘conception’ and ‘birth’ interchangeably (Job 3:3; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49: 1; Psalm 51: 5), implying the fetus as a person from birth. In fact, Psalm 51: 5 states a continuity of personal identity (as a sinner) from conception to birth. The Greek term for a baby, ‘brephos’ is applied to a child in the womb (Luke 1: 41-44) and a newborn baby (Luke 2: 16), for Christ’s incarnation was recognized from the time of conception. 

Thus, it is evident that the Bible affirms the personhood of the fetus from conception, and that God is actively involved in fashioning the fetus from conception. HE knows us even before our conception. If a man kills the fetus, then it’s not only equivalent to killing a full human being, but it’s also equivalent to rebelling against God’s design of a human from conception (cf. Exodus 20: 13). Man sins when he rebels against God. Since abortion is a sin against God, a man should not abort his unborn baby.

But what about a medical situation that forces us to choose either the life of the mother or baby? If the doctor can save only one life, which is either that of the mother or the baby, what should be our choice? The dilemma here is not pro-life or pro-choice, but a combination of both – either the life of the mother or the baby. This is not a simple predicament. However, if all factors being normal (e.g. mother can resume healthy life); I would choose the mother over the baby. My reasoning is that the baby requires the mother for a normal life. If the mother dies, the baby cannot live a normal life (the baby would be raised without mother’s presence and love). However, the mother can resume a normal life at a certain point in time. Hence, my choice is for the mother to live, on the basis of normalcy. But this isn’t an easy decision.⁵

What about embryonic stem cell research? Any research that kills or damages the embryo, even for a greater good - a potential research to save a life in future - remains unacceptable. Just as a terrorist is condemned for believing that killing another will promote his or his people’s wellness, any scientific research should be unacceptable if it involves killing. 

Therefore, since the fetus is a person, it is the duty of the parents and the society to protect and save the unborn. Amen.  

Notes and References:

(1) This essay is largely an extract from Scott Rae’s work, ‘Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics,’ barring sporadic interposals of my thoughts. 

¹ We will not try to comprehend in detail the apparent contradiction in the Bible that portrays God as a cruel being desiring to kill the infants and children (Numbers 31: 17; 1 Samuel 15: 3; Psalm 135: 8, 136: 10, 137: 9 et al.). The Pro-choice groups use these verses to validate their claim. But, these verses ought to be seen in their context of judgment. Moreover, it is only the giver of life who has the sole authority to take away that life. If you are employed in an organization, your managing authority has the sole power to fire you, not anyone else in the organization. The rebelling man who does not subjugate himself to God’s authority will always doubt and question God.

² Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p139, 2009.

³ “Viability” is a point in time when the fetus can live on its own outside the womb. Medical technology constantly pushes viability back to the earlier stages of pregnancy, hence viability keeps changing. Viability also changes from fetus to fetus, and place to place (high technology America to rural India). But the fact remains that there is no link between the fetus’ ability to survive independently outside the womb and its personhood (essence). Thus, viability is more a referral to fetus’ location and dependency than its essence (personhood).

If death is a cessation of all of the brain’s activity, then one could rationally state that life begins when the brain begins to function, which approximately is at about 45 days into the pregnancy. But the crucial distinction is that the brain of a dead man is irreversibly dead – it cannot be revived. On the other hand, the fetus prior to 45 days possesses the latent (dormant) capability to develop into a full-fledged brain. In other words, the fetus with a latent brain activity is essentially different from a dead man whose brain can never regain activity. Thus, any pro-choice argument pertaining to the brain’s activity would be unconvincing.

Likewise one can argue that the fetus gains personhood during ‘sentience’ (point when fetus experiences sensations) or ‘quickening’ (when the mother feels fetus’ movement) or ‘implantation’ (embryo establishes its presence in the womb by producing signals or hormones) or ‘birth’ (birth of baby). But we can reasonably and rationally argue that the personhood of the fetus remains independent of these stages. For example, ‘birth’ signifies a change in location of the fetus from within the womb to the outside. But, change in location (from within the womb to its outside) does not change the personhood of the fetus. Since the beginning of personhood remains inconclusive during these stages, we can reasonably and rationally argue that the fetus has full personhood from the moment of conception.

⁴ Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p142, 2009.

⁵ For more information on choosing mother’s life over the fetus, you could read Richard Higginson’s work, Dilemmas: A Christian Approach to Moral Decision Making, p190, 1988.