Constantinian Ethics at their Worst

https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/how-do-christians-in-the-military-love-their-enemies-and-do-good-to-them

A follow up to:

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2023/07/an-ugly-christian-life.html

The commenter to the previous Rowlands piece innocently asked about Matthew 5 and the command to love enemies. And rightly so as this effectively destroys Rowlands' argument. And this passage is far from alone. Rowlands is advocating for a Christianity that is opposed to New Testament ethics - and yet it's a value system that tickles ears and effectively reigns within the contemporary Evangelical Church.

As expected Rowlands cites Romans 13, and as expected ignores Romans 12, relying on the imposed and misleading chapter division which breaks up Paul's train of thought and juxtaposition of roles and principles. There's a separation between the chapters that echoes Paul's statement to the Corinthians when he suggests that there are those who are 'outside' (1 Cor 5) - and by implication they (and their concerns) are not our concern.

This type of thinking is also hinted at elsewhere by Peter when he refers to the false prophets that make merchandise of God's people, cause the Church to be evil spoken of (2 Peter 2) and he likewise condemns those meddle in other men's affairs (1 Peter 4). Given the totality of apostolic thought in the New Testament (and the covenantal parallels) one can argue this condemnation applies to the Dominion Theology of the Evangelical movement and its propensity to influence politics and to seek standing and even prominence within the corridors of power.

As Christ said, let the dead bury their dead. Providence employs various means to restrain evil (such as the state) and we are not to war against it. Nowhere does Paul suggest that we should participate in its actions or that its use of the sword is righteous. It is a minister in the same vein as Assyria and Babylon under the Old Covenant. They are referred to as God's Servant. This does not mean they have covenant standing or a Divine Kingdom mandate as Rowlands and so many of his ilk seem to suggest.

As far as the whole line about defending the defenseless and so forth - all I can say is, I truly pity someone who has read so little history and has so little understanding of it that they are susceptible to this kind of state and nationalist propaganda. Maybe he's read a lot. I don't know. But if he has then he's limited himself to a certain category of court historians or is just really lacking in terms of curiosity and reflection.

War is demonic and even in conflicts such as World War II the evil is patent on all sides with mass murder, theft, and rape in abundance. When it comes to other American wars such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the dozens of other small conflicts, one is hard pressed to make a moral case either in terms of cause or conduct. Nevertheless there are those who try. Whether their attempts place loyalty over truth or are cases of delusion is up for debate.

Christ did not commend soldiers. This is a gross misreading of the text, a case of wanton eisegesis. It is a travesty.

In Rowlands twisted world the beautiful Christian life is turned into an ugly counterfeit and duty becomes a cloak for atrocity. New Testament ethics are mocked and the Kingdom is replaced by the Tower of Babel.