Proverbs 26:17 - “Whoever meddles in
a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.”
The war in
Ukraine has caused quite the stir. The wars in Yemen, Somalia and Syria, all
involving the West and its allies, continue to be non-events as far as the
media and most Aussies are concerned. But the war in Ukraine has caused a stir,
and it is causing people to divide over whether or not we should intervene, or
for some, how we should intervene, because many just consider intervention to
be what the West should do. I want to strongly argue against intervention. I
did not always see things this way, I used to be in agreement with the Neoconservative
position on interventionism. I thought the West could spread civilisation via
military intervention. I even informed myself on the topic by reading leading
advocates of Neoconservative thought. For example, Douglas Murray, who
published Neoconservatism: Why we need it, in 2005. Aside from noting
the different publishing date, Wikipedia summarizes this book very well,
“Neoconservatism: Why We Need It is a 2006 book by Douglas Murray, in
which the author argues that neoconservatism offers a coherent platform from
which to tackle genocide, dictatorships and human rights abuses in the modern
world, that the terms neoconservativism and neocon are often both
misunderstood and misrepresented, and that neoconservativism can play a
progressive role in the context of modern British politics.
The book was described by the Social Affairs Unit as "a
vigorous defence of the most controversial political philosophy of our
age".[1]
The book is
an eloquent defence of the kind of military action that George Bush and his
administration took when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. To put it simply,
the book makes the case that the West should take democracy all over the world,
including by force if necessary and use their might and wealth to solve the
injustices of the world. As I said, the book is eloquent, but is essentially
nonsense, and in retrospect, dangerous nonsense.
The American
wars in the Middle East have served to destabilize a region that has deep roots
to the most ancient civilisations in the world. Societies with deeply
entrenched patterns of behaviour and thought. You can’t change this with a
battalion of Marines. We may be militarily stronger at the moment, but the idea
that we can promote to these ancient peoples “superior” ideas at the muzzle of an
M4 assault rifle and threat of an F22 jet fighter is completely foolish.[2]
So, I don’t
reject neo-conservatism without understanding it very well. I once was a big
believer that we should use our militaries to solve many of the world’s
problems
The result
of the Arab spring I was referring to, was the further destabilization of the
Middle East. What I was ignoring at the time was the major cause of that
destabilization was Western intervention in a region where we have no right to
be, and where we have little knowledge of how to really navigate, and where we have
continually exacerbated existing problems. The idea that a few years, or even a
couple of decades of rule via imperial military force can wipe away millennia
of cultural feuds and conflicts, and ideas about how civilisation can work is
the height of foolishness and the peak of human arrogance.
There are
civilisations in the Middle East that have forged their identity in resisting
the invader, for millennia. Only the naïve think we can change this in even a
lifetime. Eventually many of those who had previously supported the wars
realized this was the case, and that they were foolish. There is a reason so
many conservatives, libertarians, and right wingers loved Trump’s
anti-intervention election rhetoric, because we had all seen how much of a
disaster foreign wars could be. However, some people think we just went about
it wrong, and should still try to intervene.
When I am
arguing with people about why we should not intervene in foreign wars, I am not
just arguing against those people, I am arguing against young Matt, who wrongly
believed the West had every right to stamp its authority on the destabilized
regions of the world. After all, we have a superior way of life, were we not
doing the developing world a favour by seeking to show it our wars? We have the
benefit of hindsight to say intervening was a disaster. We also have the
benefit of the perspective of the Bible on this issue.
As I
demonstrated in my previous post on intervention, Jesus shows us that intervening in foreign
conflicts is not an automatic Christian concern. Here is another example: “13
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the
inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or
arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:13-14). Jesus knew there was wisdom in keeping
out of a fight that was not his.
Jesus’
perspective here correctly reflects the words inspired by him in Proverbs 26:17,
“He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one
that taketh a dog by the ears.” When someone interferes in a fight, they think
they are making two friends. But more likely they are making one friend and an
enemy, and sometimes two enemies. There is wisdom in not engaging in a fight
which is not your concern, and a leader must be focused on doing what is
necessary for their people. Even in this regard Jesus limited himself because
who better to judge between these two men than him, yet he chose not to. The
Old Testament shows us why Jesus felt so strongly about this.
A lot of
people who discuss this topic use vague and tangential verses like the parable
of the Good Samaritan or the concept of being our brother’s keeper, or of
defending the cause of the needy to seek to justify intervention. But these are
all passages about how individuals should treat each other or how kings should
judge their own nations. They are not about geo-political issues. Those who
rely on such passages are ignoring so many direct passages which actually teach
foundational biblical concepts about national sovereignty and geo-politics.
When people ignore the directly relevant passages, and simply seek to build up
a case based on unrelated passages, you can know their case is weak, but their
will to prove their point is strong. The Bible has much to say on this issue of
intervention and sovereignty, and I want to give you three biblical pillars of
anti-interventionism, with this first here, and the next two in part two. The
first pillar is the sovereignty of nations, or the sovereignty of leaders over
their own people.
Sovereignty
of Nations
God designed
nations to be sovereign, and to be self-governed within their borders.
Deuteronomy 32:8 – “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when
he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number
of the sons of God.”[3]
This passage is referring to the table of nations in Genesis 10. These nations
are to be ruled by their leaders from among their own people;
“14 When you come to the land that the Lord your God is
giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king
over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king
over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you
shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not
your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the
people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has
said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not
acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire
for himself excessive silver and gold” (Deut 17:14-17).
Israel was
to ensure that they were ruled by their own peoples, not by foreigners. This is
God’s ideal state for a nation. A nation ruled by foreigners, or overcome by
foreigners, is a cursed nation;
“5 Ashkelon shall see it, and be afraid; Gaza too, and shall
writhe in anguish; Ekron also, because its hopes are confounded. The king shall
perish from Gaza; Ashkelon shall be uninhabited; 6 a mixed people shall dwell
in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of Philistia” (Zechariah 9:5-6).
God’s
intention is for nations to be self-governed. This immediately tells us that
interfering in another nation is not the correct purview of national leaders,
their role is to serve and lead their own people;
“1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy
against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the
shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been
feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you
clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not
feed the sheep. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not
healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought
back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled
them. 5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became
food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; 6 they wandered over all
the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face
of the earth, with none to search or seek for them” (Ezekiel 34:1-6).
Or as Jesus
tells us, “He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Jesus is essentially summarizing the Old Testament’s
theology of national leadership. Nations were to leave each other alone, and
not to seek to rule over each other. They could trade with each other, but not
interfere with each other (c.f. Deut. 2:6-8). When a nation is invaded, and
overcome, this is a sign that God has withdrawn his favour from that nation.
This teaching
really should be enough to ensure that nations do not interfere with other
nations. The leaders of a nation only have authority within that nation. If
they interfere with another nation, that did not provoke them, then they are
stepping outside of their God-given authority. God allows this to happen in the
Scriptures, for example when he allowed Babylon to rise to power. But many
passages explicitly tell us that he did this as means of judgement on the
nation of Israel and her neighbours.
For example,
in Habakkuk God tells the prophet that he is raising up the Babylonians to
judge the land;
“5 Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For
I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told. 6 For
behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march
through the breadth of the earth, to seize dwellings not their own. 7 They are
dreaded and fearsome; their justice and dignity go forth from themselves” (Hab.
1:5-7).
But this
does not give us the right to think we have the authority to do this, because
God also judges Babylon for rising itself up above the nations;
“9 Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house, to set his
nest on high, to be safe from the reach of harm! 10 You have devised shame for
your house by cutting off many peoples; you have forfeited your life. 11 For
the stone will cry out from the wall, and the beam from the woodwork respond”
(Hab. 2:9-11).
Nations are
sovereign only over their own peoples. Anything more goes beyond the biblical
intentions for nations and causes nothing but strife. This pillar should
suffice, but the Bible gives us even more wisdom on this topic, which we will
explore in part two.
[2] Of
course while some neo-conservatives want to spread democracy across the world,
others believe the U.S. exists to protect Israel’s interests (for example the
Israel lobbies and Christian Zionist movements), and there are of course
economic interests. We cannot go into details about this here, but if you would
like to learn more, watch this lecture: https://youtu.be/RTksWA1I2UI
“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: John J. Mearsheimer.”
[3] A
divergent manuscript traditions translates this the sons of Israel (Jacob), but
Israel did not exist when the original nations were divided and established.
No comments:
Post a Comment