After reading a bit from General Boykin’s “apology” regarding his comments about his role as God’s warrior in the war on terrorism, I thought I’d better clarify my position a bit. Here’s the chunk that caught my attention:

“I believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men, to include nations, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently stated. Yes I believe that George Bush was placed in the White House by God as well as Bill Clinton and other presidents.”

First, I need to be quite picky from a linguistic/theological perspective. His first sentence doesn’t ring true for me theologically. God doesn’t intervene in the affairs of men (*ahem* humanity) — the affairs of humanity are all a part of God’s grand plan. That’s predestination in a nutshell (a very small, simple nutshell, but a nutshell nonetheless). God doesn’t just stand by, watching the world passively, deciding to do something here and there. The affairs of the world are happening just as God planned them. But that’s a whole other discussion, and one which I’m not sure I’m qualified to lead.

But what really made me do a double take what the second sentence. There is definite Biblical truth in his second sentence. Don’t believe me? Here’s Romans 13:1:

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

Now, your interpretation of Boykin’s first sentence will affect how you interpret his second sentence, and Romans 13:1. Personally, I read Romans 13 (see my previous post about the pledge) as saying “God is in control, and as long your ruler isn’t directly asking you to go against God, don’t you worry about a thing.” I don’t know what Boykin’s personal theology is, especially regarding free will/predestination, but like I said, he hit on a kernel of truth. But I think he believes that Romans 13 means that his leader (GW Bush) was appointed by God to the leader of a holy war against terrorism, and the godless masses. And I can’t really agree with that, though I’ve got no proof to deny his claims.

But I stand by my previous remarks about what Boykin said about his role in the war on terrorism. It had the sound of a crusade for God, using the sword. For me, that just doesn’t mesh well with the concept of Jesus Christ, prince of peace. Certainly it has some resemblence of the wars of the Old Testament, but didn’t Christ come to do away with those sorts of battles?

Posted on 22 October 2003