October 2016
As Americans everywhere are one month away from electing their next president, the competency of the future president in the roles of chief diplomat and commander in chief is more relevant than ever.
The next president will have to address familiar foreign policy topics such as support of Israel and trade with China, as well as newer issues like the war on ISIL, recent Russian aggression, and the use of military drones. What actions he or she chooses and how they are carried out will have far-reaching consequences. Both as Christians and as responsible citizens, how do we want our leader and our government to engage the world?
If we are truly seeking to “live wholeheartedly as Christ’s agents of renewal in the world” as Calvin College’s mission statement suggests we should, we cannot be satisfied with a foreign policy of isolationism. Where we see brokenness and injustice in the world, we are called as Christians to renew and redeem in Christ’s name. Scripture teaches us in Isaiah 1:17 to “learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression, bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” Some evils in the world can only be efficiently solved by government intervention, and many Christian thinkers have recognized this for centuries. Saint Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are credited with developing the jus bellum iustum, or just war theory, a doctrine laying out criteria which, when met, justify a war. Just war or intervention that seeks justice or ends oppression is not only good, but may be seen as our duty as a world power. In A Christian Declaration on American Foreign Policy, the editors of Providence Magazine go so far as to say:“Like the man who hid his talent in the ground, refusing to invest it for fear of failure, the United States would be irresponsible if it stood idly by, abdicated its global responsibilities, and refused to put our power in the service of the common good.”1From this view, pure isolationism and inaction are intolerable options for American foreign policy.
The next president of the United States will need to skillfully craft his or her foreign policy on a case-by-case basis...
On the other hand, other Christian voices worry more about encouraging a trigger-happy, hawkish foreign policy from our leaders. The president of the United States should be able to handle a crisis diplomatically and in a level-headed manner. Turning again to Scripture, Ecclesiastes 9:18 tells us that “wisdom is better than weapons of war.” Charles Strohmer defines wisdom in foreign policy as personal, peaceable, and mutual. He goes on to say that the “Bible indicates that the paths of wisdom are paths of shalom, that is, of the kind of peace committed to producing social, economic, and political well-being, or flourishing.”2 Shalom will be unachievable if our foreign policy is aggressive or war-mongering. Rather than see other states as adversaries, A Christian Declaration on American Foreign Policy suggests that, “American statesmen should be sensitive to the effects of American power on those outside American borders—both to avoid unintended harm and to recognize opportunities to serve others.” Hawkish foreign policy also may result in premature or hasty action, which can have devastating results. Bradford Littlejohn cautions us that good foreign policy may not always be quick-moving. He writes, “if action is to be decisive, it must first be decided, which requires patient deliberation,”3 and cites Jesus’ preaching that, “what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?” (Luke 14:31). Good foreign policy can be patient, as hawkish foreign policy runs the risk of making unwise decisions and neglecting opportunities to further shalom in the world.
Isolationism and hawkish foreign policy are neither viable political options nor compatible with Christian teachings. The next president of the United States will need to skillfully craft his or her foreign policy on a case-by-case basis somewhere between isolationism and hawkish, interventionist policy. Responsible citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike, should acknowledge that our government must engage the world, while insisting that it does so wisely.