…civil righteousness is not a righteousness that will justify those that possess it. It is righteous only by sinful human standards, not by that perfect standard which God requires (Matt. 5:48; Jas. 2:10). The righteousness by which he justifies comes only through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26, 28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9), a thing which many Israelis and their government deny. Let us all therefore pray for the peace of Israel, but especially for that spiritual peace with God which she currently lacks (Rom. 5:1; comp. Isa. 32:17). For her salvation will not consist in earthly prosperity or triumph in this or any other war, but in her reconciliation to the God who created her and revealed himself in her land as Jesus of Nazareth. 

War is not a matter of morality. Morality matters in war, as in business and politics and every other endeavor, but war is not itself a question of right and wrong. To be in the right is not enough to commend fighting a war. There are many other factors that must be considered, such as the probability of winning, the desired outcome, and whether the necessary sacrifices will be worth it all.
War is, in fact, a question of politics, economics, and prudence. By economics I do not mean anything to do with jobs, commerce, or any of the other things politicians mean when they talk about economic matters. Economics in its proper (as opposed to its popular/political) definition is the study of the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses (to paraphrase Lionel Robbins’ definition). Few things make the scarcity of resources felt more acutely than war: there are only so many troops and so much money and materiel to use in waging war, and it tends to consume them in enormous amounts with frightful rapidity. A nation can be morally superior to its rival, but that will not avail it if its military and economy are insufficient to overcome the unrighteous enemy in war. This economic consideration received the explicit mention of our Lord (Lk. 14:31-32).
And so also with the question of politics. What is militarily feasible is not always politically feasible or advisable. In the Afghan War it would have been militarily feasible for us to have invaded the border regions of Pakistan where the Taliban had sheltered with the local tribes. But it would not have been politically advisable, for it would have brought about a breach with Pakistan, further radicalized many people there against us, and deprived us of that necessary (if unsteady and partial) support which we received from her.
And where something is not economically or politically feasible it is not prudent to go ahead with it, even in those cases where one has been wronged or is unquestionably right in a dispute. It is this which many pundits have forgotten in the fortnight since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Yes, this is about as much a clear-cut matter of good versus evil as can be imagined in this world. Hamas is in the foremost ranks of depravity, as its actions show, and Israel is, by contrast, one of the most honorable and humane belligerents in history.
But that is largely beside the point. Hamas was wrong to attack Israel as it did, and while Israel has the right to defend itself, including by a counteroffensive into Gaza to destroy Hamas’s warfighting and civilian-murdering capabilities (i.e., its very existence), that says nothing about whether it is economically or politically feasible to do so. It takes but little reflection to see that Israel is in a difficult position. If it invades and destroys Hamas but then withdraws it is only a matter of time before a new Hamas arises. Gaza is essentially a giant refugee camp with squalid conditions that seem to breed an anti-Israel culture that will breed a new Hamas even if the current one is eradicated. Such an incursion is perhaps prudent in the short term, but it doesn’t provide a long-term solution – and this is now the third time Israel has invaded Gaza since it ended its previous occupation in 2005.
Alternatively, Israel could conquer Gaza and expel the inhabitants, except that it is not clear where they would go. The Arab nations refuse to take any refugees, and if any appreciable number made it to the West Bank that would almost certainly throw it into the hands of Hamas and be worse for Israel’s security, Gaza being much smaller and easier to guard than the West Bank. Israel could try to force another nation to take them by force, but that would entail another major regional war, probably undo all the diplomacy of the last 40 plus years, appreciably unsettle the global economy, and put the US in a difficult position politically and diplomatically.
Or Israel could once again occupy Gaza, as it did from 1967 to 2005, though that would entail all the difficulties of a military occupation. And given the security troubles it has just experienced in its own country, it seems reasonable to think they wouldn’t be easier in a place with a hostile culture. Lastly, Israel could forego an invasion, though that would embolden Hamas, earn them more recruits, and leave their offensive capabilities largely intact.
In short, Israel is in a difficult spot, and it is not clear how she should act. She is in this spot, not because of any lack of courage or martial prowess, but because of the current political environment; and that means that her being right has nothing to do with the question of what is prudent for her to do right now. One can say she should conquer Gaza, or occupy it, or eliminate Hamas without permanent annexation or occupation. Those are questions of military policy that have nothing to do with our faith; and they are ones about which many commentators are not fit to offer their opinions.
The only thing our faith has to say about the matter is that all people need personal forgiveness and that there is no such thing as a national righteousness (in war or otherwise) that saves anyone’s soul, as well as that the actual outworking of God’s providence has demonstrated the truth of my claims above about the nature of war and civil righteousness. Judah, even in the tenure of her righteous kings, was dwarfed by Israel, which went astray from the first. United Israel, even at its height under David and Solomon, was an insignificant backwater compared to many of her neighbors (Amos 7:5), and especially so in comparison to the wicked pagan empires by which she was conquered in succession: Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedon, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, and Rome.
If civil righteousness meant earthly prowess and military success, we would not expect these things to be so; and granting that foreign oppression and defeat were punishments for infidelity to the Lord (Deut. 28:25, 31-34), there is still the fact that Israel was sometimes more righteous than its defeaters (Habakkuk’s complaint, 1:12-17), and that civil righteousness did not guarantee Israel’s military success. When David took a census (perhaps with a view toward territorial expansion, 2 Sam. 22:45-48), God regarded it as sin and punished Israel (2 Sam. 24). We might think that God would wish for the only civilly righteous nation on Earth to be as large as possible,[1] and yet we see in that episode that this was not God’s intention. In the times of the old covenant too God’s kingdom was spiritual and not synonymous with the Jewish nation, nor did its interests preclude other nations excelling Israel or ruling her.
In his providence both Israel and other nations had their places, and the development of his kingdom and the revelation of his Messiah did not require – and indeed, may have been hindered by – Israel experiencing imperial status and military success. It is conceivable that, even if Israel had been faithful to her covenant with God, she would still have been a small nation of little earthly significance. The greater her temporal glory, the harder it would have been for Israel to realize that God’s kingdom did not lie in such things, was not limited to her but was a spiritual gift for his elect among all peoples.
And so it is in our day as well. Civil righteousness is always imperfect, incomplete, and prone to rapid disappearance when circumstances change. It is not so essential to a nation’s legitimacy as to cause it to cease to be a nation where it is lost or to preclude a nation that lacks it from attaining earthly prominence or defeating a comparatively more righteous nation. Great empires are seldom morally commendable, but that has not kept God from using them for his purposes (Ex. 9:16; 14:17; Prov. 16:4).
The most important thing, however, is that civil righteousness does nothing to ensure the personal salvation of a nation’s citizens. Indeed, it may prove the snare that blinds them to their need for personal forgiveness or makes them imagine that the victims of cruelty and defeat proved thereby that they suffered their fate as divine punishment. Consider this episode from Jesus’ First Advent:
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:1-3).
The immediate meaning of this is that suffering says nothing of the moral state of its victims, and that all people will perish unless they personally repent their sin. Its practical implication is of great importance as well, however, and that is that Christ’s primary concern is not with the justice of temporal affairs, but with the personal, eternal fate of individuals. Pilate’s act here bore the same character as Hamas’ recent actions: it was an act of bloodlustful murder by a foreign oppressor that included the blasphemous desecration of the victims’ bodies. And yet Jesus did not say that this called for any earthly retribution, much less commend his hearers to rebel against Rome on its account. Rather, he used it as an occasion to warn them to turn their attention to matters of eternal consequence that lay within their personal power and responsibility.
And so it should be in our case as well. How Israel responds to Hamas’ recent outrage is a military and political question that is beyond our immediate influence as citizens of a nation several thousand miles away. Justice and prudence may commend that we personally intervene on Israel’s behalf (e.g., by donating medical supplies) or urge our government to do so in a responsible way – indeed, I think they do commend such things – but the most important thing, more important by far than what will transpire in the coming days of the present war, is that we remember that the wars and kingdoms of this world will soon pass away, whereas the souls of those that are involved will endure forever. Looking after the soul is the key thing, and it is just there that Israel, for all her civil righteousness, greatly needs the Lord’s mercy.
For at the last, civil righteousness is not a righteousness that will justify those that possess it. It is righteous only by sinful human standards, not by that perfect standard which God requires (Matt. 5:48; Jas. 2:10). The righteousness by which he justifies comes only through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26, 28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9), a thing which many Israelis and their government deny. Let us all therefore pray for the peace of Israel, but especially for that spiritual peace with God which she currently lacks (Rom. 5:1; comp. Isa. 32:17). For her salvation will not consist in earthly prosperity or triumph in this or any other war, but in her reconciliation to the God who created her and revealed himself in her land as Jesus of Nazareth.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 
[1] 2 Sam. 24:1 says that David’s census arose, ultimately, because God was angry with Israel, which seems to contradict my characterization of it as the only civilly righteous nation on earth, as God’s anger would have been provoked by Israelite sin. But as I show elsewhere, civil righteousness is always conceived as such from a human standpoint and does not equal righteousness in the sight of God, nor fully accord with his providential will concerning the kingdom of God. From a human standpoint, Israel in David’s day would be considered just, but obviously she did not fully please God.
Related Posts:

There’s nothing wrong with United Methodists wanting to have good interfaith relations, whether it’s with Pagans, Jews, Muslims, atheists,  or adherents of other religions. There’s also no problem with studying other philosophies and theologies that are non-Christian, but doing so from a distinctively Christian standpoint. Yet, given that Iliff has an admissions counselor who is pagan, multiple student-elected leaders who are pagan, a web page highlighting one of their pagan students and a class dedicated to pagan spirituality, the situation seems go beyond just seeking good interreligious relations.

One might assume that the official seminaries established and still heavily funded by the United Methodist Church would have a core commitment to the Christian faith, broadly understood. More informed United Methodists would at least expect that even the progressivism in our seminaries would remain Christian liberalism. But our denomination’s Iliff School of Theology in Denver has actually progressed so far to be oddly atheism-friendly and actually promote completely different religions – Unitarian Universalism and outright Paganism. And Iliff’s pagan connections run deeper than many realize.
Iliff, as a United Methodist seminary, receives funding from the church’s Ministerial Education Fund (MEF). The MEF is a large chunk of the apportionment payments demanded of local United Methodist congregations. According to official data compiled by Joe Kilpatrick, between 2009-2016, Iliff was supported by an average contribution of $806,763 per year from the fund. But with all of that money, they only educated an annual average of a mere 11 people ordained into American United Methodist ministry (out of a yearly average of 516 total ordinands). Iliff is not merely generously subsidized by United Methodist apportionments, but it is disproportionately supported, receiving an average of $71,712 per ordinand, well above the $48,942-per-ordinand average for all 13 official U.S. United Methodist seminaries. (Attempts to seek updated statistics from the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, the General Council on Finance and Administration, and Iliff itself were unsuccessful.)
Given this amount of support, it may surprise the average United Methodist that Iliff intentionally trains clergy to promote Unitarian Universalism and that outright Paganism is openly practiced by people who study and work at Iliff.
Iliff’s extensive statement of its many “Core Values” makes clear the United Methodist seminary’s commitment to intersectional, progressive social justice, but says nothing directly about God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. This official statement does not even have anything particularly Christian beyond passing references to the school’s “United Methodist heritage.” Another official statement declares, “Support of the LGBTQIA+ community is a core value at Iliff” and reports, “Since we began tracking the metrics in 2015, 35% of our student body has consistently identified as LGBTQIA+.” In deference to this constituency, the seminary has offered an entire course devoted to “Queer Spirituality in the Visual Arts,” in which students can explore such topics as “Queer Tarot.”
Iliff School of Theology: where commitment to the LGBTQIA+ cause is a core value, but following Jesus Christ is not.
This sidelining of Christianity seems to deliberately reflect the school’s commitment to a pluralist religious ethos. One current staffer and alumna has publicly said, “The Iliff School of Theology is a United Methodist school of higher education but its alumni and students are Hindus, Universalists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics….” An alumni profiles section of the website—the sort of place where schools brag about select alumni of whom they are particularly proud and with whom they want to publicly identify the institution’s reputation—includes a glowing profile of a minister of a “social justice-oriented” United Methodist congregation in Iowa in which “people identify as Catholic, Methodist, Buddhists, Unitarians, agnostics and spiritual seekers.”
Apparently, even something as basic as belief in God is not a boundary for Iliff. The alumni profiles section also celebrates a chaplain who is part of the atheistic American Humanist Society. And a faculty profile highlights an Iliff professor who “now describes himself as a ‘lapsed Buddhist,’ and a current atheist.”
Iliff’s influences from neo-paganism and Unitarian Universalism are especially noteworthy. The former is a loose movement of Westerners rejecting mainstream religion to re-adopt various religious beliefs and practices from pre-Christian Europe. The latter is a liberal, post-Christian religion known for its belief in the relativistic equality of different religions. Unitarian Universalists often call themselves “UUs” for short.
Even when students first apply to Iliff, they may interact with an admissions representative who is a self-described member of the “LGBTIQ+ community” and pagan priestess, or as her official bio puts it, she “is ordained with a Norse pagan organization called Forn Sidr of America and serves as their Gudellri/head clergy.” Shouldn’t official ambassadors for a school so heavily funded by the UMC be Methodist, or at least some sort of Christian?
Such pagan influence is seen in the culture of Iliff’s student body. The seminary’s student government is “an elected representative body” called the student Senate. An official seminary email sent in November to alumni celebrated the election of five student leaders to this body. Two stand out in particular: Kyndyl Greyland and David Dashifen Kees.
Read More

To be justified is not only to be forgiven, but also to be accounted as righteous in God’s sight….So, how do sinners receive a righteousness with which to stand before God? In answering this question, we make a distinction between infused and imputed righteousness.

There is an important discussion taking place within the church regarding the relationship of justification to sanctification. This topic is crucial to us getting the gospel right today while avoiding the deadly extremes of antinomianism (a lawless Christianity) and legalism (a works-oriented Christianity). On many occasions, I have taught on the topics of justification and sanctification. There are few doctrinal topics that exert a more important influence on our lives as Christians than these.
Perhaps the best short definition of justification is given in Question #33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. To be justified is to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted as just in the holy presence of God. Romans 5:1 states, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
All other blessings of salvation depend on our first being justified with God. In describing justification as an “act of God’s free grace,” we are saying that it is a once-for-all act of God as a free gift. Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
To be justified is not only to be forgiven, but also to be accounted as righteous in God’s sight. As Jesus said in His parable of the wedding feast, we must have a garment of righteousness to be permitted into God’s presence (Mt. 22:11, 12). So, how do sinners receive a righteousness with which to stand before God? In answering this question, we make a distinction between infused and imputed righteousness.
To give clarity to this topic, I offer the following seven assertions regarding justification and sanctification. I briefly discuss each assertion, making Scripture references which simply point to the main line of biblical support for each assertion.

Justification and sanctification are twin benefits that flow from union with Christ through faith. Christ is Himself the center of the gospel, and through faith we are saved in union with Him (Acts 16:31; Eph. 1:3). Justification and sanctification are distinct benefits flowing through union with Christ by faith alone. Justification is a legal benefit of our union with Christ, granting us forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through faith alone (Rom. 3:23-26; Gal. 2:16). Sanctification is a Spiritual[1] benefit of our union with Christ, involving the believer’s transformation into the holy likeness of Christ (Rom. 6:1-14; Eph. 4:20-24; Tit. 2:12).

Read More
Related Posts: