Dear Professor Theophilus:

I've read your column for a while, and I'd like to ask you about Israel. When I was growing up, most (if not all) of the people in church thought that there is something very special about Israel and the Jews. They would quote the passage in Genesis where God says to Israel through Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

I've been wondering about this lately. Does it still apply today? As Christians, must we support Israel, no matter what its government does? I'm not asking about your opinion on recent events. It's more of a general question about theology and scripture.

Reply:

First let's distinguish "Israel" in the sense of the Jewish people as a whole, all over the world, from "Israel" in the sense of the nation-state which was established as a homeland for Jews after World War II, when the Nazis had slaughtered Jews by the millions.

Exactly what God has in mind for the Jewish people as a whole is unknown to us, but we can say several things. The Jewish people deserve undying honor as the nation God cherished and set apart to be His first witness to the gentiles, and to be the people from whom Messiah would one day be born. Moreover, God has not forgotten the Jewish people. In the Old Testament he made numerous promises to them, many of them unconditional, and God always fulfills His promises in time.

In the meantime, Christians should do all they can to be in good fellowship with their Jewish neighbors. In a sense, they are the older brothers of us Christians, and we should feel for them all the things it is right to feel for older brothers. We should condemn even the shadow of anti-Semitism.

Now as to Israel the contemporary nation-state. Even the God-ordained government of ancient Israel did not always do right, and we should not assume that the government of modern Israel will always do right either — just as we should not assume that our own government will always deal justly. But in view of the special place of the Jewish people in salvation history, and in view of the terrible things that have been done to Jews through the ages — sometimes by sinful Christians — I think Christians everywhere should make the well-being of the state of Israel a deep concern of their hearts.

Israel struggles for her very survival against enemies who hate her with a demonic hatred. This is not a mere "cycle of violence," and the two sides are not morally equivalent; it is not Israel who sends her children as suicide bombers into the territory of her neighbors. We should certainly criticize the government of any country when it needs criticism, Israel and America included. But it would be an unspeakable loss — and, I believe, an unutterable sin — if we were ever to allow Israel to perish.

International politics is a great and grave mess. I hope my letter helps you to sort things out.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

TARGETING NONCOMBATANTS

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I was recently discussing your column "Can War Be Justified?" with my 17-year old son. In the context of the 9/11 tragedy, we were talking about terrorism and the evil of aiming at nonmilitary targets.

He raised the matter of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima during World War II, pointing to the obvious fact that this action purposely took the lives of many civilians, apparently violating the principle of discrimination. I was unable to mount a good response. Have you any thoughts to help me take the discussion further?

Reply:

Your son raises an excellent question, and I think he's right. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki violated the discrimination principle because they deliberately targeted noncombatants. Some people seek to justify them on grounds of the proportionality principle, holding that if we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the war would have been so prolonged that ultimately even more people would have died. Even if this claim were true, the flaw in the reasoning is that it pits the proportionality principle against the discrimination principle — as though what we consider a good result could justify evil means. That is exactly how the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity reasoned, and such thinking is plainly condemned by St. Paul in Romans 3:8. We have to satisfy both the discrimination and the proportionality principle; it won't do to say that if we satisfy the latter well enough, then the former can be set aside.

Behind the principles of just war is the God-given idea that it is categorically wrong to deliberately take innocent human life. The principles are not intended to tell us when murder is OK, because murder is never OK. Rather their purpose is to tell us whether war can be waged without murder, and if so, how.

May the Father bless your fatherhood, and may He continue to illuminate your conversations with your son.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

PLAYING WITH A LOADED GUN

Dear Professor Theophilus:

My question has plagued me for nearly a year. Nearly two years ago I met a wonderful young man in a Christian chat room. Throughout the 19 months we've been in contact (via e-mail, phone, and instant messaging), we have grown to be best friends. Through much prayer I have come to believe that he is the man God has for me to marry. He and I have never met face to face, and due to many circumstances we cannot for the time being. Is it possible to trust a person without meeting him face to face? I've turned down offers of courtship from other young men because I'm waiting to see what comes of this relationship. Is this wrong? The relationship has no foundation in time spent physically together getting to know each other, but in many ways this has been a blessing, because I've gotten to know who he is inside rather than outside. Above all, is it wrong that I've hidden this relationship from my parents?

I would appreciate your insight. My situation is much more complex then I have gone into — our friendship had a rather shaky beginning, and has been anything but traditional.

Reply:

Let's see how I can help you. As you hint at the end of your note, there is more to the situation than you are telling me. Although you say you believe this is the man God wants you to marry, if you were really sure about that you wouldn't be writing, would you? The fact that you haven't told your parents about your relationship suggests that you think you have reason to be uneasy about it; your idea that you can get to know a person better by never seeing him in real life is wishful self-deception; and finally, you are asking the wrong questions. Sure, it's possible to trust someone you don’t really know, but don’t ask whether it’s possible. Ask whether it’s wise.

Forgive me, my dear, but it's not. The fellow might be what he seems to be, but then again he might be a criminal who uses Christian chatrooms to seek out young women to rob or rape. There are literally thousands of such cyber-criminals, because deception and exploitation are so easy in all-electronic relationships with trusting young girls. How a person comes across in a chatroom, via e-mail, or even over the phone may be very different from how he really is. Your nice young Christian fellow might be neither nice, nor young, nor Christian. He might be more than one fellow. He might not be a fellow at all.

I do know of two successful marriages which began in electronic pen- friendships, but the cases are radically different than yours, and the differences are all-important. In the first case, friends and relatives who knew both the girl and the guy told them a lot about each other and electronically "fixed them up." Several weeks of e-mail messages led to a date. That date led to another date, and before long they were engaged. In the second case, although the girl and the guy had never met, they were both writers for this Webzine; contact began when the guy wrote to the girl to disagree with an article she had written. They kept their families informed about the correspondence, and when they decided to meet in person, they got their families to help. Do you see how these cases differ from yours?

1. In both cases the guy and the girl had friends in common. You don't.

2. In both cases the families were involved. You've cut your parents out of the loop.

3. For both these reasons, in both cases the guy and the girl knew a lot about each other even before the first e-mail message was sent. By contrast, your "knowledge" has nothing outside the email correspondence to back it up. In fact it's not knowledge at all.

The first thing you need to do is let your parents know what has been going on. Even then, this kind of relationship cannot become safe unless you can acquire some kind of third-party confirmation that the guy is who and what he says he is. Third-party confirmation is hard to get. The best way to get it is to have friends and relatives who know the man well, and you probably don't have any who do. The only other way I can think of is for your family to seek the help of a certified and well-recommended private detection agency, and that's a very distant second best.

Don't think that you can find out if the guy is on the level just by meeting him. Meetings are useful only when you already know the guy is on the level. For finding out whether a guy is on the level, meetings are not merely useless, but dangerous.

A final thought. You have been asking God whether you should marry a man you know nothing about. A better subject for your prayer and meditation would be why you prefer a dangerous fantasy relationship to relationships with young men you can really know.

I'm glad you wrote. A lot of readers will be angry about my advice, but I think it's more important for you to stay alive and well. I realize that I haven't brought good cheer, but I hope I've brought good counsel.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

If you have questions you’d like to Ask Theo, send us an email and we'll pass it along to him.