Faith without works

or talk without action

Wilberforce and other Christian leaders of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries used moral argument and persuasion to get the British government to suppress slavery. The British government stopped slavery by force, using their navy to seize slave ships.

It’s unfortunate that Christian clergy in the west today would use their powers of moral suasion not to get the government to do something about Boko Haram raiding villages and taking slaves, but to prevent the government doing anything about it, at least anything that might work.

Because there’s just about only one thing that will work: hanging the slave takers, the slave sellers, and the slave buyers, and hanging them with a for-real rope when and where they’re caught, and taking all their money, and the money of anyone who does business with them. Now some well-meaning people would say that’s unreasonable, and they do have a point. The exigencies of the situation may require some slavers to be shot instead of hanged.

Christians should start with prayer, but not stop there. We should work for what we pray for. And yes, we should pray for the members of the Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad. We should pray they’re held to account for their evil sooner instead of later, and that they repent and turn to Jesus Christ.


7 Replies to “Faith without works”

  1. Huh, how about that. Rule of law is absent. Lawlessness prevails. I’m not sure anyone from the West could do anything that would improve the situation.

      1. That might help. If they got to the people who needed them. I’m not at all sure that is possible. And then what happens after they get rid of the troublemakers? Do they stop, or do they decide to designate some other group as troublemakers and start killing them? I would like to think that some people are having some success at improving things in Africa, but Western help usually seems to make things worse.

        1. There’s always a chance that people will abuse the ability to defend themselves– but they’re already being abused for not being able to do so.

          Having the ability to kill the guys who are coming to kill you and take your stuff lowers the chance that they will manage to do so.

    1. Ironically, (or maybe just hypocritically,) I’d oppose sending any large US military force to Nigeria, if only because it’s not our turn. If Boko Haram is really so hateful and un-Islamic, let Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or France go and suppress them. And while I agree that the rule of law is a good thing (unless slavery is the law), I was glad to see a group of armed villagers ambushed and killed a Boko Haram group. It’s possible my views aren’t entirely coherent.

Comments are closed.