Should a Christian Serve in the Military?

Some of the most gung-ho soldiers will lock up in actual combat. Also, many of the greatest warriors were drafted. When the need to fight came, the warrior came out.

As it has already been mentioned, there are many non-combat positions. Medics, cooks, legal, admin, chaplains, chaplain assistants, and many others which are all necessary for the operation of a military.

 

I agree with your first statement above. The ideal is Christian Just War Theory as espoused by Augustine and others throughout Christian history. We ought to be defending our Christian Brothers and Sisters that are being slaughtered in the Sudan. We ought to be demanding that the government of India should enforce the freedom of religion that its constitution purports to provide and that they should stop radical Hindu attacks on Christian churches and orphanages etc.

I think you and I are just about on the same page. Different sides of that page, but on the same page. I did not attempt to explain away the passage that calls us to love our enemies. I acknowledged that it is a Scriptural principle. However, I also acknowledged that the whole Bible has more to say about warfare than just that one passage to which you are referring (or even the larger list of Scripture you posted). I must take in the whole counsel of the Word of God not just pick proof texts that seem to support my presupposed ideas. I acknowledge that there is a theological tension on this issue and that it is a good thing to have such theological tensions. The Christian Just Warrior needs the Christian Pacifist to keep him in check so that he does not become a crusade type warrior. Likewise, the Christian Pacifist needs the Christian Just Warrior to defend his right to be a pacifist. Think about it... If there were no Christian Just Warriors the evil people of this world would simply kill all the pacifists.

Finally, remember that in Rom. 13:1-7 God has given the authority to wage war (bear the sword) to our recognized state governments. Thus, when a state employs the Christian Just War Principles outlined in my post above the individual Christian, who follows God's leading him to serve in the military, does so on solid biblical grounds. Likewise, the Christian Pacifist that refuses to serve based on his moral convictions does so on solid biblical grounds.

 

Amen! Praise God for the Just Warriors! Pass the ammo. :wavey:

 

If we did not defend the right we have to worship our Lord, how long do you think it would be before Christians were extinct? Of course I believe in a sovereign God. And I believe he gave us the brains to defend ourselves so we could continue to have the right to share His Good News.

 

You are making a huge assumption in your first statement. Plus, you are neglecting the fact that God has given the civil government the authority to wage war (Rom. 13:1-7). Case in point, it was completely the right Christian moral/ethical thing for the U.S. to do when it went to war to stop Nazi Germany. Do you really think God did not ordain the U.S. involvement in WWII? The exact same thing holds true for the 1st Gulf War. It was the right Christian moral/ethical thing for the U.S. to do in waging war on Iraq to defend Kuwait against a powerful aggressor. It was completely the right Christian moral/ethical thing for the U.S. to do in going to war in Kosovo to stop other "Christians" from slaughtering Muslims.

The current war in Iraq falls under the same principle. Remember, in 1991 when Saddam signed a treaty to bring about the end of the Gulf War hostilities? That treaty contained numerous things that Iraq had to do or military force would again be brought to bear upon them. Iraq had to immediately disarm, destroy all WMDs, provide full and open disclosure showing that it had complied with the above, and submit to full and open UN inspections to ensure that it was not producing WMDs, etc. There was much more but these points will suffice for the sake of this discussion.

Then a period of 8 to 9 years passed by during which time Iraq refused to honor the above mentioned terms. Now, President George W. Bush determined that Iraq had been allowed to slide on its commitments long enough. He went to the UN numerous times seeking to have pressure applied to Iraq to bring them into compliance with the 1991 agreement. After numerous UN resolutions against Iraq, the final one of which delivered an ultimatum calling on Iraq to fully comply or face military force, President Bush saw that the UN did not have the backbone or will to go through with the requirements of its own resolution against Iraq. At that point President Bush asked the US Congress to approve his use of our military forces to bring Iraq into compliance with the 1991 agreements. Thus, we invaded Iraq. As such what we are involved in is not two Gulf Wars; rather, it is one Gulf War that began in 1991 with an eight to nine year gap in the middle.

The failure of Iraq to fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War agreements is the foundation and ultimate just cause for our being involved in a war in Iraq today. However, since that time the President has shifted gears on his line of argumentation and focused his debate on WMDs and regime change etc. I think he has handled this portion of the national debate poorly. He should never have departed from the strong and just cause for returning to war based upon Iraq's refusal and failure to fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War agreements.

 

You seem to have set up a false dichotomy. First, two truly born-again Christians should not be waging war against one another. Second, truly born-again Christians ought not to serve in the military and fight for any nation in a war if that nation's cause is unjust. Soldiers have the right to refuse an order if they believe the order to be immoral. They will face court marshal, but they can refuse what they believe to be an immoral order. In the case you have drawn here clearly one side would have just cause (defending itself) and the other would not (unprovoked aggressor). Third, if such a terrible thing were to happen, the right biblically moral/ethical thing would be for a third truly born-again Christian to attempt to make peace between the two warring parties. If the stronger aggressor refused to seek peace then it would be biblically moral/ethical for the third party to defend the weaker of the two warring parties. The goal would not be to kill either party but to bring about a return to peace and right relationship between the two parties. Of course, the involvement of the third Christian party must rely completely on the Christian Just War Theory as outlined in one of my previous posts.

 

You make some good points, and I respect your point of view. And while yes we are to recognize our governments, we are also told in scripture we should follow God rather than man. So while we agree we are instructed to be good law abiding citizens, the real question becomes at what point do we choose not to follow if the government asks of us something against our Godly principles. Which of course brings us right back to square one (grin).

As far as all the pacifist being killed. Well, I guess I would have to look to God. I don't think we can limit God in our minds. If He chose not to allow that to happen, it wouldn't. If He chose to allow it, maybe the impact of that happening would bring that many more to Christ. It really comes down to Gods will. If I had to sacrifice my life for God I would. Because when you really think about it, every breath I breath and every second I live, is a gift from God anyway. It really is all in his hands, I trust it to him. He chooses if and when I am to die, not anyone else. It would never really be in their hands, but always be in God's.

But I really do understand your point of view and apprecieate it. I do not judge anyone who would choose to serve, and respect their bravery and commitment.

 

Let me ask a question of you. For the sake of this question, lets not even go all the way back to the time of Christ. Lets ask about our country only from when it has been established. Do you not think it likely that in every war and battle we have ever fought, that our(USA) army has never killed a Christian man woman or child? Not once ever?

Or you could even ask, without letting this run off into a Calvinism debate. Have we ever killed a man woman or child that wasn't saved but if having lived might have been?

Then you can ask those same questions to every Christian of every nation, and about serving their governments?

 

Yes, it is highly likely that The U.S. military has killed a Christian(s) during our history. In fact, I would say that it is certain.

Yes, it is likely.

And again the answer would be the same. Your point? You have already provided a clear answer to these concerns when you addressed my point about pacifists being killed... It all falls back on the Sovereignty of God in those situations. Regarding that point don't limit God's Sovereignty in that He is equally able to use the Christian Just Warrior to protect the Christain Pacifist; rather than the pacifists simply having to trust that God will protect them without the involvment of His human agents here on earth (i.e. other Christians).

 

That is not quite the whole teaching of the Bible. We are to obey the authority that God has placed over us so long as that authority does not demand that we disobey the higher authority of God and His Word. Thus, when a nation has found it necessary to go to war, and has done so by using the principles of Christian Just War Theory (which are all based upon the teachings of Scripture), the individual Christian who follows God's leading to serve in the military does so on solid biblical ground. Likewise, the individual Christian that refuses to serve in the military in a combat role based on moral convictions does so on solid biblical ground. Have you read the story of Sgt. Alvin York from WWI?

 

I couldn't disagree more.

This is where "Priesthood of the believer" comes in.

I will agree with you on forced military service for Christians just as soon as you show me the scriptural justification.

It's easy to say this for a "just war" that we see reason for. What if a Muslim President were elected and declared "jihad" on Britain, for example? Your view would have no recourse.

 

I was referring to mandatory military service for all able men. This is a patriotic thing, it has nothing to do with scripture. If you don't believe in killin then serve as a cook. If a person believes that there is a scriptural reason forbidding military service in any capacity, they don't belong in this country. But that's okay, because honorable men and women will continue to defend their rights to be cowards.

If our country ever gets to the point where a radical muslim can get congress to authorize an attack on a free country and ally, then I believe it would be safe to say God is not in it. Right now, I will continue to serve.

 

I fully agree.

I completely disagree. As Christians our allegiance is first and foremost to the Lord and His Word, patriotism and service to the country comes somewhere after our duty to follow the Lord and His teachings. There is solid biblical ground for some Christians to be pacifists (conscientious objectors). However, holding such a position does not negate their right to be citizens of this nation nor make them cowards. Take off your strong military glasses and put on your Christian glasses on this issue.

 

Patriotism and service to this country is service to the Lord, as long as this country guarantees freedom to openly worship the Lord. As long as the military makes exceptions for alternate service to combat and a Christian is willing to serve in that capacity, then I have no problem with them. But, if they refuse to serve their country in a non-combat capacity when called upon, they are just as guilty as someone who refuses to pay taxes or obey the law.

 

You are not describing patriotism, you are describing nationalism and calling those who would not desire to be conscripted against their will "cowards" or to suggest that they should be removed from this country, just demonstrates your lack of desire to actually defend the Constitution nor the rights of the citizens protected by that document. If and when they institute a draft and if and when they call my name, I will go to jail in defense of the Constitution before I will go to war to continue to tear the Constitution down.

More importantly, killing according to the Holy Bible, is forbidden and just because they slap a uniform on you and you get to call it "war" and you're just following orders, does not mean you won't be held to account for the blood spilled by your hands.

"Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: " - Matthew 5:21​

I will not kill someone in an offensive war and I'm not about to feed someone and slap 'em on the back and say go kill some more, if that makes me a "coward" then so be it.

 

And yet, honorable men and women will continue to defend your right to feel that way, even though your comment is a spit in their face.

Mt 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment.
The Holy Bible : Holman Christian Standard Version

I would never commit murder either, but I would kill in a second to save my life, my families lives, your life, and the life of my fellow Americans.

 

The first statement is false. Murder is forbidden. The two terms (murder and kill) are not one and the same.

As I posted eariler in this thread:

I think what you are experiencing is the tension between the ideas of Christian Pacifism and Christian Just War Theory. The following material comes from my notes in Dr. Mark Liederbach’s Christian Ethics class here at SEBTS (and is used by permission). Let’s look at what the Bible has to say about the ideas of strict Christian Pacifism and Christian Just War Theory.

Christian pacifists generally hold tightly to the English translation (such as in the KJV) “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13, KJV). However, the Hebrew language in that text and other OT passages does not bear out a strict interpretation meaning “no killing” (consider Deut. 7:1-6). Thus, the passage in Ex. 20:13 is better understood and more rightly translated as “You shall not murder” as in the NASB.

Second, Christian pacifists appeal to Jesus’ example of non-violent resistance. However, Jesus’ specific teachings on the subject indicate elements of both sides (pacifism and Just War).

a. Matt. 5:9—blessed are the peacemakers
b. Matt. 5:21-22a—anger and murder
c. Matt. 5:38-39—turn the other cheek
d. Matt. 10:34—“I did not come to bring peace… but the sword.”
e. Matt. 26:50-56—He had the ability to wage war, but did not resort to war.

Clearly Jesus’ teaching has a very pacifistic streak. However, we must consider the whole counsel of God’s Word on the subject. Consider, Rom. 13:1-7 where we understand that the state is given responsibility to “bear the sword.” This passage is generally understood to mean that God has granted the state the authority to bear the sword for the purpose of capital punishment and to make war (under certain specific circumstances). Finally, we must not forget about the rest of the story found in Rev. 19. Here we clearly see that Jesus wages war.

The problem with a strict Christian pacifist prohibition against all killing and war is that it conflicts with the fact that God commanded war (the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land and that Jesus will return as a Warrior King and wage war). Thus, a strict Christian pacifist position which claims that all war is simply wrong actually impugns God because He commanded war. The Scriptures depict three types of warfare commanded by God.

a. Unlimited Holy War (Josh. 6:21-24, 8:24-25, 10:2-40, 11:11-23)
b. Limited Warfare (Deut. 20:19-20)
c. Zealous Rebellion (Judges 6:11-7:25, 13:1-16:31)

Clearly Christians must avoid the Crusader mentality. Problems and characteristics of Crusades:

a. Crusades treat war as an unconditional effort of good vs. evil—no gray areas
b. Crusades treat war as a matter of religion
c. Crusades have little or no place for moral restraint in actions taken against enemies
d. Because good cannot compromise with evil, and because it requires “total war,” crusade has little or no place for surrender of any kind
e. Wars of crusade are fought for the purpose of imposing, achieving, or expanding ideals usually conceived on an universal or cosmological scale
f. Crusades oppose the whole social order and value system of an enemy, not just a few leading individuals, or a few narrow interests. In a war of crusade, no one can be exempted
g. In crusade, soldiers participate with zeal (i.e. suicide bombers & 9/11 terrorists, etc)
h. Crusades require no declaration of war. Anyone with zeal for righteousness, anyone who loves God, anyone willing to give their all for the “true ideal” may strike a blow for good against evil without waiting for approval from some human authority.
i. Crusade tends to extend the state of war into a permanent condition

So we see that we cannot be outright Christian pacifists and we cannot be Christian Crusaders either. So what option is left? We must look to the idea of Christian Just War Criteria, which includes both jus ad bellum (Latin meaning Law to War) and jus in bello (Latin meaning Justice in War).

Just War Criteria—Jus ad Bellum (Justify Going to War)
A. The criteria or requirements ensuring that the reasons for going to war is (are) just:
1. Must have right or legitimate authority—for Christians, in addition to civil authority, we must ask if the Scriptures bear out what we are about to do?
2. Just Cause
3. Right Intention—Trying to ultimately restore peace
4. Last Resort
5. Proportionality—Do only what is necessary to obtain the stated goals or ends
6. Reasonable Chance of Success
a. Counting the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:31). However, are there times when you are just willing to die for what is right?
7. Minimizing Negative Effects—Help rebuild when war is over

B. Moral Traces:
1. For Just Warriors—Even though I must go to war, I do not want or seek to do so.
2. For Pacifists—Sanctity of Human Life, Jesus’ turn the other cheek and peacemaker teachings etc.

C. Why Pacifists and Just Warriors need each other:
1. Both start from a presumption against violence and killing
2. Just Warriors need Pacifists to keep them in check—preventing them from becoming unlimited warriors or developing the Crusader mentality
3. Pacifists need Just Warriors to protect them and their right to be pacifists

Just War Criteria: Jus in Bello (Just behavior in War)
A. Legitimate Authority—Same as in jus ad bellum above

B. Discrimination—Asks the questions, Who may be attacked, how may they be attacked, and when may they be attacked?

1. Who: Non-combatant Immunity
a. Prohibition on the direct and intentional killing of non-combatants (Micah 6:8)
b. Who is to count as a non-combatant?
c. 4 Classifications and their status
i. Combatants—uniformed (armed) soldiers
ii. Non-combatants—civilians (unarmed)
iii. Ex-combatants—POW, sick or wounded soldiers, medics, Chaplains
iv. Unprivileged belligerents—Spies, saboteurs, command and control structures etc.
2. How and When: Rules of Engagement, Double Effect, and Perfidy
a. Rules of Engagement—Moral principles that bind conduct in war
b. Collateral Damage and the “Rule of Double Effect”—The attempt to deal with situations in which an agent foresees, but does not intend, an evil effect that will result from pursuing a good effect
i. The act must itself be either good or indifferent, or at least not forbidden with a view to preventing just the particular effect
ii. The evil effect cannot be a means to the good, but must be equally immediate or at least must result from the good effect
iii. The foreseen evil effect must not be intended or approved, merely permitted—for even a good act is vitiated if accompanied by an evil attempt
iv. There must be a proportionately serious reason for exercising the cause and allowing the evil effect.
c. Perfidy (treachery)—Dealing forthrightly with the enemy. A code of conduct. Raises the question: “On what basis should one try to limit treachery such as signing a treaty and then blowing it off when the other side disarms?”

C. Proportionality
1. The probable benefits of any particular course of action within war must outweigh the probable costs.

 

You may say that my comments spit in the face of soldiers, I say your comments spit on the Constitution that American soldiers have vowed a solemn oath to protect and defend from ALL enemies foreign and domestic.

You are not saving my life by killing one Iraqi or one Afghani, please do not connect me to these murders for I have repented of having ever supported this authorized use of force. There is nothing just about this use of force and it is highly disproportionate to any action perpetrated by the people of Iraq or Afghanistan for they have done no harm to the people of the United States of America. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I would be glad to entertain your thoughts.

 

Although this is probably a pointless argument with you my brother, I will state a few simple facts. We attacked Al Qaeda in the country of Afghanistan. They really, truly, are, despite what you may have heard on Art Bell, the group of GOD hating Muslims who want to destroy every one who follows and supports HIM, and proved it by killing nearly three thousand Americans in the attack on the World Trade Center. We saved lives by killing them, and crippling their ability to do it again. Everyone we kill, is one more who does not blow up innocent civilians. Everyone we kill, is one who does not kill another American Soldier, who is bound to strict rules of engagement. Everyone we kill is one, who will not bomb your church this coming Sunday.

We attacked Iraq. A country filled with GOD hating Muslims. Ruled by a dictator who could not be trusted. After destroying his regime, we have been constantly attacked by GOD hating Muslims from that area. Every GOD hating Muslim we kill is one GOD hating Muslim that will not bomb your church while you worship the True GOD. Every GOD hating Muslim we kill is one that will not kill another American Soldier in a cowardly suicide bombing. American Soldiers who are bound to strict ROE. American Soldiers that are put on trial for murder when they do not follow the ridiculous ROE, yet they continue to willfully defend this country and its Constitution which guarantees you the right to worship the True GOD in your church each Sunday, and insult the American Soldiers who defend the Constitution you say you love.

You may call it murder, but I call it love. The killing is necessary.

John 15:12-13 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.

 

You're saying that being drafted into the military "has nothing to do with scripture." I don't believe that anything in this life has "nothing to do with scripture." Secondly, you go on to say that a war started by a Muslim President does not have God in it. Well, I suppose not since you've already said that war has nothing to do with our faith.