Should Christians serve in the military?

[Stormcrow]

I didn't say being in the military was a sin. I said it's not the Christian's place.

But what is the logical conclusion to be drawn from your belief that while - "not the Christian's place" - Christians serve in opposition to such belief anyway?

Are they less Christian than you because they serve others with a rifle? Or is it your point just to let us all know how much "holier than them" you are?

Those who serve and call themselves “Christian†disagree with you.

How dare you judge those who serve in response to God's call on their lives. Who are you to judge their service???

We can have all the straw man arguments in the world, the bottom line is that the use of force argument has "NO" support under the new covenant.

[FONT=&quot]For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it [government] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:3-7 (NASB) [/FONT]

 

[Stormcrow]

What you've presented here is what became the Roman Catholic church and we see how that progressed through the dark ages. Christianity didn't flourish it was changed into something else.

More anti-Catholic bigotry and revisionist history! The Church preserved Christianity and learning through the Dark Ages!

Additionally, I see you didn't provide any primary sources rather gave the views of these authors.

Huh? The links to the authors were the primary sources for the blogger's view, which I quoted in far greater context than any quote you've ever offered here!

 

[Stormcrow]

If you're living under the old Jewish covenant then I guess you can justify the use of force. However, If you're living under the new covenant you can't.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Hebrews 13:8 (NASB)

The same God that inspired the words of Moses and the prophets in the Old Covenant is the same God who inspired the words of Paul in the New.

And Paul said government is given the power of the sword to avenge those who do evil! Period! And the fact that there are Christians who serve in government sworn to defend the Constitution of these United States from all enemies foreign and domestic does not make them any less Christian than you for doing so!!!

 

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Grazer
I don't mean should as in they must but, if they want to serve their country in that manner, should they do so?

Butch5:
Well, you know my position. I'm not serving in the kingdom of darkness.

Originally Posted by Free
Do you consider police, EMS and firefighters as "serving in the kingdom of darkness"? What about university professors and doctors?

Butch5:
If one is working for the grovernment they are. However, that is not the issue in this thread, rather it's the military.

Originally Posted by Butch5
Isn't this a straw man? Who is advocating that government is evil?

Me:
You did! You were pretty emphatic about calling "their government" the "kingdom of darkness."

You:
No didn't. ...by kingdom of darkness I mean kingdoms of this world.

It's patently clear, by your own words, that you not only believe government is evil (the "kingdom of darkness") but that those who serve in it are - by implication - tainted by it!

You can try to duck, dodge, parse, and spin your words as much as you want but we can see what you're all about. It must be quite a burden to be more holy than others simply because they serve as cops, soldiers, sailors, guardsmen, airmen, or marines for the "kingdom of darkness" while you wouldn't deign to dirty your hands doing what they do. 2

 

[jasoncran]

Yes, it is an argument from silence. Additionally, I didn't say being in the military was a sin. I said it's not the Christian's place.

We can have all the straw man arguments in the world, the bottom line is that the use of force argument has "NO" support under the new covenant.

then its a sin to stop your wife from being raped or child murdered and rape? to also stop a crime via either also calling the law or with your legal 2nd amendment rights or with other legal means. sorry you cant cut it with that.

if you want to understand what jesus meant by his sermon for eye for eye then kindly go back to the torah and also learn from the jews. its a way of restitution and that is what it means. you did a crime and the victim determined the fees. its that simple.

 

[Drew]

To me theses verses show the growing of His Kingdom it will grow till the whole is leavened.

I agree. We also have the parable of the wheat and the tares - how the kingdom of God, yes, has weeds in it. This undermines one of the most common objections to the present reality of the kingdom of God: The kingdom cannot be here yet because the world is still full of evil and suffering.

Well, yes it is. But, as Jesus teaches us in the parable of the wheat and the tares, and as Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 15, the presence of evil, death, and suffering is to be expected during at least the first part of the kingdom of God.

This highlights a broader issue: Confusing "Sunday School" images of Christianity for Biblical ones. In this case, we tell Sunday School students that when the kingdom is here, all troubles will be gone.

That's nice. That's re-assuring. That's comforting.

But it is not Biblical.

 

[Drew]

Pacifism often causes a delay in bad situations and makes them much much worse in the end.

I believe this is effectively a strawman argument in the sense that those of us who believe Jesus calls the believer to pacifism are fully aware that, in the short term at least, such a stance might, repeat might, lead to a worse outcome in the end. But you cannot make a good case through anecdotes - the fact that pacifism may have lead to a worse outcome in one situation does not justify a generalization to the effect that pacifism makes things worse.

I suggest that we pacificists fully understand that, in the short term, our position may result in more dead bodies. However, we are primarily interested in taking Jesus seriously, and I suggest the Biblical case is strong - the Christian is to reject the path of the sword. Besides, even if there is short term pain, the argument would be that breaking the cycle of violence will lead to more benign behaviour down the road.

In short, you cannot simply assume that the powers of evil will take advantage of pacifism to wreak more damage. It is possible, for example, that they could be shamed if the world sees them slaughtering people who are not fighting back. I suggest this very mechanism was at work when Ghandi led a peaceful resistance to British colonialism.

The issues are complicated and there is not a lot of data to go on, I suggest. Nevertheless, I believe that Jesus' instruction is clear - no sword.

 

[Drew]

How dare you call the young folks of this land sinners while you hide behind what those before them have done for your rights.

I do not think this is a responsible way to argue the point.

Your moral indignation, or mine, has precisely zero relevance to establishing whether or not serving in the military is sinful or not.

Lot's of people get morally indignant about lots of things, but what really matters is not how strongly you or I feel, but whether our position is Biblical.

I really hope we can lose this "how dare you question those who defend your freedom" kind of rhetoric. The point the pacifist will reply with is: Thank you very much, but our nation's participation in the cycle of violence only perpetuates it and ultimately hurts us in the long run. So we would actually be better off without the military - they may appear to be acting on our behalf, and in the short term they may well be, but in the long term everyone is put at greater risk.

 

[Drew]

Read Romans 13 again before you self-righteously proclaim there is no Biblical support for those who wield the sword in defense of the innocent!

Please explain to us precisely how Romans 13 endorses the notion that it is acceptable for the Christian to participate in the use of the sword.

I suggest that, given the teachings of Jesus, and the broad sweep of the Biblical narrative, Paul's argument in Romans 13 is essentially this:

1. God uses "evil" to achieve His (good) purposes. Example: Pharoah.

2. God prefers some order to complete chaos;

3. So even though the government's use of the sword is "evil", God still uses governments, evil though they may be in some respects, to achieve His purposes.

I suggest that there is nothing in the Romans 13 text that rules out such a reading. Yes, if viewed in isolation the text is also consistent with the position that God "approves" of the sword. But we have Jesus telling us that the use of the sword is simply inconsistent with the kingdom way:

Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities.

Jesus explains the non-violence of His follower in terms of their being citizens of a different kingdom. Well, we too are supposed to be citizens of that kingdom.

By the way, your moral indignation is really of no relevance to arriving at the Biblical truth on this matter.

 

[Drew]

Do you place limitations on the where & how & when He enables us to do His work?

As a matter of fact I do. I believe that the following professions cannot be places to do "God's work":

1. Prostitute;
2. Hit Man;
3. Producer of child pornography.

Please do not take this too seriously. I am certainly not intending to imply that being in the military is akin to these professions, even remotely.

My best attempt at articulating a position is this: Given the relatively poor Biblical education most Christians get, and given the present culture, and given the youth of many who join the military, and given the extremely counter-intuitive nature of some of Jesus' teaching, I entirely believe that those Christians who join the military do so with honourable intentions. But, at the end of the day, I believe that this profession is inconsistent with the gospel way. However, this is a somewhat "soft" opinion, I could be convinced to change my mind.

 

[reba]

I agree Drew, your post # 106.

 

[Drew]

And Paul said government is given the power of the sword to avenge those who do evil! Period!

Not that simple.

We have Biblical precedent of God using essentially evil agents to visit otherwise righteous judgement on others.

But that hardly means that we are called to be evil agents.

 

[Drew]

From somebody's blog:

Christian discipleship isn’t about aligning your life to a set of abstract moral principles. It’s about following the crucified, resurrected, and reigning Jesus. And following Jesus means not only believing in, but being a citizen of, his peaceable kingdom. So until I can imagine Jesus, the exalted “son of man,†throwing hand grenades and firing a machinegun, I’ll reject violence and war as options for his followers.

Lest I be accused of using a form of the over-the-top rhetoric that I have criticized in others, let me give just a whiff of explanation: At the climax of His interrogation before Pilate, we have this exchange:

Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?†62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.â€

The "coming on the clouds of heaven" is a clear allusion to Daniel 7. And what is Daniel 7 about? Well, a good part of it is about a "son of man" character that achieves victory over a set of beasts. I suggest it is relatively clear that the beasts represent empires. More abstractly, the beasts represent the power-wielding aspect of human empire. It is the power to kill that is the ultimate power of the empire. I am not, at this moment, going to try to spell out the arguments, but I suggest that the Daniel 7 image - which Jesus invokes - implicitly is telling us that the victory Jesus achieved at the cross involves doing away with the model of empire that wields power in the form of, for example, a mighty, powerful, and threatening armed force.

 

[Classik]

From somebody's blog: Christian discipleship isn’t about aligning your life to a set of abstract moral principles. It’s about following the crucified, resurrected, and reigning Jesus. And following Jesus means not only believing in, but being a citizen of, his peaceable kingdom. So until I can imagine Jesus, the exalted “son of man,†throwing hand grenades and firing a machinegun, I’ll reject violence and war as options for his followers. Lest I be accused of using a form of the over-the-top rhetoric that I have criticized in others, let me give just a whiff of explanation: At the climax of His interrogation before Pilate, we have this exchange: Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?†62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.†The "coming on the clouds of heaven" is a clear allusion to Daniel 7. And what is Daniel 7 about? Well, a good part of it is about a "son of man" character that achieves victory over a set of beasts. I suggest it is relatively clear that the beasts represent empires. More abstractly, the beasts represent the power-wielding aspect of human empire. It is the power to kill that is the ultimate power of the empire. I am not, at this moment, going to try to spell out the arguments, but I suggest that the Daniel 7 image - which Jesus invokes - implicitly is telling us that the victory Jesus achieved at the cross involves doing away with the model of empire that wields power in the form of, for example, a mighty, powerful, and threatening armed force.

Brilliant.

 

[jasoncran]

i was once a pacifist, that was a long time ago

drew i have one issue how is that you expect us to vote christian values and yet not run for office which must entail control depending on the level offfice
the army and the police. both use deadly force.

to me that is asking satan to align with christian values.if one cant serve in the military or be a cop then one can neither also be a politician as one must also run them and also use them if need be.

 

[Stormcrow]

I am not, at this moment, going to try to spell out the arguments, but I suggest that the Daniel 7 image - which Jesus invokes - implicitly is telling us that the victory Jesus achieved at the cross involves doing away with the model of empire that wields power in the form of, for example, a mighty, powerful, and threatening armed force.

Then Christ was a hypocrite for using Rome to judge Israel. God has always worked through flawed human beings. Nothing has changed in that regard.

 

[Drew]

Then Christ was a hypocrite for using Rome to judge Israel. God has always worked through flawed human beings. Nothing has changed in that regard.

I do not see your point. How is Jesus a hypocrite?

I have asserted that sometimes God uses "evil" agents to execute "righteous" judgment Are you asking me to give examples? However, I suggest it is clear that this does not make God a "hypocrite". And since there are indeed such examples, we would all have a problem if this indeed makes God a hypocrite.

 

[Tri Unity]

drew i have one issue how is that you expect us to vote christian values and yet not run for office which must entail control depending on the level offfice the army and the police. both use deadly force.

Hi Jason, I appreciate your calm and considered responses. I wonder if you don't mind sharing with me, from the bible, where and how you feel Christians are justified to enter into political life, or join the police force or military. I would really like to know where and how the bible gives us such guidance. Do you know that the bible teaches this, or is this just how you think Christians should be?

 

[Stormcrow]

I suggest that, given the teachings of Jesus, and the broad sweep of the Biblical narrative, Paul's argument in Romans 13 is essentially this:

1. God uses "evil" to achieve His (good) purposes. Example: Pharoah.

2. God prefers some order to complete chaos;

3. So even though the government's use of the sword is "evil", God still uses governments, evil though they may be in some respects, to achieve His purposes.

Your whole premise is based entirely upon the incorrect notion that all government is evil. God ordains government for the safety and security of people. Yes, there are evil governments and it is all too easy for even the best governments to become tyrannical (the U.S. under Obama, for instance.) But that does not change the fact that God ordains government for the good of man and that service in good government, therefore, is service to God and to one's fellow man.

I see no difference between being a minister of a church, serving and protecting the spiritual well-being of people, and being a cop or soldier, serving and protecting the material well-being of people. Both are ordained by God and are noble callings.

 

[Stormcrow]

I do not see your point. How is Jesus a hypocrite?

You asserted this:

the victory Jesus achieved at the cross involves doing away with the model of empire that wields power in the form of, for example, a mighty, powerful, and threatening armed force.

His victory on the cross was not aimed at doing away with human government. It was aimed at bringing all human government under His influence through the gospel. The very fact that He did not destroy Rome as an empire but used it to judge Israel is proof of this statement.

If Jesus' intent was to destroy empires with His first advent, as you allege, then not only did He fail in that pursuit but He used the very thing He intended to destroy to destroy Jerusalem! Thus He would be - by implication - either incompetent or a hypocrite.