Should Christians serve in the military?

[jasoncran]

show me where its a sin for the hebrews to own a slave?

show me where it says thou shall NOT take care of your family and protect them from rapists and harm. show me where it says if a man wants to rape your wife you better let him.

 

[Stormcrow]

Do you have any scriptures that support your view or do you not?

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 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 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 13:1-7 (NASB)

Prove that those who claim to be Christian and who claim to be called to serve in government by God are not!

 

[Drew]

The Ailed forces that liberated the concentration camps were not agents of evil....

No one suggested otherwise. My argument is, I suggest entirely Biblical. Why has no one refuted it? I politely suggest that you know why.

My argument was that there are times when God uses agents of evil to visit God's otherwise righteous judgement on some person or set of persons. I am confident I can give examples from the Old Testament (Cyrus, for example).

This is an inconvenient truth to those who try to argue that Romans 13, with its statement about the state with its sword being an agent of God's justice, supports the notion that Christians can legitimately participate in armed conflict.

I suggest it is clear that they cannot. As I have shown, Romans 13 does not enable one to, legitimately anyway, draw the conclusion that Christian participation in armed activity is endorsed by God. And the reason is, again, we know from Biblical precedent that while God may use the armed might of some nation to achieve His purposes, this does not necessarily mean that those who participate in that activity are acting righteously.

Again: Jesus is clear when talking to Pilate - the reason His followers are not defending Him by force is that they are citizens of a kingdom where the use of force is simply not legitimate.

Not doing some thing to stop the 'killing fields " was some form of evil.

No one is suggesting inaction when facing evil. What we are saying is, following Jesus' teaching in John 18, the option of armed force is not legitimately available to the obedient citizen of the kingdom of God.

 

[Drew]

Pacifism is the cowardly motivation behind appeasement: throwing others to the wolves first hoping to be eaten last.

This is not a legitimate statement. You are engaging in rhetoric, avoiding the penetrating, clear Biblical arguments for the pacifist position, and trying to tar the Christian pacifist with the coward label.

Jesus tells us why His followers did not use force - and I politely suggest this is something you simply cannot accept since it would undermine your entire position on this - we are members of a new kingdom, and it that kingdom, force is not a legitimate option.

Again, let the words of Jesus speak for themselves:

Jesus answered, “ My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.â€

I challenge to explain to us all how to take this teaching and make it work with your position that armed force is a legitmate mode of behaviour for the Christian.

 

[reba]

My argument was that there are times when God uses agents of evil to visit God's otherwise righteous judgement on some person or set of persons. I am confident I can give examples from the Old Testament (Cyrus, for example).

My simple mind is telling me once again you are sayig the military forces that liberated the concentration camps were agents of evil.

No one is suggesting inaction when facing evil. What we are saying is, following Jesus' teaching in John 18, the option of armed force is not legitimately available to the obedient citizen of the kingdom of God.

I would think the best use of the minds God gave us would be to be ready to defend what ever needs to be defended... A strong army while hoping it is never used....

When i read what you post i think why have a police force? Why have an army?
Would you protect your home/family? If you would and if you want a police force some training is a good idea...I know we have been up and down this road before.... I dont like circle talking so i will stay away for a while..

Our jason is not an agent of evil... nor my son and grandson... dad uncles grandpa

 

[Drew]

Prove that those who claim to be Christian and who claim to be called to serve in government by God are not!

1. As has already been argued, and no counter-argument has been made, Romans 13 can legitimately be read as an assertion that God uses even the sword-wielding of the government to achieve His purposes, even though He (God) believes this sword-wielding to be evil. Again, there is Biblical precedent for this, so there should be no argument: Romans 13 does not necessarily endorse Christian participation in the armed activities of government.

2. There are plenty of Biblical reasons to believe that the Christian is indeed called to shape and participate in governmental activity beyond Romans 13. And that's a good thing precisely because, as per point 1, God can use evil agency to support His purposes. So Romans 13, by itself, does not endorse Christian participation in government.

 

[Drew]

Something from NT Wright about Romans 13 in relation to what I am saying:

“The Old Testament had denounced pagan nations and their rulers – but some of the very prophets whose denunciations were the fiercest nations and their rulers – but some of the very prophets whose denunciations were the fiercest also told Israel that God was working through the pagan nations and their rulers for Israel’s long-term good (Assyria, in Isaiah 10; Cyrus, in Isaiah 45; Babylon itself, in Jeremiah 29).â€

Who is willing to challenge this? If Wright is correct, we cannot presume that Romans 13 is endorsing Christian participation in "sword-wielding" that is described in Romans 13.

 

[Drew]

I would think the best use of the minds God gave us would be to be ready to defend what ever needs to be defended...

Did Jesus not need to be defended as he stood before Pilate on the verge of certain death?

Now let's deal with one response right off the bat. Many will respond "well, that's different, Jesus needed to go to the cross, so we cannot have His disciples rescuing Him. Otherwise, He would never have paid for our sins".

This objection is a classic example of not taking the text seriously. Notice what Jesus says to Pilate:

Jesus answered, “ My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.â€

There you have it - an explanation that sits very uncomfortably with wanting to believe that Jesus' situation is a special case.

Does Jesus say "My disciples are not using force to rescue me because a successful rescue would mean I would not go to the cross and pay for the sins of the world"?

No, he did not.

Wanting really really really bad to have Jesus say something other than what He does say is not good enough.

And what He effectively says is, I suggest, this: It is in the very nature of citizenship in the new kingdom I am initiating that force is not used.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we, or are we not, members of this new kingdom?

 

[Codger]

I was able to find this St. Maurice. It seems there is some question regarding this event

The earliest account of their martyrdom according to the public letter of Eucherius, bishop of Lyons (c. 434 – 450

 

[Tri Unity]

show me where its a sin for the hebrews to own a slave?

It was not a sin for a Hebrew to have a slave. God had ordained Israel to be slaves (in Egypt); and for Abraham to populate a race through his slave:

“Remember that you were slaves in the land of Egypt; therefore, I am commanding you to do all this.” (Deut 24:22)

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.” (Gal 4:22)

That you have dodged my question shows you concede that there is no scriptural support for your argument. This is no surprise.

Regarding the rape you mentioned: I sympathize with you greatly. I have been through the same struggles. I do not condemn self-defense at all. My wife and my sister were raped. I was beaten to a whisper of death trying to prevent a rape. It took me years to recover, as I was beaten in the head several times with a steal pole, piecing my eye and cracking my skull. I was blind for about 1 year, as my eye would not heal, for the scab kept falling off my cornea; rendering me in too much pain to be able to open my eyes. Rape victims go through even worse. God’s people are not alien to pain and trauma; we are birthed in it. God has His reasons for allowing such things. I now praise God for jolting me with this wake-up call; as I was spiritually lost at the time. Traumas do not justify becoming militant or of joining forces with the governments to wipe out crime. That is not why we (Christians) are here. This is my opinion.

God Bless
Tri

 

[Tri Unity]

Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

I had explained Romans 13 elsewhere, but here is a summary:

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Paul tells us to be subject to the governments. But be subject to them in what? Does Paul mean that we should worship Caesar if the government command us to? Is there a line we draw, or do we blindly subject ourselves to everything? Where do we draw the line? What if the government forbids us to preach… should we obey them then?

Acts 5:28, 29 “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?” …“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Paul has not as yet told us his reason for calling us into subjection to governments, or in what way we should be subject; he is just telling us that if we refuse to obey this principal there are dire consequences. But what, O’ Paul, is your reason?

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Here now Paul arrives at his reason. “Rulers are not a terror to good works”. The goal is to do good works. Governments have been ordained to allow for “good works”. No government prevents anyone form good works, so they are not a “terror” to us in this regard.

”Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.”

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The government is ordained to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”. In this regard the government is the “minister of God”.

Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

For this reason we must be subject to the government; the government, as “minister of God” against “him that doeth evil” is not a terror to us, and does not prevent us from carrying on a Godly life. This is Paul’s argument and council to us. He tells us not to despise the government; for it is ordained of God to bring about justice so that we might live a Godly life. The government Paul was speaking of was not a Christian government, and it did not have any Christians serving in it. It didn’t need to. The government was ordained of God without Christians serving in it, or voting for it, or fighting for it. The government, every government, whether Fascist, Communist, Buddhist, or Catholic, is ordained of God. Voting makes zero impact on God’s ordination. It would make absolutely no difference whether or not the government was socialist or democratic; we are not told to mould the government, we are simply told to be subject to the government, without any resistance, so that we may live Godly lives. These verses give no support to justify changing government, or influencing government, or opposing any government, or even voting for governments. They certainly give no support for going to war and killing for a government. "Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil". (Mathew 5:37)

Romans 13:6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

This is why there is no conflict for us paying taxes. It is the price we pay to recieve God's ordination for our good. Jesus paid taxes and recieved protection, as we do, from the very government that He had ordained. He did not vote for Rome; He ordained Rome!


God Bless
Tri

 

[Drew]

About this "agent of evil" business:

1. I never said that all those who participate in military activities are agents of evil. I simply asserted that sometimes God uses "evil instruments" to implement His righteous will, and that these agents sometimes use violence.

2. Having said this, I believe it is fairly clear that the Christian is not called to pariticipate in military activities. Does that make it "sin" when they do? Not sure why this question is that important. Jesus tells us that His way is not the way of the sword. So, we should not take up the sword. Whether or not this counts as "sin" strikes me as somewhat beside the point. We should do what we are called to do - deal with problems without violence.

 

[Drew]

Paul tells us to be subject to the governments. But be subject to them in what? Does Paul mean that we should worship Caesar if the government command us to? Is there a line we draw, or do we blindly subject ourselves to everything? Where do we draw the line? What if the government forbids us to preach… should we obey them then?

All true, but this is certainly not an argument against the Christian participating in the institutions of government in ways that are otherwise consistent with kingdom of God principles.

I see precisely zero reason for believing that we should not seek to try to mould and shape government to conform to kingdom values.

Jesus is lord, we are his subjects? Are we not to seek to bring all elements of this world under his lordship?

 

[Tri Unity]

I see precisely zero reason for believing that we should not seek to try to mould and shape government to conform to kingdom values.

If you are going to recommend a course of action for Christians; then let that course of action be based on the council of Jesus and the Holy Spirit; not on your own opinions that have NO biblical support. That is why I have consistently asked for biblical evidence for your argument. Your argument (along with most others on this thread) is based on human reasoning, which is not God's reasoning. What if I was to tell you that it is your duty to use IBM computers, not Macintosh, based on some silly idea of responsable marketing; and then try and tell you that this course of action is what God wants us to do... It's crazy! If you think God wants us to change governments, vote, join the military or police force, show me how this idea comes from the New Testament gospel, otherwise concede that it is simply your own convoluted opinions.

This is not a personal choice, like vaccinations; this is completely alien to the teachings of Jesus who said "My Kingdom is no part of this world"; and "whoever be a friend of this world makes himself God's enemy"; and "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword", and "the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast so that darkness covered his kingdom" (notice - "his kingdom"); and "you cannot serve two masters", and so on. There are a great deal of scriptures warning against participation with the beast, and none to support this action. You have found yourself on the side of the Kingdom of the Beast which will be punished in God's wrath. This is a great mistake!

 

[Drew]

If you are going to recommend a course of action for Christians; then let that course of action be based on the council of Jesus and the Holy Spirit; not on your own opinions that have NO biblical support.

There is plenty of Biblical support for the position that it is appropriate for the Christian to be involved in government. One of the problems with discussing the Biblie is that some people insist on presentation of a direct statement instructing us to do something, otherwise they believe there is no Biblical mandate to do that thing.

That is simply not how the Bible works - it is not simply a laundry list of instructions for living.

Now the matter at issue. I assert the following points and am prepared to defend them Biblically:

1. Jesus is presently seated as a "political" king over all nations - the kingdom of God is here;

2. He is, therefore, "head" over all governments;

3. We, the church are called to implement His kingship - this surely means that we are called to transform the very institutions of government that order how our world actually works;

It is very very strange indeed to claim to be a follower of Jesus, believe that His value system - the kingdom of God principles He taught - is a good one, and yet to believe that these good values should not be used to shape the institutions of government.

More later.

 

[Drew]

Your argument (along with most others on this thread) is based on human reasoning, which is not God's reasoning.

False argument, although one often used. My argument, like yours of course, involves the use of the human mind to read the scriptures, understand the relevant context, and employ reasoning to reach the proper conclusion.

Are you suggesting that you have arrived at your position without needing to learn how to read, think, and put ideas together? Well, unless you have magical powers, you employ human reasoning as much as anyone else.

 

[Drew]

This is not a personal choice, like vaccinations; this is completely alien to the teachings of Jesus who said "My Kingdom is no part of this world";

Jesus never said this, in the sense you and many others understand it.

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:

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 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here.

The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from†(above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)â€

When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world†reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.

Jesus is a King. Jesus' kingdom, while not from this world, is rather clearly for this world.

 

[Drew]

and "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword",

If you are actually reading my posts carefully, you would know that I am clearly opposed to participating in armed conflict.

One can, of course, participate in government in many ways besides joining the Marines.....

 

[Drew]

Clarification: When I assert that the Bible is not simply a "laundry list" of rules, I mean to imply that we can discern lots of important truths from the narrative that the scripture presents - the story that it is telling us.

 

[reba]

Goning back on my word here...

Drew I believe we are in the Kingdom just about the same as you do.... I will also say the kingdom is building it has been growing sense the time of Christ... It is not yet complete when it is there will be no need for the police army etc....

Now i must unsubscribe to this thread....