# Christians in the Military



## tellville (Mar 15, 2007)

Do you guys know any passages that would permit a Christian to be in the military? My wife is doing a paper on this topic and is having a hard time finding any support for Christians being in the military and finding lots against. It's starting to cause some tension as right now I am working as a full time Reservist for the military. 

I've brought up things like the Centurion, the soldiers who come to John the Baptist not being told to stop being soldiers but rather be content with their pay, the fact that the military is a branch of the government, God has used war to accomplish his means, etc. She feels these are all trumped by Jesus' peace statements. 

Any feedback would be great!


----------



## satz (Mar 15, 2007)

Which peace statements exactly, the ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tellville (Mar 15, 2007)

I would imagine so. I never really delved into her passages. I mainly have been defending my position.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 15, 2007)

A few come to mind. (Just a quick cut and paste):

Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. 

(Here, the command against violence regards personal violence against another, not military violence.)



Jdg 3:2 Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof; 


Psa 18:33-34 He maketh my feet like hinds' feet, and setteth me upon my high places. 
He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. 


Psa 144:1-2 <A Psalm of David.> Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: 
My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. 

Rom 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 magistrate bears the sword, and those under him-the soldiers-bear it under his authority).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 15, 2007)

While not speaking directly to soldiery, In Lk. 22:36-38, Jesus advises the disciples to arm themselves (moderatly) for self-defense. Two swords (among a dozen men) he deemed "sufficient." This passage speaks to the whole matter of self defense. The military ought to be a force for self (corporate) defense. Israel needed a miliitary for its _defense_, but were forbidden "chariots and horses" because those were "offensive" weapons in the ANE. There was no standing army. There were tribal (and national) militia, and king's bodyguards. (However, the people were warned that should they acquire a king, he would conscript their sons. And, of course they did just that.)

So, if the military were an aggressive force, then a Christian should not be a part of that. But defense is simply an extension of the 6th commandment.

Luke 14:31 is another text, a parable, in which Jesus states rather matter-or-factly that kings have and presumably need troops. The king (who is on the defensive, note his fewer numbers) is expected to soberly judge the worthwhileness of a fight--is it worth risking everything on, or should he attempt to gain peace through ambassadors?

Those are two passages that come to mind. Hope its helpful somway.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 15, 2007)

I find it interesting how many military men are spoken of as believers. They're about the only God-fearers mentioned in the Gospels. Cornelius' household is also the household used to herald the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Paul uses athletic and military analogies when speaking of the Christian walk.

Phillipi is one of the Churches that is commended by Paul. It was an area that had many military "retirees."

I believe it is more than an argument from silence that the Apostles and the Gospels commend and convert so many military men. There isn't even the slightest mention that their profession is disapproved of.


----------



## KMK (Mar 15, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> While not speaking directly to soldiery, In Lk. 22:36-38, Jesus advises the disciples to arm themselves (moderatly) for self-defense. Two swords (among a dozen men) he deemed "sufficient." This passage speaks to the whole matter of self defense. The military ought to be a force for self (corporate) defense. Israel needed a miliitary for its _defense_, but were forbidden "chariots and horses" because those were "offensive" weapons in the ANE. There was no standing army. There were tribal (and national) militia, and king's bodyguards. (However, the people were warned that should they acquire a king, he would conscript their sons. And, of course they did just that.)
> 
> So, if the military were an aggressive force, then a Christian should not be a part of that. But defense is simply an extension of the 6th commandment.
> 
> ...



Just to clarify. Are you saying that the Bible supports a militia or a military? Or are you saying that the Bible supports either as long as they are for defence only? Are you saying that conscription is a Biblical means for aquiring said military or is it a curse that comes along with having a king?

Sorry for all the questions but this is a very interesting topic.

I tend to think that the debate is not about Jesus' peace teachings but about military vs. militia.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 15, 2007)

Ken,
I don't know how you are defining your terms. You are distinguishing between two items--military and militia-- that I don't ordinarily see set side by side. I assume by "military" you mean a sizable standing army; and _not_ a professional military cadre, standing by to hold the gap, and provide the leadership, in case of a general mobilization of the populace--which regular soldiery I would identify as the militia.

I think God warned his covenant people, who were a nation in the OT, to beware a standing army, because their kings would be tempted to pride, which showed itself in the use such a force for aggression, either internally or externally. David's grievous sin, which his (pretty ungodly!) commander Joab warned him against, was to number his available military when there was no pressure to call them up. David wanted to know how "powerful" he was, compared to the surrounding peoples. There isn't even any indication David meant to _use_ that army aggressively. But God smote the whole nation with a plague as a result. Jehovah thus decimated "David's" army. "No, Davy, it's MY army."

The nation at the same time was expected to marshall for battle, when called to it by the servant of God. This implies an armed populace, all able bodied men which were potentially the militia.

I'm not going to opine here about how those principles apply today. Except to say that I think there are overlap in principles, as well as things that have lost their relevance. I think that the 6th commandment does imply the necessity (duty) of collective self-defense. There is such thing as "just war." And "just war" is always defensive, followed by the rest of its principles. By that, I don't mean we never take the battle to the enemy, but that it takes warranted provocation to take such a dire step as declaring war.

I _personally_ think conscription is immoral; it was part of God's cursing a disobedient, disloyal nation. There are things I would kill for, so I'm no pacifist. But don't try to suit me up involuntarily, and tell me to park my conscience and my duty to exercise judgment on the justice of the cause at the door. In Israel, the laws governing voluntary exception to service in the militia were exceeding broad, including simple "fear." If you didn't want to be there, they didn't want you in the battle.

If a king can't get volunteers to fight, then 
1) the problem is probably with the king, or 
2) the people have the righteous idea about the importance of dying (and killing) for the cause, or 
3) the nation doesn't deserve to survive.


People who make Jesus into a peacenik don't have any idea what he's going to do to those he will "cut in pieces" when he comes as a king in glory. But in the between-time in which we live, his kingdom is NOT a kingdom of warfare, and we are called to extend it peacefully, and to die as lambs to the slaughter if necessary, waiting for him to exercise *vengeance* in due time. Our martyrdom is NOT a prideful jhihadi's murderous immolation. Even trying to "piggy-back" our churchly efforts onto secular force-of-arms is detrimental to genuine kingdom work and advancement. Jesus was crystal clear: his kingdom will not be moved forward by might or power, but by the Spirit. All the armies of the world do is _*get in our way*_.


----------



## Herald (Mar 15, 2007)

> I personally think conscription is immoral; it was part of God's cursing a disobedient, disloyal nation. There are things I would kill for, so I'm no pacifist. But don't try to suit me up involuntarily, and tell me to park my conscience and my duty to exercise judgment on the justice of the cause at the door. In Israel, the laws governing voluntary exception to service in the militia were exceeding broad, including simple "fear." If you didn't want to be there, they didn't want you in the battle.
> 
> If a king can't get volunteers to fight, then
> 1) the problem is probably with the king, or
> ...



Bruce - interesting argument. I'm not prepared to enter a debate on whether conscription is moral or not, but your argument does have a leg to stand on given current events. The United States military is a 100% volunteer force. Opposing views on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, the military has not had a problem finding recruits. While 18-25 year old men are required to register for the draft, neither Congress or the President has seriously considered conscription to continue the current military campaigns. Using your argument, does this mean our nation is justly waging war? 



P.S. As an aside, I believe the current two theater campaign on the War on Terror (Iraq and Afghanistan) is the first time the United States has waged war on two fronts since WW II. I am not including small flare ups or aerial attacks. I am talking about concerted military campaigns. If I am wrong on these facts, please correct me.


----------



## KMK (Mar 16, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Ken,
> I don't know how you are defining your terms. You are distinguishing between two items--military and militia-- that I don't ordinarily see set side by side. I assume by "military" you mean a sizable standing army; and _not_ a professional military cadre, standing by to hold the gap, and provide the leadership, in case of a general mobilization of the populace--which regular soldiery I would identify as the militia.



By 'military' I mean a professional, standing army. By 'militia' I was refering to armed citizens. 

I am not disagreeing with you in any way, but I value your opinion and want to clarify what you are saying. You are saying that we are commanded by the 6th to defend ourselves (even militarily) but you also say that we are to allow ourselves to be martyred. Again, I am not disagreeing with either but just wanting clarification.


----------



## KMK (Mar 16, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Bruce - interesting argument. I'm not prepared to enter a debate on whether conscription is moral or not, but your argument does have a leg to stand on given current events. The United States military is a 100% volunteer force. Opposing views on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, the military has not had a problem finding recruits. While 18-25 year old men are required to register for the draft, neither Congress or the President has seriously considered conscription to continue the current military campaigns. Using your argument, does this mean our nation is justly waging war?



I agree that it is an interesting argument. But I wonder how much of the current recruitment success is due to perks instead of politics.


----------



## Herald (Mar 16, 2007)

> I agree that it is an interesting argument. But I wonder how much of the current recruitment success is due to perks instead of politics.



That has been a criticism of the all volunteer force since the draft was ended in 1975. While a certain portion of that criticism may be fair, consider that military members earn far less than the civilian population. Additionally recruitment levels have not tailed off even with our being at war.


----------



## tellville (Mar 16, 2007)

Thank you guys for your comments and those who have sent me private messages! Any more discussion would be great!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 16, 2007)

KMK said:


> You are saying that we are commanded by the 6th to defend ourselves (even militarily) but you also say that we are to allow ourselves to be martyred. Again, I am not disagreeing with either but just wanting clarification.



I'm pointing out that there are differences that have to be taken into account between OT Israel, which was the church and a nation, and today where we have a church (with some parallels to Israel in both roles), and various nations (which will have some parallels to OT civil society). We need to avoid mixing up those ideas in our heads today. As Americans, we can defend our hearths and homes. As Christians, we willingly suffer "the loss of all things." A Christian in the military should not confuse his job with that of a missionary. Sticking a NT on the end of my bayonet sends a mixed message.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 16, 2007)

"I am a stranger with thee."—Psalm 39:12.
YES, O Lord, with Thee, but not to Thee. All my natural alienation from Thee, Thy grace has effectually removed; and now, in fellowship with Thyself, I walk through this sinful world as a pilgrim in a foreign country. Thou art a stranger in Thine own world. Man forgets Thee, dishonours Thee, sets up new laws and alien customs, and knows Thee not. When Thy dear Son came unto His own, His own received Him not. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. Never was foreigner so speckled a bird among the denizens of any land as Thy beloved Son among His mother's brethren. It is no marvel, then, if I who live the life of Jesus, should be unknown and a stranger here below. Lord, I would not be a citizen where Jesus was an alien. His pierced hand has loosened the cords which once bound my soul to earth, and now I find myself a stranger in the land. My speech seems to these Babylonians among whom I dwell an outlandish tongue, my manners are singular, and my actions are strange. A Tartar would be more at home in Cheapside than I could ever be in the haunts of sinners. But here is the sweetness of my lot: I am a stranger with Thee. Thou art my fellow-sufferer, my fellow-pilgrim. Oh, what joy to wander in such blessed society! My heart burns within me by the way when thou dost speak to me, and though I be a sojourner, I am far more blest than those who sit on thrones, and far more at home than those who dwell in their ceiled houses.


"To me remains nor place, nor time:
My country is in every clime;
I can be calm and free from care
On any shore, since God is there.
While place we seek, or place we shun,
The soul finds happiness in none:
But with a God to guide our way,
'Tis equal joy to go or stay."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## KMK (Mar 16, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm pointing out that there are differences that have to be taken into account between OT Israel, which was the church and a nation, and today where we have a church (with some parallels to Israel in both roles), and various nations (which will have some parallels to OT civil society). We need to avoid mixing up those ideas in our heads today. As Americans, we can defend our hearths and homes. As Christians, we willingly suffer "the loss of all things." A Christian in the military should not confuse his job with that of a missionary. Sticking a NT on the end of my bayonet sends a mixed message.



A Hebrew in the OT would say, "We are the family, the church and the nation of Israel." Today we say, "We are many families, the Church of Jesus Christ, and the nation of the United States of America." So, therefore, there are continuities and discontinuities that exist between OT and NT that must be carefully mantained. It is easy to send mixed messages when we don't keep the continuities and discontinuities clearly defined. Am I summarizing your thoughts correctly, Bruce?


----------



## KMK (Mar 16, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> That has been a criticism of the all volunteer force since the draft was ended in 1975. While a certain portion of that criticism may be fair, consider that military members earn far less than the civilian population. Additionally recruitment levels have not tailed off even with our being at war.



 In addition, all of the military men and women I talk to do what they do for patriotic/political/loyalist reasons. God bless them!!!!!!!!


----------



## BJClark (Mar 16, 2007)

I'd have to do some digging but there is also a verse concerning when a couple marries the husband is not to go off to fight in a war for the first year, not that it would necessarily apply to this, but it doesn't say "they should never go to war."


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 16, 2007)

BJClark said:


> I'd have to do some digging but there is also a verse concerning when a couple marries the husband is not to go off to fight in a war for the first year, not that it would necessarily apply to this, but it doesn't say "they should never go to war."




I believe that's in Duet. 20.


----------



## non dignus (Mar 16, 2007)

tellville said:


> Do you guys know any passages that would permit a Christian to be in the military? My wife is doing a paper on this topic and is having a hard time finding any support for Christians being in the military and finding lots against.




I wrestled with this too. Ask her if it would be OK if a Christian were in the Army manning a purely defensive missile battery. I was confronted with the idea of the Patriot Missile Defense System. This is a small mobile anti-missile system that only shoots down incoming larger missiles.

If a Christian can be enlisted for simply shooting down offensive missiles, then certainly being in the Army is not sinful in itself.


PS I'm am no longer a pacifist. I believe strict pacifism is absolutely immoral.


----------



## tellville (Mar 16, 2007)

non dignus said:


> I'm am no longer a pacifist. I believe strict pacifism is absolutely immoral.



David, could you elaborate on this? Like, would you consider how Gandhi liberated India from Britain as strict pacifism? Or are you talking about something even beyond that?

Again, thank you everybody for the discussion!


----------



## non dignus (Mar 16, 2007)

tellville said:


> David, could you elaborate on this? Like, would you consider how Gandhi liberated India from Britain as strict pacifism? Or are you talking about something even beyond that?
> 
> Again, thank you everybody for the discussion!



No. I don't think Gandhi was a strict pacifist. By strict, I mean the belief that all warfare is wrong regardless of the specific situation. Strict pacifism would say good ethical self defense in no way warrants killing as a means to preserving life and limb.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm a Christian, and I'm in the military.

Sorry, just to take the edge off.


----------



## KMK (Mar 16, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> I'm a Christian, and I'm in the military.
> 
> Sorry, just to take the edge off.



Thank you for your service, sir!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 16, 2007)

KMK said:


> Thank you for your service, sir!



No need to thank me brother. I'm glad to serve. Also I'm a humble E6 so there's no need to call me sir.


----------

