Right or Wrong if I Join the Military?

[Augusta]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I know you feel you have made your case, but I don't see it that way. Frankly I remain unimpressed by yout appeal to the Covenanters for a variety of reasons. First, this isn't Scotland. It's the USA. Second, we do not have a state church so the paradigm is vastly different. Third, history has shown from the Edict of Nantes down to Plymouth Colony that state/church marriages do not work. Even if they could work, all the state can do is compell outward compliance but they cannot change hearts. One can observe blue laws and go to hell. But you know this. Fourth, no one is disagreeing with you about what a government should do. But what they should do and actually do are not necessarily the same. Fifth, I haven't seen one shred of clear bliblical evidence (without having to play hermeneutical acrobat) to suggest that the Constitution is the sinful document you claim it to be. It is outwardly secular, to be sure, but a careful inspection of the document will find it to be firmly, if implicitly, rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage. Finally, our forefathers (American that is) wisely recognized the model you espouse as being unworkable. It relies on outward compliance but fails to touch the heart. Of course, the real problem with the Constitution is that the seeds of its own demise does lie in the pluralism it allows.

I'm afraid that I am going to have to see this as an issue of Christian liberty, of freedom of conscience. Swearing an oath to the Constitution would be a sin for you. But it isn't for me, and I have proudly (and sinlessly) done it three times.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree...but my did I learn a lot in the process!

Well put Kevin.

 

[D. Paul]

For the Newlywed?

My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq.

He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also.

This is not a surprise proposal. He expressed interest before the wedding. But what ought to be his primary interest?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Guess we will have to agree to disagree...but my did I learn a lot in the process!

By the way, you either have an ENORMOUS electronic library or the fastest fingers east of the Mississippi!

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by D. Paul
My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq.

He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also.

This is not a surprise proposal. He expressed interest before the wedding. But what ought to be his primary interest?

There was a reason God forbade soldiers to serve in the first year...I'd advise him to wait long enough to see the birth of his child. As grim as it may sound, if he goes to war, it might be the only chance he ever gets.

 

[Bladestunner316]

He should spend the time with his wife in the end thats all he will have(minus God,family, and taxes):bigsmile:

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by D. Paul
My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq.

He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also.

This is not a surprise proposal. He expressed interest before the wedding. But what ought to be his primary interest?

I too think it would be advisable to wait until the birth of the baby.
Also, I do think that a wise person will consider the opinion of their spouse before beginning a career. When he brought this matter up before the wedding what was her response? Is she opposed to him joining in general or is she upset because at this particular time he may be sent off to war?

That said, I agree with what Kevin just wrote about this may be the only chance he gets... there is glory to be won and there are lots of great medals to be earned! His dress uniform will look most impressive!

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[twogunfighter]

Andrew

"I would advocate reforming or amending it to bring it into conformity with God's Law."

Then you and I are both in the same position about the Constitution. We only vary on the lawfulness of taking oaths.

The problem is that you did not interact with my scripture quotes. Namely that Gedaliah and Zedekiah do not appear from the text to have sinned by swearing fealty to governments much more evil than our constitution.

Chuck

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by twogunfighter
Andrew

"I would advocate reforming or amending it to bring it into conformity with God's Law."

Then you and I are both in the same position about the Constitution.

We only vary on the lawfulness of taking oaths.

The problem is that you did not interact with my scripture quotes. Namely that Gedaliah and Zedekiah do not appear from the text to have sinned by swearing fealty to governments much more evil than our constitution.

Chuck

My apologies for the oversight. I will give consideration to these passages and get back to you. They are very relevant to the issue at hand and I want to thank you for citing them. I have some time constraints at present but I will respond as soon as possible.

 

[D. Paul]

How does the Deut 24:5 have significance for us today? I understand the securing and strengthening of the home first, but can we say dogmatically that this applies? AND (this is the big concern) is it truly a certainty in light of our current situation that he would be active duty immediately? What could ease his wife's (my daughter's) mind regarding the decision?

(Ben Duncan, I suppose I ask for your opinion. I want to be helpful to them but...)

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by D. Paul]

 

[pastorway]

Originally posted by D. Paul
My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq.

He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also.

This is not a surprise proposal. He expressed interest before the wedding. But what ought to be his primary interest?

I would council any married couple, newlywed or married for years and years, that to make a change like this in the husbands job situation (which is what this boils down to) is a matter that they should agree on before he acts!

If she is not for it then he should not do it. If he goes against her wishes he is putting himself before his wife.

They need to communicate about this, perhaps with a pastor, and they need to agree on what he will do before he does anything.

Phillip

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by D. Paul
How does the Deut 24:5 have significance for us today? I understand the securing and strengthening of the home first, but can we say dogmatically that this applies? AND (this is the big concern) is it truly a certainty in light of our current situation that he would be active duty immediately? What could ease his wife's (my daughter's) mind regarding the decision?

(Ben Duncan, I suppose I ask for your opinion. I want to be helpful to them but...)

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by D. Paul]

Of course there is no certainty that he would be activated right away... or even at all. Also, depending on the job he would want to do would have great bearing on when/if/to what extent he gets in harms way.
I do think that at the end of the day he needs to consider his wife's opinion. If he really wants to serve, but if she is opposed to the Army, then perhaps they could compromise and join the Air National Guard. (Yuck... as a Ranger, just saying that makes me feel wimpy.)
But seriously... the pay is the same and it would be a good way to serve.
On the one hand, it would be bad for him to totally give up on something he really wants to do because when he is old and gray he will regret and wonder about "what could have been." At the same time, it would be bad for him to pursue his own interests at the expense of his family because he may very well lose them (if not literally, then quite possibly emotionally), and even if he doesn't he might do substantial damage to his marraige. If either is unwilling to budge then there is a great possibility that one will end up resenting the other for it.
Thus, perhaps someone can recommend the Air National Guard or the Naval Reserve as an acceptable compromise.
Just a thought.

 

[D. Paul]

Thank you again, Pastor Way, for your insight and advise. I have suggested that they see our Pastor soon in order to resolve this.

I also gave them a part of John Gills commentary regarding the husband "setting his affection" upon his wife in the year provided for. And I offered them the advise that this particular issue is secondary to their contentious attitudes toward one another and THAT is to be repented of before any resolution of this, or any subsequent issue.

Please pray for them!

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by twogunfighter
2 Chronicles 36:11-21
11 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. 12 He did evil in the sight of the Lord his God, and did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the Lord. 13 And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear an oath by God; but he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord God of Israel.

Jeremiah 40:7-16
7 And when all the captains of the armies who were in the fields, they and their men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam governor in the land, and had committed to him men, women, children, and the poorest of the land who had not been carried away captive to Babylon, 8 then they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah--Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah, Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth, the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah F41 the son of a Maachathite, they and their men. 9 And Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, took an oath before them and their men, saying, "Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you. 10 As for me, I will indeed dwell at Mizpah and serve the Chaldeans who come to us. But you, gather wine and summer fruit and oil, put them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities that you have taken."

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Comment...plete/mhc-com.cgi?book=jer&chapter=40#Jer40_9

Ezekiel 17 :11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 "Say now to the rebellious house: 'Do you not know what these things mean?' Tell them, 'Indeed the king of Babylon went to Jerusalem and took its king and princes, and led them with him to Babylon. 13 And he took the king's offspring, made a covenant with him, and put him under oath. He also took away the mighty of the land, 14 that the kingdom might be brought low and not lift itself up, but that by keeping his covenant it might stand. 15 But he rebelled against him by sending his ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and many people. Will he prosper? Will he who does such things escape? Can he break a covenant and still be delivered? 16 As I live,' says the Lord God, 'surely in the place where the king dwells who made him king, whose oath he despised and whose covenant he broke--with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die. 17 Nor will Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company do anything in the war, when they heap up a siege mound and build a wall to cut off many persons. 18 Since he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, and in fact gave his hand and still did all these things, he shall not escape.' " 19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: "As I live, surely My oath which he despised, and My covenant which he broke, I will recompense on his own head. 20 I will spread My net over him, and he shall be taken in My snare. I will bring him to Babylon and try him there for the treason which he committed against Me. 21 All his fugitives F20 with all his troops shall fall by the sword, and those who remain shall be scattered to every wind; and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken."

Gedaliah is seen as unsinful despite taking an oath to support and work for the Chaldeans. Zedekiah is seen as sinful for breaking his oath that was sworn to Nebukednezzar. Gedaliah had to swear allegiance to a government that had no chance to reform and scripture does not describe what he does as sin yet the modern enlistee's oath has at least some chance that our document flawed as it is can be changed to reflect an acknowledgement of God (if you don't think that it already does). BTW (and I know that Scripture is silent on this but it defies reason to be otherwise) I am sure that Ezra and Nehemiah had to swear fealty to their governments as well before they took off to re-patriate the promised land.

Chuck

I have read a variety of commentaries on the passages you cited, Chuck, and at first glance I admit it seems that oaths of allegiance were sworn and in one case God conveyed his great displeasure at the breaking of such an oath.

I think it must be inquired 1) what kind of oath are we talking about in the cases of Zedekiah and Gedaliah? and 2) is there anything about their circumstances that is normative or not normative for us today?

Calvin refers to Zedekiah's oath as a treaty. Zedekiah himself of course was a king, but having been conquered Nebachanezzer the babylonian king required tribute and submission. There is no mention of a requirement to compromise Zedekiah's religious beliefs.

Regarding oaths, the WCF says:

CHAPTER XXII
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship,[443] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.[444]

II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.[445] Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred.[446] Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old;[447] so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.[448]

III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[449] neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.[450]

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[451] It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man´s own hurt.[452] Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[453]

V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.[454]

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:[455] and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.[456]

VII. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God.[457] In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.[458]

Zedekiah's breaking of his oath, an oath that did not bind his conscience in matters religious, was a violation of the third commandment and as such incurred God's wrath.

Matthew Henry says in the link that you provided regarding Gedaliah's situation: "Though the divine law had forbidden them to make leagues with the heathen, yet the divine sentence had obliged them to yield to the king of Babylon." Much like Pontius Pilate's authority over Christ, which was given to him for a specific redemptive purpose, God who had before prohibited his people from entering into leagues and associations with the heathen, now made clear that his people were to serve the babylonians for a time. Thus, there is in this situation a non-normative aspect to Gedaliah's oath of allegiance. And again, there is no requirement in the oath that I can see to contradict God's law. The same could be said of Ezra or Nehemiah if indeed oaths of allegiance were required of them. Indeed, in their case, permission was given to re-establish the temple worship.

George Gillespie has written well on the subject of God's commandments which forbid his people to enter into leagues, associations or covenants with the heathen in matters religious or civil. This is a principle that is consistently upheld in the OT, and has not been revoked in the NT. Gillespie allows for peace treaties with heathen nations, but not if there is compromise with the true faith.

The US Constitution, as I see it, requires of government officials and the like to uphold the doctrine of religious pluralism, a doctrine which denies the kingship of Christ over the state. Despite the much good that can be found in the document, and regardless of the other evils which I have listed separately, this alone disqualifies the oath of loyalty to the Constitution as lawful in my view, based on the Scriptural teaching of the Confession above, and taking into account the particular examples of Zedekiah and Gedaliah, as well as others which I have studied and addressed.

 

[twogunfighter]

Andrew

I appreciate your explaining your position. I do not agree but the horse has been whipped quite throroughly; no need for me to keep restating the already argued points.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by twogunfighter
Andrew

I appreciate your explaining your position. I do not agree but the horse has been whipped quite throroughly; no need for me to keep restating the already argued points.

Thanks, brother.

 

[Jonathan]

Very interesting conversation, thanks for all your feedback and positions, very helpful.
As for my joining the military; I feel right now that it is not the wisest decision. Being a very young Christian, I do not see it to be wise to throw myself into such a situation, with the likelyhood of being away from good solid teaching and Christian influence. I believe that I must put the kingdom of God as my primary focus and strive for that first. Where it will lead me I don't know (whether ministry, desk-job, etc), whatever the case, I trust God to guide me. I would appreciate your prayers in this rather hard time. All the decisions very intimidating sometimes to take that next step. Feels like my life just switched lanes to the high-speed lane. Thanks again.