Category Archives: Military

Are you going to kill me?

In exploring our allegiance to our Christian nation versus our allegiance to an earthly kingdom, it might help to view a case study. I know that there is a danger in the use of hypothetical situations, but maybe they can help us stretch our thinking a bit.

Last year, Governor Rick Perry of Texas suggested that Texas might be better off seceding from the United States. I doubt that he was serious in the least, but let’s play with that idea a bit. What if Texas seceded from the Union, followed by some of the other southern states? If a civil war broke out, would you advise Christians to participate in that war?

I guess I’d like to know, just for future reference, which of my brothers would choose to kill me under those circumstances. I doubt I’d be a primary target, but I could be “collateral damage” if Dyess Air Force Base were attacked. Would you kill me?

Should Alabama Christians be bearing arms against their California brethren? Would Christians who have locked arms in fellowship now take pot shots against one another?

Which of you plan to kill my son? He’s of military age. Who will kill my nephews? I’ve got one that is in the military. It would help me be better prepared for that time to come if I knew which of my brothers would be willing to pull the trigger on my family. In similar discussions, I’ve been told that it really doesn’t matter if opposing soldiers are Christians or not. So why don’t we get it out in the open beforehand?

It happened before. It could happen again.

It wouldn’t hurt to decide beforehand where our loyalties lie. Which kingdom takes precedence? Which loyalty is greater? Which master will we serve?

Feel free to comment below, choosing one of the two positions:

  • Sure, I’d kill any of my Christian brothers who were on the wrong side.
  • No, my Christian nation is more important to me. No kingdom of this world can tell me to kill my brothers.

Jay Guin on Pacifism

Jay Guin is doing an interesting study on pacifism over on his blog. That’s a topic that I would like to explore sometime; for now, I’ll just point you to Jay’s works and the discussion over there. Pacifism and nonviolence are difficult topics because emotions enter into the discussion, making it hard to work from a base of logic and reason.

I haven’t agreed with some of his conclusions, but I always respect Jay’s study methods. Here are the links to the posts so far:

Introduction
The Early Church
David Lipscomb and Civil Government
John Howard Yoder, Part 1
Part 2
A Culture of Life, Part 1
Part 2
A Thought Experiment
Fitting Government into the Story
A Reply to Guy
Pacifism:  Police and Defensive War, Part 1
Pacifism: In Answer to Tim’s and Guy’s Questions
Pacifism: Police and Defensive War, Part 2

If you’d like to discuss any of the comments I’ve made along the way, feel free to comment here.

An ancient quote on Christians and military service

chaplainIn past discussions about Christians participating in the affairs of earthly kingdoms, I’ve pondered at times the situation of Roman soldiers, like Cornelius in Acts 10, who became Christians. I’ve long known that the church was strongly pacifistic during the first four centuries of its existence, but I also knew that military men in the New Testament became Christians. The Bible doesn’t give us much of a hint as to what they were instructed to do.

Not long ago, I ran across a quote from the third century, about 220 A.D., from a Christian named Hippolytus. In a discussion on dealing with converts, he stated the following: “A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected by the community. A procounsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God.“*

Hippolytus was not inspired, at least as far as I know, so I certainly don’t take his views as Scripture. But it is interesting to have this insight into how early Christians dealt with the topic of military service.

What do you think of Mr. Hippolytus’ words?

*Hippolytus, “Church Order in the Apostolic Tradition,” in The Early Christians in Their Own Words, ed. Eberhard Arnold (Farmington, PA: Plough, 1997)

Willingly deceived?

feathersOK, after a trip to the Pepperdine lectures, I’m back and ready to bounce some more ideas off of you. Before I so rudely interrupted myself by posting some things I had written previously, I was discussing the idea that governments will say and do what they need to in order to prolong their own existence. We would like to think that our government will always be open and honest with us, but experience says that just isn’t so. For example, we remember the righteous indignation with which the Carter administration responded to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, it wasn’t until 1998 that former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted (in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur) that the U.S. had baited the Soviets into invading Afghanistan by funding Islamic rebels in that country. [Ironically, Brzezinski was asked at that time about the wisdom of such action. “What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?,” he replied. When the interviewer questioned Brzezinski about Islamic fundamentalism representing a world menace, he said, “Nonsense!” That was, of course, three years before 9/11] Was that an isolated episode? Hardly. Nations around the world have done and will do this very thing time and again. And people forgive them. There was a fake commercial on a comedy show back in the 80s which had the tagline “The CIA: You don’t know what we do. You don’t want to know.” That pretty much sums it up for many.

Here’s what concerns me: Christians throw in their lot with these earthly governments based on the information they are given. “God is on our side” is the battle cry of armies everywhere, with Christians taking up arms based on what politicians say and do. Some Christians come to support these governments no matter what. Pragmatism takes precedence over spirituality; what matters is what works, what will keep us safe, what will assure the continuing existence of the kingdom that we support, be it the Roman empire, colonial Spain, or the United States of America.

Dare we abdicate our right to make moral decisions? Will we trust in worldly people to decide whether or not we should use torture? Will we let Congress decide who we are to hate, who we are to kill, who we are to fight, whose nation and way of life we are to destroy? The same people who moan and complain about what the President is doing, about the decisions that Congress makes, about how our government is run, these same people will turn around and urge us to go fight the wars that these politicians choose. We don’t want Obama to spend our money nor make moral decisions about marriage or stem cell research, but we want to give him the right to tell our young people to destroy an Afghan village. (Fighting the very group that we armed and trained in the 1970s… but let’s not go there…)

Somebody help me make sense of this. A high percentage of Christians that write on the Internet have been highly critical of our government’s policies over the last few months. That’s not only acceptable, it’s encouraged by many. But questioning our country’s military policy (made by the same people) is considered unChristian. Huh?

{photo by duchessa, sxc.hu}

Deceit, lies and waterboarding

water_cure

During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using “the water cure.” In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted “resort to torture with a view to extort a confession.” He recommended disapproval because “the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture.”

Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, says that throughout the centuries, the justifications for using waterboarding have been remarkably consistent. “Almost every time this comes along, people say, ‘This is a new enemy, a new kind of war, and it requires new techniques,'” he says. “And there are always assurances that it is carefully regulated.”

(excerpts from Waterboarding: A Tortured History)

 

It’s been said that waterboarding created quick, effective results after 9/11. That turned out to be a lie, an oft-repeated lie, but a lie nonetheless. The specific case mentioned was that of Abu Zubaydah. Problem is, interrogators had already gotten excellent, actionable information from Mr. Zubaydah, including the identification of José Padilla, the dirty bomber. That information was not obtained by torture, it was obtained through traditional methods. (Zubaydah provided this information between March and June of 2002; waterboarding was authorized in August of that year) In addition, recently declassified memos show that Zubaydah was waterboarded “at least 83 times,” [Ed.—or 83 pours, as noted in the comments below] not the 30-35 seconds that Rush Limbaugh and others like to talk about.

I could go on and on, but plenty has been written about the foolishness of using torture techniques that have been proven historically to provide false confessions, much has been reported following the declassification of the memos about torture. What is important for us to remember, though, is that we were deceived. Again. We put our trust in politicians and professional soldiers to give us reliable information about what they were doing and why. As the people of God, we cannot place ourselves blindly in the hands of ungodly people, letting them make decisions about whom we should hate, whom we should kill, whom we should torture and what is right and what is not. The kingdoms of this world, all of them, promote their own interests. They do not put God’s kingdom first. They will lie to us to get us to do what they want. They will hide information from us, distort the facts, and present partial truths. A quick look at history confirms this fact. Monarchs and revolutionaries, Democrats and Republicans, capitalists and communists, … we dare not let them make our moral decisions. They will promote their own interests by any means necessary.

Our government will never do that, for our king cannot lie.