Tag Archives: Military

When fear leads us away from God

scared

“But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, ‘No, we want a king to rule over us’—even though the LORD your God was your king.” (1 Samuel 12:12)

I hadn’t noticed the role that fear played in this sinful episode, when the Israelites rejected the kingship of God and opted for a human king. The Ammonites were coming. They had come before, dominating Israel during the period of the judges (Judges 10-11). They were coming again, and the people were scared. Were they really supposed to just depend on God’s protection? It was time to act!

So they went to Samuel and demanded a king. A king to lead them in battle. It was logical. It was necessary. It was the only thing to do.

That’s what fear told them. And it was the beginning of the end for the nation of Israel. They had the chance to have God as their king, to have God fight their battles. But they chose to depend on human strength and human wisdom.

Would we have done any better? With an enemy knocking at our door, would we have dared rely on God alone? Would we have trusted God’s promises or sought the comfort of strong human leadership and military might? I’m not sure that I would have done any better than they.

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.

Shifting sands

sandOne reason I brought up the subject of torture yesterday is that I wanted to remind us how culture shifts in its definition of morality, especially regarding warfare. The torture techniques, the “enhanced interrogation” if you speak NewSpeak, these were the very things that we found outrageous when they were practiced on American soldiers during the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. Waterboarding, for example, was one of the main accusations against a Japanese officer tried for war crimes after World War II. American soldiers were court-martialed for performing “the water cure” during the Spanish-American war. It’s been considered something morally repugnant. Until it became “necessary.”

To be honest, there is no reason for a nation of this world to not embrace these things. Nations aren’t Christian; people are Christian. However, dare we Christians go along for the ride as our country’s morality changes? I wrote before about the bombing of cities becoming acceptable. Now we’re talking about torturing prisoners. Each of these things become acceptable out of pragmatism: they work, they save lives, etc.

Terrorism works as well. When the governments to whom we blindly pledge our allegiance accept the use of suicide bombers, will Christians do the same? History says yes. And that’s really sad.