I was recently interviewed for an article in the October issue of RP Witness, a Christian magazine dedicated to reformed theology. On the front cover, the bottom picture is of me with a classroom of Iraqi children.
The author of the article asked several intelligent questions about how Christian service members in the military bridge the gap between being a war-fighter and being a believer in Christ, who is most associated with being the Prince of Peace.
Her questions really made me reflect on my role in the Army and my involvement in Iraq. Not because I think Iraq is an unjust war. I don't see it that way. I saw some incredibly beautiful things rise up in that country thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of Soldiers throughout the world, especially the U.S.
My conflict, however lies in the idea that most Army Chaplains preach sermons as if the U.S. Soldier is himself chosen by God. I would say that for the most part, being a Soldier and being a Christian are exclusive identities. I'm a Soldier of God first and a war-fighter second. Fortunately for me, I've never had to witness combat or engage the enemy in battle. Never fired a single shot.
In Iraq, it was difficult to reveal who I am. All of my fellow Soldiers know I'm a Christian, and I'd say that for the most part respect me for being one. However, we were never allowed to interact with the Iraqi people at that level.
The U.S. Military imposed strict rules against evangelizing to the Iraqi people. One Marine, in fact, was punished for handing out coins with Biblical scriptures engraved in Arabic.
While my uniform represented the U.S. Army, my heart represents my dedication to God. My duty as a Soldier placed limitations and restrictions to my duties to God. It was never difficult to interact with the Iraqi people. For the most part, they truly loved us. The children chased our humvees and MRAPs any time they saw us on the street. But I've always known that my two identities never blended together perfectly.
Another aspect of it was knowing that War requires killing -- less so when I arrived, but it was still going on.
If I were to kill someone in Iraq, I would have done so as a Soldier, not as a Christian. And I know that there's a difference between killing and murdering, but that's not my main concern. My main concern is, at what point can we say, as U.S. Soldiers, that our service to our Country is also a service to God?
To answer that, we have to remember -- first and always -- that nothing we do guarantees us a place in Heaven. This can actually be a very liberating thought. It's always a matter of the heart and a matter of faith in Christ. Therefore, it's not so much what we do in the Army, but our intentions.
I met a Soldier in Babil Province by the name of Spc. Michael Kim. He's an incredible man who helped raise more than $10,000 for a little girl who needed heart surgery for a congenital disease she had. He was a believer. Now, he knew that his actions to help this girl did nothing to guarantee him entrance into God's kingdom, but he simply did it out of Christian love and compassion for another human being. His heart was in the right place because he placed God first and did everything for His glory.
As, Christians we are called to minister and spread the Gospel to all nations. Unfortunately in Iraq we weren't allowed to do so. We were shackled by military regulations and cultural sensitivities. I've been able to accept that and see it both ways: An effort of evangilization (even if conducted by individuals and not by the organization itself) could cause an uproar in this mainly-Muslim country. And besides, our military efforts have always been focused at fighting terrorism and not a religion, no matter what some people like to believe. I was there. They weren't.
But there lies the conflict between Soldier and Christian. As a Christian, I'm called to share the Good News with all people. And yet, I volunteered to serve in an organization that banned that practice. Does that mean that my service to Country is a disservice to God?
No.
Because God knows how to read our hearts. He knows what our intentions and our desires are. He knows our sins and he knows our pride.
In answering the questions posed by the RP Witness writer, I really faced some questions that I never had thought about before. Even in my church there is high praise and high sense of respect for the Military service man. Except, I had always felt a conflict there that I was never really able to smooth out until recently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Very smart and thoughtful and honest post. It's much easier, I imagine, to think that the war is/was a holy war, and that being a soldier and a soldier of God are one in the same (as Rumsfeld et al presented it to Pres Bush in the briefings discussed here: http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200905/donald-rumsfeld-administration-peers-detractors
I've found myself to be less and less a fan of Rumsfeld the more I learn about the man.
That link is blocked on my computer for some reason, but I'll check it out on one of the school computes when I get a chance.
Thanks for reading.
You wrote, "I know that there's a difference between killing and murdering". From a Biblical standpoint you might be surprised to discover its not as simple as you'd like to think. Even outside the Bible, it's not always clear. Abortion doctors are killers, but they are not murderers. Why? Because there is no law against killing unborn children. Crimes classified as murder varies from state to state. If you want the real scoop on the kill vs. murder debate, you should read "You Shall Not Kill or You Shall Not Murder?: The Assault on a Biblical Text" by Wilma Ann Bailey. See http://tinyurl.com/yzew5p9
Well actually the commandment is you shall not murder in the original Hebrew, and several times in the Bible, it's always been understood that we are considered a life precious to God even in the womb. That's why abortion is in fact murder. And it's killing, too.
Michael wrote: "Well actually the commandment is you shall not murder in the original Hebrew".
You need to read the book in question, for your claim above is false.
Plus, you overlook the fact that "murder" is a legal term, as I pointed out in my previous posting. You can be guilty of murder in the United States even if you never pull the trigger, plunge the knife, or choke the windpipe.
The older English versions are more on the money with respect to translating the word "kill", rather than "murder," since the Hebrew rtsh is clearly not limited to simply illegal killings. Example, Proverbs 22:13 - "The sluggard says, 'There is a lion outside! I shall be slain in the streets!'" The word "slain" here is the same Hebrew word 'rtsh' that is used in the 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not rtsh (kill)". Do lions commit murder, as you so claim?
As the author concludes, (inconveniently for the Christian soldiers): "The melding of evangelicalism, patriotism, and militarism was one factor that led
to the easy acceptance of the change
in the translation of the sixth commandment."
I'm sorry, but the most obvious question you're missing out on, is why would God command the Israelites to wipe out and kill their enemies if this is in fact banned?
A good link that describes the distinction between kill and murder is:
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html
Either way, the bulk of my original blog post was not on making peace with the reality of war or killing. The main point was to show that there is a clear distinction between being a U.S. Soldier and a Christian. The only way you can be both is if your heart is in the right place.
Michael wrote: "That's why abortion is in fact murder."
Michael, as I've stated before, "murder" is a legal term, and what constitutes murder varies from region to region. Abortion is NOT murder according to U.S. law. Abortionists are killers, not murderers. You will fail to convict an abortionist as a murderer in all US courts of law. The Nazi soldiers who were following orders in gassing the Jews were killers, not murderers, according to your line of reasoning because they were following laws and commands issued by their military superiors and elected officials. All of this is why using the term "murder" is a bad choice when translating the Hebrew RTSH into English. What constitutes murder varies from place to place, and from time to time.
Michael wrote: "the most obvious question you're missing out on, is why would God command the Israelites to wipe out and kill their enemies if this is in fact banned?"
When God instructs His servants to do something, we (if we are in fact His servants) are to be obedient and obey. This is what we learn from Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, despite a prohibition against shedding a man's blood in Genesis 9:6. If God instructs the children of Israel to use the sword to punish the Canaanites, Hivites, Jebusites and the other "ites" then it is GOD who is doing the killing, not the children of Israel. The children of Israel in these instances are the rod in God's hand, the instrument that God uses, to punish the evil doers. The children of Israel in those instances are His representatives, just as the angels who came in the name of the Lord who could speak as if they were God Himself were His representatives, even though they were clearly angels. When God directly uses a person or being or group, that entity can be described as an extension of God. That is why John the Baptist is described as coming from heaven.
When a person or being or group is commissioned by God to do something, then they are merely an extension of God. They are not acting on their own, but out of obedience to the one who ordered them to act. They are not the originators of the act, but merely servants obeying God. Note that the prohibition in the 6th commandment states that "YOU shall not kill". Disregard the verb and pay attention to the pronoun YOU (or THOU). The prohibition not only deals with the verb/action RTSH, but with the ORIGINATOR of the act. If God instructs you to kill someone, then it is God who is the one who responsible for the act, not you. Killing another person when commanded to do so by God, therefore is not a violation of the 6th commandment. However, you violate the 6th commandment when YOU are the originator of the act, when you pick up the sword, or rifle, or bomb, and RTSH/kill without a direct command from God. Killing outside of direct or written command from God is what is prohibited in the 6th commandment.
Should we not learn that Jesus raised the bar higher than the 10 commandments? The 7th commandment prohibited adultery, yet Jesus raised the bar much higher, stating that a man who even looks on a woman to lust on her has committed adultery with her in his heart. If this higher way of thinking is what Jesus expects of his disciples, then what do you think he would expect with respect to the 6th commandment?
XYZ123, you're obviously very learned and study in the Bible, but some of your arguments still miss out on very key common-sense reasoning. If someone comes into my house and threatens my family, and I kill the man in self defense, is that considered murder?
God didn't tell me to kill the man. I did it out of protection for my household and the ones I love.
And it's funny that you should have such high standards for God's law, but you're so easy to dismiss Abortion because it's the American law that says it's not murder.
By God's definition, by looking at the context of what God considers a life and what God considers the taking of an innocent life unlawfully, abortion is in fact murder.
In fact, it's also murder by logical reasoning. When a woman gets pregnant and say her boyfriend doesn't want her to have that child, so he poisons her and the child dies in the womb, that man is going to get charged with murder. So why does the mother get a pass?
By the way, XYZ123, I welcome you to comment and visit my blog at any time. This is what it's about. Discussion and bringing arguments to the same table.
By the way, XYZ123, I also agree with you on the fact that Christ went to the core of the ten commandments. We disobey God not just with our actions, but with our hearts. According to Jesus, Lust is the equivalent of Adultery and Hatred is the equivalent of Murder. Absolutely. There's no question. And I say this as having been very guilty of both time and time again. But we are also called to hate sin (those who don't hate sin hate God Himself) and there is such a thing as righteous anger (Ephesians 4:26), but we cannot brood in it.
Jesus did say love your neighbor and love your enemy, but that doesn't eliminate the reality of war. If I'm in a firefight and I'm surrounded by enemies who want to kill me, what would I do?
The answer is not, don't take any part in war, because war is going to happen no matter what, and if it does I want to be able to defend my Country and those I love.
What would you respond to that?
Heather wrote: XYZ123...some of your arguments still miss out on very key common-sense reasoning. If someone comes into my house and threatens my family, and I kill the man in self defense, is that considered murder?
Heather, actually I asked YOU to define murder. The fact that you are asking ME what murder is tells me that you've recognized the difficulty of using the term "murder". To answer your question, however, the answer would be, "That all depends upon what country and what state you live in and what jury hears your case." Quoting from Wikipedia we find:
---- snip 8< ----
The general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130:
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
Opinions can differ on what is a reasonable amount of force, but one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence. It is for the jury, as ordinary members of the community, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable to use in the circumstances of each case.
---- snip 8< ----
So, at least in the US, whether self-defense is murder depends upon whether a jury believes you used reasonable force or not. This confirms what I have been trying to get across regarding this word "murder". It's a legal term that varies from place to place, and from time to time. And we can now add: "From jury to jury".
You might be interested to know that Augustine, the Catholic theologian who scholars credit for formalizing the "Just War Theory" also taught that the individual Christian has no right to kill in personal self-defense. To both Ambrose [his predecessor] and Augustine, if individually threatened by a thief, a Christian is not justified to use force to repel the attacker. In fact, to resist would be a sin, for as Augustine wrote, "private self-defense can only proceed from some degree of inordinate self-love." (Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis)
Also, please provide me with just one reference/instance in the first 300 years of Christianity where we find Christians defending themselves against attackers and against those that persecuted them. Do you really think the Christians fought back in self-defense when the Roman soldiers came and arrested them? Knowing full well that their fate was most likely to be thrown to lions, or being crucified or burned on stakes, do we have any report of Christians defending themselves? Do we have any examples of Christians defending themselves in the New Testament? And what about this man Jesus that you claim is your teacher and example? What examples of self-defense did Jesus leave you with?
Also, the above question at the same time exposes a problem a Christian serving in the military at that time might face, that is, arresting and dragging a fellow believer to his death. This is just one of a whole host of difficulties that a Christian serving in the military may confront.
Heather wrote: "And it's funny that you should have such high standards for God's law, but you're so easy to dismiss Abortion because it's the American law that says it's not murder."
Heather, you are allowing emotion to overcome careful analysis. You are not reading my words very carefully. I stated that abortion cannot be prosecuted as murder in U.S. courts because there are no laws against abortion. I was not giving you my personal opinion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. I was stating a LEGAL FACT, and that is, according to US laws, abortion is not murder. I never said that I agreed with said laws, but only that you cannot prosecute abortionists as murderers in the US. I would ask that you be more careful in your accusations against me for you are reading things into my words which I never said. I went down the abortion route to prove how the term "murder" can vary from region to region, and from time to time. An abortion doctor can easily claim that he is not violating the 6th commandment, therefore, IF you translate the 6th commandment as "Thou shalt not murder." The abortionist will point to the fact that US law does not view abortion as murder, therefore in his mind, he is not guilty of violating the 6th commandment. Do you see why the choice of the word "murder" in the modern English versions creates problems?
Heather wrote: "so he poisons her and the child dies in the womb, that man is going to get charged with murder."
I'm not here to argue US laws with you. I am in this discussion simply because of the claims by you and Michael that the 6th commandment means "Thou shalt not murder," rather than "Thou shalt not kill." The latter translation is in fact the closest to the original meaning...despite what "the Jewish sages" say (...the same Jewish sages who reject Jesus as Messiah, I might add.)
Michael wrote: "The answer is not, don't take any part in war, because war is going to happen no matter what, and if it does I want to be able to defend my Country and those I love."
Michael, first, where does Jesus instruct his disciples to defend "country and loved ones"?
You can't provide any instances because the fact is, Jesus never tells his sheep to defend "country and loved ones.' In fact, Jesus tells us pretty much the opposite. What did Jesus instruct his disciples to do when they saw their beloved capital of their country encompassed by armies? Did Jesus say, "Fight and defend the city of God and your beloved capital!"? No, he did not. Instead, he said, "FLEE!" Luke 21:21 - "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city." If you were alive 1900+ plus years ago, when Rome's legions marched upon Jerusalem, and you responded with the same attitude that you've just expressed above, you would have most likely been killed or made a slave once the Romans breached Jerusalem's defenses. Even more importantly, your patriotism would have led you to disobey Christ.
Secondly, about our "loved ones..." Jesus said, "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Now, I understand your desire to protect your family from harm. I do not mean to insult you for such natural feelings. They're understandable. But even if I grant you (a Christian) the right to defend your family, there is a gulf between resisting a midnight intruder in your house and volunteering in a standing army who spends years training their fingers to war, and which spends hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons of war, and who are slaves to the U.S. government, and who must obey all commands issued by military superiors, and who are expected to march off halfway around the world at the drop of a hat to spread democracy and invade sovereign countries that have never attacked you, your family, or your nation. There is a HUGE GULF between the two. All the "what if" cases of attacks against your wife and family cannot bridge this CHASM.
The basic bottom line truth is, the reasons why you would go to war are not based upon the teachings of Jesus.
Michael wrote: "The answer is not, don't take any part in war, because war is going to happen no matter what..."
Christians are to serve as examples of Jesus. They are called to crucify their flesh, and take up their crosses, and follow him, and imitate him. This includes that four letter word foreign to most so-called Christians: SACRIFICE. Christians are to show this dark world a better way. Instead, they've failed miserably and are in essence no different from the rest of the world with respect to responding to violence and injustice. As Ghandi is reported to have said, "The only people on earth who do not see Christ and his teachings as non-violent are Christians."
Jesus taught that his true flock would be small, few in number...many are called, but few chosen. Jesus taught that narrow is the way that leads to life. Therefore, Christ's sheep will always be a tiny minority of this world's population. This means there will always be enough "heathen" who are willing to fight and kill for Caesar and the flag. There's no need for Christians to throw away their high calling and to serve Caesar rather than God.
Hey XYZ, first of all, you have to get straight who said what. You're saying "Heather said" for things that I said.
Second of all, Jesus did not defend himself not because self-defense isn't appropriate or justified but because it was the plan all along for him to die and atone our sins. You're making backward arguments.
On the issue of Murder, you're giving too much credit to how legal terms define the word. You're being evasive. I'm not interested in how one culture defines murder compared to another. I'm interested in how the Bible defines murder.
Perhaps the same Hebrew word for "Kill/Murder" appears in other sections of the Bible where it does not support the "Murder" definition, but that's not reading the word contextually. In fact, it's doing the opposite. Why is it that the same law that says "you shall not kill" also allows the death penalty? The death penalty is the killing of a person. Therefore there are different standards between killing and murdering.
Also, XYZ you're tossing scripture to support your argument in a way that wasn't meant in the original context.
When you're quoting Jesus saying, "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," that didn't mean you have no right to protect their lives. That's absolutely foolish for you to make that leap. What it means is that if your family or even your spouse leads you to a way of living that goes against God's law (by sinning, drinking, lusting, what have you), you must love Christ first by living out a Biblical life. Say my brother likes to smoke weed, just because I love him it doesn't justify my spending time with him if it leads me to sin. I might not smoke weed with him, but I must be able to abandon him if after sharing the Gospel with him he continues to live out a certain sin. You're making quite a few "GULFS" of assumption yourself.
Your level of pacifism actually portrays no sense of real love. I'm not saying that we must be violent as Christians, but Christ's goal was not to bring peace on earth but bring peace between man and God.
By the way, to assume that Jesus was a pacifist in every sense, is also false. Did he not flip over tables angrily at the temple when he saw vendors and money exchangers? Jesus said, "I did not come to bring peace, but the sword," (Paraphrased from Matthew 10:34).
No, it was not a literal sword meant to cut down people. The sword is the word of God. But Christ never came on earth to preach a "social Gospel" that would bring peace among people. The peace He brought is the peace a Christian can find with God by accepting Christ's atonement of his sin. The focus is always on Christ's sacrifice. To put emphasis everywhere else is to miss the point.
It's so common anymore for people, Christians and non-Christians alike to skew the Bible to fit whatever meaning or issue they want it to.
Deuteronomy 4:2 states "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
We can't always understand the messages of the Bible fully, but we can understand it accurately. It's often difficult to decipher what means what exactly. Though the Bible helps us understand its verses contextually. Deciphering the meaning of one word goes beyond finding just other places where that same word is used. That's helpful, sure, but every language contains words that can be applied differently in each situation. The 6th Commandment however is a piece of the greater body of work of God's law. By what he condemns and by what he commands we form a better understanding on how to run our lives.
Nobody is saying we want to justify killing by warping one of the commandments, but there is certainly a distinction to be made here.
Questions such as who is saved and for what reason are up to God ultimately to decide. He says what murder is whether our silly constitution lets people get away scott free or not.
I live by what God's word says. Abortion? I'm against it because God is against it. Homosexuality? Again, the Lord says it's wrong and perverse, that is my stance. No matter what the topic I follow by what the Word says. Not by how it makes me feel, or what my sinful heart wants to interpret it as. I read his Word and accept it as Truth.
Generation after generation fights over what they think the Word should mean---and it's foolish. God judges, not man. God forgives, not man. So the few that will be chosen, only God knows and picks.
“Remember now, O LORD, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.”
That's how I live my life
Post a Comment