Service in War

[CThomas]

Steve, I read your interesting essay on military service, which you linked from a previous discussion. I wanted to write a post to challenge you on this issue, in a brotherly and respectful way. I appreciate your views on this issue, but have some questions. We can start by agreeing on the first part of your essay, which endorses the forcible defense of innocent crime victims, and limit the discussion to the seven distinctions (leterred a through g) you cite between this case and military service in wartime. Sorry for the length here, but I'll just briefly tick off some objections/questions to each of those seven.

a. "War is a conflict between two complex national entities," each of which contains both righteous and unrighteous people. This strikes me as true, but I question if it's an adequate distinction. If a single criminal tries to kill my neighbor, I may resist. If a gang of criminals does so, I may resist (assuming my efforts can result in saving the victim). If an even larger gang does so, presumably I can (if practicable, and assuming for purposes of argument that law enforcement is unavailable) team up with other Christians, or even non-Christians, to defend the victim or victims. If a whole nation sends over a large army to invade my country and try to kill lots of victims over here just minding their business (and assume that that is the enemy army's goal) then that would seem to make resistance -- and teaming up with others to do so -- all the more appropriate, not less. No?

b. "The killing of INNOCENT people is evil." Assuming you are correct about this categorically (and assuming that it would be sinful to kill an innocent person if that were the only way to save a billion other people), this discussion seems to ignore the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing. It would certainly be immoral to set out to kill an innocent civilian in wartime, but of course civilian casualties in a just war are never intentionally committed.

c "A soldier must pledge complete and unconditional obedience to his superiors." This argument would not seem to apply to a military, like that of the U.S., where soldiers are not obligated to pledge complete and unconditional obedience to his superiors, but rather are affirmatively obligated to DISOBEY unlawful or immoral orders.

d. You note that "a man cannot become the slave of two masters." I think the answer to this is really the same as that to c. You agree that employment relationships that permit an escape valve to prevent obligations for immoral conduct are okay, and the same escape valve noted in c should apply here with equal force.

e. "A soldier is a killer by vocation." This seems like a tendentious formulation. While serving in the military, a citizen temporarily assumes a responsibility to protect his fellow countrymen against aggression. It's like people in a neighborhood, say, agreeing to take turns patrolling at night to make sure criminals don't victimize innocent passersby. Is it really right for Christians to assume the benefits of that protection but to abstain from chipping in his own efforts to support this common good?

f. The soldier "is often obliged to do things that would be regarded as sinful in civilian life." But this is answered at the beginning of your own essay, where you note that otherwise sinful things can (and sometimes even must) be done to protect innocents. E.g., if a criminal broke into your house, you would "resist in any way that was suited to the level of the threat." It would, of course, be sinful to, e.g., punch somebody in ordinary circumstances, but the fact that the person is trying to kill someone else would justify it. Similarly, the fact that a combatant's conduct would be "sinful in civilian life" does not seem determinative to me.

g. "The Christian is not to alter his ethics in the promotion of some national interest." But of course the question is whether serving militarily in a just war is, in fact, "alter[ing]" Christian ethics or not. If I'm right that this is a simple corollary of the propriety of defending an innocent crime victim with force, then no charge of ethical alteration would seem to be well founded.

Again apologies for the length here. I post this because I respect your views a lot, and am sincerely interested in hearing your thoughts, if you have time.

Thanks, and God bless.

CThomas