The Narrow Path Ministries

I served 6 years in the Army National Guard before I was married and felt that it was a great experience for me--I became more tolerant, patient, disciplined, etc. There was talk of my unit going to Iraq early on but it never happened, so I have no combat experience. My thinking while serving was that if there was a war that I deemed legitimate (a country attacked the US) I would fight, but if I felt it was illegitimate, I would refuse to fight. Obviously I didn't buy 100% into the philosophy that says a soldier's is not to reason why; a soldier's is but to do or die.

I've told other Christian brothers about my experiences and recommended the military for the reasons mentioned above as well as job training and the fact that they'll pay for you to get a college degree.

I like a lot of the stuff Greg Boyd says and I just discovered Steve Gregg and love his stuff as well, but it seems that both are against Christians serving in the military. (Boyd says that Christians shouldn't have any government jobs and should have nothing to do with the government, with voting being a possible exception. I'm not sure whether or not Steve goes that far.)

A problem I have with the idea that only unbelievers should serve in the military is that a nation of believers would not be able to have a military unless it imported pagan mercenary soldiers (If I understand Boyd correctly, they would also have to import pagan leaders, legislators, and officials if they wanted a government); I can't believe that God would "want" a segment of society to be unbelievers so they can fulfill the role of the government. Perhaps those who believe Christians should never be soldiers would counter that a nation of believers wouldn't need a military because God would defend them. Of course God could use angelic hosts to defend them from attacks, but from a lengthy historical record of God's dealing with the Hebrews, I see a different pattern. I see God primarily working through and with human agents.

Another reason I disagree with this view is because I think we cannot effectively be salt and light to those around us if we intentionally distance ourselves from others. Christian witnesses are needed on military bases--in the barracks and on the training grounds--just as much as they are needed in the suburbs of LA.

I feel like taking the position that Christians should never be in the military is like saying, "You can be a doctor, preacher, lawyer, construction worker, computer analyst, etc., and witness to those that you work with, but the military is off limits. Although they are an instrument of God and have an obligation to defend us, we keep our distance from them and hope that they don't all go to hell when they die."

I realize an argument against my second point would be, "If Christians aren't to hide their light under a bushel basket by intentionally distancing themselves from others according to occupation, then we should enter the porn industry as well." A huge difference I see here is that God commanded believers at different times to pick up weapons and fight, but he never commanded them to engage in sexual immorality. Since God commanded believers to fight as soldiers, I know that fighting as a soldier must not in and of itself be sinful.

Good points!

I am inclined to agree that being a soldier is not, in itself, sinful. If it was, then it would have been sinful for the Israelites to fight in the wars that God commissioned them to fight, and it would be sinful for those who are "ministers of God to execute vengeance on him who does evil" to carry out their ministries.

I also do not think that it is sinful to hold government offices...except for those offices whose duties would necessarily involve the Christian in a moral conflict of interest.

My position is that Christians, as representatives of Christ to the world, have a different vocation in the world than that which is assigned to the government. The government is appointed by God to be the agent of God's wrath against evildoers, whereas the church (all Christians) are called to be the agents of God's redemption and grace to sinners. Both functions are morally right, when performed by the persons authorized to do them.

As a rather strange illustration, let us say that there are two godly neighbors who each have wives. Jack and Jill are a couple, and Bob and Betty are another. By the definitions ordained by God, Jack is obliged to live with and care for Jill; whereas Bob is given the assignment of living with and caring for Betty. These men, in fact, are also commanded tobe fruitful and multiply with their wives. As they perform the duties that God has assigned to each man, neither man is doing anything that could be called sinful. However, if they were to trade assignments, so that Bob lives with Jill and Jack lives with Betty, and performs all the same functions, both men would be sinning.

The question is not whether a function is sinful or not, in itself, but whether it is being performed by the parties that God has authorized to perform it.

This does not answer all of your thoughtful objections, but it clarifies your last mentioned concern.

Hi Steve, thanks for your response.

About a year ago I borrowed and read Boyd's book that dealt with this topic and if I remember right, he wouldn't say that it was sinful to have a government job, just wrong. I don't know whether or not he'd say that being a soldier is sinful; I suspect he wouldn't, but I'm not sure.

There are numerous positions in the government that have nothing to do with acting as agents of God's wrath against evildoers. Since these jobs don't create a moral conflict of interest for Christians, should they still be considered an inappropriate vocation for Christians simply because they are "government jobs"? Or do you think that it is just the jobs of legislators, judges, President and Vice President, and jobs requiring people to carry guns that should be off limits?

Although I was never involved in combat, I don't think that all combat is wrong, nor do I think that Christians must abstain from defending themselves or others. As a member of the Army National Guard I was ready to defend Americans from civil disturbances, and if necessary, foreign invasion. This is what I would want others (believers or unbelievers) to do for me.

This is one subject where I haven't yet found a way to see eye to eye with Steve. The way I see it, even recognizing and accepting the distinction of roles between government and the Church, if I am a Christian and I see a criminal attacking, say, some stranger on the street, I think it would be moral for me in my role as Christian to protect the victim, even going so far as using lethal force on the criminal if necessary to stop the attack. If that is a moral act, for which a Christian should be praised for putting himself in jeopardy rather than walking away and minding his own business and letting the victim fend for himself, then I see no rational distinction from serving in the military in a just war. The just war is nothing more than stopping a coordinated attack by a large collective group of aggressors on a whole large group of victims. I just can't understand why getting together with others to form a united organization to stop something terrible like that from happening could possibly be anything but laudatory, or why that should be delegated to non-Christians.

I do appredciate and respect the diversity of views, though.

Best regards,

CThomas

I also believe in a Christian's intervention in resisting a witnessed violent crime. I deal with this question somewhat more thoroughly in my article on the subject at http://www.thenarrowpath.com>topical articles>"On the Believer's Use of Forcible Resistance." I talk about one-on-one situations and then explain the ways in which I believe military involvement differs in principle from such actions. If military campaigns were essentially the same as a man's defending his home from an intruder, I would find little in them to object to, as a Christian. It seems clear that I, acting as a Christian, should protect an innocent victim of an assault that takes place under my nose or in my neighborhood. It is considerably less clear that I am supposed to be a part of a religiously-mixed coalition that selectively decides to intervene in international conflicts between some other nations around the world (but not in others, equally desperate, but less central to our political concerns).