Monday, May 3, 2010

Christians Should Honor the Military?

So, now that I've addressed a pastor's recent claim in front of his congregation that the U.S. military fights to preserve our rights (particularly that of free speech), I'd like to deal with the appropriateness of a pastor exhorting his listeners to give honor to those in the military. This is something I've read about, but never experience firsthand. It deeply troubled me for several reasons.

I find it interesting and perplexing why the profession of government soldier is more worthy of mention in the first place than other professions. I have a hard time believing that if said church member had been an investment banker, or a Starbucks barista, or a plumber that the pastor would have bothered telling us that we should honor him for his profession. In that case, it would have just been, "Let's pray for Joe Church Member who is moving." There wouldn't have been any reason to mention his profession. Who cares? It's irrelevant for the most part, assuming his profession isn't sinful (more on this shortly). He's a member of the church universal and the church local, and deserves our prayers whether he paints houses or designs websites or writes novels.

I have a problem with the elevation of military personnel above all others in society. It reflects an underlying but dangerous glorification of violence and killing that surely can't be good for societal health. How much more so that of the church, which is called to love sacrificially, to serve the poor and needy, to evangelize the lost; not to occupy the land of others and kill them.

In the early church, Christian participation in the military was forbidden. If a soldier came to Christianity, then he was encouraged to either quit or at least request a noncombatant role. This all changed with Constantine's conversion, which brought with it the corrupting power of the state. Suddenly, in order to fight in the Roman army, rather than committing fealty to the pagan Roman gods, one had to pledge allegiance to Christ. The empire needed the Church to abandon its pacifist heritage and find a way to justify Christian participation in war. As usual, there were theologians willing to bend to the state's wishes, and so-called just war theory was developed.

Of course, even a liberal interpretation of just war theory doesn't come close to morally justifying the current U.S. wars. Therefore, even if a Christian rejects pacifism, he is obligated to oppose Christian participation in the U.S. military at this time. Tragically, in America the opposite is largely true. In fact, military action finds wider support among Christians than among the general populace.

Even if we accept that the actions of the U.S. military are the reason we enjoy such great religious freedom, is this somehow a legitimate justification for actions that violate Christian morality? The Christians of the first three centuries suffered great political persecution, but never advocated or attempted violence in the pursuit of greater freedom. One of the great distinctions of Christianity is that morality applies to both means and ends. Don't get me wrong, religious freedom is a great thing, and should be pursued by all nonviolent means available. But no end is so precious as to justify immorality in its pursuit.

In most professions, it is possible to serve in a Christ-like way to at least some degree. But how, pray tell, does one war in a Christ-like manner? When the Christian pilot drops bombs, does he target his victims for the glory of Christ? When the Christian foot soldier kicks in the door of a private residence in the middle of the night and points his gun in a child's face, is he somehow furthering the kingdom of God? The answer is too obvious to miss. Many of us engage in tasks and activities that are largely irrelevant to our Christian mission. But a Christian soldier directly and proactively violates his. Is this who we should hold up for honor in our churches?

In my mind, it would be bad enough if Christians were neutral or silent on the issue of war and militarism. But that would be a drastic improvement over the current outspoken advocacy of war among the American church. Even greater than support for war though, is support for the military itself. Many of those who strongly disagree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan still venerate and extol the virtue of fighting in the military, much like the pastor mentioned earlier. I have no idea what his views are on the current wars. He seems like a decent, sober-minded person; far from a warmongering neocon. Yet he calls out a soldier for special recognition and honor in a church service. This is shameful and unnecessary.

My ideal is that pastors would use the pulpit to advocate Christians only taking part in peaceful activities and professions. At the very least, his call for prayer should completely leave out the fact that the subject of prayer is in the military. I don't think this Christian soldier should necessarily be condemned any more than I would condemn a drug addict or a prostitute. He should be gently and lovingly brought to a knowledge of the truth. But it is simply inexcusable for the pastor to hold up this member as worthy of exceptional honor solely and exclusively because he is a professionally trained killer dressed in a government uniform.

As nearly the entire congregation stretched out their hands in prayer for this soldier and his wife, in effect endorsing and blessing his every action as a soldier, I bowed my head and prayed that the Holy Spirit would convict him and help him to see the reality of his profession. I prayed that he would repent and refuse to serve any longer in the military. I just hope I wasn't the only one with this prayer.

2 comments:

  1. Just started reading your posts tonight after a lesson regarding war and the Christians' response. The majority of our denomination turned away from pacifism during WWI due to intense persecution from government. It feels like some of those changes in perspective are being called into question again.

    What do you say to the objection that as Christians we have an obligation to protect the weak and liberate the oppressed even if by force?

    Maybe one could argue that this is the weakness of the flesh, an impulse to protect by taking matters into our own hands. However some will argue that this motivation to protect the weak is noble if not righteous.

    Also is not the immoral action at the heart if this argument the taking of life? or is it limiting freedom? if it is the first then the case against torture, more specifically waterboarding, seems to fail to meet the criteria for being immoral. If it is the second then it obviously is immoral by the criteria.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Lukus, I linked to your blog here:

    http://thecastillochronicles.blogspot.com/2012/07/heroes-sunday-rebuttal.html

    ReplyDelete