Through Thunder and Flame: Thoughts on the Military Chaplaincy
By Bill Cork
In recent discussions about the appropriateness of Christian pastors serving as military chaplains, I have heard some suggest that a chaplain is someone who just serves the status quo, serving as a sacred sugar coating of an activity that is antithetical to the kingdom of God. I disagree with that negative assessment.
I served in the Army Reserve and National Guard from the mid-80s to the early 90s as a chaplain candidate and chaplain (endorsed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). I’ve taken the title of this essay from the official march of the U. S. Army Chaplain Corps, “Soldiers of God,” which includes chorus: “Soldiers of God, we serve him faithfully, and march in his name through thunder and flame wherever the call may be.” That’s the essence of the chaplaincy—to follow the call of God wherever it may lead.
The role of the chaplain as understood by the U. S. Army is prescribed in Army Regulation 165-1, “Chaplain Activities in the United States Army.” Here are some selections:
Army chaplains have a dual role as religious leaders and staff officers. … Chaplains are noncombatants and will not bear arms. … Chaplains are required by law to hold religious services for members of the command to which they are assigned, when practicable … . Chaplains provide for religious support, pastoral care, and the moral and ethical wellbeing of the command. Each chaplain will minister to the personnel of the unit and facilitate the “free-exercise” rights of all personnel, regardless of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the unit member. … Chaplains are authorized to conduct rites, sacraments, and services as required by their respective denomination. Chaplains will not be required to take part in worship when such participation is at variance with the tenets of their faith. … Military and patriotic ceremonies may require a chaplain to provide an invocation, reading, prayer, or benediction. Such occasions are not considered to be religious services. Chaplains will not be required to offer a prayer, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith group. … Chaplains will provide religious support for confined personnel and Army personnel in foreign or civilian confinement facilities. … Chaplains will advise the commander and staff on matters of religion, morals, and morale, to include—(1) The religious needs of assigned personnel. (2) The spiritual, ethical, and moral health of the command, to include the humanitarian aspects of command policies, leadership practices, and management systems. (3) Plans and programs related to the moral and ethical quality of leadership, the care of people, religion, chaplain and chaplain assistant personnel matters and related funding issues within the command.
The military expects chaplains to be men and women of conviction, and underscores this in their training, as I experienced at the U. S. Army Chaplain Center and School at Ft. Monmouth, NJ, in the summers of 1986 and 1990, when I did phase one and two, respectively, of the Chaplain Officer Basic Course.
As prescribed in the Army Regulation just quoted, chaplains are expected to be faithful to the tenets of their denomination and to do nothing that would compromise that standing. They also have a role as members of the commander’s staff, advising the commander on matters of ethics, morality, and morale, and facilitating the free exercise of religion by all members of the command.
We were carefully instructed in the morality of war, both jus ad bellum (what criteria are necessary to declare a war) and jus in bello (criteria regarding the conduct of war). We were told there might be times when we would need to confront commanders over violations—and that we would need to expect to suffer consequences for sticking to our conscience.
Classroom instruction on this point was reinforced in other activities, including physical training, when the drill sergeant might start us in a cadence call that said, “One, two, kill a commie, that’s right, kill a commie.” In a Command Post Exercise, an officer might have a sign on his desk reading, “No prisoners,” or something similar. When we raised an objection, we were commended (though the officer might yell at us and throw us out of his office at first). If we said nothing, we were hauled on the carpet during the After Action Review and the point was underscored—we as chaplains must be prepared to speak out, regardless of the professional consequences to ourselves.
My army instructors were aware of the tension inherent in our role and did their best to prepare us for it, so I was not surprised when I experienced that tension in the years that followed.
During Operation Desert Shield, in the fall of 1990, I served for several weeks with the 82d Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC. One Wednesday prayer meeting I gave a talk about just war, looking at our reasons for going to war at that time in light of “The Law of Land Warfare.” I candidly expressed my reservations from the pulpit of the 82d Airborne Division Memorial Chapel, with the Assistant Division Commander, a Brigadier General, in attendance. He came up to me afterwards and expressed his appreciation—he said he expected his chaplains would assist him in working through the moral issues, even challenging of assumptions and policy, and was grateful for what I had shared.
During that same period I got some grief from the Acting Division Chaplain, a Christian Scientist, who expected me to co-lead a communion service with him for the General Protestant Service. I told him I could not, because my denomination could not accept his as Christian. He thought I was trying to shirk my duty, but I told him I’d lead it by myself. He thought I didn’t understand his church’s teaching, and gave me a book to read. I thanked him, told him I would read it, but I had to stand firm. It was a heated conversation, but he backed off (and a chaplain on post who was senior in rank came to my defense). He also had the sense to realize he wouldn’t be a fair rater when it came to evaluation time, and so had another chaplain serve as my rater who he knew would be more objective.
When I was chaplain of a tank battalion in the Vermont National Guard my commander was insistent that I do my job, ask questions, teach morality, and tell soldiers of their obligation to report immoral conduct. When I preached a sermon on this latter point, some soldiers looked nervously around at their commanders—who looked back at them, nodded, and said, “Listen up.”
Chaplain (CPT) James
Yee was not as fortunate. You may recall the story. He was a Muslim
chaplain assigned to Guantanamo. He did exactly as he was supposed to
according to army regulations on chaplains and prisoners of war. He
gave briefings for new personnel on understanding religious needs of
prisoners (based on material developed at the U.S. Army Chaplain
Center and School). He raised concerns to the command about treatment
of prisoners. He ministered to fellow Muslims on staff and among the
prisoners. Chaplain Yee did exactly as he was trained to do—exactly
as I was trained to do—but his actions raised suspicions in the
mind of one reserve officer. He reported Yee and accused him of
espionage, and Yee was clapped in irons and thrown into solitary
confinement. False charges were stacked up against him and rumors
were spread in the press, but the Army eventually had to drop all
charges and release him. But the damage to his character had been
done.
This was exactly the kind of retaliation my Army instructors told us to expect if we did our jobs properly during times of war. But they—and we—felt it to be worth the risk.
The role of the chaplain is to “march in his name through thunder and flame” (and sometimes that’s friendly fire) “wherever the call may be.”
Yes, there are struggles and temptations. But these temptations exist in any ministry. The question here is the same as for any other minister—will you do what you’re called to do, even in the tough times? Will you be faithful? Will you love the people of God, wherever they may be found?
Yes, the military has its share of pragmatists, careerists, and people with anger and authority issues. But it also has men and women of the highest character. Part of my role as a chaplain was to strengthen these, so that they would have a greater influence, so that they could shine as “men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.”
Chaplains don’t sit on the sidelines debating hypothetical situations. They go into the trenches with their flock. They minister to people in the face of death. They put their own lives on the line, walking into fire without protection. Yes, they are “chaplains of the culture,” but I don’t see that as a pejorative. Chaplains live in a specific culture, and from that space they are able to speak to it. They take risks, and make themselves vulnerable.
It’s called “incarnational ministry,” and it is modeled on the life of Jesus. It’s a ministry of being salt and light—and it can’t be done from the outside. It’s a ministry I did by hospital beds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, on the top of tanks in the Canadian wilderness, under the stars in the field at Ft. Drum, and in mess halls and motor pools and day rooms at Ft. Bragg. It’s a ministry I did with other men and women of faith, as well as young men and women who never would have thought to enter the door of a church. But I went to them. I spoke their language. I wore the same muddy uniform. I ate the same MREs and SOS. Together laughed and cried; together we wrestled with questions of right and wrong, of duty, honor, country. It was frustrating at times, but it was the greatest experience of my life, that has colored the way I have approached every ministry experience since. I loved it. And I miss it.
William J. Cork, D.Min. serves as an Associate Pastor at the Houston International Seventh-day Adventist Church in Texas.
Dr. Cork
Thank you! For a clear and compelling review of the mission, responsibilities,and privileges of being an U.S.A. army chaplain. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 03 July 2007 at 18:00
"Incarnational ministry", modeled on the life of Jesus... The choice of words says it all.
Posted by: Henk | 05 July 2007 at 05:23
"As always -- a very insightful and compelling analysis of this complex issue."
Posted by: Kendall Turcios | 05 July 2007 at 07:56
(Kendall is my senior pastor, by the way) :-)
Posted by: Bill Cork | 05 July 2007 at 08:26
Thank you Bill.
I guess I argued for the salience and need for chaplaincy as a place for continued Adventist ministry from the wrong starting point.
The starting assumption in Ron's paper was that the voices of the chaplains were muffled as to how gospel claims.
I argued that despite this being the situation chaplains can still serve without feeling that they are feeding into the machinations of war no more than the civilian taxpayer.
Your account of military chaplaincy is not just refreshing, but very inspiring. I did not know of the potential for real ministry in the armed services. Thanks for bringing that forth.
Sincerely.
Ed Namzug
Posted by: Ed Guzman | 05 July 2007 at 11:30
Thank you for your post! I hadn't put much thought into chaplaincy, other than feeling that it would be a "good thing", but now I feel strongly that excellent, moral chaplains are an imperative part of the military process. Thanks for your service to our nation in such a necessary capacity!
Posted by: k | 05 July 2007 at 16:41
Europeans see US as threat to peace
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/70046760-27f0-11dc-80da-000b5df10621.html
Interpreted it means that with friends like the US one does not need enemies anymore.
Personally I see adventist chaplains as ministers who have lost their sense of what Adventism used to stand for. Times have changed this sense, apparently, and not for the better. The level of understanding and appreciation for the military chaplaincy bothers me.
Posted by: Henk | 06 July 2007 at 11:29
Henk
Does it bother you that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners? With three years experience in WWII I never met a chaplain worth his salt. Of course, I never met a civilian SDA pastor a nickel better. However, I also know of giants in both military and civilian pastorates. I don't think it is the category that matters so much as the empathy and commitment to the ministry of the Gospel. The issue is not a categorical one but a personal one. The best friend I had in the Army was the commanding General and the worst adversaries were a major and a shave tail. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 06 July 2007 at 12:31
Tom,
1. No, it does not bother me that Jesus ate with sinners. I think that's beside the point I'm trying to make: as stated somewhere else I think the military is an instrument of Satan; we should not be involved in any way. Adventism had many shortcomings in the past, (and a few in the present) but its standpoint on the military was hitting the nail on its head.
2. There is another thing that bothers me much, and that is that there is a growing appreciation of the military in American Adventism. I'm really flabbergasted when I see this on this blog as well. I thought Adventists were deeply involved in critically looking at what happens in society at large, and all I see is (former) Adventists lost in blind patriotism. It's really not my intention to sound judgmental here, but this is not I expect christians to be.
Lastly, I don't want to write a hit-piece over here, but I can't avoid some criticism. When the writer of this article gets sentimental over his years in the military and sees these as the blossom years of his ministry, I pity the guy. If I were his senior pastor I would have a chat with him to make him a bit more uncomfortable over his sentiments. When moreover the writer wants to make his position more palatable for the theologically minded among us, and distributes concepts as "incarnational ministry", I would advise him to go to a proper university where they can teach him how to avoid empty eufemisms.
Anyway, have a blessed sabbath, Tom
Posted by: Henk | 06 July 2007 at 13:10
Henk
I agree with you that there is a growing appreciation of the military in American Adventism. I agree with you that war is a weapon of Satan. Never-the-less, I do not believe that chaplaincy is necessarily a tool of the devil. In fact, I think he currently owns more pulpits than Christ. What I have difficulty with is the categorical condemnation of the very concept of chaplaincy. If that were the case then Ms. Nightengale was a tool of Mars. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 06 July 2007 at 15:20
Appreciation for the role the military plays in defending our nation is not something new in Adventism in America. In time of draft, Adventists have been instructed to register as 1-AO, not 1-0, as noncombatants, not as complete objectors. That is the historic Adventist position. The best example of this is the case of Desmond Doss.
Posted by: Bill Cork | 06 July 2007 at 21:06
If American Adventism is the standard by which all other forms of old-time Adventism is to be measured, you're right. I'll come back on this; it's day-time sabbath over here, and I have several services to attend...
Posted by: Henk | 06 July 2007 at 23:14
Henk,
You said, "I think the military is an instrument of Satan; we should not be involved in any way."
My question to you is - if someone, with a weapon, broke into your house who would you call - the police or your local pastor?
By saying what you did (above) is hypocritical. You rely on the police and by extension, the military to keep safe in community that does not have your ideologies about pacifism. The reason you're alive and well is that you are protected by people who are willing to place their life on the line to protect you. It's hypocritical to take the high ground of pacifism while basiking in the comfort and safety of your life.
The guys who are out there keeping you safe are ordinary people who would also rather be home, enjoying a peacful life, but, for whatever reason, have chosen to be in uniform; and when you're in uniform, you stand for something and, you become a target. Chaplains are needed to keep these guys somewhat sane.
You also said,
"Europeans see US as threat to peace
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/70046760-27f0-11dc-80da-000b5df10621.html
Interpreted it means that with friends like the US one does not need enemies anymore."
Europeans need a good dose of reality. Not long ago the US was their big hero, emulated to the hilt. The problem is that the generation that was almost wiped off the map, but saved by the "war-mongering US" is almost gone and we're left with a generation that has no sense of history. What would Europe look like had it not been for the US military?
Have a happy and safe Sabbath.
Posted by: Sirje | 07 July 2007 at 03:25
I'm curious: Is Henk against all chaplains ministering in a military setting or just against chaplains ministering in the American military setting?
Posted by: Sean | 07 July 2007 at 05:03
Bill
I was a 1-A-O in WWII served as a medic in the 40th Infantry Div. Made three assault landings in the Philipines. The 40th spearheaded the march to the gates of Manila where the 1st Cal took over. One regiment had only 400 able body men by the time we were relieved. I took care of a number of prisoners of war too weak to travel back to the hospital ship immediately. I know war. The problem is We are now seen as the War Lords not the other way around. Never-the-less. I fully support the concept of chaplaincy. Thank You. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 07 July 2007 at 05:08
Henk,
I'm puzzled by your selectivity of data. You quickly dismissed Jesus' association with sinners as irrelevant to the question. Is that just because it doesn't support your position? Here are a few other examples:
1. Jesus healed a centurion's servant. (Mt. 8:13). Wasn't this supporting the work of an officer in a brutal occupation army?
2. Peter was given specific instructions (to overcome his reluctance) to visit (and eventually baptize) Cornelius, the commander of the Italian Regiment stationed in Caesarea. Why did God give Peter the vision under miraculous circumstances if God would prefer him not to minister to someone affiliated with an organization doing the work of the devil?
3. Acts 23:18 records how Paul used a Centurion to protect himself from the Jews. He was apparently more comfortable putting himself in the hands of the foreign occupation army than in the hands of the priests of the Jews. Why didn't he just pray and ask God to protect him rather than compromise and seek out the devil's workers? Or, is it just possible that he might have seen the military as an institution that God works with despite its (obvious) flaws? (Much like Jesus said to pay taxes to Caesar, and Paul taught to support the government even though it was the corrupt Nero).
4. Jesus said when compelled to go a mile, go two (Mt 5:41). Commentators observe that this refers to the practice of Roman soldiers to compel citizens to carry their baggage for a mile. Jesus certainly could have counseled resistance if he wanted his followers to have nothing to do with the military. At the least, he could have told them not to carry the materiel any farther than they had to.
5. Luke 3:14 says, "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." Jesus taught soldiers nonviolence and justice, but he doesn't tell them to leave the military and have nothing to do with it. Jesus himself responded to their needs much as a military chaplain does today, rather than turning his back on them and refusing to "support" the military by ministering to their need for spiritual counsel.
6. Finally, if the military is so inherently evil, why did Paul use it so often as an analogy to the church, i.e., that he and his fellow workers were soldiers for Christ? I think he would have distanced himself from any such association if he shared your views, Henk.
I think war stinks. Soldiers know that better than most of us (I've never served). But like an above poster said, I'm not so sure I'd like to live in a world without it, unless the rest of that world subscribed to the same pacifist principles. Sometimes military action may be better than letting evil men assert their power?
Can/should we get there in a less violent way? I think we can, and I would hope that the chaplaincy helps us do so. I really appreciated Bill Cork's exposition of that work and his experience.
Posted by: Robert | 07 July 2007 at 17:59
See, Spectrum blog needs someone from outside the US to really get some discussion going on the topic of the military and chaplaincy. I'm flattered...
It so happens that I am a minister in the Netherlands and I have to write my pieces in between the other things I have to do. Anyway, I want to write something on the topic of the development of Adventism and the military as it happened in Europe, because you guys in the US apparently think that you hold the keys to the military kingdom, but I have to postpone that to a later date.
Robert, I start with your questions.
1. Jesus healed a centurion's servant. (Mt. 8:13). Wasn't this supporting the work of an officer in a brutal occupation army?
You really think so? On principle, is helping someone who has an "unchristian" profession a token of supporting that profession or a token of humanitarianism? You guess my answer, I suppose.
2 implies the more important question whether Peter was asked by God to get into the military before he ever could be proclaiming the gospel to Cornelius. Aren't we talking about that in this thread? You guess my answer, I suppose.
3, yes, the apostle Paul was human too, and in time of pressure we all take recourse to things we in our right state of mind would not consider doing.
I have the impression that you seek frail attitudes in others to justify your own distrust of Gods way with you. Why don't you pray to God to help you out of dire circumstances when Jesus promises believers that they can pray and He will help? Apparently it is our experience that God does not come to our help every instance we pray for it, and we should not be surprised that many of us trust the officer in the street more than God. But is it really this what we on principle believe, or is it the believer's opportunistic way of dealing with God? You tell me.
4. The Bible is full of military imagery. In our society we even have the "Salvation Army", proudly wearing uniforms etc. Ever seen these guys walking with guns and artillery when caring to the prostitutes and drugaddicts? Christians see their lives as a constant struggle between good and evil, and we call evil things evil, because they are evil, and we battle these evil things with good, not with more evil things. It would moreover be very helpful if you include the context in your reference to Mt 5.
5. "Do violence to no man". What does that imply to you? These words were uttered by John the Baptist, if you don't mind, and not by Jesus.
6 has been answered in 4, I think.
We agree on your frank admission that war stinks. But why are we so different on the subject of the military? When I was in New Hampshire a couple of years ago, I stayed with people in a small village near the Canadian border. These people had no guns in their home, no lock on their doors, when they left their homes they trusted a stranger like would not rampage their home, and when I asked whether they ever had a burglary, they said: never.
When a stranded Chinese tourist wanted to ask the way somewhere in some southern US state a couple of years ago, he was shot because he as a trespasser. All I'm saying is - who owns a gun, will use it some day. Who owns a military machinery, will use it. Take a ogling prostitute in your home, and with nobody else around, you eventually end up in bed with her. If you do not want to be involved in war, don't make preparations for it, I would say. Stay away as far as possible.
Give me a break or two, and I will respond to others.
Posted by: Henk | 08 July 2007 at 02:37
I wish I were more aware of chaplains in my nation's military who are speaking against its current activites in Iraq.
I believe that this war has been immoral from the outset, both in its justification and in its implementation, and that this is the primary reason why we are losing. But I know of very few chaplains who are addressing this issue in public.
Perhaps many are protesting in private. Perhaps more are doing so in public than I realize. Perhaps they beleive that this war is just. Or perhaps, as the soldiers they are, they cannot speak against the policies of our Commander-in-Chief while in uniform.
When I think of the thousands who have been killed, hundreds of thousands who have been injured, millions who have been displace and billions [of dollars] that have been wasted, I wonder why I have not heard more from our chaplains.
Dave
Posted by: David R. Larson | 08 July 2007 at 05:36
Sirje,
Ignoring your remarks whether I am hypocritical or not, I am concerned with the military and war, not with police and law enforcers. All I can say here is that there is an obvious difference here. If you cannot see that, well, I'm sorry.
I'm not quite sure with whom I'm dealing here; I don't know you personally, so all I have are your remarks about the function of the military.
Is it within your purview to approach the problem of the military from a Christian view on morality, on humanity and human behavior, and the like, or are you just concerned with security and defense? If the latter is your concern, go ahead and follow the ways of the world and bomb those who bother your way of life to hell. Chances are you loose your life along the way of your pursuit, but hey, you saved the life of others.
If you're concerned to find a Christian answer to violence, war and so on, then you should be a bit more penetrating into the problem of evil, philosophically and ethically.
A last word on "thankfulness". Ever when I come up with the problem of war and its satanic origin, I meet people who do not have a real answer, but try to remind me of the Second World War, when Americans and Canadians were hailed as saviors in Europe. I must not forget that, as if there is a risk of forgetting that. Believe me, how can I not be grateful to all those warriors who have made a difference in history? I'm even grateful, and do not skip mentioning it in my prayers, to the Vatican when its soldiers gave the heathen invaders a beating in the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades. If they had not fought with their guts hanging out, we would have been under Ottoman rule long ago. Pun intended.
Posted by: Henk | 08 July 2007 at 09:19
Third installment. My point is - when it can be seen that not just war, but the organization that makes war possible is also an instrument in the hands of Satan, the corollary of the question whether ministers can be or should be chaplains in the military, can be seen as in fact serving two masters. (I was in the army as conscientious objector at the time of the 6-days war in the Middle East, when I was confronted with the real face of the military, and it made me to decide that I wanted to serve only one Master--in the army you hand over your God-given conscience to your superior in rank, which is fundamentally unchristian).
Let me begin with the question David Larson asks, whether it could be possible/desirable that more chaplains should protest the war in Iraq. But why, I ask, only the war in Iraq?
When I studied theology at Newbold College, England, at the end of the 1960's early 1970's, I met quite a few Americans who came to study at Newbold, not just because it was cheaper to study in Europe, but also as a way of avoiding the draft--the war in Vietnam was taking its heavy toll.
We had a few discussions whether this was morally responsible behavior, but it seemed the best way to get out of the loop. Most discussions centered around one or two points: is there ever a "just" war, and secondly, should the church take a firmer stand against war and its enabler, the military. The last question can only be understood against the background of European Adventism. In the 1960's a few Western democracies made it possible by law to be a conscientious objector, but in many other countries this option did not exist. Worst case scenario was that you were living in Eastern Europe and that refusal to enter the military would result in imprisonment, and in times of war, execution.
So, in the US you have been in the "fortunate circumstances" to serve in the military as a conscientious objector, and many American Adventists do not even think about so many young Adventists elsewhere who do not have the possibility to be in the army as noncombatants. Is there anyone who can imagine what it meant for these young adults to see that their "world-church" is concerned only with the US situation? The help of a worldly organization like Amnesty International was often more to the point than that of the Adventist church. Read Plantak's "The Silent Church" to notice how far-reaching this could be, or read the essays written by Ron Lawson.
To David Larson I would put the question: show me the war that had your approval and you wished that more chaplains were voicing that Adventist youngsters should join the army, as combatant or non-combatant. But, my request is that you take into account those Adventist youngsters that had to make hard choices, because they belonged to the enemy in that war. Imagine yourself two Adventist youngsters standing over against each-other on the battlefield, brothers in arms, shooting each-other to the eternal kingdom, to discover that the door is closed for murderers. And to those ministers who feel at home in the army and have idealistic and sentimental memories of their experiences and heartrending prayers with soldiers, I would ask whether they can see themselves praying with soldiers and a minute later praying with their victims, mostly innocent civilians, if they were still alive.
Posted by: Henk | 08 July 2007 at 11:10
Henk
I know war. I hate war. I have spoken publically against war: particularly preemptive war and specifically the current war in Iraq. However, I think you encroach on God's perogratives in making judgment calls on the moral behavior of others during war. As a private, I personally challenged a Major,in public, who was abusing a Japanese prisoner. The Major stopped but I paid dearly for my challenge. Never-the-less, I have a great deal of trouble over long distance morality. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 08 July 2007 at 12:39
So, Henk, is the European Adventist Church ready to reconcile with the German Reform Movement, which was disfellowshipped largely because of its position on military service, a position you appear to echo?
Posted by: Bill Cork | 08 July 2007 at 12:41
I was planning to write about the history of this movement, Bill. That has to wait for a moment, due to a busy agenda. No, there is no reconciliation, even as the movement is dwindling here and there in Europe. But their departure from the main Adventist body is no proof that they were wrong on the issue. I think they understood Ellen White better than mainstream Adventists (although I would hate to see the issue of the military decided by quotes from her books), but were unable to maintain unity.
Still, I would appreciate your answer to my questions.
Tom, I try as much as possible not to be judgmental. When talking about morality and using examples from everyday life, how could one ever avoid that some other person takes offense? Have you ever tried to talk about the normative value of the wedding vow to a couple entangled in divorce? Did they accuse you of being judgmental? Why would you think my probing into the normative value of some sort of pacifism is judgmental; why do you think I'm sitting on God's throne here?
"Long distance morality"? Sounds quite funny to me, but derogatory as well. All the same, I can't help living in Holland; I like it over here.
Lastly, I think you take my "vendetta" too personal, and secondly, if possible use arguments and do not concentrate on my state of mind. I'm o.k., really.
Posted by: Henk | 08 July 2007 at 13:52
Henk
By long distance I mean a long way from having to make a real life choice. This blog began with a blanket condemnation of war and chaplaincy which I found you to be a major player. I fully support anyone's decision in the matter. I strongly object to anyone making the decision for another. If I misnunderstood--the original proposition and your advocacy of that postion I apologize. Yes, at the age of 18 I relied heavily on E.G.White and the General Conference of SDA. Today, I take a more reasoned Biblical approach to the immorality of killing. Never-the-less, I do believe that the state has the legal and moral right to capital punishment and to defend its borders and its citizens and their property. Personally, I take the same stand as I did 64 years ago. I will serve my country as a non-combatant even under enemy fire. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 08 July 2007 at 14:14
Point taken, Tom. I might be a major player, but as far as I can see I'm the only one who speaks himself out against war and the military, with others speaking themselves out just against war. This seems to be inconsistent in my mind.
No, I do not decide for others. On the other hand I will preach and talk about the best possible and most responsible Christian life. My citizenship of the Kingdom of Heaven is more important that my nationality. Nationalism is a tribal convention and the enemy of the "one and holy catholic church", Adventist and otherwise. This is not a particular Adventist point of view, but I don't care; I believe it with all my heart.
Therefore, Tom, the State cannot ask from me what I cannot deliver as a Christian. If it does, my answer will be "no". Moreover, I cannot see the consistency of chaplains who belong to the same faith, but are "enemies" because the respective presidents say so, can in good faith pray for the soldiers, the weapons, in a showdown of nationalism, and give by doing so their fiat to killing other Christians. If you can explain the consistency, I will be grateful.
So, to be as clear as possible, we're not living in OT times but under the better revelation of Jesus Christ. He did not take up the sword. That must suffice for someone who wants to see Him as his/her example.
I agree that I have a strong opinion on this matter, but so do you. All I ask is how your position can be consistent with Jesus's example.
Posted by: Henk | 08 July 2007 at 14:46
All right!
I have to weigh in on the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement. My great grandfather, Dumitru Nicolici, was its president from 1951-1958 and my mother -- his granddaughter -- did manage to drag us kids to their Moriah Heights, Sacramento, CA enclave. Arriving from SoCal, it was like visiting another, much older, country -- namely Romania -- where all the women wore dresses, everyone drove German cars, and the girls seemed coquettishly shy.
While the Reform and Euro Adventists may be closer on national non-violence than before, from what I know Henk's right that the disagreements -- including Ellen White, tithe, and Babylon still separate 'em.
But despite their dogmatism, history shows that the Reformers were right in substance on the need to separate Christianity and the military. That was terrible war, it led to Hitler's rise (he patriotically served his country in it) and if Christians would have said no, we wouldn't even have had a WWII.
But let's think back: Would we really want to go back to an Adventism in 1914 -- Bill Cork sanctioning his French parishioners to kill Robert's German believers?
To me it's more than a question about sin, but rather about following the peaceful life (sermon on the mount, just paying taxes, turning the other cheek, healing that ear, martyrdom) of Christ versus what Cornel West calls Constantinian Christianity?
Now in the 21st century if anyone doubts the ineffectiveness of traditional just war arguments for military force in this age of civilian-combatants, check out this action-packed New Yorker piece on the war on opium and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It closes on this chilling note:
Now the Iraq war is officially more a corporate (which means that profit is the bottom line) than a patriotic endeavor:
Posted by: Alexander | 08 July 2007 at 15:19
"...The problem is that the generation that was almost wiped off the map, but saved by the "war-mongering US" is almost gone and we're left with a generation that has no sense of history..."
Sirje
Each year the Dutch people send 10,000 tulip bulbs to the people of Canada to be a visible symbol of their gratitude for Canada's role in the liberation of the Netherlands, and continuing a tradition began in 1945 when Princess Juliana sent a gift of 100,000 bulbs to Ottawa in gratitude for Princess Juliana's and her daughters' stay here during the Nazi occupation. Canadians are deeply touched by the warmth and tribute shown to Canadian soldiers, particularly on the occassions of the 50th and 60th anniversaries of the liberation of the Netherlands. Dutch school children tend the graves of fallen Canadian soldiers at the Canadian War Cemetary in the Netherlands. So, Serje, please don't concern yourself with the thought that Europeans don't remember.
That this should this mean that the Dutch are precluded from, say, criticising Canada's role in the destructive war in Afghanistan, should they collectively or individually choose to do so, could only reflect a small and nasty way of thinking.
"What would Europe look like had it not been for the US military?"
Well, just in case that you were unaware, may I remind you, Sirje, that there were over 1 million British and Commonwealth soldiers killed in WW 2 (beginning in 1939 and including approximately 66,000 Canadians, 60,000 Australians, and 18,000 New Zealanders), nearly 2 million Russians, not forgetting the 112,00 U.S. losses, and, not least, the enormous civilian causualties. Who needs a ' good dose of reality'?
Posted by: faye | 08 July 2007 at 15:47
Apologies, the figures mentioned above were from WW 1. The figures form WW 2 are approximately 400,000 British, 40,000 Australians, 46,000 Canadians, 12, 000 New Zealanders, 410,000 Americans, and 9 million Russians. My earlier comments stand, none the less.
Posted by: faye | 08 July 2007 at 16:07
Below is the transcript of my general lesson study at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. Note the Date: Tom
Should the Church Support Preemptive War?
Reid Memorial Church November 17, 2002
Ten days ago Gene Norris called and asked me to teach today and gave me the topic—Unilateral Preemptive War and the Christian Response. This is not an easy assignment. I want to assure you of three things: I am not prophet, nor the son of a prophet. I am not a politician, nor the son of a politician, but my mother was a very fine lady. If your expect me to decide the issue you are going to be disappointed. If you want to learn how others have decided the issue you might not be disappointed. If you want to learn how to go about deciding the issue you might not be disappointed. If you want all the answers you have come to the wrong room.
Prayer: I don’t usually use a formal prayer but the first and third verses of a well known hymn seemed appropriate for the occasion. Let us pray:
God of our fathers, whose almighty hand
Leads forth in beauty all the starry band
Of shining worlds in splendor through the skies,
Our grateful songs before Thy throne arise.
From war’s alarms from deadly pestilence,
Be Thy strong arm our ever sure defense;
Thy true religion in our hearts increase,
Thy bounteous goodness nourish us in peace. Amen!
Scripture: Romans 13 NEV is the bed rock for Christian citizenship even under a totalitarian regime.
RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. [6] This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
Before anyone says Amen Brother! Let us remember that under this admonition there would have been no American Revolution. The church people in 1776 who believed Paul had to flee to Halifax. Boston would have looked like Toronto. Nor would anyone have fired on Fort Sumter.
Paul is writing to the Romans whose higher power was Nero. The power that eventually had Paul beheaded. Remember back in the early chapters of the Book of Acts, Paul took the law into his own hands and assisted in the assassination of Stephen and led a crusade against Christians as far north as Damascus. [What a different world view conversion makes!]
This lesson was prompted by Henry G. Brinton’s article in the Washington Post of September 29. Although Congress has made the issue more or less moot, we shall explore what prompted Brinton’s column. Reverend Brinton is senior pastor of the Fairfax Presbyterian Church. Pastor Brinton addresses the dilemma facing Christians—allegiance to God and country.
Pastor Brinton focuses on the narrow and specific issue of preemptive war. He lists a host of main-line Church organizations and leaders who have called upon President Bush to reconsider any unilateral preemptive war against Iraq. His list includes the National Capital Presbytery, The World Council of Churches, The Archbishop of Canterbury, The American Roman Catholic bishops, Pope John Paul II, and the Middle East Council of Churches; none of whom have a history of passivism. In fact, by the third century the Church had generally accepted the four principles of a just war outlined by Augustine: According to Augustine, a “just war” 1. Must be waged under the authority of the prince, [again no American Revolution nor the War between the States] 2. Must have as its objective to punish injustice, 3. Must restore peace, [few wars have been successful at this] 4. Must be conducted without vindictiveness or unnecessary violence. Today we would call it surgical.
Reverend Brinton also reported that one hundred Christian ethicists signed a petition saying that the president had failed to make a compelling moral case for a preemptive war. Since Brinton’s column, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has also issued a statement urging President Bush to rethink a unilateral preemptive war.
In the past, preemptive wars have been wars of aggression: Germany v. Poland, Germany v. Norway, Germany v. Russia, Pearl Harbor, and North Korea’s invasion of South Korea. The Six Day War might be the only exception. But by 1974 the Arab World turned the tables and became preemptive against Israel in the Yom Kipper War. In fact, much of the Middle East Crisis can be traced to the aftermath of the Six Day War
On Monday night President Bush outlined, in detail, the sins of Saddam Hussein and then asked the question: “Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how can we best achieve it?” He neglected to answer his question as he continued to expand on the litany of sins that justified swift action. He did open the door just a little to suggest a coalition and options prior to war only as the final option.
The issue of a unilateral preemptive war is compelling to the Church because of the mind set of church men who are urging President Bush to act preemptively and unilaterally. Men who represent the entire panoply of dispensational churches (The Note to be Left Behind” types) One or more emphatically declare that the credit card is to become the 666 of the Book of Revelation—some see a credit card economy as the first step in the creation of the cashless economy that they believe fulfills the biblical prophecy that no man can buy or sell except he have the mark of the beast in his forehead on in his hand or for that matter a credit card in his/her pocket. If you are using a credit card for consumer goods you stand a very good chance on being consumed by fire, unless of course, you would like to contribute by credit card to their ministry. Some see the credit card miniaturized to the size of a grain of rice and embedded in the forehead or palm of the right hand. We Presbyterians may have no idea what the number 666 means but we emphatically declare that the One who knows even the number of hairs in our heads is our Lord and our God.
Why the dichotomy between Christians? Certainly it is not because one group is more patriotic or more devoted than the other. It must have something to do with their differing world view, their differing eschatology, and their differing logic systems and their approaches to problem-solving.
First Let Us Consider a World View:
Iraq was created following the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. Essentially England, France, and Russia carved up the territory. Because of the Russian Revolution, Russia lost Istanbul and the Straits. France received Syria. England received Egypt, and Mesopotamia, and conjointly ruled Palestine with a vague promise to provide a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
England defeated the Turks[Ottomans] largely with the help of the Arabs, led in part by Lawrence of Arabia. Through Lawrence’s alliances, Britain promised independence to Arab tribal leaders each of whom had magnified private agenda for power. With their usual indifference to tribal, religious, and ethnic diversity the British carved up Mesopotamia into Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, et al.
The primary reason that Great Britain wanted the Mesopotamia basin was not simply the oil but also a land route to India. In the creation of Iraq, Britain joined three disparate religious and ethnic groups—the Kurds in the North, Sunni Muslims in the central plains, and largest group the Shiite Muslims in the South. By 1920 the Kurds revolted and 450 British troopers were killed. Worse yet, the Kurds refused to pay tax to the British [sounds a lot like Colonial Boston] so the R.A.F. bombed Kurdish villages, killing women and children. In frustration, Britain abandoned its protectorate over Iraq in 1930. Following the Second World War the United States and Russia played chess over the region. We lost Iran and they lost Afghanistan, Egypt, and Palestine.
During the Reagan years, Iraq invaded Iran. Iraq was getting whipped. So, the United States, under the principle that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, gave Iraq arms and weapons, including weapons of mass destruction—where upon, Saddam Hussein bombed the Kurds, who had taken the opportunity of the Iraq/Iran war to revolt. Hussein is charged with even using weapons of mass destruction given him by the United States—killing whomever the R.A.F. may have missed or their kin.
By 1990 the Middle East was of intense interest to the West because of their oil. Saddam Hussein overreached and a coalition of oil hungry nations pushed him out of Kuwait but then stood by while he turned on the Shiite Muslims in Basra who were friendly to their Iranian brethren and had the potential of unseating Saddam and installing a fundamentalist regime.
That indifference to the plight of the Shiite Muslims caused a persistent rancor among Muslim fundamentalists, a rancor heightened by the Palestinian/Israeli Jihad that has escalated during the Sharon years. It is small wonder then when either the United States or the United Kingdom says, “we’re here to help you” it has a very hollow sound beyond our borders.
Pastor Brinton’s group of church men find in all this the simple truth that sin continues to abound in much of international affairs. The other group find an advancing line of dispensational prophecy being unfolded.
Let Us Consider Dispensational Eschatology:
Modern dispensationalism divides history into seven periods or dispensations. The three key dispensations to the Church cover Hebrew history from Moses to the Second Coming of Jesus. The current dispensation is called the dispensation of Grace which is to be followed by a Millennial Kingdom.
Dispensationalists have an unshakable belief that the Books of Daniel and Revelation along with Matthew 24 and 25, and a few excerpts from Paul and the minor prophets contain a clear unequivocal literal blueprint of God’s plan for this world.
Reform churches find their hope in the Covenant and not in the apocalyptic literature. Thus Reform Churches find in Jesus Christ the new Israel and find themselves accepted as the adopted children of Israel. Reform churches find God’s final word in Jesus Christ, He is our end and well as our beginning. Reform churches accept the Creeds as a reliable outline of the Christian faith. Thus, their faith is not built upon an unshakable confidence in their unique understanding of Scripture but upon the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Dispensationalists not only reject the Creeds and the Reformation but boldly assert that God has one plan for the Church and another for Israel in which Israel as well as those of us who are “Left Behind” must suffer 7 years of tribulation before only 144,000 Jews will be finally “saved” along with a host of us previous apostates. That is why Middle East politics is of such keen interest to dispensationalists.
Dispensationalists are crystal clear on the following scenario:
• The Jews return to Palestine unconverted.
• The Nation of Israel is established.
• Europe unites in an attempt to restore the Roman Empire [Common Market—euro] European Union
• Increase in travel and flow of information
[The above are done deals] What follows, they say, is soon to occur.
• The Rapture [secret gathering of God’s saints in the air on their way to heaven] [Rapture not as in Happy but as in Greek for snatched away]
• One-world government/apostate church/business/language [Hebrew]
• Seven years of tribulation—suffered by those Left Behind and the Jews.
• Drying up of the Waters of the Euphrates/The Battle of Armageddon
• Christ Returns: Israel and some of those “left behind” are converted.
• Christ reigns for a thousand years on earth with Jerusalem as His capital.
• The eternal age begins.
Dispensationalists not only want to predict the future, they want to finesse the future. Now that they taste political power, they want to force God’s hand. They believe that they can protect Israel and help “dry up the Euphrates River [Baghdad]. By so doing they will hasten the Battle of Armageddon. So what, if it doesn’t turn out just right! The pre-tribulation Rapture will take them out of the mess and let the 7 years of tribulation fall upon the Jews, the World Council of Churches, liberals both in and out of the Church, Muslims, and pagans.
In order to keep the dispensational faith one must do at least the following:
• Ensure the stability of Israel.
• Fight coalitions particularly with Europe
• Fight any one world scheme, particularly the UN
• Fight unbelief everywhere.
• Stand firm with all true believers/reject any counsel from apostates
• Set in motion efforts to dry up the waters of the Euphrates River [Now it is Baghdad, before it was Russia.] Thus, to avowed dispensationalists unilateral preemptive war is not only moral it is necessary and any one who differs is on the side of the beast.
Logic Systems: [Group Think]Nietzsche is quoted as saying that madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups. Group madness is characterized by lack of vigilance accompanied by excessive risk-taking followed by collective panic, and violent acts of scapegoating.
The closer and tighter the group the more susceptible the group is to “Groupthink”. Groupthink is a mind set in which members of the group consider loyalty to the group the highest form of morality. Thus, they fail to consider all available options, neglect to analyze each option as to its risk, benefit, or potential for unintended consequences, refrain from raising controversial issues, fail to question weak arguments, or call a halt to softheaded thinking. Paradoxically, such “in groups” are generally extremely hardhearted toward any out-group’ of dissenters.
Generally such “in groups” foster over optimism, display a lack of vigilance, and traffic in “sound bite slogans” rather engaging in analytical thinking. In theology, such group behavior is known as Triumphalism.
In passing it is interesting to note that George W. Bush’s father, an Episcopalian, fought in a real war, was Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the U.N. and Director of the CIA. His world view was open and rich in experience. No wonder that all of his senior advisors except Vice President Cheney support a U.N. centered coalition process rather than any unilateral preemptive act.
On the other hand, the President and his Attorney General are steeped in Southern Baptist Convention and Pentecostal Dispensationalism. While coalitions and counting heads and costs before the fact were second nature to the father, they are totally unnecessary to the son blessed with the biblical clarity of Dispensationalism. Our international problem is that Dispensationalism is basically an American phenomena. Therefore other nations see only a gross neo-imperialism emerging out of the vacuum of the lack of any opposing super power. Hopefully, political reality many yet temper his judgment. Certainly his rhetoric has softened since his September 12 U.N. speech that prompted Pastor Brinton and others.
Logic Systems: [The Conflict Model of Decision Making]
The Church men who are calling for restraint in unilateral preemptive war are concerned about unintended consequences to American moral power in the world community. Recall King David’s ineffective parenting after his affair with Bathsheba. What about Moses killing the Egyptian Overseer?
Good loyal Christian Americans are simply asking: “Have we properly considered all of the potential unintended consequences, such as:”
1. Unilateral action creates the potential for becoming the very pariah we are trying to eliminate.
2. Unilateral action creates the potential of unifying the entire Islamic world against us.
3. Unilateral action creates the potential for serving as a model for other nations to preempt their perceived enemies.
4. Unilateral action creates the potential for offending our trading partners.
5. What shall we do twenty years out when our military might becomes comparable to that of Saddam Hussein’s, while that of China become comparable to our present dominance? Will we want coalitions then?
Thus our church brethren are calling for broad consultation and some level of international consensus prior to irrevocable action.
One Logic Model that employs a full range of lateral and vertical thinking is known as the Conflict Theory Model of Decision Making. An algorithm that flows from un-conflicted adherence to the present course of action, through un-conflicted change if change is risk free to hyper vigilance (extreme action) if time or circumstances, prevent finding logical alternatives.) These courses of action are placed in contrast to vigilance (carefully reasoned decision-making from the gitgo~)
Pastor Brinton’s postulate is that the present political situation is filled with hyper vigilant action and reaction.
What do we do, if President Bush follows Group Think? If we follow the admonition of Paul: We won’t become a Jane Fonda, nor will we run to Canada, or burn our draft cards, nor call our troops “baby killers”. We will be good citizens, do our duty, pay our taxes, answer the call to service, and use our Freedom of Speech and Franchise to see the venture to a just conclusion. God has his timetable and it doesn’t depend upon anyone of us. God doesn’t need our help to tame the devil, or his beast, or the number of his name! In the meantime we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 08 July 2007 at 16:12
Faye et al,
Let's not read WAR merely through one or II wars. As I mention above, without WWI there would not have been a II. And I say that as the proud grandson of a veteran who served on the USS Enterprise (Dad's side).
Yet now we exist in a globalized climate in which wars no longer happen as somewhat discrete engagements between the uniformed.
I believe in evil and I act to confront it. But evil arises in contexts -- if you wonder about that read Philip Roth's The Plot Against America.
But if one thinks that we can kill off evil let's at least dispense with the appeasement argument for war based on one war; it's a popular oversimplification.
And shouldn't Adventists -- if not all Christians -- have their beliefs about war on the "no" default since that applies most of the time and then only when there's a unmitigated reason that most level-headed folks can agree requires some action, we can then switch. Right now I see way too many fellow believers hemming and hawing about good reasons for national violence and in so doing making the exception the default rule. And that's not in our moral or missional interest.
Everyone who disagrees should start by reading this monograph from that "dovish, idealistic" institution, the US Army's War College Strategic Studies Institute:
Here's the forward to their (more thoughtful than some Christians?!) monograph entitled: APPEASEMENT RECONSIDERED:
INVESTIGATING THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE 1930s
Hmm, that point about Hitler as without equal as a state threat, seems like a pretty good rule to follow rather than spend our taxes and lives for the profit of defense and energy corporations and disaffected (Ahmed Chalabi) dissidents.
Read it all here.
Posted by: Alexander | 08 July 2007 at 16:35
Alexander,
My comments were intended as a response specifically to Sirje's post. However, Europe and WW 2 have been a reference point of several previous comments.
I do understand the broader conversation which this blog addresses.
Posted by: faye | 08 July 2007 at 17:20
Faye,
Not to drift too far on this - nationally prescribed ceremonies do keep memories alive, as you have just demonstrated, and I don't mean to take qway anything from the brave men from other countries who faught for the liberation of Europe; but the present European mindset of appeasment and anti-American sentiment gives a different picture.
While all these other nations faught valiantly during WWII, I would suggest they would not have been able to do that had the US military not been on the scene as well.
As for the Canadians - I find to be somewhat of an adolescent society, constantly complaining about their "big brother" to the south, but continually relying on, and imitating him. At present, the Canadian fleet is made up of four decrepit submarines they bought from Britain, one of which burst into flames on the way accross the Atlantic, and a fleet of Sea King helicopter they can't keep in the air. With this they expect to keep their Atlantic shores protected from - whatever. Without the US military just a few miles to the south, Canada has no reason to bolster its navy or airforce, but she keeps complaining about the US military.
Britain is struggling to keep Sharria Law from happening and now doesn't want to label Moslem terrorists, as "terrorists", while the man on the street riles against US foreign policy.
When those planes flew into the buildings in New York everybody knew we were at war, but have forgotten at this point. (Although I do wonder if Bush knew who we were at war with.)
Posted by: Sirje | 08 July 2007 at 18:31
Everybody:
Thanks for the great posts. I'm learning much!
Henk:
The questions you put to me are pertinent and powerful. Although I do not believe there has ever been a perfectly just war, I prefer that way of approaching these problems for at least three reasons. Just war theories: (1) give me conceptual tools with which to assess the use of coercive power of any sort: (2) help me pinpoint the specific ways and degrees particular wars are unjust, thereby also making relative judgments among them more possible; (3) make it possible for me to collaborate with others who may oppose a specific war but not be total pacifists.
Having said all that, I learned much from John Yoder, especially the insight that Christian pacifism is not "passive" but active in its opposition to evil, albeit with means that are congruent with its ends.
I offer this in no attempt to convert you to just war theory. I'm only trying to respond to your excellent questions.
Thank you!
Dave
Posted by: David R. Larson | 08 July 2007 at 18:31
Sirje:
I always have to smile at how scared the more pro-war folks sound. Really, almost everyone in the whole world including most liberals recognizes the danger of terrorizing Islamic sects, but more and more people are realizing that violence will not stop violence.
I was just in the UK during both the club bomb scare and I visited both Heathrow and Gatwick the day after the Glasgow airport attack. The police were out. Terrorism will be beat by intelligence that works, not by more submarines. (Of the around 400 subs in the world, the US and Russia have over three hundred. How much tax revenue would you like spent by Canadians on submarines so that you feel good about their fleet in a battle? Or maybe we're just getting to a globalized place where "every country for itself" doesn't make sense anymore?)
And I'd encourage you to read that U. S. Army War College monograph (comment above) before using the word "appeasement" in the 21st century terrorist context again.
Posted by: Alexander | 08 July 2007 at 19:21
Sirje,
It is rather beside the intent and contrary to the spirit of this blog to boast about military prowess but the facts as to the Canadian Military, which are entirely different from yours, are available on the web. The American Military is much superior in size and we don't criticise it per se.
As to who it is who resides in an adolescent society, (sigh)I think it best for me to say no more.
Posted by: faye | 08 July 2007 at 19:43
By Jove - if I may call on the name of a dead deity - this thread gets flooded... which is a sign of emotions running ahead of reason.
I would rather leave out the political side in this discussion, but in some way it creeps into it. That is to say, it gives me one more reason to state that war is satanic. I do not know of an instance in which outright lies were not feeding the masses into war. The sad fact is that any government, any political party, is dishonest when it comes to war. One more reason that a Christian should be on guard. The Tonkin-incident was a lie; Operation Northwoods was a setup that was abandoned (sigh); The sinking of the "Liberty" was another setup to get involved into the war in the Middle-East; Operation Gladio was in fact NATO terrorism in Europe with the intent of blaming the Communists. And in fact, I have the gravest doubts that the American government has been honest in what really happened on 9/11. As there are so many lies around I expect them on the issue of 9/11 as well. But in the meantime 9/11 and Iraq were unjustly connected with each-other by your government (they knew better, but they lied the nation into war) and 100.000's have been killed. My concern is how this madness can be stopped, and as a Christian I look for answer to Jesus Christ.
David Larson, I must say, I'm not an absolute pacifist. I made that clear in earlier threads on the subject of war and chaplaincy.
In search for answers to the questions on war, violence etc., I take into account the unpredictability of human reactions to fear, anger, loss of status quo. But in finding answers we have to start somewhere, and I would suggest we start with some boundaries and principles. To short-circuit my piece here, my conclusion is that war and Christianity are incompatible. From what I have read here in this thread, many agree at least with me on the thought that war is intrinsically evil. So, if you agree with me on that, we can skip further exploration whether Christianity and war are compatible, but as far as I see from your posts you adhere to some form of just war theory, with checks and balances in place. That means that for you Christianity and violent retribution, war, are in some way or other compatible. If so, give me some reason why you think these two are compatible.
Posted by: Henk | 09 July 2007 at 00:58
Faye,
My point is, in the context of this discussion, that in a world where violence governs every corner, the pacificts, wearing blue barrets and logos of peace keeping, rely on the guns of others. That is not true pacifism.
Your abloslutely right, more guns and subs will not keep the peace, but neither will olive branches, as long as someone in the crowd has a weapon. For a pacifist to say they won't fight, is saying, "I'm relying on someone else to fight for me."
No one knows what they would do when threatened with violence or death, but my guess is that if your family were to be threatened, most people would fight back. Whether or not it would be rational or pratctical or even moral is beside the point.
Posted by: Sirje | 09 July 2007 at 01:58
Faye,
By the way, defending oneself doesn't apply merely to defense with weapons. Judging by your reaction to my posts, you have quite a bit of fire power, when deemed justified, yourself. I recall someone saying something about the "pen being mightier than the sword" and I would add, having equal beliogerance to guide it.
Posted by: Sirje | 09 July 2007 at 02:21
Sirje,
Is there any reason that holds (some) water to trust the guy with a weapon any more than to distrust/despise the one without a weapon? And secondly, what is what you call "true pacifism" if it is not relying on the guns of others?
Posted by: Henk | 09 July 2007 at 03:43
"But let's think back: Would we really want to go back to an Adventism in 1914 -- Bill Cork sanctioning his French parishioners to kill Robert's German believers?"
So, we come back to where we started, the belief that military chaplaincy is about sanctioning one group of Christians to kill another.
This perspective would say the only proper Christian response is to boycott completely. That Christ can't be present at all in the midst of human conflict. That it would also be wrong for Adventist medics to treat the wounded of one Army who would then go back to kill again. That's what led complete pacifists to also refuse service as medics.
But the Gospel needs to be present in the midst of every human situation. Christians need to be salt and light in every context.
And if such total withdrawal from "the world" is to be consistent, what justification do you have for not following the Anabaptists and the Jehovah's Witnesses to the logical conclusion--the total pacifist perspective should mean that Adventists couldn't serve as police officers either. Or on juries. Or as judges. Nor should they run for political office. Nor should they vote. Nor should they got heated up on any political issue, pro or con, because these are all things of "the world" and of Satan's kingdom, for this perspective.
The historic Adventist position has been more realistic and more nuanced. Adventists have been strongly urged in the past not to volunteer for military service but, in times of draft, to register as 1-AO. Even then, Adventists fought to maintain their unique perspective as noncombatants, and their right to Sabbath observance. They saw they had obligations as citizens--and as believers.
Ellen White saw God's hand in war, in particular, in the US Civil War, that God intervened in particular battles. Adventists who voted did so for Lincoln, because of the slavery issue. This anti-slavery perspective led her to counsel absolute disobedience to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. And yet on the draft she said, "But in the case of drafting, the government assumes the responsibility of the violation of the law of God, and it would be madness to resist. He who would resist until, in the administration of military law, he was shot down, goes too far, we think, in taking the responsibility of suicide" (RH, Aug. 12, 1862).
The historic Adventist position was drafted in the light of the experience of the draft, which has, of course, not existed in this country since the Vietnam era. When I was in high school and college the church in the years following the end of the draft the church was still making a strong effort to counsel young men about these issues, urging us not to volunteer, because we would not likely be able to avoid bearing of arms or Sabbath duty, but to be assured of church support in case of a revival of the draft.
Adventists have served faithfully as chaplains, however--and this service has the blessing of the denomination at all levels. One cannot be a chaplain without the endorsement of his denomination. Never has the church flinched in this regard. Never has it seen its noncombatant position as inconsistent with this.
Because Christ calls us to go into all the world, not just those portions that some find palatable. Christ calls us to feed all his sheep, not just those we feel are worthy. Christ is present in the midst of all human situations, not just those of which we approve. And Christian pastors have a witness that they can give, a moral perspective from which to speak, words of comfort that they can provide. "Do not let your good be spoken of as evil." Romans 14:16.
Posted by: Bill Cork | 09 July 2007 at 04:09
Yes, our efforts should work against any and all forms of violence including armed conflict and wars, domestic abuse and beyond. Yes, we should not profit, individually or corporately, from immoral industries.
I've heard people say that it isn't Adventist ministry to soldiers which offends them but rather the entanglements of Adventist chaplains with military institutions and their providing "morale" support to women and men of war.
Yes, there is no place on Gods green or charred earth where the people of the way should not minister. Yes, the notion of armed conflict zones as places where Adventist ministry does not belong is obviously incompatible with the great commission.
Yes, war is in this world we are called to minister to. This is a statement of fact which exists alongside my belief that yes, we should work to make armed conflict non-existent.
Yes, I do believe that there is just war and unjust war. Yes, I do think it is contradictory to believe in just war as moral but condemn those who mount said just wars as immoral. Or, should Adventist chaplains only serve in just wars?
Yes, I do believe we can improve the state of our ordained ministers within armed conflict. And, yes, I would love to hear workable suggestions of how this could be done.
Perhaps Adventist seminaries, especially chaplain training programs, should reach out to Adventist military chaplains embedded therein to, as Dave requests, better hear and speak to their concerns, troubles and challenges.
Thanks!
Posted by: Johnny A. Ramirez | 09 July 2007 at 04:24
Bill,
1. Postulate 1: By being a chaplain I am doing good;
Postulate 2: Romans 14:16;
Conclusion: My choice to be a chaplain should not be criticized.
I hope you don't mind my disagreement... Postulate 1 is a false one, or at least has to be proven to be a right one.
2. To come back to my question, ministers are called to serve all humanity, including soldiers if they happen to be near you. But, does this really mean that the best way to serve them is by wearing the military uniform, identifying yourself with the military institution.
And secondly, I maintain that when you attend to soldiers as one of them, you cannot serve their victims at the same time, precluding your ministry to the victims of their blood-shedding. You should not limit your ministry this way.
3. I don't care what the church says or does regarding the military. I try to get as near as possible to the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by: Henk | 09 July 2007 at 06:28
It is false to say being a chaplain is doing good? A chaplain is a minister of the Gospel who preaches Jesus Christ. That can never be wrong.
Chaplains do not limit themselves to those who share the uniform. Reread what I wrote.
"I don't care what the church says or does...."
Yes, that's the point of your argument I've been highlighting.
"I try to get as near as possible to the teachings of Jesus."
As pointed out above, Jesus never told soldiers to abandon their posts--and he was a Jew speaking to Romans who were brutalizing his land. John the Baptist, a prophet known for his denunciations, could only say to them: "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."
If you want to get close to the teachings of Jesus, start with what he actually said.
Posted by: Bill Cork | 09 July 2007 at 06:35
Please Bill, read what I write. Your postulate is either false or has to be proven. I am not talking about your ministry, but about what you take as a proven statement. That postulate, I maintain, is not self-evident. The whole point of what we are discussing here is precisely to find out out whether is it a good thing to be a chaplain or not. You say yes, I say no.
Moreover, I object to quoting a Bible text in order to avoid a test whether it is good or not to be a chaplain in the army.
If you in your decision to be a chaplain hide behind the skirts of our mother-church, I must say that the Church does not stand in judgment; you and I stand before God, and neither of us can say to God: but the Church said is was okay or not okay.
No Jesus did not say to soldiers to lay down their weapons, but so he did not say to take them up. He did not fight the Romans because His kingdom was not of this world - is that something that tells you something about His attitude towards war and violence? His principle thoughts were directed to the poor, the victims of war, the hungry, the ones who were denied any justice, and not to soldiers.
If John the Baptist says to soldiers "to harm no man", you must take off your sunglasses if you come to the conclusion that he meant to say: do not harm anyone but shoot the hell out of them.
I do not maintain that soldiers are to be excluded from ministry, but I take you to task to make clear how you can be a minister in the army, an institution of which you have still to make clear whether that is a good institution or an evil one. I let you know what I think and you are free to state what you think. Let's not get disagreeable here, but probing and vulnerable in our opinions. Only then will truth be found.
Posted by: Henk | 09 July 2007 at 08:00
Militaries exist to protect the innocent, the same as police forces. Are you going to be consistent and say Christians should not be police? Are you going to be consistent and say we should not have anything to do with secular states, including voting?
You have made assertions about soldiers killing the innocent. I deny that is the intention of our soldiers. I assert that in fact they have done much good for civilians in Iraq and in Afghanistan, based on first hand testimony of soldiers.
But there are very widespread issues here. One is what a state must do to protect its citizens--an obligation that all states have by their very nature. How would you have a nation respond to terrorism? To Nazi or Japanese aggressions? To insurgencies?
The other issue is the Christian calling, which we agree is to be counter cultural. The Adventist Church has been consistent in asking its members not to be combatants. You have at times tried to make it appear as if I was saying something else.
You have made assertions about what the chaplaincy is based on your perspective as someone in another country who served in another military. I have given you the factual documentation of the provisions of American law and how one chaplain experienced this--and my experience is not unique.
Posted by: Bill Cork | 09 July 2007 at 08:19
Serje,
One may debate the merits or demerits of 'Peace Keeping', 'Just War', self defence, etc. generally or in specific instances in a fair and open manner. What I object to is gratuitous comments, oblique (Tom) as well as direct volleys, that intend only to broadly malign.
If I responded in kind, then perhaps, with more thought, I could have done better.
Faye
Posted by: Faye | 09 July 2007 at 09:01
OK Bill, finally some questions on principles instead of situation sketches on how the chaplaincy works.
1. Is it true in all cases that the military exists to protect the innocent? Not true. The innocent victims of any war outnumber the fallen soldiers of either party in the conflict. You can look up the numbers in any book on statistics.
2. The better question would be to ask whether a nation uses the military only for defensive actions. The answer is no. There is always an aggressor, and neither the Netherlands nor the US are exceptions to this rule. The US has far more aggressive acts on its name than defensive actions. So, as a chaplain, I take it that you are obliged not to differ from the one under whose command you place yourself. Whatever war the US engages in, it's not up to you to say whether you want to be involved or not. True or not? And if not, what options are at your disposal when your conscience tells you that you are going to be involved in an unjust war? (For me any war is not the way to solve conflicts and are de facto unjust).
3. As stated earlier, I'm not an absolute pacifist. I try to be a responsible citizen, although I reserve the right for myself whether or not I am involved in the actions my government takes. If some actions are against my convictions, I (hope I can) say no.
4. That means I'm not against a police-force. I realize that a society must have a check on its citizens, but that means also that any police-officer is subject to (national) conventions and agreements on how he will operate. Moreover, a police-officer here in the Netherlands, and in fact in most European countries, has no mandate to shoot to kill. If he kills someone, he will be persecuted, just as any other citizen.
5. It is possible for a police-force to operate beyond its mandate. Any citizen has the responsibility to resist, whether he will do so or not is up to him, but we have a lot of leeway in this, from bottom to top.
6. Yes, I do vote, and I do not have the opinion that this is inconsistent with my sort of anti-militarism. I do not think it is inconsistent to allow for a certain constraining factor on a national level, but a war machine is a totally different way of having your cake and eat it.
7. Is it the intention of soldiers to kill the innocent? I hope not, but the sad fact is that they do. One can soften this finding by talking about collateral damage, but we are talking people here.
8. First-hand testimony of soldiers indicates that they have done a lot of good...
My rule of thumb is not to listen to soldiers in the first place; they have a stake in the opinion that is going to be formed.
I think it a good idea that a TV station as Al Jazeerah is (going to be) covering the US as well, because the accusation that the Western press is filtering what we see and hear is most probably true. Why is it that web-logs with alternate views proliferate so much. I think the answer is to be found in the selective propaganda that we are fed by the main press organizations, and we should not be surprised that "the other party" tries to bring its view to the fore. We should listen to them also, and not only to our own government or press agencies.
9. But, are soldiers doing a lot of good? That might be a soothing observation to you, but a bitter observation for someone whose country is invaded and destroyed, e.g. Iraq. I don't think the Iraqis agree, and pardon me my candor, but wasn't the invasion of Iraq meant to bring democracy to that country? Maybe democracy will ever take shape in Iraq, but for now they are bankrupt and their country is poisoned with depleted uranium that whirls constantly in the hot and dusty air they breathe. Not much good, I would say.
10. Why is it that Christians find it so hard to place the universal kingdom of God on top, and the country they are living in as at most secondary. My take, we cling too much to materialism, capitalism, and we think we have so much to loose when a foreign invader enters our domain. But pardon me my candor again, Bill, aren't you defending something that was stolen from the indigenous people of America in the first place?
My forebears came from another country and we found shelter in the Netherlands. We did not exterminate the original Dutch people. With a certain shame I confess that my country was once a colonial power, and we who found shelter turned around and occupied a foreign country (Indonesia) that was not ours to take, and we held unto it at the cost of thousands of dead Indonesians and many times more mutilated for life. Why do we do these things, while we know that as Christians we cannot or should not do these things? Your country, and mine, have been aggressors many times over, and for what reason?
Mexicans are crossing your borders, coming back to the country where once their forebears lived. In fact, I don't think they come to occupy, but look at what the US is doing, calling them illegal immigrants. Is illegal immigration in order to have a better life a worse crime than steeling it from them in the first place? Call in the National Guard... our possessions and security are at stake...
11. So, by placing yourself in the heart of an institution where your voice is synchronized with the lies of your government, what are you going to say or do when things go against your beliefs. It happened, it happens, and it will happen. I cannot believe that an idealist like you takes for granted that he sells his loyalty to people who created the military, not just to defend, but to rob, steal and murder. If it was only the "noble cause of defense" that we are concerned with..., but you and I know that the military institution is used by the most degraded of our citizens and that we have to be on the look-out for inciting language. The ones who listen will die, spiritually if not physically; the ones who speak these seditious words are already dead, for they have no conscience.
Posted by: Henk | 09 July 2007 at 10:44
Henk, it appears I've said all I can say in this conversation. I have given you both my own experience from a decade ago, the basis of the chaplaincy in US law, Adventist teaching, and reasoning from Scripture. As a non-US citizens you have your own perceptions of our country and its actions which I don't feel to be in accordance with the lived experience of Americans, but it's not my place here to defend that. I have defended the chaplaincy, which is a ministry that is indeed done in tension, a tension experienced by every chaplain (as I indicated), but that I as an individual in my prior ministry, and the Adventist church through its history, has felt worth doing. You disagree, and have stated your reasons for this.
Posted by: Bill Cork |