Adventists and War

[aldona]

From the latest "Adventist Peace Messenger" newsletter:

Adventists and Non-Combatancy: Response to recent Review article

Quote:

The position of a religious organization that the killing of other men is now just “a matter of individual conscience” is troubling. Imagine the dismay if the church were to proclaim that the keeping of the seventh day as the Sabbath were a matter of individual conscience. Yet which would be higher on the ladder of Christian ethics?

[John317]

Interestingly, it was this very issue which caused the split in the SDA church during World War I and which resulted in the organization of the SDA Reform Movement. That body believes virtually everything the parent church believes, except that the the Movement takes a much stronger stand against combatancy and all of its members also give unquestioning support to Ellen White's prophetic ministry.

I served during Vietnam as a field medic and refused to carry a weapon and to receive weapons training. At that time I considered myself a pacifist. Some SDA soldiers, although they were Conscientous Objectors, decided once they got to Vietnam to train with a weapon, because they wanted to be able to defend their buddies if the VC overran their position.

Today, perhaps surprisingly, despite my sympathies with the SDA Reform Movement, I support the official position of the SDA church, that whether to serve as a combat soldier should be left up to the individual soldier's conscience.

Basically the reason I take this position is that in the NT, soldiers who became Christians were evidently not told that they had to stop being soldiers. Also, if it's immoral to carry a weapon and be a soldier, it seems to me the same argument could be made concerning being a sheriff or a cop. I believe one can do God's duty while being both a soldier and a cop, just as one can also be a President or a member of the Congress.

Would I myself be willing to take up a weapon and kill? I wouldn't want to but now I think it depends on the circumstances. I can think of some circumstances in which I would. I used to think that I would rather die than take any human life. So I've changed as I've grown older.

[olger]

I personally favor the non-combatancy way of thinking.

I have a lot of guns, but I could not use them on a person. The Law of God stands as a barrier to killing/murder.

Why would I place myself in a position where I would be expected to break this law of God?

I was trained in Tae Kwon Do many years ago, but I would not use it on a person (did once and regretted it).

"Be Thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort."

olger

[Dr. Shane]

The law of God forbids murder. Killing another human being during time of war is not murder. If it is, then God ordered men to break His Commandments as He ordered the children of Israel to go to war on various occasions.

[John317]

I also wouldn't intentionally put myself in a position where I would feel that I have to take a human life, either. That is one reason I personally wouldn't want to be an armed policeman. But I recognize the right of other SDAs to make a different choice.

For me the question is really whether we have the right to tell other SDAs what they ought to do rather than allow them to decide themselves on the basis of conscience and what they see as their personal responsibilities to God.

The issue gets complex, too, when we consider the fact that the commandment of God condemns "murder," not killing per se.

What to do if somone enters your home with the intent to do you or your wife and family serious, perhaps even fatal, bodily harm?

Isn't a policeman who protects us from violent, evil people showing us love? He is putting his life on the line to protect us. I have an SDA nephew, for instance, who is a sherrif's deputy near Tucson, Arizona. Should we tell him it's wrong for him to be in that position?

When I was a kid, the policeman (the only one) in Loma Linda never carried a weapon. As the years have passed and the situations have become increasingly more violent and dangerous even in "peaceful, sleepy Loma Linda," the police there have become armed. There are terrible crimes committed in Loma Linda now, crimes that one never heard of when I moved there as a kid. In those days there wasn't any crime and people left their doors wide open without fear. It's a different town nowadays.

Do we want to tell people they can't be a Christian and protect others from lawlessness?

The Bible gives the state the responsibility to protect its citizens from lawlessness and violence. (Romans 13: 1-10.) Do we want to say that it is immoral for Christians to serve in this capacity, whether it is in the military or as a policeman?

These are some of the questions that I think the issue asks us to try to struggle with.

[John317]

...I have a lot of guns, but I could not use them on a person. The Law of God stands as a barrier to killing/murder.

Why would I place myself in a position where I would be expected to break this law of God?olger

I'm in agreement with your principles here. But would you allow a man crazy on drugs to come into your house and kill you and your family? What if the only way to stop him was to shoot him? What if you shot him in the legs and he kept coming at you? When a person is on drugs or not, this can happen if they are determined enough to come at you.

I see a difference between being persecuted for Christ and being pursued by a rabid dog or a crazy person or someone who is angry at us for doing our job, for instance. My job sometimes entails my having to write reports about people's behavior at work. I've had threats made against me and threats by men who had weapons and knew where I live and said they were coming to my home to attack me and my family. In this situation, yes, I prayed, but one thing I wouldn't do is allow these angry people to destoy me and my kids and wife. God expects us to do something to protect our loved ones too. You can't always run away.

That is different, in my thinking, from the state coming to my home to arrest me for Sabbath keeping or for being a Christian. Then I don't fight or protect myself. I may try to run away, but I don't take up weapons in that situation. One is protecting yourself from senseless violence, and the other is dealing with a legally constituted government or court opposed to God and His law.

Let me know what you think. I know these are some very complex issues.

[Neil D]

Just a bit of a different take on this issue.....

I agree that we should not be telling others what to believe...however, I would like the church to have the arguements of both sides available....

The reason is simple...I tend to believe that God makes people...sometimes for specific general situations, each for a purpose, and once in a while, to combat a different specific situation. If Paul had not come about, where would the early church be? EGW was specific in her ministry to the church, and yet there were [on record] 3 other individuals who were also commissioned with the job of being God's messager for these last days. And what about your pastor...isn't he 'set apart' for ministerial service? Hasn't he recieved a call to minister?

Why not Christian policemen/women, who are called to be..in law enforcement? Why not Christians who are called for a specific purpose, ie soldier? [there is no one, imo, who desires peace more!] Why not a Christian with a gun...and a badge?

And whose to say that Gondi was not a peace loving man that God had commission to do a work for God? If you don't know the man, I suggest that you look his life over.....and the movie is good as well [shameless plug!]

My point is that if God makes people to walk different roads, who is to say that the arguements of each philosophy don't appeal better to one individual than to another.....and still considered to be correct!

[John317]

Good points. God has to deal with the whole world, even with those parts that don't know Him or know the gospel, yet of course He is still active there. Gandhi was a peace-loving man on account of his Hindu beliefs in reincarnation. He was wrong on that point, but God used his wrong beliefs in order to bring good out of evil.

The Indian independence movement could have been very bloody, and almost certainly would have resulted in a bloody massacre if (a) there had been no Gandhi, and ( if the British had been brutal like the Nazis.

[Neil D]

I could add more, Moses with his training in the courts of Pharoh learning warfare, politics, justice and then unlearning other some of those things and using all he had to guide the people of God., David, who knows sheep well, learning warfare and soldier/battle techniques, learning how to be a leader, philosopher.....a man after God's own heart...

Neahmiah, a cupbearer in the courts of a Persian King, learning the arts of politics, leadership, and law, exercising justice, diplomacy, and just plain wisdom.

Each of these men were made for a specific purpose...but their outlook sometimes were at odds with the times....Anyway, you get the idea....

[Dr. Shane]

I served as a soldier in the US Army for five years. I carried a rifle and served in a combat engineer battalion. When I joined I was not active in the church. As I became more spiritual, I was trained as a medic but never served in that capacity. I eventually got out because of the Sabbath conflict. I did not take issue with carrying a weapon. When in Panama our base camp came under fire by guerrillas and, at the time, I didn't have a rifle and was really wishing I did.

[olger]

Hi John.

Grandpa had it right when the age-old question was asked of him. Grandpa was an elder in an Anabaptist church. "What would you do if someone broke into your home and was threatening your wife and/or children"?

Grandpa answered "I don't know what I would do, and you don't either."

He was considered to be a wise man by all who knew him.

olger