Do we still believe this?

[olger]

Quote:

In his current Adventist World article, "Clear Thinking About Military Service" Seventh-day Adventist Church world leader Jan Paulsen explains that deciding to carry arms puts "the spiritual and moral foundations of your life in serious jeopardy."

The Adventist News Network reports:

Referencing a resolution made at the church's Fifth General Conference in 1867 Paulsen says "This has, in broad terms, been our guiding principle: When you carry arms you imply that you are prepared to use them to take another's life, and taking the life of one of God's children, even that of our 'enemy,' is inconsistent with what we hold to be sacred and right."

The three-page article opens with Pastor Paulsen's own experience as a child during the Second World War, then goes on to say that because God values each human life Christians should never be involved in the taking of life. "Every human being, no matter what their choices or conduct is of infinite value to God ... the God we serve is a healer and a Savior. Healing and saving are the first business of the church," he writes.

Paulsen also makes it clear that although there are more and more church members taking combat positions -- there are 7,500 Adventists engaged in combat positions in North America alone -- the church's position has not changed.

He writes, "I have sensed, at times, a certain ambivalence toward our historic position, a sense, perhaps, that 'that was then, and this is now.' And yet I know of no reason why this should be so."

But what about those who live in countries where military service is compulsory? Pastor Paulsen counsels them saying, "Accepting the penalty of dissent -- perhaps even imprisonment -- may be the decision you make simply to be faithful to your fundamental convictions and your Lord."

Paulsen concludes by asking members of the world church not to put aside those who have made the decision to serve in combat positions but to embrace them. He admits that this is not a simple topic and encourages church members to consider this issue in "our homes, our churches, and our schools and let us do so with open hearts and a spirit of humility."

Paulsen also makes it clear that although there are more and more church members taking combat positions -- there are 7,500 Adventists engaged in combat positions in North America alone -- the church's position has not changed.

He writes, "I have sensed, at times, a certain ambivalence toward our historic position, a sense, perhaps, that 'that was then, and this is now.' And yet I know of no reason why this should be so."

But what about those who live in countries where military service is compulsory? Pastor Paulsen counsels them saying, "Accepting the penalty of dissent -- perhaps even imprisonment -- may be the decision you make simply to be faithful to your fundamental convictions and your Lord."

olger agrees with this decision of Paulsen and says..

"yep!"

[Woody]

This would depend upon if you allow the church organization to make spiritual decisions for you ... or if you allow the Holy Spirit to impress you individually.

I don't question the good in getting advice from the church. But in the end ... it is up to the individual and how the Holy Spirit leads a person.

BTW ... I believe in noncombatancy personally.

[Woody]

Well ... you sure have to respect someone like Pat Tillman ... who left a rich contract to serve his country after 9-11 . That is a pure example of self-less-ness and love of country.

[melvin mccarty]

I was one of those persons who was "invited" to join the army in the early 40's. I asked for non-combatant status as my church was advocating and eventually came before a tribunal to defend my position. Around a long table sat maybe 20 persons in uniform. The chairman had in front of him a large Bible.

Well to make a long story short my position was ridiculed by quotes from the old testament. I was informed that the people around the table were Christians who believed the war effort was just and neccessary

mel

[John317]

I was drafted during the height of the Vietnam conflict and served in the army as a field medic attached to an airborne unit in Germany. I refused to train or carry a weapon for the reason that Pastor Paulsen sites.

That was my own personal choice. I am convinced it was the right choice for me. At the time it was the only decision I could make with a clear conscience. But I don't believe that we can say it is wrong for all Christians to bear arms.

I have an SDA nephew in Arizona who is policeman and carries a weapon. Is that wrong?

During WW I, the General Conference leaders encouraged SDAs in Europe to cooperate with their nation's government and serve in their militaries. There were some SDAs who refused to train with a weapon or serve in the military, and many of these ended up being punished severely, some being shot and others put into prison. Many of the men who went to prison for their beliefs were disfellowshipped for not following the church policy in Europe under president Conradi's administration at that time. This situation eventually resulted in the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement, which continues to this day. They strongly believe that all SDAs should not bear arms and they are separate from the main body of the church on account of the issue over the bearing of military arms.

While I personally believe that for me it would be wrong to carry arms with the intention of taking human life, I believe that the issue is not so clear that I would be warranted in saying it is always wrong for Christians or SDAs to decide differently than I have. The New Testament contains no command for Christians to stop being soldiers or lay down their arms. For instance, we have no indication that the Roman centurion, Cornelius, was told that he should cease serving as a soldier or officer. If Peter gave him that instruction, it is hard for me to account for the fact that it is not mentioned in the text. Also, when soldiers came to John the Baptist and asked him what they should do as a result of John's preaching, he did not tell them to stop being soldiers, but rather, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages" (Luke 3: 14).

[Woody]

I was one of those persons who was "invited" to join the army in the early 40's. I asked for non-combatant status as my church was advocating and eventually came before a tribunal to defend my position. Around a long table sat maybe 20 persons in uniform. The chairman had in front of him a large Bible.

Well to make a long story short my position was ridiculed by quotes from the old testament. I was informed that the people around the table were Christians who believed the war effort was just and neccessary

mel

You can "prove" anything you want from the Bible by the use of individual texts. But sincere Christians will differ with their interpretations of what the Bible speaks to as a whole.

[Dr. Shane]

I think the position of the church is good, but like vegetarianism, it needs to be an individual choice. Individuals need to be allowed to join and serve in combat positions. Those that feel called to do a higher work, need to be defended when mandatory military service conflicts with their high calling.

[Amelia]

*GP*

If an Adventist chooses not to be a combative serviceman all he has to do is refer to the 10c. Thou shall not kill. Isn't that simple ehough?

[aldona]

No, even that is not simple enough.

If someone has a favorite or "pet" instance of killing that they want to justify, then all of a sudden the commandment doesn't say "thou shalt not kill" any more. It becomes "thou shalt not murder." And then you can argue until the cows come home about the definition of "murder", and why the particular flavor of homicide you are in favor of (war, capital punishment, etc) does not fall under that definition.

The early Christian church (until the time when it began to sell its "soul" to worldly politics) had a blanket policy on believers not participating in warfare.

There are many Christian denominations to this day who maintain their non-combatancy position. (Quaker, Amish, Mennonite, Church of the Brethren, are just a few that come to my mind, and I'm sure there are many more. I am involved with Amnesty, and they regularly deal with cases of Christians in various parts of the world who refuse to fight.)

The early Adventist church was one of this number.

What are we going to water down next to make it a "personal choice"?

How about only keeping the Sabbath if it is convenient and doesn't go against my own personal opinion?

aldona

[melvin mccarty]

How do you personally reconcile the rampant killings described in the Old Testament. Even Abraham had his household armed and did not hesitate to fight. If no one had taken action to stop Hitler where would we be today? How would you have defended the church position if you had been in my place?

mel

[Lil Star]

Isn't it strange how if a particular one or several of the 10c is not popular at one time or another that during that time it has a different meaning?

It works in all aspects of life. I mean, I just found out the other day that if you lie, as long as it is for a good reason, then it is okay!

[melvin mccarty]

I am not referring to "individual texts' Redwood! Be honest. The old testament does not support a non-combatant policy period.

Well they decided to send me back to the farm so I avoided a showdown.

It comes down to the fact that the Old Testament God changed policies somehow.

mel

[aldona]

I come from a European background (Polish), where the principle of non-combatancy among Adventists has historically been stronger than in other parts of the world.

I was brought up on accounts of people in my parents' and grandparents' generation who courageously stood firm for their principles, and refused to bear arms or take life even at the risk of imprisonment or death.

None of those people had to put up with questions like "but who is going to stop Hitler?" from their fellow Adventists. It was just accepted that we do not take up arms and kill, just as we do not steal, commit adultery or desecrate the Sabbath. These people trusted in God to deliver them, and there were many instances of miracles and divine intervention where God did just that.

One of the older brothers in our church refused to bear arms for the Australian army in WW2, and served courageously as a medic (as did a number of his Adventist colleagues, a number of whom survive as active or retired ministers). I wonder what this generation of non-combatants thinks today when they see young Adventists effectively saying "Well, actually, the weapons of our warfare ARE carnal." (with apologies to 2 Corinthians 10:4).

God will always provide ways for His followers to serve their nation and temain faithful citizens without having to commit acts of violence.

If being a Christian means that we have to emulate the rampant killing of the Old Testament, then we are no better than the terrorists who invoke the religion of Islam to justify their violent acts.

I follow Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who commanded His disciples to put away the sword.

In an age when violence is everywhere, should'nt we be showing that there is a better way? Or is this just too difficult?

aldona

[olger]

Judgement was punctiliar in the OT. Under the New Covenant, it waits until the second Coming, when Christ Himself shall judge the people. Jesus did not approve of military action, because He knew that it catylized the carnal nature within us.

oG

[aldona]

I mean, I just found out the other day that if you lie, as long as it is for a good reason, then it is okay!

What we were discussing on the "is it OK to lie" thread was the old Jewish principle of the sanctity of life - that is, saving life has a higher priority than following the letter of the law in scrupulously telling the truth at all times.

In other words, if you are faced with a choice between murder (to knowingly cause someone's death through act or omission, when it was in your power to prevent it) and telling a lie, then saving life takes priority. This is not just lying for "a good reason", as you happily term it, but a difficult and heart-rending dilemma between committing one sin and committing another. I pray that you will never have to be in the position to have to make this decision, as some of my own family have been.

It seems that there are those who are urging us to do the exact opposite. Instead of telling a lie to protect a life, we are being urged to take lives in order to protect a lie (that is, the various excuses that our earthly governments put forward at various times as to why war is good and necessary).

Maybe there is a text I missed somewhere, and Jesus really said, "Love your enemies and do good to them who hate you, except when your government tells you to kill them."

aldona

[Dr. Shane]

I agree that noncombatantcy is the ideal - just like the vegetarian diet is. This is what our church should encourage. However I cannot agree that serving in a combat position is sin. War is like divorce. God hates it but permits it.

[carolaa]

Is it okay to protect ones own self but not others?

I would think the opposite would be true. Far better to protect others than yourself.

[carolaa]

Even Abraham had his household armed and did not hesitate to fight. mel

Personally, I love the story about Nehemiah ordering his people to keep a weapon in one hand and their work tools in the other. Sounds pretty balanced to me!

[carolaa]

If no one had taken action to stop Hitler where would we be today? mel

I absolutely agree. Being a Christian doesn't mean we have to give in to bullies or let them continue to harm people. There's just something hypocritical and wrong in saying thanks to all those who are willing to bear arms to protect us, but we wouldn't do the same for them. :S

[Woody]

Quote:

How about only keeping the Sabbath if it is convenient and doesn't go against my own personal opinion?

Personal opinion is ALL we have. The Holy Spirit convicts us individually. I am not aware of any one who goes against the Spirit just so they can worship on Sunday. I am sure there are ... but the vast majority of people are sincere even with Sunday worship. Knowing Dale Ratzlaf as I do ... I believe him to be sincere. The keeping of the Sabbath is not the determining factor as to if someone is saved. Not all who are going to be saved will have been convicted on the Sabbath.

This post is not directed at anyone. I just wanted to make sure this point was made.

[mr.belvedere]

I grew up believing this, but as I grew up and thought more deeply about it I became convinced that the churches position is wrong. I think it is a moral duty to stand up against evil oppressive regimes or individuals. As an Adventist I would not join the military as a career. But to fight the likes of Hitler, or to free the slaves you bet I would enlist. For Adventists to take the position that its O.K. to let others do the ugly work of killing so our ethics are left in tact and hands clean is shameful. No normal person Christian or not likes killing people even enemies, it is a terrible thing and would certainly not leave you unchanged. It is part of what is so terrible about war. Sometimes the only way to deal witt such horrendous evil is too annihilate it. Should we all just pray and hope that God will make Hitler stop gassing the Jews. Or as Christians should we be willing to take up arms for a just cause under Gods direction to eradicate someone evil like Hitler. No matter how much praying we do people are still tortured, raped, killed in auto accidents , and die of cancer. So shouldn't we do everything we can to fight evil dictators, fight off a some womans attacker, put airbags and seat belts in cars, and use all modern medicine has to offer to beat the disease? Or should we rely soley on prayer and hope that somehow God will fix it? Last I checked God does expect us to do what we can to help our fellow man not just pray. This is Satans world and suffering will not end until Christ returns. Should we only intervene if it is handing out food to the homeless or sending clothes to orphanages, things that pose no threat to our psyche or challenge our faith or belief system.

If God wants to punish me for helping fight a war I believe is just or defending my family or some other innocent even to the point of killing, then he is not a God I want to serve anyway. All evil needs to succeed is for good people to stand by and do nothing. Only God knows my true motives.

[John317]

*GP*

If an Adventist chooses not to be a combative serviceman all he has to do is refer to the 10c. Thou shall not kill. Isn't that simple ehough?

Personally I believe that anyone who says their conscience does not permit them to kill another human being should not need to give any other reason for their belief.

But when it comes to the Bible, it is much more complicated. Why? Because God sometimes commanded people to kill others, and in that case, I do not believe that God was commanding people to disobey the very commandments He ordered all humans to obey. The fact is that the word in Exodus 20 is best translated, "Murder," and not kill. The Bible itself recognizes the difference between justifiable homicide, self defense, etc., and murder. See, for instance, Numbers 35, with its references to the cities of refuge, to which a man may run in case he kills someone either unintentionally or because of self-defense.

The reference to this word in Exodus 20: 13 has to do with an unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied.

The question we Christians have to answer for ourselves is whether soldiers and police who take a human life in the life of duty are involved in an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. Human society certainly does not consider it so. Does the Bible or the church?

If the church really considers soldiers and police in this light-- that they are committing unlawful killing with malice aforethought-- isn't the church then duty-bound to condemn that unlawful killing by both soldiers and police? It seems that the church and all Christians are quite willing to enjoy the freedom from violence that is provided to them by the soldiers and the police, and, therefore by implication, the church does not believe that what the soldiers and police do is necessarily unlawful killing.