Sermon: America in Bible Prophecy

[Stan]

This morning I turn to a familiar Adventist topic, the role of the United States of America in Bible Prophecy. It is important that we review this from time to time so that we can be clear in our thinking. So that as time goes forward, we will be discerning. So that when the final crisis starts to break, we will not be swept up in the emotions of the crowd, but may judge all things according to what we know from the Bible.

The post Sermon: America in Bible Prophecy appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience.

View the full article

[Gregory Matthews]

Stan has posted a link to a long and interesting article.  The article was written by my friend Bill Cork, whom I highly respect.  However, I take issue here with one paragrapah which I quote below.  In the posts to follow I will comment on his brief mention of three people:

Even within the chaplaincy I have seen frightening trends. We are supposed to speak up for morality, for what is right. One chaplain, James Yee, went to prison for criticizing torture at Guantanamo. Another chaplain, Chris Antal, was punished for criticizing drone strikes on civilians. Another chaplain, Wes Modder, was humiliated and threatened with expulsion for saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

James Yee:

The issue with Chaplain Yee is much more complex than simple religious liberty.  The quote below comes from Wikipedia.  Chaplain Yee was an Army chaplain who converted from the Lutheran faith to Islam.  As such, the Army assigned him to Guantanamo to minister to the Islamic detainees.  Note the charges that constituted the basis for his original arrest.  There was a clear violation of national security which could have resulted in both a prison term and his removal as a military chaplain.  But, it was felt that he could not be brought to  trial without further compromise of national security.

HIs punishment under Article 15 was enough to remove him from the military, which is what happened.  But, his discharge was an honorable one which has entitled him to full VA benefits. 

I will say that he got off very lightly and has nothing to complain about.  His problems resulted from much more than a religious liberty issue..

 

Quote

In his appointed role as chaplain, Yee ministered to Muslim detainees held at Guantánamo Bay detention camp and received commendation from his superiors for his work.[5] When returning from duty at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, he was arrested on September 10, 2003, in Jacksonville, Florida, when a U.S. Customs agent found a list of Guantanamo detainees and interrogators among his belongings.[6] He was charged with five offenses: sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage, and failure to obey a general order. These charges were later reduced to mishandling classified information in addition to some minor charges.[6] He was then transferred to a United States Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The government did not name the country or entity for whom it suspected Yee was spying.

 

All court-martial charges against Yee were dropped on March 19, 2004, with Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller "citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence,"[7] and he was released to resume his duties. Yee was then accused of adultery and storing pornography on a government computer; and non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ was imposed. His appeal to General James T. Hill, Commander, United States Southern Command, was granted in April 2004. He left the US military with an honorable discharge in January, but he is still seeking an apology.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Chris Antal:

Chaplain Antal was a military chaplain who has characterized himself as a pacifist.  This is a person who by definition is against any form of military service.  Therefore, this person is required by their pacifist belief to leave the military, which Chaplain Antil did.

There is distinction between a pacifist and a conscientious objector (CO), such as Desmond Doss was.  The U.S. military may be willing to put up with COs, such as Doss.  They also did it for me.  For the 20 years that I served, I was officially listed as a CO.  I advanced in rank to that of Major and at the time that I retired, it awarded me a   Legion of Merit (Look it up if you want to do so.).  I have nothing that I can complain about.

Chaplain Antal resigned and got out of the military.  This is exactly in conformity with his pacifist beliefs and what he should have done.   But, note that he states that he resigned because he wanted to generate a public conversation that held the administration accountable.  He had a Constitutional right to do that.  But, as a Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Military he did not have the right to remain in the military and to do so.  As an honorable person, he should have resigned.

I am aquainted with a 2-star general who resigned due to the fact that he had a moral disagreement with a policy of the then President.  Due to his disagreement, he felt that he could no longer remain in his position, so he resigned.

Folks, sometimes our moral beliefs require that we take action.

Quote

 

“But I decided to submit a resignation in protest because I want to use the opportunity to raise public awareness, to generate a public conversation, and to hold the administration accountable,” he said.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Wes Modder:

There are times when individual beliefs have consequences.  One should be willing to pay those consequences and understand that there may not be any recourse to such.  But, those individual consequences may not indicate a generalized institutional discrimination.

I am reminded of a senior military chaplain who refused on moral grounds to perform the marriage of his commander.   That commander was the person who rated the chaplain which determined future assignments and promotions.  That chaplain may have paid a price for his refusal to do that wedding.  But, such is life. Sometimes there are consequences that must be paid for the moral values that one holds.

 

[BillCork]

I've been away from this webpage for a while.  Work keeps me busy, as you can imagine. :-)

The two-star chaplain Gregory alludes to who resigned was CH (MG) Kermit Johnson, who resigned in 1982.  I don't recall him ever being mentioned in my chaplain training, though I did Phase 1 of CHOBC in 1986 and Phase 2 in 1990 (with Gregory as my small group instructor).  I've recently begun gathering and reading what I can of his writings, which are fascinating.

I don't buy the Wikipedia article.  It states the official line--the government's claims.  Had they evidence, they would have taken him to court martial.  They didn't.  "National security"?  I don't buy it.  The whole thing started with an officer (who was a Social Studies teacher in civilian life) getting upset at Yee's presentation to incoming personnel on cultural and religious sensitivity.  He was the one who started complaining.  And there were folks from Other Government Agencies who didn't want him speaking up in meetings about treatment of prisoners--despite his obligation as a chaplain to do so.  I'd encourage anyone interested to read Yee's book (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004PYDBRG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#nav-subnav).

Chris Antal has used the term pacifist to describe himself, but the word doesn't appear in AR 165-1.  There's nothing there that says a pacifist or a conscientious objector can't be a chaplain.  Mennonites and Quakers have had chaplains, despite the fact that they are peace churches.  Chris' resignation came after he was exonerated by the Army, after a process in which a commander refradded him for using a prayer in his Unitarian service that was in keeping with his Unitarian faith but critical of drone policy.  He thought his actions were in keeping with what the current AR said about the role of chaplains. I've written more about him here (and talk about Kermit Johnson, too):  https://billcork.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/a-chaplain-who-spoke-up/

I had good instructors at USACHCS who drilled into us the necessity of being a burr under the saddle at times--and of realizing that there can be consequences. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Bill, welcome back.  Glad to have you here.

Yes, Kermit Johnson was the 2-star that I referenced.

Pacifist:  By definition a pacifist is one who cannot either enter or remain in the Armed Forces.  Of course AR 165-1 does not mention pacifists.  There is no reason to do so as a true pacifist would never want to be a military chaplain.

I will take your statement that Mennonites and Quakers have had military chaplains to be accurate, although I would like to know more about it.  As such, those chaplains would not be pacifists.  I find it hard to understand how a pacifist denomination could endorse someone as a military chaplain.  In any case, as fare as the individual is concerned, it is the beliefs of the individual that  matter, not those of the denomination.

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, my friend, Bill:  I am learning something.

Commander Sheri Snively is a member of the U. S. Naval Reserves and a Quaker.  She wrote a book entitled:  Heaven in the Midst of Hell: A Quaker Chaplain's View of War in Iraq.

However, she does not call herself a Pacifist.   As I said, a pacifist, by definition, would not serve as a member of the Armed Forces.  Rather, she describes herself as one who has pacifist leanings and tendencies.  To have leanings does not make one a pacifist.

Do you know who endorsed her?  I wonder if she was a Quaker by membership and endorsed by another denomination.  But I do not know.

[Gregory Matthews]

In order to be a military chaplain, in the United States, one must be endorsed by an approved endorsing agency.

The Office for the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness in the Department of Defense has established the denominations that asre approved to endorse chaplains for any of the branches of the military.  You may find this list of denominations, 10 pages long, at:

http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/AFCB/Endorsements.aspx

I find it interesting that neither the Quakers nor the  Mennonites are included in that list. Without an approved denominational endorsement, it can not be said that a denomination has military chaplains.  IOW, while Commander Snively may be a member of a Quaker congregation, without a Quaker endorsement she can not be said to represent the Quaker denomination.

It is true that the Quakers do allow for differences of opinion among their members as to military service and consider such to be an individual decision.  So, Commander Snively would not likely be subject to discipline for being a member of the Armed Forces.  But, without that endorsement, she can not be said to represent the Quaker denomination.

 

 

[BillCork]

Zachary Moon is another Quaker, and one I know.  I'll have to ask him.

Here he addresses the question, "How Can Pacifists Support Our Troops?"  http://quakerspeak.com/how-can-pacifists-support-our-troops/

And here's something he's written about ministry with vets and service members:  http://www.chalicepress.com/Coming-Home-P1493.aspx

I'm not sure who his endorser is, but that list shows the Evangelical Friends Church as part of NAE.  The Brethren Church (Ashland, OH), is also listed (and with NAE in parentheses). 

[Gregory Matthews]

As i stated, the Quakers do allow their members to be actively engaged in the Armed Forces.   They consider that issue to be of individual choice.

Wikipedia says the following:

That is the definition that I follow.  In that form a pacifist will refuse all forms of service in the Armed Forces.  Any denomination that endorses military chaplains is not pacifist.

Quote

 

Philosopher

Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare.^[5

[BillCork]

Here's a Quaker perspective:

http://www.aetheling.com/essays/pacifism.htm

[BillCork]

Follow up:  Zac Moon tells me he is endorsed by the Evangelical Friends Church, which is the one Quaker endorser.

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.

As I said earlier, the Quakers allow for differences  as to military service in their membership.  So, they  do allow their members to be in the military and yet not be willing to endorse  anyone for the  military chaplaincy.

The Evangelical Friends Church seemingly is a branch of the Quaker faith that is not Pacifist so they endorse people for the military chaplaincy.

[BillCork]

Someone could see themselves as pacifists simply for refusing to carry a weapon and following Jesus' command to love enemies and not retaliate.  Best to let individual pacifists define what they mean.

The Army defines Conscientious Objector as someone who is opposed to any participation in war--yet a movie about Doss was called "The Conscientious Objector."  (Regulation uses noncombatant as the term for someone willing to serve without a weapon).

[Gregory Matthews]

The background of the term Conscientious Objector comes from selective Service which splits it into two parts which the Selective Service labeled 1O and 1AO.

Under Selective Service regulations, Doss was a conscientious Objector.

In all of my 20 years of service in the U;S. Army, I was listed as a conscientious Objector and the Army never had any problem with that.  I always described me a that which included my official records.

 

Best to let individual pacifists define what they mean:  O.K.  In the common practice of verbal communication people  must have a common understanding of the words that they use in order to communicate and to be understood.  the standard definition, in the English language as practiced in the United States of America to apply the word pacifist to someone who is totally opposed to participation in the war in any form, to include as a non-combatant. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Bill and all others, here is the U.S. Army explaination as to the meaning of the term Conscientious Objector.  You will see that it follows the lead of Selective Service and splits the meaning into two branches:

Army Regulation 600-43, Conscientious Objection, dated 21 August 2006, defines conscientious objection as a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief. The Army Regulation recognizes two types of "conscientious objector" status: 1-0 and 1-A-0.

A Soldier may submit a 1-0 conscientious objector application when the Soldier is sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical or sociological) beliefs to participating in war in any form. This is an application to be released from the Army and can only be approved/denied by the Department of the Army.

A Soldier may submit a 1-A-0 conscientious objector application when the Soldier is sincerely opposed because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical or sociological) beliefs to participating as a combatant (including training in tactics or weapons) in war in any form. This is an application to be assigned to non-combatant duties. The Soldier's General Court Martial Convening Authority can approve this application; however, only HQDA can deny it.

An applicant claiming 1-0 status will not be granted 1-A-0 status as a compromise. Similarly, discharge will not be recommended for those who apply for classification as a noncombatant.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

For those who want to read the Army Regulation (AR 600-43) to see what it actually says, in full, rather than a brief statement as to what it says in part, see the following:

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf