Paul Anderson on Military Service

[Gregory Matthews]

In the following article, Paul Anderson gives a perspective on SDAs and military service.

https://adventistreview.org/magazine-article/war-and-adventism/

 

[Tom Durst]

In 1957 when I was 20 I decided that I could not take the military oath that is required and enter the military in any capacity including that of a medic.  I applied for the I-0 on my own with no one to help me.  I still have a carbon copy of my paperwork that I filed with Selective Service.  The FBI checked all of my references and I got the I-0.  At that time I-0 folks would serve in a government approved civilian capacity for two years and had to be 50 or more miles from.  I had joined an Adventist offshoot group called the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement during my decision making process.  I was called to the ministry in that denomination and was given a ministerial exemption of IV-D by the SS.  I have never regretted my not participating in the military.  For me to take a military oath that I would obey the commander-in-chief (USA President) or superior officers in all of their commands would be to sell my soul.  I realize that my stand about this is contrary to most of Christianity but I must follow my conscience whether others understand it or not.  Most men that I know have all kinds of military service benefits, discounts, etc. but God has provided for all of my needs in many way, often totally unexpected.  Our country extends much honor and benefits for those who serve in the military and I certainly have no issue with that.  I respect other people's beliefs with no judgment whatsoever.

Edited July 3, 2022 by Tom Durst
to correct some errors

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom, your position is one that should be respected and quite acceptable within the SDA denomination.  You were not alone in taking that position.

Personally, I would have greater agreement if you had stated that in your understanding it is against the Biblical teachings and the Christian should have no part in war.  I could find other positions against war to which I would have greater agreement with you if you were to take them.

My greatest disagreement with you is in your understanding as to what it meant to take the oath.  In the U.S. system that oath is modified by the fact that people who develop conscientious objections to the requirements of their military service after they enlist are allowed to leave military service with an honorable discharge.    In my military service, I helped a number of people, both SDA and members of other denominations be discharged from the service with an honorable discharge due to the fact that they had developed conscientious objections (Religious) to their requirements as to how they should perform that service.

I served for 20+ years on active duty in the U.S. Army. and also in a National Guard unit and in a Reserve unit.  In those Reserve units I did not drill on Saturday ever.

I do not advocate that a so-called traditional SDA enlist in the U.S. military.  I tell traditional SDAs not to enlist.  So, do not misunderstand me.   A traditional SDA will likely have religious problems. So, there is a sense in which you are correct.  I acknowledge that.  But, in one sense your position does not reflect the whole story.

 

 

 

[Asia Joe]

This is an old post, but I thought I would join in.

To me, there is a big difference in being involved in a war and joining the service. I was never in the service. At the time when I was 18 there was a war on, and I was afraid of being injured, not killed. I knew a lot of guys brothers who we injured. I was not an Adventist till many years later.

I later learned the on 20% serve on the front lines, 80% are logistics.

The one regret I have is that I did not at least try to join the service. I think a few years of taking orders and obeying, would have been good for me. And the benefits are terrific.

I know a guy from a family that could not afford to send him to college. He joined the service as a diesel mechanic. Served his time and got a great job after.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joe made the following statement:   "I later learned the on 20% serve on the front lines, 80% are logistics."

In modern war, the rear is more dangerous than the so-called "front lines."  The reason is that command and control are located in the rear area.  Those in front cannot fight when either they are not given direction from commanders int he rear, or they do not receive re-supply of weapons and personnel.    Both are dangerous.  but, the rear is often worse.