The Christian Faith and the Military Profession
Presentation by
Victor Tchor.
for
International Military Ethic Symposium
Riga, Latvia, 5 – 10 Mar 2002
Before I begin to speak on the theme of this paper, please allow me to say a few words about how I personally became involved in this serious and important discussion. I was only thirteen years old when I first met up with this question. My mother, a sincere Christian, did not want me to join the cadet corps of Canada and tried to dissuade me from the idea based on her understanding of the Christian faith. My father and I were, at that time, both non-Christians, and so we did not really accept my mother’s position but saw it as a normal reaction of good-hearted womanhood. We did not for a moment allow that the will of God could somehow be involved in this decision.
And so I joined the cadet corps and after a number of years, I volunteered to serve as an officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. That decision, I think, was simply based on the principle of glory. What could be more glorious for a young man than to travel around the world with his friends on a naval vessel clothed in a sharp white uniform? And to add to it all, to get paid for this as well!
But during an extended waiting period for the processing of my application, I became a Christian. Immediately, I withdrew my application for service. This decision was based on another principle of glory – heavenly glory. I suddenly became more fearful of the possibility of sin in my life than of all the atomic bombs in the world. I withdrew my application for fear of doing something that might be against the will of God, as I understood it at that time, just for the sake of some rusty and noisy old steam boat. It seemed obvious to me at hat time that a Christian is not permitted to be a soldier, that such a thing would be a great sin. I reasoned that because Jesus had commanded “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek”, that this meant that one should never fight against another person. There was nothing I wanted more than to build my new Christian life on the foundation of the word of God. I wanted to please Christ and receive the full measure of His blessing. I understood that this could happen if only I carefully followed Him along His holy and narrow path.
How marvellous are the ways of the Lord! As I journeyed along His narrow path, I completed university and entered seminary. From seminary, I was accepted by the Royal Canadian Navy to serve three summers as a student chaplain. But I was still troubled by the question of the Christian faith and the military profession. While in seminary, I began to research this issue and wrote a dissertation in response to it. And now, I would like to share with you the conclusions I arrived at as a result of all my experiences.
In His Sermon on the Mount of Matthew 5 –7, Jesus taught His hearers to “love your enemy” and to “turn the other cheek”. On the basis of such a teaching, it seems that indeed a Christian is not allowed to not only enter into the military profession, but to even lift his or her hand up against another human being. But to properly understand these words of Jesus, we have to understand how this ethic which Jesus taught is connected with the ethic of the law of Moses.
This is our first step. The question we have before us is, “How is the Sermon on the Mount related to the Law of Moses?” This question different people answer differently. Some say that in His Sermon on he Mount, Jesus announced to humanity a totally new way of life, that is, the revelation of a new ethic more perfect than had hitherto existed anywhere or anytime in the world. Others answer that in His Sermon, Jesus simply properly interpreted the Law of Moses correcting it from the improper interpretations that the Pharisees had given it.
The first explanation was held by a host of early church theologians such as, for example, Tertullian. It was also the opinion held by the Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas, of the thirteenth century and is the opinion of many other Christians to this day. The second explanation was accepted by the most famous of the early church theologians, Augustine at the end of the fourth century as well as by the great reformers of the sixteenth century Luther and Calvin. It also the opinion of many Christians to this day.
A lot depends on how we answer this question. However strange and disconnected it may seem, nevertheless, how a person understands the Christian faith and the military profession depends on how he understands the relation of the Sermon on the Mount to the law of Moses. Almost all who accept the idea that Jesus delivered the revelation of a totally new ethic are pacifists. They believe that a Christian cannot enter into the military profession. Thomas Aquinas affirmed that a Christian could not enter the military profession, but limited this restriction solely to Roman Catholic priests. But all who understand Jesus as the good teacher who properly explained the Law of Moses and that He did not bring in a revelation of some new super morality, believe that a Christian can indeed enter into the military profession. This does not mean, of course, that all Christian must enter the military profession, but simply that to him who doe, it is not a sin.
In a moment we will turn to the Bible itself, but before we do, I would like for us to quickly consider these two different positions from a wider point of view. The first way of understanding the relation of the Sermon to the Law must necessarily view morals as something evolving. It believes that somewhere at the beginning of mankind there reigned a sort of moral barbarism, a wildness that was tempered by the revelation of the Law of Moses. With the Law, this wildness, however, was tempered only half way so that it was only with the coming of Jesus and His so-called new laws that the moral life of mankind has reached its fulfillment, that is, if it follows the teaching of Jesus. It is as if the moral life of mankind has undergone an evolutionary process. Right and wrong are things that can change over time. Christians, who understand things in this way do not see anything useful in the Law of Moses from a moral point of view, because all has been superseded by the Gospel.
Those who see the Sermon as an exposition of the law see things differently. What was moral in the Garden of Eden was also moral on Mount Sinai and did not change with the Sermon on the Mount, and to this day remains moral. And what was immoral in the Garden is still immoral today. In other words, morals haven’t changed. Time or place cannot change right and wrong. Holiness cannot undergo evolution because it is a reflection of the image of God. Mankind has been created to reflect that image by living in accord with the will of God, the will of God for human conduct and relations being constant and unchanging throughout time and eternity. From this point of view, mankind has fallen from the image of God in Adam and has continued to fall deeper and deeper until the Flood after which God chose a select people to whom He revealed His Law so that at least a chosen portion of mankind could reflect His image and in this way, be a light to the other nations. The law, however, was not strong enough for the task, not because it was bad, but because the people to whom it was given were weak in fulfilling it. With the coming of Christ, the people of God, that is all believers in Jesus, receive a new power to fulfill the Law and reflect the image of God and fulfill His holy will through the gift of the Holy Spirit living in each Christian.
Let us now turn to the Bible. Can we really find the moral teachings of Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount in the Law of Moses? The answer is YES! In the Law of Moses we find this commandment: “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” Leviticus 19:17. Through this commandment, God required from His people that their hearts be pure, that no one harboured impure feelings of hatred towards his or her brother. Jesus affirming this, taught, “…anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” Matthew 5:22.
There is a popular idea that the Law of Moses was concerned only with deeds whereas in the Sermon, because Jesus’ commandments dealt with the condition of the very heart of people, that Jesus taught a new morality. But this is a popular untruth. For example, the seventh commandment said, “Do not commit adultery” Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18. Besides that, there was also the tenth commandment, which said, “Do not covet your neighbour’s wife.” Exodus 20: 17, Deuteronomy 5:21. In the law of Moses, therefore, not only was it possible to sin through deeds, but also through impure thoughts. For this reason, King David prayed, “May the words of my mouth and the thoughts of my heart be acceptable before You, O Lord.”
Affirming the tenth commandment, Jesus taught that “anyone who looks on a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5: 28. Here Jesus, tying together the seventh ands the tenth commandments, condemned those who, like the Pharisees, thought that as long as they did not touch their neighbour’s wife in the flesh, there was no sin, but to think, dream, and fantasize about her was allowable for no one was harmed and therefore there was no sin. But that was completely against the tenth commandment! And that was why Jesus was against the lustful thought.
The Pharisees had a similarly false understanding about anger. If only one did not actually kill his neighbour, they thought, all was fine, but to hate a neighbour in the heart day and night, well that was nothing, no one was hurt by it, and therefore it was not a sin. But in the Law of Moses, we saw that it was said, “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” Leviticus 19:17. It was because of such a commandment in the Law that Jesus Himself also taught that not only is murder a sin, but that the angry desire to commit murder was also a sin. Matthew 5:22.
Let us now turn to these commandments of Jesus: “love your enemy” Matthew 5:43, and “turn the other cheek” Matthew 5:39. Were there such commandments in the Law of Moses? Absolutely YES!
In the Law of Moses, we find the following commandment: “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him.” Exodus 23:4. In His Sermon, Jesus, expressing this commandment in other words, simply said, “love your enemy.” That was it meant to return to him his lost ox or donkey.
In the next commandment, it gets a little more complicated. But with patience, and God’s help, we’ll get through it. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I tell you…if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Mathew 5:38-39. Many believe that through these words, Jesus abolishes the law of retribution and replaces it with the law of love and forgiveness. We simply will not understand the heart of Jesus if we accept such an interpretation.
In the Law of Moses there was a law that commanded the Israelites to establish a judiciary in every settlement, town and city. Deuteronomy 16:18. Sin and crime, under the Law of Moses, were not to be left unpunished, and the responsibility for punishment was in the hands of the judges. The principle of punishment was, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21. As things are today, so were they under the Law – punishment for sin and crime was the responsibility not of the person offended, but of the appointed judge, the neutral third party.
For this reason, the law of Moses commanded “Do not seek revenge.” Leviticus 19:18. This, of course, did not mean that the judge could not punish but simply that the offended person could not seek his own personal revenge apart from ht4e judiciary. The principle of punishment, “an eye for an eye”, did not allow for a rich Israelite to be let go with a punishment less than he had deserved, or a poor Israelite to be punished more than he deserved. But the sinner had to be punished. In this is all the difference between punishment, administered by a neutral third party judge, and vengeance, taken out on the sinner by the person whom he had sinned against. One act was just whereas the other was sin added onto sin.
Therefoe, we should not think that Jesus was abolishing the function of the judiciary from society teaching that one should “turn the other cheek” and forget about “an eye for an eye”. No, far from it! He was simply correcting that Pharisaic misinterpretation of the Word of God, which interpreted what was written in the Law concerning just measures of punishment, “an eye for an eye”, as an allowance for a private individual to administer his own personal justice upon his neighbour who had injured him in some way. As if “an eye for an eye” somehow sanctioned one with the full right to hit his neighbour across the left cheek if he was hit by him across the right! Jesus simply said, do not take your own vengeance, this is not God’s way. Again, in his own unforgettable way, Jesus said, “turn the other cheek.”
Here it is very important to notice that “do not seek revenge” (Leviticus 19:18) did not mean that one could not act in self defence from, an assault or to protect one’s home from thieves (see Exodus 22:1-2) or to protect an innocent girl from assault (see Deuteronomy 22:23-27). If all these sorts of actions were allowed under the Law of Moses, which it appears they really were, then we must conclude that Jesus Himself would not condemn such actions if they were committed by Christians under similar circumstances.
In the Law, love of enemy was understood as love towards those neighbours who acted improperly towards the innocent. It did not mean that one could not go to war to defend his home, family, and country from the enemy. How many times do we see in the Old Testament the call of God to the Israelites to go to war, although in the Law of Moses, God commanded love towards an enemy.
I understand it this way. When there is some neutral third party who can judge between two claimants, and administer justice upon the guilty part, then neither of the two claimants has a right, in God’s economy, to judge for himself, that is, to administer his own justice. But when there is no longer any neutral third party available who can fairly judge between two claimants, as in the case of two warring armies, then the army itself takes upon its shoulders the office of the third party and administers God’s justice on the enemy. I think in this way, war is justified as an act of justice, when it is taken up against a transgressing army.
In the history of the Christian Church, throughout its two millennia, there arose from time to time periods during which arguments for pacifism, as an interpretation of the true Christian life, were strongly voiced. In the second century, Tertullian, a lawyer and son of a Roman Centurion, became a Christian and is on record as being the first of any Christian who began to teach that a Christian should be a pacifist and cannot become a Roman Legionnaire. There were others of that time who came to agree with Tertullian, such as Clement, Origen, and Lactancius. They all understood Jesus as having revealed a completely new morality. This was a tendency in the early church that lasted for almost one hundred and fifty years from 150 AD to around 300 AD.
In the fourth century, however, there were a number of other Christians such as Ambrose, Augustine, and Athanasius, who did not accept the pacifist interpretation. Augustine was one of the first who clearly affirmed that the words of Jesus were not the revelation of a new morality, but simply a confirmation of that image of moral holiness that was required of the people of God under the law of Moses, and to this day, is still required of God’s people. Christians, therefore, may serve in the Roman Legions!
The beginning of the fourth century saw the Gospel of Jesus Christ accepted by the Emperor of Rome, Constantine and by his decree, in the year 313 AD, the Christian faith was given legal authority to exist as one among the other religions of Rome. After Constantine, in 380 AD, Teodocius I decided that if the Christian faith is really the true faith, then why should the other false religions be allowed to exist. Her decreed that all religions except for the Christian faith, be made illegal. Theodocius II, in 416 AD, issued the decree that only Christians be allowed to enter into the Roman Legions!
This was the way the ancient Christian society of Rome was ordered for the next one thousand years until the time of the Reformation. At that time, in the sixteenth century, there arose another team of theologians, as in the second and third centuries, for whom pacifism seemed as the only true Christian way of life. One of them, a former Roman Catholic priest from Holland, Menno Simons, gathered around himself and his ideas followers who began to call themselves Mennonites. Simons, as Tertullian one thousand years before him, confessed pacifism as the only true Christian way of life understanding Jesus to have delivered this way of life through His revelation of a completely new morality.
A few centuries later, the famous writer Leo Tolstoy became a strong advocate of pacifism seeing in Jesus’ teaching, absolutely new commandments which were intended to abolish the morals revealed in the Law of Moses.
Unfortunately, to this day there are a number of pastors and professors of theological seminaries throughout the world who, through an improper understanding of the Sermon on the Mount and its relation to the Law of Moses, believe that the only Christian way of life is the way of pacifism.
Let us recall the words of the Apostle Paul: “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.”
To defend the innocent and to administer justice upon the guilty is a most holy and noble calling. Only let us do so not out of a spirit of personal vengeance, or to condemn the innocent, but rather being led by the word of God and the Holy Spirit, let us go forth to serve Christ among the nations!
End
[Home] [Latvia Main Menu] [Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Administration]