So I apologize for the tone. I’m still working on that. I don’t want to favor either side over the other or present false dichotomies. At this point I feel like the pro-military side has had a monopoly on the conversation for the most part, so it’s hard to carve out a place for the pacifist perspective. I addressed some of this tension in this post:
http://inamirrordimly.com/2009/08/26/why-many-christians-dont-talk-about-war/

Thanks for the challenge. I, like you, have no clue about the best way to frame this, but I think this topic is important enough to risk making some mistakes along the way. Sadly, there may be no way to discuss this without it becoming uncomfortable among soldiers. I don’t think that is a reason to avoid the discussion, but I agree that we want to do everything we can to avoid becoming accusatory and judgmental.

It is interesting to think of this in terms of two issues:
1) Should we even have an army and if so, what kind of army?
2) Should Christians serve in an army? If so, under what circumstances?

I like where you’re going with this and agree that it’s awfully hard to reconcile the call to be peacemakers with the military today. I can’t offer much of a resolution to all of this, but I appreciate the fact that we’re hitting on some real important, core ideas here.

Peace, A.T.

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my quite hasty comment. You bring up some issues that are often left out in discussion of war and peace among folks who oppose war. I have been helped in this regard by Mennonite-turned-Catholic theologian named Gerald Schlabach called Just Policing, Not War (http://bit.ly/2pWPkj)and by Glenn Stassen and David Gushee in their book Kingdom Ethics (http://bit.ly/3yfn7o).

The possibility of limiting the role of armed forces – especially the sort which the US has maintained and continues to expand – is necessary. However – on the question of Christian service in the US military – when we consider the role of the US Military in training mercenaries and oppressive pseudo-police forces in Latin America and elsewhere, I think Christian service becomes a non-option. When a force – such as the US military – can so easily mix “peacekeeping” with violent occupation and world control it becomes difficult to reconcile a Christian worldview with service in the US military. For more information on US activities throughout the world in this vein, check out School of the America’s Watch @ http://soaw.org/.

Although emperor worship is not compulsory in today’s military it could easily be argued that service in the US military constitutes a form of empire worship – especially given the theological assumptions inherent within the evangelical military culture (assumptions which, incidentally, are exploited in military recruitment efforts among young people in our schools).

I’ve got to reiterate that I greatly respect the sacrifices that military service people and their families make – it’s just that I find it nearly impossible to reconcile service in the military as it currently exists with the peacemaking vocation of the Christian disciple.

The trouble is that governments will certainly abuse their armies for selfish gains, and even the process of training a soldier to kill is quite troubling. However, I’m not quite sure how to balance the idealism of pacifism with our world’s self-serving realities.

The example of the early church has one key difference from today in that emperor worship was a key part of the Roman military. That may not change things, but it needs to be part of the discussion. I for one am not comfortable with the place of the military today, don’t support the twisted theology of good and evil that is prevalent among evangelical soldiers, and want to raise the profile of peace activists and groups working toward education and reconciliation.

Having said that, we need to ask why we may support a police officer with a gun vs. a soldier with a gun. If we can use a soldier much like we use a police officer, just on a global scale, then we may be able to discuss a limited role for the armed forces today.

Point taken. However, I am willing to say that, while it may be true that nations need to make provisions for national defense, that point is irrelevant to what it means for Christians to “seek peace and pursue it.” The earliest Christians viewed nonviolence and Christian obedience as nearly synonymous. In the first three centuries at least, when a Roman soldier became a Christian it was assumed that part of his response to God’s work in his life would be to resign his military post and work for peace in ways that don’t involve killing or physically harming others. So, while I agree that nations may need to make provisions for national defense, I would say that Christians ought to give a lot more thought to whether they can – in good conscience and in obedience to Christ – work for peace by serving in the military. I have come to believe that the two are mutually exclusive and I’m beginning to think that this isn’t just a private, personal calling but is, rather, part and parcel of what Christian obedience is all about.