Forward

Note: this essay began in a series of personal correspondence between me and my eldest son as he was going through Basic and Advanced Infantry training. As my four sons were growing up, I had only two vocational goals for all of them; never to go into the ministry, nor serve in the armed forces - both callings that demand the highest sacrifices, the worst pay and the least appreciation. Instead, I hoped that God would call them into law, medicine, business or education; anything that would keep them reasonably safe and provide a decent life. As a lower working class kid growing up in rural Maine, I had no choice; military service in a time of war was the only way I and a lot of my peers could afford an education and a better life. But, somewhere, I failed; two of my sons believe they have a call to serve, at least for a time, in the military and another aspires to the ministry. Therefore, the following analysis must be read through the lens of a father, looking at sending two of his sons into harm’s way, trusting in the providence of God. We share it here in hopes that it might be an encouragement to other fathers facing the same prospects… May God protect His covenant children…

Part One

“And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, ‘And what about us, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely and be content with your wages…” Luke 3:14

“For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one ‘Go’ and he goes; and to another ‘Come’ and he comes…”

Introduction

In an essay for the Chalcedon Report entitled, “The Christian and War” I wrote a pretty strong critical piece of the way that our government has deployed military forces in the past. Those were the “Klintonista” years, when the military was being used and abused to support and endorse humanist social policies. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that generally speaking, many Liberal Democrats hate the military, do not understand it, do not approve of it and therefore are likely to misuse it. Hence, the essay I wrote was quite “anti-war” at the time.

As I recently reread that essay, I realized that the world has changed; and though the principles remain the same, different circumstances demand different applications. In this case, we are living in a post-911 world. At about the same time, I had recently watched a National Geographic documentary on 911 that minute by minute covered the events of that day, including, interviews with police officers, firefighters, and people actually IN the Towers when the planes crashed.

For what it is worth, I think every military recruit ought to watch that documentary; because THAT is the reason why we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The end of the film showed our military successes in toppling terrorist régimes as well as destroying the entire leadership infrastructure of Al Qaida. Our armed forces have performed brilliantly, our politicians not so well.

And that of course, reinforced my desire to write something about the duties of a soldier; the Libertarian press (which I actually quite enjoy and for whom I have the greatest respect and appreciation) HATES the thought of US forces being engaged in any war; many of them are avowed pacifists. And while I think they perform an important public service in asking hard questions about whom we are fighting and why, sometimes they get it terribly wrong. Several essays in particular came right out and said that Christians should not serve in the military today – or if they did, they ought to practice civil disobedience. Since peace on earth does not appear to be anywhere on the horizon, and Christians no longer constitute a majority in any Western nation; we are going to be asked to fight – and we need to know what God actually requires of us.

Defining the Terms

Now, before we begin, though I am using the word “soldier,” I mean by that ANY member of the Armed Forces, regardless of whether they serve in a combat or support arm. My apologies to marines, sailors and airmen – each branch of the service has its own job and its own descriptive term. However, in the older use of the word, “soldier” was universally understood to mean “those who served in the military.” And amongst those who have served in the past sixty years, most were not combat troops, even though they underwent military training and discipline. While the focus of this essay is on combat troops, it must be kept in mind that all modern militaries are largely made up of those who will never pick up any sort of weapon. This is the very nature of modern warfare.

In ancient times, apart from tiny logistical supports and a few “engineers” (usually highly adept people backed by local levies of slaves or conscripted workers) armies were composed almost solely of those who fought. Even down until fairly recent times, say WWI, armies still had far more people on the frontlines then they did in logistics or support activities.

However with Industrial Revolution and the development of mechanized warfare, a whole new orientation had to be developed; every person actually fighting required a huge infrastructure supporting them. Tanks, ships and aircraft all need to be fueled, maintained and supplied; and the side best able to keep their various craft running were usually on the winning side. For example, in WWII, the Germans lost the battle of North Africa primarily because they ran out of fuel at the wrong times; Rommel was using as much gas getting fuel to the front as was being used by his tanks. Most of the German offensives stuttered and stalled from 1943 and onwards due to a shortage of fuel and spare parts. Americans in WWII had almost as many soldiers doing logistical work as there were troops in actual combat. Modern warfare is an incredibly complex, technological enterprise.

I have written before about people asking me “What kind of plane did you fly in the Air Force” and my sarcastic reply “A Mark IV BFD” (or “Big Freaking Desk”). The average person just does not understand that for every airplane that flies or every tank that rolls, or ship that sails, hundreds of support people are needed to make those machines work. Even the “grunt,” the line infantry composed of brave men with rifles, can only function if they have vehicles to get them where they need to go, and someone to provide them with the “beans and bullets” as they fight. Those supplies do not arrive by magic; they have to be manufactured, shipped, stored and then made available to the fighting troops as needed.

Robert A. Heinlein’s earned the ire of the pacifist community when he wrote “Starship Troopers” (great book, worthless movie), that “glorified the infantry.” One idea that he developed that I always thought preposterous was that his Mobile Infantry’s divisional wedge was “100%” in that everyone fought. They did their own supply, personnel, maintenance, etc. However, it was nonsense even within the confines of his own story; the Navy had to get the fighting troops where they needed to go which presumes not only military personnel to run the ship and maintain it, but all the guys back at the base manning the repair shops, supply depots, personnel departments, etc. Granted, with modern computer technology (which Heinlein did not foresee) many of those routine tasks can and have been be automated; but you still need a large number of actual people to maintain and support the guys fighting. Furthermore, not just anyone can step in and do any of these jobs; it takes months if not years to become a qualified mechanic, technician, supply clerk, medic, etc. Not all men can do all the things necessary to keep this infrastructure working.

Sure, Heinlein had a point that a military could become bloated with a lot of nonsense; and his solution was to have civilians do the sorts of things that we have non-combat troops doing today. There is just one problem with that; civilians get to go home at night – military support personnel have to be ready to do the job 24/7. Furthermore, civilians do not have to load airplanes, sail ships or drive trucks when the enemy is attacking. In WWII at the same time that the Japanese were threatening Australia with invasion (being in the process of taking New Guinea with American and Australian troops dying to stop that from happening), many Australian dock workers only showed up for weekend work (which paid double or triple time)! Furthermore, they went on strike to protest the use of more efficient material handling equipment because it reduced the amount of manpower and hence, threatened their jobs! Since there were often no dock workers available during the week, the military had to use UNTRAINED troops to manhandle the cargo; and discovered that military forces were 3 and 4 times as effective in unloading and loading ships as the professional dockworkers!

Hence, all those jobs that do NOT require actual fighting need to be done by people who will do them, regardless of the weather, the pay, the inconvenience or the bombs dropping on their heads. There have been a number of times since WWII when supply clerks, truck drivers and cooks had to pick up a rifle and fight. Maybe they did not do as well as a regular grunt, maybe at times all they did was die bravely- but they were still soldiers who did what had to be done.

When I was serving in the Air Force I once asked my lieutenant about our wartime duties; I worked in a transportation squadron - hardly the kind of “military service” that Hollywood makes heroic movies about. His reply was, “Sgt Abshire, your job is to DIE. You will either be loading airplanes with dependants or unloading supplies right up to the time the Russians drop a cluster bomb on your head.” OK, maybe he was having a bad day; but the truth was, civilians cannot be counted on to DIE doing their job. They are not supposed to; that’s why the military exists. The soldier’s job is to keep civilians safe from harm, no matter the cost. I remember one of our British civilian employees complaining once that our section was over-manned and had twice as many people doing the work as they would have had in an English factory. I reminded him that not only did we work without overtime, and on weekends, in all weather conditions, but that most of us were “spare parts.” If a war came, many of us would die; but the rest would have to carry on the job regardless.

Granted, I think those on the frontline do deserve a “double honor” because they are the thin edge of the sword’s blade. They are the ones who do the actual cutting, and they are the ones who get nicked and blunted with use. The rest of the blade exists to support THEM in THEIR work and they pay the highest price; but the edge could not do its job without their backing.

The Soldier and the Civil Magistrate

Getting back on track; first, the morality of military service must be distinguished from the policies of the civil magistrate. The politician decides the when and where to fight; the military provides the how. Granted, Biblical morality MUST undergird both (the purpose of my original 1990’s essay); aggressive wars of imperial expansion, conducted by terror tactics are outlawed by God. And as the sovereign King of creation, He will judge nations who oppress, persecute or tyrannize their neighbors.

And sadly, there is much to criticize in America’s past; e.g., our breaking treaties with the Indians, the Union’s conduct of the war against the Confederacy, the legitimacy of our war against Mexico (and the subsequent re-conquest of the lands gained in that war by illegal immigration 150 years later), as well as the fire bombing of Axis cities in WWII all warrant God’s judgment. Now, I am and always have been what I like to think of as a “patriot” and, for what it’s worth, I think that in the main, our country has been a great source of good in the world. But you do not gain God’s favor by ignoring, rationalizing or excusing your sins; but by admitting them, repenting of them and not repeating them.

However, all those aspects are distinct and different from the individual soldier’s duty, under God. A soldier does not (and in our system should not) dictate policy. The world is a difficult place; as stated many times in my “Critical Thinking Skills” course, life is not an algebraic problem where all you have to do is plug in the figures to the right formula and be mathematically guaranteed the correct answer. Instead, information comes to us in ambiguous terms or incomplete forms, usually confused, and always interpreted by prior assumptions. Those entrusted with the security and welfare of the nation must sort through this clouded data and decide on a policy to deal with it. Granted, the presuppositions of those in power have a great deal of influence on what they deem a “desirable” outcome; as well as their personal morality. I do not think I am being needlessly cynical to suggest that at least in certain cases, the military option was used for very cold, cynical reasons; e.g., to get the media’s attention off certain scandals in the Whitehouse.

If the civil magistrate does not understand the military and its limitations, he can misuse it to attempt to accomplish unreasonable or unrealistic goals; e.g., nation building. Our military forces are a “big stick” (to quote Teddy the Great) but sticks are of limited use and not always the best tool for the job.

The point here though is that the military itself cannot and should not determine how it is used; apart from warning the civil magistrate that they cannot do what he wants done. And in their defense, I think our military commanders, in the main, have done a creditable job in this regard. We can bomb the enemy’s economic infrastructure, destroy their navies and obliterate their armies on the ground; however, that may not solve the original problem that the politicians wanted to address.

For what it is worth, I have my own reservations about some of the wars our troops have been asked to fight; e.g., peacekeeping in Bosnia, bombing aspirin/baby formula plants in the Sudan or nation-building in Somalia; but that has nothing to do with the morality of the individual soldier, sailor, airman, marine, etc., who actually participated in such wars. He can go, where he is told to go and do what he is told to do with a clear conscience (provided he is not asked to do something inherently immoral) for the responsibility falls on the ones who are giving the order.

Take for example the bombing of aspirin/baby formula plants mentioned above; a lot of people have their doubts about whether those were legitimate targets. It certainly APPEARS as if the president at the time had a vested interest in getting the media’s attention off his personal life. Therefore, they can APPEAR to be immoral actions, motivated by the worst sort of abuses of power. Or, maybe they were genuine mistakes? The reality is that we just do not know what was going on in the president’s mind at the time or what kind of intelligence was actually available. And though I am perfectly willing to believe the worst about that particular man, I do not KNOW he acted immorally.

As citizens in a supposedly free Republic we do have the right to question those actions especially the timing. We have the right to make our collective outrage known that US forces attacked not a chemical weapons facility but a legitimate civilian factory of no military value. We have the right to point out the errors of the intelligence community (if that is where the blame can be placed). But personally speaking, if I had been on active duty and in the left seat of one of those fighters (I seem to recall that the aircraft were F-111’s but could be wrong), then I could have flown that mission with a clear conscience – and still have a clear conscience after the mission was over and the target turned out NOT to be what we were told it was. The military is the civil magistrate’s sword (Rms 13:1ff) ; it is NOT their fault if the one using them strikes the wrong target.

For the citizen soldier it can become a little complex at times; he is still a citizen but has voluntarily given up some of his rights such as criticizing his military or civilian superiors while on active service. He still retains his conscience and under certain circumstances (such as illegal orders) may lawfully refuse to obey; but that is not the same as determining whether he will fight in a particular war. I am reminded of a case back in the 90’s for which I had a great deal of sympathy; as I recall, a soldier refused to wear the UN patch on his uniform because he was a member of the US Army, NOT some international peace keeping force. His argument I believe, was based on the issue of sovereignty; that he had enlisted as a US soldier and had been transferred, without his consent, to a different source of authority.

I do not recall how that situation was resolved, especially after the brief period of hyper-patriotism post-911 - but though I appreciated his position, I think he was wrong, even when he was trying to take a stand for US sovereignty. My argument is that as a soldier under orders, it is not his responsibility to determine such issues as sovereignty; that is something “above his pay grade.” He SHOULD have contacted his congressman and senators and asked THEM to make an inquiry. Instead, he acted autonomously and rebelliously and potentially paid the price in a dishonorable discharge and jail time. And while I think his argument has merit and that US forces should NEVER be subsumed under some other body of authority; at the same time, it is just not his responsibility to make that determination.

Which brings us to the one of the key texts in determining the Christian soldier’s duty; the Centurion who wants the Lord Jesus’ assistance in healing a dying servant. The Roman says, “For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one ‘Go’ and he goes; and to another ‘Come’ and he comes…” (Luke 7:8). Jesus approves of this man’s statement and applauds his faith. The principle then has divine approval; the Centurion is both a man IN authority as well as a man UNDER authority. He is commanded, and he commands.

Therefore the first duty of a soldier is to “obey the lawful orders of those appointed over him.” Granted, not rocket science, but some times that needs to be said and developed. There is a higher morality that governs every man’s actions; orders to shoot prisoners, rape, pillage or plunder, etc., are immoral and not to be obeyed. I do not know if they still train the troops on proper conduct in a warzone (I assume they do), but when I was on active duty during the Vietnam Era, we were explicitly and specifically trained to REFUSE certain illegal orders.

But that is the negative side; the positive is that unless such an illegal order is given, a soldier obeys. He “goes” where they tell him to go and does his job; a job that may entail breaking things and killing people. The civil magistrate is authorized by God to “bear the sword” against “evil” (Rms 13:1ff). The soldier is that “sword.” His job is not to determine “evil” but rather to be the agent of the magistrate’s vengeance against that evil (cf. Rms 13:1ff).

The Duty to be “Sharp”

This has several important implications; since he is the “sword” of vengeance swung against evil, the soldier has a moral obligation before God to be proficient in that duty. A sword has to be “sharp” and made of the right materials to accomplish its function. Most commentators understand the word “sword” here to refer, in some way, to capital punishment; since most executions at the time were by sword stroke. Hence a dull sword would mean a botched and unnecessarily painful execution. However, from antiquity, the sword was also the soldier’s primary weapon. Inferior or badly tempered swords would break or bend during battle. Dull swords could not accomplish their function. Training is what tempers the individual soldier and keeps him “sharp;” a term still used by military forces, who long ago, traded in their swords for rifles and artillery.

Therefore, a Christian soldier must be the BEST soldier he can be at whatever task is set before him. An old Roman maxim still retained in common military usage, states, “the more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat…” Most of a soldier’s life is composed of training, not actual fighting. In fact I recall one combat veteran writing that military service is “years of mind-numbing boredom interrupted by moments of sheer terror.” The Roman legions won impressive victories over overwhelming odds just because they trained their troops more effectively than any other military in the world. A lot of historical enthusiasts like to talk about strategy and tactics; which the Romans had in abundance; but what kept them alive, and defeated their enemies was their ability to maintain their formations and continue to fight – regardless of the odds. Boudicca, the English queen, led a revolt against the Romans, outnumbering them by probably 10-1. However, she and her troops were defeated because they could not penetrate the Roman front. Meanwhile, training allowed the Romans to change their front rank every few minutes so that the enemy was always facing fresh and rested troops.

And one could magnify this example through every successful military in history; generally speaking, the ones who win are the ones who are better trained. And even when they lose, they destroy incredible numbers of the enemy; e.g., Blackhawk down, the Alamo, the Germans on the Russian front, the French Foreign Legion, etc.

However, that training is a direct application of OBEYING one’s superiors; of doing what they tell you to do, when they tell you to do it. It is more than mindless obedience for the best troops in history took the orders of their superiors and found creative ways to make those orders work! This is a specific application of the general principle of “headship” and submission found throughout the Bible. Obeying one’s lawful superiors is not just doing what you are told, but internalizing their goals and then using one’s individual creativity, intelligence, savvy and situation to accomplish those goals; e.g. Joseph and Daniel.

Granted, in earlier eras, when men stood shoulder to shoulder and all they had to do to win was not lose morale and break ranks, this degree of creativity was less important. Historically, the British especially were very good at using brutal training techniques to ensure that the men were more afraid of their sergeants then they were of the enemy. But that kind of warfare was already obsolete by the American War between the States; and perhaps was an anomaly during the technological period when firearms were becoming effective tools on the battlefield; e.g., the American experience in our War of Independence demonstrated how deadly motivated men could be when they possessed marksmanship skills and a high degree of personal initiative. Even today, a man with a rifle, who knows how to use it, can demoralize many times his number; e.g., the highest ranking Marine sniper in Vietnam was Carlos Hathcock, who with his spotter, literally wiped out an entire North Vietnamese unit!

So a soldier’s duty is to obey his officers; especially in regards to getting behind the training they are trying to give him, to meet more than the bare minimum but seek to internalize its purpose. For example, the Army sets certain PT requirements. A soldier can see this as a minimum standard he has to meet each year in order to avoid sanctions; or he can see that a soldier, even one who sits behind a desk, NEEDS to be fit. A Christian soldier then ought to go beyond formal PT training, and on his own initiative, attempt to excel in meeting those requirements. The fitter he is, the more able he is to fulfill his other duties and therefore accomplish the tasks set before him.

Now many soldiers do just that because they want self-aggrandizement and promotions; there are many highly motivated soldiers who take every course and obtain the “Tower of Power” (i.e., the badges that mark completion of elite military schools) because it looks good on their record and will help them be promoted. I am not necessarily sure that this is such a bad thing for a young troop because different men have different motivations. We are all sinners, all unsanctified in one way or the other. Perhaps it is not so much where we begin as it is where we end up. Real soldiers, real leaders find that when the rubber meets the road in combat, those selfish goals fall by the way side; the cost demanded is too high for the puny reward of personal advancement.

Nevertheless, some people want to excel just because they want the benefits. The Christian soldier however ought to be working towards a higher Biblical ethic here. He should strive for excellence in all his duties because all labor is holy and is to be done for the glory of God. I think this provides him with a more solid foundation when he meets the real stresses of military life. He does what needs to be done because that is what God requires of him at that moment. Since training is what prepares him to fulfill his duties, he seeks to exceed the basic requirements and push himself to the limits of his abilities. You do not get stronger, by lifting lighter weights. You do not become a better military by becoming complacent with yout present status or contemptuous of the abilities of your potential enemies.

Now here we could go off on an important tangent and discuss whether the training offered by the modern Army is the RIGHT kind of training, conducted in the RIGHT kind of way. At least a very good argument can be made that a lot of things that the military does is less than efficient or productive. Again, the world is a complex place; decisions are made based on a lot of convoluted information that the average person does not have.

Years ago I recall watching a very interesting “docudrama” on the development and implementation of the Bradley, the armored vehicle designed to counter the Russian BMP; it had a lot of teething problems which the film maker gleefully pointed out. The story revolved around a “whistleblower” that was concerned about the flaws in the original design; flaws that were recognized and FIXED in the export version we sold to the Israelis. However, the filmmaker did show a little intellectual honesty by having one officer in the procurement section of the Pentagon explain in frustration that the “whistleblower” did not understand HOW the system worked; the important thing was to get the vehicle into the field; once there, it could be brought up to speed. But if they denied procurement because of those problems, then we would be without an AFV that was desperately needed at the time.

In the same way, sometimes the troops are not trained for what the next conflict will demand. This was seen in Vietnam where our military had been trained to fight a world war with nuclear weapons and instead found itself in a counterinsurgency conflict. It took time to reorganize, to retrain and learn the lessons that needed to be learned. Then in the two Gulf Wars, we took the military developed to counter the Soviet buildup in the 70’s and 80’s and used it in set piece battles against the Iraqis. Our military performed brilliantly because it was fighting the kind of war it had trained to fight!

So the soldier is left with the short end of the stick; he has to obey, follow the orders of his superiors and train the way that THEY tell him to train. And yet, the generals who determine what kind of training the troops need are human beings; too often they want to fight the last war with new weapons – and therefore do not always provide the kind of training needed. For example, in WWII, the Western allies were shocked by the way the Germans overran Poland in just a few weeks. The Germans had been working on developing combined arms with panzers as their main striking force while the Brits and French thought in terms of WWI where tanks supported the infantry. The Allies never had the time to reorganize or retrain their troops before the Germans invaded France (by going through the Ardennes which the French did not defend). The allies were destroyed in a few more weeks. The poor “Tommy” or “Pierre” stuck on the frontlines paid a high price because they had not trained for the kind of warfare they would have to face.

But again, even though we can recognize this with HINDSIGHT, the poor grunt on the ground does not have this Olympian view – nor do the generals doing the planning. All the individual soldier can do is the BEST he can, in the situation he finds himself. He can supplement his formal training with outside reading, extra PT, maybe even join the Post’s Rod and Gun club just to become more proficient in marksmanship. He can by his personal example, encourage his fellow soldiers to be more fit, more active, more committed to training at what they CAN do. This is real leadership – not just having the position but taking responsibility to do whatever one can, wherever one can to make the entire unit more effective.

The Soldier’s Motivation

Moving on; a second passage that has bearings on the Christian soldier’s responsibility under God is found in Luke. During the ministry of John the Baptizer, the Scriptures records; “And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, ‘and what about us, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely and be content with your wages…” Luke 3:14

First, notice that when men asked what they needed to do to repent and be saved, John did NOT tell them, “Stop being soldiers and become pacifists.” Thus, the basic morality of military service is established as a Biblical norm; it is NOT immoral to BE a soldier, though clearly, a soldier can ACT immorally and he should repent of those immoral acts.

Secondly, there are some questions about the identity of these “soldiers.” Herod was a king under Roman authority and was allowed to have his own army. Herod the Great amassed a considerable military force with armor and weapons that one of his descendants intended to use to stage a rebellion – just before God cursed him. Anyway, were these soldiers Herod’s troops which would have basically been a régime supporting force, or Roman troops doing occupation duties?

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states that the Greek term used here, “one on active service,” seems to imply that they were probably Roman soldiers. I am not sure about this since if they were Roman troops, they would have had to worship idols as a part of their normal service. Hence, one would think John would have said something about repenting of idolatry. However, if they were Jewish troops (whose primary duty was to make sure that the local population did not start any trouble that the Roman legions would have to settle), this absence makes sense; one presumes that Hebrew troops would not practice idolatry.

However, Hebrew troops would still have been raised, trained, equipped and paid by Herod; an Idumean who had gained his kingship after the Roman conquest; in effect the government at the time did not have legitimacy. The Jews had lost their independence first under the Babylonians, then the Greeks but regained it for a short time until the Roman conquest. Rome then placed Herod on the throne. Yet the soldiers are not criticized for supporting and maintaining a tyrannical, unlawful (and homicidal) government. Instead, they are simply told not to misuse the power that came with their position.

Whoever these troops were - being armed and armored - they represented potential violence and were in the business of putting down local rebellions. However, with that power also came the temptation to misuse it for their own purposes. They could extort food, wine and supplies – even women - by threatening to either hurt people who could not defend themselves – or by falsely accusing people and letting the judicial system do their dirty work for them.

One of the underlying premises that John was driving at here is that with power comes responsibility. The soldiers, regardless of whether they were Roman or Jewish had a virtual monopoly on violence. Unarmed, unarmored and untrained civilians are almost helpless when facing a trained military. Therefore, because of the sinfulness of men, there is always a temptation to take what one wants, especially if the other guy cannot stop you from doing so.

Historically, professional armies were usually quite small because they are expensive to maintain. For example, in Hebrew history and the Law, when a crisis occurred, the entire male population between certain ages was to be called up; essentially a largely untrained militia who provided their own weapons and armor. They were “mustered” or “numbered” (which is the origin of the name for the book of “Numbers”), and then organized under “mighty men” (the “professional” military) and went off to war (with certain exemptions – see my original essay). For Israel, this system worked because God had promised to fight for her; she did not need a large standing, professional army. In fact, one of the curses that God promised to bring on her when she rejected Him and wanted a king like all the other nations was having a large standing army, which the citizenry would be forced to support, as well as conscription (1 Sam 8:4ff, especially 8:10ff)).

The Roman legions were the best trained and most effective troops in the ancient world. Originally they were true citizen armies with free men serving voluntarily for the good of the Republic. However, by the New Testament era, they had become something like a modern professional army with the average soldier serving (I think) a minimum of ten years. This kind of professional military force is horrendously expensive to maintain; and most nations, right up until modern times simply could not afford to have such a force. Hence, in the main, armies consisted of small, highly trained elite warriors, backed up with poorly trained and largely unequipped peasant levies. One of the reasons why the British did so well against the French during the Napoleonic wars was because the British had a very professional NCO corps that served as the army’s backbone. The French had a conscript army that did quite well against other European nations with equally badly trained, badly officered conscript armies; but even though the French usually outnumbered the English, the Brits defeated them time and again mostly due to training (think “line vs. column” and “live fire” exercises).

The point here about pay is that traditionally, right up till the modern era, armies were so expensive that the only way to pay the troops was by pillage and plunder. For example, armor and weapons were terribly expensive because iron was scarce and steel technologically difficult to produce. William Wallace’s force in the 13^th century was largely unarmored and armed only with the crudest agricultural tools. A sword in the Middle Ages cost the equivalent of a modern sports car; and plate armor about the cost of a farm. Therefore, looting the battlefield for enemy armor and weapons was a cost effective means of equipping your own troops, or converting the raw materials into something else.

At the same time, since there were no universal banks, individual troops had to either carry their portable wealth on them, or store them in the baggage train. This meant that every body on the battlefield had not only armor and weapons that were extremely valuable, but also might well have copper, silver and gold coins, gems, etc., that could be looted. More than one general in history discovered that though victorious on the battlefield, he was not able to crush his enemy because his troops were too busy looting the baggage train! The Romans paid their troops in salt; a commodity that then could be traded and sold off post. But even they were hard pressed to keep their soldiers paid.

Hence, all armies saw pillage and looting as a part of their pay; the reward for surviving the battle. It is not hard then to see how this attitude would carry over into occupation duties. After all, if looting and pillaging is a “right” then why not continue to use the same power to extort money from the local wine-seller, or inn, or whatever.

Hence, John’s comments about extortion and grumbling about pay are in context probably more to do with the unlawful use of power than the soldier’s ancient right of complaining about his situation. Soldiers on occupation duties (regardless of whether they were Jews or Romans) would find it hard to exist on their regular pay when they were accustomed to reaping great windfalls when on campaign. Therefore, they were tempted to use their power to extort money and privileges.

For the modern soldier I think this same principle has far greater applications; being a soldier has always been dangerous, difficult, uncomfortable and low paying. Hence, there is a recurring temptation to illegally use force to enhance one’s personal benefit or to betray the trust that has been given them. One of the scariest things about the breakup of the old Soviet Union was that the new government was essentially bankrupt and could no longer afford to pay its soldiers; the same soldiers entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. There was real concern that some of these men would sell the weapons they were supposed to be guarding just to make enough money to survive.

The Christian soldier must have a higher motivation than his own self-interest. Grumbling about pay seems like such a petty thing in comparison with all the things a soldier COULD do since he has a monopoly on force; but if in fact John is referencing the economics of soldiering in the first century, a direct implication is that a soldier has a duty beyond the personal benefits of being victorious on the battlefield.

The soldier serves the wishes of the civil magistrate; under Biblical law he exists to be the sword that the king wields against evil. The fact that if he survives the battle, the king rewards him with a portion of the plunder is NOT to be his motivation. Instead, he serves a nobler, higher purpose; to avenge evil. Hence, how abhorrent if he becomes a SOURCE of evil by intimidation and extortion.

Therefore, the Christian soldier has to have something other than his own self-interest at the core of his reasons for serving. Sure, a government paid education can be a great blessing, the money you make in a combat area or per diem while TDY can help the family finances. But the reason why the soldier exists is never for his own self-interests; and when people have been shooting at you and friends or colleagues have paid the ultimate price it can sure seem like someone owes you.

However, the Christian soldier has to think better than this; and the Christian leader has to help those under his authority discover a higher morality. He puts his own life on the line to suppress evil so that others, his family, friends and neighbors back home, can live their lives in safety and security.

Granted, wicked self-serving kings, emperors and dictators (not to mention presidents and prime ministers) have perverted and distorted this Biblical truth for their own self-aggrandizement, “glory,” wealth and power. And ALL wars are bad; people die, property is destroyed, economies ruined and innocents suffer. The only thing worse than fighting a war is losing one – unless you manage to lose one to the US!

But again, going back to an earlier point; the individual soldier does not and cannot know all the ins and outs of why he is called to fight this particular battle, or even this war. Even the civil magistrate is not always sure about the causes; it is pure arrogance for modern historians, politicians and pundits to condemn the reasons why certain wars were fought. They have the perspective of hindsight which the original combatants did not have. Sure if THEY had known what WE know, they might have made different decisions – but only God is omniscient – the rest of us have to do what we can, with the knowledge we have, looking to the Moral Law for guidance.

Part Two:

In part one of this series, we saw that a soldier is under authority – it is not his responsibility to determine who, when or where he will fight – that is the civil magistrate’s job. Instead, he is to obey his leaders, and as the king’s “sword,” has a divine duty to be as sharp and effective as he can be. Secondly, his service is just that, service. While he may occasionally reap personal rewards (such as plunder on the battlefield in ancient times, or a college education in modern ones), John the Baptizer’s comments can be understood as a case law application that the soldier serves a higher, nobler function than his own pay and rewards; i.e., his duty is to suppress evil and protect civilians.

Jonathan as the Model Soldier

How do these general principles work out in real life situations? One of the best examples of a godly soldier in Scripture is Jonathan, the son of Saul. Jonathan’s story is so terribly sad; the son of a king, a valiant warrior in his own right, yet, nevertheless, he was also humble, recognizing David’s divine anointing and was willing to lay aside his privileges to serve a higher purpose. And though there is nothing specifically in the text that says that he personally messed up, he still tragically died, probably because of his father’s rash curse.

David gets all the press; and of course, since he was the type of Jesus, rightly so – but in terms of sheer courage, Jonathan’s feat in 1 Samuel 14:1ff is truly epic stuff. We first meet Jonathan in 1 Samuel 13 where he is credited with “smiting” a Philistine garrison (1 Sam 13:3). This appears in context to be a deliberately provocative act on Saul’s part to initiate a war with the Philistines; to get them to come out to battle (13:4ff).

At the time, Israel was surrounded by various pagan nations, each of which attempted to carve out as much Israelite territory as they could. The Philistines (probably Phoenician colonists) controlled the coastline and had established garrisons to guard passes into the interior. The Philistines had advanced metallurgy and a monopoly on weapons production; the Israelites had to go to the Philistines to even have their farm tools sharpened (13:19). And of course, as always, “gun control” never works. If people are denied swords and spears, then they will use mattocks, pitchforks, axes or even rocks. The English tried the same tactic against the Scots in William Wallace’s time; his “army” was forced to use agricultural tools against the better armed and armored English troops – and won with superior tactics and morale. Weapons are important; but a people committed to overcoming a foreign invader will FIND weapons; if nothing else they will take them off the dead bodies of their enemies – a lesson that our political leaders need to keep in mind before becoming too involved in someone else’s backyard.

Anyway, the Philistines were invaders and tyrants; and since Saul had been anointed as king just for the purpose of leading Israel against her enemies, one of his first acts was to attack the garrisons that controlled trade and supply routes. This attack also might have served other purposes; i.e., Israel needed to muster their forces, and they needed to be shown that the Philistines were not invincible. Furthermore, Saul had to ensure that his own people were properly motivated to fight this war to its only conclusion; driving the enemy out of their lands. Therefore, he had Jonathan “smite” a Philistine garrison which made the Israelites “odious” in their sight. This at least implies that the Philistines were so angry that they would be out for revenge; and if the Israelites did not muster their forces and face them, they would be massacred in their beds.

The first step in the Philistine response was to send another garrison to the pass of Michmash (13:23) which one assumes again, was to keep the Israelite army from invading, outflanking or raiding while the Philistine army was gathering in the valley for the battle. So here is the situation; Saul attempted to muster the people but discovers that not only does his troops have no swords or spears (13:22); some of them have actually sided with the Philistines (14:21) while others ran away and hid (14:22). The only people with decent weapons are Saul and Jonathan.

Then, chapter 14 begins with Jonathan taking personal initiative to deal with the garrison. Now again, we are not talking about some green kid, with no experience; he had already taken ONE garrison – presumably by leading troops in battle. Now there was a second garrison that could play a pivotal role in the coming battle. That garrison had to be taken out; but Saul had a lot of issues on his mind the night before the big battle; it is possible that Saul was a little discouraged and disheartened by the Philistines having superior forces, a monopoly on weapons and control of the high ground by holding the passes.

So Jonathan took responsibility to remove a threat, while at the same time, potentially putting some heart into the rest of the army. We can reasonably assume that Jonathan’s motivations were “pure” here; he was already a victorious warrior and leader with nothing to prove. There was a serious battle coming up the next day; so he wasn’t being impulsive or looking for a chance to be a “glory hound.”

Furthermore, he did not want to risk the few troops his father had available for the coming battle for what was (by all expectations) a risky venture. Hence, we are left with Jonathan seeing a long term problem that his father was too busy to deal with. He then took personal initiative to solve that problem without sacrificing any desperately needed resources. So, he took his “armor-bearer” and went up to see what he could do.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 1, pg. 295, an “armor bearer” did not literally “bear armor” so much as carry the large shield and other weapons for a king, mighty man or champion. Apparently, he acted much like a squire in medieval times, helping his knight put on his armor (difficult if not impossible to do without assistance) and then carried all the extra weapons and such that might be needed in battle. In Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian cultures (from which we presume are where the Israelites got the practice) the armor-bearer often rode beside the warrior in his chariot protecting him from arrows and such. In other words, the “armor-bearer” was a support troop – not front line infantry.

Jonathan then told his armor-bearer his plans, showing that he knew how to motivate those under his authority. Combat is always terrifying; however, keeping the troops as informed as possible, helps them to deal with “fog of war” and keeps them focused on the mission. Now what happened next is most interesting; Jonathan is heavily outnumbered and from one perspective one man (even with a support troop) against an entire garrison might seem just a little preposterous. Jonathan knew that and makes his decision based upon whether certain conditions could be met. He said, “If they say, ‘wait until we come to you, then we will stand in our place and not go up to them. But if they say, ‘come up to us,’ then we will go up for the Lord has given them into our hands; this shall be a sign for us…” (1 Sam 14:9-10).

Now we can assume that Jonathan in his day could expect to receive special revelation that would help guide and protect him; revelation that we on this side of the incarnation do not normally experience. However, the point is, Jonathan was NOT being rash or impetuous; he had a plan and he made decisions based upon solid, objective criteria. After all, if they came to him, he could always withdraw if necessary.

This illustrates what we have discussed previously; Jonathan was a man “under authority” as well as a man “in authority.” He wanted his father to win the coming battle; he was committed personally to achieving his king’s goals. Hence, when he saw a problem he took personal responsibility to fix it, he did not whine, moan, complain, or criticize his Dad for not being so concerned with the trees that he had lost sight of the forest. He just went out and did what needed to be done – without any thought of personal reward other than to help his own side win the coming battle.

Furthermore, he did not go off “half-cocked” (another one of those military memes that we still use but which has been irrelevant for more than a century); he had a plan, based on the best information he had available; a plan that also allowed for retreat if necessary. Furthermore, by taking his armor bearer, presumably, he had available to him all the tools that a warrior needed to do his job; as well as someone to watch his back. He was as prepared, humanly speaking, as any warrior could be for the task at hand.

The Scriptures then relate how the Philistines decided to come out, which confirmed that God would give Jonathan the victory. He then proceeded to mow them down like wheat; and the ones not killed by him outright receive a friendly dagger from his armor-bearer (1 Sam 14:13ff). As a result, the entire garrison was terrified and fled. They in turn spread their demoralization to the rest of the Philistine army with a “multitude” melting away (14:16). When Saul sees the enemy in disarray, he knew that someone had done something to unnerve the enemy; so he asked around about who was missing and discovered that Jonathan had been responsible (14:17).

The commotion inside the Philistine camp was so intense that finally Saul was able to rally his own troops, and the battle, even before it began, turned into a rout for the enemy. Historically, most casualties on ancient battlefield occurred when one side lost its nerve and fled; a powerful army can be reduced to a helpless mob if their morale breaks – not to mention it is a lot easier to cut a man down, from behind, than it is to face him with a weapon in his hand. In this case, the Lord gave the Israelites a great victory; as the King of creation, it was His providential grace that unnerved the enemy and allowed Saul to win the battle. But He did so through the courage and personal initiative of a brave man able to see a problem and willing to do something about it; this is important to note - God works THROUGH means.

Saul then issued what might appear to be a foolish order; that none of his troops could eat until the enemy was totally destroyed. However, this actually makes a bit of sense if we recall how armies in ancient times were paid. Since the troops were rewarded with plunder, the first soldiers to capture the baggage train could make a fortune. However, plundering the baggage train meant that the troops have stopped pursuing the enemy, letting them get away. It is highly likely that Saul simply did not want his great victory here to be “short-changed” by his troops being more concerned about plunder than victory. Therefore, he gave an order, “If you eat you die” which would make it pretty clear that there was plenty of time to enjoy the spoils after the enemy was destroyed. Remember, this battle was not simply a way to achieve some political solution – but rather a “war to the knife.” Every Philistine that survived that day would return to fight again; the time for complete victory was now!

However, Saul’s orders backfired on him in several ways. First, fighting with swords, spears, mattocks, and axes is extremely physically demanding. Men get tired; and they need rest and food if they are going to continue to fight well. Jonathan recognized this and criticized his father’s decision when he heard of it (14:24-30). The Israelites had a victory, but not the overwhelming one they could have had with better leadership and clearer commands. Saul had the right motivation and intention, but gave the wrong order; an order that actually worked against his goals. Historically, clarity in the orders a commander gives has often been the difference between victory and defeat.

The second problem with this order was that Jonathan never heard it and unintentionally violated it - bringing him under his father’s curse. When later it was revealed that he was guilty, and he offered himself up for judgment, the people refused to let Saul put his own son to death. Yet, I have always wondered whether Jonathan’s death later on was perhaps caused by Saul’s rash order here. Saul was a bad king, a terrible leader constantly trying to win approval – a man who feared men more than God. He was also a man of extreme passion who allowed his emotions to overrule his reason. As a result, he lost his integrity, his kingdom and his life (and possibly even his soul as the Witch of Endor situation suggests). And by this badly considered command, he also condemned his own family, and their future.

However, that takes us a bit far afield; our main concern is with Jonathan and what we can learn from his example and experience and relate it to the duties of a Christians soldier. In that regard, we can see that he had the king’s best interest in mind, saw the big picture and was personally brave; he was not afraid to risk his own life to fulfill the mission – but he was not foolhardy or reckless. He took calculated risks as necessary.

He was also motivated to find solutions, not just whine about problems. No commander is perfect, no army is perfect and there is always a difference between what IS done and what SHOULD be done. This is something I did not grasp when I was a young airman. With all due modesty, once I had been in the military for a while, I saw a lot of inefficiencies, stupidities, inanities and often pointed them out with great enthusiasm. However, just pointing out a problem is useless, unless one also is motivated to find a solution. However, it is easier, and more fun to criticize than it is to do something constructive. It took God’s grace in bringing me to saving faith and a little teaching to finally realize that I needed to stop complaining about problems and instead, take responsibility to fix them – or at least, that’s what I want to learn how to do…

The complainer assumes that it is always someone else’s responsibility to fix a problem. His constant criticizing and complaining only causes dissension and distrust amongst the ranks making the entire unit less effective. I think we can see at least an illustration in Jonathan’s life that a godly soldier takes personal responsibility; a critical component for any leader.

Granted, there are “active stupid” leaders who are the most dangerous men to be around. “Passive-stupid” leaders don’t do anything and therefore while the organization may not accomplish much, at least they do not do much damage either. The “active-stupid” leader wants to do “something;” it’s just consistently the wrong thing; which can and does get people killed.

Jonathan however was “active-smart” in that he saw a problem, figured out a way of dealing with it and then took personal responsibility to ensure that it got fixed. Years ago, while on active duty I discovered this same principle in a different situation; I was really frustrated with the Christian fellowship I attended because they never did evangelism – or wanted to anything else other than “hold hands for Jesus.” I would try to point this out to the leadership and did my best to convince THEM to start a program or something to get other people to evangelize and do discipleship. I failed; but I got very good at criticizing everyone else for not doing what I thought was so important to do.

The December before getting married, I went down to visit my soon to be wife one weekend and had a serious car accident on the way back; my car was totaled and I was laid up in the hospital for a few days – and forced to wear a cast for a couple of months. As a result, I had time to think through a lot of things, especially about taking personal responsibility – pain is one of God’s most effective techniques for getting our attention. For the first time in my life I began to see that rather than fume because other people were not doing what I thought they should be doing – and that those in charge were inept in “leading” people in the right direction – instead, I just had to do what needed to be done. Granted, not rocket science, but it was a great revelation to me.

So limping with a cast on one leg and one arm, I started going door to door in the barracks trying to evangelize. At first I went out alone; but after a while, especially when people started to pray with me to receive Christ (yes, I know, but I was young and did not know any better), other Christians wanted to come with me. The more that went out, the more people got excited; and the more that wanted to be involved. We then began a Bible study on apologetics and evangelistic techniques – by taking personal responsibility to find a solution I had one of the most productive periods of ministry in my life. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that that experience was what led me eventually into the ministry.

And I first learned those principles at my job in the Air Force when as a direct application of Jesus being my Lord, I went from a wise cracking punk always finding fault and criticizing the leadership (and there was much to criticize) to instead, trying to be the best worker I could be, trying to fix problems as they came up rather than just complain about them. Granted, sometimes, you cannot fix the problem; “What cannot be cured, must be endured.” The military is always going to have inept leaders above you and incompetent subordinates below you. The best intended policies and procedures are not always going to jive with the real world; sometimes people just will not be able to see what needs to be done. The Christian soldier however, following the example of Jonathan, will trust in God, internalize his leader’s goals and find creative ways to fulfill them, even if it means putting his own reputation or life, on the line in the process.

Bad Company

There have been a few times in history when Christians have composed the majority of the military or at least, the culture itself still retained enough Biblical morality that we did not find our values under constant assault. Sadly, that is no longer true for any part of American culture today; therefore, any Christian serving has to understand 1 Corinthians 15:33, “Do not be deceived, bad company corrupts good morals.” In context, Paul is not talking about soldiers or the military; just quoting a secular proverb that is self-evidently true; the people with whom you associate have a great deal of influence on your beliefs and behaviors. Modern psychology has verified this observation with empirical research studies - who we are, how we act, and even how we think is greatly affected by the people around us.

Hence, this principle does have a great deal of practical application for the Christian soldier, especially. The military, throughout the ages has been composed of a lot of young men, forced to do extremely stressful things and traditionally, a lot of people have turned a blind eye when those young men blow off some steam. In ancient times, the “baggage train” was filled with “camp followers” who supplied the troops with wine and women. Now on the one hand, “camp followers” actually provided many ancient armies with needed logistical support; merchants and such did the hard work of making sure soldiers had access to food, clothing, armor, weapons as well as “entertainment.” Many of the female “camp followers” were actually married to some of the troops; of course “married” in this sense was fairly informally defined with “widows” often “married” multiple times as their “husbands” bought the farm on the battlefield.

However, on the other hand, a lot of “camp followers” were prostitutes; and every army since antiquity, right down to today, has its collection of bars, “massage” parlors and the like conveniently located not too far off post and whose income is derived almost exclusively from “supporting” the troops. Furthermore, within the military there has developed a culture that at best, winks at such activities and often endorses and supports it; enlisted and NCO clubs routinely invite young women from the community to make illicit “liaisons” easier for the men. And when young men get together, they often talk about women and their sexual experiences (mostly out-right lies but at the time they can sound quite credible).

A Christian can find himself overwhelmed in dealing with this culture of fornication and debauchery; and let there be no mistake - for once I am not using hyperbole - young men are EXPECTED to be sexually active during this part of their life; and anyone who is not is regarded as either gay, or weird.

Now, here is the dilemma; an effective military requires that the troops know and trust each other, that they form core bonds because as we mentioned earlier, in the end, most men fight for their comrades. Therefore, if people do not trust you, if they think you are “weird” because you do not do what everyone else does, then it is hard to “fit in.”

And all of us want to belong; we want the people with whom we associate to like us and respect us. We all want approval and there is nothing inherently wrong with that desire. However, if their morals and values conflict with ours, then we have a problem. One of the reasons why most Christians could not serve in the Roman legions in the first two centuries of the church was because it required sacrificing to idols; something a Christian could not do – and therefore it kept them from serving. Years ago I read about a legion supposedly formed by one of the later emperors just for Christians called the “Thunderbolts;” they were specifically excluded from having to offer sacrifice to either the Emperor or idols. However, truth in advertising forces me to admit that I have never been able to document the existence of that Christian legion – so I am not sure if they ever, actually existed. However it was one potential way to resolve an otherwise impossible dilemma; if Christians were to serve in the legions, they could not be required to worship idols.

At this point, no one is suggesting that we form military units segregated by religion or morality; nevertheless, the reality is that a Christian will find that his morals are so out of accord with modern culture that he will face unrelenting pressure to conform to his unbelieving peers. Often the first sign is the way that soldiers use language; e.g., the old phrase “swearing like a sailor” still has meaning in our culture. OK, it is not perhaps the greatest moral failing if, on occasion, a Christian lets slip an Anglo-Saxon, monosyllabic guttural (in fact, a recent sermon dealt a little bit with that issue). However, the more serious issue is that because the Christian soldier wants to fit in, wants to be part of the group and be accepted, he finds himself in situations where his conscience is being undermined.

And it is a subtle thing; like all sins, a Christian does not go from walking with God to pagan debauchery in one step. It may start with simply having one beer with the guys (something completely lawful). It then leads to conversations about women, sex or whatever that is not profitable. At first, the Christian might say nothing, try to ignore it or even attempt to shift the conversation somewhere else. But before he knows it, he may begin drinking more than one beer; and he starts adding to the conversation and before he knows it his moral values start to slip. Then say a bunch of friends go to a club or a bar, they meet some girls; at this point it may still be “innocent;” but the Christian may now begin to develop a relationship with a girl who does not share his beliefs or his morality. He may find that in fact, he is actually quite appealing to many women just because he is a “nice guy” who is concerned about her as a person rather than a sex object. And if he is not careful, his own morals may have slipped enough so that what might have been unthinkable a year before, now seems perfectly acceptable.

The Christian soldier has to keep in mind that his highest and holiest allegiance is always to King Jesus. True, he is not primarily an evangelist or surrogate chaplain; his calling as a soldier is to break things and kill people and he needs to be proficient at those tasks. Many Christians serving in the military do not understand this because pietism has robbed them of a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Some think that in order to maintain their own moral standards, they need to be obnoxious in criticizing others. Others assume that being a Christian means having to constantly talk about Jesus, or having Bible studies when they ought to be working/training. While we can discard these false applications, still, it must be emphasized that the Christian owes His ultimate loyalty to Jesus and as His ambassador must act faithfully.

However, the more consistently he holds to Biblical convictions, the more he risks being excluded from the group. If he hides those convictions (not necessarily denies them just does not make them known) he risks compromising his morality. But how does he speak the truth, in love, without being regarded as a religious fruitcake?

When I came to faith I tried NOT to be like the weirdoes described above; but at the same time, while working, would often engage people in conversation about a lot of things. Because I had read Josh McDowell and other apologists I was usually well enough informed that I could answer questions about the integrity of the Scriptures, arguments for the existence of God, etc., that most people have. I was not trying to preach and I was not trying to convert anyone (that came later, off duty in “one on one” situations); these were simply the kinds of discussions that young men have about all sorts of issues. I just made sure that when a “spiritual” topic came up, I was informed and could talk intelligently about it. As a direct result, normally, naturally and inoffensively I was able to take a stand for Christ without coming across as “preaching” and especially as condemning others. To the contrary, people actually went out of their way to ask ME questions, because nobody had ever told them that Christianity is reasonable and logical.

However, I also found that there were certain things I could not do; since my colleagues did not discern the difference between having “one beer” and “getting blasted” I found it expedient never to drink with the guys I worked with - which is really funny because my friend Ken and I would do evangelism at night, going door to door in the barracks; and then go to a pub and drink a pint while discussing the conversations we had. However, every Friday afternoon my section used to close the shop down early (when the work load allowed) and have a barbeque which the OIC and Squadron Commander often attended. Usually, the senior NCO’s bought the beer – but I NEVER drank with them because they just did not understand. If I had drunk with them, they would have considered me a hypocrite. So instead, I drank a soda pop, laughed and joked with them and if the conversation got a little “rough” would excuse myself and do something else for a while. I even told them straight up that I did not think drinking was a sin – which in some strange way won me extra credit because I voluntarily chose not to get drunk whenever possible; besides I think they liked the idea of having someone to answer the phones or drive the NCOIC home!

Meanwhile, in another office in my section there was a guy who called himself a “Christian.” He refused to eat a hamburger or associate with anyone during the weekly barbeques because he did not want to be “unequally yoked.” Occasionally, he would actually harangue the people drinking, criticize their language and refused in general to have anything to do with any one in the shop other than on strictly business terms. Needless to say he was not a popular person; worse yet, he brought discredit to the gospel because people actually thought one had to be an obnoxious, nasty individual to be a Christian.

And while I was not seeking popularity, I like to think I managed to maintain my Christian credibility without sacrificing my morality. Over the course of time, I was able to talk to every person in that section about their personal relationship with Christ; even my senior NCO’s and Officers. Many of them even “prayed the prayer” with me to receive Christ (yes I know, I KNOW, but I was young…). Looking back, I think God was able to use me to witness to my co-workers because He showed me that getting drunk and fornicating is not what sends a man to hell; it is his rejection of Jesus as Christ. All those other things are simply symptoms of their rebellion against God. Therefore, I did not have to get offended, upset or critical of others for their specific sins – and I certainly did not have to follow them into the strip clubs. However, if f God gives grace, those things will be taken care of in His good time. Meantime, because I realized that “bad company corrupts good morals” there was a limit to the kinds of relationships I could have with the guys in my section and barracks; I seldom got invited to the “good” parties that people had off base – often because people were concerned about protecting ME from THEIR debauchery!

Immorality is one of the most subtle and effective tactics of the Enemy. He is powerless against us as long as God protects us; therefore if we are enticed into denying Him, usually through immorality, we can then find ourselves into situations where we actually bring God’s judgment on us. Just think about Baalim and how he could not curse Israel; but instead, told old “what’s his name” to send immoral women into the Israelite camp where they would seduce the young men into idolatry. Tens of thousands of people died because God takes idolatry very seriously!

For what it is worth, over the years I have known a number of good men, with great abilities and who seemed destined to achieve great things get derailed or destroyed because they met some “sweet young thing” who did not share their convictions – and therefore, to please them, the men ended up significantly compromising the faith.

So what we are talking about here does not necessarily mean a Christian selling out God and marrying a prostitute – though I could tell you stories – it could mean just losing one’s credibility towards those who are perishing because they see nothing distinct or different in our lives from their own. Either way, we lose that which is central to our faith; Jesus demands our ultimate obedience.

Now, for what it is worth, I think that officers, generally speaking, having better educations and coming from a higher social class probably do not descend quite so quickly into debauchery as your average enlisted barracks - but I could be wrong. I am guessing (and that is all it is) that the non-job related conversations would tend to be a little better informed, more intellectual, and hence profound than the kind of bull session so common in my day. But the temptation to conform, to please others, remains; there are sins of intellect as well as of the flesh – and both can lead to compromise.

The Christian soldier is going to have to find other believers with whom he can fellowship; and trust me, there are many such if one takes the time to look. A lot of Christians will be silent about their faith, just because they are susceptible to the kinds of pressures we have been talking about; but once they find other believers, they will come around. Sadly, you probably will not find too many of them at the base chapel – but if you are willing to be open about your faith (not obnoxious) and refuse to compromise your morals you can start a Bible study if one does not already exist. The Christian soldier may even discover that that some of the senior officers may invite him to such a study; I was shocked to learn how many dedicated Christians held the rank of Major and above – they just did not associate with us lowly “enlisted swine” too often…

So, in the end, the Christian must be careful with whom he associates; God is always the most important priority. While the Christian soldier does not have to push Jesus in people’s faces, there are always opportunities to naturally, easily and reasonably bear witness to His sovereignty – remember if we deny Him before men, He will deny us before the Father. But if we speak the truth in love, be gracious to all men and walk consistently with your confession, God will bless us.

Dealing with Regulations: The “Mickey Mouse” Factor

I was kind of shocked when my eldest son in advanced infantry training wrote us about a major criminal case that broke in his battalion. Some recruits had stolen cell phones and then charged their fellows for the opportunity to call home. Others had violated regulations by purchasing what we used to call “Pogie Bait,” i.e., candy, Gatorade, and the like and reselling them. Eventually, the powers that be found out what was going on, and a lot of people were busted.

When I went through basic we were so closely supervised that such actions would have been not just illegal but impossible. However, what was unsettling to me was the moral quality of the troops; people do not go from average, law-abiding citizens to organizing a criminal conspiracy overnight – hence, one must assume that people who would steal and break regulations for personal profit already had a prior history of such activities – a history that would have most likely have come to the notice of the authorities in the past – and for which they had suffered some kind of legal sanctions.

So, these guys either had their legal records expunged, or their recruiters suppressed it (or the Army overlooked it) to meet recruitment goals. Furthermore, these people were not complete wastes of space because they had already completed basic training – which implies they had some sort of self-discipline and were able to learn SOMETHING.

However, and I am trying to be as kind as possible as I say this; these men were also IDIOTS! Basic and AIT are the two times when the average troop is most closely supervised during his entire enlistment. Assuming that they joined the Army for a reason; to improve their life, get a college education, etc., what kind of short sighted nincompoop risks everything they just earned, for a few extra bucks at the one time they are most likely to be caught? In other words, the potential rewards are insignificant to the extremely high potential costs. It is somewhat encouraging that the Army found these guys NOW and hopefully, will dishonorably discharge them; whether they do any significant jail time is irrelevant since the most important thing is NEVER to put a weapon in their hand and trust them with YOUR life in a real combat situation.

OK, the guys selling Gatorade were just dumb; not necessarily criminal – however their willingness to flaunt military regulations, to flagrantly disregard their orders, means that they simply cannot be trusted. Again, they are stupid; they cannot calculate risks. Soldiers you cannot trust are not the ones you want guarding your back; not to mention run your supply system.

However, that does bring up the issue of how does a Christian deal with the all the “Mickey Mouse” regulations that afflicts every modern army – does being a good Christian soldier mean that he becomes a martinet, following all the minutia of mind numbing rules and regulations or is there any latitude? When I was a section NCOIC, I discovered that there were two Air Forces; the one on paper and the one that actually did the job day to day. Sometimes the two systems were almost identical; sometimes it was just a paper sham. However, at least in my experience, we realized that though the regulations were there for a reason, they could not foresee every eventuality. Therefore, we did what had to be done to do the job; and then made sure the paper-work matched up later on. There was no attempt to deceive, to make a personal profit, to abuse the system for personal gain - just that sometimes, the system as described in the regulations got in the way of doing the mission. And without anyone coming right out and telling us we all knew that the “mission” always came before the regulations.

Granted; this approach had its own problems; sometimes people do not know just what the “mission” is. My first “supervisory” position was as “Quality Control NCO” of the “Preservation, Packaging and Packing” section of a Transportation squadron – basically, we were shipping and receiving. Every day, cargo would come in to be packed, and shipped out. Now, the idea behind my job was that at any time, 70% of the spare parts needed to keep aircraft flying were in transit from depots to bases, and bases to depots. These really expensive parts had certain requirements for shipping; i.e., be placed in water/vapor proof, vacuum sealed bags with desiccant, occasionally needed to be treated with various preservatives, could not be wrapped or cushioned with certain materials that could cause corrosion, etc. These were all great mysteries to most of my colleagues; they saw these things as getting in the way of their REAL job which was to tape up the top of a box and properly divide the paperwork.

And in one sense they had a point; many of the regulations had been written when the vast majority of shipping was done by boat where parts would be stored in very corrosive conditions for months at a time. Therefore items needed to be packaged in a certain way to prevent damage from shipment and storage until they reached their destination. However, transportation methods had changed; apart from bulk items most spare parts were shipped by air; literally, a day or so after they left our base they arrived at a depot where they were repaired. Hence, the very complex “preservation, packaging and packing” procedures I had learned in tech-school (a school that most of my compatriots did not attend) were irrelevant, expensive and the usual Air Force base packing shop not set up to do them.

The Air Force realized the quality of its “packaging specialists” and had developed a neat system of soft foam shipping boxes that the maintenance guys were required to use when they took a part off an airplane. The technicians would remove a part that could not be repaired and replace it with a new one (the “black box” method of maintenance). Ideally, he then put the broken part in the same shipping container from which he had taken the new part. That broken part was then recycled back to supply (green tag for serviceable, yellow for repairable and red for throw away), who then delivered it to the Packaging Section where we were supposed to make sure it was packed properly, labeled and then given to Outbound Transportation; who then palletized and loaded it on a truck where it went to the nearest airbase with a transport aircraft that would fly it to a depot. At the depot the part would be repaired, then properly persevered, packaged and packed for storage until it was shipped to a base that needed it.

However, the average GI in our shop did not really think about any of this; all he knew about his job was that a whole lot of boxes came in every morning that he was supposed to tape up and put on a label. Some people even complained “Why can’t those supply guys tape up the top and save us a step?” Well, because YOU are supposed to be specifically trained to KNOW how to pack a $50,000 radar system so that it does not get damaged during shipment. For example, the repair guys did not always use the proper box – they did not care about boxes – and sometimes their procedure was to take all the parts out of their shipping containers for easy access and throw all the boxes into a big pile. When they needed to send a part back, they grabbed the first available box – and often the wrong one. But “my” guys did not even think of that; they just wanted to tape up as many boxes a day as they could because we all know, “the one with the most boxes stacked in front of his work station is the hardest working troop in the section…”

And of course, my first shop as “Quality Control NCO” was to ensure that the bottom of the boxes were taped! These men had a too limited definition of the mission – they thought their job was to tape the top of a box and send it down the line. Now granted; the Air Force is largely made up of technicians of various types; much more so than the Army – though we talked before about how many GI’s it takes to keep an infantry company fully equipped and supplied in the field (I recall a figure of something like 10-1 even in the Army). However, I want to argue that the same underlying principle applies, regardless of whether one’s military service consists of fixing airplanes or flying them – or of shooting guns or supplying bullets; the regulations exist for a reason – but – simply due to the limitations of human beings sometimes those regulations have to be interpreted “flexibly.” The “secret” is to know how to keep to the “spirit” or “intent” of the regulations.

And I think this is where those guys who got busted fouled up; before you can reasonably “break” a regulation you have to understand why it exists in the first place, what problems it was meant to prevent, what positive actions it was intended to promote. Furthermore, the individual must be committed to the organization’s goals and purposes NOT just his own personal comfort, interests or desires. Those guys we mentioned earlier who stole cell phones and built their own junk food blackmarket did not care about any of those things, just the opportunity to take advantage of others to line their own pockets. They were selfish, autonomous rebels who thought the rules did not apply to them; that they could break them on a whim or for personal profit.

I do not want THOSE kinds of people around me at any time; but especially when lives are on the line. As good Calvinists, we expect people to sin – and we expect sin to affect every area of life. People mess up, are inattentive, negligent, tired, bored or just plain stupid on occasion. And one can make a case that the purpose of regulations is to restrain and restrict the effects of human sin. People who do not respect lawful authority or care about the greater whole are dangerous to the extreme.

There have been several cases in the news about soldiers and marines being accused of war-crimes; specifically of shooting civilians and in one case, of raping a young girl in Iraq. I did not read the case files and do not know the particulars so I cannot have an opinion; however, when you put a gun in a man’s hands, send him into harm’s way where he gets stressed, frightened and angered as his adrenaline peaks; sometimes, the only thing that separates a hero from a war criminal is his underlying inner morality. Someone who is willing to steal, lie or break regulations because he can turn a personal profit is someone that cannot be trusted in tense situations.

On the other extreme is the martinet; the “Nazi” who is a sticker for the minutia of rules and regulations. Honestly forces me to admit that I was in danger of developing just those tendencies when I first became an NCOIC until I was taken aside by a “salted” old E-6 and taught “the ways of the world.” I LIKED regulations; they told you what was expected and as long as you followed them, you could not get into trouble. But the reality that my Master Sergeant told me about was that you could not use the regulations as an excuse for NOT doing your job. A bureaucrat never understand this and is the reason why so many government “services” are ineffectual, slow, and a waste of time and money. In their world, there are no consequences for NOT getting the job done; and they see the rules existing to keep them safe. In the military, though still a large, complex bureaucracy, if the job does not get done, people die, battles are lost and potentially, a nation is conquered. So during war time there is constant feedback that tweaks the regulations as well as real-life experience of experienced NCOs who know how to keep the system working – and accomplish the mission - regardless.

For what it is worth, this is why peacetime militaries often become bloated, the bureaucrats tend to rise in power and replace true leaders making the whole system becomes ineffectual. Then when that kind of military is tested in combat it often does not do so well. For example, just before WWII the Brits were spending three times (or something like that) on their ceremonial horse riding schools, than they were on training tank drivers. When Singapore was being invaded by the Japanese, the officers complained about enlisted men setting up fighting positions in the Officer’s Club! And of course, we could multiply our own examples from our own military. You would not believe the screams of some peace-time NCO bureaucrats who almost had nervous breakdowns because their equipment being loaded for deployment got a nick or scratch – (that was after working 36 hours straight loading and off-loading aircraft under an “Operational Deployment” where the equipment was being sent to places where it could potentially be blown up!).

When wars break out often a lot of people have to die before the military shakes itself out and the bureaucrats are replaced by leaders. In fact, in most militaries there is a culture war between the “bean counters” and the “shooters.” At the risk of another tangent, I think BOTH are necessary; good managers are just as important as good leaders – the problem comes when someone who is good at the one, is forced to serve in the other’s position - as in “bean counters” who need to have combat experience in their “jackets” (personnel records) and are given command of troops that they are not qualified to lead. However, without them, the “shooters” are not supplied, equipped or transported to where they need to fight. A truly effective modern military is one of the most complex organizations in the world; where the words “hostile takeover” take on a whole, new meaning.

The point here is that regulations have a purpose but that they are not and cannot cover every situation. Tyrannical militaries like the old Soviet Army emphasized complete control over every soldier’s actions. In “Inside the Soviet Army” (written by a defector who obviously had his own axe to grind) the author goes into great detail about how Soviet forces were trained, equipped and used in combat. While I am certainly glad we never had to fight them, I do wonder how their military would have performed against ours? While I was training with NATO, they certainly seemed invincible; but later on we discovered that it was pretty much all smoke and mirrors; e.g., tanks that no one had ever driven (because training was so expensive), vehicles that had no anti-freeze because it was alcohol based and the troops siphoned it off to get drunk, and the average soldier given only his great cloak and AK-47 and told to “head west.” Certainly their expertise in Afghanistan was questionable…

The US military on the other hand has always had as a fundamental cultural meme of maximum latitude all the way down to the squad level. However, this was based on the kind of recruit one could expect to serve in the US Armed Forces; men who were the product of a Christian culture and had already internalized self-restraint, self-sacrifice, personal integrity and basic honesty. However, as our nation has rejected that Christian worldview, those assumptions may no longer be valid; especially as more recruits are drawn from the “under-class” i.e., people from one-parent families, who have lived on government handouts and whose primary loyalties have been to their own comfort and pleasure.

There is no way for a young officer or a new recruit to understand and appreciate all the nuances of what we have been discussing here; which is why any good unit will have NCOs who know the system and can work the system TO GET THE JOB DONE. The bad ones are in it for their own comfort, power, pleasure and profit – and they do exist just as all the sterilization procedures in the world will not eliminate staff infections in hospitals. However, honestly, there are good officers and bad ones; and good troops and bad ones – again, as Calvinists – we EXPECT total depravity.

Wisdom is learning how the system actually works in order to do the mission while making sure that you do not sacrifice your personal integrity before God in the process. I wish I had an easy answer for how to do that – but some things take time, and wisdom to learn.

Lessons from Cromwell’s New Model Army

Armies in the 17^th century were making the transition from tiny, highly trained professional forces, with masses of largely untrained peasant levies attached for major wars to nationally mobilized militaries. Officers however were still chosen by birth and social position, rather than ability. Thus, these armies were often terribly mismanaged by incompetent men who had little control over their troops. Remember, armies have always been expensive to equip, supply and maintain – until the Industrial Revolution, most nations simply could not afford to have anything other than small ceremonial troops filled out with militias as needed.

Now add this to the cultural meme that we discussed earlier that ancient armies were paid in loot; poor peasants were often motivated to fight and die, because the survivors were given an opportunity to plunder at will. Hence, armies during the Thirty-year War in Germany literally depopulated whole segments of the countryside as they raped and pillaged.

Oliver Cromwell however was a Christian and when asked to lead Parliamentary forces against the crown, refused to allow a “Christian” Army to practice the same kinds of abominations. One of the things he did was to get rid of all the prostitutes in the baggage train, even I believe, whipping those who would not leave voluntarily. Furthermore, he began to reorganize his forces, selected officers by merit rather than social class and trained them in combined arms; creating one of the first, large professional armies since the time of the Romans.

Since Cromwell was riding on the crest of Puritan and Calvinist religious fervor, he also created one of the most moral armies of the time. And he did so by specifically applying Biblical principles to what had been until then, common military practices. As a result, the army was fitter, better trained, less afflicted with “social diseases” (which incapacitated other armies) and more effective on the battlefield.

Now granted, the English civil wars of the 17^th century proved at best inconclusive. The Presbyterians eventually backed the return of the Stewart monarchy because they were promised that Presbyterianism would be established as the state religion; and they were betrayed. Furthermore, there were various factions fighting for control, deals were made, alliances betrayed and the whole “Commonwealth” collapsed after Cromwell’s death. Clearly, we ought to learn something from their experience; a lot of good men fought and died for political issues that were often confused and convoluted; which side was “right” and which was “wrong” - even with the advantage of hindsight, can be hard to figure out.

Which brings us all the way back to our original assessment; the Christian soldier does his duty simply by being the best “warrior” he can be. When my son was in Advanced Infantry Training, he asked us to send him some reading material; anything of a non-fiction nature dealing with the military was acceptable. One of the books we rejected was written by an ROTC graduate who served in the “Sandbox” but stated in the jacked blurb something to the effect, “I was a dedicated Christian but when I went to war I had to leave my Christianity behind…”

I do not have a clue as to what kind of soldier that man was; but he exemplifies the problems of Pietism. His “faith” is no doubt sincere; but it is irrelevant to the “real” world. Therefore, without realizing it, he becomes a victim of “bad company” by drawing his morality from his environment. He reminded me of a police captain that was well known in evangelical circles thirty years ago; a popular speaker at Christian conferences and large churches. When the pro-life demonstrations first began, he directed his officers to use “torture tactics” when arresting Christian demonstrators. His argument was that he was being a good soldier, only carrying out orders – and apparently never realized that he was using the same argument that failed at Nuremburg…

Now at first, it may sound as if I am being double-minded here since I have spent so much time defending the soldier’s duty to OBEY his superiors – but submission to any human authority is never absolute; only God Himself deserves our unconditional obedience. A Christian police officer can with a clear conscience arrest a fellow Christian protestor who is breaking the law by trespassing; but the TACTICS developed for dealing with such protestors, such as using torture as a disincentive to future civil disobedience IS sin. And the police officer who does it or the police captain who orders it is developing his morality from the culture, not the Bible.

Only a full orbed, consistent and comprehensive Biblical worldview can guide us in these things; Pietism is always deficient and will always lead to compromise and accommodation to the world’s morals which inevitably incurs God’s judgment. There is a Biblical way to fight a war, to arrest a protestor, to establish national policy just as there are Biblical ways to govern a family, conduct worship or resolve interpersonal problems. As sinners, we all will fail in our duty to God and one another; but if do not even know what God requires, then we can never repent and we make bad situations worse.

Therefore, at heart the Christian soldier must have a strong moral compass, inside; to know what is right and wrong, what God requires and what He forbids. He then can apply that compass to the orders he is given – and on occasion, he may have to refuse to obey. Now, this is the exception, the rarity; however, American soldiers have been issued illegal orders in the past; and they will be issued such orders in the future. However, one man, willing to take a stand because his ultimate allegiance is to King Jesus can stop these kinds of atrocities.

However, if we do not have that strong moral compass inside, we can justify torturing Christians in the name of obeying the civil magistrate, or like Sherman, be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in his infamous march to the sea. Two of my other sons were recently debating some other Christians on an Internet message board about war and violence; one guy was arguing that since war is hell, it ought to be prosecuted as viciously as necessary to demoralize the enemy so the war will be over as quickly as possible.

First, never mind the pragmatic argument; vicious wars breed hatred for the winner that can continue for generations – in effect, all one accomplishes by this method is creating the kind of cultural animosity that leads to ethnic cleansing, pogroms and genocide when the oppressed finally get the chance to “get their own back.” Europe’s history is one long litany of warfare as one generation sought revenge for the offenses of the previous one.

However, the real issue is a moral one; God forbids deliberately targeting civilians (the case law application of Deuteronomy 20:1ff); it is His law that determines what is moral or immoral on the battlefield – not expedience, not pragmatics, not some other philosophical or moral system – but God. Therefore, while the Christian soldier is not necessarily responsible for where and when he fights, he is morally culpable for how he fights. He does not intentionally kill noncombatants, he does not murder prisoners, and he does not behead enemy wounded to save himself the cost of caring for them (as the Japanese did in WWII). Now for what it is worth, I think an argument can be made that if the enemy dresses like civilians, hides with civilians and pretends to be civilians, then when civilians are killed accidentally, the enemy bears the responsibility. Being a civilian in a war zone is a terrible thing; there is just no other way around it. I think elite hostage rescue teams actually have a saying “Being a hostage s**ks.” They have a difficult job to do, they want to hurt the bad guys and rescue the innocent; but even so, bullets have no conscience; hostages get shot by BOTH sides – and it is not the rescuer’s fault. In a perfect world, the bad guys would all wear black hats or something to identify them. But in a perfect world, all international conflicts would be resolved with Nerf guns (wait, doesn’t the US already use Nerf guns? I think they call it the M-16…).

However, what keeps the Christian soldier on the right side of morality is that inner compass; that knowledge, understanding and wisdom that only comes from the Moral Law. He should know that his duty as the “sword” of the civil magistrate requires him to be sharp, effective and discretion. All life belongs to God and can be taken only on the terms that God Himself establishes. However, on the battlefield, when it seems there is so much death and destruction, it can appear as if the lines have become blurred, that life is no longer precious and therefore, what is one more death compared to the thousands who have already died?

The Christian must never think this way; despite the confusion, anxiety, stress, frustration and even sometimes moral ambiguity, he must keep his commitment to King Jesus above all other loyalties. He serves the civil magistrate as a way of serving God. There is evil in the world; evil that must be faced and stopped. Therefore, he has an honorable calling, though a difficult and personally dangerous one.

Conclusion

Finally, Jesus told us that those who “live by the sword, die by the sword.” In context of course, it was a reminder that Peter had a higher calling than dying to protect Jesus who had already determined to sacrifice Himself for us. However, the principle applies to any soldier; the more he practices his calling, the more likely he is to die. Many US infantry units in WWII sustained 300-400% casualties from North Africa to VE day (e.g., Audy Murphy and one supply sergeant were the only two survivors of his unit when he was finally wounded in France). Being a soldier during peace time is inconvenient, uncomfortable, low-paying, and extremely difficult on one’s personal life, let alone a family. Being a soldier during war is as close as we get to hell on earth. Being a soldier in a war to advance impossible, humanistic ideological goals, risking everything God has given in this life to achieve something that cannot be done, that should not be done is, well, a terrible, horrible, waste.

But as long as there is sin in the world there will be wars; and though the historians and politicians will give us various reasons why such and such a war was a result of social, economic or ideological differences, the reality is that for us, the average person, who either serves, or sends his sons off to serve, we do not and cannot know. Some things are left in the providence of God. For what it is worth, I think that the best we can do is trust God, elect politicians who know when to fight; and try to stay out of other people’s business – all while training to be the biggest, baddest military around so that nobody wants to mess with us.

I believe a day is coming when men shall study war no more. I believe that Jesus, as the King of Kings judges all nations in time as well as eternity; and that He has promised to protect those who humble themselves before Him and seek His face. Therefore let us always seek peace, but be prepared for war. And may those wars be fought to restrict evil and pave the way for free men to live their lives responsibly before God. And let those who serve, who are willing to place themselves in front of the enemy to protect US, be honored. And let US, the civilians, elect civil magistrates who hate war and will not abuse the trust our young men have placed in them.