State issues...
The state of things...
Terry Dashner (www.ffcba.com)
Being of middle class America I, along with many other
"baby-boomers" of WWII, know what it is like to register for
compulsory military service; however, the difference between
registering today and registering 33 years ago is this. There is
no military draft today.
Just before I enlisted for service in March of 1973, America and
North Viet Nam had just declared a cease-fire that month, and
the war was no more. (However, the war crept along and did not
officially end for another two years.) For the next couple of
years I served alongside many Navy corpsmen, nurses, and doctors
who were draftees and wanted, above all things, to finish their
time in grade and just go home.
The draftees' attitudes toward the war were pretty sour. And if
you ask me what I think about a military draft for today, I
would reflect on my experiences of 30 years ago. My opinion
about drafting young men into harm's way is tainted, to say the
least, because a "compulsory" soldier, sailor, airman, or marine
does not have a heart and mind to serve. This is imperative for
military personnel--to serve with heart and soul.
I also think about the shortcomings of a military draft which
excludes those who have "religious convictions" against going to
war for their nation. If you can't take up arms because of your
religion, why can't you just serve those who do fight? One of
the Congressional Medal of Honor recipients of the Second World
War, army medic Desmond Doss, was a conscientious objector.
Although he would not take up arms against another human being,
he served in combat with only a medical pack and no weapons.
That's real conviction and real courage.
If passivism and objection to war is your belief, I commend you
for your convictions; however according to history, one of two
things happens to a person who will not take up arms against an
enemy of the state--slavery or death. If you object to war and
are willing to be enslaved or die as a martyr, go for it. I
would rather serve for freedom's sake. I am told that
Hollywood's Harrison Ford and Richard Dreyfuss were both spared
from going to Viet Nam because they objected on religious
grounds. Again, I have no qualms with a man's religious beliefs
against war; however, Mr. Harrison has done pretty well since,
doing action scenes in film and playing the role of a
paramilitary warrior, blazing guns and spilling blood. Could
that be a double standard?
Nevertheless, with all do respect to my generation who objects
to war, I'm coming to understand with you the difficulty of
harmonizing religious convictions with the state. Having studied
history for the last 25 years, I'm especially challenged when
studying the history of the church and its relationship to the
state from its inception to modern day. For example, it took the
church some three hundred years with the closing of the
Apostolic age to the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century to
hammer out an official statement about the nature of Jesus--was
he just a man or the God-man? And as that was being worked out,
something else was going on in the fourth century as well. It
was the relationship of the Roman Emperor and the Bishops of the
church. In his book entitled, Turning Points Decisive Moments in
the History of Christianity (Baker Book House Co. 2000, p. 59.),
Mark Noll writes, "The larger question posed by
imperial-ecclesiastical connections was new because of the
dramatic conversion of Constantine and the empire's turn to
toleration, and then support, of Christianity. The basic
question was this: given the fact that the emperors would now,
in some fashion or other, support the church, where did the
emperors fit in relationship to the church? Although this
question was not quite as momentous as the issue of Christ's
divinity, it was a question of great contemporary significance
and also one that would continue to be of central importance in
Christian history for more than a thousand years thereafter. (In
some sense, it is a question that continues to be important
wherever, in the modern world, rulers of the state are also
professing Christians.)"
It was eventually decided that the authority of the bishops must
be coequal to the authority of the empire, with the implication
that the bishops were properly the chief authorities in matters
concerning the life of faith, while the emperor was supreme in
affairs of the world. According to Noll, "As a consequence, when
the emperor was in the church as a Christian, the emperor was
under the authority of the bishops, since in the church the
bishops spoke for Christ, who was God."
In short, as the church grew in power, especially in the West,
the words of Jesus that spoke of rendering to Caesar that which
belonged to Caesar and rendering to God what is His became an
axiom to saint and sinner alike. God's will is the highest
law--above man's law and politics--but God has also ordained
human government to keep law and order among all men (sinner and
saint alike). Human government was not made by God to usurp
authority above God's but, on the other hand, the church--as
fragmented as it is as Catholic and Protestant--is not capable
of being anything but "the church" in society. Government needs
the help of God Almighty and His Church, and the church needs
the help of a godly government to provide liberty, justice, and
equality to its flock. And sometimes I, a church member, may be
called upon to help my government assure these liberties by
serving in its institutions of law, corrections, or military. As
a Christian, I willingly serve all men.
Keep the faith. Stay the course America. Jesus is coming again.
To serve is still honorable.
Pastor T.