Get E-Mail Updates

Court-martialed for Christian Conscience

090818-travis-bishopThere are good men (and certainly at least a few women) who have been slipping through the cracks within our military. Too often service members are not made fully aware of their rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sgt. Travis Bishop, out of Ft. Hood, Texas (you can read his story here and here), came to the understanding that war went against his Christian beliefs. Tragically, he was forced to walk the lonely road of doubt and uncertainty, plagued by thoughts of betraying his convictions in order to serve our country. Without knowing it, he came to be a conscientious objector (CO).

Regardless of whether one approves of his beliefs, nobody may argue against the fact that we have been blessed (for the most part) to live in a nation that protects the interests of its minorities (or is legally obligated to, at least), including COs. Unfortunately, Bishop was not made aware of Army Regulation 600-43 or Department of Defense Directive 1300.6, both of which outline the legal process by which one may be fully recognized as an objector to war in all its forms. This is not just, and does not reflect the standard I was brought up to bear as a soldier.

Bishop was court-martialed for having gone AWOL due to his (constitutionally protected) religious beliefs. He has been sentenced to one year in the brig, a reduction in rank and pay, and given a bad conduct discharge. Again, before we jump to conclusions, I remind the reader that the church has a rich and beautiful history of soldier saints who left the front lines (like Martin of Tours at Worms in 336 C.E.), as well as patriot pacifists (such as Doss and Bennett); even military deserters (such as a certain young pope from a certain military).

Interestingly, a similar sentiment is possibly reflected in the gospels themselves. Remember Luke 3, at the river Jordan? "Some soldiers," pagans in the midst of a Jewish ritual in occupied Palestine, seek out John the Baptizer (their enemy) for advice. The fact of their relatively scattered presence must not be overlooked. The term "some" may refer to a contubernium, the smallest Roman unit of 10 soldiers. However, even by modern standards, it is highly unlikely that a group of even 10 would wander away from their forward operating base (perhaps Fort Antonia on the grounds of Herod's Temple) into extremely hostile territory to gawk at an ethnically/religiously charged ritual. You couldn't pay me enough to risk death (or discharge, for that matter) with a couple of buddies in Iraq to seek the advice of a guy who ate crickets and dressed in camel skins. Those guys were AWOL, sure as the sun they sweated under.

You can hear more of Travis' story through YouTube, where his lawyer posted videos to document his story before he was shipped off to confinement. The path of a genuinely pious patriot is always difficult, but it should never be lonely. A few friends and I work to keep this kind of thing from happening, but we failed to be able to provide care for this young man and fellow centurion. If you know of someone wrestling through their allegiances to God and Caesar, please put them in touch with us. We'll try to keep stuff like this from happening again, so that fellow airmen, marines, sailors, and soldiers know they are not alone and that other people really believe that the red letters ultimately trump the dotted line.

portrait-logan-laituriLogan Laituri is an Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is also a co-founder of Centurion's Guild.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2009 @ 3:20pm

Thank you for advocating for the full realization of this right---so we might have something worth defending.

by: SisterMarie

08-18-2009 @ 3:29pm

Sgt. Bishop obviously has not learned any of the lessons from the Ollie North fiasco:

1. You stand a better chance of going scot-free if you're a LTCOL.
2. Your chances are also enhanced if you're able to implicate your superiors (all the way up to the president).
3. When you know you're in trouble, go to the office early (or stay late) and with your secretary's help, shred all of the documents that contains evidence.
4. It helps to know who the "good guys" are. Ollie and his bosses knew that the good guys were the ayatollahs and the Iranian radicals.

by: jazzact13

08-18-2009 @ 4:35pm

Wow, there's a twist--the soldier's that visited John the Baptist were (gasp) deserters!! If that was so, funny how the Baptist didn't tell them to desert further, but to continue being soldiers and do it fairly.

Oops, should I have pointed that out? Silly me.

by: ando

08-19-2009 @ 12:20am

I recall reading a book a number of years ago by an Anabaptist man -- perhaps a Canadian Hutterite but am not positive -- about how he wrestled with his consciencer e: fighting in World War II. While Anabaptists are generally pacifists, this man wondered if it was right to send others to war while he stayed comfortably out of harm's way. If I remember corrrectly, he decided to enlist and served in a non-combative role. It would seem that the military should allow a conscience clause where people serving in our military could do so in a position of not having to carry a weapon.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-19-2009 @ 1:18am

If a person is in military they can assume a non-combatant role. The same is true if there is a draft is in effect--or possibly fulfll a form of alternative public service.

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 3:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:48am

They must have been Amish-- Mennonites allow for modern amenities.

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 1:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!

by: mackharrell

08-19-2009 @ 10:44am

The non-combatant alternative reminds me of an experience I had long ago. It was in Wisconsin south of Madison where there was a farming community of Mennonites (I think it was). We drove by a farm - they had cut the power lines leading to the main house. There was a tractor in the yard with its tires filled with cement, ... but there was a power take-off leading to the barn to run the milking machines!

Point: if all war is wrong, then so is any activity which supports the war effort. Filling a non-combatant position just means someone else will take the soldier's place where the killing and dying is done.

No, if you're going to be against war you've got to go whole hog.

Peace.

Mack Harrell

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2009 @ 3:20pm

Thank you for advocating for the full realization of this right---so we might have something worth defending.

by: SisterMarie

08-18-2009 @ 3:29pm

Sgt. Bishop obviously has not learned any of the lessons from the Ollie North fiasco:

1. You stand a better chance of going scot-free if you're a LTCOL.
2. Your chances are also enhanced if you're able to implicate your superiors (all the way up to the president).
3. When you know you're in trouble, go to the office early (or stay late) and with your secretary's help, shred all of the documents that contains evidence.
4. It helps to know who the "good guys" are. Ollie and his bosses knew that the good guys were the ayatollahs and the Iranian radicals.

by: jazzact13

08-18-2009 @ 4:35pm

Wow, there's a twist--the soldier's that visited John the Baptist were (gasp) deserters!! If that was so, funny how the Baptist didn't tell them to desert further, but to continue being soldiers and do it fairly.

Oops, should I have pointed that out? Silly me.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:23pm

The whole citizenry of the United States of America should have been Conscientious Objectors in regard to the Bush Administrations' immoral Iraq War.

Nowhere in the New Testament is a Believer in Christ Jesus told to volunteer to be in the military.

I used to be a member of Assemblies of God congregations. In fact, I was attending an AG when I got my draft notice. It is ironic that the General Council of the Assemblies of God has Chaplains on active duty in all branches of the US Military; but, if an AG member decides that he is a C.O., the AG will support his choice.

I didn't object to the Vietnam Conflict when I was assigned there for a year in the US Army. But, because I worked as a senior Clerk-Typist for Army (JAG) lawyers, I silently objected to a lot of things that was done while I was there and after I was there.

The US Military's laws sometimes contradict the laws for US citizens.

by: ando

08-19-2009 @ 12:20am

I recall reading a book a number of years ago by an Anabaptist man -- perhaps a Canadian Hutterite but am not positive -- about how he wrestled with his consciencer e: fighting in World War II. While Anabaptists are generally pacifists, this man wondered if it was right to send others to war while he stayed comfortably out of harm's way. If I remember corrrectly, he decided to enlist and served in a non-combative role. It would seem that the military should allow a conscience clause where people serving in our military could do so in a position of not having to carry a weapon.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-19-2009 @ 1:18am

If a person is in military they can assume a non-combatant role. The same is true if there is a draft is in effect--or possibly fulfll a form of alternative public service.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

One should be careful in proof-texting Scriptures to suit one's own agenda. John the Baptist's advice to the Roman Soldiers. Besides, sometimes the soldiers were the security guards for the Jewish tax collectors who were collecting for the Roman Government ruling Israel at the time.

According to the rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, George W. Bush was a deserter twice with the Air National Guard. During the year that he was supposed to be an active member of the Alabama Air National Guard, he never even showed up for monthly meetings in that state nor did he report for annual training. But, he got his personnel record "modified" when he went back to the Texas Air National Guard and supposedly made up for the missed meetings.

When Bush decided to attend Harvard Business school, he asked the TANG folks to be relieved of his commission so that he wouldn't have to attend any more meetings. His request for that was denied and he was told to join a MA Air National Guard unit when he got up to Cambridge. Well, he didn't do that either.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles...

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:48am

They must have been Amish-- Mennonites allow for modern amenities.

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 1:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!

by: mackharrell

08-19-2009 @ 10:44am

The non-combatant alternative reminds me of an experience I had long ago. It was in Wisconsin south of Madison where there was a farming community of Mennonites (I think it was). We drove by a farm - they had cut the power lines leading to the main house. There was a tractor in the yard with its tires filled with cement, ... but there was a power take-off leading to the barn to run the milking machines!

Point: if all war is wrong, then so is any activity which supports the war effort. Filling a non-combatant position just means someone else will take the soldier's place where the killing and dying is done.

No, if you're going to be against war you've got to go whole hog.

Peace.

Mack Harrell

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:23pm

The whole citizenry of the United States of America should have been Conscientious Objectors in regard to the Bush Administrations' immoral Iraq War.

Nowhere in the New Testament is a Believer in Christ Jesus told to volunteer to be in the military.

I used to be a member of Assemblies of God congregations. In fact, I was attending an AG when I got my draft notice. It is ironic that the General Council of the Assemblies of God has Chaplains on active duty in all branches of the US Military; but, if an AG member decides that he is a C.O., the AG will support his choice.

I didn't object to the Vietnam Conflict when I was assigned there for a year in the US Army. But, because I worked as a senior Clerk-Typist for Army (JAG) lawyers, I silently objected to a lot of things that was done while I was there and after I was there.

The US Military's laws sometimes contradict the laws for US citizens.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

One should be careful in proof-texting Scriptures to suit one's own agenda. John the Baptist's advice to the Roman Soldiers. Besides, sometimes the soldiers were the security guards for the Jewish tax collectors who were collecting for the Roman Government ruling Israel at the time.

According to the rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, George W. Bush was a deserter twice with the Air National Guard. During the year that he was supposed to be an active member of the Alabama Air National Guard, he never even showed up for monthly meetings in that state nor did he report for annual training. But, he got his personnel record "modified" when he went back to the Texas Air National Guard and supposedly made up for the missed meetings.

When Bush decided to attend Harvard Business school, he asked the TANG folks to be relieved of his commission so that he wouldn't have to attend any more meetings. His request for that was denied and he was told to join a MA Air National Guard unit when he got up to Cambridge. Well, he didn't do that either.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles...

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:43am

I think you had a lot of great thoughts in this article, and I appreciated it. One part I thought was off- the exegesis for arguing that the soldiers who visited John were deserters. You say "some" may represent "ten", and then say even ten is too few, and apply modern culture and your experiences to the first century. We need to be careful with this kind of approach, because it imprints our culture on the Bible too much, leading to eisigesis. We have no evidence within the text that they were deserters. It is a good point, though, that before Jesus the soldiers are called to treat people justly, just as the tax collectors were to be fair, and the crowds were to give their extra cloak. Jesus, of course, ramps all that up a notch. Give your only cloak; give more than you unfairly took as a tax collector; and put away your sword and love your enemy. The call of Christ is far higher and harder than what came before. But thank God his yoke is easy and his burden is light.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:44am

For many who are truly pacifists, though, any serving of the military would be contributing to the military's agenda- unless it was working to heal both "your side" and the enemy.

by: ando

08-21-2009 @ 12:08pm

I wonder what would have happened if the pacifists had prevailed in WWII. How would we have dealt with Hitler. And then there was Stalin...another story.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 2:03pm

I was just commenting on this topic on my Facebook page- there are different kinds of pacifism. The inferior sort doesn't involve love of your enemies. It demands that they change and end the war, but is with real hatred. We've all seen this in some marches, where the enemy is just shifted from the Afghanis to George Bush. The superior sort of pacifism puts love of the enemy- all enemies- as both the method and the end goal. I think how we would have dealt with Hitler and Stalin would really depend on which sort of pacifism was being advocated.

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:46am

Interesting that you would bring that up. The Anabaptists (Mennonites) have been very instrumental in procuring a "national service" program in lieu of military service. It was an outgrowth of (I believe) WWII when so many of them refused to be drafted. The national service program was very active during the Vietnam War. I know a number of Mennonites who worked in various locations here in the states (like teaching on Indian reservations and the like) in lieu of service in the Vietnam war. They came back much the richer for the experience.

As for the issue that Logan is bringing up, it gets really touchy in today's "all volunteer" force. Since it is "volunteer" (I use that word in a very circumscribed way, recognizing that many times it is is economic factors that compel people to "volunteer"), the services have a much harder time accepting somebody who ostensibly signed on the dotted line and then realizes that they are conscientous objectors.

I do not doubt that this guy is since in his being opposed to war. But the military makes it VERY DIFFICULT to get that status once you are in. Thankfully the mechanism does exist (if the person knows about it), but it is never easy.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:43am

I think you had a lot of great thoughts in this article, and I appreciated it. One part I thought was off- the exegesis for arguing that the soldiers who visited John were deserters. You say "some" may represent "ten", and then say even ten is too few, and apply modern culture and your experiences to the first century. We need to be careful with this kind of approach, because it imprints our culture on the Bible too much, leading to eisigesis. We have no evidence within the text that they were deserters. It is a good point, though, that before Jesus the soldiers are called to treat people justly, just as the tax collectors were to be fair, and the crowds were to give their extra cloak. Jesus, of course, ramps all that up a notch. Give your only cloak; give more than you unfairly took as a tax collector; and put away your sword and love your enemy. The call of Christ is far higher and harder than what came before. But thank God his yoke is easy and his burden is light.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:44am

For many who are truly pacifists, though, any serving of the military would be contributing to the military's agenda- unless it was working to heal both "your side" and the enemy.

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 3:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!

by: ando

08-21-2009 @ 12:08pm

I wonder what would have happened if the pacifists had prevailed in WWII. How would we have dealt with Hitler. And then there was Stalin...another story.

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:46am

Interesting that you would bring that up. The Anabaptists (Mennonites) have been very instrumental in procuring a "national service" program in lieu of military service. It was an outgrowth of (I believe) WWII when so many of them refused to be drafted. The national service program was very active during the Vietnam War. I know a number of Mennonites who worked in various locations here in the states (like teaching on Indian reservations and the like) in lieu of service in the Vietnam war. They came back much the richer for the experience.

As for the issue that Logan is bringing up, it gets really touchy in today's "all volunteer" force. Since it is "volunteer" (I use that word in a very circumscribed way, recognizing that many times it is is economic factors that compel people to "volunteer"), the services have a much harder time accepting somebody who ostensibly signed on the dotted line and then realizes that they are conscientous objectors.

I do not doubt that this guy is since in his being opposed to war. But the military makes it VERY DIFFICULT to get that status once you are in. Thankfully the mechanism does exist (if the person knows about it), but it is never easy.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 2:03pm

I was just commenting on this topic on my Facebook page- there are different kinds of pacifism. The inferior sort doesn't involve love of your enemies. It demands that they change and end the war, but is with real hatred. We've all seen this in some marches, where the enemy is just shifted from the Afghanis to George Bush. The superior sort of pacifism puts love of the enemy- all enemies- as both the method and the end goal. I think how we would have dealt with Hitler and Stalin would really depend on which sort of pacifism was being advocated.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2009 @ 3:20pm

Thank you for advocating for the full realization of this right---so we might have something worth defending.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2009 @ 3:20pm

Thank you for advocating for the full realization of this right---so we might have something worth defending.

by: SisterMarie

08-18-2009 @ 3:29pm

Sgt. Bishop obviously has not learned any of the lessons from the Ollie North fiasco:

1. You stand a better chance of going scot-free if you're a LTCOL.
2. Your chances are also enhanced if you're able to implicate your superiors (all the way up to the president).
3. When you know you're in trouble, go to the office early (or stay late) and with your secretary's help, shred all of the documents that contains evidence.
4. It helps to know who the "good guys" are. Ollie and his bosses knew that the good guys were the ayatollahs and the Iranian radicals.

by: SisterMarie

08-18-2009 @ 3:29pm

Sgt. Bishop obviously has not learned any of the lessons from the Ollie North fiasco:

1. You stand a better chance of going scot-free if you're a LTCOL.
2. Your chances are also enhanced if you're able to implicate your superiors (all the way up to the president).
3. When you know you're in trouble, go to the office early (or stay late) and with your secretary's help, shred all of the documents that contains evidence.
4. It helps to know who the "good guys" are. Ollie and his bosses knew that the good guys were the ayatollahs and the Iranian radicals.

by: jazzact13

08-18-2009 @ 4:35pm

Wow, there's a twist--the soldier's that visited John the Baptist were (gasp) deserters!! If that was so, funny how the Baptist didn't tell them to desert further, but to continue being soldiers and do it fairly.

Oops, should I have pointed that out? Silly me.

by: jazzact13

08-18-2009 @ 4:35pm

Wow, there's a twist--the soldier's that visited John the Baptist were (gasp) deserters!! If that was so, funny how the Baptist didn't tell them to desert further, but to continue being soldiers and do it fairly.

Oops, should I have pointed that out? Silly me.

by: ando

08-19-2009 @ 12:20am

I recall reading a book a number of years ago by an Anabaptist man -- perhaps a Canadian Hutterite but am not positive -- about how he wrestled with his consciencer e: fighting in World War II. While Anabaptists are generally pacifists, this man wondered if it was right to send others to war while he stayed comfortably out of harm's way. If I remember corrrectly, he decided to enlist and served in a non-combative role. It would seem that the military should allow a conscience clause where people serving in our military could do so in a position of not having to carry a weapon.

by: ando

08-19-2009 @ 12:20am

I recall reading a book a number of years ago by an Anabaptist man -- perhaps a Canadian Hutterite but am not positive -- about how he wrestled with his consciencer e: fighting in World War II. While Anabaptists are generally pacifists, this man wondered if it was right to send others to war while he stayed comfortably out of harm's way. If I remember corrrectly, he decided to enlist and served in a non-combative role. It would seem that the military should allow a conscience clause where people serving in our military could do so in a position of not having to carry a weapon.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-19-2009 @ 1:18am

If a person is in military they can assume a non-combatant role. The same is true if there is a draft is in effect--or possibly fulfll a form of alternative public service.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-19-2009 @ 1:18am

If a person is in military they can assume a non-combatant role. The same is true if there is a draft is in effect--or possibly fulfll a form of alternative public service.

by: mackharrell

08-19-2009 @ 10:44am

The non-combatant alternative reminds me of an experience I had long ago. It was in Wisconsin south of Madison where there was a farming community of Mennonites (I think it was). We drove by a farm - they had cut the power lines leading to the main house. There was a tractor in the yard with its tires filled with cement, ... but there was a power take-off leading to the barn to run the milking machines!

Point: if all war is wrong, then so is any activity which supports the war effort. Filling a non-combatant position just means someone else will take the soldier's place where the killing and dying is done.

No, if you're going to be against war you've got to go whole hog.

Peace.

Mack Harrell

by: mackharrell

08-19-2009 @ 10:44am

The non-combatant alternative reminds me of an experience I had long ago. It was in Wisconsin south of Madison where there was a farming community of Mennonites (I think it was). We drove by a farm - they had cut the power lines leading to the main house. There was a tractor in the yard with its tires filled with cement, ... but there was a power take-off leading to the barn to run the milking machines!

Point: if all war is wrong, then so is any activity which supports the war effort. Filling a non-combatant position just means someone else will take the soldier's place where the killing and dying is done.

No, if you're going to be against war you've got to go whole hog.

Peace.

Mack Harrell

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:23pm

The whole citizenry of the United States of America should have been Conscientious Objectors in regard to the Bush Administrations' immoral Iraq War.

Nowhere in the New Testament is a Believer in Christ Jesus told to volunteer to be in the military.

I used to be a member of Assemblies of God congregations. In fact, I was attending an AG when I got my draft notice. It is ironic that the General Council of the Assemblies of God has Chaplains on active duty in all branches of the US Military; but, if an AG member decides that he is a C.O., the AG will support his choice.

I didn't object to the Vietnam Conflict when I was assigned there for a year in the US Army. But, because I worked as a senior Clerk-Typist for Army (JAG) lawyers, I silently objected to a lot of things that was done while I was there and after I was there.

The US Military's laws sometimes contradict the laws for US citizens.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:23pm

The whole citizenry of the United States of America should have been Conscientious Objectors in regard to the Bush Administrations' immoral Iraq War.

Nowhere in the New Testament is a Believer in Christ Jesus told to volunteer to be in the military.

I used to be a member of Assemblies of God congregations. In fact, I was attending an AG when I got my draft notice. It is ironic that the General Council of the Assemblies of God has Chaplains on active duty in all branches of the US Military; but, if an AG member decides that he is a C.O., the AG will support his choice.

I didn't object to the Vietnam Conflict when I was assigned there for a year in the US Army. But, because I worked as a senior Clerk-Typist for Army (JAG) lawyers, I silently objected to a lot of things that was done while I was there and after I was there.

The US Military's laws sometimes contradict the laws for US citizens.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

One should be careful in proof-texting Scriptures to suit one's own agenda. John the Baptist's advice to the Roman Soldiers. Besides, sometimes the soldiers were the security guards for the Jewish tax collectors who were collecting for the Roman Government ruling Israel at the time.

According to the rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, George W. Bush was a deserter twice with the Air National Guard. During the year that he was supposed to be an active member of the Alabama Air National Guard, he never even showed up for monthly meetings in that state nor did he report for annual training. But, he got his personnel record "modified" when he went back to the Texas Air National Guard and supposedly made up for the missed meetings.

When Bush decided to attend Harvard Business school, he asked the TANG folks to be relieved of his commission so that he wouldn't have to attend any more meetings. His request for that was denied and he was told to join a MA Air National Guard unit when he got up to Cambridge. Well, he didn't do that either.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles...

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

08-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

One should be careful in proof-texting Scriptures to suit one's own agenda. John the Baptist's advice to the Roman Soldiers. Besides, sometimes the soldiers were the security guards for the Jewish tax collectors who were collecting for the Roman Government ruling Israel at the time.

According to the rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, George W. Bush was a deserter twice with the Air National Guard. During the year that he was supposed to be an active member of the Alabama Air National Guard, he never even showed up for monthly meetings in that state nor did he report for annual training. But, he got his personnel record "modified" when he went back to the Texas Air National Guard and supposedly made up for the missed meetings.

When Bush decided to attend Harvard Business school, he asked the TANG folks to be relieved of his commission so that he wouldn't have to attend any more meetings. His request for that was denied and he was told to join a MA Air National Guard unit when he got up to Cambridge. Well, he didn't do that either.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles...

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:43am

I think you had a lot of great thoughts in this article, and I appreciated it. One part I thought was off- the exegesis for arguing that the soldiers who visited John were deserters. You say "some" may represent "ten", and then say even ten is too few, and apply modern culture and your experiences to the first century. We need to be careful with this kind of approach, because it imprints our culture on the Bible too much, leading to eisigesis. We have no evidence within the text that they were deserters. It is a good point, though, that before Jesus the soldiers are called to treat people justly, just as the tax collectors were to be fair, and the crowds were to give their extra cloak. Jesus, of course, ramps all that up a notch. Give your only cloak; give more than you unfairly took as a tax collector; and put away your sword and love your enemy. The call of Christ is far higher and harder than what came before. But thank God his yoke is easy and his burden is light.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:43am

I think you had a lot of great thoughts in this article, and I appreciated it. One part I thought was off- the exegesis for arguing that the soldiers who visited John were deserters. You say "some" may represent "ten", and then say even ten is too few, and apply modern culture and your experiences to the first century. We need to be careful with this kind of approach, because it imprints our culture on the Bible too much, leading to eisigesis. We have no evidence within the text that they were deserters. It is a good point, though, that before Jesus the soldiers are called to treat people justly, just as the tax collectors were to be fair, and the crowds were to give their extra cloak. Jesus, of course, ramps all that up a notch. Give your only cloak; give more than you unfairly took as a tax collector; and put away your sword and love your enemy. The call of Christ is far higher and harder than what came before. But thank God his yoke is easy and his burden is light.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:44am

For many who are truly pacifists, though, any serving of the military would be contributing to the military's agenda- unless it was working to heal both "your side" and the enemy.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 11:44am

For many who are truly pacifists, though, any serving of the military would be contributing to the military's agenda- unless it was working to heal both "your side" and the enemy.

by: ando

08-21-2009 @ 12:08pm

I wonder what would have happened if the pacifists had prevailed in WWII. How would we have dealt with Hitler. And then there was Stalin...another story.

by: ando

08-21-2009 @ 12:08pm

I wonder what would have happened if the pacifists had prevailed in WWII. How would we have dealt with Hitler. And then there was Stalin...another story.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 2:03pm

I was just commenting on this topic on my Facebook page- there are different kinds of pacifism. The inferior sort doesn't involve love of your enemies. It demands that they change and end the war, but is with real hatred. We've all seen this in some marches, where the enemy is just shifted from the Afghanis to George Bush. The superior sort of pacifism puts love of the enemy- all enemies- as both the method and the end goal. I think how we would have dealt with Hitler and Stalin would really depend on which sort of pacifism was being advocated.

by: Palosaari

08-21-2009 @ 2:03pm

I was just commenting on this topic on my Facebook page- there are different kinds of pacifism. The inferior sort doesn't involve love of your enemies. It demands that they change and end the war, but is with real hatred. We've all seen this in some marches, where the enemy is just shifted from the Afghanis to George Bush. The superior sort of pacifism puts love of the enemy- all enemies- as both the method and the end goal. I think how we would have dealt with Hitler and Stalin would really depend on which sort of pacifism was being advocated.

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:46am

Interesting that you would bring that up. The Anabaptists (Mennonites) have been very instrumental in procuring a "national service" program in lieu of military service. It was an outgrowth of (I believe) WWII when so many of them refused to be drafted. The national service program was very active during the Vietnam War. I know a number of Mennonites who worked in various locations here in the states (like teaching on Indian reservations and the like) in lieu of service in the Vietnam war. They came back much the richer for the experience.

As for the issue that Logan is bringing up, it gets really touchy in today's "all volunteer" force. Since it is "volunteer" (I use that word in a very circumscribed way, recognizing that many times it is is economic factors that compel people to "volunteer"), the services have a much harder time accepting somebody who ostensibly signed on the dotted line and then realizes that they are conscientous objectors.

I do not doubt that this guy is since in his being opposed to war. But the military makes it VERY DIFFICULT to get that status once you are in. Thankfully the mechanism does exist (if the person knows about it), but it is never easy.

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:46am

Interesting that you would bring that up. The Anabaptists (Mennonites) have been very instrumental in procuring a "national service" program in lieu of military service. It was an outgrowth of (I believe) WWII when so many of them refused to be drafted. The national service program was very active during the Vietnam War. I know a number of Mennonites who worked in various locations here in the states (like teaching on Indian reservations and the like) in lieu of service in the Vietnam war. They came back much the richer for the experience.

As for the issue that Logan is bringing up, it gets really touchy in today's "all volunteer" force. Since it is "volunteer" (I use that word in a very circumscribed way, recognizing that many times it is is economic factors that compel people to "volunteer"), the services have a much harder time accepting somebody who ostensibly signed on the dotted line and then realizes that they are conscientous objectors.

I do not doubt that this guy is since in his being opposed to war. But the military makes it VERY DIFFICULT to get that status once you are in. Thankfully the mechanism does exist (if the person knows about it), but it is never easy.

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:48am

They must have been Amish-- Mennonites allow for modern amenities.

by: JamesM

08-27-2009 @ 11:48am

They must have been Amish-- Mennonites allow for modern amenities.

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 1:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 1:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 3:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!

by: mackharrell

08-27-2009 @ 3:56pm

Yeah, that's what they were. But the power take-off from the tractor?!!!