I am in full agreement with Elder Paulsen's message in his article entitled “Clear Thinking about Military Service” and there is nothing I would write in my comment that would detract or disagree with any of his statements. However, in keeping ever in mind the dynamics existent in the relationship between our church body and our church leaders, it is imperative to remember at all times that the words that come from our church leaders are oftentimes accepted unconditionally as the official voice of the church. Having said that, if anything is needed in our churches, perhaps even more than (not in place of) the instructions that our young people need regarding these issues, is the emphasis, and re-emphasis, if you will, of the biblical principle of grace that should be our church's first and foremost foundation. As a church, we are always quick to elaborate, in detailed outline, the moral principles to which we should adhere in most aspects of our spiritual lives, but we are deficient in applying that same practice of elaboration when it comes to teaching our church the "how to" of grace in practice. I believe it behooves our "Theologian-in-Chief" and our church leaders to emphasize and educate our church members via articles such as the one in discussion on practical ways of exercising grace. I bore witness to a young church member of impeccable moral standing, a leader in his church's youth group, placed under disciplinary action, and eventually removed from the church books, because of his choice to enlist. I am well aware that our church leaders cannot always be privy to the individual actions of our local churches, but are we willing to accept a degree of responsibility over the lack of grace and compassion because of our deficiency in guiding our members on how grace is practiced? What ARE we doing as a church for our enlisted men and women? Are we sending them care packages, are we supporting their family members as they anxiously wait day after day for the safe return of their loved ones? What is the church doing for those wounded soldiers returning to shattered lives because of the horrors associated with post traumatic stress? If the answer is little, if anything, then therein lies the loud silence of our "I told you so" mentality. Are we worried about the conflicting message that such support might imply? If we, as a church, are to teach our young people about the dangers and morally conflicting consequences of bearing arms (as we well should), then we must exercise equal time and efforts to teaching our church members practical guidelines on exercising grace. Let's not assume that the "how to" of grace in action is a given among people with "morally sound" convictions.

Lillian Rosa Correa,
member of newly established
Norway Adventist Forum

I am in full agreement with The General Conference position on non-combatancy. I was a non-combatant during WWII. While I had all the right credentials, I was still assigned to an infantry Bn. for Basic Training. It took 13 weeks to get that mess corrected. I got the most help from by Bn Commander, the post Chaplain, and the post psychiatrist. The local pastor of the SDA church was a total loss. In fact, I never met an SDA pastor, other than C. B. Haynes that was worth their salt in conflict resolution.

After two encounters, I decided to go it alone without denominational support. The pastors tried to ingratiate themselves with the army brass and let me dangle slowly slowly in the wind.

My point is, if the G.C. takes a non-combatant position they had been see that their ordained ministers are not only with the program but are trained on how to counsel both the recruit and the brass. The old adage applies: Lead, follow or get @#$%&* out of the way. Tom

Can we "widen" the question/concept a little? Can an SDA or other Christian be a police officer? The difference?

pat

Good question, Pat. Do the security guards at GC carry guns? What about at Adventist hospitals, especially in big cities?

I am certainly not an authority on this, but my Sabbath School Teacher made the comment that the Bible distinguishes between murder (cold intentional killing) and killing for purposes of war. Has anyone else talked about this or made this intepretation? if this were a logical argument, than would killing in war be acceptable, as well as using weapons for security?

Augustine made quite a statement on justified and non-justified war. His arguments you could drive a truck through.

The Bible is also full of statements that vengence is "Mine".

The Flood, Sodom, The First Born, The Red Sea. The promise to use hornets to drive out the tribes of caananites etc.

Man has been too willing to do God's work and not willing to do his own!

I think the G.C. came down on the right side of the war issue.
Tom

Many Christians of other stripes also believe that the OT provides the basis for 'just war.'

How do we as Christians, relate to OT passages that describe believers engaged in warfare, and to OT figures directing and engaged in warfare themselves. I know the arguments of theocracy, and the typological implications of such.

But, the plain literal fact is that in the flow of revalation history, God countenanced and made provisions for literal warfare. Should Christians always ignore the literalness of this today?

How about Christians in good consciense fighting against the Nazis? How about Bonhoffer throwing his influence behind the plot to kill Hitler; to paraphrase,"If a madman is driving a car down the street killing people, it is my moral duty to get him out of the car." His actions were based on his faith.

Is it possible for Adventism to recognize varying convictions on this issue within our own ranks? Is there ever "a time to kill and a time to heal?"

Frank

Tom, Joann, and HC,

Joann, you are correct that OT law says thou shall not murder(raw-tsakh). This was to do with personal murder and man slaughter. Killing in war (mooth) was not considered scriptural "murder" in the OT economy as one was considered "to be worthy of death" in certain situations.

What I am trying to determine by "a policy" is it being suggested that a Christian should not have a weapon and use it for the protection of society even under the situation of local government...or is it only if there is national conflict? Was Bonhoeffer wrong to attempt to assasinate Hitler? Was it a moral act to carry arms and help obtain, even as a side issue, Jews release from concentration camps?

These are some of my questions in the difficult "civil area." It is not a "blanket endorsement" of killing for national purposes...or even unjust or "unequal" law enforcement at a local level. Is there a sense in which the church can overplay a "pacifist" role and limit civil authorities proper role as "bearing the sword" in "separation of church and state"?

pat

PS. Is this the Joann from PTC, Ga...If so sorry about the death of Gene. My regards to you and your family.

Frank, sorry about the repetitions of your post...I was typing while you must have been submiting!

Of course this is a very complex issue. One small part of it that bothers me about the military is that, when you enlist, you really have no say over who, what, where, when, or how you will fight. You are not allowed to decide if the war is just, you don't get to pick and choose who you will kill, and it can be extremely difficult to know what are just and unjust orders, especially in the heat of combat. If you are ordered to drop that bomb even though you know there are children in the house, you do it or you are in big trouble. The military can't function with a bunch of enlisted lay theologians weighing the morality of each action. You have to turn over an enormous amount of personal responsibility to an authority that is morally nebulous. That is one difference I see between the military and a civilian job like a police officer.

That is a good point Beth but I am wondering if the church has any policy that says it is ok/or not to be a police officer and bear weapons or are there no conditions in which that is acceptable for an SDA?

I would like to "widen" the question a bit further.

Is it OK or not for a SDA to use deadly force if my wife and or children are being attacked in a home invasion?

If my neighbor or his wife/children are being attacked?

Jesus said He came to show us what the Father is really like. Is it possible that the belief of the OT Jews that God commanded them to wage war was a misapprehension - an attributing to God of their own warlike plans? How can we reconcile the idea of a God who ordered the killing of innocent women and children, with Jesus' teaching about peace-making? Is truth progressive? Has God changed, or has our understanding of Him changed?

Many of the classic arguments against the position that Adventists have historically taken have been posted here. Although the GC president has reaffirmed the teaching of the church relative to military service, he has also made it clear that individual judgment must be used ... and that is the best answer to many of the questions about law enforcement, etc.

At the same time, let's not miss the forest because we are examing the trees. Bottom line, God has the right to take life; He is the, after all, the author of life. The OT situations in which God ordered His people to destroy oppressors in some situations do not exist today. God has not appeared to His people nor spoken through a prophet to give us instructions to kill. In fact, it is clear that with the NT testament change in God's strategy toward the population of the planet, participation in killing was no longer going to be possible. If God's people are spread in all nations around the globe, how do we decide which side God is on in any war? ... or in any judicial proceeding?

If a person is serious about following Jesus, it means laying down arms just as surely as it means putting aside other things that Christ does not approve of. You can make exceptions and bring up questions all day long, but that does not change the fact that Jesus wants His followers to "turn the other cheek" ... "go the second mile" ... "forgive seventy times seven" ... "pray for your enemies" and accept all humanity as your neighbor. I think this issue more than most separates those who are serious Jesus-followers from those want God to simply bless what the world has taught them and make no demands for change in their lives.

In recent decades the Adventist Church has compromised on its historic stand on military service. The result is that at least 7,500 of our young people in this country are currently serving in a volunteer military, many of them engaged in a war that the majority of Americans believe is unnecessary. I applaud Dr. Paulsen for taking the right stand on this issue and reaffirming that which Adventist faith has always stood for. We need more courageous leadership on similar issues, such as "Our Duty to the Poor," which used to be one of our basic doctrines. (Look it up in any copy of "Bible Readings for the Home" published prior to the 1922 GC Session.)

Perhaps it is helpful to recognize OT Israel was "a country" with church and state combined as a theocracy.

We presently live in the "time of the gentiles." There is not an obvious theocracy anymore but The NT says in this present age civil authorities (kingdom of this world) have a legitimate purpose to bear the sword to suppress evil. By creating order the state indirectly helps promote the building of the "kingdom of God."

Chuck, I believe I have the right to exert the same type of force that the civil authorites would if they were present to protect my family. Likewise if we can have good SDA congressman we can have good SDA policeman.

Carrol, We are told in scripture (If we are to accept it is true) that God directed the death of Israel's enemies at times. In the "time of the gentiles" perhaps it is a bit more dicey as to a specific people and cause of acheiving His covenant promises as in the OT but he does agree in the use of force to supress evil I believe (Rom.13). Has God's Character changed? No. Have the circumstances of the theocracy changed? yes. Has our understanding of Him changed? In ways...but he is not against civil violence to destroy evil doers...his personal later vengence is merely delayed and He will repay and I believe righteous causes for violance still exist as the liberation of the Jews from the holocaust being but one example.

I believe we at times "neuter" God and place Him in a box that is of our own making... a box that will not hold Him.

The priciples needed for directing a nation and civil order are not pre-empted by the personal attitudes we desire to acheive, in as much as possible if left to us, by the sermon on the mount.

That's my dollars worth...a dime in 1900 dollars.

pat

Pat

The best story I've heard on this subject is the Quaker farmer who surpirsed a burgler in his house at night. The farmer had a shot gun at the ready. He said: "I am going to shoot right where thou ar't standing in exactly 10 seconds. I suggest thou be gone before that happens. Tom

Tom,

That is good unless he is going to shoot or rape my wife in 2.

pat

Pat

I don't own or carry a gun. I have a security system and I plan my outings with care. I also pray a lot. I don't think owning a gun would be much comfort. We once lived on a three acre wooded lot. Jet, or Lab cornered a 4 foot rattler in our car port. Betty spotted the situation and called me. I had a bush ax handy and dispatched the snake with one blow--cuting the coiled snake in four pieces.

I later bought a 4-10 single shot shot gun and took Betty out to the driveway and set up a corn flakes box about 20 feet away. I blew the box into shreds. I then set up another box for Betty. I forgot to tell her to keep her finger off of the tigger until she brought the gun into a locked position. Well she shot a six inch round hole in the cement drive about 1.5 inches deep. I cleaned the gun and returned in to Sears.
We have lived happily for 37 years in a wooded lot without a gun. My three children disagree with me. They all are very skilled in fire arms. I may die of a gun shot wound or my wife may be attack. But as of now we rely on passive security systems. I have no advice for any other family. I do have advice for young men and women considering the armed services. Don't accept a combat role. You can serve your country very well without killing another human being. I was under direct fire many times. I never fired back. I saved a lot of lives. I am proud of my service and my three assualt landings. It takes a lot of faith and courage to wade ashore in the face of enemy fire. The Lord did watch over me. I am the only one of our six man tent that didn't come home wounded or injured. Thank God none were killed. Tom

Monte,

Jesus' ethical demands of turning the other cheek, going the second mile, etc., were spoken to an audience that would have loved nothing better then to exact God's vengeance on the Romans themselves. I see Jesus using figurative language as a call to not seek revenge, but to bring blessing.

I understand the difficulty of reconciling this with participation in combat, especially with God's people spread all over the globe in every nation, etc. However, I wonder how far we are to press the issue in using this to separate between "serious Jesus' followers and those who want God to simply bless what the world has taught them."

Taking Jesus' words absolutely literally would mean we are never to put up boundaries or say no towards abusive behavior, never try to get away from abusers, never engage in any form of self defense, and never use force to defend the defenseless. Is this God's will? Is it his will, as Pat addressed, that we should idly watch an intruder rape and kill our wives and families in the name of turning the other cheek? Would this be the Christian course in this type of situation? Or would we follow the example that holds out God as the defender of the helpless?

I think this issue, as you stated, does separates true followers from the rest, but that also, as EGW once said, "circumstances changes the relationship of things." IOW...context matters...in discerning both the biblical meaning and application of texts.

Frank

BTW,

I do not own firearms either...nor do I plan to.

Thanks...

Frank

Tom,

I want to thank you for your service to your county. It is because of men and women like you that were willing to serve that I can live in this land of freedom.

Also, I would like to ask if you were to observe my wife or my neighbors wife about to be shot or raped what would you do?

I don't have any firearms either. (except for an old 22 that belonged to my father and great uncle for which I have no bullets)

Pat,

I have more questions than answers.

If we can have good SDA policemen would we expect them not to work on Sabbath? Would we expect the "gentiles" to be our
policemen on Sabbath?

Can I be a good SDA policeman in Bagdad?
Can/should I defend my neighbor in Bagdad who is a SDA from a terrorist?
Can/should I defend my neighbor in Bagdad who is a Muslim from a terrorist?

Chuck

Hi Tom and others,

I would not advise a person that they should have a gun. Neither would I tell them it was morally wrong to have one and protect oneself and family if possible and needful...which you haven't either.I am also glad you have never needed a firearm and pray I never need to use one.

If I were writing a church policy I would say that, "SDA's value the ability of the individual to follow one's conscience in military combat affairs as well as other religious liberty issues. While all SDA's and other Christians may not choose to be a CO, we choose to advocate for those whose conscience would be violated by combat positions."

Chuck, my understanding of your questions...

If it is appropriate for Physicians and nurses, I believe it is appropriate for other "public service" servants to work on Sabbath. Crime, Fire and disease don't know days. I believe they often can have accomodative shifts as policeman and fireman.Do we have "campus police" at our schools and hospitals? When "needful" to work in these 24/7 jobs, I try to remember that We worship the "Lord of the Sabbath" and not the day.

I say yes to the last 3 questions.

Why in difficult areas "not explicit" in scripture are we not able to say that some things are best left to the individuals conscience and we should value those conscientious choices? I say there is wisdom and virtue in not painting oneself into a needless corner.

Pat

Pat,

I so agree. We seem to have an institutional aversion to Romans 14, "let every person be convinced in their own mind." We want to have a directive spelled out for every life situation dictated from the top.

Definitely leads to "painting ourselves into corners."

Frank

I worry that the hypothetical situations regarding the imminent murder and/or rape of a loved one are the adult version of adolescent male 'hero' fantasies. We need to inject a little reality before considering them as an argument for carrying firearms.

These arguments assume that the rescuer has a firearm handy. They assume that he (in the argument it's always a "he") has the ability to 'out draw' the assailant. They assume that the rescuer has the equivalent of SWAT training to be able to make the shot without harming the victim or giving the assailant time to harm the victim. And finally, they assume that these type of situation occur frequently enough that they are a real concern to us.

Thankfully, the civil authorities do not bear the sword in vain, so that we don't have to go around trained and armed to the hilt fighting Hobbes' war of all against all. Can a 'good Christian' (let alone Adventist) bear that sword? I think that if doing so would not compel her to act unjustly the answer is yes. But 'can' does not imply 'ought', and 'ought' does not 'imply' should. I believe that as Christians we have bigger and more important spiritual battles to fight.

I should have written:

"...put her under obligation to act unjustly..."

One of my biggest objections to enlistment in most armies is that you are legally obligated to participate in aggressive war if the state declares it. (Japan's "self-defense forces" might be the exception here.)

Hi David,

As previously said I also think it is ok for a SDA to be a policeman. I don't think one should feel "that he must" or "should not use force" and be a better or lesser Christian in situations calling for legitimate force.

Neither do I think a Christian (outside of police etc.) need walk around with a 45 etc. buckled up...that is an "overstatement" of the position of weather it is morally ok to protect oneself and family if the situation arises and one can possibly do so.

We live in an evil and violent world and at times it is preserving justice to respond accordingly. If one feels that they shouldn't then that's ok and I believe those individuals should be thankful others conscience allows it and offers them protection when done appropriately. This offers them the setting to get about their other more important spiritual battles and the building of the "kingdom of God."

pat

In reading over this, I find it interesting to note the use of gendered language here. Pat talks about us sometimes "neutering" God when we we start to talk of non-combatancy, and over and over the question of what-to-do-if-my-wife were getting killed or raped came up. Why is it that we're more comfortable with the image of a very assertive, masculine God from the OT and tend to explain away Jesus' nonviolent civil disobedience (clearly more feminine) in the NT? If Jesus is our closest example to show God's character here on earth, then there's little room for "what-if my life were in danger" scenario hypotheticals--he clearly demonstrated his response, and I think we'd all agree that in not taking up arms, he changed the world.

Daneen,

Again an example of "overstating" my point and "transference" of the issue over "my gender language." I simply ask, "is it a moral response to protect your family male or female with violence if indicated and possible?" Yes or No

In the world today some would say no it is not moral to act in self defence with violence. Also some would say the death penalty is non-Christian.

What is your yes or no in non gender language?

pat

These questions are more complex than demands for "yes" or "no" answers, Pat, and I think that's probably what I appreciate most about Paulsen's statement. As I've never been in a situation to have to contemplate lethal force, I'm not sure I can unequivocally answer this. If I ever did find myself in such a situation, I am confident that there is no easy answer and no action that wouldn't leave me doubting and questioning myself later, so I will hope I never am faced with this. However, that's a far different question than whether I would agree to carry arms in my country's military. As Beth points out, that decision tends to mean that we're forfeiting our right to moral considerations in the future.

Daneen,

I really appreciate the candor and realism of your view and response.

Thanks...

Frank

Hi Daneen,

Friday on the Amish strand you said this, "Pat--You ask if you are "better" than God and cite a verse about God's forgiveness, not ours, 1 John 1:9 (If we are faithful and confess our sins, He, that is God, will forgive us).
It's rather tricky ground to ever start comparing ourselves to God, don't you think?"

Jesus was God and it is also "rather tricky" comparing ourselves with Him. I have never been able to walk through an angry mob "unseen" and escape.

You also say, "If Jesus is our closest example to show God's character here on earth, then there's little room for "what-if my life were in danger" scenario hypotheticals--he clearly demonstrated his response, and I think we'd all agree that in not taking up arms, he changed the world."

These are not hypotheticals for Christians... I would suggest they occur daily in the world.

Would you say also then that "His example" for "Christians" is not getting involved in politics? His "non-violence" was due to "my kingdom is not of this world."...if it were my servants would fight.We are not to use the "sword" to promote His Kingdom...nor the state to promote it either I would suggest.

There is another NT picture of Christ at His coming in Rev.19:11-16. Is that the "Feminine Jesus of the NT?"

pat

Pat, comparing ourselves to God and trying to follow Jesus' example seem quite different to me. That said, I don't want to get into a personal tête-à-tête--I don't think that's helpful for the conversation as a whole. I'm also quite cognizant of the fact that many more people read the website (thousands more) than comment, and seeing the same names over and over doesn't encourage others to dip their toes in.

First, from Jihad to the Crusades to the Spanish-American War to The Lord's Resistance Army to the Adventists who killed other Adventists in the Rwandan genocide, martial justification often comes couched in the rhetoric of self-defense. Making some case for war as policing only goes a little way to help us think about non-violence as a conflict resolution solution.

Furthermore, if one really thinks that the metaphor of Jesus dripping blood, riding a white horse, with a sharp sword protruding out of his mouth is a literal example of how Christians should handle international conflict, one might want to read more perspectives on apocalyptic literature. I recommend Howard-Brook, Wes; Gwyther, Anthony (1999). Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now.

Finally, in action theories there is a big difference between defending ones family and thinking strategically about how a follower of Christ navigates the morality of the market's drive of international violence. To anyone who pays attention to the issues, there is no doubt that the self-defense justification for the invasion of Iraq was inflated. Perhaps a good question to ask is: for folks who like to use the metaphor of policing for internal conflict, beyond the datedness of just war theory, I'd like to see some actual parameters that they use (beyond ideological allegiance) in determining when they see Jesus killing today.

This is off topic but it is about writing to the President of the General Conference. Months ago, I wrote a letter to the President, in which I offered an alternative reading of Rev. 14: 6-. Today I recieved a letter from a staffer from his office which read in part: "Thank you for recently writing the President of the General Conference on your support of the Three Angels Messages." So Raymond et al good luck! Tom

The Sabbath, The End Time, Sex, and Guns don't bother.

Alex,

If you are referring to my post,you seem to have completely missed my point and reframed it to a "Christian" legitimized invasion of Iraq.

Tom,
Thanks for passing on the profound acuity in which they grasped and answered your question on 14:6-8.

It was a chuckle!

Hi Pat,

Sorry, I'm not the one you're thinking of. I am in Orlando, Florida. My kind thoughts and prayers to the family you mentioned.

In response to Carol Grady:
Has God changed, or has our understanding of Him changed?

I think that God hasn't changed, but he has changed the way in which he speaks to us. Back in "OT bible times", God spoke to people and struck them down if they sinned because that's what they understood and expected. Our relationship with God has progressed (hopefully) from God the authority to God the Savior, and I dare say a lot of our spiritual issues stem from focusing too much on what we can gain from our "Savior"...

Back to the topic...God was a commander, now he's little more than a physical trainer to some. God speaks to us in the way we relate to him.

i believe that God does not condemn joining the armed forces or serving the police force, but does not condone selfish or inhumane motives for doing so. I believe we can still have a relationship with God if we are not numbed to death, killing or desensitized to inhumane torture. That's where it is even more crucial that you relate to God no matter wher you are or what you are asked to do. It's just not for everyone-not everyone can be that spiritually strong or spiritually dependent.

Maybe that's why Jan Paulsen thinks you are putting your spirituality in jeopardy if you are not spiritually connected?

The argument that God was blood thristy in the O.T. and
a baby loving carpenter in the N.T. Just doesn't wash. Please read Den. 7:20; Jos. 24:12; Ex.24:12.

God's intent was, as with the flood, with Sodom, with the Passover Angel, and with the Red Sea. He, God, would be the advenger. It was only the strong will of his unbelieving people that He said: "Alright, if you insist, then you must kill men, women, children, and livestock. God's desire was to have them recoil from such a brutal act as to demure and ask God to act directly.

Today we are seeing in the Middle East the same mind set--kill the Satanic ones--all!

The Book of Revelation is quite clear that God alone will
finally and completely cleanse the Earth without the help of His people. God is the solution to the sin problem--not man. Tom

The arguments that God really was always acting consistent to a loving character in the OT remind me of a discussion put forth by an atheist friend.

Atheist to Christian: So tell me about God.
Christian: Well God is a square.
A: OK so God has four equal sides and 4 right angles.
C: Yes exactly.
A: Great I'm glad we can understand each other.
C: Yes, except sometimes God has three sides and three angles.
A: Oh so God is also sometimes a triangle.
C: No, God is always a square even when he has three sides. See God is special so God is always a square even when he is being a triangle.
A: Okaaay. So never mind about describing God.

I point out this argument not to say that we should be able to capture God in language but that we can make language totally meaningless by trying to reconcile how God is portrayed in the Bible.

Don't try to put God in a box is a great idea. So is trying to make two God's one old and one new.

"Presume not god to scan, the proper study of mankind is man."

War is not an invention of God. It is a tool of man. President Jan Paulsen, a man, is correct in advising against taking up arms against a brother. Tom

When the Bible is quoted as giving an accurate picture of God, we should always ask: Is that truly God, or is it merely man's description of God's actions as he perceived them? Shouldn't we acknowledge that all the many ways God is described biblically reflects on the writer rather than God?

I was very glad to see Elder Paulsen's article in the Review. Currently, the church is primarily interested in finding Sabbath accommodation for those in the military, but there is not as much emphasis on non-combatancy. This is fine because we have a volunteer army, but if there is a draft, those who have scruples against carrying weapons in war might not find as much support as they would have had during past conflicts.

During times of war, when a draft is instituted, many people suddenly decide that non-combatant roles will be safer for them, and they claim to be conscientious objectors. Because of this, their sincerity is called into immediate question. To counter this, a conscientious objector registry should be created so that young men in the U.S. who are required to join the Selective Service at age 18, can submit a signed affidavit, statement of belief in principles of non-violence and non-combatancy, pastor's letter, or other evidence to demonstrate their sincerity. Obviously, this will not be a complete solution for non-combatants, but it will provide a very significant factor that these people believe strongly in non-violence and that they have held these beliefs for a long time.

I think the General Conference or the North American Division might be a good place to keep these documents, or at least house it at one or more colleges. These archives may seem irrelevant and unnecessary in times of peace, and indeed may never need to be used. But in the event that there is forced conscription, they would come in very handy, and might save some of our people from being put in a position of either having to kill or be punished by the military.

That's a great idea, Michael. My uncle was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He is no longer living, but listening to my grandparents this past Christmas tell the story of how he outlined his non-combatancy status to the local draft board was inspiring. He found his life calling (social work) through his alternative assignment.

Besides helping potential draftees defend their non-combatancy status, I think an archive like this would help start conversations like this in high schools and colleges. The self-reflection that would come out of such a process would be very valuable.

On this point, Elder Paulsen and I agree. His leadership on this may not be popular with some members but it is in harmony with our collective values and beliefs as a worldwide church.

President Paulsen chooses to lead on this important, at times divisive, issue and has shown willingness to dialogue with our worldwide membership.

Southern Adventist University's chapter of Adventist Peace Fellowship is participating in a peace rally this Sabbath in downtown Chattanooga with a larger group of peace advocates.

One final comment on President Paulsen's article, I would only implore him to lead our church to an approach with the issue of Homosexuality and Christian Community that understands the sensitivity and importance of the matter.

Great letter Michael. As a young Adventist, I really appreciate seeing my leaders in law and church administration speaking up on contemporary issues and proposing interesting, life-sustaining solutions.

Please help me understand...I thought military service in the US was voluntary. Am I wrong?

Regards,

Pat

Pat, are you writing that after reading the following language in the previous comments?

"This is fine because we have a volunteer army, but if there is a draft,. . ."

"potential draftees"

My Mistake...but "if" is unlikely.

Those who signed up in my opinion don't have much of an argument unless they have something that says they will be in a non combat role and they were promised equal rights "Sabbaths off just as others are promised Sundays off."

To claim rights after the fact may be somewhat "lame."

pat

Elaine

Of course, the Bible relates how people have viewed God. God also sent His Son to correct a lot of those misconceptions. Recall the Sons of Thunder wanting to call down divine retribution on those that rejected Jesus. That was a typical Old Testament misconception. I chose to be a non-combatant because of the view the SDA church and my parents gave me of God's view of men as brothers. I have been verbally combative ever since when ever I see or hear of those who would distort the Jesus of the New Testament.

Raymond, I would like to know your take on slavery. There is far more "Scripture" in favor of slaves than of homosexuals.
Where should Dr. Jan Paulsen stand on that issue?

Of course, my issue is where is Jesus now? Can there be any place more holy that the place that God is? Didn't he get to Heaven 40 days after the resurrection? What made His space more holy on Oct. 22, 1844? That is the vexing question of the church Dr. Paulsen has administrative charge.

To change the subject: How many have read Chris Hedges' books: American Fascists and I Don't Believe in Atheists?

If his books were reviewed on this Web Site I missed it.

He is a very lively skeptic who takes on fundamentalists, both Christian and Social Darwinians. He writes very well but has a very dark veiw of the future. Tom

The Solomon Amendment, for higher education institutions, indicates that they are not allowed to have any policies that bars attendance of ROTC and must provide student information upon request for recruting to ROTC, military etc. Religious institutions are not bound by this, however, but it makes me wonder about college/university students who are attending non-adventist or non-denominational institutions. They can, by law, be recruited.

Joann

Recruitment means to offer opportunity to join. There is no draft. One cannot be "forced" to join an ROTC unit regardless of what institution a student is enrolled in: excepting of course, the military academies. Entry into a military academy is by the dual process of application and election. So it also is voluntary.

If there were a draft on or before 9/11, The U.S. involvement in Iraq would never have happened. Tom

For those who might be interested, I wrote an article in response to a sermon of Dr. Paulsen’s I heard in Loma Linda in 2003. The article was printed in Adventist Today, and can be read here: http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2003/03/war-sometimes-moral

Dr. Paulsen’s kind response can be read here: http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2003/03/letter-dr-paulsen

It was interesting to me that at the time of our exchange Dr. Paulsen countenanced the efforts of the Allied forces in Afghanistan. This raises the question of whether he stands fully behind the traditional SDA belief on war, as he appears to do in this most recent article, or whether he sees there can be exceptions to it. (We’ll leave aside for now the question of what his position would be on the war in Afghanistan today.)

Good topic for discussion! Thank you for letting me jump in. As you can probably tell, I am not of the political persuasion toward which it seems most of you in this forum generally lean. But I always enjoy hearing and reading other views.