Muslims in the Military – A Case of Envy

I envy the distrust that Muslims in America face.  There are loud voices claiming that they can’t be counted on to be totally dependable citizens.  In particular, we are being told that Muslims can’t be trusted to serve in the armed forces. On Veterans Day Tennessee State Representative and outspoken anti-Shariah advocate Rick Womick was very clear: “Personally, I don’t trust one Muslim in our military.”  When asked whether he believes they should be forced out, he answered unambiguously, “Absolutely, yeah!”  I wish that kind of concern was being expressed about Christians.

Largely, I find Womick’s fears about Muslims to be ridiculous and baseless.  He and others in the anti-Shariah law movement oppose a non-existent threat, given the absence of a single move to institute this Muslim code anywhere in the U.S.  In fact there has not been so much as a serious discussion among Muslim leaders about even making an attempt to do so.  But none of this has stopped Womick and those who share his views from depicting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom in our time.  The entire issue is a fabrication apparently devised by alarmists who seek to keep Muslims on the margins of American society by heightening suspicions of them.

In a statement of full-bore fear-mongering, Womick declared, “[I]f they truly are a devout Muslim, and follow the Quran and the Sunnah, then I feel threatened because they’re commanded to kill me.” [sic] He and his fellow travelers can be counted on to give a fair and informed interpretation of Muslim scripture just about to the same degree that a leader of Al-Qaeda can be counted on for a credible interpretation of the Gospels, which is to say, not at all.  But what is striking in his words is the assumption that Muslims will follow the logic of their faith where ever it leads regardless of the costs and American interests will not be given priority.

Why don’t Christians generate that kind of concern?

I am envious because the anti-Shariah law clan believes Muslims are likely to take the teachings of Mohammed seriously enough that it will get in the way of their military service.  But apparently Christians can be trusted because they can be counted on to come up with reasons to ignore Jesus.  Ultimately, they will do their duty to the state unhampered by the words and teachings of Christ.  Christians can be trusted to wear the name of Christ without actually being like him.  This is the kind of religion that works well in the military, quite in contrast to what Womick takes to be the posture of a serious Muslim.

Because of their vociferous critics, Muslims in America are reminded that they are outsiders.  They can’t easily believe that they comfortably belong in the mainstream of society.  The suspicion of others reminds them of their distinctive identity.  Christians aren’t confronted with that sort of reminder because they aren’t viewed as being distinctive, at least not in any way that is seen as important.  So there is no one suggesting that Christians shouldn’t be welcome in the military.  No one suspects they will be resistant to learning how to kill well or be reluctant to kill who they are told to kill, even other Christians, if so commanded.

I can’t help but wonder how people would react if Christians were Christian first of all. For instance, what would happen if Christian soldiers took the idea of “just war” seriously?  Sure, officers learn of the “just war” tradition as part of their training.  But what if they understood that what “just war” is should not just be relegated to politicians alone to decide.  The church has something to say about it.  How well would Christians in the military be trusted if they got together to discuss whether the cause of a war was truly just or whether it was, indeed, a last resort or whether discrimination / non-combatant immunity was likely to be respected in a given operation, regardless of what they were being told by political or military leaders? If the “just war” tradition truly guided Christians, it could not be taken for granted that Christian soldiers would automatically take to the battlefield just because they were told by the President and their superior officers to do so.

What would happen if Christians in the military prayed in a way that was as striking as Muslims pray?  What would happen if Christian soldiers got together and prayed like Jesus taught?  Not the God-Bless-America sorts of prayers.  Not the protect-us-and-help-us-be-successful prayers.  Rather what if Christian soldiers prayed for their enemies and asked that God bless them?  What if they prayed to see all people as God sees them and prayed for the strength and wisdom to behave accordingly?  Would the military really want men and women in their ranks who are at risk of actually believing that the enemy’s life is every bit as precious as that of other Americans or even that of fellow soldiers? Just how dependable is a soldier who allows his or her faith to exert such life-shaping influence?

But no one seems to worry about these sorts of questions.  While there is fear in some quarters that Muslims might be too independent, too influenced by their faith to be fit for the armed forces, Christians don’t evoke that kind of concern.  Apparently, it is universally believed that as a group Christians in America can be counted on to be compliant.

So I envy the distrust faced by Muslims in America.  I long for the day when Christians will take Jesus seriously enough that politicians question whether they are fit for military duty.

—-
Craig M. Watts is the minister of Royal Palm Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Coral Springs , Florida and Co-Moderator of Disciples Peace Fellowship. He authored the book Disciple of Peace: Alexander Campbell on Pacifism, Violence and the State (Doulos Christou Press: Indianapolis, 2005) and his essays have appeared in many journals such as Cross Currents, Encounter, the Otherside, DisciplesWorld and more. Craig blogs on the Disciples Peace Fellowship’s, “Shalom Vision.”

Sponsor a Child in Jesus Name with Compassion

Print Friendly

  • Midnightwatch

    Your disingenuous argument hits a brick wall in the fact that Hamas-linked CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case (see http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/cair-unindicted-co-conspirator-in-hamas-funding-case.html).  Christians serve in the military in obedience to Romans 13:1-5.  You know, the Word of God?  That which you trample underfoot, twist and distort to veil your apostasy behind a skin of orthodoxy.  Repent!

    • Cmwrpcc

      “Unindicted” is the key word. The so-called evidence against them was too shabby to be useful. But go ahead and slander them anyway, if that is where your quality of faith leads. As for Romans 13:1-5 having anything to do with Christians serving in the military…well, it doesn’t. This wasn’t an issue for Christians in the first century. No Christian leader for 300 years supported Christians entering the military. They would be appalled at your abuse of the passage.

      • Holldoug

        ‘ No Christian leader for 300 years supported Christians entering the military. ‘

        That is sadly a distortion of the historical reality. Of course they didnt support Christians entering the military because the main military there was the Roman Army which was at the beck and call of all who supported oppressing Christianity !

        You likewise omit to mention that Jesus did heal the Centurions servant and did not tell the Centurion to quit or go AWOL , nor did John the Baptist tell the soldiers to quit the military , rather not to misuse their power and be content with their pay. Strange that you neglect the Godly men in the Bible who were soldiers eg King David, or Gideon.

        • Harrigoth

          Doug: so what? Nobody says the centurion became a disciple who followed Jesus around, either. Doing so would require him to quit his job (was that possible?) since Jesus’ traveling plans may not coincide with the century’s marching orders. Although we have no record of Jesus telling the centurion to quit his job, neither do we have a record of Jesus accepting the centurion as a disciple. He didn’t accept everyone he healed.

    • Aaaaaaaaaargh

      Dude, you’re showing a lot of respect to the Bible, which I get, but you seem to be lending just as much credence to an obvious hack-job of a “news” site that equates every Ahmed or Farooq with Hitler or Pol Pot.  Conspiracy thinking + apocalyptic dispensationalist premillenialism = one big ugly stew of fermented paranoia.

  • Anonymous

    This blog post really got me thinking.  I appreciate it!  Thanks.  

    Christians need to continually being asking ourselves: 1) Am I seeking God’s will in what I’m doing and 2) in what ways does God call us to stand apart from the surrounding culture?

  • Benmanben

    I’m quite sure that there are Christian soldiers who pray for their enemies, (even the ones they are fighting.) 

    I believe that a person can, under certain circumstances, fight in a war and love the person they are fighting. It may not seem pleasant, but love doesn’t imply giving pleasant feelings.
    That is NOT to say that one can love and hate the same, that is to say that a person can fight another person for the safety of others, and still love the man he is fighting.

    I believe C.S. Lewis spoke of this in Mere Christianity, (somewhere towards the end?), and as this site seems to mention his name in accordance with its philosophy so often,
    surely they wouldn’t mind considering that a Christian can, under certain circumstance, and in a certain way, go to war.

    • Matt

      I feel your frustration. It’s not even worth replying to this garbage any more. Its like pearls before swine and all that stuff. Logic, reason, and cold hard facts don’t jive with this crowd. They have their heads buried really deep in the sand, but they don’t want anyone to help them dig them out. Its got to be rough for these guys.  

      • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

        “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.” Isaiah 55:8
        “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Romans 12:2 What sort of God continues to love His people after they rebel and don’t trust Him time and time again?What sort of God defeats death and sin by allowing Himself to be killed and turning the other cheek?What sort of God who was in a perfect place where He was held above all else voluntarily comes down to a broken world and lives as a homeless servant?What sort of God tells his followers to love their enemy’s and to pray for those who hate them?MY GOD.Thank God for a God who isn’t “logical, reasonable, and who ignores the cold hard facts.” Thank God for a God who loves us so much, that it makes no sense to our worldly minds. Thank God for a God who is unreasonably merciful.May we grow to be more like Him, where we learn to love and be merciful in ways that this world regards as foolish, just as they regarded Jesus. 

        • Matt

          I see you went the dramatic route here.

          • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

            I do love the theater. 

          • Matt

            Haha. I can appreciate that.

          • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

            See. We have more in common than you thought. Enjoy your night.

    • Cmwrpcc

      Lewis’ writings show that he knew very little about pacifism and his written remarks are irrelevant except for a certain kind of liberal pacifism. A helpful review of Lewis’ objections to pacifism is given in Stanley Hauerwas’ new book War and the America Difference: Theological Reflection on Violence and National Identity. There have been some useful and substantial responses to pacifism. Lewis’ is not among them.

      As for killing in war and loving the people being killed…unlikely. A soldier doesn’t necessarily have to hate in order to kill but you can’t love like Jesus calls us to love and still kill. We are called to love as Jesus loved -nonviolently- and to bless our enemies. No room for deadly force with that kind of love.

      • Benmanben

        I don’t care that you don’t think a person can love like Jesus wants us to and ever kill in war.
        I still believe it is possible.

        You provided no reason for me to think otherwise.

        • Mewhothatswho2

          What part of “like Jesus” don’t you get? That is the reason he gave. Geeze! Loving like Jesus is not a feeling. It is life-enhancing action. The new commandment Jesus gave: “ My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Apparently you want to come up with your own definition of love so you can insist, “I still believe it is possible.” You can claim to bless your enemy, as Jesus commanded, and kill him or her. The very suggestion is senseless.

          • Benmanben

            You have not provided a reason that a man cannot kill in war and love the man he is killing. Please stop repeating yourself.

          • Aaaaaaaaaargh

            Sorry Ben, I think the burden of proof should be on you here.  Explain to us a scenario in which one human can kill another in war out of love toward that other.  I can see “mercy-killing” to a degree, which could potentially be on the same level as some unprepared mothers choosing to abort their unborn babies.  Other than that, I’m having a real failure of the imagination.

          • Benmanben

            Why do you think I should have to prove my side first?
            I guess we just disagree.

            As I think I’ve said, I believe C.S. Lewis explains this in Mere Christianity.

          • Aaaaaaaaaargh

            Come on Ben, it’s pretty obvious–I think you should prove your side first because love for a person is not typically associated with killing them.  This is something that is pretty much a moral universal.  We can think of exceptions (i.e. the parent who can’t stand to see their severely deformed, “disabled” child suffer any longer), but they’re the kind of exceptions that just prove the rule.

            I love Lewis, but I still think he got it wrong on pacifism, as others have already pointed out above.

      • Benmanben

        What reason makes you say that a man cannot love and kill in war?
        Is it because “deadly force” sounds negative and “love” sounds positive?
        I see no reason to agree with you.

    • http://kingdomcivics.com Kingdom Civics

      I just blogged about Lewis’ thoughts on war in Mere Christianity this morning.  He tried to show why war still fit in with the idea of “love your enemies” and “thou shalt not kill,” but he ignored Matt. 5:38-48 (the part about turning the other cheek and not resisting an evildoer).  I don’t want to be a pacifist b/c it seems ridiculous, but no one (including Lewis or anyone on this comment thread) has dealt with that really key passage from the Sermon on the Mount.  Was Jesus just joking about all that?

    • Anonymous

      Lewis said some cool things but only Jesus spoke truth.  Read his words over and over and one day you will realize that you can’t justify violence while loving your enemies.  It defies logic and denies what Jesus did when we made ourselves his enemies in violent opposition to his Kingdom.  Its taken a lot of breaking down of beliefs I grew up on to realize the Truth about who we are called to be and how foolish it seems to the world and even ourselves sometimes.

  • Doug

    Pacifists didn’t liberate Auschwitz. They just sat safe at home finger wagging those who did.

    • Macroman

      Sorry Doug but many Mennonites served and died as pacifists.  They were not necessarily immune from the draft and general were placed in the medical core.  Artillery and snipers did not respect the red cross and moving through the front lines to evacuate the wounded without a weapon was not without danger.  Yes some pacifists did help liberate Auschwitz.

      • Doug

        No they didnt, because no pacifist actually used force to stop the Waffen SS.
        Yes some served in a medical support capacity , and good on them, but medics didnt stops the Nazi War machine. Those pacifists might have assisted indirectly but Auschwitz was not liberated by pacifists and lets not kid ourselves otherwise.

    • Harrigoth

      If pastors in Germany had raised a generation of Christians who would refuse to fight for the causes of nationalism, cultural purity, or greed, there would be no Auschwitz in need of liberation.

      And by the way: you’re wrong. Those who did not go along with Hitler were not simply at home wagging their fingers. They spoke out, and were killed. Take, for instance, die Weiße Rose (The White Rose) resistance movement.

      • Doug

        Did the White Rose movement liberate Auschwitz ? Storm the beaches at Normandy ? Repel the SS Panzer divisions in the Battle of the Bulge ? No they didn’t ! I admire the White Rose resistance movement but they did not liberate Auschwitz. No pacifists did nor should we dishonor the memory of those who died claiming they did. Most pacifists then as now are safe at home finger wagging those who had the Christian love to stand up to evil with weapons.

        As for ‘if pastors in Germany………..’ I agree but given that Auschwitz was there it wasnt the pacifists who remedied the situation so they have no moral high ground from which to fingerwag.

  • Ccwx

    Wow.  As a member of the Air National Guard this perspective on the folks of all faiths who put their lives on the line in our Military is woefully uninformed, unfair and negligent.  I get the point you are trying to make but using people willing to put their lives on the line for people they have never even met  (something so few American Christians would actually be willing to do) is exploitive, inaccurate and pathetic. Find another metaphor.

×

TRENDING: The Biblical Definition of Marriage and its Relevance to Marriage Equality>>