Missionaries In Uniform?
When it comes to foreign missions, there's one question that always comes up for those of us in uniform. When the government sends us out into "all the world" to fight or keep the peace, can we or should we use that opportunity to be part-time secret missionaries to the local population? For the most part, I think not.
We have chosen - and, I believe, have been called by God - to serve God and the cause of peace by taking up arms and serving our nation in uniform. Our first duty to both God and country is to do the job that comes with wearing that uniform: to keep or establish peace as part of a military force. In many (perhaps most) places, that means that we leave the job of evangelizing the resident population to others. Confusing the roles of "armed agent of a national government" and "agent of the eternal Christ" can be detrimental to both the cause of evangelism and the cause of ordinary peace.
If you can't put on civvies and walk freely around town, I certainly don't think that it sends the right message to proclaim the message of Christ with a rifle in your hand. We've "been there, done that" as a civilization, and it did not work out very well.
Even when we can mingle freely with the people of our host country in a peaceful environment, we still need to be mindful of the strategic objectives of our presence in the that country. We may, in fact, develop some personal relationships that serve the cause of Christ. Our primary purpose for being in our host country, however, is not to plant churches or spread the message of Christ to the population at large. We are there to support a multinational agenda for the common good.
The bottom line is this: if you think God is calling you to the foreign mission field, take off the uniform at the next lawful opportunity and become a missionary. As long as you think God is calling you to defend the cause of peace with the force of arms, however, your primary role in Christian missions is to pray for, encourage and give on behalf of others sent in the name of Christ.
Related:
The Missionary Movement
The Next Towns
February 8th, 2009 at 2350
I'm not sure I can agree with you, if you're intent is as broadswathed as it sounds.
First, its not that simple. We are to be "missionaries" wherever we are and whoever it is by whom we are surrounded. Our life is to be a mission, our biggest tool of "evangelism," if you will. I realize you said "foreign missions," but what God would have us do is independent of geography; it is not just something you go to a foreign land to do, nor is it something you turn on and off.
Second, you draw a dangerous absolute. Your implication is that you're referencing recent issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, but your statements also cover troops in Europe and Korea (since we're "in a peaceful environment" but "there to support a multinational agenda"). That, of course, begs the next logical question: what's the difference between a guy joining a local church and evangelizing in Germany, and one who does the same thing in Peoria? Should your advice about the mutually exclusive acts of service and evangelism also apply to soldiers at home?
Also, its easy to think of an example where "evangelism" by members of the US military hasn't had a good effect (as in Iraq recently). But what of all the good that "life evangelism" HAS done? Must a soldier who does good for society--like helping orphans, as Col Dean Hess did in Korea--divorce himself of his faith while he acts? If someone asks him why he does what he does, must he say "because I am an American soldier," even if the truthful answer is "because I am a child of God?"
Certainly there are extremes. Donning a suit and tie and going door to door in Baghdad with a Bible probably wouldn't be wise. But a Christian serviceman sharing his faith with someone (local or not, civilian or not)--especially someone who has proactively expressed interest--is not an unacceptable act. To make a blanket statement that one should not evangelize while associated in any form with the military is extreme.
That's a little harsh. Last year a picture circulated of US Army trainees at a Bible study, in uniform (which they were required to wear) and carrying their weapons (which they were required to take with them--though not required to take pictures of). Someone posted that picture next to a picture of a Hamas militant, holding their weapon and Koran; they were equating American Christians in the military with suicide bombers. Just because you're speaking positively for Christ while you're in uniform, armed or not, does not make you a coercive theocrat. Sometimes you just meet people as you--and they--are.
In short, you're statements may be more broad than you intend. You did say "for the most part," so perhaps the rest of the "part" would be a clarifying qualification. If not, well, I disagree.
February 9th, 2009 at 0531
JD - As usual you have very useful things to say and highlight my frequent inability to communicate clearly.
The context of my remarks is specifically the historic foreign missions movement which dominated the 19th and early 20th century church. Of course the concept of "foreign missions" has evolved over the years to include things like humanitarian relief and economic development. Primarily, though, I'm talking about an intentional, organized program of taking of the gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ by the people of one nation or culture to the people of another, with the purpose of creating a self-sustaining and self-propagating community of faith in the new land. And although the idea of "foreign missions" has gone out of vogue with some Christians, I still support the basic idea. See the previous two posts referenced above.
It is much harder in the post-colonial era for mission agencies to gain access to parts of the world that used to be open to them. Some mission groups see Soldiers as a vehicle for access for their programs. This is what I am speaking about when I said, "if you think God is calling you to the foreign mission field, take off the uniform ... and become a missionary." I am not speaking about representing Christ in all that we do with all that we meet. When OCF, for example, says "God calls military believers to be His ambassadors to the armed forces," that's not what I mean by "missionary" here. I'm using the narrower, more historic definition.
Neither was the simple mixing of guns and Bibles something I was addressing. I've led worship in the shadow of artillery pieces firing on enemy positions. If you can't worship God while bearing arms then you would have a big problem as a Christian Soldier. How can we participate in something we can't ask God to bless?
But, if your primary contact with the people of your host nation is in patrolling the streets, manning check points and searching homes, I don't think that those are terribly good venues for passing out tracts or Bibles. I doubt that commanders would think so either. Those venues are inherently coercive. As the Marines say, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
It is usually the enemy, these days, that equates Christianity with western culture and power. I can't imagine any Christian today intentionally using the threat of force to advance the gospel, but I also don't want to feed the enemy's IO campaign which harms both the cause of Christ and the cause of peace.
In almost every setting, however, Soldiers will develop some personal relationships with host country nationals. Certainly, in the course of those relationships, the topic of religion may come up naturally. If asked, Christians must "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) This is quite a different thing than acting as an agent of an outside mission agency, or even as a lone-ranger missionary in the general population.
Christians in the armed forces should look at military service itself as a call from God, and not just as an opportunity to do something more religious while we earn a paycheck. Maintaining order in the temporal world may be less important, in the long run, than making disciples for Jesus Christ, but it is what God calls those of us in the armed forces to do. I am quite serious, then, that those whom God calls to be Soldiers (or Airmen, or Marines, or Sailors) are responsible to God (and not just the commander) for doing their best to make the military mission succeed. We absolutely must consider the strategic effect our actions have on the mission our unit has been given. What this calls for is wisdom.
You mentioned Korea and Germany as examples of peaceful environments where our troops are stationed. I'm now finishing my second full tour (2 years this time) in Korea. My chapel congregation is heavily invested in ministry with an orphanage in town that is home to a large number of kids with extreme special needs, and we do it explicitly as a Christians. You'd have to know Korea to understand the dynamics of that and the witness it bears here about Christ's love for all. Also, many of our members are also involved in working with a Korean humanitarian agency to feed the hungry in our city. My congregation members prepare meat to go with the humanitarian rations of rice and soup. If asked where the meat comes from, it comes from the Christians in the American chapel community. I think both of those activities broadly support the efforts of Korean Christians to spread the good news of Christ. Both activities, I think, are also consistent with our military purpose on the peninsula and with our personal responsibilities as Christians.
On the other hand, I sometimes participate in official cultural exchanges in which I briefly visit Buddhist monks living at some of the many temples here. It's not my job, in that context, to try to tell the monk why he should put his faith in Jesus. Also, street preaching is fairly common here, and it's just as unpopular among those on the receiving end as it is in United States. I don't think that it would help accomplish the USFK Commander's Priority #2 (Strengthen the Alliance) for me to start preaching to the crowds at the nearby subway station.
Soon, I'll be moving to Germany. I haven't been there in nearly a decade, but I hope to support the collegiate missionaries of Globalscope at Tübingen with at least some home cooked meals every now and then. (My kids have both been big CCF participants during their college years.) Not many Christians serve in what used to be called "the mission field," but we all have the opportunity to support those who do. In this, service members are really not much different than any other Christians.
We would probably not draw the lines in the same places, but I think there is more agreement between us than you think. Like I said, what we need is wisdom, which I think was part of your point as well.
As always, I speak for myself, and not my church and not the Army.
February 19th, 2009 at 0127
Your comment helps clarify the issue, and I generally agree with what you've said.
My primary hesitation is in making broad statements that seem to support the official restriction of religious expression/action beyond what may be necessary. No, a soldier should not be a tool for a missionary organization, nor should he necessarily intend to "evangelize" (loosely used) on a patrol.
On the other hand, I do believe it is acceptable for him to rely on a missionary-type organization for support if he chooses to try to strengthen his "evangelical outlook" in his day to day interactions. Also, I strongly agree with your statement about there being some situations in which it is entirely appropriate for a soldier to talk about his faith, even while in combat and while interacting with a host nation. What I try to avoid, then, is blanket statements that say "a soldier should never 'evangelize' while outside the wire," because that's not truly what the rule should be, and to make it so puts an unnecessary restriction on religion (and might even be a detriment to the mission, in some circumstances).
For example, GO#1 restricts "proselytizing" in the AOR. Some would say (and indeed have said) that virtually any mention of Christianity to local nationals would constitute a violation of the GO (particularly when applied to non-Chaplains). (They've also said that Chaplains who 'preach exclusive religious tenets' to American soldiers in the AOR are proselytizing and therefore violating that GO.) I believe that "general" prohibition is being interpreted far more loosely than intended; thus my discomfort with broad statements that imply restrictions.
That's a statement with which I vehemently agree. I suspect you and I have the same viewpoint on that.
Been there. Done that. You have my admiration for the degree to which your congregation is involved in the local community. Given the actions of your own chapel, though, you may understand my consternation at a statement that appeared to suggest those actions shouldn't occur. Certainly, one should use wisdom, but a blanket rule that prohibited "religious activities" in a local host nation community would be overly (and unnecessarily) restrictive.
So to summarize, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. I would just tend to make my statements somewhat more nuanced/qualified. Then again, when does anything ever come out as clear as we'd like it to on the internet?