Recently, the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision changed their policy of not hiring individuals in same sex marriages (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html). The change in policy does not necessarily reflect agreement with same sex marriage by the organization, but “World Vision hopes to dodge the division currently ‘tearing churches apart’ over same-sex relationships by solidifying its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization: to defer to churches and denominations on theological issues, so that it can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor” (Christianity Today). In other words, they are a broadly Christian organization but not a denomination or a local church. As a result, they have decided to keep employment open to anyone who fits into the camp of broadly Christian, or what others might call “mere Christianity,” as opposed to having strict requirements similar to what a denomination might require for membership.
The issue of whether or not there can be “gay Christians” has been of major discussion in Christian circles. Some churches have written statements of faith essentially denying this possibility while others have affirmed it. While World Vision is not a local church or a denomination, they are a symbol of the disagreement among churches and denominations on this issue. Because they don’t want to get involved in denominational disagreements, and this issue now represents an area of denominational disagreements, they have decided to seek to be neutral.
The response from conservative Christians to this news has been predictably negative. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (and I’m not trying to pick on Mohler especially. His response is more moderate than many others have been), wrote:
“World Vision claims not to have compromised the authority of Scripture, even as its U.S. president basically throws the Bible into a pit of confusion by suggesting that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the question of the morality of same-sex sexuality. Stearns insists that he is not compromising biblical authority even as he undermines confidence that the church can understand and trust what the Bible reveals about same-sex sexuality” (http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/03/25/pointing-to-disaster-the-flawed-moral-vision-of-world-vision/).
When I consider what the response should be of Christians who view same sex sexual activity as a sin, even when monogamous and committed between professing Christians, I am reminded of an ethical issue that once carried this same weight in the early church but no longer does. I’m referring to the question of Christians in the military.
While some scholars of the early church and patristics have sought to simplify this issue, claiming that the only point of contention was whether Christians could join a pagan army that required religious service to the Roman emperor, the early texts tell us a different story.
The story these texts tell us is of a church which once seems to have universally commanded that Christians, following Jesus’ example (Matthew 5:38-48, Matthew 26:52, John 18:36, 1 Peter 2:19-25, etc.), not take up military service if it entailed taking life.
The early church father Irenaeus in 180 A.D. wrote of those who converted to Christianity:
“But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek, then the prophets have not spoken these things of any other person, but of Him who effected them” (Irenaeus, Book IV, Chapter 34).
Lactantius (250-325 A.D.) likewise wrote:
“It is not therefore befitting that those who strive to keep to the path of justice should be companions and sharers in this public homicide. For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge [often interpreted to mean an official ordering a criminal be put to death], because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal” (Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter 20).
A church order dating to the 3rd-4th century and believed by some scholars to be attributed to Hippolytus of Rome makes its position about Christians being soldiers clear:
“A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected [from the church]. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God” (Apostolic Tradition 16:9-11, http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html).
Kreider in “Military Service in the Church Orders” (p. 429) also noted a variant of the Apostolic Constitution known as the Alexandrine Sinodos wherein a soldier was prohibited from becoming a Christian unless he “leaves his robbery and violence… otherwise, he shall be rejected” (read in Sprinkle, Fight).
Examples could be multiplied, but the message is clear — Christians cannot kill.
If you were talking to an early Christian, or even to one of the many Christian pacifists today who hold their position, what would you say to them about how they should treat soldiers who claim to be Christians? Would you ask that they seek to be understanding and assume the best of them, or would you say that they shouldn’t budge in condemning them as worldly compromisers loudly and often?
While I find the biblical evidence to be decisive and clear in favor of Christian pacifism, and believe that the popular position of “just war” theory is an act of compromise that came about when Christians were finally allowed to hold political power, I wouldn’t assume that someone who is a soldier is a false Christian– only a mistaken one. I wouldn’t abuse him with my words, call him a sinner or murderer, etc., even if technically this is what his occupation would make him. The reason for this is that I have seen areas in my life where I have been weak, incorrect, or inconsistent, and I trust that I was still in Christ. I might seek to persuade a Christian soldier to leave his occupation, but I would not politicize his sin and shut out compassion for him. I wouldn’t claim that he can’t possibly be a Christian, anymore than I would claim that the over-eater or overly material-minded person (and compared to many others in the world this description fits the vast majority of the West) couldn’t possibly be a Christian.
Has Christianity in the West “compromised the authority of Scripture,” throwing the Bible into a “ball of confusion” to use Mohler’s words, when it comes to the issue of militarism and Christians in the military? Because I believe that Scripture and early tradition are both clear on this point, I could say yes. However, I am a bit more charitable on this point. Instead of calling the contemporary church post-modernists who have compromised the authority of Scripture, I will simply assume that it doesn’t know better. But if I can accept a Christian who chooses to kill for a living while justifying it as godly, why would I throw so many Christians under the bus for seeking to live out a sexuality they didn’t choose for themselves in the context of a committed romantic relationship in which they are trying their best to reflect Christ? And if the church remained the church through its endorsement of war, racism, and Jim Crow, why is its identity now in jeopardy, as some conservative Christians claim (I am not seeking to make a comment on the propriety or impropriety of homosexual relationships, but merely asking why we use such double standards)?
It is good to dialogue with others and seek to change their minds for the better. Seeking to change minds isn’t the problem. We as Christians ought to be doing this. The problem is how we characterize and treat those whom we disagree with, as well as those outside of our group.