Marines accused of proselytizing in Fallujah; gospel verse on coins

You are making the same argument as before. Essentially you are saying that without your religious values all militaries are a bunch of thugs. My response to this continues to be that this is the same argument Islamic Supremists use when they refer to all non-Muslim armies as "Infidel Armies" and that this argument is no more valid when they make the claim either. My intent in using the Spartans as an example was to show that it is not a belief in God or religion which makes a fighting force fierce, and that one of the fiercest forces in history had no knowledge of your god at all.

I know you didn't mean to insinuate this, but one of the more egregious things you said was that without your religion our military force would adopt pedophilia (along with eugenics and a modified version of slavery/sharecropping). This of course is ridiculous and surely not what you meant. I am assuming that your intent is to say that without god, a military force is inherently flawed and will devolve into a force for evil.

To that end, let's take the worst of the three offenses you used in your example and examine it for a moment. Religion does provide a moral compass, there is no doubt of this but that compass changes over time just as all societal norms do. Even without Judeo-Christian influences many societies developed many of the same values on their own. Pedophilia being the example is frowned upon almost universally.

Where each society draws that line is different of course. Here in the U.S. the current accepted standard for age of consent is 18, it is 16 in some parts of Europe. Some places in the world even go as low as 12 or 13. You might draw the line there and say whoah, but those people aren't Christians. In the U.S. in the 1800's it was not uncommon for young girls in the 13-14 year range to get married. This was in strict Christian communities. The standards have obviously changed.

So what's the point in all of this? The things which we in the U.S. consider good and wholesome are not always a result of Christianity and aren't necessarily derived from it. In fact, the whole basis for our Republic is a conglomeration of humanist principles from the 1700's, European systems of law (which had heavy Christian influences), the pre-Christian Roman Republic, as well as influences from Athenian style democracy. Once someone realizes that Christian influence is not the end all and be all of everything that's good in the world then they must come to the conclusion that an environment which is not driven solely by that influence is not necessarily doomed to be a force for evil.

GySgt Hartman said it best, “God was here before the Marine Corps, so you can give you heart to Jesus. But, your ass belongs to the Corps!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zutuh0YCOqs

I actually fully agree with your before mentioned post, but I think it pertains to Apostles and disciples with a proselytizing-only mission (not for US Marines).

Jesus won the Crown of Martyrdom with obedience to God before all other lesser creatures. And by sacrificing His life, Jesus robs Satan of souls. Humans can achieve a similar victory of martyrdom.

******BUT FOR THE RECORD: The martyr I speak of is where one is murdered for his beliefs, not one who murders for his beliefs and is subsequently killed (or murdered by his own hand) because of his violent actions.

A US Marine’s mission is to an earthly country, but his soul still requires Salvation. The American government and all taxpaying voters don't have the ability to remove sin from the Marine’s soul. Thus, the Marine can give obedience to both country, and look for opportunities to tell others of Jesus Christ's love.

If there's a conflict between rendering unto a Cesar or that which must serve God, God comes first. Many a US military man and woman have the moral courage to reject false oaths for the Truth.

I seriesly think that if the US government tries to take away opportunities for obedience to God, then there won't be many volunteering for any military service, much less the Marine Corps. Those who would volunteer are not the type we'd want to have with military power.

My intent in using the Spartans as an example was to show that it is not a belief in God or religion which makes a fighting force fierce, and that one of the fiercest forces in history had no knowledge of your god at all.

My entire point is that without God, our military is only left with being the fiercest force in the history of the world. Such a condition is to be greatly feared. The Founding Fathers knew the danger:

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

Excerpts:

Morality in the Army
Congress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 "earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services." Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved "indecently or irreverently" in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.

Morality in the Navy
Congress particularly feared the navy as a source of moral corruption and demanded that skippers of American ships make their men behave. The first article in Rules and Regulations of the Navy (below), adopted on November 28, 1775, ordered all commanders "to be very vigilant . . . to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices." The second article required those same commanders "to take care, that divine services be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays." Article 3 prescribed punishments for swearers and blasphemers: officers were to be fined and common sailors were to be forced "to wear a wooden collar or some other shameful badge of distinction."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DpkNX2GxRw&feature=related

“I die his majesty's good servant, but God's first.”
said by Saint Thomas More who was murdered for choosing God before king.

Before any would defend Henry 8th, ask if it was necessary to cut off a man's head for a woman that Harry would later divorce? Of all the power that Harry had and even more that he gained for his country and empire, was it really any great achievement for his soul afterward? The ridiculousness of his philandering and the destructiveness wrought by his enforcing sins with champion yes-men to defend frivolous “sex-for-a-male-heir” eclipses whatever political actions he made in carving out pieces of the world. And when nature brings a daughter who'd become more powerful (albeit, a more monstrous foe against the Sacraments), then why couldn't Harry have spared the other sex partners from a traitor's decapitation? Couldn't he have focused on his daughters and their political upbringing. No. Henry 8th was a pagan at heart and a playboy between his legs. When his mind couldn't keep up with the syphilis, he went blind with madness.

And when children of divorced parents grow twisted with angst, would they also grow logic that screams, “If only Thomas More sanctioned Harry's actions, we'd suffer no guilt!”? Or, would the victims of divorce rather urge from their innocent hearts that parents overcome difficulties with the help of Christ's Love?

There are times when kings are wrong, but Jesus is always right. And, if we're to chose between temporal authority and the Divine, then we must be willing accept the consequence of pain for aligning with Eternal gain.

Wow,

you compare this act, handing a child a coin (a spiritual tract) to a circus act, or as though he were standing out in the square yelling to all the muslims to convert or face hell.

This was one on one, we didn’t see or hear that the soldier cornered the child and forced him to listen while being verbally assaulted about his sin.

Christ knew no time (all the time , any opportunity) or place,( every place ) whether synagogue or well or publican table.

No one here has been a min gun.

Your ONLY valid point is that the child’s life may be in danger here, But then everybody who isn’t cowering under islam or hiding their light under a bushel is under a death threat there.

I have not condemned him, but you have. I’ll stand before GOD on this one without fear.

How’s that millstone feeling?

“Circus”, as I constructed the illustration, does not apply to the actions of the Marine we are discussing, but to the two examples of foolishness I provided. Those two examples employ the ridiculous to focus attention on a core principle; in this case the use of wisdom and discretion in selecting the occasion and manner in which to promulgate the gospel. It is THAT principle, and specifically the failure to employ it, which applies to the actions of our Marine.

I simply contend that the Marine chose poor timing and methodology, NOT that he should stop making efforts to forward The Kingdom. Nowhere did I state, or intend to imply, an injunction against his carrying out the Great Commission, only that he is under a self-imposed, binding oath — before both God and man — to advance The Kingdom in ways that do not constitute disobedience to military protocols that he has sworn to uphold. At a minimum, then, he has to apply additional discretion — beyond what you and I would — in his choice of how, when, and with whom to broach the subject.

To be perfectly clear: I think our Marine has the right heart; his intent is the right intent, but he wasn't very wise in how he chose to go about it.

The gospel, itself, is already regarded as foolishness to those who are perishing. So, if those who spread the gospel come to be regarded as fools, at least let them come by it honestly; because the gospel is thought to be foolishness, NOT because they have, themselves, made truly foolish choices.

The gospel, itself, is offensive to those who will not believe. If those who spread the gospel come to be regarded as offensive, at least let them come by it honestly; because the gospel is regarded as offensive, NOT because they have behaved themselves in truly offensive ways.

Your assertion that “this was one on one” is true, but they were at a public place; a checkpoint at the entrance to Fallujah, which isn't a locale I'd be too hasty to describe as “private”. In fact, I'd be rather surprised if the place wasn't bustling with activity as people were queued up to get through into the city.

In that context, what's Anan supposed to think when this Marine slips a coin into his hand?? “Why is this American soldier giving me money? Does he intend to put me in his debt, for some reason?” Anan didn't look at the coin until after he went into the city, so who knows what was running through his mind in the meantime. Then, when he looked, and saw what it is, he felt put upon, and was offended. Even if his curiosity had been aroused, though, he's not free to go back and inquire; in his culture, such a move could have literally grave consequences.

The root of the problem is just that the Marine’s approach to the situation was culturally ham-fisted. Religious Iraqis esteem religion highly; it is a subject to be handled with utmost respect for God. That respect is antithetical to the use of these coins, and other impersonal methods of trying to spread the gospel. Consider how agitated Muslims get— how deeply offended and angry — if somebody desecrates a copy of their holy scripture; the Q’ran. What are they going to think when they see us putting OUR holy scripture on worthless things like these chintzy coins?? Certainly they will NOT think we esteem God very highly, otherwise we would treat His word with greater respect. In fact, reading the article, it is clear that Iraqi Muslims are offended that a Christian would use such a cheesy method to pass his faith along. Said one, who is quoted, “Passing Christianity this way is disrespectful.” In the face of that, why would we expect them to listen to our message at all??

If missionary efforts in Iraq are to succeed, they will have to be undertaken with an attitude of deep respect, as befits discourse about holy, and deeply held religious convictions.

Taking spiritual potshots with mass-produced gospel coins just won't cut the mustard.

Now, there IS one other aspect to this article that we must consider: authorship and the hidden agenda thereof. Frankly, with names like “Jamal Naji”, and an employer like McClatchy Newspapers, the first descriptor that comes to mind is “spin”.

How else does one adequately explain the awkward intrusion of the antiwar left’s talking points into the second-from-last paragraph?

“Hey, Jamal; your BIAS is showing.”

Actually, the story about our Marine ends with the close of the fifth paragraph; the rest of the article focuses on how residents feel about Christian missionary activity, in general. So the whole thing really turns out to be nothing more than two lib news authors using this incident as an excuse to assert that culturally insensitive Christians are at it again; sowing seeds of division and discord.

LOL! That's a great quote. I heard it a little differently, but perhaps it was just garbled because it was third-hand info. The quote was reported to be a DI saying, "You can give your heart to Jesus, but the REST of your body is MINE!"

I differ with your thought that Jesus' admonition to "be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves" is of limited scope in its application, but here's why:

Jesus is giving instructions to his Twelve Disciples starting from Matthew 10:5 all the way down through v.23, but as he gets to v.21 it becomes apparent that he's not just speaking about them right then and there, but about the entire future of Christianity right up to The Day of The LORD, because he says this:

21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. 23 "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.
-- Matthew 10:21-23

All of that describes conditions that Christianity has understood to be future for over 2000 years, and from that reference to the future, right through the end of the chapter at v.42, Jesus continues with teaching that we unflinchingly embrace as being applicable to us, in this present day, and the transition to that teaching from his initial instructions is done in such a manner that we now have something of a quandry on our hands if we choose to assert that some portion of what he said is only applicable to those he was sending out at that time. It isn't clear where we should -- or even reasonably could -- draw a bright line in the text and say, "This part up to here applies to just the Twelve Disciples, and all of this afterward is what's applicable to all of us, too." Maybe after v.6?? Certainly before verse 15, though, and the part about serpents and doves is after that; in verse 16.

Another reason I think we can legitimately apply v.16 to "the now", is that we still ARE "sheep among wolves". That may be more apparent to believers in Communist China than to us at the local grocery store, but it is true, nonetheless, and since it is true, then it is simply a matter of logic to appropriate Jesus' ensuing admonitions for ourselves. If we are "sheep among wolves", then we should also "be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves."

There's also a good kernel of Truth at the heart of your thought about rejecting false oaths; that is, oaths to things that aren't true, or aren't based in truth. I want to see if I can expand on that to describe what I think is a godly approach.

When a Christian makes an oath, as when someone joins the Marines, I think God understands that oath to be a commitment to uphold all that does NOT conflict with what He has said, and I think that's how a Christian ought to understand it, as well. Does the fresh recruit know every standing protocol that is in effect?? No. So it stands to reason that there may come a moment when, despite his oath of service, the Christian Marine becomes aware of a conflict between what God has said, and what he has sworn to uphold. At such a time, it should be obvious that what God has said takes precedence, but it should ALSO be obvious that the conflict between God's Word and military protocol may not give the Marine license to entirely disregard the protocol. Certainly, as in the case of so many Christian martyrs, there are times where no avenue of compromise exists; where the conflict between the will of man and the word of God is so basic that the choice to obey man or God is strictly either/or. But where there is a way to achieve some kind of both/and solution; where God's word can remain uncompromised, and man's will can, at the same time, be least offended; then I think Paul's teaching about obedience to Earthly authorities puts us on solid ground, and we can legitimately appropriate Paul's admonition to "be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake" (cf. Romans 13:5). Where there is such a conflict, I think the Christian enlisted man has a duty before God, to do some more intensive homework and figure out how to obey God in a way that LEAST transgresses the stated protocol. In other words, to find the most harmonious accord between what God has said, "Do", and what the Marine Corps. has said, "Do not do."

So, making practical application to the specific case at hand, a wiser approach might be one that left no physical evidence, or it might require directing the spiritually curious to contact local Christian leaders who could carry the work of the gospel forward on a private, individual basis. It would require greater planning to carry that out, and it would require more prolonged, personal conversation with individual Iraqis, but it could be done. And, in truth, I think the more personal methods are better methods of evangelism, anyway. People who get tracts thrust at them, or coins slipped into their hands are liable to feel more like targets of a drive-by preaching than objects of the unimaginable love of an Almighty Creator, our Bridegroom God.

If we would win souls in Iraq, our foremost objective in evangelism MUST be to reveal to them that they are in that latter category, and not treat them like they are in the former.

"Scripture quotations taken from the NASB."

I've read your posts and haven't found much with which to disagree. I think Jesus gives us the “flight” rather than “fight” as the better option not to make us cowards, but rather to make us messengers that must break contact from conflict. Why? The Christian Message of understanding and obeying a Merciful and Just God is more important than winning armed conflict. Many missionaries have tarnished the Message with personal pride (i.e. the errors of liberation theology as seen in Central and South America).

The other aspect that I view upon this paradox is that the enemies of Christ will wage war upon each other rather than Jesus believers (who can also be Muslim) will be bloodied and murdering our kinsmen. “How?” one may ask. From the vision of St. Don Bosco, we are witnessing the indelibility of Christ's Teachings over those who oppose Christianity.

If Christian US Marines and other US Military are removed from combat because they put their Christian duties before all temporal and secular distractions and duties, then the only destruction upon anti-Christ fanatics in the battle zone will be from anti-Christ forces doing the bidding of anti-Christ political leaders.

http://michaeldubruiel.blogspot.com/2005/04/pope-benedict-and-prophecy-of-st-john.html

The irony is that if atheists demand the removal of Christians in Iraq/Afghanistan, then fanatics cannot blame Christians or Christianity for the violence in Iraq/Afghanistan. This is as funny as watching very anti-establishment rock band Metallica whine and complain to Congress about how their own anti-establishment fans have stolen their copyrighted material. Oh, I could just play my electrified weeping violin while tap dancing on my wah-wah peddles.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.