In a time when wars and war-like conflicts are on the global rise, and an increasing number of Seventh-day Adventists are voluntarily joining the military, there is an urgent need to reflect more fully on some distinctive challenges that military service poses for the Adventist faith.² While national contexts vary, and individual situations are unique, military service often creates ethical and moral dilemmas for Adventists that are very difficult, if not impossible, to resolve. The whole issue is made even more complex due to the fact that one’s attitude toward war and participation in it is probably “the place of bluntest encounter with the problem of how one moves through the process of accepting or not accepting an inherited culture and the critical vision behind that culture.”³ Certainly, no nation is free from the desire to foster its interests over and above other nations. If this fact is granted, it raises a first fundamental ethical problem with military service: it is very likely that a person will be forced to obey orders to fight and use violence for reasons that are not entirely good or that perhaps are even clearly out of harmony with God’s Word. This challenge is intensified when it is connected with nationalistic⁴ and patriotic⁵ sentiments.

The Ethical Challenges of Nationalism and Patriotism

A positive attitude toward military service and a willingness to use weapons to enforce a national cause or national interests is intensified proportionally when a nationalistic sentiment is expressed with strong semi-religious overtones. This is the case when a country believes it is ordained to be the trustee of the world’s progress or the guardian of peace and justice, or the agent of a just cause. This tendency is perceptible no matter whether the just cause is believed to be national-socialism, communism, fundamentalism, capitalism, or any other “ism.” Perhaps most disturbing is the readiness to use lethal force among those who believe they represent a “religious” or even a “Christian” nation and therefore think they defend the honor of their god by safeguarding the cause of freedom and democracy. This leads many to employ what has been called “redemptive violence.” One scholar gives a penetrating analysis of this mindset:

The myth of redemptive violence is nationalism become absolute. This myth speaks for God; it does not listen for God to speak. It invokes the sovereignty of God as its own; . . . it misappropriates the language, symbols and scriptures of Christianity. It does not seek God in order to change: it claims God in order to prevent change. Its God is not the impartial ruler of all nations, but a biased and partial tribal god worshipped as an idol. Its metaphor is not the journey but a fortress. Its symbol is not the cross but a rod of iron. Its offer is not forgiveness but victory. Its good news is not the unconditional love of enemies but their final liquidation. Its salvation is not a new heart but a successful foreign policy.⁶

It is necessary to remember that as citizens of countries we carry passports, obey the local laws, and acknowledge the authority of rulers, but our primary citizenship as Christians is in the kingdom of God, which transcends all national boundaries. The apostle Peter reminds us that when there is a conflict of interest “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).⁷ As Seventh-day Adventists we are first and foremost sons and daughters of the King of kings and Lord of lords. Therefore, our deepest loyalty belongs to Him and to His kingdom of peace! More important than our ethnic origin or national citizenship is our Christian identity as children of the living God, which raises the question about our ultimate allegiance, which deserves careful attention.

The Ethical Challenge of our Ultimate Allegiance

The decision to serve in the military raises the question of our ultimate allegiance. No matter in what army one serves, joining the military always involves a pledge of allegiance. This pledge of allegiance is invariably to the head of the nation and/or to the orders of the officers appointed over the enlistee, and not to God. It is a truism that every person who joins the military pledges to carry out all military orders given. While the pledge of allegiance will vary from country to country, the general structure of the line of command—where one is expected to be obedient to the orders given by a superior—is universal. In fact, the ability of an army to fulfill its task depends significantly on orders being followed swiftly and exactly as they are given. There is also a certain military ethos that is expected of every soldier.⁸

This raises the following questions: Where are our ultimate loyalties as Seventh-day Adventists? Which loyalty comes first: loyalty to a particular nation and its political and military leaders or loyalty to God and His written Word? Often the interests and values of the military are not congruent with the ethics of Jesus and so anyone joining the military is faced with the following ethical challenge: How can we live out our biblical convictions and follow our conscience in an environment that demands unrestricted obedience to human authorities and that often violates biblical values and Jesus’ ethics of peace?

Indeed, it is difficult to keep God’s commandments when one is compelled to follow orders that are in conflict with them. It is rather difficult to worship freely on the Sabbath day, as set out in the Bible, while in the military. This ethical dilemma raises further serious ethical questions relating to the nature of the church and military service.

The Nature of the Church and Military Service

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a worldwide church composed of men and women from all nations, tongues, and tribes. It is not a state church or restricted to just one nation. If someone chooses to serve in the military of their nation and other Seventh-day Adventists choose to do the same in their national military, they might be forced to shoot and kill fellow Christians and even Seventh-day Adventist brothers and sisters who might be serving in the military of the (so-called) enemy! This problem is intensified in light of the fact that in modern warfare it is frequently the civilian population who suffers most from military strikes. Even though many modern deadly weapons have become more precise in their targeting, it is an unfortunate fact that civilians suffer disproportionately heavy casualties and collateral damage. How can one deal with the moral responsibility of participating in military operations that are often unpredictable and, almost by necessity, involve injuring and killing innocent civilians in combat situations,⁹ among them perhaps even fellow believers? Furthermore, how credible are we as a church in our outreach and mission when we preach God’s love and a message of reconciliation but act in diametrically opposed ways by bringing destruction and death? It has been aptly pointed out that “the mission of the Christian Church is not compatible with the methods of violence.”¹⁰ This raises the ethical challenge of the sacredness of all human life.

The Ethical Challenge of the Sacredness of Human Life

Another area with serious ethical problems has to do with the sanctity and dignity of human life. If human beings reflect the image of God and hence carry special dignity, how can someone train to become skillful in taking human life? How can we engage in activities that injure and kill men and women who are loved by God? How can someone follow Jesus and obey His commandment to love their enemies and bless those who curse them (Matt 5:44), while actively training to eliminate their enemies and blow them to pieces? How can we emulate Jesus’ example and do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27, 35) with lethal weapons in our hands, or with the ability to launch a deadly missile bringing destruction, or releasing a powerful bomb obliterating human life and destroying other people’s property? Christians are called to be followers of Christ and therefore should imitate His way of peace. This Christlike lifestyle is distinctly different from the lifestyle in the military.

All committed Christians, and Seventh-day Adventists in particular, are called to emulate Jesus as a peacemaker. This means walking the way of peace and forgiveness, rather than the way of war, violence, and retaliation. Following the footsteps of Jesus, individuals must be willing to suffer and even be willing to die for Christ’s sake rather than be instruments inflicting suffering and bringing pain and death on others. In the pursuit of His peaceful way, Christians should have no part in wars.¹¹

The Ethical Conflict with the Law of God

Every person joining the military has to be aware that the military pledge of allegiance conflicts with allegiance to God’s Word and His unchanging law that commands, among other things, not to kill another person (cf. Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).¹² A soldier is trained to bear arms and use them with the express purpose of taking the life of another person. A former field representative for Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries (ACM) at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists writes,

What is the purpose of training with or carrying arms? The purpose of training with or carrying a weapon is to kill another human being. We are all clear about that. A weapon is meant to kill Training with a weapon to take human life is what war is about—to try to destroy them before they destroy us.¹³

Because God is the Creator and Sustainer of all life, every human life is precious and carries divine sanctity, dignity, and worth that must be respected. For this reason, God has stated that we should not take the life of another person (Exod 20:13; Matt 19:18). Because in war blood is shed and people are killed, “the Spirit of War is the spirit of Satan.”¹⁴ Can the spirit of war be harmonized with the Spirit of Christ? Respect and love for every human life should lead Seventh-day Adventists not to participate in any violent acts that are designed to deliberately take human life.

Wars also often violate other commandments of God, such as the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (Exod 20:15),¹⁵ or the tenth commandment, “you shall not covet” (Exod 20:17), which quite often is at the root of why nations start wars or military conflicts.

Truth is another casualty of war.¹⁶ Truth is often—if not always—violated, as any war propaganda quickly reveals. Inaccurate news is a reality that creates a conflict with the ninth commandment: “You shall not bear false witness” (Exod 20:16). The casualty of truth in war makes it especially difficult to side with the “right party” or favor any particular nationalistic sentiments. Besides the ethical conflicts with the commandments indicated above, there is one commandment that is particularly significant for Seventh-day Adventists and that poses no small ethical conflict when being engaged in the military: the fourth commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exod 20:8).

Any service in the military will inevitably bring a conflict with God’s commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Can those who join the military really keep the Sabbath holy on a regular basis, as God desires it? This is rather difficult.¹⁷ Furthermore, there is virtually no way to avoid training or make-up training on Sabbath in the initial phases of basic training. Many training events last up to ten days or longer, thus impacting Sabbath observance. In armies totally comprised of volunteers, military commanders tend not to be particularly tolerant of religious beliefs.¹⁸

Serving in the military also poses a host of conflicts with other biblical commandments—for instance, the divine commandment regarding eating clean and unclean food (cf. Lev 11; Deut 14:1–21). It is not easy to observe God’s command not to eat unclean food while serving in the military.¹⁹ This is particularly difficult during military action when food supplies are scarce and limited.

The Ethical Challenge of an Army Lifestyle

Other serious ethical challenges are connected with the lifestyle and behavior that one encounters in the military. Seventh-day Adventists in military service face a number of real challenges to their faith, among them “a secular lifestyle that can lead to a casual, then careless daily spiritual life; use of force (training, bearing, and using weapons for the purpose of harming others).”²⁰ Indeed, “nearly every aspect of one’s life, from dress and deportment to diet and exercise is governed by some aspect of military law or administrative orders.”²¹

The lifestyle one faces in the military is very different from the biblical ideal and often diametrically opposed to it.

It can be very, very earthy. The language can be colorful. The topics of discussion are always not on a high moral level. There are good, decent men and women in the military who have high standards. But generally, the only moral standards in the military are that they want you to be physically fit and they frown upon drunk driving. Yet all of their social activities revolve around food and alcohol.²²

There is “a daily barrage of sin.”²³ An organization that trains people to administer violence and death, where things are rampant that are not conducive to biblical virtues of compassion, humility, forgiveness, love, mercy, and gentleness should not be chosen freely by Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists should not worship the god of hate or follow the passion of retaliation, but should work to create and maintain peace. It is important to remember that taking the life of another person is a grievous thing. While it is no sin to lay down one’s life for peaceful faith convictions, to knowingly choose to be placed in such a tempting situation, where biblical values are compromised, is certainly not what Jesus would encourage us to do. While we can be sure that Jesus will not leave or forsake any person, even if they have to serve in the military, we should not make decisions that would deliberately place us in situations where we would be tempted to go against the express will of God or where we would violate God’s commandments.

Is There a Position of Noncombatancy in the Military?

At this point the question might arise: But can’t one serve in the military in a noncombatant position—for instance, working in the medical corps or as a chaplain? This question has been particularly debated following the acclaimed Mel Gibson movie Hacksaw Ridge (2016), which tells the remarkable true story of Seventh-day Adventist Desmond Doss. Doss, a conscientious objector, served as an army medic on the front lines and saved some seventy-five men without firing or carrying a gun.²⁴ While the heroic act of Doss deserves great admiration, one must be aware that Desmond Doss is a rare example of someone who strictly refused to carry and use a gun.

The Desmond Doss stance of noncombatant service is not in conflict with the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Adventists have allowed for the possibility of noncombatant service, especially when being drafted into the military. According to the “Adventists in Uniform” website²⁵ the term “non-combatant service” means:

(a) service in any unit of the armed forces which is unarmed at all times; (b) service in the medical department of any of the armed forces, wherever performed; or (c) any other assignment of the primary function of which does not require the use of arms in combat; provided that such other assignment is acceptable to the individual concerned and does not require them to bear arms or to be trained in their use.²⁶

Furthermore, “the term ‘noncombatant training’ means any training which is not concerned with the study, use, or handling of arms or weapons.”²⁷ For this reason the current General Conference President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ted Wilson, has recently stated that “in addition to taking a noncombatancy position, the Seventh-day Adventist Church encourages its members not to join the military.”²⁸

However, most Adventists who currently join the military voluntarily are serving in fighting combat units. Furthermore, one has to be aware that if a person joins the military there is actually no real possibility of them maintaining a position of noncombatant service. It has been pointed out that “one cannot really advocate a position of noncombatancy when no positions of noncombatancy exist in the military”²⁹ and even a voluntary enlistment as a medic is often fraught with compromise. No army has purely altruistic motivations and even the medics aim to help maintain a fighting force. From the armed forces’ perspective on the battlefield, the role of the medic is that they

should first attend to those most capable of returning to combat and then turn his attention to those more seriously wounded. Although the army does not deny the lifesaving role of the medic, the language employed in training stresses far more his role in the maintenance of an effective fighting force, both by bandaging wounds and by boosting morale. If the medic actually were to save the greatest number of lives, he would attend to those who were more seriously wounded but for whom there appeared to be hope, while letting those who were in no immediate danger of death wait until he found time to give them attention. However, to do so would be a violation of military code.³⁰

From the biblical perspective of Christian love, one would have to give equal attention to wounded enemies if they are in need, but no army would tolerate such a practice. Often even well-meant prayers are affected and colored by the national interests of the nation a person serves.

This also raises important questions about the role of Seventh-day Adventists serving as military chaplains. Inasmuch as military chaplains must ensure that “all efforts … maximize a positive impact on the military mission” and “enhance operational readiness and combat effectiveness,”³¹ they cannot fully proclaim Jesus’ teaching and example of non-violence.³² Since the mission of any officer or unit commander is to destroy the enemy, any chaplain’s advice to the contrary is not supportive and not really welcome.³³

The Ethical Challenges of Modern Warfare

It seems that war is as old as the human race. The ethical difficulties in serving in the military and being a soldier bearing arms is intensified, however, when we look at modern warfare. Western civilization is not only the most highly industrially developed society but also the most destructive in warfare. It has been pointed out that perhaps “the most striking change which has come about in the recent history of warfare is the revolutionary character of its methods.”³⁴ In ancient times war was the work of a relatively small class of professional soldiers. During the Middle Ages it was carried out by the feudal and military aristocracy and their supporters. Toward the close of the eighteenth century, however, Napoleon for the first time involved the entire population, not just the ruling or military class, to become direct participants in the war. In the nineteenth century Prussia developed a system of universal compulsory military service, which was soon copied by other nations.³⁵ Modern warfare has become a great industrial enterprise and war has seen new strategies and weapons with unprecedented potential for mass destruction. Modern warfare has generated a dynamic where it is difficult to secure and protect the lives of innocent people.³⁶

Modern warfare reflects the maxim of Karl von Clausewitz (1780–1831), who stated that war is the continuation of politics with utmost force and who introduced the concept of “total war,” in which violence is pushed to the utmost bounds in order to win.³⁷ This makes it very difficult to restrict violence and destruction just to enemy soldiers. In modern war, with modern weapons of mass destruction,

most of those who suffer are not the attackers or the aggressors (who these would be in a nuclear attack would likely not be clear). In fact, the airman or missileman who is actively attacking, like the top statesman or the general, who has actively made the decisions to attack, is less likely to be harmed than most categories of civilians in the line of fire.³⁸

In modern war the separation of what clearly constitutes aggression and what is innocence is increasingly blurred. Furthermore, in modern war the escalation of conflict is practically unavoidable.³⁹ Finally, there are ethical challenges arising from our biblical understanding of mission and eschatology.

Ethical Challenges Arising out of Our Adventist Understanding of Mission and Eschatology

Seventh-day Adventists have a specific task: to proclaim the everlasting gospel to all people, nations, and tribes, inviting people to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. This task does not cohere with going to war or employing weapons of destruction against fellow human beings for whom Christ died. Instead it encompasses preaching the everlasting gospel of Christ’s salvation and bringing healing to the nations through our medical work, our comprehensive health message, and humanitarian outreach. Seventh-day Adventists see themselves as being specifically given the task of preparing people for Christ’s soon coming, thus fulfilling the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14:6–12. The patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and who remain faithful to Jesus cannot be harmonized with bearing arms or pursuing the goals of the military. Any work that violates God’s commandments and does not exhibit the peaceful spirit of Christ is antithetical to our mission as Seventh-day Adventists and, therefore, should not be supported. Our ethical mandate to practice reconciliation and bring healing to those in need undergirds our Adventist message and mission.

Furthermore, we know from Bible prophecy that in the great controversy between good and evil there will be widespread deception in the final days of earth’s history. The leaders of this world—and under their command the armies who serve them—will be guided and deceived by evil demons (cf. Rev 16:13–14). While some have the appearance of a lamb they in fact act like a dragon! (Rev 13:11–16). This biblical-prophetic insight does not encourage any participation and engagement in armies who operate under such leadership.

Conclusion

The above-mentioned areas of conflict illustrate the incompatible values that exist between military activity and Christian behavior. Any Seventh-day Adventist Christian should be aware that joining the military will lead to countless problems. Some ethical dilemmas are virtually unavoidable. Therefore, we should not voluntarily seek to be placed in circumstances that would put us in peril. Would that not be presumptuous? The spirit of war clearly is not the spirit of Christ. It is the spirit of Satan. Ellen G. White graphically describes what is at stake:

Satan delights in war, for it excites the worst passions of the soul and then sweeps into eternity its victims steeped in vice and blood. It is his object to incite the nations to war against one another, for he can thus divert the minds of people from the work of preparation to stand in the day of God.⁴⁰

Instead, we have the opportunity to engage in Christlike behavior and should seek every opportunity to bring justice and actively foster peace. This engagement for peace is demanding and could even require more sacrifices than would violent fighting. Christian love—even for our enemies— goes far beyond the bounds of decent humanism. In fact, it requires great courage and wisdom! Given the above-mentioned challenges and difficulties, it is not advisable to support the idea that Seventh-day Adventists should engage in, support, or endorse military violence.

In light of these massive ethical problems it is imperative that once more we take a decisive stand in favor of conscientious objection to military service. Following the footsteps of their Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, Adventists do not participate in violence and aggression. To speak positively about the involvement of Seventh-day Adventists in military service sends the wrong signal to our young people. Seventh-day Adventists should be known as law-abiding citizens of our nations and faithful and loving followers of Christ. As followers of Christ they will not use violent force to eliminate human beings whom Jesus loves and will not participate in bringing death and destruction. War was never Jesus’ approach to solving problems (John 18:36). Serving in the military does not solve the spiritual problem that is at the heart of all evil and sin in this world. As former General Conference President Jan Paulson aptly stated: “War, peace, and participation in the military service are not morally neutral issues. Scripture is not silent on these things, and the church, as it interprets and expresses the principles of Scripture, must be a voice of moral authority and influence.”⁴¹ We are not to cooperate with those who use violence. Rather, we are to cooperate with Jesus Christ. He calls us to express and exercise His spirit of forgiveness to be His agents of peace, reconciliation, and healing.