U.S. Army comes to Princeton
November 11, 2004
Chaplain (Major) John Kiser (U.S. Army) spoke in Chapel this morning at Princeton. One of the first things he said was that the pacifists in the group normally don’t know how to respond to man or woman in uniform preaching, which is true. For those of you who don’t know, my mother comes from a Mennonite background (and would still consider herself Mennonite) and there are many aspects of the Mennonite/Anabaptist faith that have informed my own faith commitments (non-violence & pacifism, strong focus on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ). So I thanked Kiser for helping me admit my own bias from the beginning.
Kiser spoke on the faith of the soldier in Luke 7, and on how Jesus never told him to leave military service, etc. It was a good message, but I was more impressed with the liturgy of the service. The prayers of the people were prayers for our soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, all of our enemies, the civilians caught in the middle of the fallenness of our world, made evident by the very presence of war.
Kiser made it very clear that he was not pro-war and that he prayed for peace constantly. It was encouraging to see and hear American soldiers and Chaplains praying for the enemy, praying for their safety and that they would be able to return to their homes and families soon. In some way, hearing Kiser speak helped redeem my notion of American soldiers of faith.
However, I did object to one thing he said (I’m too critical I guess). He was talking about how the chaplains go with the infantrymen, go with them into battle, but “we don’t carry any guns, we don’t carry any weapons, other than the word of God.” It reminded me of the scene in Saved! where Mandy Moore has just thrown the Bible at Jena Malone’s character and says, “I’m loving you with the love of Jesus!” Malone picks up the Bible and says, “You idiot! This is not a weapon!”
Scripture, the bible, the word of God (however you view it) should never be viewed as a weapon. I am fairly confident that if Kiser and I sat down, we’d actually speak about scripture in many of the same ways, but this is just one example again of the power of language, and how we must be careful what words we use when describing that which is precious to us, the word of God.
Tags: Army, Chaplain, Peace, Princeton, US-Army, War
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 11th, 2004 at 11:27 am
As a recovering fundamentalist, I’m obligated to nudge forth onto the field of consideration the following:
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. -Eph 6:17
November 11th, 2004 at 11:31 am
Yes, nice analogy. I don’t know why Paul uses that…Word of God - double-edged sword. Great, I just don’t think that’s gonna fly today, for the same reason that I think Campus Crusade for Christ is the worst possible name for an evangelistically-oriented campus ministry group…we have to keep in mind our contexts…
November 11th, 2004 at 12:35 pm
Very interesting Chapel with a slightly different perspective than you may have expected.
RE: the weapon. Your Great Uncle Gale, formerly in the Army, who often took his dau. and I to Youth for Christ Rallies…(now Campus Crusade for Christ), is the only one I ever heard reference the Word of God to the sword. Before an event, he would ask us, “Do you have your sword with you??” Have you ever heard that in your experience?
Remember Uncle Keith, a Veteran for Peace, who died on this Remembrance Day six years ago today.
November 11th, 2004 at 1:07 pm
Context, context, context.
Adam, I think you are right that we should seek new language to describe this. However, I think that context is important too. I could be wrong, but I’ll guess Kiser was speaking to the Word being his weapon in “spiritual” battle (he might have assumed that his audience knew that, which is problematic as well).
It does seem, though, that he might have been more careful about how he conveyed that. Also, I think that Heb. 4:12 and “double-edged sword” is a refrence to the powerful qualities of the Word, not a reference to weaponry in battle.
This is a good discussion to have. Not necessarily about war, but about finding new language to convey ideas and concepts in the new terrain of rethinking church.
On another note, I am just curious - did he mention that while chaplains don’t carry a weapon, they have an assistant whose job in battle is to protect the chaplain? Wild! I considered military chaplaincy once - the way the whole system works is kind of fascinating.
Peace.
November 12th, 2004 at 1:55 pm
Small point in response to June: Campus Crusade for Christ is not the successor of Youth for Christ. It was founded independently by Bill Bright in the 50s or 60s. Youth for Christ has changed its name, though … I believe it is “YouthFront”; at least that’s how it is known in my area.
Re. Shane on the person assigned to protect the chaplain: I have never heard that! I agree that’s a really fascinating thing … I won’t take up arms, but if someone else does it for me…
I suppose that’s not unlike me as an essential pacifist living well-protected in a nation with an army…
February 28th, 2005 at 2:36 am
I too say “context, context, context”
While Jesus didn’t instruct the Roman solider to renounce military service, we must understand this took place in a context where he would have been executed for disertion if he did.
This cannot be seen as justification for joining military service as a Christian.
Until Constantine the Christian church did not typically support military service except for Pagan converts who were already in it. As with slaves, you were to accept your station but seek to get out of it if you could.