So I wrote back our friend who seemed to insist that All Soldiers [Murder] since his stated belief implied he, as a former soldier, might be feeling guilt for something he may not have ever done. My email began with “I'm sorry you feel like you're 'complicit in murder,' that's gotta be a heavy load to carry.” Turns out, not so much. Somehow everyone else is guilty but not him. Here is what he said;
The “heavy load to carry” is with those who kill. I am a pacifist, following a Christian faith.
I was “taught” in boot camp to be a “mean green killing machine”. The indoctrination is one of death and yes – murder. That most victims are innocent civilians speaks volumes. I am at peace with my position, not carrying any “heavy load”. You were not there. Your opinion excuses the support of a system and those who do so, that is contrary to God’s will. My sympathies are not with those who serve and don’t want to be associated with killing, when my sympathies are with those killed, You are complicit in their deaths with your position. Look at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall and see your reflection. It is our own losses of military personnel and the much larger number of unknown victims of our military that should be the moral priority. Silence is complicity.
This is not a new or unique position, neither his absolute pacifism nor condescending self-righteousness. Another Marine veteran replied to the “Not All Soldiers Kill” ☧ost saying “I had been thinking… how to explain that I have more ptsd from veterans for peace listserves than the marine corps and you hit it on the head.” If that’s true, it’s because I’ve had plenty of practice combatting harmful theology.
Bad theology needs to die, but it will continue clinging to life as long as Christians refuse to engage with a martial hermeneutic. I have watched for over a decade as countless other, and more influential, pacifists minimize or demean Christian soldiers and veterans. I won’t clutter The ☧ost by naming names, at least not right now, but their collective audience is in the hundreds of thousands.
Our friend closed his email saying “Silence is complicity,” to which I agree wholeheartedly. Here is my full reply (for brevity, I won’t insert the text);
I won’t expose my audience to his toxic pacifism, but that doesn’t mean I won’t engage with it. In fact, I’m calling his bluff. And not just his, but any self-righteous pacifist who wants to ignore scripture, tradition, and reason. Silence may be complicity, but avoidance is worse. If pacifists don’t think their ideology has become toxic, then let them defend it publicly. Let’s have a debate!
With God is a Grunt coming out in a few weeks, I need to come up with a release event and I can’t think of a better idea than an open debate. If we can’t find a live venue, it can be done by Zoom or live-streamed. All I need is a willing conversation partner and an internet connection… What do you think, is there a pacifist willing to debate the merits of their ideology with me?
If you need a little light with this heat, here’s a little constructive theology to balance everything out. Back in 2020, I chatted with Travis Reed of The Work Of The People (TWOTP) about an alternative to the holier-than-thou toxic snobbery I have experienced from absolute pacifists. Here it is;