Onward Christian...Soldiers?
There was a time when Christians used militaristic language without shame. In fact, only one or two generations ago, Christians often spoke of being part of an army fighting against the forces of darkness. Hymns like “Onward Christian Soldiers” were sung often and were sung proudly. But in recent years, this type of language has fallen out of favor in the church. Many feel that this language serves to deter the unchurched from responding to the gospel. They are, it seems, not willing to allow themselves to be conquered by an army.
Brian McLaren discusses this metaphor in A Generous Orthodoxy: “The human race has been conquered by an alien power or powers (Sin, the Devil, and Death are the most common antagonists, although Paul’s more ambiguous ‘principalities and powers’ could also be included). Jesus goes to battle with the alien power(s), and appears to be defeated in death, but his death turns out to be the undoing of the antagonist. In this metaphor, military terms such as battle, defeat, and conquering are predominant.” McLaren advocates rejecting this type of language and replacing it with something more appropriate for our culture. This language, he would argue, is contextual and Christians are under no obligation to describe Christianity with such terms.
But some Christians feel we need to rediscover this military language. Stanley Gale, author of Warfare Witness: Contending with Spiritual Opposition in Everyday Evangelism, is one of these. Warfare Witness is a book dealing with spiritual warfare, a topic that has received surprisingly little attention in Reformed circles. There is a great deal of material available within mainstream evangelicalism that proposes any number of misguided strategies for dealing with spiritual opposition. While there has clearly been a lot of interest in this topic in recent years, Reformed Christians have no doubt been guilty of not paying sufficient attention to it. Gale seeks to remedy this, and does so in a book that is endorsed by Philip Ryken, T.M. Moore and Sinclair Ferguson.
Gale believes that it is beneficial for Christians to have a militaristic understanding of the spiritual battle that rages around us, for this is the language God chose to use. He writes, “Some might not feel comfortable with the military concept and terminology. Yet…this is exactly the way our King and Commander would have us understand the nature of evangelism and approach to the work of witness…All of us enfolded into the king of God, as children of God and heirs of life, are servants of the Most High and soldiers of the cross.”
Gale begins with the Christian’s commission which is, of course, the Great Commission. After His glorious resurrection, and before He left this earth, Jesus gave His people their marching orders in the familiar words of Matthew 28:18-20. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” The church is now given the responsibility of “making disciples of all nations.” And the Scripture presents this commission and its fulfillment in decidedly militaristic terminology. Scripture presents the work of redemption in militaristic terms, “in the work of Christ to bring it about, of the church to carry it out, and of individual Christians to live it out.” We see this under three headings: Christ’s Mission, the Church’s Mission and the Christian’s Identity.
Christ’s Mission - From its earliest mention, Christ’s mission was portrayed in terms of combat. In Genesis 3:15 God promises a Savior: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” We see a promise of two combatants with a battle raging between them. The culmination of Christ’s work, portrayed in Revelation, is filled with military language, leading us to see that “our salvation is the result of military intervention by our Lord” in which He performs a mission of mercy, grace and love.
The Church’s Mission - The church’s mission is also described in militaristic terms. We lay siege to the gates of hell. Jesus builds His church against a backdrop of spiritual opposition that seeks to overcome her. “The church operates in enemy territory and contends with enemy opposition.” The church, then, is a body, an army, marching out to war. We are army that fights in victory, not for victory, for the victory has already been won by Christ. We have to be both an invading army and an inviting army, both inviting people to join us and marching out to recruit them. We are to go! “The ‘go’ of our Lord’s Great Commission is the go of invasion. It is not the ‘go’ of a casual stroll or pointless wandering, but the go of military mission.” And when we go, we baptize, recruiting people into active service for the King.
The Christian’s Identity - Every local church represents an outpost of God’s army. Paul refers to those in other churches as “fellow soldiers” and urges Timothy to be a “good soldier of Christ Jesus.” Gale points out that when we were recruited into God’s army, we were given a rather strange set of clothing, not a camouflage uniform, but the brilliant white robe of Christ’s righteousness. We are not to be an army who hides or blends in, but an army that stands out. And our work as Christians is to wage war. “We are outfitted with weapons suitable for the nature of the combat we are called to undertake. Our tactics reflect military strategy, conducted in the wisdom of God. We stand on the truth against the assault of error. We pray against the opposition we face in mission.”
Gale believes that an understanding of this military model provides many benefits. First, it reminds us who we are. We have been rescued and are now called to join the cause of liberation from the devil’s tyranny. Second, it reminds us of our task. To follow Christ means that we are to do what He says and to fight for His cause. Third, it speaks to motivation. We obey the Lord because we love Him, are indebted to Him, and owe our lives and liberty to Him. Because Christ’s motivation to save us was love, we must have the same motivation as we seek out the lost. Fourth, this model reminds us why we fight and exhorts us to fight with God’s weapons in God’s ways. Fifth, it reminds us that we have a mandate and one from which we are often distracted by Satan. We are to stay true to our mission and to realize that we are not at peace but are at war.
“In Christ’s kingdom there can be no conscientious objectors. In Christ’s church, there is no inactive duty. To be a disciple is to be a solider of the cross…The term of enlistment is a lifetime, beginning with conversion, ending with the discharge papers or transfer to the church triumphant in heavenly rest, where we are eager to hear the words, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’”
I feel that Gale does quite a good job of defending his position that the military mandate is inexorably connected with the Scripture’s portrayal of Christ’s redemption, the church’s mission and the identity of the believer. But let me ask you: do you feel that this is a necessary metaphor, a helpful metaphor, or merely a contextual metaphor and one that should likely be abandoned, at least during our time and in our culture?




Comments (15) »
1. Michael Garner
July 17, 2006
1:40 PM
I think it is somewhere both necessary and helpful. I wonder how some of the Bible could possibly be preached without the metaphor.
Is it a damnable heresy to ignore the metaphor? Probably not. It is wise to ignore a metaphor so predominant in Scripture? Certainly not.
2. Jeri
July 17, 2006
1:48 PM
I believe that it’s a necessary metaphor…necessary, that is, if we intend to run the race for the prize and finish well (another metaphor that also implies overcoming and victory.)
3. Ed Elliott
July 17, 2006
2:25 PM
I agree with Tim that one of the few and glaring doctrines neglected by the “Reformed,” is the Christian’s Warfare against our 3 viscious enemies: satan, the allures & distractions of this world, and our own sin natures. We would all do well to read William Gurnall’s THE CHRISTIAN IN COMPLETE ARMOUR.
4. Mark Tubbs
July 17, 2006
2:49 PM
I would add to Tim’s post by referring to a book that Tim reviewed a year and a half ago as of tomorrow: Don’t Waste Your Life by John Piper. Tim didn’t comment much on chapter 7, entitled “Living to Prove He is More Precious than Life.” Since I just printed off the entire chapter for a colleague at work, it came immediately to mind regarding the Christian military terminology debate.
Piper advocates not military terminology as such, but a ‘wartime mind-set,’ which he explains in a section subtitled ‘Why I Use the Phrase “Wartime Lifestyle:” ’ He writes:
“The phrase is helpful - but also lopsided. For me it is mainly helpful. It tells me that there is a war going on in the world between Christ and Satan, truth and falsehood, belief and unbelief. It tells me that there are weapons to be funded and used, but that these weapons are not swords or guns or bombs but the Gospel and prayer and self-sacrificing love (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). And it tells me that the stakes of this conflict are higher than any other war in history; they are eternal and infinite; heaven or hell, eternal joy or eternal tormet (Matthew 25:46)…In wartime we ask different questions about what to do with our lives than we do in peacetime. We ask: What can I do to advance the cause? What can I do to bring the victory? What sacrifice can I make or what rish can I take to insure the triumph…In fact, in wartime sinners often rise to remarkable levels of sacrifice for causes that cannot compare with Christ. The greatest cause in the world is joyfully rescuing people from hell, meeting their earthly needs, making them glad in God, and doing it with a kind of serious pleasure that makes Christ look like the Treasure he is. No war on earth was ever fought for a greater cause or greater king.” (111-112, 118, 122)
The urgency of Piper’s writing infused in me a brand new sense of the war we are fighting against the forces of evil for the glory of God. You can read the entire book at www.desiringgod.org. Highly recommended.
5. DLE
July 17, 2006
9:51 PM
The modern idea of “the Christian soldier” is an outgrowth of mid-to-late 19th century postmillennial triumphalism that is inextricably linked to Social Darwinism, industrialization, the abondonment of regional economies, and a number of other social evils.
Did Gale mention any of that in his book? If he didn’t, then he totally missed out on the true origins of the idea in North America.
6. Mike T.
July 17, 2006
10:59 PM
This is the very thing that is so insidious about post modern ideas creeping into the church. Truth become a linguistic construct which must be adapted to the consensus view in order to be valid or relevant. Wait…there seems to be a problem here! What if the majority that forms such opinions is on the broad path to destruction? What if language that is changed in such a manner is not aimed at cultural sensitivity, but ultimately a power grab? Worse, what if those who advocate removing such language are lulling believers or unbeleivers into trivializing their falleness and that which wages war against their souls (the world, the flesh and the devil)?
The thing that bothers me most about emergent leaders such as McLaren is how they forward their agenda by creating a new culturally sensitive lexicon that distorts sound biblical doctrine. Do those who advocate Christians refrain from using the language of warfare think that “principalities, powers, the rulers of darkness of this world” want anything less than our destruction? The McLaren’s of the world may not be at war with them, but I do not believe the enemy has called a truce.
7. Juliet
July 18, 2006
1:11 AM
I notice the previous comments on the Christian’s call to be a footsoldier are all by men-persons. When I read this as a woman, I notice that I am recoiling from the concept of myself in warfare. Unfortunately, Satan does not attack, oppose or sneak up on just the men in the family! Many traditional women will need extra urging to pick up such a book, but it sounds like an eye-opener for us.
8. Michael H
July 18, 2006
1:31 AM
Tim
Was quite surprised to see your comment that the Reformed tradition has ignored spiritual warfare. Surely you must mean that tradition within the past few years (though, even with this qualification, it might raise some quetioning looks). If there is one thing that the Reformed view of spirituality has highlighted is spiritual warfare.
And a quick response to a previous comment: spiritual warfare is not a product of 19th century post-millennial Christian triumphalism at all. It appears much earlier—it is deeply rooted in the Puritan psyche from whence it came into the stream of Evangelical consciousness.
9. JRush
July 18, 2006
9:22 AM
Good post. We should not change the story that Scripture gives us. But we are fighting the “good fight.” Fighting for people, not against them. Lewis said we are behind enemy lines and starting a revolution in a spiritual sense….Of course this is done by winning peoples’ hearts.
JRush
10. Molly
July 19, 2006
4:05 AM
I think McLaren was referring more against militaristic terminology used against culture and sinners, not so much against Satan, etc.
Emerging churches tend to be VERY missional (which would certainly fall under the catagory of offensive/defensive purposeful action, which is militant in a sense). It’s just that they are not defining the unbeliever or the culture as the enemy.
Militaristic language does not frighten me unless it’s used in a theonomistic sense, one where the person thinks we are in a war against all who do not believe in God. Ephesians 6 makes it very clear where our current battle is waged, and it’s not against the people around us, nor the culture (modern, postmodern, or medieval).
11. Kean
July 19, 2006
8:08 AM
I think it’s mainly to do with the Church staying relevant. As a teenager I have to admit, the whole christian army concept sounds a little ‘cheesy’ to me.
Hillsong United had a song called ‘Soldier’ 4 years ago that was quite popular among the youth, however 4 years is a long time for our constantly changing ‘Y Generation’.
-Kean
12. Jerry Morningstar
July 19, 2006
8:48 AM
I think Molly raises a good point. We as a church want to oppose Satan and the forces of evil - but our message to the unbeliever is not, ‘You are our enemy and we wish to do away with you.’
The church may even be more reluctant to use military metaphors today in a Jihad world where religion is used to justify killing the ‘infidels’.
Still - the language - if biblically used is entirely appropriate and truthful as long as we stick to the biblical imagery. Christians aren’t called to attack the unbeliever but in fact to love them [Matt. 5:43-47] and to show them the power of a transformed life redeemed by the blood of Christ.
13. Kean
July 19, 2006
9:28 PM
Jerry, I think you”ve misrepresented what the ‘enemy’ is, the enemy are not unbelievers, those who haven’t found salvation, but the forces of evil, satan.
14. Tim H.
July 20, 2006
7:04 PM
In Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller makes some similar comments to McLaren’s. He says it always seemed to him that the war of Christians was against homosexuals and liberals. I don’t know what churches he learned that in, but I would agree with him that is wrong. But, as far as relevancy - I think the metaphor is just as relevant today as it was in the ancient Roman Empire. I would argue there will never be and has never been a time when people didn’t understand that metaphor.
15. stepchild
August 4, 2006
7:53 PM
Tim H., You said, “I would argue there will never be and has never been a time when people didn’t understand that metaphor.”
I’m pretty sure that our understanding of war is quite different from that of generations past. Movies, videogames, and laser-guided smartbombs have made war cheap and impersonal for the majority of us. Our attempts to apply this (mis)understanding of war to our spiritual reality have resulted in a lot of wasted time and resources as we’ve looked for ways to “get the job done” without putting ourselves in harm’s way.
I think we should always be looking for indigenous ways to express the truth of our faith. In my opinion, militaristic imagery and language isn’t (pardon the pun) worth fighting for.