Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The Military Christian’s Perspective

The ongoing public debate over homosexuality and the US military (most often referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) presents a unique conflict for Christians in the military.  There are those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong and must be prohibited at every possibility, and there are those who believe people have the freedom to do as they please in their private lives.  This situation has implications from both the Christian perspective and the military perspective (in isolation), though they must be integrated to form the military Christian’s perspective.  Each of these three is addressed individually below.

The Christian Perspective

The Christian faith considers homosexuality a sin, just as theft, adultery, murder, and lust are sins.  Still, Christianity does not condemn the person who expresses a homosexual preference.  In addition, while many people in this world are tempted to sin (as was Jesus during his incarnation), the temptation to participate in sinful conduct is not itself wrong.  Finally, man is a fallen creation and has a sinful nature; thus, succumbing to temptation and sinning are a common experience of many on this earth — even the stereotypically staunchest Christians.

For a Christian, it is disheartening to see the culture, government, and now military move to end opposition to immoral behavior.  This is a dramatic indicator of the direction of cultural morality in the United States:  Few other issues have so rapidly moved from socially unacceptable (even illegal), to permissible, and then to protected.

Consistent with the philosophy that society is best served when it is imbued with moral character, Christian citizens should advocate for moral conduct and against the acceptance of immoral conduct.  This includes opposing the acceptance in military service of those who choose a homosexual lifestyle.

Still, no mainstream Christian has ever suggested people with a homosexual preference be treated in any other way than with respect, love, and gentleness.  (To clarify, respecting a person who makes immoral choices does not mean a Christian should accept, advocate, or permit those immoral choices.)  Consistent with the Constitution, a Christian is free to believe (and express the belief) that homosexuality is wrong, but that bears no relation to a Christian’s Christ-like treatment of another person created in God’s image.  In addition, a Christian’s disagreement with an individual’s chosen behavior does not equate to mistreatment of that individual by Christians, despite melodramatic speculation to the contrary.

Christians should always treat all people with respect, love, and gentleness — even those with whom they theologically disagree.

It is worth noting, however, that the Christian reaction to homosexuality — calling the conduct wrong, while respecting the value of the person — may still be criticized or even punished by society.  It is not uncommon for homosexual advocates to call Christian beliefs “hate,” “bigotry,” or “homophobia.”  Given the direction of the American culture, it is unlikely such a reaction will abate in the future, and Christians must be prepared to stand by unpopular beliefs.

From a Christian perspective (in isolation), the acceptance of open homosexuals in the military service is a sad statement on the moral decline of American culture — and it should be opposed.

The Military Perspective

The treatment of “private” conduct in the US military is unique to the military’s structure, rules, and mission.  The military leadership has the ability to restrict conduct permissible in civilian society, and with a single edict it can permit conduct otherwise restricted.  The military is not a democracy, and military members are obligated not only to follow but also to actively support military rules and regulations.

Does the US military have the authority to ban or allow open service by homosexuals?  Consistent with the law, absolutely.  US law currently bans homosexual conduct in the military; should the law change, military members would be required to obey and uphold those policies.

The concept of military regulations is important to this discussion because military policies govern many facets of life some may consider the purview of “morality.”  (In fact, “moral character” is still a requirement for entry into military service.)  For example, living (in a marital sense) with a person who is not one’s spouse is still restricted in the military, despite its common acceptance in the modern culture.  Military policies also permit conduct religions might find immoral — including contrary religions.  Worshipping another god or no god at all would certainly be sin the military not only allows, but protects.  There is a significant difference, however.

The Christian faith acknowledges choice in belief — a person must choose to accept or reject the Gospel; their decision cannot be made for them.  In a manner of speaking, the New Testament Christians were the first advocates for religious freedom, believing each person has the freedom to choose — even the freedom to choose to be wrong.  Thus, the active support by the US government of non-Christians in military service is not inconsistent with the tenets of the Christian faith.

Notably, the exercise of religious freedom in the military is mutual.  Any military member is free to believe and express the belief any other religion is “wrong.”  While respectful treatment is required, military policies do not obligate a military member to acknowledge, support, or advocate the truth claims of other beliefs.  A military officer is responsible for protecting the religious freedom and free exercise of his subordinates, and he retains those freedoms himself.

On the other hand, religious freedom and the proactive support of homosexuality are potentially mutually exclusive.  If the exercise of one’s faith includes the belief homosexual conduct is wrong, and homosexual conduct is a protected class, then either religious freedom must be restricted or the protection of homosexual conduct modified.  To simplify, the statements “homosexuality is evil” and “it’s illegal to say homosexuality is evil” cannot co-exist; one or the other must be supported by the leadership, and the other must fail.

This controversy has the potential to present a conflict between personal conduct and the religious liberty of a majority of servicemembers for the first time in the US military’s history.

Still, from a military perspective (in isolation), the military retains the authority to set its policies, and they must be obeyed — whether they ban or permit service by open homosexuals.

The Military Christian’s Perspective

A variety of Christian responses have been suggested to the plan to repeal DADT, and they vary from supporting it wholeheartedly to outright disobedience.  Some have suggested litigation to assert the Constitutional protection of religious freedom; others have indicated Christians should resign from the military rather than support an immoral policy.

When considering the military Christian’s perspective in responses to conflicting military policies on sexual conduct (or any other military policy seemingly in conflict with the Christian faith), there are some important points.  First, wanton disobedience to military authorities is not generally an acceptable course of action.  As noted in Christian Fighter Pilot is not an Oxymoron:

There are too many Biblical examples of God’s people living in ungodly conditions — without either rebelling or surrendering — to advocate disobeying those in authority.  An American [military Christian] is neither Peter nor John, and the military is not the Sanhedrin ordering him not to speak the name of Christ — yet (Acts 4). A Christian must live within the rules of those in authority so long as they are not contrary to God’s Word (Hebrews 13:17, Acts 4). Ultimately, though, only God can say that one course of action is more just than the other.

The second half of the quote is significant.  While the mere repeal of DADT has a primarily passive impact on the military Christian, the policies implementing it may not be so indirect.  Depending on the specific policies enacted, there may be circumstances when a Christian is required to take an action or position inconsistent with his faith.

Should a military Christian publicly oppose the proposed repeal?  The military leadership has already made it abundantly clear such opposition is not acceptable.  While Christian tenets encourage participation in the culture, they do not necessarily demand such participation.  In that regard, a Christian is not explicitly obligated by his faith to publicly oppose the repeal.  If a Christian feels compelled by his faith to speak out against the change while in the military, he should be willing to accept the repercussions, which might include official sanction or dismissal.

Should a military Christian quit the military?  Despite the occasional feeling of nostalgia, the military environment has never been completely reconciled to the Christian faith.  Long before DADT became a four letter acronym, Christians in the military struggled with a culture they may have considered challenging, even hostile, to the Christian faith.  However, nowhere in the Bible does God or His inspired speaker direct His followers to leave their professional roles, whether as government officials, hated tax collectors, or members of the occupying Roman military.  In fact, the opposite encouragement is given: to remain where they are.

While it is possible a military Christian may experience a direct moral conflict as a result of changes to DADT, it is also possible a military Christian may never experience such a conflict.  Despite reservations about what the future may hold, Christians should not preemptively abandon the military in anticipation of what may come.

Resigning from the military over the potential conflict of policies with the Christian faith is not a commendable course of action.  Granted, some will sincerely feel it is inconsistent with their faith to serve in an organization supporting what they believe to be immoral conduct; those people must act in accordance with their beliefs.  For most people, however, such dramatic recourse should not be taken to avoid what might be a future conflict.  For perspective, consider that Christians are commanded to “go into” the world — they cannot be salt in it if they abandon it in the face of perceived difficulty.

What about specific policies implementing DADT repeal?  Each policy — none of which have yet been publicized — will have to be addressed on its own merits.  Even then, the appropriate response to a specific policy may vary by person and situation, as there are legitimate reasons for different responses to moral challenges to the faith.  (Compare and contrast the Biblical stories of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with Naaman the Aramean, for example.)

It is possible the military will enact policies to minimize the moral challenges of DADT repeal to the Christian faith.  It is also possible polices will be put in place that are, passively or proactively, a direct conflict with the Christian faith.  Should the latter occur, as with Nebuchadnezzar and Naaman, each person will have to prayerfully consider their ability to continue under those policies without compromising their faith.

Notably, few if any policies will likely be explicit, proactive support of immoral conduct.  For example, should a policy demand respect and fair treatment regardless of sexual preference, Christians would likely be first in line to support such an environment even absent a specific policy.

Still, there may be one significant avenue for recourse if a military Christian is confronted with a professional conflict with his faith: a request for religious accommodation.

Though most often associated with getting time off for religious observances, the military has long had a system in place for general religious accommodation (see DoDD 1300.17), even when such accommodation might otherwise be construed as discrimination.  For example, in the late 1990s a Christian Air Force officer sought and was granted religious accommodation preventing him from being assigned to an alert crew with female officers.  In another example, it is generally accepted that military physicians are granted accommodation when they are not required to participate in procedures that violate their consciences, including abortion or the dispensing of controversial “emergency contraceptives.”  Religious accommodation is not guaranteed, and it is predicated on mission accomplishment.  Still, there may be unique cases in which a conflict between faith and military requirements may be resolved through religious accommodation.

How should a military Christian respond to policies accepting open homosexuals?  The most reasonable course of action is for Christians to continue to serve with excellence, courage, and moral leadership in the military.  When opportunities are given, they should make their opinions known, but they should not agitate unnecessarily or preemptively act based on potential outcomes.

By the same token, military Christians must not compromise their faith — even as they are “in the world” to be a light to the world.  To the extent they are able to maintain the integrity of their faith — something only they, in concert with the Holy Spirit, can ascertain — Christians should continue to serve in the military with excellence, even in the face of spiritual challenges.

In the unlikely instance a military Christian is required to affirm the virtues of a homosexual preference, a Christian may have to take a defiant moral stand.  If they are placed in a position in which they are forced to choose to obey God or man, Christians must obey God.

Conclusion, and Encouragement

From a Christian perspective, the decision to repeal laws banning military service by open homosexuals has the result of normalizing immoral behavior.  Such an outcome is disheartening, but it is not an unforeseeable result in a fallen world.  From a military perspective, Christian officers must obey and support the policies instituted by military leadership; the current controversy represents the first time policies may conflict with a majority of sincerely held religious beliefs, so its future is uncertain.  For the military Christian, the as-yet undefined future policies may present a unique challenge to the integration of faith and profession.

The challenges of living a life for Christ in what is perceived to be an “immoral” environment demand, more than ever, the fellowship of believers.  Military Christians should rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit through prayer, the counsel of Chaplains, the guidance of fellow military Christians, and the advice of leaders in the faith, particularly those with military experience.  Many para-church groups, like Officers’ Christian Fellowship, the Navigators, Campus Crusade’s Military Ministry, and other related military ministries are staffed with members who can provide unique insight from both Christian and military perspectives.

Ultimately, even if the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” fails, the culture within the military — indeed, within the United States — will be forever altered.  While the conflict and even potential hostility of the culture will certainly present a challenge for the military Christian, it is likewise an opportunity to demonstrate the love and power of the Christian faith.  The coming changes may present a unique opportunity in history to impact the world and stand for Christ.  It will by no means be easy, but God has commanded His followers go into the world, and He will equip them for the task to which He calls them.

Pray without ceasing, and walk by faith.  When you feel challenged in your attempts to persevere as a servant of Christ, serving in the military, consider: Who knows but that you have come to this position for such a time as this?


  • A well written, carefully considered, and persuasive piece. Thanks for the edification.

  • On a fundamental level, I really don’t see the difference between engaging in homosexual activity and engaging in Hinduism. If, as a Christian, you think that they are both sins, why should you not be actively trying to establish a society in which Hindu worship is not accepted?

    If, Dave, as a Christian in the military, thinks that it is wrong to be a Hindu, should he be prevented from saying so? Should he be prevented from telling a fellow soldier that being a Hindu is a sin?

  • Sorry, I pressed enter too soon. I really don’t see that the two should be, or need to be treated any differently.

  • Throughout, you say that homosexuality is immoral, a conclusion you take for granted.

    So, can you provide evidence that it is immoral? Not that I disagree, but I’d like to see what you say.

  • Don,

    Good question.

    As individuals I can share my religious beliefs, which happen to conflict with Hindu beliefs. I respect those beliefs, yet disagree with them. That is the whole idea behind religious freedom.

    The difference between homosexuality and religion is that freedom of religion is a Constitutionally protected status. Homosexuality is not. The Constitution is the law of the land.

  • Donalbain,

    Then you are one of the few who have that perspective. Many on the anti-appeal side fear they would be unable to express a theological opinion against homosexuality (though they can express one against another religion). Many on the pro-repeal side actually agree such a conflict will occur, and have said those with such a theological opinion shouldn’t let the door hit them on the way out.


    You ask an interesting question worthy of a fuller discussion. Due to limited time, for now I will offer a philosophical response: What evidence is there that homosexuality is moral (or even amoral)?

  • Lawrence vs Texas would suggest that homosexuality was constitutionally protected. But I see my larger point was missed. If Christians like the author are upset by laws that allow “immoral” behaviour then why are they not campaigning for an end to the First Ammendment which allows actions so immoral that they are first on Yahweh’s List Of No.

  • You appear to have missed part of the article. Reread the Military Perspective section on contrary religions.

  • I did.. and it made no sense.. firstly you claimed that freedom of religion is a Christian principle which is laughably untrue looking at both history and the Christian Bible. Secondly you said some nonsense about it being mutual, as if that was somehow relevant. As if homosexuals wanted to make you unfree to be heterosexual.

    Either “As a Christian, it is disheartening to see the culture, government, and now military move to end opposition to immoral behavior” such as Hinduism, or it is not.

  • So, since you fail to understand it, you dismiss it. You are attempting to selectively apply a worldview you do not share — nor apparently understand — on behalf of those who do. Your application is incorrect.

  • Is worshipping a false god immoral?
    If it is immoral then why is it not ‘disheartening to see culture move to end opposition to it’?
    If it is not immoral, then why is homosexual sex?

  • The discussions of homosexuality and the military policies would seem to be very simular to the discussions years ago regarding race and military policy.
    I would be interested in how a government, which proclaims the freedom of all regarding race ,color or creed, is in a position to ask anyone who is putting themselves at risk to be required to keep secret anything related to race color or creed.

  • Emerson,

    My understanding of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act protects race, color, religion, sex (meaning gender), and national origin. Additional laws have added age and disability to that group, but all protection to homosexual orientation is from Executive or Judicial office actions. Creed is not part of that, and there are many creeds that are illegal in the United States. The first that comes to mind is polygamy.

    The military regularly requires limitations of freedom from individuals who choose to serve – some regulations limit free speech and the right to assemble. Your argument implies that military members should have the same freedoms as the general population. Do you agree?

  • The “You lose some of your freedoms in the military” line has always been and will always be BS if you apply it unequally. Either put the same restrictions on everyone or do away with them.

  • Steve,

    The standard for the restriction of freedoms is military effectiveness. That topic is up for debate. By the nature of regulations, all rules are applied unequally – someone will have their viewpoint affirmed; someone else will have theirs overruled.

    At the purest level, you have people who would be offended if they had to accept a lifestyle that they view as immoral under any and all circumstances. Under the pure counter-position, you have people who think that the military should allow any behavior that is politically correct, regardless of the consequences to military effectiveness.

    Whether DADT is repealed or not, the rule cannot apply equally to both of the above people. Someone will have their beliefs impeded upon.

  • Actually, there’s an important distinction. In Goldman v Weinberger (1986), the US Supreme Court ruled that the US military had the authority even to restrict the religious free exercise of its troops. In fact, they specifically said military uniform regulations could overrule the First Amendment.

    Because Congress was vested with the Constitutional authority to raise armies, it chose to rewrite the rules after that Supreme Court decision. Out of that ultimately came DoDD 1300.17, among others, which says religious needs have to be accommodated so long as the mission allows. Thus, religious freedom is protected in the US military by dictate of Congress — even though the Supreme Court said it didn’t have to be.

    Currently, there is no Congressional dictum protecting sexual conduct in the military. In fact, Congress wrote the current law outright banning homosexuals from military service (it didn’t write DADT). To make an equivalent comparison with homosexuality, the law banning homosexuals from military service should also be affirmed at the Supreme Court, even if it was found to restrict rights protected by the Constitution. It would be up to Congress to change the rules and say homosexual conduct was permissible in the military.

  • Is worshipping a false god immoral?

  • Thanks for the publication of this article. Note that serving as a senior military officer, or any military person who coordinates missions, it is rarely that individual assigned to a potentially compromising situation. They are probably sending someone else into a challenging situation. I do not feel right nor will I do that. For example: If I were to assemble a deployable crew as I have in the past, my choice was simply male, female, or a combination of both. If female accommodations were not available, then an all-male crew went and vice versa. Please ask yourself, “why does this matter?” Why can we not bunk males and females together? The obvious answer is sexual preference among the male/female gender and perception. I will not put a subordinate in a compromising position like that whether he agrees with the DADT policy or not.
    Further, if a person of one faith were to shower or bunk with ten other differing faiths, the odds of that one person converting or being put in a compromising position are not realistic. However, a female or male heterosexual that is rooming or showering with a number of homosexuals has now been put into a compromising position specifically in regards to perception. If anyone says different, then all community male/female personal spaces needs to be discontinued and universal accommodations provided. I assume that if DADT is repealed, either four specific bathroom types need to be assembled; or time slots constructed for first the heterosexuals to shower and then the homosexuals shower.
    This will have a significant impact on military efficiency and readiness.
    Simply hoping that we do not encounter a compromising situation is not the answer. George Washington did not accept Homosexuality for a reason. Ask yourself why. It was neither accepted then, nor should it be accepted now. By the way, I never read anything of Washington not accepting a Hindu to fight in his army. If anyone has heard different, I am willing to listen.

  • Sorry Mike — your perception is yours and only yours. It has already been established that military efficiency and readiness WILL NOT be affected with a repeal of DADT. George Washington lived a long time ago and did not have the information (and proof) we have today–to make a logical and educated decision.

    This also isn’t about universal accommodations, its about the freedom to live as one chooses (not lying), to honorably and proudly serve ones country without fear, intimidation, or discrimination. Male/female separation is logical, but we do not currently “separate” sexual orientation, beyond the standard of self control. Work is work, war is war and a room mate is room mate. The only expectation is that everyone does all of these to the best of their abilities, respectfully with honor and integrity…to serve ones country.

    Just because a person is of a different sexual orientation doesn’t mean they want [desire] to “have sex” with whoever walks by, or is in close proximity. Compromising positions may happen once in a blue moon; they do now, only lied about or covered up. Some liken LGBTs serving openly to why women can’t go into combat roles….because…uh…..”close quarters”! Johnny is shooting the bad guy and Suzy jumps into the fox hole and now Johnny can’t concentrate. This too is BS because its happening as well…times have changed. They are grownups and know how to conduct themselves properly.

    That said, grownups communicate with each other, they tell each other NO or Yes to things they do not want or thing they do want. Privacy accommodations have come along way, but when the troops are working in close quarters respect for each other is the only option. Please do not try to deny the troops to work this out themselves, they don’t need mommy’s and daddy’s anymore.

  • George Washington owned slaves. Forgive me if I do not accept him as a moral authority on anything.

  • Don,

    You don’t like term limits?

  • No. I don’t. I think that the only term limits should be the vote of the people.

  • Watchtower.
    I sadly have to agree with you. According to the media and the popular opinion, my perception is in the minority. I am beginning to understand that if something is popular in America, it becomes “right”. I’m curious, how far do we take the term “the freedom to live as one chooses”. Do you really believe that or do you simply believe it to the point where it doesn’t affect you?
    For those in the obvious minority, it appears that the “DADT” will become “don’t ask and tollerate.” I am well aware that I have had homsexuals fight along side me and I appreciate their service. However, is that really the justification for acceptance. If that is true, your stand needs to be universal, and EVERYTHING needs to be accepted by everyone. May I respectifully ask, what is your basis on what is moral and what is not? Is it what is currently popular?

    It appears that you’re basing George Washington’s lack of social information he had at the time was the basis of his decision. I don’t believe that would have made a difference to him, but we’ll have to let that one go since we cannot ask him.

    Regarding slavery, isn’t it ironic that it was abolished and yet homosexuality has been openly accepted. By the way, the founding fathers addressed slavery and knew it was wrong, thus the civil war. Did you know that Gen Lee was reported to have prayed publically with African Americans and that Stonewall Jackson was known to provide a secret reading education to African Americans in church because it was considered illegal at the time. So much for our “perception”.

    I look forward to your response…

  • No.. not really ironic at all, since slavery is the owning of people against their will, taking away their rights in the process, while homosexuality is not.

  • watchtower,

    sorry for the delay, I took my time thinking about your post.

    You criticize Gen Washington because he did not have access to all the knowledge we have now. Knowledge may be power, but knowledge is not wisdom. Gen Washington made a call based on morality and principle in relation to the military that was different than civilian life. I respect his wisdom.

    The standard of self-control is over-rated; about the same as the Big Sky Theory. It sounds really good, and works most of the time, but there are plenty of cases where airplanes under VFR have collided. Real comparison for sexual matters is found in sexual harassment and assault stats. We are supposed to respect our comrades, not pressure them for sex, yet this happens regularly.

    Serving one’s country is not limited to the military. If you choose to serve through the military, there are restrictions. Suppose I have negative views of political leaders personal life. Then suppose I am asked what I think about those political leaders. I would have to reply with a lie or with the military’s restriction on said opinions.

    You accurately state that homosexual people are not automatically lusting after people who cross their path. Reference the above discussion about Big Sky Theory.

    You relate homosexuals serving to females serving in combat roles. Your analogy in the foxhole is misapplied. Generally speaking, men have a stronger drive to protect women than other men, especially in a physical sense. My own experiences and thought processes, both in training and while downrange, confirm that quality. (note: in full disclosure, I have not been in ‘combat’ as in I have not been directly fired upon)

    Your last comment states that grownups communicate with each other. Not true: reference any technological catastrophe or ask any sexual assault counsellor to define ‘consent.’ In order to assist in helping troops stay focused, they have General Order 1. It states that individuals cannot enter the quarters of an opposite sexed individual. The logical extension of that order with open homosexuals in the military is a concern of accommodations.

    That discussion is better on the post on DADT survey results. See you there.

  • Good posts (Dec 1st) from Mike and Dealer. I’m slowly drafting a reply…standby for a bit, this week and next are busy due to upcoming inspections…I’m pooped!

  • “The Christian faith considers homosexuality a sin”. What is this Christian faith based on? You gave no Bible reference. I invite you to view the video titled, “Messiah loves homosexuals”. I give scripture references concerning homosexuality. Please see if my video is accurate to the Word of God.

  • Kenny:
    Just saw your video and I’ll reply to you further via the e-mail address you provided with a Christian perspective. For this post, I’ve attempted to keep it as factual and as carnally based as possible. I’m specifically addressing the overwhelming complexities that would occur throughout the military service due to close quarters and morale. From the look of Dealer’s response, I think he sees it the same way. Watchtower stated that,
    “It has already been established that military efficiency and readiness WILL NOT be affected with a repeal of DADT. How do we know that? . This is an inaccurate statement as there hasn’t been anything “established” yet because DADT hasn’t been repealed yet. Maybe the words, “it has been determined” fits better, although I still do not agree with it.

    Some may disagree, but homosexuality is solely a sexual matter, thus the reason for separation of males and female spaces due to heterosexual sexual desires. The best of comrades and shipmates of the same sex have shared personal spaces throughout military history where homosexuality was not the issue. If biblical documentation is needed, the best one I can think of is King David’s and Jonathan’s very close friendship through their military events that had nothing to do with homosexuality.

    I’m sure that the homosexual community would agree that if DADT is repealed, they would like no restrictions to the repeal. Like many others, I personally would not hot-rack, bunk, shower, or room with an open homosexual. If you think that it’s because of Homophobia, you’re mistaken It has everything to do with possible perceptions and sexual desires from the same sex. Dealer’s post put it perfectly. Now couple that with differences in morality and the military morale will deteriorate. Note that one of the “basic needs” that psychiatrists always mention is sexual needs. If that is true, do we really think that a basic-need will not become an issue in close quarters?

    I will respect the homosexual but it is not fair for others to compromise their position due to them wanting to be in the open. The current DADT policy is the best compromise that I can think of.

  • Kenny,

    I think you and JD share the same perspective, just different communication about it. Excellent video/song by the way. I share JD’s view that homosexuality is a sin (as I interpret homosexuality as the action). That God loves all sinners is wonderful news (as I am a sinner), and ‘all sinners’ include homosexuals. I think your video is complimentary to the view here, but I’m not sure of the point of the questions in your post.

  • As a retired F16 pilot/FWI and Christian, the following. In today’s Christianity most seem to have forgotten that it is the Christian who is called to keep God’s Law, not the unbeliever. WE have the strangest paradox today in our Churches. For ourselves we preach “come [to God] just as you are”, and “we live by faith, not by works. it’s all grace. no more law, hallelujah”. And then we turn around, leave our church services and start kicking against those who never ‘signed up the covenant with God’ – taking offense at the manner of their life.

    The unbeliever is not part of the covenant, and thus not bound to its standard either. We, as Christians, are. And we are commanded – COMMANDED – to love.

    Further: The military is not a church, is not a faith institution, is not under the covenant with God either. It is a secular institution, serving our secular government. Having said that, the Christian is called by God’s Word to honor authority and to under submission. God is a God of order, and He disapproves rebellion (to put it mildly).

    When a Christian has true faith, he can serve in a secular organization, and submit himself and choose to be a blessing to his superiors and to his colleagues and to his subordinates. Demonstrating love, dedication, loyalty, expertise, wisdom, flexibility, sacrifice, honor and integrity of a level that exceeds the average. From that platform, the Christian earns a right to lead. First, by example, and later on even with culture shaping leadership. This is the long road, the narrow road, that leads to life. The alternative is the cheap way: To bark and criticize and complain and disobey and rebel. That way does not honor God.

    It is high time the church starts looking inwardly, and starts walking the command again to love – even love the ‘enemy’. Jesus never spoke a single word against the Roman occupiers, nor did He comment even once on the morals and ethics within the Roman fighting forces. Instead He challenged us: Look inside, clean the inside, remove the plank, change your heart, and start being a blessing. Now…. that’s entering a long and painful way… the narrow way… But it leads to life. It’s Christ’s way. Or we can start accusing and condemning. That’s the accuser’s way. The choice is ours.

    Addressing this discussion to the point: None of us is in the seat the make the decision on DADT. We have superiors and officials who have been entrusted with that responsibility and authority (and all authority comes from God). As Christians we should walk the Gospel. DADT Go or NoGo? It makes no difference to our marching orders: Love your neighbor as yourself.

  • Hans
    This isn’t about salvation. It’s not even about establishing a “christian military”. It’s about standing up for what’s right. Amen, we are saved by grace and nothing else. To me, this isn’t a judgment dialog. The wonderful thing about this nation is that it is the “government of the people, by the people, for the people, (so they) shall not perish from the earth.” said Abe Lincoln.

    This is about you and I having the right to speak up in this country. Isn’t that why they sent out a poll in the first place. I as a christian am thankful that I have been saved by grace. However, we’ve also been blessed to live in a country where we have the freedonm and RESPONSIBILITY to STAND UP for what is right. This should never be a country where the Christian simply accepts the actions of others by total tollerance. That’s not why Christ came. The Gospel teaches a better way to live not by the law but by grace. Is that what Christian love is all about…to say nothing. I don’t expect non-christians to live a christian life. But that doen’t mean that Christians should not stand for what is right.

    This is straight from the Declaration of Independence:
    …”That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
    Far more than a member of the military, I am an American Citizen, and the morality, safety, and security of this nation is paramount to me and my family.
    How far are we going to take this? If incest or polygamy were next to be allowed in the Military that Christians need to tollerate, are we all going to accept it? I’m curious where everone will draw the line on what is right to do. This has nothing to do with salvation. It has everything to do with living in a Country where God should be glorified first not mankind first…recently that has not been happening. Not “God Bless America” how about “America bless God”

    Sorry for yelling and I’m just as mad at myself for being quiet for too long.

  • Again, if it is about what is right (moral?) do you think a promiscuous soldier or one with a propensity towards promiscuity should be discharged? How about a soldier who divorces and remarries?

  • Hans + Mike – standards in conduct originate in love. God loves us, therefore has given us rules to live by because they are good for us. Authorities (should) give rules to others because they think those rules are good rules.

    Don – the discussion over DADT is better suited for what is good the military. I said that I think it is more immoral to do homosexual acts than be promiscuous, but that doesn’t play into why I think DADT shouldn’t be overturned. Again, I discussed the implication of rules based on morality on a different post and stated the morality of the situation isn’t the discussion: it may be my personal belief, but my professional belief opposes DADT for different reasons, see below or that other post.

    A heterosexual promiscuous servicemember has certain boundaries between that person and people of the opposite gender (with whom the servicemember is attracted to) in many intimate situations (billeting being the main one of note). A homosexual servicemember does not have those same physical boundaries with the people with whom they are attracted, therefore they have a restriction known as DADT.

    If you want to use self-control as the standard, it is a poor boundary: reference my previous discussion in response to watchtower. If you want to use physical boundaries, then logistics will crush the military.

  • Dealer: The point was made AGAIN, that homosexuality is immoral, and thus should not be allowed in the military: “This isn’t about salvation. It’s not even about establishing a “christian military”. It’s about standing up for what’s right.” “Far more than a member of the military, I am an American Citizen, and the morality, safety, and security of this nation is paramount to me and my family.”

    For as long as people make the claim that because of morality, homosexuality should not be allowed in the military, I will continue to ask them why they do not oppose promiscious men being in the military. I have asked you that question a couple of times, and you chose not to answer. So be it, but stop whining when I ask other people who might have the guts to answer a simple question based on their claims.

  • Most promiscuous action is covered under the UCMJ already.

  • Don,

    I’m not opposed to repealing DADT on moral grounds, but on military effectiveness grounds. I’m claiming a morality argument. I’m not claiming that homosexuals shouldn’t be in the military. On top of that you asked why I think homosexuality and promiscuity should be treated differently and I’ve answered that question, both on this article on on the “Report: Troops Who Support DADT Can Find Another Job” article.

    Neither promiscuity nor homosexuality should be excluded from the military on moral grounds, just on military effectiveness grounds. However, since many members of the military have strong moral opposition to homosexuality, they cannot be treated with the same policies. I thought I already said that though, but you claim I wasn’t answering your question.

    As a side note, it would be more clear who you were addressing if you addressed them. I thought you were just asking the same question over and over again, regardless of who answers your questions.

  • Mike: Really? What part of the UCMJ would lead to the discharge of someone who has sex with a single, consenting partner of legal age and opposite gender?

  • Really. How about an extramarital affair. Its not permitted in the military I know a number who have been discharged from the military. The only one who was not is our previous Commander in Chief Clinton. Here’s an example.

    “An investigative hearing under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is scheduled to begin 2 p.m. Tuesday at Fort Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, for Capt. Herbert Mark Hamilton, the former commander of Coast Guard Sector Anchorage charged November 3 with multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    The accused 48-year-old captain faces charges including adultery, fraternizing with enlisted staff, and fraud. Coast Guard lawyers say he had extramarital affairs with the woman who testified Wednesday, two other enlisted women and a fourth one, who was a junior officer. All of the relationships, if true, are violations of military code.”

  • Sorry, I should have said

    Really? What part of the UCMJ
    would lead to the discharge of
    someone singlewho has sex with a single,
    consenting partner of legal age and
    opposite gender ?

    That way we control the variables so that you are ONLY dealing with promiscuity. After all, a married gay man would not be allowed to serve in the first place. Do you think a single soldier who is male should be discharged if he has sex with an unmarried woman?

  • Don,
    My understanding is that you are challenging the line in the sand between homosexual sex and non-married heterosexual sex on moral grounds. If you think the military should discharge anyone who has ever committed an act the reasonable Christian would call immoral, then should the military also kick out anyone who has ever lied, or dishonored their mother, or worked on the Sabbath?

  • Dealer: It is not me who is saying that Christian morlity should be the determining factor in military service. It is others, in this case it is Mike. I wiill quote him again:

    “This isn’t about salvation. It’s not even about establishing a “christian military”. It’s about standing up for what’s right.” “Far more than a member of the military, I am an American Citizen, and the morality, safety, and security of this nation is paramount to me and my family.”

    So, I am interested in knowing why allowing a promiscious (or a remarried divorced) soldier to serve does not cause a problem and would not require him to “stand up for what is right”, but allowing a gay man to serve would. Basically, I am asking for the criteria by which homosexuality is more immoral than those two actions.

  • Don,

    That’s rather simple actually. People put sins on a ranking system. The Bible actually says that is a bad practice because all sin is separation from God. I think that homosexual acts, generally speaking, cause more separation from what God intended sex to be. No one here ever said that a promiscuous person doesn’t cause problems, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The military draws the line at ‘mission impact’ and has restricted what both heterosexual and homosexual people can do and those restrictions are different.

  • So, despite the fact that the Bible or Jesus never says that it causes more seperation, you decide that it does. So, you just make it up. Thank you. I know exactly how much I should pay attention to your talk of morality now.

  • Don,

    I’d rather you respond to my questions to you actually.

  • Folks:
    Looks like we are going round and round on the severity of different sins.
    That was never my point and I feel we are chasing down a rabbit hole.
    My initial response to this had to do with the complexities of handling this in close combat living quarters.

    Sin is sin.  Granted, some sins have more consequences than others, but we are all seperated from God without a savior.
    What are we Christians going to do about it as a unified voice?  The world is looking for an answer.  
    If you think of the current policy of DADT, it makes perfect sense because why should sexual preference ever be a consideration in the first place.
    I think the homosexual community is looking to be heard and appreciated.  Although wrong, this is the way they are chosing to raise their voice.  They appear to want to feel justified with their actions.  
    After talking to individuals from Europe, open homosexuality is common.  America is slowly (or rather quickly) headed down that path. 
    Christianity does not approve of sex outside of marriage.  This will be yet another challenge where the gospel needs to be presented.  
    As military leaders your decisions regarding your personnel will become more complex.  It has to because of multiple types of relationships, hurt feelings, and dealing with sexual complications like numerous STDs.

    Yep, a homosexual may serve next to me.  I guess that individual has a pressing need for me to accept them with a repeal of DADT.  My response should be that I have been accepted by God through Christ.  You will find fulfillment in no other.   

  • If it is so complex a situation, then why have so many other militaries been able to deal with it?

  • I don’t know how they do it or how they deal with it or even if they deal with it at all.
    Also, I don’t think we should be ready to follow the advice of other military forces throughout the world.
    We have the finest and best military of all and for us to follow the lead of other nations doesn’t seem right.

    The Air Force times has put out a great article on this subject that addresses the same issues we have covered. It’s a good read.

  • OK. You don’t want to look at actual evidence. I see.

  • Don,

    Neither do you. In no category in the troop survey did more troops think that repeal was going to be favorable as compared to unfavorable. We are different than other countries, and if you think Europe has the right answers, you are free to live there.

  • Donalbain
    After reviewing your posts, I cannot figure your angle. It appears that you ask a lot of questions, throw out a zinger, and leave it to us to research the answers.
    Respectifully, where are you coming from in all of this?
    Although we may disagree, I’ll respect that.
    If you are simply looking for answers for yourself, that too is a stand that I can relate to.