Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part V]

So, after four days of this, you are probably asking "why does the title say Gary Cooper and Alvin York?"  "I know Cooper was an actor, but who's York?"  "What does a 1930s Hollywood actor have to do with this?"

All good questions.  But first, let me ask you, do you know who Alvin York was?

(Big ears were so in style in 1918.  Epic 'staches a suggested option.)

If you get the chance, watch the 1941 movie "Sergeant York."  It does a good job of depicting the man's life.  It should, York was the guy who picked Gary Cooper (his favorite actor) to play him.  And, yes, he really did capture 132 Germans after having a duel with 30 machine guns.  By himself.  Captain America ain't got nothin' on York.

And while the historian in my could go on about a story like this, that's not the point this time.  Rather, I'm going to talk about how this former hellion turned pacifist was granted a Medal of Honor for killing 28 enemy and capturing 132.

Now, it has been a number of years since I watched the movie, but a few weeks ago it was on and I caught about 30 minutes of it during my lunch break.  I saw from his recruitment to the battle he became famous for.  His struggle, and answer, got me thinking about vocation.

What is vocation?

Simply put, a "vocation" is a task or duty for someone to complete.  Currently, my primary vocations include "husband," "father," "child," "sibling," and "employee."  Soon "student" will be added to the list, and after that "pastor."

Some of these duties overlap, such as husband and father.  Rarely are they mutually exclusive.  And a vocation does not have to be "religious."  I heard Luther once quoted as saying a mother changing diapers (which is part of the vocation of parent) is more "spiritual" than a monk saying vespers.

So, back to York.  He had chosen to be a pacifist, which is not required of the vocation of Christian, but his rational is completely understandable (since he converted, gave up alcohol, and went pacifist after a friend died in a duel).  However, the government chose him to become a soldier.  Within the vocation of soldier, being violent in controlled instances is the core task.

The movie depicts him in training, doing admirably.  The city kids who were recruited made fun of his accent (Tennessee) and simplistic yet direct thinking.  The instructors did too.  Until they handed him a rifle.  Most recruits had no idea how to shoot a gun.  York grew up with a muzzleloader he used to hunt with.  Hitting a bed sheet fifty yards away was too easy for him.  His skill with a gun was part of why he was promoted to corporal.

That's when he became more vocal about his desire not to kill.  His sergeant, his commanding officer, and the officer in charge of the entire unit, all spoke with him, and did so rationally, not just "you'll follow orders!" you would have expected.

Where it comes to a head is when he's given some leave before, likely, shipping out.  He is encouraged to go home and consider what to do.  While discussing if it is right for a Christian to fight in a war, he and the officers trade quotes from Scripture, and correctly, not just proof-texting.  The CO finally hands him a book on American history, specifically on the Founding Fathers, encouraging York to read it and consider.  He does.

Finally, back home, sitting alone with this history book in one hand and the Bible in the other, Alvin York is at a loss.  What is he to do?  The Christian side of him says "don't fight."  The American side of him says "defend your nation."

Which is correct?

Opening his Bible, he turns to Matthew chapter 22.  Verse 21 provided the answer.

They [the Pharisees] said, "Caesar's."  Then He [Jesus] said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

At that point, York realized that being a loyal Christian who sought to "do no harm" was not mutually exclusive with being a loyal citizen willing to go to war to defend the nation and those who are innocent.  If he had to kill, he would without seeking it on his own right, but if the opportunity never came up, then all the better.  Either way he would have done his duty, to God and country.

An antithesis to this, though still just as correct an understanding of the proper distinction between being a Christian and being a soldier, is Desmond Doss.  His story is told in the movie "Hacksaw Ridge," which tells the story of his service as an unarmed medic.  He elected to enter a combat zone unarmed, in a war against an enemy who would see no issue of killing a medic.  But his version of Christianity forbid him from carrying a weapon.  So he served during the invasion of Okinawa, some of the bloodiest fighting in all of human history.  And at no point did he draw blood.  Like York, he earned the Medal of Honor, and is the only unarmed conscientious objector to earn said medal.

So who is more correct in understanding vocation and the proper distinction of the Two Kingdoms, Alvin York or Desmond Doss?

Both.

Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's.  We are to serve within our vocations both the State and the Church.  For the one in a position of authority in the State, executing their powers is appropriate and even Godly.  Yes, even killing an enemy soldier.

Now, this does not excuse war, nor do I mean to make the implication that war is God's desire.  Far from it.  But this is a sinful world, and conflict occurs.  And, like York discovered, being a soldier does not keep one from being a faithful Christian.

See, in the end this Two Kingdoms doctrine is easy, but intricate.  The teaching is simple, but there are many moving parts, and quickly we find ourselves in a theoretical discussion.  Not that this is a bad thing, but we cannot dwell here.  That was the mistake of the monastic movement.  Vocation and the Two Kingdoms and the Estates are, in a way, a call to "put your money where your mouth is" and see your life as Christian and [fill-in-the-blank] overlap.

And if any of this discourages you, just remember the one who never struggled with this.  His vocation of King and Servant were concurrent, as were His duties as both God and Man.  As a humble servant He was nailed to the Cross.  As the creator of the universe He rose from the dead.  Christ's two natures are not mutually exclusive, but are both active now.  If He is any less of one vocation or the other He is no longer the Christ.

Just like how the Triune God is simultaneously all Three Persons; distinct and authoritative in their duties, but united in their action.  You cannot have one without the other two.

Funny how all discussions of doctrine run back to Christology and the Trinity.  Almost like they actually matter.  Like that's all where supposed to focus on anyway...

Now, on to a new topic... once I find one.  Well... that's not true.  There's plenty, just not sure if the blog, as it is right now, it the most logical format.  I'll play with them and see what happens.  Until them....