Ed,

I completely agree with you. There is a significant difference between a "regular" pastor and a military chaplain.

My first military chaplain was United Methodist. He served as a Protestant chaplain. His job certainly wasn't to convince Protestant soldiers that United Methodism was the best expression of the Protestant faith. Now, I'm sure he couldn't help but to serve out of his Wesleyan training. But his responsibility was to preach the most doctrinally wide message without making Scripture stale or powerless.

The diversity among Protestants alone creates enough challenges for the military. If I were Pentecostal, I might find a United Methodist pastor serving as Protestant chaplain a challenge to my theology. That is why military chaplains are supposed to be carefully trained to respect differences and invite willing personnel to explore their own faith rather than to have it dictated to them.

The mere fact that the chaplains are government employees should put the brake on conversion efforts. Having chaplains subject to military authority is an operational necessity to good order and morale within the military, but it inevitably compromises the chaplains' status as clergy and limits their roles.

For once, I agree completely with something Ed has to say about religion. However, it's not clear to me that chaplains are the central point of contention in Weinstein's lawsuit claiming that "senior officers and cadets illegally imposed Christianity on others at the school."

Eric wrote:

For once, I agree completely with something Ed has to say about religion. However, it's not clear to me that chaplains are the central point of contention in Weinstein's lawsuit claiming that "senior officers and cadets illegally imposed Christianity on others at the school."

No, I don't think chaplains are key to Weinstein's lawsuit. I was just noting that the Air Force's review follows on the heels of that lawsuit and prior controversy over similar problems at the Air Force Academy. I probably could have worded it better.

How could an "evangelical" chaplin, not preach the gospel? If a chaplin believes that all will perish apart from Christ, then why would he keep that truth to himself? To me that seems unloving to NOT tell a soldier how to be saved from God's wrath and be reconciled to their creator.

Greg wrote:

How could an "evangelical" chaplin, not preach the gospel? If a chaplin believes that all will perish apart from Christ, then why would he keep that truth to himself? To me that seems unloving to NOT tell a soldier how to be saved from God's wrath and be reconciled to their creator.

What you're missing here is context. As an evangelical minister, his job is to evangelize. As a chaplain, his job is rather different. We place chaplains with military units not to convert recruits, but to have someone who can answer their questions about spiritual matters and comfort them in difficult situations. Their job is to help maintain unit cohesiveness and morale, not to undermine it. And if they are attempting to convert people who do not wish to be converted, they are undermining morale, not improving it.

Also ask yourself this question: if your position was correct, then why the distinction between the "unchurched" and those of different faiths? The evangelical chaplains agree not to try and convert Jews, Muslims or people of different Christian sects. But that violates your premise just as much as not evangelizing non-believers.

If a chaplin believes that all will perish apart from Christ, then why would he keep that truth to himself?

I would say that the chaplain has the right and the duty to share the Gospel with those soldiers who come to him. However, as Ed says, it would be counter to the chaplain's purpose for him to proactively seek out nonbelievers in his unit.

On the other hand, evangelical service members have the right to evangelize their fellow soldiers, so long as doing so doesn't distract them from their duties or create disunity among the ranks.

Ed,
I agree with your post, but it brings a question to mind. Would it be okay to evangelize agnostics, as opposed to atheists or deists? After all, an agnostic is not committed to a position on the question, and you seem to imply that a positive stance on theology is the standard for protection from proselytization.

Chuck wrote:

I agree with your post, but it brings a question to mind. Would it be okay to evangelize agnostics, as opposed to atheists or deists? After all, an agnostic is not committed to a position on the question, and you seem to imply that a positive stance on theology is the standard for protection from proselytization.

I include agnostics as atheists. There's more than enough variation in the ways in which these terms are used to justify virtually any usage, but I tend to define atheist not as someone who rejects the existence of God or who has a positive disbelief in the existence, but merely as one who lacks belief in God, so agnostics would be included in that.

I'm not really making an argument for some sort of protection from proselytization here, actually. I think every person has a legal right to try and convince others of a position. That's part of freedom of speech (though when one joins the military, one gives up that right in many ways, this one included). I'm more making an argument that it is wrong to make such a distinction in a code of ethics, that it's ethical to try and convert an unbeliever, but not ethical to try and convert a Jew or a Muslim.

"unchurched"... "different faiths" it doesn't matter the categories. A Christian, no matter what their vocation, is called to share their faith with ALL unbelievers no matter what the state or military rules are. Folks are right to point out that a chaplin, or any Christian in general, should be winsome in how they speak of Jesus. Don't manipulate. Don't coerce. Don't force conversations upon soldiers who don't want to have them. But if a muslim soldier comes to an evangelical chaplin and is struggling with the typical "why" questions, e.g. Why would a good and loving God allow suffering in the world? Telling the soldier that he is going to heaven and everything will be ok is a lie. The evangelical chaplin must tell this lost muslim that unless he repents of his sin and trusts in Christ's work on the cross, he will be separated from God forever. Being a pluralistic chaplin means being an unfaithful Christian.

Ed wrote:

As an evangelical minister, his job is to evangelize. As a chaplain, his job is rather different.

As a Christian his job is to evangelize. I have no idea what the subtype "evangelical minister" means. There is no special job title for Christians who proselytize; it's the duty of us all. The problem is that the chaplains (or whoever) should never have agreed to refrain from sheep stealing, as it's called.

This is just modern American frivolous litigation. I get evangelized by cults—Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons—and I simply deal with it politely (and try to evangelize them.) I don't need the government to protect me from Mormon or JW proselytizing; I can do it myself. People really need to stop whining about every perceived offense to their sensibilities.

And if they are attempting to convert people who do not wish to be converted, they are undermining morale, not improving it.

I don't believe that for a minute. If I say "sorry Padre, not interested," my morale is not affected.

David Heddle wrote:

This is just modern American frivolous litigation. I get evangelized by cults - Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons - and I simply deal with it politely (and try to evangelize them.) I don't need the government to protect me from Mormon or JW proselytizing; I can do it myself. People really need to stop whining about every perceived offense to their sensibilities.

I think these are very different situations. Getting evangelized by an individual on the street is not the same thing as being evangelized by a government employee in the course of doing their job. That doesn't mean that the lawsuit is valid; I haven't seen the specific allegations. I can envision ways in which evangelization in a military setting could be highly coercive, and therefore problematic, and ways in which it would be perfectly acceptable. Given the similar allegations that have been made, and in some cases substantiated, about high pressure and coercive tactics being used by military leaders to force conversions, there may well be a case there. Or there may not be. Without looking at the facts of the case, I am not in a position to judge it; by the same token, you have no factual basis for declaring it an illegitimate case.

I also need to make clear that I am not arguing here that people have a right not to have others speak to them about their faith or not to have others try and convince them that they're wrong, and so forth. I don't think there is any such right, and certainly not in situations like having JWs and Mormons knock on one's door. I am arguing, rather, that there is an ethical element to their job that is hindered by a zeal to convert (unless a soldier engages that discussion themselves, of course) and that the Air Force chaplain's code of ethics should be broadened. But in the military, with an environment that focuses on obedience to authority, an overzealous commander or chaplain could create a situation infinitely more coercive than that, so the two situations aren't really analogous.

There is no special job title for Christians who proselytize; it's the duty of us all. The problem is that the chaplains (or whoever) should never have agreed to refrain from sheep stealing, as it's called.

But is this really conducive to military cohesiveness? If you have chaplains essentially competing with each other over each other's flock, trying to persuade them that they're wrong and need to convert, does this serve the function for which they volunteered? They are allowed to be there, asked to be there, for a purpose. If that purpose is to convert people, then it is clearly unconstitutional - the government certainly has no constitutional authority to pay people to convert others to a religious viewpoint. They are there to help the soldiers cope with the difficulties of military service. They are there to keep morale up and aid in the smooth functioning of the unit. Having chaplains at odds with one another, all attempting to convert a soldier to their own viewpoint, is clearly going to undermine that purpose. And I'm sure that the vast majority of military chaplains take their jobs very seriously and avoid doing this sort of thing.

Greg wrote:

A Christian, no matter what their vocation, is called to share their faith with ALL unbelievers no matter what the state or military rules are. Folks are right to point out that a chaplin, or any Christian in general, should be winsome in how they speak of Jesus. Don't manipulate. Don't coerce. Don't force conversations upon soldiers who don't want to have them. But if a muslim soldier comes to an evangelical chaplin and is struggling with the typical "why" questions, e.g. Why would a good and loving God allow suffering in the world? Telling the soldier that he is going to heaven and everything will be ok is a lie. The evangelical chaplin must tell this lost muslim that unless he repents of his sin and trusts in Christ's work on the cross, he will be separated from God forever. Being a pluralistic chaplin means being an unfaithful Christian.

But there is a contradiction here between your first sentence and the rest of it. First you say that you are called to share your faith with ALL unbelievers, then you say that you shouldn't do that with those who do not initiate it somehow. I fully agree with the second standard and that's really all I'm arguing. If a soldier initiates a conversation with a chaplain, I think the chaplain has a responsibility to discuss this with them. If they don't, I think it undermines their military role if they go out of their way to force it on those who aren't interested.