Last week, 41 veteran chaplains released a letter enumerating the many and serious religious liberty concerns with the Obama Administration’s plans to normalize homosexual behavior in the armed forces.  Almost immediately, a chorus of  critics responded, branding the carefully crafted letter of the chaplains—who have a long and distinguished record of service in the all branches of the armed forces—as “insulting” and “illogical.”

Perhaps such criticisms were made before the critics had taken the time to read the prayerfully considered and carefully researched letter that the chaplains released.  Or the three accompanying personal letters written by a few of the signatories briefly outlining what it said.  More charitably, perhaps the critics simply don’t understand the chaplains’ letter.  Either way, it’s important to ensure no one is misled by the criticisms.

For starters, the letter is not an attempt to protect squeamish Christians from having to deal with people who disagree with them on sexual morality.  That should have been clear just by reading the biographies of the signatories included at the end of the letter.  These are men who have defended American liberties in almost every major modern conflict, from Vietnam to Afghanistan.  They’ve faced sniper’s bullets and terrorist IED’s, so they’re not afraid of ministering to people with whom they disagree.  The chaplains said as much in their letter:

“To clarify, we are not saying that active-duty chaplains who share our beliefs would be unwilling to minister to those who engage in homosexual behavior.  To the contrary, we believe that God loves everyone, that He desires that everyone should hear of and receive the Truth, and that He calls us to speak that Truth.”

The chaplains, and those who share their beliefs, are willing to minister to whoever needs their ministry, including individuals who engage in homosexual conduct.  They’re just not willing to allow political correctness to dictate the terms of their ministry.  Politicizing the military may be acceptable to those who are willing to place their agenda over the First Amendment, but chaplains will not allow the Good News to become a politically-correct gospel.

Second, some have suggested that normalizing homosexual behavior won’t hurt religious liberty because the military hasn’t forced chaplains to accept an official doctrine on moral issues like abortion, spousal abuse, or gambling.  This rejoinder, though, lacks both factual accuracy and logical coherence.  Factually, the military did try to censor chaplains on one side of the abortion debate during the partial-birth abortion battle at the behest of the Clinton administration.  (The letter addressed exactly this troubling bit of history in footnotes 7 and 16.)  And logically, the current push to normalize homosexual behavior will make it a special issue set apart from the concerns like domestic violence in at least two ways. 

First, the military currently agrees with the chaplaincy that domestic abuse is bad; in fact, the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlaws such assault.  But in the case of normalizing homosexual behavior, the military’s moral code will be at direct odds with that of many of its chaplains.  Second, no one is attempting to make domestic abuse a special class of protected behavior against which discrimination is banned.  But as the chaplains point out in the first paragraph of their letter, the current push to repeal the military prohibition on open homosexual conduct will give such conduct the protections enjoyed for race and gender - that is, discriminating on the basis of homosexual behavior will be forbidden.

While proponents of these special protections (and they are many, since the pending legislation in both the House and Senate is well-supported by the Left) may want to hide their harm to religious liberty, the carnage is obvious from how similar laws have been enforced in civil society.  The chaplains made that clear on page 4 of their letter, citing example after example of how such “non-discrimination” laws have been used to attack religious liberty. 

In an attempt to hide the coming danger, Interfaith Alliance suggests that the chaplains’ concerns are overblown because “people can disagree on issues and still serve together.”  But such rosy predictions—which weren’t backed by a shred of evidence—simply ignores the predicament of people like Julea Ward, a top-level graduate student, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund in a lawsuit, who was kicked out of her counseling program at a government school just a month from graduation because her religious beliefs prevented her from affirming homosexual behavior.  Or of Marcia Walden, also represented by ADF, who was fired at the behest of a federal government entity for simply referring a client requesting counsel on a same-sex sexual relationship to another counselor.   Or people like William Akridge, a prison chaplain who was formally reprimanded because he wouldn’t allow an inmate who openly claimed to be “gay” to lead the choir. Or of innumerable other situations where religious liberty has been assaulted in order to protect homosexual conduct. 

And in the context of the military, where discipline is absolutely necessary and dissent is rarely allowed, these types of “government policy versus religious freedom” battles are going to be brutal.  Those who make the “live and let live” argument, then, are either not paying attention or are purposefully hiding the truth.

Of course, that a conflict exists is no surprise to those who are really paying attention on either side of the issue.  As a senior Obama administration official has said, the conflict between religious liberty and homosexual conduct is a “zero sum game” where one side must lose.  (Yes, this is in the letter, too.  Check out footnote 14.  She went on to say that “we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity.”) Based on this, it’s a serious question whether this administration prefers homosexual conduct to time-honored First Amendment rights.  Unfortunately, the answer isn’t as obvious as it should be, especially given the administration’s weak record defending religious liberty elsewhere.

If an argument is strong, critics will often reframe the issue as something that can be attacked more easily. Here, that’s what critics of the 41 chaplains have done. And that says a lot about how right the 41 chaplains are.

________________________________________________________________________

This post also appears on townhall.com.

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or signing the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

As we’ve discussed before, the Obama Administration’s push to normalize homosexuality in the military is a distinct danger to religious liberty in the military.  And today, some of the best possible experts on the subject—retired military chaplains—are raising their voices to draw attention to this concern.

With the support of ADF, a group of 41 chaplains from all branches of the armed forces released a letter that provides a detailed explanation of how repealing the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law would censor chaplains and marginalize Christian soldiers.  Since their letter speaks for itself, I won’t elaborate further on it.  Especially when you could read three different explanations of the letter written by three of the chaplains themselves.

But I will introduce you to the signatories of these letters.  These are men who have given the bulk of their adult lives to serving the spiritual and moral needs of our armed forces.  And many of them continue to serve those needs by preparing and sending young chaplains into the military from a variety of Christian denominations.  Here’s a quick rundown of the signatories:

1)      Combined, the 41 chaplains have put in over one thousand years of service in the armed forces.  Almost every one served for at least two decades; a few almost made it to four decades.

2)      They are a high ranking group, with 2 brigadier generals, 21 colonels (or colonel-equivalents; a Navy captain is the same as a colonel in the other branches; learn more here), 14 lieutenant colonels (or LTC equivalents), and 4 lieutenant commanders (which are the equivalents of majors in the other services).

3)      The majority have served with our troops during armed conflict, ranging from the Vietnam War to the current-day wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Several have earned Bronze Stars for courageous conduct during battle; a couple even earned the Purple Heart (one did so three times!).

a.)  One of them was the first chaplain wounded during the Vietnam War.
b.)  Another earned two Presidential Unit Citations for extraordinary heroism under fire.
c.)  Yet another provided critical chaplaincy support during search-and-rescue operations at the Pentagon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

4)      Almost all of the signatories have attained high levels of responsibility and service within the military.

a.)  A couple served as the leader of the armed forces’ top branch schools for chaplains (like the U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School)—that is, they were responsible for training every chaplain entering the military.
b.)  Another served as Assistant Chief of Chaplains—only a step away from the highest chaplaincy position the military can offer.

When a single person with credentials like these speaks up, you listen.  And when over forty of them speak with one voice, we had all better stop and think about what they’re saying.

Before it’s too late.

________________________________________________________________________

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or sign the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Watch as distinguished military chaplains announce opposition to overturning the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

To understand what’s at stake, download this important information. Learn what’s at risk and how you can specifically pray for religious liberty in the military.

I’ve spent the last couple blogs discussing protecting military chaplains’ religious liberty from the threat posed by normalizing homosexual behavior in the military.  Allow me to take a moment to celebrate that religious liberty.

My wife and I took a road trip to Colorado Springs recently to celebrate our anniversary.  While there, we were able to enjoy some breathtakingly beautiful examples of God’s magnificent creation (which we found particularly impressive because neither of us had ever been to the Rockies before).  For instance, we saw:

Garden of the Gods

Pikes Peak

and Aspen trees (which we both love, but rarely see).

But one of the most beautiful things we experienced was inside the unusually-shaped walls of The Cadet Chapel at the U.S. Air Force Academy.  And while the building itself is a marvel to behold, I’m not referring to it.

Instead, I’m referring to the time of worship we had, led by an Air Force chaplain and shared with a small group of Air Force cadets, members of the community, and tourists (like us!).  The chaplain opened God’s Word to us, teaching about the incredible plan God has for our lives.  No health/wealth/prosperity gospel teacher, the chaplain showed us that the incredible can also be inscrutable, relating the story of his aunt whose courage and grace in facing an untimely and painful death was a catalyst for many to find new life.  And then the chaplain shared with us Communion, administered by him and two surprisingly-young-albeit-competent-looking cadets, which is the remembrance of perhaps the ultimate example of God’s incredible and inscrutable plan.  Our small, impromptu congregation ended this celebration of Christ’s sacrifice together with song praising His grace and goodness.

I left thankful that, in America, citizens can be so led to know and honor their God by chaplains.

Chaplains’ religious liberty is worth standing up for.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

According to proponents of homosexual behavior, the battle between religious liberty and homosexual behavior is a zero sum game where one side must lose so the other one can win.  And the battleground has now moved to the military.

President Obama has called for repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, which prevents open homosexual behavior in the military.  Already, two bills are pending in Congress that would both get rid of DADT and replace it with special rights for homosexual behavior, treating such behavior as deserving the same protection from discrimination as innate, innocuous characteristics like race and gender.

The result of this change will be a major loss to religious liberty in the military, especially for chaplains.  We’ve already seen the effects of such “non-discrimination” laws in the past, and they almost invariably end in marginalizing or attacking Christians simply for being Christians.

Christian counselors have been punished for declining to counsel same-sex couples, Christian chaplains have been disciplined for refusing to turn their worship service over to individuals who openly engage in homosexual behavior, and Christian ministries have been penalized for choosing not to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex commitment ceremonies. Keep reading… »

Government shouldn’t try to tell private Christian educators how to teach Christianity.

                In a decidedly unconstitutional turn of events in April of 2009, the state of Wyoming threatened to shut down a small but well-established Bible school because the school’s Bible classes weren’t state approved.  That the First Amendment prohibits government attempts to control religious education wasn’t enough to stop the state’s actions—at least not initially.  

                The school, Frontier School of the Bible, is a purely religious non-profit technical school that was founded over 40 years ago in LaGrange, Wyoming.  The school’s curriculum is solely aimed at preparing its students for Christian ministry, and the few non-Bible classes taught at the school—like English—are provided only because they aid effective teaching and interpretation of the Bible.  The school has over 1,600 alumni, most serving as missionaries, pastors, and youth ministers throughout the world.  Frontier exists for one purpose: preparing Christian leaders to teach others about God.

                But the state of Wyoming believed that the quality of Frontier’s Christian education might not be good enough for government work, so its education department sent the school a letter last April demanding that it either become approved by the state or close its doors.  And approval by the state didn’t present an attractive choice.  One way to become state-approved would have accreditation.  But for a school that didn’t pay salaries to its faculty or staff (instead, they all have to obtain voluntary financial support, much like missionaries do) in order to keep costs low so ministry-oriented students weren’t crushed by debt at graduation, the sky-high costs of accreditation wasn’t feasible.  Plus, other similar non-accredited Bible schools that have sought accreditation report that it often requires jettisoning the purely Bible-based teaching that was the sole reason for Frontier’s existence.

                The school’s second route to state approval was even worse: getting a state license.  But this would require ceasing to discriminate based on religion both in admitting students to the school and in hiring teachers for its Bible classes.  Nothing could be more destructive to school’s Christian identity and purpose than having its Christian curriculum taught by non-Christians to non-Christians.

                Thankfully, after being challenged on the many constitutional infirmities of demand to the school, the state made the right decisions to protect religious liberty, granting Frontier an interim exemption from the state’s regulations while legislators crafted a fix to the statute.  That fix was signed into law just this month.

                But what if Wyoming hadn’t made the right decision?  It would have set the State up as in authority over the Church to determine the content of theological instruction.  And “setting standards for a religious education is a religious exercise for which the State lacks not only authority but also competence.”  HEB Ministries v. Texas Higher Educ. Coordinating Board, 235 S.W.3d 627, 643 (Tex. 2007).  That is, having a bureaucrat determine the content of a quality Christian curriculum is like having your single neighbor tell you how to raise your children: not only does he not have any right to tell you what to do, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 

Christian education is too important to be left in the hands of government.