Christian Soldiers: Militant, Militarized Christianity in the American Military

The threat posed by conservative, evangelical Christianity to America's secular democracy is multifaceted, but one significant threat that has gone unnoticed by most Americans is the attempt by certain right-wing religious groups to Christianize America's military and militarize America's Christianity. This phenomenon has developed with little notice for many years, but publicity from secular groups combined with a growth that can no longer be ignored have caused more and more mainstream publications to pay attention.

There is little to nothing good to be said about these developments in the military, but it's not clear that the government is concerned enough to do anything about them. The sad fact is that backers of Christianization of the military have been placed in offices of significant power and influence in the military and they have no incentive to turn against their own religious ideology.

It is influenced in part by changes in outlook among the various branches' 2,900 chaplains, who are sworn to serve all soldiers, regardless of religion, with a respectful, religiously pluralistic approach. However, with an estimated two thirds of all current chaplains affiliated with evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, which often prioritize conversion and evangelizing, and a marked decline in chaplains from Catholic and mainstream Protestant churches, this ideal is suffering.

Historian Anne C. Loveland attributes the shift to the Vietnam War, when many liberal churches opposed to the war supplied fewer chaplains, creating a vacuum filled by conservative churches. This imbalance was exacerbated by regulation revisions in the 1980s that helped create hundreds of new "endorsing agencies" that brought a flood of evangelical chaplains into the military and by the simple fact that evangelical and Pentecostal churches are the fastest-growing in the U.S.

The chaplains minister to flocks that are, on the whole, slightly less religious than the general population and slightly less evangelical. According to a 2008 Department of Defense survey, 22 percent of active-duty members of the military described themselves as evangelical or Pentecostal (although the actual number of evangelical-minded believers is likely higher when encompassing personnel who follow more evangelical expressions of mainline Protestant denominations, as well as a sizable percentage of the additional 20 percent that describe themselves simply as "Christian").

Source: Newsweek

It's disturbing to think that this might be yet another consequence of the Republican deregulation madness of the 1980s, but the question of regulating "endorsing agencies" is a serious problem. It is difficult if not impossible to set standards for such agencies without getting into doctrines, dogmas, and theology, but what competency does the government have to make decisions in such matters? It's inevitable that there will be conflict and complaints.

For example, the military has a legitimate interest in not having chaplains from denominations or groups which teach that other religions are inherently inferior, but what if this is a basic doctrine of a group? This would entail that certain religious doctrines be excluded and that would cause certain people from being ineligible or chaplaincy. That is a type of religious discrimination which someone will surely complain about, which may be why there are now more and more chaplains preaching things that are incompatible with the secular nature of the military's mission.

Of course, the military would have little trouble excluding chaplains from groups which teach that certain races are inferior, even if that belief is a basic doctrine of their religion, but why is that different?

Jim Ammerman's Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches (CFGC) is just such a group because they have been accused of constantly denigrating all other religions and even other Christians — including Catholics and other Protestants. There is a video of CFGC chaplain Maj. James Linzey calling mainstream Protestant churches "demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell," that should be "[stomped] out." Such attacks on racial and ethnic minorities wouldn't be tolerated, but the military doesn't have a problem accepting chaplains from groups teaching such hatred of other religions. This tells us a great deal about the real attitudes of America's military: Christian Supremacism.

Art Schulcz, a lawyer representing CFGC in a lawsuit against the Navy, says that evangelicals are the real victims, at least in that branch of the service. (As of 2008, all three chiefs of chaplains were evangelicals.) Numerous evangelical Navy chaplains, Schulcz says, have been discriminated against, denied promotions and subjected to denominational preferences by a Catholic- and mainline Protestant-dominated chaplaincy that is intolerant of how evangelicals worship. Many, he says, have fled to the more evangelical-friendly Army.

"Mikey Weinstein says they're shipping Bibles there," Schulcz says. "I want to say, 'So what?' The Constitution protects that kind of activity." He contends that General Order Number One's prohibition on religion, which has been in effect since 2000, is overly vague and a violation of religious freedom, and that, in any case, chaplains should be exempt since, he argues, they are not military representatives but representatives of their faith groups: "The Constitution prohibits absolutely the government from proselytizing, but it protects the proselytizer to do so, unless they're harming the public good."

Department of Defense policy says that chaplain-endorsing agencies should "express willingness" for their chaplains to cooperate with other religious traditions. But Schulcz claims that Ammerman, who is not a paid government official, and his chaplains, who are, are entitled to say whatever they want unless they're advocating insurrection.

The above is a good example of what we're dealing with: either complete misunderstanding or disregard for both the Constitution and the primary duties of a military chaplain. Being a chaplain doesn't make one exempt from all military rules and regulations. Being a military chaplain isn't a means for getting free trips around the world so you can pursue private evangelization missions.

Chaplains exist in the military for just one reason: to serve the religious needs of military service members who have taken away from their homes where they can more readily find their own churches. Chaplains are tasked to serve everyone in the military equally, regardless of personal religious or spiritual beliefs — favoritism towards any one religion and denigration of any other religions is strictly prohibited. This is because chaplains serve the needs of everyone in the military, not their personal and private religious agenda.

It's true that private religious organizations have a free speech right to advocate just about anything they want, but the military has not only a right but an obligation to set restrictions and standards for the agencies allowed to train and endorse candidates for military chaplaincy. If Ammerman's group doesn't want to live up to those standards because they conflict with the group's religious beliefs, then they should refuse to accept them — but that entails not having their members become military chaplains.

There is no Constitutional right to say and believe whatever you want while still getting an endorsement from the government or a chance to provide employees to the government. Art Schulcz doesn't seem to recognize that bans on the government from proselytizing are bans on government employees and representatives from proselytizing — there is no such thing as a "government action" that isn't some sort of action being performed by some person. Thus, so long as a person is acting as a chaplain in the military, they are an employee and representative of the government. This means that whatever the government is prohibited from doing, they are prohibited from doing.

What I see here is an attempt to claim special exemptions from generally applicable laws and standards: Art Schulcz doesn't think that the CFGC should have to abide by some (or any?) standards which the military has for "endorsing agencies" and military chaplains. Art Schulcz doesn't seem to think that military chaplains should be in any way limited by basic restrictions on government action. In each case, the exemption is based o the principle of religious liberty — apparently, religious liberty is so broad as to exempt a person (or at least a Christian) from the rules everyone else has to follow.