I spend a great deal of time in the car these days, traveling between my armory near State College, Pennsylvania, and my hometown in Lancaster County.  Noteworthy about Central Pennsylvania is the paucity of radio stations along the corridor I travel.

The one radio station I center on, as it comes in crystal clear, is WTLR (Way, Truth, Life Radio), a Christian broadcaster that leans heavily on programming from Dobson’s Focus on the Family.  Most often, I listen to The Albert Mohler Program.

Dr. Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and in keeping with the tag line for his program, does host fairly intelligent Christian conversation. Surprisingly, as one of the figureheads in the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptists, he relies less on the “Bible thumping” than one would associate with his denomination, even if he ultimately goes to the “Biblical inerrancy” argument for key social conservative issues.

At last listen a few weeks ago, he was broadcasting from this year’s Southern Baptist Convention, at which Major General Carver was a keynote speaker. Carver, the chief of Army chaplains, was recently involved in an imbroglio when he called for a day of fasting and prayer in close proximity to the Jewish celebration of Passover. Mohler, along with his guest, and I apologize for not catching his name, spoke of the role military chaplains play in the Armed Forces, the disproportionate number of Evangelical-affiliated service members, and the issues brought up by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and Mikey Weinstein.

I have disagreed with the MRFF and Mr. Weinstein over a past issue, but there is one position that he and his organization take that I fully agree with and support vigorously: Active Evangelism has no place in the uniformed services.

Dr. Mohler and his guest offered a weak “limit to peer-based witnessing” argument, but then began to make the case that following their Great Commission constitutes “free exercise” under the 1st Amendment. They also accused of Mr. Weinstein of seeking a sterilized chaplain corps who may only utter “the Force is with you,” in the words of Dr. Mohler’s guest, perhaps a mocking reference to soldiers wishing their religious preference to be “Jediism.”^[1]

Southern Baptists, no matter how erudite, seem particularly adept at marginalizing their opponents by overstating the extent of the opposition or exagerrating their agenda. If they fail to persuade, usually they associate those with whom they disagree with Satan or cast them as spiritual enemies that need to be prayed for. Fortunately, given a largely sympathetic live audience, the show did not go in that direction, and they moved on to other topics.

However, to write Mr. Weinstein off as an enemy of Evangelical Christians is incredibly disingenuous. To say that any opposition to “free exercise” with regards to witnessing is unwarranted belies a firm understanding of how the military works. It also negates any ecumenical understanding of non-Christian (and even some Christian) denominations, atheists and agnostics, and our place in the military.

* * *

I understand Great Commission arguments more than most would know. I come from mixed parentage, and was largely raised in a United Methodist background. My father’s side of the family was a mix of stoic Lutherans and Methodists, and my mother’s side had long ago walked away from Judaism in the wake of heavy assimilation, though vestiges of a secular Jewish identity remained.

One of the things I found fault with early was the concept that the church was always under spiritual assault. In spite of the fact that almost everyone I knew in life was at least nominally a Christian, there was this pervasive sense that the church was always “in the lion’s den.” This I considered trite and ridiculous after the first time I read The Diary of Anne Frank. Christians in the Western world, in spite of their lamentation about putting Christ back in Christmas, have absolutely no understanding of suffering true daily indignities for their faith.

When I was told that a Jewish great-grandmother went to hell because “she did not know Jesus,” I think that set me forever against Christian doctrine, at the time subconciously. In many cases, the answer to “why” was an insufficient “because the Bible tells me so,” when often, in reality, there was a deeper and historically more involved answer, unknown to laity and clergy alike.

Confirmation studies in Wesleyan theology only further confounded me. Confusion with the idea of grace in turn took me to understand where and how the Augustinian concept of “original sin” influences even mainstream Methodists. In the words of John Wesley, “Original sin…is the corruption of the nature of every man…”^[2]  It seemed to me that this concept, not supported in the Pentateuch, was a reverse-engineered idea to support the idea of a Savior from Sin, and not the more scripturally sound idea of a Moshiach that would save the Jewish people. This in turn exposed me to the fundamental fallacy of sola scriptura, since the narrative they depend on as authentic is ripe with contradictions.

While it is de riguer to say that Christianity is an amalgam of pagan influences, in truth, its doctrines, right down to the above mentioned Biblical narrative, are a reflection of the politics of the times in which they were developed. Whether it was Augustine versus Palagius, Council of Nicea versus Gnostics, or Luther versus the Pope, there were too many instances of political and societal influences, from Plato to the fuedal system, present in Christianity to find spiritual authenticity. It’s easy to pick on the Christmas tree and the Easter egg, but where it really matters, in terms of the evolution of doctrine, a discerning individual will find far more doubt than assurance. Too many are content not to look, or in the case of Dr. Mohler, too hasty to say that the answer is found in the inerrancy of the Bible, as if that concept is not itself questionable.

By the way, if you think this is a phenominon limited to Christian proof texts, you’d be wrong. Biblical criticism, particular the Documentary Hypothesis, has asserted that within the Five Books of Moses there are multiple sources and redactors, all of them serving the interests of various players in Biblical and post-Biblical history. The earliest components may serve the kohein or priests^[3], while other components supported religious reforms in the Kingdom of Judah^[4].

If multiple source theories are true, one could argue that the events and strife that fomented the literary construction of the of the Masoretic Hebrew texts or the Septuagint were Divinely inspired, and the “final version” was thus authored by G-d. This is what I personally believe. However, I also believe the current version is seldom the “final version.” Even as I write, factions within our various faith traditions interpret scriptures to suit their agendas. Reform Judaism will invariably thrive well into the foreseeable future, and with its emphasis on pluralism and tolerance, its Torah commentaries and prayer books already reflect the political zeitgeist of the time. Conservative Judaism juggles their own interpretation in their struggle to tend the untenable “big tent.” Joseph Smith manufactured whole new stories altogether with The Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. There are all kinds of variations on the King James Version of the Christian Bible that serve various denominational agendas. Today’s approach may well be come the Will of G-d tomorrow. If one truly believes that Creation is an ongoing process and G-d is active in our lives today, I believe it is antithetical to G-d when adherents refuse to accept the possibility of fluidity in G-d’s intentions for Creation, especially when so much hinges on exegesis in all of our faith traditions.

Subsequently, the problem with Biblical inerrancy triumphalism is that it undermines the very argument believers need to make: Torah, Bible, what-have-you, all of them provide a very valuable template for building cohesive and moral societies. Judeo-Christian traditions that place such heavy emphasis on literalism leave themselves open to a very un-G-dly hypocrisy. Even the most Orthodox of rabbinical authorities work within a body of interpretation and homily that Southern Baptists would do well to emulate. The directive to “build a fence” doesn’t just protect against radical departures, which I would hope is an attractive concept to fundamentalist Christians, but it also shields Torah from misuse in issues not directly covered by Law. The whole Creationist argument, in a nutshell, isn’t covered by law, and only insecurity fostered by the fallacy of “Biblical inerrancy” renders the whole intelligent design versus evolution argument necessary as a matter of religious importance. Seriously, without “Biblical inerrancy,” would it really matter if the theory of evolution was taught in schools? Without a literal view of Genesis, we might celebrate a deeper understanding of G-d’s mechanics within Creation rather than always looking like intolerant curmudgeons.

Relying on sophisticated exegetical analysis in place of invisible guiding spirits, perhaps, is why Judaism enjoys a far more credible scholarly tradition than fundamentalist Christianity. The end result of a scholarly tradition is a text that doesn’t turn folks away because it is touted as “perfect” in spite of its many contradictions. The contradictions are deeply analyzed and explained, and we grow a relationship with G-d by attempting to understand rather than just assert G-d’s unfathomable will. The act of embracing dichotomy within our texts and offering cogent homily offers proof of G-d’s dynamic influence within our lives, and serves as the ultimate validation of proof texts. We can and do tout Holy Torah as perfect precisely because of our sages’ ability to derive a depth to the text.

* * *

But I digress.

In all honesty, my initial curiosity and doubt in Christianity was perhaps fueled by the predilection of adolescents to reject. However, when I met Chabad Lubavitch and became ba’al t’shuvah (sort of like a born again Jew), I began a process of several years where the embrace of Judaism became less a rejection of what came before and more a search for my own grasp on truth and a relationship with G-d.

In there, inevitably, was a proclivity to judge Judaism through the spectrum of a youth replete with Christian teachings. There is an entirely different approach to G-d, as reflected in liturgy and doctrine, in understandings of the afterlife. At the root is the emphasis of faith or deeds. Judaism is a religion of appointed times and functional adherence, focused on our work in the here and now–this world. By elevating even the most mundane of activities, we are more capable of recognizing the spiritual value of the truly profound. Christianity places far more emphasis on the “what comes next,” with any ripples in the here and now as byproduct of preparation for the Pearly Gates. Moving between Judaism and Christianity requires a far more significant paradigm shift than the term “Judeo-Christian Values” connotes.

For me, time and exposure eventually eroded the need to reconcile a Christian-influenced worldview with a newfound Jewish one. As I said, I’ve been observant longer than not, and particularly since hatafah dam brit^[5], an experience more terrifying than the first time I jumped from a C-130, I truly lost the ability to conceptualize from a Christian perspective, if I ever really possessed that capability.

It needs to be said that I am far more comfortable in conversation with religious Christians than secular humanists. Security in a relationship with the Divine provides a common language, even if there are differences, with others who believe they correspond with G-d. So much of my past animosity for Christianity was driven by a juvenile need to lash out at the doctrinal shortcomings I perceived. Christianity has a lot to offer people in need, and participation in a community with a shared set of beliefs is something that is lost in the days of “me, myself and I.”

I just do not believe Christianity has anything to offer a Jew. I think Judaism has all the answers it needs for Jews, which is why I aggressively seek to expose and discredit Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus, or any others who would deliberately target Jews for conversion. If two thousand years hasn’t taught those who seek to convert us that they only end up with our blood on their hands, it has at least taught us that lesson. In a democratic society, fortunately, we are also empowered to seek to limit just how much we need be exposed to what they would shove down our throats.

The foot I have in either world, I believe, leaves me positioned to share thoughts on this topic. I was raised with the intention that I grow up to be a Christian. I am a Jew. Most importantly, I’ve been in the military since the early 1990s, long enough to have an informed opinion as to how “witnessing” can work out, for good or for ill, for members of minority religions, or those with no religion at all.

* * *

Dr. Mohler, on his radio program, spoke to the spectacular numbers of Evangelicals within the military. When he says it, he says it as a point of pride, whereas some of us might shudder. His belief is that his particular brand of Christian is exceptionally patriotic. Indeed, this is true.

I, for one, am a strong proponent for the positive influence has on good order and discipline. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which suffers somewhat from constant assertions of demonic influence by its detractors and reaction to Mr. Weinstein’s aggressive talking points, would no doubt argue the same. Religion is a “force multiplier” in that leaders and subordinates grounded in strong religious principles use those values to augment their military bearing.

In my own little pamphlet I carry around, the Rebbe, of righteous memory, exhorts Jewish soldiers to have courage through faith in G-d. In fact, because my soul is in a solid state, I feel emboldened in the face of danger. I believe in the Shield of Abraham, and I fear only G-d. When I used to throw my feet into the breeze as a paratrooper, if I didn’t have a strong belief in G-d, I would have gone crazy every time the doors opened and the green light flared. Let my last words, G-d forbid, sanctify G-d’s name, I’d say to myself.

I know that is the same for religious Christians. In the words of Garrison Keillor, speaking of Powdered Milk Biscuits, G-d “gives men the courage to get up and do what needs to be done.” I frequently urge many of my lapsed Christian peers to attend services. This is a far cry from proselytizing. Telling others that there is strength to be found in their existing faith traditions is perfectly legitimate. If they have no faith tradition, they may not have the need to turn to the metaphysical to find their answers to the complexities of military service. That is not for me or anyone else to say.

* * *

In 1994 and 1995, while stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, not far from where Dr. Mohler works in Louisville, we were frequently proselytized by an off-post Dominionist religious group identified as “The Soldier’s Home.” One soldier in particular, a socially awkward and self-described “reformed homosexual,” surrendered the entirety of his paycheck to this church, and lived off-post at their facility. The negative consequences of his arrangements forced the unit to put him on barracks restriction. I was on Charge of Quarters duty one fine day when his pastor, a youthful and well-dressed man, came to visit his wayward lamb.

The man very aggressively and obnoxiously embarked on a well-rehearsed conversion soliloquy. I suppose the prospect of converting a Jew offered some reward points in the Afterlife Conversion Bonus program. My problem was not that this weird, Holy Spirit Tongue Jive loser was giving me the Jesus lecture. I was quite rude and offered him an ass-whooping as an opportunity to suffer for his Savior. Nothing between my knuckles and your martyrdom but air and opportunity, pal.

No, my problem was the young specialist was influenced, at the threat of being cut off from his newfound faith community, to witness to us, his peers. I offer this as an extreme example of why Dr. Mohler’s peer witnessing is a problem. If you allow some, you must allow all, because the control of it falls well within the realm of subjectivity.

Additionally, because he was compelled to witness at every turn, we could not take him seriously. He was not ascribed any professional credibility. Anyone who heard him singing in tongues as he mopped the floor of our barracks held nothing but concern that this soldier was on their right or left. In the end, his commitment to a parasitic faith subgroup took away a viable soldier from our ranks. He was left no choice but to put faith before duty.

Now, it may seem hypocritical for an observant Jew to lament placement of religion before duty. After all, kosher rations, avoiding duty on Shabbos, as well as the many non-working Jewish holidays we must seek accommodation for all leave us wide open for criticism. We do our best. Only our rabbinical chaplains seem to enjoy the full spectrum of unfettered religious observance. I can’t find an observant Jew in uniform otherwise who has not compromised at some point or another.

What distinguishes our practice from that of the young specialist? One, we have a uniformed advocate in the form of our rabbinical chaplains, and often, Christian chaplains. We also have a rich tradition that dates back to the Revolution of participation in military activities even with our restrictions.

We are also more likely to be taken seriously by our peers because they see the positive ways in which our religious mandates imprint our conduct as service members. We also don’t seek to bring more into the flock^[6].

Rank in the military isn’t the only delimiting factor in influence. Drill sergeants at various basic training facilities use a form of peer pressure to augment their sway over trainees. Don’t be the suboptimal performer in training, forcing drill sergeants to institute collective punishment, for your peers will certainly punish you individually later. Perhaps you might recall the scene in Full Metal Jacket where Marine recruits beat the slow private with socks filled with soap bars. This is, in military parlance, peer pressure, though hopefully today’s manifestations are not so brutal.

In many branches service members of the same rank can often be put in positions superior or subordinate to one another. In an infantry squad, it is possible to have an E-4/Specialist as a team leader, while the rifleman and automatic rifleman he commands are also E-4/Specialists. While on paper, they might be peers, in reality, the team leader is the highest ranking and wields considerable influence. Since these positions are subject to frequent change due to deployment, injury, change of station, disciplinary action, discharge or promotion, to name a few, governing the appropriateness of peer-based witnessing is more complex than the view afforded from the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention, and that’s just one small example.

* * *

The Augustinian concept of original sin mentioned earlier, in its various derivations within mainline Christianity, is precisely the strongest argument against allowing Evangelism in the military.

Here’s the gist: We’re all sinners, we are all flawed from birth, therefore we need Christ.

When Dr. Mohler argues for peer-based witnessing or perhaps more as protected by the “free exercise” clause, and makes the case that the military might be better for witnessing and conversion, he loses sight of the inherent difficulty reconciling the Great Commission against good order and discipline.

It will be impossible for all commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers of the Christian faith, with a mandate to share the Good News, to not yield to temptation and use their rank to influence the weight of their message, even unintentionally.

Further, it’s equally difficult, if witnessing is allowed unfettered amongst peers, for that not to invade the group dynamic. I share an anecdote, and I know it is not a statistic, but human experience is what is at question here. I was once in a squad consisting of primarily Evangelical peers. One of us was Catholic, another agnostic, and myself Jewish. There was a special emphasis amongst the majority to share with us the Gospel. All of the most vocal were fellow lower enlisted troops. The rest of us felt excluded from their clique as we were the “unsaved.” The non-stop witnessing took its toll on our cohesiveness, and made for a hostile work environment. The nature of the sinner, even the “saved” one, is to perhaps become chauvanistic when similar views are reinforced by the group, especially when “they will not be unequally yoked.”

As Mr. Weinstein puts it, a subordinate does not have the right within the military to tell a witnessing superior to “f–k off,” even if it would be wholly appropriate to do so. When I was witnessed to by a Lieutenant Colonel chaplain of Southern Baptist persuasion, I struggled to find a tactful way to tell him I wasn’t interested. My fear is that my tepid response might have been construed as merely indecisive, rather than a natural reaction of intimidation to his rank over my own. How is a by-default flawed Christian in constant need of Christ’s forgiveness not inclined to misinterpret those vital cues? Do they take it on faith that the Holy Spirit will offer guidance? The last time I checked, the Holy Spirit is not recognized by the military as an arbiter of protocol between ranks.

“Free exercise,” I might remind Dr. Mohler, also means that members of faith groups may practice their faith or even revel in their lack thereof without feeling singled out for it. When the unsaved, as Dr. Mohler asserts, are in the minority as compared to Evangelicals, how can those being targeted for witnessing feel anything but singled out? How is that conducive to morale?

There is a case at a demobilization center in a Pacific state where the commissioned officer in charge, a recipient of a Christian family award and a member of Military Ministries, uses mandatory briefings for reservists returning from deployments to hand out religious materials. A Jewish civilian employee is extremely careful to say nothing, to the point where the individual opts for personal cowardice, rather than risk losing a lucrative opportunity to bring in business helping soldiers readjust after war. That this person is afraid of the spectre of a religious test for her participation is telling.

The reservists have no voice. Most will say nothing, because after a long deployment, they are happy to nod their heads and move on their way to kith and kin. The officer in question uses his influence knowing full well it is at the very least ethically questionable. Perhaps hubris and the “lion’s den” allow him to carry forward with his “crusade.” No matter what, I can say with certainty that at some point, in the course of his advancement as a commissioned officer, he has been schooled that his actions are not in keeping with regulations.

If a Colonel in the United States Army cannot be expected to use his better judgment when reconciling his religious calling against his military vocation, how can we expect younger military members to exercise restraint?

To wit, not a single advocate of Evangelism speaks to this quandry. If we bring it up, they only use it as negative reinforcement and cry that their faith is being oppressed, rather than reflecting on the oppressive climate unfettered witnessing creates.

* * *

Finally, we return to the basic argument of witnessing as “free exercise.”

In the military, we give up many rights.

Our right to free expression is limited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, branch regulations, and operational security (OPSEC). These restrictions are to safeguard the military from association with politics or politicians, or to protect information useful to the enemy. In the name of good order and discipline, it prevents troops from speaking negatively about elected officials and those appointed over them.

Our right to freely assemble is truncated as well. Military members may not join or participate in extremist groups, though they might be allowed to in civilian life. If a black soldier had to serve alongside an open member of the Ku Klux Klan, how would that work out for the interest of the military? Indeed, we already see a terrific rise in extremist group members actively seeking military training for nefarious purposes, i.e. race wars.

Our right to protection from unlawful search and seizure is infringed. Living quarters may be searched and inspected in a way that most civilians would not be comfortable with. At any point, we may be randomly screened for drugs without a shred of probable cause.

Our 2nd Amendment rights are similarly constrained. Many military installations require that privately owned weapons be at the very least registered with the unit commander, or possibly stored in the unit arms room.

Our ability to practice our faiths–our free exercise–is limited and often governed by military necessity. Dr. Mohler declares witnessing to be “free exercise.” Sometimes mandatory military duties, for myself and other Jews, require what we would term a desecration of Shabbos. This carries particularly more weight in our faith tradition than the Christian requisite to share the Good News, if there’s scale to weigh mortal sins. We must still put the mission ahead of our free exercise, and the military certainly believes that, too.

Dr. Mohler and his guest made the point that this is a volunteer military as a defense for their position. I say that it is a stronger argument against their position.

We volunteer fully understanding the hazards of our chosen profession, to paraphrase the U.S. Army Ranger Creed. We understand the significant impositions the service renders on our personal lives. We are expected to and rise to the occasion of making sacrifices that civilians cannot even fathom, all by the simple act of signing our name to paper and raising our right hands.

If I, as a Jewish Soldier, or someone as a Buddhist Soldier, or another as a Muslim Soldier, must make sacrifices in observance for the sake of good order and discipline, so too can Evangelical Christians. In many instances, the right to “witness” in a military can turn into a slippery slope of scenarios incompatible with the warfighting mission. If I cannot guard my forward post because I refuse to violate Shabbos, I let my comrades down, and ultimately I betray the very essence of my faith by “standing idly by the blood of my neighbor.”

In the same sense, if a commander creates a climate where witnessing accompanies daily briefings, the “unsaved” within a unit feel vulnerable, singled out, perhaps even treated unfairly at rating time. A collection of peers, perhaps cadets at the Air Force Academy, make other cadets feel uncomfortable and unwelcome because in their youthful exurberance, they lack the spiritual maturity to present their case in a healthy manner. I would posit that this scenario could place a stumbling block before their intended audience, as the message is lost due to the ineptitude of the messenger. Ultimately, it can and does negatively affect unit cohesion. Only baseless hyperbole can be offered in refutation of this fact.

Failure to recognize the deleterious ramifications that witnessing holds, regardless of the agreed positives of religion within the military, is an intellectual failure, and at its very heart, puts the pride of the Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals ahead of what is morally best for the secular Armed Forces.

* * *

In conclusion, I wanted to propose that the Southern Baptist Convention next time around invite Major General Carver back and brainstorm about a compromise concept:

Passive witnessing.

I’ve heard the term used before, and I would argue it presents the strongest possibility for living up to the mandates of Evangelical Christian faith without trampling on the neccesarily secular nature of the military.

Be an ambassador for your faith by living it in and out of uniform, and save your active missionary activities those times outside of uniform.

There are many, many opportunities for you to share the beautiful messages of your faith without compromising your integrity as a service member. I frequently find myself saying, “in my faith tradition, we do x or y in these circumstances” in discussions with subordinates or peers. Since I am easily identified as a religious person, I am often solicited for this advice. Living Judeo-Christian values brings more benefit than witnessing ever can.

No one, including I believe the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is saying that Evangelical service members not wear their faith on their sleeve. Many of us simply believe that, as is a commom libertarian understanding in this nation, your free exercise ends where ours begins. It’s not that difficult to grasp.

The only real argument in favor of witnessing within the uniform, in truth, is rooted in pride, and verily I say unto thee, no religion counts that as a virtue.

---

¹ This, too, I believe constitutes just as much a threat to good order and discipline, but it’s a fairly crappy rhetorical tactic, to reduce the legitimacy of an argument by making a reference to an oblique absurdity.

² The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V–Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

³ Friedman, Richard Elliot, “The Hidden Book in the Bible” (Harper: 1999)

⁴ Dillard, Raymond B. and Longman, Tremper III, “An Introduction to the Old Testament” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994)

⁵ Jews that had medical circumcision but not ritual circumcision must ungergo a ceremonial bloodletting from the penis in order to fully participate in the Torah-observant Jewish community. The words “it’s just a little prick,” perhaps said with a smirk, are well known to ba’alei t’shuvah.

⁶ I do speculate as to whether Southern Baptists would aggressively support conversion efforts by other religions as strongly as they do their own. Judaism’s disdain for active proselytizing stems not from religious mandate, but Christian persecution thereof in antiquity. In more extreme cases, if Wiccans sought to actively convert others, I am dubious as to whether Evangelicals would enthusiastically underwrite their petitions.