Friday, May 20, 2005
The Air Force Academy Scandal – Is it okay to practice your religion if it includes evangelism?
Beginning in April a new scandal has swept the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. In 2003 it was sexul abuse (which incidently was largely found to be a few rare incidents and not a systemic problem--despite the attempts of politicians of both parties to make it such). Now it is religion at issue, and not just religion, but the worst kind.
An an evangelical Christian I struggle with the fact that so many people fear us. Sure ther are bad evangelical Christians, people who, to use N.T. Wright, the great New Testament theologian, phrase, “Never quite make it to first base as human beings.” But most evangelical Christians are decent, hard-working people who love their families and their communities. Of course the expression of that love includes sharing our faith in Jesus Christ, and that is what is increasingly at issue in America, and especially at the Air Force Academy.
The Air Force Academy Scandal – Is it okay to practice your religion if your religious practice includes evangelism?
Today’s Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph (5.20.05) includes on page B1, “Christ in Uniform Group OK at AFA.” The focus of the article is on the parachurch organization Officer’s Christian Fellowship (OCF), which has a long history in the 20th century without any noticeable controversy. That however has changed, as this organization has been drawn into the storm created by the visit last summer by the Yale University Divinity School team that determined that an “environment of intimidation” existed throughout the Academy because evangelical Christians were encouraged by Chaplains and (allegedly but as of yet unproven) by staff (though not in their official positions, except for the Football Coach).
In recent weeks a former Academy Chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton (a member of the mainline ELCA) has provided additional testimony to the Yale report, and indicated that she was transferred for making complaints about the environment that existed at the Academy.
Today’s report carries two additional accusations. The first is that OCF’s Chaplain approved staff person, Retired Lt. Colonel Steve Wade spends time in the Academy library two days a week talking, counseling and discipling with cadets. While these sessions are not mandatory, the presence of the OCF staff person constitutes an environment of intimidation because of the presence of “proselytizing” and, as Captain Morton asserts, providing the “conservative Christian movement a foothold in the military.”
The second accusation is that the 2nd in Command at the Academy, General Weida sent a personal letter to one of the most vocal critics of the environment at the Academy, Mikey Weinstein, and closed the letter with the Hebrew phrase, “Shalom Aleichem” – or “peace to you.” Weinstein immediately called and told General Weida’s secretary, “We’re at war.” The article goes on to report Mr. Weinstein as saying, “Why does he have to cloud it (the issue) in an ancient language that almost no Jew is conversant in? Oh yea, that’s right. Because he sees me as a Jew first.”
These two accusations provide further proof about what the core issue at the Academy is during this controversy. First, is the fear of religion in general in the public sphere (or any sphere beyond the heart of an individual). The second is the problems of language in a country with a growing secular/religious divide.
The ongoing charges, first made by several cadets, followed up on by Yale, attested to by Captain Morton, and now furthered in the article detailing OCF, assert that cadets who come from the evangelical Christian persuasion see that part of their calling includes sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those they know and love. Those being accused of encouraging such behavior—Chaplain Major Chappy Watties (the Chaplain of the Year in 2004), OCF, and other Christian organizations (including in fair disclosure, my own, The Navigators—see sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ as an act of love, and that true acceptance of the Christian faith can never come from coercion, inducement, or any other method other than genuine heart acceptance.
The worldview of the Yale team and of Captain Morton is quite different. In various reports found in newspapers (i.e., Chicago Tribune, 5.13.05), Captain Morton comes from the religious pluralism camp. While self-identifying as a Christian, Morton, like most religious pluralists do not necessary despise their own religious heritage, but emphasize the commonalities in religious faiths and therefore the ultimate respect towards those of differing religious traditions—to leave them untouched by outside influence. Professor Leslie, the Yale team leader that published the report in 2004, likewise follows this bent. In a 5.14.05 Boston Globe article she is quoted as saying, “What we found was this very strong evangelical Christian voice just dominating. We thought that just didn’t make sense in light of their mission, which was to protect and train cadets, not to win religious converts.”
What is highlighted in Leslie’s statement is the different role that evangelical Christian place their faith in as opposed to those from either mainline or nominal homes (Catholic Christians are another case sociologically altogether). An Evangelical Christian by definition sees their faith as a primary identifier, something that they are both proud of and they use to help identify themselves. This is not as true in other Protestant traditions. Thus, you would expect the evangelical contingent to be more pronounced in a community, especially given the larger number of evangelical Christian at the Academy (as compared to the whole of society). Additionally, Dr. Leslie talks of “protecting and training cadets” as part of the Chaplain program. What she fails to understand is that evangelical Christianity and its chaplains cannot do that without at the same time emphasizing the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which necessarily brings with it a call to evangelism. What Dr. Leslie desires is a version of the Christian faith that brings all the comfort of religious faith, but without any of the larger social implications.
The Air Force Academy has become a storyline that captures the current situation in America quite well. Those who see a more secular society as the safest environment for the respect of humans find the growing religiosity in the nation, and especially at key locations such as the White House, the military, and in academia to be most troubling. They fear an environment of forced conversion and the rejection of science, human rights and the other benefits of the modern Western world. The Academy focuses those concerns, as the Yale report seems to indicate a systemic overthrow of the secular forces at a military school of higher education.
To a certain extent I share that fear. I do not want U.S. Military personnel using their official positions to coerce cadets into the Christian faith. Those “conversions” would be illegitimate and only damage the name of Christ. Likewise, if indeed anti-Semitic slurs have been used by anyone associated with the name of Christ, they should be disciplined by both the U.S. Military and by their church community, for such statements have no place in either institution.
But I reject the view that Christians or those of any faith or no faith at all, have a duty to remain silent when not carrying out their official duties. OCF actively encourages military personnel to not evangelize at work, but to let their conduct and their lives be the message of Christ during those working hours. But off duty, in mess halls, libraries, dorms and billets men and women need to be free to share their Christian faith. To those of the Yale and Captain Morton viewpoint, this is dangerous because it can create an environment of intolerance. But the question is, can you outlaw the right to evangelism in the public space of life and not be intolerant to those faith communities—evangelical Christianity, Mormonism, Islam and other—which see the calling to spread their faith not as an “add-on” but as an expression of the lordship of their God?
The second issue that is driving this current scandal is the overlaying of politics and religion in the minds of those covering this story and those who have raised the concerns. Listen to what Captain Morton says, “The evangelicals want to subvert the system. They have a very clear social and political agenda. The evangelical tone is pervasive at the academy, and it’s aimed at converting these young people who are under intense pressure anyway.”
Groups such as OCF and The Navigators and especially the USAFA Chaplains core are non-political. These are not agents of the Religious Right, nor are they, as Captain Morton asserts in the Gazette Telegraph story 5.20.05, “You have large and powerful organizations that purposely push their people to use their power and position to proselytize.” This accusation is directed at OCF, which is a $3 million dollar a year organization, smaller than our local Goodwill Industries. It is by and large a lay-led organization that wants to help military personnel have a vibrant walk with Jesus Christ. This is not a shadow organization for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Tom Delay.
But this is the only viewpoint that the media and many in the secular culture have to see the story. In recent weeks the opinion pages of America’s papers have been filled with talk of a theocracy, of the end of the teaching of science, of women in the workforce and many of the other ills of medieval and post-Reformation period (which had far more to do with the politics of those eras than with anything in Christianity).
Even the language is at issue. The term “proselytizing” is used repeatedly, a term that Webster’s defines as “to induce someone to convert to one’s faith”—in other words, an act of violence and power. Christians disavow proselytizing, and instead practice evangelism, “the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ.” I stand with the Dr. Leslie and Captain Morton against acts of proselytizing, but do they stand with the American people and its Constitution which see evangelism as both legal and proper?
Another element of this language barrier was evident in the article’s second accusation, the sending of a letter with the Hebrew phrase Shalom Aleichem included. Contrary to Mr. Weinstein’s remark, not only do many people speak and read Hebrew, but the phrase Shalom Aleichem is a fairly common greeting to people. Rather than interpreting the phrase as General Weida’s demonstrating of his respect and appreciation for all cultures and religious faiths (as it was intended), Mr. Weinstein calls up the general and tells his secretary, “We’re at war”?
What is going on at the Air Force Academy will be investigated, and if there have been any individuals who have used their military position to force others to covert to any faith, they should be reprimanded forcefully. But if the desire is to create a completely religious-free Academy, such attempts will fail. Even secularism is a religious structure, and so the USAF should be concerned with creating an environment where its student keep the Cadet Code, honor their calling as soldiers, and learn to love each other to the point of risking their lives for one another. For this the media is concerned with evangelical Christianity?
