The first amendment's religious tension

The first amendment guarantees that congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When does a person forfeit their right to free exercise of their religion? When by doing so, they would become a party to congressional establishment of religion. The Supreme Court has ruled, for example, that when public school teachers lead their students in prayer or go beyond teaching about religion and start to proselytize (preach in order to win converts to their religion), that is prohibited under the first amendment’s establishment clause. It is not difficult to imagine how a Christian would feel if, for example, the Muslim teacher began to instruct the students to get down on their prayer rugs and face Mecca and pray to Allah, or the Mormon teacher began to instruct how to become exalted as gods of our own planets. We ought to be thankful for the protections of the establishment clause. Instead of demanding that the government institution known as a “public school” offer prayers “in Jesus’ name” and instructing in the truths of the Bible, Catholics, Lutherans, evangelical Christians of many denominations either cooperatively or as an extension of their congregation’s ministry found and support parochial or religious schools. In this way, they can guarantee that the teacher who leads in prayer and who teaches the faith does so from a shared Christian perspective.

Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt (US Navy) was recently notified that he would be ejected from the service, expelled from his military housing, and lose his retirement benefits—all because he prayed “in Jesus’ name” while in uniform and not in the narrowly prescribed confines of the base chapel. The navy views this as a case of insubordination, that is, he was given an order and refused to obey it, a definite no-no in the military. The chaplain believes that he is being forced to compromise his beliefs and offer prayers to a God other than the Triune God. He also reports that he was disciplined for preaching an “exclusive” view of religion in a funeral service for a slain sailor. His sermon was on Romans 8 and declared that only believers in Jesus Christ will be saved.

Chaplain Klingenschmitt knew what he was getting into when he joined the military chaplaincy. He knew that the plurality of religions in our country would be represented by the same diverse religious views among members of the military, and that he would have to remove references to Christ as he carried out his duties lest one religion be established over others. Is there any significant difference between his actions and that of a public school teacher, who, knowing full well that he could not pray or proselytize in his classroom, decided to do so anyway? Would such a teacher be surprised to be fired and protest on the grounds that he was simply expressing his freedom of religion? In a sense, I admire the chaplain’s unwillingness to offer “prayers” that are not in Jesus’ name; but those who are unwilling to compromise how they pray and preach ought to do so outside of the government’s payroll. In other words, he should have thought about the possibility that he would be ordered to compromise his faith before he became a chaplain.

Christians who enlist in the armed forces ought to consider ways in which they can worship the Lord in spirit and truth and not in a Christless “worship” service led by a chaplain. Webcasts of services are readily available online. Small groups for Bible study, prayer, and mutual encouragement can be organized. Invitations to non-believers can be extended and Christian servicemen and women can witness to them. The answer to the secularization of public schools has not been for Christian teachers to defy the constitution and proselytize anyway. If we can establish and maintain Christian schools as a place where a distinctively Christian faith and values system can be integrated with academic excellence, then why can’t distinctively Christian groups be established for the free exercise of religion outside of the government’s brand of religion in a military setting too?

Reflect and comment.