Should Every Military Chaplain’s Office be an LGBT Safe Zone?
US Army Chaplain (Maj) George Tyger recently highlighted his office door at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, noting he now had a “bigger sign”:
Highlighting the reference to the LGBT “safe zone” sign, Tom Carpenter’s Forum on the Military Chaplaincy reposted Tyger’s photo with a seemingly simple question:
Isn’t this the way every chaplain’s office should proclaim: “All are welcome and safe”?
It’s an interesting question worth discussing — though the discussion first depends on a shared understanding of what those words mean.
Definitions
First, the sign itself: The “Safe Zone” sign contains the following text:
I am an Ally. This is a safe zone. I am understanding, non-judgmental, and willing to provide an atmosphere of acceptance and assistance for members of the LGBT Community.
The Safe Zone construct is a product of the LGBT movement. The Gay Alliance, for example, explains what a Safe Zone is:
A safe zone or a safe space is a confidential place where all people can bring their authentic selves and feel safe, welcome and included…The LGBTQ Academy SafeZone programs aim to increase the awareness, knowledge, and skills for individuals and address the challenges that exist when one wants to advocate for their LGBTQ peers, family members, friends, coworkers and for themselves.
Next, the Human Rights Campaign (a pro-homosexual advocacy group) explains what an “ally” is:
An “ally” is a term used to describe someone who is supportive of LGBT people.
The HRC describes being “supportive” as “acceptance,” telling homosexuals they are “welcome,” and advocating for LGBT causes.
It seems fair to conclude the “Safe Zone” sign is being used to indicate a pro-homosexual environment.
Next, to the part of Tom Carpenter’s question about whether every chaplain’s office should be “welcom[ing] and safe”: “Safe” traditionally means to be protected from harm, and “welcoming” indicates hospitality and courtesy.
It is likely most chaplains would intend their offices be places where their troops are protected from harm and are received with hospitality.
The Question
But is a “Safe Zone” sign the method to communicate that message?
The problem, of course, is that contrary to the implications of the Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, being pro-LGBT is not a position that is ‘welcoming to all.’ The Safe Zone sign sends the same message to traditional, mainstream Christian troops as a sign that says “Romans 1:26-27” sends to progressive, LGBT-supporting troops. It sends the message that on a divisive social and theological topic, the chaplain has not only planted a flag and picked a side, but finds that advocacy to be so important he is willing to advertise it even to the detriment of his ministry to his troops.
The direct answer to Tom Carpenter’s question, then, is no, chaplains shouldn’t — and can’t — proclaim “welcome and safe[ty]” for all with that sign. In fact, no chaplain’s office can proclaim (and sincerely mean) “all are welcome and safe” with that sign, because the sign itself indicates the chaplain has staked — and will defend — an ideological position. Those who do not support the same ideological position as the chaplain may not “feel” welcome.
Safe Zone Tolerance
Should Chaplain Tyger be allowed to post that sign, then? Absolutely. Chaplain Tyger is a Unitarian Universalist — a denomination loosely associated with Christianity that essentially says one can believe anything (or nothing). His endorser would not only sanction such a sign but would likely aggressively defend it as essential to the practice of their ministry.
Chaplains are representatives of their sending faith groups. Thus, Chaplain Tyger can represent the pro-homosexual viewpoint of his sending denomination, even if it negatively impacts his ability to serve his troops.
To support Chaplain Tyger’s religious liberty to promote that religious worldview is not “pluralism.” Pluralism would acknowledge the validity or truth claim of Chaplain Tyger’s view on homosexuality. Rather than pluralism, supporting his right to his viewpoint is tolerance, or the recognition of his right to believe something different. Put another way, support of tolerance is the defense of his right to be wrong.
Notably, a truly tolerant environment would naturally support the expression of opposing viewpoints. A truly tolerant culture would support not only a pro-homosexual religious viewpoint, but also the pro-heterosexual religious viewpoint. Put another way, would Chaplain Tyger and Tom Carpenter’s Forum on the Military Chaplaincy support a chaplain posting a sign that promoted the “other” viewpoint — to wit, a pro-traditional family, defense of marriage, morality-based religious viewpoint?
That question has already been answered. Chaplain Tyger has previously said the military religious culture is in the mess its in because progressive faith groups have allowed mainstream, traditional faith groups to dominate the chaplaincy. Similarly, Tom Carpenter has supported a post-DADT purge of the military chaplaincy, saying chaplains that do not agree with his homosexuality need to “return to civilian life.”
The US Navy has also answered that question in its handling of Chaplain Wes Modder — whom it chose to fire, investigate, and threaten to discharge. The Navy did not defend his right to hold or express his religious worldview, nor did it educate its Sailors who inappropriately demanded his punishment for the same.
Tolerance, it would seem, only flows in one direction.
Conclusion
To return to the original question, because military chaplains by their very nature represent a particular viewpoint, it is likely — if not a near certainty — that some troops would almost always feel less than “welcome” speaking with them, even if the chaplains themselves made a sincere effort to be little more than a listening ear. That’s not a fault of the chaplaincy; its simply a product of the reasonably created system.
In truth, the simplest way to help an Airman, Marine, Soldier, or Sailor know whether they will “feel” welcome and accepted is for a chaplain to publicize the faith group he represents. For those that care, and for those who may not feel accepted based on the beliefs of the chaplain, simply knowing the chaplain is a Unitarian Universalist, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, etc., will provide them with the information they need to know if that person shares their worldview and values, and thus is someone they would go to for advice on their worldview and values.
In other words, every chaplain’s office should be a “safe zone” — that is, a safe zone for the worldview, values, and religious faith they represent — even if such views are offensive to others. (In fact, their offense to others would increase the need for such a “safe zone.”)
Unfortunately, based on the prior discussion, it seems likely a few “progressives” wouldn’t support — and many might even attack — “safe zones” for traditional, conservative religious views that advocate a theology they don’t like.
Which group is supposed to be the “tolerant” one again?
ADVERTISEMENT
You write:
“In truth, the simplest way to help an Airman, Marine, Soldier, or Sailor know whether they will “feel” welcome and accepted is for a chaplain to publicize the faith group he represents. For those that care, and for those who may not feel accepted based on the beliefs of the chaplain, simply knowing the chaplain is a Unitarian Universalist, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, etc., will provide them with the information they need to know if that person shares their worldview and values*, and thus is someone they would go to for advice on their worldview and values.
In other words, every chaplain’s office should be a “safe zone” — that is, a safe zone for the worldview, values, and religious faith they represent — even if such views are offensive to others. (In fact, their offense to others would increase the need for such a “safe zone.”)”
*Actually, that is not true for a good many, perhaps most, service members. The average American and the average service member does not know where most denominations stand on LGBT issues, communion practices, baptism practices, wedding practices, etc. Yet, the Southern Baptists are worlds apart from the American Baptists especially when it comes to LGBT issues — despite the fact that both groups are USA-based Baptists.
But I think that Chaplain Tyger might be on to something. Chaplains’ Offices should be places where servicemembers can express anything or any problem — and not be judged and shamed by the chaplain. If the chaplain cannot in good conscience perform the pastoral counseling or other service that the member is seeking, the chaplain needs to respectfully refer the member to a colleague chaplain [or even a pastoral care provider off the installation, if a fellow chaplain is not available] who can. Otherwise the chaplain — and chaplains in general — will ultimately lose the respect of many servicemembers and their usefulness to the command if people do not want to utilize chaplains to speak with for fear of such judging and shaming. And if chaplains are not safe people to confidentially speak with, who in the military are? Chaplains can be and hopefully are very important safety valves for servicemembers under stress.
@David Plummer
Absolutely agree, which is why it was prefaced with “For those that care…” If a service member cares about where the chaplain stands, knowing the chaplain’s denomination is but the first step in a conversation, but that is a conversation generally uninitiated today. Otherwise, the only other indication of beliefs is the chaplain’s insignia, which are generally the Torah (Jewish), crescent moon (Islam), wheel (Buddhist), and cross (everyone else not Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist).
That and the rest of your comment address an argument no one is making, not even Tyger (at least explicitly). It is likely any chaplain would say exactly what you said.
On the other hand, are you implying that if a chaplain holds a particular view on sexuality, then said chaplain would/might judge and shame a service member because of the service member’s views on sexuality?
Would not that implication apply equally to Chaplain Tyger, who has indicated he holds a particular view on sexuality?
Mr. Plummer, when you imply that Chaplains’ Offices should be places where service members can express anything “and not be judged and shamed by the chaplain,” you are relying on a straw-man argument. I am unaware of any chaplain that is shaming service members. Instead of trying to denounce an argument that does not exist, why not explicitly state what chaplain you feel is judging and shaming service members so this discussion can rest on facts, not fallacies.
If a chaplain does not agree with the LGBT agenda, I would not call this shaming, I would call it integrity, because that chaplain has justification for his beliefs (Bible) while a gay affirming chaplain does not (debased). In addition, a chaplain that is willing to counsel an LGBT service member to understand God’s design for sexuality and the necessity for the Gospel, is a chaplain that is truly a shepherd who cares for those that God has entrusted to him, because it takes love to tell someone the truth.
In a way I am glad that there are some chaplains that are posting LGBT “safe zone” signs to their doors. This will help warn born again (truly Christian) service members to beware of apostate false teachers that call evil good, and seek a chaplain that believes in God’s design for integrity and purity, and not iniquity and perversion.
@SH
Exactly. Let the troops you know what you believe — one way or the other. Just don’t pretend being LGBT affirming is somehow “welcoming”, while not being LGBT affirming isn’t.
But from the way they’re talking about it here, they’ve clearly missed the point.
No, Chaplain’s offices should not be LGBT safe-spaces. They should only be safe-spaces for servicemen who share that chaplain’s religion. End of Discussion.
What you don’t realize is that Christianity has been at the forefront of hatred and opposition to my rights as an LGBT individual for decades and that opposition has stained the image of the Chaplain Corps. CH Tyger is actively combating the image of being anti-LGBT which is allowing him to be of service to soldiers who would never otherwise seek out any Chaplain.
As a Religious Affairs NCOIC, I have a similar sign on my door to combat the same anti-LGBT image. We are here for all soldiers, of any faith or none. Anyone of any perspective is welcome in my office, but those who are LGBT need to know that it is safe for them to be completely themselves with me because all too often they can’t be in the military culture. I have known dozens of LGBT soldiers who refused to come out for fear of reprisal or discrimination. I am here to combat that fear.
In my chapel, I gladly set up Protestant Service, Catholic Mass, Buddhist Meditation, Wiccan Circle, sterile Sacred Space, AND keep that sign on my door. All are welcome. All are safe.
@Tony Taylor
By putting a pro-LGBT sign on your door, you aren’t communicating that anyone of any perspective is welcome in your office, though its understandable why you’d make that error. You need to expand your perspective a little and realize that by advocating for one of two exclusive views you naturally exclude the other.
That’s ok, if that’s the message you want to communicate, but it’s both naïve and wrong to say that advocating for one exclusive view communicates that “all are welcome.”
You could mitigate that message of exclusion, of course. Would you consider putting a sign on your door to counter the anti-Christian image?
@JD
You set up a false dichotomy, however pro-LGBT is not anti-Christian and anti-LGBT is not pro-Christian. They are not mutually exclusive as you purport. Those who have a legitimate theological question with [insert theological concept] concern themselves with it and do not worry about the rest of the human race and how they are conducting their lives. I believe Paul puts this as “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling…”
Now, what is mutually exclusive to that sign is intolerance. Racists, bigots, misogynists, and homophobes would most likely see that sign as exclusionary. Racbigyniphobes who think others are “less-than” because of [insert characteristic here] would not like that I am accepting of all of those “less-than” people. They would see inclusion as their personal exclusion. That is not anti-Christian, that is anti-racbigyniphobe.
Perhaps a “Haters Also Welcome” sign would appease you?
And below that a “You Probably Will Not Like Me” sign?
@Tony Taylor
No dichotomy was proposed. Rather, the statement was that advocating an exclusive view is not “welcoming” to those who do not share that exclusive view, as you claimed it would be.
Doubt it? Defend a sign with Romans 1:25-26 as “welcoming to all.”
Your words indicate you think someone else is “less than” because of [their faith tenets with which you do not agree].
Yet above you said “All are welcome. All are safe.” Clearly, the troops who hold views contrary to your own — those you demean by caricaturing their beliefs and calling them names — are neither welcome nor safe.
The only one here accusing anyone of being a bigot, hater, etc., is you. You are displaying the very intolerance you claim to be against.
How ironic.
@JD
The views are not exclusive. There are LGBT Christian ministers. I could drop you a few contacts if you like.
That was your false dichotomy.
@Tony Taylor
You are rebutting an argument not made.
View 1: Support, accept, and advocate for LGBT lifestyle (as described by the “safe zone” sign)
View 2: Believe LGBT lifestyle to be sinful and immoral (as described by Romans)
Two exclusive views. A sign that promotes one does not “welcome” the other.
No false dichotomy.
@Tony Taylor,
The Paul that said work out your own salvation with fear and trembling also condemned homosexual behavior in Romans 1:24-27 and said that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.!
I am so tired of the radical LBGT movement calling Christians homophobes because we oppose their lifestyle because it violates God’s principles or that we are bigots. It is amazing that those who cry for tolerance from Christians are the most intolerant towards Christians!!. Also, neither are Christians misogynists because we love our wives and daughters and push them to be all that they can be for Christ’s glory!! When I was married I appreciated my wife and respected her and valued her, the same goes for my teenage daughter today. I praise her openly on Facebook for the outstanding student and young lady she has become and give her much love as a father loves his daughter can give and give her high fives when she does something outstanding. I also tell her that she can do anything she puts her mind and heart into doing, yes even to become the first female president. So, please Tony do not tell me that Christian men are misogynistic, because I know many more fathers like myself who love and adored their wives and daughers!!!
@BF
I didn’t call you or any Christian a misogynist and I specifically mentioned that you can be Christian and LGBT.
However, there is a view that Christians are all anti-LGBT and CH Tyger is fighting that sigma. So am I.
But, for the sake of argument, let me ask you this: what rights have the LGBT community tried to take away from Christians?
@Tony Taylor
The right to participate in commerce and in government without having to violate the tenets of their faith (ie, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, US Navy Chaplain Wes Modder).
@JD
Commerce and government are inherently secular.
@Tony Taylor
Non sequitur. Not only is the military chaplaincy inherently religious, rights are held by individual citizens, not institutions. The two examples stand as valid instances in which “the LGBT community has tried to take away rights from Christians.”
Tony Taylor, a person can be gay and a person can be a Christian, but there is no such thing as a gay Christian. If you believe this, you are lying to yourself, and you are suppressing the truth, because you have no justification for your belief.
If you think you are standing for truth, please know that you are not. As a Religious Affairs NCOIC, the sign on your door does not combat the anti-LGBT image, it only shows how much hatred you have for God (Romans 8:7), and that you were given over to dishonorable passions (Romans 1:26).
Turn away from your love of sin, repent, and believe (Mark 1:15).