Few Christians, even “fundamentalist” ones, would say their goal is to “proselytize,” or “convert.” Instead, they believe their calling is to “evangelize,” which means “to preach to.” The former implies that the Christian is “converting,” the latter that the Christian is “providing the information” from which another might make a decision.

Yes, there is ample room for argument over nuance, since evangelism might lead to conversion. But nuance or not, the two are not one and the same. (Just like Maxim doesn’t violate GO1, as I pointed out here.)

While evangelism can often be direct conversation, it can also be (and is arguably more often) more subtle, to which Dealer alludes. For example, being a “witness” for Jesus can be as simple as living a Christ-like life–and never once making an unsolicited comment about faith. This “life evangelism” is a foundational Christian concept. An article describing that very concept was published here. Still, people quoted Hensley’s comment about “being a witness” as if it was a bad thing.

Though there are qualifiers about wisdom and discretion, evangelism, which includes both “passive” witnessing and voluntary, solicited sharing or discussion of faith, is not a violation of GO1.

The problem is a subset of Christians — the fundamentalists and dominionists

Weinstein said it was fundamentalist evangelicals, not dominionists.

Either way, please provide your source that indicates Chaplain Hensley, Chaplain Furner, and Sgt Jon Watt are fundamentalists, dominionists, or evangelicals.

My interpretation of His command to ‘spread the word’…

I’m glad you had a good holiday too.

Webster’s (from online) has two definitions of proselytize: one with the root of ‘induce’ and one with ‘recruit.’ That said, the root of the issue with Hensley is the audience to whom he was speaking. The assumption for Protestant congregation in the military is Calvinist denominations. The common root of those denominations is the idea that individuals have no determination on God’s grace: so that an individual cannot boast, God has all the glory. The logical continuation of this is that it is not man’s place to turn hearts and souls to God. Someone without this background can interpret the Jesus’s command to go to the world and spread the word as blanket approval to say what you want, when you want to.

Contrasting that, Jesus said that the first command was to love Him, followed by love your neighbor. Loving them also means respecting them. Throwing your religion in someone else’s face is not love. Unfortunately many Christians suffer from a lack of courage in discussing their faith, even when an appropriate situation presents itself (it may surprise you that I’m usually in that category). My command to ‘spread the word’ is to live my life in a way that brings me closer to Him. Through that life, others should notice and ask questions–that is when I can bring it up. I allow Him to present the appropriate time, allow Him to change hearts: all I have to do is be honest, open, but not forceful with His effect on my life.

And, I was surprised by the way, although in retrospect I shouldn’t be. The command to love your neighbor as yourself is very difficult and one I struggle with the most. There are plenty of easier commands (mentally at least) and many people (including me for most of my life) chose to dwell in.

Glad your first time hosting a Thanksgiving went well. I spent the day at a friend’s house — my mom goes up to New Hampshire to my sister’s for Thanksgiving, and then spends Christmas down here at my place. That way she gets around to see everybody on one holiday or the other in spite of us all having crazy schedules.

Something that may surprise you is that the overwhelming majority of service members who contact MRFF for help or to report potential violations are actually Christians themselves. Our opponents try to paint us as a bunch of atheists who want to rid the military of all religion, but that’s simply not the case. The problem is a subset of Christians — the fundamentalists and dominionists — who see the military as a mission field and see being deployed to Muslim countries as an opportunity to convert Muslims. These people also go after Catholics and mainstream and liberal Protestants within our military, telling them that they’re not “real” Christians or not Christian enough.

There’s also been a major twisting of the definition of “proselytizing.” There is nothing in the definition of this word that says it has to be by force or coercion to be considered proselytizing. The dictionary definition of proselytizing is simply to “convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.” The people who want to be able to proselytize, which is explicitly prohibited by CENTCOM’s General Order 1, have changed the definition of proselytizing by adding the element of “forced” conversion in an attempt to be able to say that what they are doing isn’t proselytizing.

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving. Personally I’m thankful my family was able to make it out to see me as it was my first hosting of a major holiday.

I haven’t done the detailed study of this particular case, however I have a problem with your organization’s “problem” with the “big picture.” If you define ‘proselytize’ as ‘forced’ or ‘coerced’ then I agree with your stated “big picture problem.” However, my impression of your organization is that it wants nothing less than atheism by individual members while they are at work. That position alone is counter to the Constitution because individual members are allowed freedom of religion within the confines that it does not impede another member’s freedom.

Additionally, matters of religion can be official business. To successfully befriend a person from another culture, it is expected to ask and answer questions of deep personal identity. What could be more personal than to a religious member than answering a question of faith?

That said, your examples still don’t support your accusations.

All Americans United said was that Hensley’s sermon might give other chaplains the idea that it is perfectly permissible to try to convert the Afghans.

American Atheists mentioned both the Bible issue and Hensley’s sermon, and their statement that this is “mixing private religion with an official military mission” could have been meant in reference to either or both of these things.

MPAC called, in general, for an “investigation of U.S. military chaplains encouraging soldiers to convert civilians in Afghanistan to Christianity,” and said, referring to “converting Afghans to Christianity,” that “This type of open violation military guidelines.” You selectively quoted this to make it appear to be a direct statement calling for an investigation of Hensley specifically, when MPAC was clearly referring to converting the Afghans in general.

Although all are worded a bit differently, the opinions of all three of these organizations appear to be essentially the same as that of MRFF — that Chaplain Hensley was encouraging the soldiers to commit violations such as the proselytizing of the Afghans, and creating a climate in which the soldiers think they can get away with such things. And, if Hensley wasn’t referring to the Afghans, then he was encouraging his congregation to proselytize their fellow troops, which is still encouraging them to violate military regulations.

You also link to a diary entry on Daily Kos written by someone who has no connection to any organization. Calling this person an “independent personality,” implies that they are some sort of prominent voice, rather than just some Daily Kos user expressing their opinion. This is beyond ridiculous, and just shows how far you have to reach to grasp for straws in your attempt to support your claims.

It actually is a violation of the UCMJ to encourage others to violate regulations, so the real question here is how this applies to what a chaplain says during a religious service. But, this would naturally lead to a subjective interpretation of whether or not the chaplain was merely expressing a theological viewpoint or encouraging his congregation to violate regulations. But, MRFF did not pursue this because, as I previously said, our focus was on the far more tangible violation of the soldiers having the Dari and Pashtu Bibles. Does this mean we approve of a chaplain encouraging proselytizing? Of course not. Just because it could be argued that it might be permissible if it was meant as a theological view in a religious service doesn’t mean it’s not part of the larger problem, and we would not defend anyone who is contributing in any way, even indirectly, to the problems we’re seeing at places like Bagram, which is what Hensley certainly appears to be doing.

As far as MRFF using the clip of Hensley in one of our videos goes, a clip showing a prominent chaplain encouraging his congregation to proselytize illustrates a big aspect of the problem we’re fighting, which is something we think people need to see to get the big picture. If the same chaplain had said the same thing in a chapel here in the U.S., he might be given the benefit of the doubt that he meant the soldiers should go out and proselytize on their own time among the civilians in their community, but since this sermon took place in Afghanistan, he could only have meant to proselytize either the local Afghans or their fellow troops, either of which is prohibited.

No one belittled you for missing part of the article. Sometimes that happens. Once you realized you missed it, you could have chosen to talk about the subject matter rather than sulk away. Problem is, you’ve spent more effort searching for a “gotcha” than addressing the content.

Even if the post had been edited, you could still have helped your cause if you were able to rebut the claims of this and the other article. It appears, though, that you can’t. In the absence of an opposing argument, it seems you were looking for a way to “save face” and leave. Grandstanding is unnecessary; no one requires you to comment here.

The MRFF is increasingly proving itself to be an organization with a single-minded agenda, unfazed by its contradictions with itself, the Constitution, and the truth. It calls itself a “religious freedom” organization, but it opposes religious freedom, as indicated by the MRFF’s own researcher. In the end, the MRFF is merely a tool, one that Michael Weinstein uses to forward his personal agenda of opposing Christianity, gaining publicity, and increasing his personal wealth.

Finish reading the article. It clearly states the answer to your question. If for some reason your computer won’t display the full post, let me know.

Who are the “and others” that you claim have implied that Hensley’s sermon violated regulations. It’s a very simple question. You must have had some other organizations in mind when you made that statement, so why can’t you just name these groups?

[The MAAF] says that Hensley’s sermon was encouraging his congregation to violate regulations…neither MRFF nor MAAF claimed that Hensley himself violated any regulation.

So it is not a violation of regulations to, in your words, “encourage” someone else to violate regulations? Hold that thought…

Since, in your words, the MAAF didn’t claim the Chaplain violated any regulations, what would be the charge for the court-martial they demand? Despite your attempt to interpret their statement, I realize you don’t speak for the MAAF. But you have represented yourself as able to speak for the MRFF.

Why has the MRFF, a religious freedom organization, not defended Hensley’s religious freedom against the MAAF call for his court-martial, if you believe that Hensley’s sermon was permissible and violated no regulations?

Since you said in your previous post that it was “as a result” of the Al Jazeera report that “some organizations have accused the Chaplain of violating military regulations,” you can’t now make Al Jazeera one of your “some organizations.”

Your second example, the statement from the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), doesn’t actually say that Hensley’s sermon violated regulations. It says that Hensley’s sermon was encouraging his congregation to violate regulations. That’s basically my opinion too. But neither MRFF nor MAAF claimed that Hensley himself violated any regulation. If a soldier in Hensley’s congregation was influenced by the sermon to violate regulations, it would be that individual soldier’s violation of regulations, not Hensley’s.

So, you still haven’t supported the accusation you made in your previous post, although I see that you’ve backpedalled in this post and toned down your accusation to say that these groups have only “implied” that Hensley’s sermon violated regulations. You now say that these groups “and others” have “implied” this. So, who are these “and others?”