On the same day someone complained in a Facebook post that a military Chaplain was “blatantly proselytizing” (in fact, just 6 minutes after the post), another Facebook post made a similar complaint about a different Chaplain:

Fans, check out this, written by a government-[employed] Chaplain in an official government publication:

Writing for the Chaplain’s Corner at Marine Corps Base Quantico, The Marine Corps Recruiting Command Chaplain writes about why women were created (as an afterthought to keep men from being lonely), marriage as a Christian institution, and segues to a blatant Jesus salvation pitch.

The article referenced is that by Chaplain (LtCdr) Jeff Etheridge, entitled “God Provides What We Need.”

Salient points from Chaplain Etheridge’s article:

Marriage was given to us by God as one way to meet these needs. In the beginning, God, after first creating man, creates woman out of man. So we see there is an essential unity of the human race. God creates man and then creates woman. The reason God gives for creating woman is that it was not good for the man to be alone. We are created to be in community with God and with other people…

Marriage between a man and a woman is a picture of the relationship God desires between Christ and the Church, his bride…God wants to meet these needs for relationship and acceptance specifically through our union with him through his son Jesus…

God is the one person in the entire universe who can completely satisfy these basic human needs…

The Bible says that God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. God knows us and offers us complete acceptance if we come to him through the cross of Jesus Christ.

When we do this our sins are forgiven and we receive the gift of eternal life. As the Bible says, whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And salvation is more than the hope of going to heaven. Salvation is truly having your deepest personal needs met, being fully known and fully accepted by our Creator. And when you have this, life becomes the joy and adventure it was always meant to be.

Note that the critic does not say that the Chaplain did anything wrong, though the implication is certainly present (or else the disdain is severely misplaced).

Is he right?  Assuming the critic’s assessment of the Chaplain’s content is true, was the article inappropriate?  Did the Chaplain violate a rule, regulation, policy, or the Constitution when he wrote his article?

Think about it, and stay tuned for more.

Update: This question has been answered here.