US Army Chaplain Jonathan Fisher recently made a splash with his peers by blogging on the topic of “inclusiveness,” in which he laid down the law saying he was going to be inclusive, even if it seems like other chaplains don’t want to be.

His made substantial use of an implied strawman:

I am a chaplain for ALL my Soldiers. All of them. The gay ones. The straight ones. The fat ones. The skinny ones. The conservative ones. The liberal ones. The religious ones. The non religious ones. The connected to church and the far away. The reason driven and the faith-based. The agnostic and the Christian. The pagan, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the whatever-you-happen-to-believe right now. Everyone I can think to mention and everyone else.

All means all.

Fisher’s somewhat self-righteous premise is that other chaplains aren’t serving all — yet every chaplain would likely agree with what Chaplain Fisher said. He continued:

I’m saying this because if one of my children came out and was in the Army, I hope they would have a chaplain that would help them process what they are going through without judgment or condemnation.

Again, he makes the implication that other chaplains cannot act without “judgment or condemnation.”

He does reveal one key difference with some of his fellow chaplains — he notes he will not only be “open,” as the quoted text above is, but also “affirming.”

The topic, of course, is homosexuality. Chaplain Fisher is saying he will “affirm” homosexuality, which is apparently consistent with his theology. That’s fine. What is notable is Fisher’s implicit criticisms of chaplains who will not affirm what their theology calls sin.

Chaplain Fisher and a few of his commenters unintentionally reveal their own “intolerance” of their fellow Chaplains. No chaplain is required to participate in religious services held contrary to their theology. The US Department of Defense explicitly says as much. Fisher and his supporters would never expect a Christian chaplain to lead a Muslim prayer service, nor a Jewish Chaplain a wiccan event.

They would never — one hopes — expect a Catholic chaplain to affirm a person’s decision to have an abortion.

Yet when a chaplain says they will not affirm a homosexual lifestyle — what he theologically recognizes as a sin — Chaplain Fisher and his supporters (and homosexual advocacy groups, notably) suddenly seem to forget the concepts of tolerance and religious liberty.

Ironically, Chaplain Fisher was almost immediately called out on a self-contradiction — not quite hypocrisy, apparently, but an inconsistent position nonetheless.

The problem was he closed his “open and affirming” statement by saying

I will extend the grace of God to you.

Atheist Jason Torpy took issue:

You’re mixing your personal beliefs with your statements of inclusion…

That will run those atheists away from you and maybe those believers who believe in different gods or different grace than you…

One could get the impression that atheists, jews, hindus can come to you for god’s grace, but not for help on their terms.

It would seem that Chaplain Fisher isn’t “open and affirming” enough.

All he has to do is remove “God.”

While he was whimsical about other chaplains compromising their faiths — to match his definitions of being a good chaplain — he didn’t seem to consider what he would do when challenged from exactly the same perspective on his faith.

How far is Chaplain Fisher willing to go to be “affirming” to “all?” (All means all, after all.)

How far are you willing to go?

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---