Retired General tells Military Chaplains to be Inclusive or “Get Out”
David Wells, pastor of Pleasant View Baptist Church in McQuady, Kentucky, was recently barred from ministering to residents of a juvenile detention facility because he refused to sign a policy that said he could not refer to homosexuality as sinful. The Liberty Counsel is now assisting Wells as he sues for reinstatement:
“They have not accommodated him and they’re clearly trying to restrict a particular viewpoint,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel…
Staver also said he
believes the attack on the ministry is the first of many to come in the U.S. after the Supreme Court ruled that state bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Advocates for homosexuality have repeatedly claimed the ability of homosexuals to exercise their “rights” would have no impact on the religious liberties of chaplains, pastors, or others. Numerous public examples, however, seem to show the government either requiring people to violate their religious beliefs (to stay in business, for example), or banning certain religious persons outright if they refuse to elevate homosexuality over their religious beliefs. This conflict has already come to the US military, where Chaplain Wes Modder faces a discharge board for stating his religious beliefs on sexuality — which he made in response to questions directed to him.
A retired General recently took this a step further, telling chaplains in his former command they could either “make room at the table or get out.” In an official Army article oddly titled “Chaplains Valued For Their Service As Moral Compass,” retired LtGen Jim Pillsbury appeared to direct chaplains to subvert that very moral compass [emphasis added]:
The retired three-star general went on to describe the sanctuary at his church where his pastor has two chairs and one table near the pulpit. The two chairs represent opposites — black and white, Republican and democrat, boy and girl, peacemaker and warrior, straight and gay — and the table represents inclusiveness.
“Do you have room in your heart for those who are different from what your beliefs are? I firmly believe the intention of our Lord is for us to read the Bible and interpret the Bible based on our relationship with the Lord. The word is not black and white. That is why Jesus told parables,” Pillsbury said.
“You can make room at the table or you can get out. I know all of you have wrestled with that.”
Keep in mind Gen Pillsbury was previously the Deputy Commander of the very command in which these chaplains now serve. He’s not speaking to these chaplains as a religious leader; he’s speaking, according to the article, “from an Army leader’s point of view.”
Yet his view does not appear to be consistent with US law or the US military’s official policy.
How would then-commanding Gen Pillsbury have responded if he was required to review a complaint against a chaplain who said homosexuality was a sin? How would he have responded if a chaplain’s endorsing agency didn’t allow a chaplain to “make room at the table”?
It’s not entirely clear, actually, nor is it clear Gen Pillsbury even correctly understood his pastor’s chair/table example. For that matter, its not entirely clear that Gen Pillsbury’s comments are being correctly understood by those now lauding them.
Chaplains do need to have “room in their heart” for those whose beliefs are not the same as theirs, because they will serve troops of all faiths. That’s a fair, if somewhat inartful, statement.
When a General tells chaplains they’re required to “have a chair at the table,” and that the table is acceptance of that person’s truth claims, as Gen Pillsbury appeared to say, that’s a bridge too far. Every chaplain would likely have “room at the table” for anyone who wanted to sit and talk. Chaplains are counselors and servants by nature, and they would likely want nothing more than to listen to and share with another, regardless of their beliefs. (That may even be the sense of “openness” intended by the pulpit example Gen Pillsbury related.) But it is another matter to be told they have to accept, agree with, or affirm those other beliefs — or that they’re not allowed to speak their own religious tenets about them if they disagree.
Despite Gen Pillsbury’s personal opinions, his personal faith (including his declaration “the word is not black and white”), and the way his pastor leads his church (which Gen Pillsbury may even be misunderstanding), official military policy says chaplains don’t have to censor or change their religious beliefs in the face of the changing social norm on sexuality. They’re not required to have a “chair at the table” that accepts the truth claims of others with different beliefs.
If that is the meaning of what Gen Pillsbury said, he’s wrong.
Gen Pillsbury is retired, but he obviously still maintains some official influence, as he was invited to speak to these chaplains. The “unofficial” influence a retired General can have is also not insignificant.
It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that General Pillsbury’s statement is being interpreted as “accept homosexuality or get out,” as Mikey Weinstein read it, given social changes and the military’s attempt to match or lead them.
Still, there were loud scoffs when faith adherents and religious liberty advocates cautioned that the rising tide of “sexual freedom” risked infringing on religious freedom.
‘It will never happen,’ they said.
ADVERTISEMENT
There’s really no “inclusiveness” in the bible, to be honest Christianity is a pretty exclusive club, open only to those who accept Jesus as their Lord and savior and are willing to subjugate themselves to his rules. In fact Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5 to:
Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
We don’t make “room at the table”, the table is set for those invited to the feast. As followers of Christ we are called to preach His word, not edit it for political acceptance. Christ Jesus made the church, He decides who is to be among his bride and who is not, and he probably didn’t appoint a retired general to re-write the bible for him.
It’s good to see Mr. Evans post a straightforward statement of the conflict in this contentious & polarizing issue – rather than obfuscating it with so-called ‘American values‘. It’s critical to maintain an analytical perspective on the issue. At present, the American project is in danger of subversion by those who would turn back the clock from the time of the 1st Amendment, to the time of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Puritanical (literally) theocracy it represented (they didn‘t flee to America to establish democracy!). This charge from modernity into the past is being led by fanatical Christian Domionists (the Christian ‘flip-side’ of the Islamic State coin) who put their faith ahead of the Constitution, in all aspect of their lives… just ask the gaggle of GOP Presidential nomination contenders; they’re very open about the primacy of their faith. For them, LaHaye & Jenkins‘ novel ‘Left Behind‘ isn‘t fiction, it‘s ‘future history‘, And while our Constitution defends the right of any citizen – outside the military – to believe what they wish and say what they believe, those inside the military (or employed by the State to minister to all comers regardless of faith) can bully their subordinates (intentionally or not) into behaving in a manner contrary to their own beliefs because to do so may put them into their superior’s ‘bad graces’ or, worse, subject them to charges ranging from ‘disrespect’ to mutiny. And, while the American public has the choice of whether to vote for someone who’s concept of the future embraces fomenting an Armageddon they feel they must bring about to usher in their messiah’s next ‘coming’, or not, such fanatical personalities in the military have access to the most destructive weapons in the history of mankind and the worldview (aka: ‘faith’) that makes it possible for them to bring it about. Hence Mikey & the MRFF’s battle to insure that the military adheres strictly to the provisions of the Constitution and not the ‘Great Commission‘. Those who feel they cannot must leave for civilian life. Those who, in civilian life, advocate against American values (as set forth in the Constitution; not a so-called ‘divinely inspired sacred text’) must be called out as the theocratic crypto-fascists they are to insure the public is not misled into voting for the next inquisition by subversives masquerading as Americans and into a Christian version of the so-called ‘Islamic’ State.
@Marshalldoc,
Notably, you provide no evidence for your insinuation there are American citizens serving in the US military who are “theocratic crypto-fascist…subversives” — like all good conspiracy theories.
Your enemy, and that of Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, is nothing more than a bogeyman.
Conspiracy theory? Really CFP, let’s at least deal with reality (as differentiated from your so-called ‘sacred scriptures’ to which you and your ilk adhere).
First, a disclaimer: My comments apply to that vocal & powerful minority of the world’s Christians who consider themselves, or who advocate a domioniist/reconstructionist worldview – i.e.; utterly and unremittingly fundamentalist reliance of the ‘revealed word of dog’ as their sole & complete instruction in life. I recognize that the vast majority of the followers of all the Abrahamic faiths have abandoned, mostly, the hidebound slavish obedience to the bronze-age theology to which the domionists cleave in tacit recognition that its tenets either have no basis in reality or in recognition of their basic violation of what enlightened people call ”human rights”. This stated to forestall the inevitable screed of ‘hating Christians’… no, only those who wish to march us all back to the 13th century with the use of 21st century technology.
What are those who advocate for a ‘Dogly’ America & military actually advocating for? Democracy? Hah!! Try to find any example in your theology in which laws resulting from the collective enlightened intellect of mankind are allowed to supersede ‘dog’s law’. There aren’t any… that’s because the ‘Dogly’ nation you [all] advocate for is a Christian fascism. “Fascist” because those who advocate it also support the incestuous union of corporations & government – Mussolini’s definition of fascism, and he would have known. “Crypto” because rather than come out directly and state your desire for a theocratic government & military, based on your so-called ‘sacred scriptures’, you hide behind a facade of ‘American Values’ (as if!!) and ginned up ‘history’ suggesting a ‘Christian Nation’… Ever wonder why the U.S. Constitution begins with “We the People…” and not “Hear oh Israel. the Lard your Dog, the Lard is one!”? It’s because the founders had had their fill of Christian theocracy (both in England and the New World with the Massachusetts Bay Colony & others like it) and roundly rejected it. In case you’re in doubt about the basis of your theology, there’s a great review available, just recently posted entitled “How a Fringe Theocratic Movement Helped Shape the Religious Right As We Know It” [http://www.alternet.org/belief/how-fringe-theocratic-movement-helped-shape-religious-right-we-know-it?akid=13388.303761.bxER8E&rd=1&src=newsletter1040977&t=10]. And, do you want a quick–view of the kind of world the anti-democracy Christian crypto-fascist domionists want to create? Just take a hard look at the Islamic State and substitute J.C. for Allah, you’re both two sides of the same inhuman coin… the only difference is that, given their druthers, Christians rely on stakes, not cages to roast “heretics”.
@Marshalldoc said
Name a single person in the US military who has vocalized and considers themselves to be a “dominionist.” Where’s your “reality” to rebut the claim you’ve joined Mikey Weinstein’s crusade in tilting at windmills?
You’ve spent nearly a thousand words expressing hatred toward religious beliefs and those who hold them, but very little on any relevant topic here. If you can speak to the issues of religious freedom and military service, please do so. You’ve posted your tirades against religious belief elsewhere, so they are unnecessary here.
Yawn…
Beyond the yawn: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2015/08/a-response-to-a-dominionist-blogger/