Not long ago, I received the following in a press release:

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute [a conservative religious liberty organization] have filed a First Amendment lawsuit in federal court in defense of a Navy chaplain’s right to offer sectarian prayers in Jesus’ name. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt…, charges that the Navy’s current policy places limits on how Christian chaplains can publicly pray and forbids them from praying "in Jesus’ name." Institute attorneys are asking the U.S. District Court…to declare that the Navy’s practice of censoring Christian prayers violates the U.S. Constitution as well as Chaplain Klingenschmitt’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

From my perspective, we’re dealing here with a double misunderstanding.

First, the Navy misunderstands the nature of spiritual belief. Chaplain Klingenschmitt isn’t neutral when it comes to religion. He’s a Christian. And his understanding of Christianity compels him to always approach God "in the name of Jesus."

Although the chaplain may show respect for the beliefs of others, he’s limited in how much he can bend. I’m certain that he would never offer a prayer to Hare Krishna, even if he was trying to bring spiritual solace to military personnel whose leanings were in that direction. That’s not how religion works. By its very nature, there’s a significant degree of partisanship.

It’s one thing for Chaplain Klingenschmitt to be willing to minister to anyone and everyone. It’s quite another to expect him to do something that for him violates a cardinal spiritual principle. Since he’s a Christian, the military shouldn’t be surprised if his religious expressions are highly Christian. I mean, would a Muslim chaplain be expected not to pray toward Mecca? Or not to kneel face-down on a prayer mat?

The Rutherford Institute has a point: The military seems to be trying to force its chaplains into a kind of nondescript "Religion Lite." Perhaps they should rethink their expectations. Especially in light of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, however, Chaplain Klingenschmitt may be forgetting something, too—such as hospitality, neighborliness, graciousness, and concern for the feelings of others. Let me offer an example.

If my congregation, a Catholic congregation, a synagogue, and a mosque were to come together for an interfaith thanksgiving service, it would seem reasonable that we would try to find common ground that offered the greatest promise for inspiration and the least danger for antagonism.

The Catholics might forgo prayers to Mary. The Protestants might pray directly to God (as happens throughout the Old Testament) and not in the name of Jesus. The Jews might refrain from reading Scriptures about the Hebrews being God’s chosen people. And the Muslims might refrain from reading the Q’uran’s more strident comments about what should be done to non-Muslims.

Is such an approach a spiritual compromise? Or is it just common sense and an attempt at friendship?

I don’t want Chaplain Klingenschmitt to violate his conscience. By the same token, we need to remember that Jesus said that even certain important considerations shouldn’t be pursued to the exclusion of even more important matters. And I’m not so sure that Jesus wouldn’t place hospitality, neighborliness, graciousness, and concern for the feelings of others ahead of the command to come to the Father in his name—at least in certain circumstances.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE