I have been getting a flood of spam from the Window Live Space.  Everyday I get spam comments on my postings and bogus friendship request.  I realize that I have said this before, but this time FOR SURE.  I own the www.fearandtrembling.org  name so it should not be a problem for my regular readers.  I do think that you will need to renew your RSS when I get the new site together.

I also need a radical shift in the content of my blog.  I am seriously constrained about the amount of Political commentary I can make due to my officer commission,  I place all of my personal stuff on my Facebook Page for friends and family,  and these two topics made up about 2/3 of all my post.  I can either focus on Chaplaincy in general,  take it in a purely theological direction or talk about organization issues.  I will have to think this over some more....

Recently a friend of mine expressed concern about Rick Warren's lack of inclusiveness by invoking the name of Jesus during the 2009 Presidential Inauguration.  In the days leading up to the event, the Blogosphere and political commentators were all atwitter over the question of, "Will he or won't he invoke Jesus?" They asked the question as if saying Jesus in a prayer would bring the machinery of democracy to a grinding halt or, from the other perspective, as if not saying Jesus would bring some great harm to the cause of Christ.  This prompted me to reflect again on the religious pluralism that we have in the United States and to attempt a definition that is workable.   This campaign season has been littered with terms of questionable definition.  Terms such as unity and inclusiveness are frequently used with no regard for workable definitions.  What are we to be unified around and into what are we being included?

Let's look to religious pluralism first.   A common understanding of religious pluralism equates to the flattening out of all differences between the various religions so we are left with a civic religion devoid of any particularities.  This position is usually held by the marginally religious or the radically non-religious in our country.  Not surprisingly, it is this segment of our population that generally cries foul when the name of Jesus is invoked (although much less when other faiths display their doctrinal distinctions.  This a topic for another post).  The argument usually proceeds something like this:  If there are those in the audience that might be offended by a particular religious tenet, then it must be ejected from any public display of religion.  Is religious pluralism dependent on a radical privatization of religious expression? If this rule is to be applied to all religious expression it would effectively stop all public religion or at the very least reduce it to shallow platitudes and vague spiritualism.  Surely this cannot be the definition of religious pluralism.

As an Army Chaplain in the making, I minister in a world of intense religious pluralism and must have a more accurate and workable definition of pluralism to uphold the oath I have taken as an Army Officer and honor Jesus Christ as my savior.  There is a constant tension that cannot be addressed with the type of pluralism above.  The military chaplain works right between the first two clauses of the First Amendment.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."   The Army cannot establish a religion, but they cannot prohibit their soldiers from exercising their beliefs either.  Sending men and women into a combat zone with no provision for their religious expression restricts their first amendment rights.  You cannot just plunk a civilian minister or priest into a war zone and there are few Baptist churches in Afghanistan!  This is especially true of religions such as Catholicism that depend upon priest administered sacraments as part of their right expression. To the legality of prayer in Jesus name, or any other name for that matter, the courts have consistently ruled that public prayers of this nature do not constitute establishment.  The Constitution states that the congress shall make no law establishing religion.  It is a difficult to make the case that public prayers of invocation or benediction are law. 

My aforementioned friend was not, however, referring to the legality of Rick Warren's prayer, but rather that he "missed the point"  of some perceived notion of inclusiveness.  Under my friend's definition of pluralism, Rick Warren would refrain from invoking Jesus for the sake of inclusiveness, but I would put forth that he needs a much different definition of pluralism.  The real virtue of religious pluralism is not the sanitizing of religious distinctions, but rather the true expression of all religions simultaneously under a common adherence to the Rule of Law.   No one is required to give equal value to the religions of others, but under the Constitution we are required to respect the value of people of other faiths.  The great virtue of America is not that we all think or worship alike, but rather than we have diverse views and can peacefully co-exist in relative safety.  Invoking the name of Jesus does not violate the rights of others to worship differently.  There is no compulsion and there is no establishment.  In the same way,  I am not offended or threatened when those of other faiths express themselves.  Someone publicly invoking Allah does no harm to me, my faith or the cause of Christ.  It is not until my safety and welfare have been threatened that my rights have been violated.  

Now specifically to the events of Inauguration day,  Rick Warren's prayer reflected this latter definition of religious pluralism.  He faithfully represented himself and his faith group, but also tipped his hat to the religious freedom that we all enjoy.  It should not be strange to our ears when a Evangelical Christian mentions Christ in a prayer.   This second definition of pluralism is clearly expressed in the following segment of the prayer.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as for as the invocation of Jesus in his prayer, it was actually a much more privatized direction than I would have gone.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.

Rick Warren successfully walked that line between the first two clauses of the First Amendment the we military chaplains do on a daily basis.  He expressed his faith and recognized the rights of others to do the same.  If inclusiveness means that we will all be able to express our religious, political and personal values in an atmosphere of civility and respect for one another, then I applaud inclusiveness.  If, however, inclusiveness means that I must suppress my free expression of conscience for the sake of a perceived unity, then I want no part of it.  Good job Rick Warren.