Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an interesting little controversy dealing with military chaplains. The Navy says that Messianic Jewish chaplains must wear the cross lapel pin that identifies them as Christian rather than the Ten Commandments tablets that signify a Jewish chaplain. Jews in Green reports:
Fortunately already a policy in the Army and Air Force, word on the street is that the Chief of Naval Operations has issued a policy that Messianic "Jewish" chaplains will wear the cross and NOT the Jewish chaplain device.This is marvelous news, as it is a good step in keeping these people from misidentifying themselves and preying (praying) on unsuspecting Jewish service members.
The article cites an article from the Messianic Daily News, which objects to the policy ruling. That article said:
Upon arriving for his first stage of training Michael was told he would have to wear the Cross of Christianity instead of the Tablets signifying Judaism or he could not continue to train until the Naval Chaplaincy Board made a determination as to which lapel insignia should be worn by a Messianic Jewish Chaplain.Michael notified the Chaplain School command that as a Messianic Jew the proper symbol of his faith would be the tablets of Judaism and not the Christian Cross and requested the Navy reconsider. However, he was told that the decision came from the senior Chaplain Command and nothing at that time could be done. He must don the Christian Cross or go home and await a final decision from the Navy. And so, Michael went home.
The decision requiring Messianic Jews to wear the Christian Cross was made officially on November 26, 2008 by the President of the Navy Uniform Board, Vice Admiral M. E. Ferguson U.S. Navy Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education) (N1)
This decision essentially bars Messianic Jews from serving as chaplains within the U.S. Navy because it would require them to wear an insignia inconsistent with their faith and belief system. As a result of this decision Michael Hiles has had to decline the opportunity to begin the supersession process to become an active duty chaplain within the Navy.
That last part strikes me as rather silly. Messianic Jews are Christians; there is no reason why the cross should conflict at all with their beliefs. The whole concept of Messianic Jews has always struck me as absurd. If you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, you're not Jewish anymore, you're a Christian.
Politics
Comments
I have very mixed reactions to this. On the one hand I completely agree that Messianic Jews are Christians rather than Jewish. On the other hand, I'm slightly worried about the US military making decisions about theologically where different religious groups lie. This is just asking for serious entanglement between Church and State. And while we may agree with this decision what happens if instead the military decides that only Protestant chaplains can wear a cross for example? Given the history of Evangelical Protestants abusing military authority (which you've blogged about quite a bit) this isn't as so far-fetched as it might seem.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 27, 2008 10:19 AM
Of course the whole thing is stupid but the Navy get top stupid points for trying to force this. What reason was given? Didn't want to stock the different pins? In a time when the armed forces are having difficulty recruiting, to push back volunteers over a matter of faith, however ridiculous, is dumb. Ferguson ought to be flogged.
Posted by: Mike | December 27, 2008 10:24 AM
I would certainly not give the navy any "stupid" points over this. The problem is that the insignia identifies the general category of religious persuasion to other service members. A traditional (non-Messianic) Jew would generally object to being served spiritually by a Messianic chaplain, whom he or she would identify as Christian.
The issue is not individual service members' religious beliefs but how they are identified to the service members. I think this reflects a bit of a problem in the traditional Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, no preference division for beliefs, and possibly could be better solved by requiring each faith to do their own identification, but I think the navy is quite right not to permit Messianic Rabbis to identify themselves with the standard Jewish symbol.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | December 27, 2008 10:29 AM
Re Mike
Mr. Mike appears to have a reading comprehension problem. The article is not talking about combat soldiers, it's talking about chaplains.
Posted by: SLC | December 27, 2008 10:31 AM
This is going to sound a little obvious, but couldn't they either 1) wear both (although I confess I don't know the protocol of how the pins are worn) or 2) make a new insignia that incorporates both?
I understand the reasoning for wanting to distinguish Jewish chaplains from Messianic Jewish ones, but I think there's also a sense in which it might be important to allow the latter to wear an insignia that associates them with Judaism. There ought to be a compromise that can accomplish both.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 27, 2008 10:37 AM
Make them wear both?
Posted by: jpf | December 27, 2008 10:52 AM
SLC
So they have all the chaplains they need? And the apparent slight against a whole group of potential recruits is a positive thing for getting new combat soldiers in that religious group?
I had never heard of Messianic Jews before but if their adherents are anything like the other religions, this si not going to enhance the navy's outlook regardless of how silly or serious it may be.
Posted by: Mike | December 27, 2008 10:53 AM
I echo Joshua Zelinsky's concern about the government trying to decide how to classify various religions. Couldn't we have each chaplain's sponsoring congregation provide a suitable lapel pin bearing their crest or logo?
There would have to be a few reasonable restrictions, of course. It should be restricted to an emblem that the congregation actually uses in public life, such as on their official letterhead, church signs, medallions or vestments, etc.
Posted by: DaveL | December 27, 2008 11:09 AM
Posted by: Beowulff | December 27, 2008 11:12 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | December 27, 2008 11:17 AM
My mother, a Jewish woman who converted to Christianity in college, identified as Messianic Jew for a while until she figured out how inconsistent and insulting the whole idea was, asked too many cogent questions, and got the ice-cold shoulder from her "church." But while she was in, she designed a few logos around a cross-star combination.
Someone earlier brought up a church-state entanglement issue in this logo decision thing? How about the fact that there are chaplains in the first place, that's your entanglement right there.
Posted by: speedwell | December 27, 2008 11:23 AM
Posted by: WScott | December 27, 2008 11:32 AM
Forgot to comment on:
Of course. But that's the whole point: the Messianics want to use the (traditional) Jewish emblem, rather than designing one of their own. So it's not really a matter of the Navy saying "You can't wear your own emblem," but of them saying "You can't wear someone else's emblem."
Posted by: WScott | December 27, 2008 11:37 AM
This is exactly to sort of thing that is behind the policy of separation of church and state.
Here you have the state specifying what a particular religion must use as an identifying symbol, because the government has hired religious workers and has it own particular view/definition of what one particular religion is, which (of course) conflict with the definition/classification of that particular religion.
It's a mess, and results from the government getting involved in the religion business in the first place.
Posted by: divalent | December 27, 2008 11:41 AM
WScott: actually, in a way they do say "you can't wear your own emblem", because they only offer a few emblems to choose from. And if they think that the Jewish emblem fits their faith best, who is the Navy to argue that it's not their emblem, and that they should use the Christian emblem instead?
Posted by: Beowulff | December 27, 2008 11:44 AM
Herod:
The answer to the first is sort of obvious - to Messianic Jews - and because, as WScott suggests, there is still a definite cultural link in a way that Christians cannot claim. I agree that, for all intents and purposes, Messianic Jews fit more properly into the subset of Christians than that of Jews, but I'm not comfortable telling a Messianic Jew that he/she isn't a "real Jew" (obviously, you're not, Herod). At the same time, I think that a delineation between Jew, Messianic Jew, and Christian would basically solve the conflict: Jewish service members could identify a Messianic Jewish chaplain (thus preventing any "infiltration" or misrepresentation), and such chaplains could maintain a link to the Jewish side of their faith.Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 27, 2008 11:49 AM
Actually, my understanding is that the Navy provides the lapel pin out of a limited set representing "major faith groups" such as Christianity and Judaism. I have seen no indication that the chaplain involved was, at any point, offered the opportunity to display a lapel pin unique to Messianic Judaism.
They do have their own widely used and recognized emblem, of course. It consists of a menorah, star of David, and Ichtys arranged vertically.
Posted by: DaveL | December 27, 2008 11:50 AM
WScott: actually, in a way the Navy does say "you can't wear your own emblem", because the navy only offers a few emblems to choose from. And if Messianic Jews think that the Jewish emblem fits their faith best, who is the Navy to argue that it's not their emblem, and that they should use the Christian emblem instead?
(Replaced "they" in a few places so you can actually tell who I was referring to in my previous post, sorry for the duplication.)
Posted by: Beowulff | December 27, 2008 11:51 AM
Perhaps Captain Holcomb might want to comment on this issue as he was a chaplain for several years.
Posted by: SLC | December 27, 2008 12:14 PM
Christian Cynic, I'm quite willing to say that messianic jews aren't 'real jews' - because that's what 'real jews' do say.
They're not really 'real' christians either, in that they haven't put mosaic law behind them, as modern christianity says they must (except when it's convenient to keep it around, of course).
that said, I know they're a lot more offensive to jews than to christians - if for no other reason than their zeal for converting people...something jews find really offensive.
the whole thing is silly, but if the military is going to accommodate religion, and provide chaplains, they do have an obligation to ensure that said chaplains at the very least are clearly "labelled"...
Posted by: CanadianChick | December 27, 2008 12:25 PM
Forgive my ignorance - but aren't US Navy Chaplains employees of the Navy, a government department? If they are employees of the government, then doesn't the government (at least in a professional sense) have the right to tell them what to do (and wear)?
If they want to claim they're really 'blue meanies from the planet Spong' on 'company' time, and the Navy doesn't like it, they should resign, thus allowing these ex-Chaplains the freedom to profess thier own beliefs on their own time.
While in uniform (so to speak) they're representatives of the government, specifically the Navy. Doesn't the Navy have the right to control the activities that they hire their employees to do?
At least That's what I think is the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong. (As if I need ask! ☺)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 27, 2008 12:26 PM
CanadianChick, that's precisely what I question in this whole thing. A similar debate goes on in Christian circles - Mormons are often thought not to be Christians, despite believing in the teachings of Christ. I don't buy it either way: there are clearly links between Messianic Judaism and traditional (non-Messianic) Judaism in such a way that it is fair to call MJs Jewish, regardless of whether "real Jews" like it or not. As much as I respect the right of a group to define membership, I think that it stretches credulity to say that MJs are not Jewish when the only thing that ostensibly keeps them from that is the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 27, 2008 12:38 PM
Christian Cynic
...the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah... That's a BIG difference.
Posted by: Mike | December 27, 2008 12:51 PM
I wonder what symbol Mormon chaplains wear? I think it is a cross. However Mormonism did come directly from standard Christianity while 'Messianic Judaism' does not come directly from standard Judaism but only via Christianity (and it is recognized as Christian by most Christian denominations).
Perhaps there should be a neutral chaplain insignia (the cross apparently exists as a default but it isn't exactly neutral) and maybe each endorsing agency can have but is not required to have its own specific additional insignia. Either unique or, if a collection of endorsing agencies agree, shared. A common neutral insignia would emphasize that the chaplain is meant to support every member of the military in that person's faith tradition (or lack thereof) not the chaplain's faith tradition.
Posted by: Erp | December 27, 2008 1:02 PM
Christian Cynic - What would you think of a group that wanted to identify themselves as Christian even though they believed Jesus Christ was NOT the messiah? Would you want them identifying themselves as Christian chaplains and proselytizing among Christian troops?
Posted by: Taz | December 27, 2008 1:03 PM
Taking the points in hand, maybe this question would help clear things up (and it's an honest one): Is there any prohibition in Judaism (Tanakh, rabbinical writings, etc.) against believing that the Messiah has come (and if so, what's the source)? I know that there are subsets of Judaism that still believe the Messiah is coming, but I'd like to know if it's utterly taboo to say that the Messiah has already come. If not, then I fail to see how the exclusion of Jews who believe that Jesus was the Messiah is anything but arbitrary.
Taz: There is a disanalogy - Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not appear to be a religion centered around who the Messiah is or is not.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 27, 2008 1:13 PM
Erp, you are misrepresenting the state of affairs somewhat: Mormonism and Messianic Judaism really are analogous in how they came about except maybe to say that Joseph Smith's alleged revelations weren't of the magnitude to Christianity as the Messiah coming was for Judaism. Many of the earliest Christians could rightly be called Messianic Jews, and that might have actually been an appropriate label since "Christian" didn't catch on until a little later in the first century at Antioch (IIRC).
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 27, 2008 1:20 PM
Christian Cynic - So, as a Christian, you get to decide if a group is truly Christian or not, and if a group is truly Jewish or not? Jews object to this group labeling themselves as Jewish. They probably feel their theological arguments are as sound as yours against the "non-Messianic Christians". Frankly, I despise the idea of any chaplains proselytizing. They're there to provide comfort to the troops, not to win converts for their particular sect.
Posted by: Taz | December 27, 2008 1:31 PM
How many Jews are there in the U.S. Navy? 5? 10? 15? 20?
Posted by: Breton | December 27, 2008 1:41 PM
I think this was a reasonable ruling.
Everyone seems to be overlooking the context a little here -- military chaplains are supposed to be there to provide spirtual care for soldiers. To be the person you can turn to the night before you ship overseas to a post that might kill you. To be the person that you can lean on after the IED goes off and you get back to base wearing your team-mates brain.
It's not about cultural sensitivity, or recognizing religious heritage. It's about being sure that when a soldier in a moment of crisis needs a chaplain, they can be sure the chaplain they are turning to shares the basics of their faith.
Messianic Jews can be as culturally Jewish as they damn well please -- but the basics of their faith are Christian.
...
All the usual disclaimers apply - I refer only to religious soldiers who need religious solace, I don't mean that all soldiers need spiritual care or should, etc etc etc.
Posted by: PennyBright | December 27, 2008 1:47 PM
Posted by: G Felis | December 27, 2008 2:07 PM
I guess this whole thing with the messiahnic jews means the Pastafarians in combat arms are screwed. I've not seen a little tangle of gold or silver fibers on any military sky pilot's lapel.
---------------------------
How many Jews are there in the U.S. Navy? 5? 10? 15? 20?
Posted by: Breton | December 27, 2008 1:41 PM
Are you being stupid or sarcastic?
Check this:
http://www.uscj.org/raising_jewish_milit6099.html
It's certainly not definitive but when I was in the AF, there were at least half a dozen jews that I knew in my base supply squadron.
While there are not a lot of jews in the U.S. armed forces these days there are, according to the article I linked, a total of 27 jewish chaplains in U.S. military service.
Posted by: democommie | December 27, 2008 2:08 PM
You must be a ventriloquist, Taz: you're awfully good at putting words in my mouth.
No, what I'm saying is that definitions ought to be relatively consistent. This isn't about "true" adherents of a faith; it's about a label being used accurately for those who fit it. I don't see any reason to say that Messianic Jews aren't Jews, and I've raised a question that might suggest that the exclusion is arbitrary.
Is this meant to address my earlier comment about Christianity being a religion that is highly contingent upon who is the Messiah and Judaism not being such? I certainly hope not.
As I understand it, the issue here is distinguishing chaplains who might pose as "true" Jewish chaplains in the hopes of converting Jewish servicemen/-women; I'm not sure if you're suggesting that I think it's okay for chaplains of any sort (Christian, Messianic Jew, etc.) to proselytize, you'd be doing that ventriloquism thing again. I agree that a distinction is useful for that reason - sort of a full disclosure thing. But people have been arguing with me that there's no useful distinction between a Messianic Jew and your run-of-the-mill Christian (who has no Jewish heritage or cultural ties), which is another matter altogether.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 27, 2008 2:41 PM
If we can patriotically support a $700 billion dollar military budget, then we can patriotically support spending taxpayer money to pay for Messianic Jewish chaplains servicing a virtually nonexistent population of Messianic Jewish soldiers. Money well spent if you ask me.
I'd like to see more such investments - a veritable bargain at this time when the dollar is so relatively low - to help hone the razor's edge killing ability of our soldiers in the field. Just think of the return on investment if we could field a battalion of new chaplains for other virtually nonexistent religious groups:
* Baha'i Tigers
* Jafari's for Jesus
* Mahayana for the Messiah
The USSR will never be able to sustain our kind of shrewd investment strategies - it is only a matter of time before they suffer a catastrophic economic implosion from which they will never recover.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 27, 2008 2:51 PM
The way I see it, the Messianic Jewish chaplains can either wear a Christian symbol or make up their own. They really don't have any title on the Jewish symbol because of that one fundamental difference in theology; if I was them I'd take the cross and Mogen David together and be done with it.
Posted by: Brian X | December 27, 2008 3:22 PM
Actually I think one could argue that the default symbol for military chaplains is the cross. If you are endorsed by a specific group which has an alternative approved symbol (e.g., a group of Jewish organizations that mutually recognize each other as being Jewish [the key word is mutually]) you are allowed to wear that organization's symbol instead. This particular chaplain was not endorsed by any in that group and so can't use their symbol. His endorsing organization could make a suggestion for an alternative symbol or he can wear the cross. Ideally the default symbol should not be the cross as I can imagine the fun when the first Wiccan chaplains are approved and have to wear the cross since they don't have an alternative symbol.
Posted by: Erp | December 27, 2008 4:05 PM
I don't like the idea of government telling them at all what they must wear. I keep seeing yellow stars at the thought.
Posted by: skarbutts | December 27, 2008 4:15 PM
Posted by: Taz | December 27, 2008 4:17 PM
Posted by: Taz | December 27, 2008 4:38 PM
Christian Cynic, once you believe that a messiah has come, you're pretty much no longer a mainstream jew. Look at that small group of Lubavitchers that think their rebbe was the messiah...they're certainly not considered to be a part of mainstream judaism.
If you believe that Jesus was the messiah, you're DEFINITELY not a jew. You might not fit the definition of a modern christian, but you're really not a jew.
I was nominally a christian for the first half of my life, give or take. Now, between singing in a klezmer group, and being a "hebrophile" since I was 12, I'm immersed in cultural judaism far more that a lot of secular jews I know. I sing in hebrew, yiddish and ladino. I can read the alef-bet. My husband is a jewish convert, and about half of my friends are shul-attending jews.
Doesn't make me a jew. I'm an ex-christian, ex-pagan athiest.
So...the jews for jesus type people? They may be shomer shabbos, they may keep kosher, but they're not jews any more than I am. Heck, my jewish friends say I'm MORE jewish than the messianic types.
Posted by: CanadianChick | December 27, 2008 4:53 PM
How the fuck is it not grossly unconstitutional for a Vice Admiral in the motherfucking United States Navy to be promulgating official military orders concerning ecclesiastical matters such as whether some particular wackaloon religious sect is or isn't part of some wackaloon religion?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 27, 2008 5:01 PM
hit post too soon...
ultimately, the purpose of the symbols is identification for the purposes of the person seeking the chaplain - in that case, I really DO think that the jew seeking a chaplain has a right to not deal with a messianic jew passing himself off as a real jew. I think an orthodox jew would rather receive counselling from the most liberal jewish renewal rabbi, than from a "jew for jesus"...
Posted by: CanadianChick | December 27, 2008 5:03 PM
The question isn't "self-identification," it's advertising. The Services are insisting on protection of trademark here.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 27, 2008 5:17 PM
This strikes me as a perfectly fair decision. As multiple commenters have noted, the obvious purpose of this chaplain's desire to wear the tablet symbol was so he could pass himself off as Jewish and proselytize to Jewish soldiers. That's the raison d'etre of "messianic Judaism" generally, which is really Christianity by any reasonable definition of the term. For the same reason, I'd support a different symbol for Mormon chaplains, as Mormonism differs from Christianity in several ways that the average Christian churchgoer would undoubtedly find significant. I haven't heard of any Muslims trying to pull this trick ("prophetic Christians"?), but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
Of course, it raises valid and serious church-state questions for the government to be deciding which faiths are or are not identical to other faiths, but if we're going to have army chaplains in an official capacity, the problem is unavoidable. A more even-handed solution might be for chaplains to wear tags that spelled out their religious identification, although that's still vulnerable to many of the same problems.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | December 27, 2008 5:42 PM
If one can be an atheist Jew, why is the idea of being a Christian Jew all that strange, especially since Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism in the first place?
That said, I still find it silly for a Messianic Jew to effectively deny that he/she is a Christian.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 27, 2008 6:11 PM
I'm with Beowulf. Telling Messianic Jews how they should self-identify seems arrogant in the extreme. Like telling Native Americans that they shouldn't be offended by the name of the band of presumed adults with their IQs on their shirts who play American football in Washington DC.
Posted by: BaldApe | December 27, 2008 6:12 PM
This is a problem with the way we understand the idea of secularism - which is entirely derived from the Protestant Reformation. Every secular tenet - pick any one - faith is a matter of conscience and a matter between man and his maker; separation of church and state; laws created by an assembly of men and so on; are all traceable to the Reformation and make sense only in the context of the Reformation. But only if faith is defined in terms of what is acceptable in a Protestant society does disestablishment work. The separation of Church and State is meant to ensure that the State does not favour any version of Triune/Salvation/Original Sin Christianity and does not return to the clutches of the Princes of the Church of Rome. It is not meant to maintain an equal distance between the different versions of Christianity and non-Christian faiths or traditions. The secular vision is very clear that the path to the Christian God/trinity is through individual effort; that the Jews have rejected Jesus although they accept the earlier Prophets, and that the Muslims are in error in ascribing mere Prophethood to Jesus rather than Messiahood and Goodhood. As for the rest they are simplyfallen and corrupted faiths - be they Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Shinto etc., So these problems will crop up over and over again as long as we ignore that fact that secularism is a religious idea and not a humanist/atheist idea. What do I think should be done? The State should approach this issue from the point of view of a freethinking traditionalist - that there are some religions that can be reduced to traditions that when they step out as religions can harm followers of non-religious traditions or other religions. To ensure that there is no conflict and (dialogue actually a harbinger of conflict) and ensure no one is trying to justify their respective traditions, chapalans should be clearly identifiable. MJ is a conversion racket and is yet another means and subterfuge to harvest souls. Jews don't have te time or the resources to debate MJs and other varieties of soul harvesters. So the state in the interests of society should mark MJs out for what they are and not let them pull a fast number
Posted by: kanaada | December 27, 2008 6:29 PM
Posted by: Beowulff | December 27, 2008 6:33 PM
There is no reason for the military to pay chaplains. We should credential chaplains to embed with troops the same way the military credentials members of the press to embed with troops. Let the troops that are interested in having chaplains and/or the sects that are interested in sending chaplains provide the means of supporting the chaplains. Then they can wear whatever they want, consistent with military requirements as set forth in the credentialing agreement.
Posted by: Russell | December 27, 2008 6:57 PM
Silly. This is military insignia. It has little correspondence to the symbology of the rest of the world; bird colonels don't prefer chicken, and purple-heart recipients aren't Masons, lieutenants aren't eleven. The cross insignia is the default for chaplains, though there are others; at some point in the past insignia were provided for the major faith divisions as the numbers of soldiers or sailors of that faith, and chaplains in proportion, reached a certain level. It was a process of liberalization; the base assumption of course was protestantism, and those of you who don't understand the basic sacrifices of military service will not likely understand why a chaplaincy is a reasonable component of a standing military.
As I understand the situation, there is now a grand total of one messianic jewish chaplain in chaplain-school. His demand to have a new insignia created for him is as stupid--and un-military--as it would be for me to demand an atheist poet device for my blouse. It's called a "uniform" for a reason; there's a minimum number of things that can reasonably be put on it, and all of them serve a military (not a theological) purpose. When shit and fan meet, chaplains serve everyone equally (and perform any rites needed regardless of denomination or faith.) Chaplains don't come in groups; you work with who you have (though they do have assistants--see Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse-Five).
This clown, the MJ chaplain, would be posted alone, and be required to manage religious duties for all of the sailors in his posting. That role is essential to the concept of military clergy, just as the cooks prepare meals for all and the doctors treat all. The hero of this tale has identified himself as a zealot unfit for service; the insignia broil is (I guess, with evidence) just the latest piece of evidence.
I think Heller has a bit on that too in Catch-22, where the chaplain is an anabaptist. But the irony is only slightly amplified over the fact that in the military you get all kinds--share a foxhole with a 'negro' (my grandfather did, and it changed his life); have as your commanding officer a catholic; have jews in your unit; or have as your chaplain a muslim or a messianic jew. One of the great values of the military is its power to compel us to face things we might normally have avoided.
The real test will be when we have our first atheist chaplain. It is theoretically possible; the chaplain after all serves the soldiers and helps them to do their duty. I could do that.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | December 27, 2008 7:18 PM
Count me among the commenters who sees this as yet another case showing that the very notion of government-approved and -organized chaplains is a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause. Military chaplains, as such, should be held unconstitutional.
But even short of that, I have to wonder about the intellectual honesty of anyone criticizing the Navy's decision who ignores the obvious intent of the "Messianic Jewish" chaplain candidates. The would-be chaplains clearly intend to use the Jewish insignia they seek in order to misrepresent themselves to (more traditionally) Jewish service members--whom they seek to convert, not to comfort.
These would-be chaplains blatantly intend to use Jewish insignia to defraud Jewish members of the Navy. How anyone can defend the chaplains without confronting this fact is beyond me.
Posted by: Rieux | December 27, 2008 7:19 PM
Posted by: WScott | December 27, 2008 7:28 PM
"And the apparent slight against a whole group of potential recruits is a positive thing for getting new combat soldiers in that religious group?"
Yeah because numbering as they do in the hundreds if not the thousands, Messianic Jews are all set to make a major contribution to the US army's manpower problem.
Non-messianic Jews (I'm tempted to refer to them as "real Jews") are a much larger group and allowing Messianic Jews to serve as Jewish Chaplains is likely to alienate far more of them than the reverse is likely to alienate Messianic Jews.
Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet, I doubt anyone would think on that basis that they should be allowed to serve as Christian Chaplains.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 27, 2008 8:33 PM
They could do away with different lapel pins and have one pin to designate chaplain status, regardless of denomination or tradition. That would take the military out of the business of classifying chaplains with symbols that don't correspond well to categories that matter to believers. Consider, for example, that for a fundamentalist Christian, a Catholic priest might be regarded as something akin to the spawn of Satan, yet a priest wears the same clerical pin as a fundamentalist chaplain.
Posted by: Dr X | December 27, 2008 9:22 PM
To clarify, there are currently only 4 permitted Chaplain's insignias: a cross, tablets, crescent, and "wheel." While the latter three tend to be specific to a religion (Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, respectively), the cross tends to be more...flexible.
This is amplified by the existence of the Unitarian Universalist church. They are Chaplains' endorsers (a requirement to be a Chaplain), but they have no set doctrine. Thus, if a pagan, atheist, or what have you ever does become a Chaplain, he will likely do so through the UUC, and come bearing a cross on his uniform.
Many seem to be focused on the "obvious" intent of the subject Chaplain candidate to seek to convert unwary followers of Judaism. First, I'd give the religious adherents a bit more credit; I doubt they're the simpletons you're implying. Second, you're either making unwarranted speculation (a conclusion based on no stated fact) or a bigoted assumption (he's a Messianic Jew, therefore he must want to convert other Jews). That is, unless someone can demonstrate how they know this fellow was "obviously" out to "trick" Jewish soldiers. Likewise, neither Mormon nor evangelical Baptist Chaplains are out to "defraud" members of their own or other faiths simply by virtue of the badge they do or do not wear.
For those that oppose military Chaplains in general, I'd refer you to Katcoff v. Marsh and Abington v. Schempp.
Posted by: JD | December 27, 2008 9:27 PM
Ptahh, I have to spit it out, messianic jew.
That brand of christer is so deceitful, even the U.S. Navy noticed.
The reason the Jews say no to messianic judaism is because proselytizing is forbidden by their law and these creeps live to proselytize.
This jerk played the victim and went home baby-crying because he wanted to wear the Moses badge instead of the jesus badge.
Why not the cross? What are his motives for trying to hide his jesus half? I"ve been told that loving jesus is !GLORIOUS!
messianic jews: Go live in the Middle East where you belong. And take that nasty little yahweh with you.
Posted by: kamaka | December 27, 2008 10:19 PM
CanadianChick
I don't know why, but that's soooo funny.
Posted by: JED | December 27, 2008 11:03 PM
If you are born of a Jewish mother you are Jewish according to Israeli law.
Whether you become Messianic or atheist is irrelevant.
You are still Jewish.
Telling Jews what they have to wear is just a step away from telling them to wear Yellow Stars of David or branding them.
So go to hell.
Posted by: Goldstein | December 28, 2008 2:13 AM
Yeah I'm with Goldstein - Jews in the armed service should be able to anything they want (or nothing at all).
Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE JEWS !!! (everyone else though...) :)
Ok concentrate people!
Armed service personnel regularly wear UNIFORMS. They don't get a choice about it, they HAVE TO DO SO WHEN ON DUTY. These insignia are part of the uniform. The Government gets to decide on the uniform, individual soldiers, sailors, marines and air men and women DON"T GET TO DECIDE.
If the Admiral in charge of Chaplains decided that Messianic Jews should have a golden fez as part of thier uniform, then, apart from complaining further up the 'food chain', there's little that individual Chaplains can do really.
As to the issue on whether Messianic Jews are 'real' Jews or not, then why not ask the people affected? If the 'real' Jews don't think that Messianic Jews are really Jews, and they're the majority (as I suspect) then Messianic Jews can identify all they like, it don't make it so to those involved. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 28, 2008 2:42 AM
Goldestein may I respectfully suggest that you remove your head from your rectum and actually read the topic under discussion.
When talking about military chaplains I think it can be safely assumed that Judaism is being used in the sense of a religious affiliation rather than an ethnic identity.
I'll concede the terminology can occasionally imprecise because the religious affiliation and ethnic identity were considered co-terminal but the context in this case is more than clear.
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | December 28, 2008 3:40 AM
Being Jewish or Christian isn't just about which book(s) you consider to be holy, it's a cultural thing too. Messianic Jews have taken on board the New Testament's teachings, but they don't want to leave the Jewish community with its customs, rites, conventions, etc.
So it's not simply a theological question of what they believe about the divinity or otherwise of Jesus.
I'm an atheist, but I know very well that culturally I'm a "christian atheist" not a "jewish atheist"!
:-) Surely we can rely on the generous inclusivity of all the Abrahamic religions, with their love of diversity and welcoming approach to theological differences? :-)
Posted by: Sam C | December 28, 2008 4:12 AM
Goldstein, I assume from the name that you're either Jewish or trying to pass as one.
The reason I question whether you're Jewish is because that would make you the only Jew I've ever knew who didn't find the whole "Jews for Jesus" thing just jaw-droppingly offensive. There's a perfectly good word for people who are "for Jesus"--they're called "Christians."
The Navy made the right call here.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 28, 2008 6:42 AM
Well, not in terms of Israel's Law of Return, it's not. The Law was amended in 1970 to exclude those who had voluntarily converted to another religion. In 1989 The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity, not Judaism, under Israeli law.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DC163CF932A25751C0A965958260
Posted by: DaveL | December 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Taking the points in hand, maybe this question would help clear things up (and it's an honest one): Is there any prohibition in Judaism (Tanakh, rabbinical writings, etc.) against believing that the Messiah has come (and if so, what's the source)? I know that there are subsets of Judaism that still believe the Messiah is coming, but I'd like to know if it's utterly taboo to say that the Messiah has already come. If not, then I fail to see how the exclusion of Jews who believe that Jesus was the Messiah is anything but arbitrary.
I'm pretty sure the Jews think that who is or is not the Messiah is anything but arbitrary. In other words, while there needn't be any specific proscription against believing "the Messiah has come", but there are a whole host of theological arguments, prophetic conditions, etc., that a Jewish Messiah would need to satisfy. These theological arguments would have the same effect as a stated proscription.
Posted by: Citizen Z | December 28, 2008 8:56 AM
Hi to everyone,
(If you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, you're not Jewish anymore, you're a Christian.)
Do you think, Because one is living in China, On is not an american anymore?
Did you forget that Jesus was a jewish man ( the son of God)
He came to rescue the jewish people. The jewish people who believed at the Time of Jesus, They believed in the Messiah and they still was JEWISH.
To be a christian is not to go to church and pay every month to your church.
Because the jewish people did not believe in Jesus (the Son of God), God blinded them and he has given His word to the gentiles ( non-Jewish person)
The catholic church was given the name "christian" to people who believe in God.
You have to have an relationship with Jesus, believeing, That He is the Son of God dying on the cross for our sins and guilt and then you are a christian because you have been a gentile( and not a Jewish person) before.
The Jewish people stay Jewish people if they are believeing in Jesus and they are allowed to wear a cross.
To wear a cross is not the maine thing to believe in Jesus. Your heart is the main thing.
Bow your knees and give all your sin and guilt to Jesus, Because this is given eternal life to you.
It is not important to wear something to show that you believe in Christ or how you give your believe a name. Have a relationship with Jesus.
Amen! Jesus is alive and one day He comes back and everyone can see His sign on His hands, Then you know He comes the second time and you will bow your knee.
The healing comes from the Jewish People.
By the way I am not a Jewish person, I was a gentile and now I am a christian because I believe in the Son of God.
Posted by: Gisela | December 28, 2008 9:24 AM
Re Gisela
I hope that Ms. Gisela is not holding her breath waiting for the return of Joshua of Nazareth.
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2008 9:35 AM
I'd like to complicate matters further by pointing out that the majority of Messianic "Jews" are not, in fact, of Jewish origin, and many who are are not considered Jews according to halakhah, or Jewish law (many have only one Jewish grandparent, etc.).
Most at this point are Christians who become bored with "vanilla" Christianity and are attracted to the Messianic belief system because it allows them to experience something "exotic" while still, in their minds, being under the umbrella of salvific "grace".
Regarding those who are halakhically Jewish: those of you who assume a proselytizing motive are correct. Many have the zeal of the convert, and proselytize aggressively.
In any case - theologically, Messianic "Judaism" is indistinguishable from conservative evangelical Christianity. They've taken their theology entirely from the Southern Baptists (a number of their leaders have graduated from SBC seminaries), and laminated a thin veneer of cultural Judaism on top. It's basically Christian fundamentalism with bagels.
In my opinion, the Navy is absolutely correct in equating it with Christianity. I really see no reason even to have Messianic chaplains. The handful of Messianics who may be in the military will be theologically Christian, and will almost certainly not even be culturally Jewish. They will be Messianic "Jews" in name only. They can be serviced just as easily by evangelical chaplains, and there is no need to take it any further.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 28, 2008 9:37 AM
Until I read the last sentence of your post I assumed that messianic jews were simply jews who believed in a messiah but who didn't think he had arrived yet.
But you say they are Jews who believe Jesus is the messiah.
Are you sure of that? If that's correct it does seem weird for them not to call themselves christians.
But, even so, I think it should be up to them what symbol they wear. A jew, after all, who believes Jesus was the messiah has no reason to consider a religion separate from Judaism needs to be formed. And he may hold beliefs different from christians. He may not, for example, think Jesus was God incarnate and disagree with other common christian doctrines. He may also not believe in the New Testament as scripture. In such a case it would not be legitimate to force him to identify himself as christian.
Posted by: DB Ellis | December 28, 2008 9:45 AM
I'd like to complicate matters further by pointing out that the majority of Messianic "Jews" are not, in fact, of Jewish origin, and many who are are not considered Jews according to halakhah, or Jewish law (many have only one Jewish grandparent, etc.).
Most at this point are Christians who become bored with "vanilla" Christianity and are attracted to the Messianic belief system because it allows them to experience something "exotic" while still, in their minds, being under the umbrella of salvific "grace".
Regarding those who are halakhically Jewish: those of you who assume a proselytizing motive are correct. Many have the zeal of the convert, and proselytize aggressively.
In any case - theologically, Messianic "Judaism" is indistinguishable from conservative evangelical Christianity. They've taken their theology entirely from the Southern Baptists (a number of their leaders have graduated from SBC seminaries), and laminated a thin veneer of cultural Judaism on top. It's basically Christian fundamentalism with bagels.
In my opinion, the Navy is absolutely correct in equating it with Christianity. I really see no reason even to have Messianic chaplains. The handful of Messianics who may be in the military will be theologically Christian, and will almost certainly not even be culturally Jewish. They will be Messianic "Jews" in name only. They can be serviced just as easily by evangelical chaplains, and there is no need to take it any further.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 28, 2008 9:58 AM
Just read the wikipedia article on the topic. They appear to believe basically the same thing as christians but follow jewish law.
I still say that there is no reason they should be obligated to identify themselves as christian when they don't consider the worship of Jesus as divine messiah a separate religion from Judaism.
A reasonable compromise would be to have them wear some symbol appropriate to messianic judaism on their uniform so that there is no confusion on the part of jewish soldiers coming to them for guidance.
Posted by: DB Ellis | December 28, 2008 10:00 AM
Do mormon chaplains wear a christain symbol? I know many more conventional christians bristle at the idea of calling their religion a form of christianity.
Should they be obligated to wear a different symbol because other christians don't consider them "real" christians?
As much as Mormonism sounds like a separate religion from christianity and messianic judaism sounds like christianity in disguise I don't care for the idea of people being forced to wear a different religious symbol than the one they'd choose for themselves. That's pretty troubling to me.
Posted by: DB Ellis | December 28, 2008 10:06 AM
By the way I am not a Jewish person.
Gee, Grisela. We'd never have guessed.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 28, 2008 10:11 AM
Most at this point are Christians who become bored with "vanilla" Christianity and are attracted to the Messianic belief system because it allows them to experience something "exotic" while still, in their minds, being under the umbrella of salvific "grace".
The few of them that started off as Jews have picked their religion on the basis of "What will annoy my folks the most?"
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 28, 2008 10:14 AM
I still say that there is no reason they should be obligated to identify themselves as christian when they don't consider the worship of Jesus as divine messiah a separate religion from Judaism.
This isn't about their cute little self-image. It's about the Jewish soldiers they'd be expected to serve, and who don't deserve chaplains who offend the living shit out of them.
These jerkoffs can claim to be Jews all they want. Hell, they can claim to be the Board of Directors of Microsoft. But they're not. How hard is that?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 28, 2008 10:32 AM
I wouldn't expect them to lead services for more conventional judaism. Of course jewish soldiers shouldn't have to have their services lead by a messianic jew whose beliefs are strongly at odds to their own.
But that wasn't the issue being debated. Only what symbol they should have to wear.
Posted by: DB Ellis | December 28, 2008 10:43 AM
The few of them that started off as Jews have picked their religion on the basis of "What will annoy my folks the most?"
Yeah, there's that too!
I'll add that a lot of their proselytism (this is especially true of Jews for Jesus) is directed at the elderly, college freshmen and immigrants from the FSU, many of whom are often lonely, vulnerable and ignorant concerning traditional Judaism. They're easy prey and ill-equipped to counter the Messianics' apologetic arguments.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 28, 2008 10:52 AM
If one can be an atheist Jew, why is the idea of being a Christian Jew all that strange, especially since Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism in the first place?
Whatever prospects there once might have been for Christianity to be regarded as another sect of Judaism -- people you could disagree with, but still have in the family -- have been erased by 17 or so centuries of persecution. Maybe if St. Paul hadn't been so determined to toss out the Jewish obligations; if Constantine hadn't made Xty the state religion (thus ensuring its overwhelming dominance in European culture ever since); and if that religion hadn't gone on to be so murderously intolerant of anyone who wasn't them; in short if history had been significantly different, then maybe. Keep in mind that religious affiliation is an in-group/out-group marker, and thus under no obligation to follow the logic of substantive similarity, or of historical connection.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 28, 2008 11:02 AM
I wish Norm Holcolme would post here, he's an ex-Naval chaplain and so has actual experience in these matters.
However from what he has said, I gather that a chaplain's job is to give spiritual comfort to service personnel, not to proselyte. In an emergency a chaplain has to be able to give the appropriate comfort (such as last rites) to a service-person, no matter what the personal beliefs of that particular chaplain. It's about the men and women they serve.
These Messianic Jews don't sound like they can stick to their job description. If I had been hired to pour concrete and I started trying to do plumbing too, I'd be told to stick with the job I'd been hired to do. The same goes here.
As to their insignia, it's a matter of uniforms. Uniforms are decided by the service involved. Soldiers can't decide they'd prefer pink uniforms, nor can Chaplains decide what insignia they are to wear. Particularly as the insignia they would prefer would cause confusion and hurt to non-Messianic Jews.
That's my opinion anyway, but I'm no expert. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 28, 2008 11:03 AM
Vice Admiral Ferguson did not just suddenly decide to make the decision that Messianic Jewish Chaplains will wear a cross instead of tablets. He made his decision based on many hours of research and input given him by many departments throughout the Navy system. I'm sure the Navy Chaplain Corps provided pro and con arguments throughout the process.
I didn't carefully read all the comments that have been made because for the most part they became very tedious and seemed to be totally uninformed regarding military protocol and the role of uniforms and insignia in promoting and maintaining "good order and discipline" within the military system.
Surely no one who has any experience with the military would think it feasible to let each religious group adopt its own identifying insignia!
In my opinion, and based on my years of experience, the Navy made the right call in deciding that a Messianic Jewish Chaplain will wear the cross instead of the tablets. It would be an insult to Jewish Chaplains (and I don't remember that we ever had more than 12 or 13 on active duty at one time) to permit a chaplain who believes that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah to wear the insignia designed for Jewish chaplains. It would also promote a "confused symbol" and add fuel to the fires of those who become chaplains for the sole purpose of "evangelizing" and winning souls for Jesus.
Currently, Mormon chaplains and Christian Scientist chaplains wear the cross as their identifying insignia. I have known active duty chaplains who were opposed to this and also felt insulted that these groups wore the cross. For the most part, this was accepted because there were so few of them and they did not display a divisive evangelical zeal to convert others to their religion. Mormon chaplains generally restricted themselves to providing for Mormons and Christian Scientist chaplains usually specialized in the administrative functions of the Chaplain Corps.
Also, there is a reason for why we don't always know how many Jewish personnel are in the military. When I was a chaplain to a Marine infantry battalion (about 900), I managed to get a copy of what was then known as an Alpha roster. It contained extensive information on each person in the battalion and required the approval of the Regimental Commander before it could be released. I was surprised to learn that there were many more Jewish Marines in the battalion than anyone knew. When I approached them and spoke with them, most of them were upset that I had learned that they were Jewish and many asked me not to reveal that information. They had seen too many Jewish personnel become the object of insults and other forms of ridicule and they didn't want that to happen to them. I can only imagine the attention that would accrue to them if a Messianic Jewish chaplain wearing the tablets took an interest in them.
What I have said is but a "drop in the bucket" regarding the issue of chaplains in the military. The entire structure as it exists needs to be torn apart and put back together (if at all) with a strict adherence to constitutional law.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 28, 2008 11:05 AM
DB Ellis (and others),
They don't get to decide whether or not what they believe and practice is part of normative Judaism. The believe that Jesus was the messiah, and everyone who disagrees burns in hell for all of eternity. How is that not Christianity?
OK, how about this? I don't believe in God, but I don't want to define myself as an atheist - so I'm a theist, and you have no right to tell me otherwise.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 28, 2008 11:05 AM
PS Norm, if I misspelled your name, I apologise. I couldn't find one of your earlier posts. :( -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 28, 2008 11:06 AM
Capt. Holcomb, thank you for the much-needed clarification.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 28, 2008 11:10 AM
Norm - 'Speak of the devil'. :D -DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | December 28, 2008 11:12 AM
There is a long history of disguised Christianism in India. While MJ proponents may not be connected with the Christianist soul harvesters of India, or even aware of them, the patterns of the two are similar. It involves casting Christianity as an ennobled form of the earlier tradition, or a culmination of earlier prophecies, and/or showing th earlier tradition as a corrupted or incomplete form of Christianity. Some of the early Western missionaries, notably Fr. Beschi, in the 17th century, and Sunder Singh in the late 19th century, who respectively targeted Hindu and Sikh traditions. Even today the vast conversion-only proselytisation groups in India continue to follow some of these dubious tactics. The Indian armed forces - the world's most religiously diverse armed forces - too employ religious workers. Apart from Hindu priests and Sikh granthis, there are Buddhist bhikhus, Muslim maulvis, and Christian pastors (no padres though). And yes there are Parsis and Jews too in the Indian armed forces, but being smaller in number manage on their own. Religion being a sensitive matter in India, and with the armed forces being called to quell religious riots, the leadership is very careful to ensure that no lines are crossed within the forces. Unique among large militaries the world over, the Indian armed forces not only have a religiously diverse cadre, but also a religously diverse leadership. Apart from the several Hindu chiefs of the Indian Army/Navy/Air Force, there has been one Christian chief of the Army, a few Christian chiefs of the Navy and Air Force, a Muslim chief of the Air Force, and a few Sikh chiefs of the Army and Air Force. Among the senior leadership are again personnel from all faiths. In the Indian Army while the soldiers of the infantry are recruited into geographically and even religiously constituted regiments (as among the Sikhs) the officers can be from anywhere. So Lt.Gen.JFR Jacob, a Baghdadi Jew, who is one of the Indian Army's most decorated soldiers, as an infantry officer commanded a group of Punjabi Hindus, learning their language and customs and sharing in their culture. As the US armed forces becomes more diverse, it may help to closely study and learn from the successful experience of the Indian armed forces.
Posted by: kanaadaa | December 28, 2008 11:40 AM
DB Ellis - If their beliefs disqualify them for, as you put it, "conventional Judaism," how are they qualified to sport its symbols?
Mind you, this isn't about some minor theologic point. This is the equivalent of someone publicly pulling down his pants and taking a dump on a Koran, then insisting that the US government recognize him as a defender of Islam. How do you think Muslims would react to that?
Now, here is a theologic point: I don't know how it works in other religions, but in Judaism, you don't get to just say "I'm a Jew" and that's that. And you sure as hell don't get to just say "I'm a rabbi" and that's that. The other Jews have to go along with it. There are a few disputed areas, but pretty much the only people arguing that Jews for Jesus are Jews are other Christians. For Jews, once you've become a Christian--which these Messianic "Jews" are--you're out of the club, hit the road, Jack, and doncha come back no mo, no mo, no mo, no mo.
Now, that's for people who simply converted--usually to get married, sometimes for other reasons. Individuals in their lives may be disappointed, but they're not out to destroy Judaism. If they were out to destroy Judaism, the rejection of their claims to be Jewish would be far more adamant.
Jews for Jesus are out to destroy Judaism. They are, how you say, an antisemitic organization, despite their whimsical choice of name. They exist to convert Jews to Christianity. That makes them Christian. Not Jewish. Again, how hard is that? In the chaplaincy, they (or I guess it's just "he") appears to be an arm of those Bible-banging twits who aspire to use the captive audience characteristics of the military to force--on the public dime--their religious beliefs on already long-suffering service members. Part of this approach is lying about his beliefs, as represented by his choice of a religious symbol he knows damn well wouldn't be awarded him by the people he pretends to represent.
You know how the basic argument against teaching ID in science classes is that it isn't science? Well, the basic argument against this jackhole presenting himself as a rabbi is that he isn't Jewish.
He says he is? Well, he doesn't get to say. Jews in general get to say. And we say he's not.
And I suspect that I speak for all the Jews when I say: Fuck him.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 28, 2008 12:07 PM
I have military experience, and indeed I can't see any reason why it would not be feasible. Emblems would have to be approved by the Navy, of course, but I see absolutely no reason why having distinctive insignia for Messianic Jews, Sunni Muslims, Methodists, 7th Day Adventists, etc. on their chaplains' lapels would be disruptive to good order and discipline.
Posted by: DaveL | December 28, 2008 12:25 PM
Dave:
I probably wasn't clear enough on that point and your point is well-taken when you add the qualifier "would have to be approved by the Navy." My contention was/is that the process could not be permitted on the exclusive action of each group alone. All requests would have to go through an official process authorized by the military. And yet, to become so obviously specific does defeat a part of the mission for which chaplains are commissioned for active duty. It would not be healthy to send an obvious message that I am "faith group A and that's where my emphasis for ministry is centered." The chaplain is commissioned to "provide for all" and I fear that becoming specific beyond the general terms of "Cristian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.," would foster divisions and competitions that would impede the mission of "providing for all."
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 28, 2008 1:32 PM
I suspect the problem is deciding on which insignia and who does the deciding and how many there are going to be (that cross with the two drops belongs to the wee frees with one chaplain in the military, this cross with one drop is for the wee wee frees). Perhaps it is best to have one neutral chaplain insignia that all chaplains wear (e.g., a simple circle if that isn't used elsewhere in military insignia). An approved auxiliary symbol might indicate a particular endorsing denomination or group of endorsing denominations that agree on a common symbol and who have a sufficient number of chaplains in the military (e.g., at least 20).
Posted by: Erp | December 28, 2008 1:56 PM
The chaplain is commissioned to "provide for all" and I fear that becoming specific beyond the general terms of "Cristian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.," would foster divisions and competitions that would impede the mission of "providing for all."
Capt. Holcomb, if this is the case, then the military needs to do a better job of prohibiting the proselytism that has become a ubiquitous problem. The evangelical chaplains' method of "providing for all" is to try to make everyone evangelical!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 28, 2008 2:15 PM
Jeff:
You'll get no argument from me on that point! I spent my last 10 years as a Command Chaplain trying to deal with that issue. I don't like to speak ill of the organization to which I dedicated my professional life; however, the lack of leadership and the outright cowardice I saw among our senior leadership disgusted me to no end. In retirement, I remember fondly those fellow chaplains who knew how to cooperate in a pluralistic environment without compromising their own faith. While I have the utmost of respect for individual chaplains, I have little or no respect for the Chaplain Corps as an organization. The words of a Marine General still ring loudly in my memory: he said, "You chaplains constitute a bigger den of vipers than any other staff corps in the United States Navy." I remember another occasion when the Chief of Chaplains visited a Marine General to defend a chaplain who had been relieved of duty by the General. The Chief of Chaplains made his case and the Marine General simply dismissed him with these words: "You are worthless and she is worthless. You are dismissed."
There are good, honest, hard-working chaplains, to be sure; however, the system itself is rotten to the core and the chaplain corps leadership that finds its way into positions in Washington represents a quality of ministerial leaders that couldn't lead a dung beetle to an overflowing septic tank.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 28, 2008 3:04 PM
Mr. Brayton,
This Norm Holcomb chap demands a full-on, in-depth interview, I'll bet many of your readers would be most interested.
___________________________________________________________
Captain Holcomb,
Thank you for your frank assessments of the issues raised here. Have you read "Here If You Need Me" by Kate Braestrup? I would describe her as a "no soul, no interventionary god" minister, perhaps the type most needed in the military. I found her story compelling.
How did you deal with fox-hole atheists who knew they were about to die? I'd bet at least one dying atheist guy told you to fuck off. The same question applies for Buddhists...do the military chaplains have any notion of how to deal with "This is the World of Illusion"? And how do you and the chaplains deal with the extremist, god talks to me types?
One more thing, how do you reconcile the "Military Chaplain" oxymoronic peace/kill problem?
I ask you these difficult questions because I respect your opinion.
Kamaka
Posted by: kamaka | December 28, 2008 6:13 PM
Kamaka:
I very much appreciate all the questions you have raised in a few short sentences! I would make a "mess" of things if I tried to answer all of them using this "blogger format." I did deal with some folks who said that they were atheists but I don't remember that any one of them showed me any disrespect. I can't say that I was quite so respectful of a chaplain when I was a young Marine. One morning in Vietnam following a very bad night of combat, we were securing our position and stacking our dead to have them removed from the field. The chaplain showed up that morning and was moving from place to place, speaking to each of us. One of my good friends had been killed and when the chaplain spoke to me I remember saying, "Chaplain, you can take that religious shit and stick it up your ass." He said, "Have you ever tried religion, Marine?" I said "No" and he said, "Well, don't knock it until you have tried it." He walked away and let it go at that. In retrospect, I realize that he made more of an impact on me by the way he handled it than if he had launched into a "give your heart to Jesus" testimony.
The bottom line in all of this is that not every minister is suited to serve as a chaplain in a pluralistic, institutional environment. In my experience, when you are "dying with someone," there is but one noun that counts, and that is the noun "person" (brother, sister, fellow human being, if you will). Everything else becomes adjectival (e.g., Christian, Jew, Muslim, male, female, caucasian, asian, negro, heterosexual, homosexual, etc.). I believe it was Terence who said, "I am a human, therefore nothing human is foreign to me." Evangelical/fundamentalist types who are in love with adjectives can never become the kinds of chaplains that are required to serve effectively and ethically in a pluralistic environment.
Your questions are appropriate and they beg for the "give and take" of honest dialogue. This is exactly the kind of dialogue that I yearned for with my colleagues when I was a Navy Chaplain. Believe me, you could count on one hand the chaplains who were willing to discuss those issues at any given time. Too many ministers are afraid that they might not have the answers to all the questions and so they assume a pseudo posture that reflects "certitude" instead of faith. My own position is that I don't know whether there is a God as described in the Holy Books (all of them from all religions) or not. I "faith" that there is and that is a far cry from claiming that I "know" that there is. God and religion are shrouded in mystery and I can claim no particular revelation that gives me any insight that relieves me of "faith" and endows me with "certitude." However, I do have the daily experience of witnessing the wonder of "human personality" and I believe that it is precious, divine if you will and should be respected as such. (Yes, I am aware of abnormal psychology and the dark side of human personality, but this does not lead me to "throw the baby out with the bath water.") Perhaps I have become a heretic by orthodox standards; nevertheless, I believe that any religion or any religious act that divides the human family and sets human against human is not of God/god.
Somewhere from my reading I recall the story of the Old Widow Woman of Alexandria who ran through the streets with a torch in one hand and a bucket of water in the other hand and constantly proclaimed: "Oh to quench the fires of hell and burn the gates of heaven, that men might come to know God and love God for who He is and what He is."
Sorry that I haven't answered your specific questions. Let me say that it is not the exclusive right of an atheist to tell a minister to "f... off." I assure you that there are plenty of them that I would tell to "f... off" if they tried to vomit their foul ideas of Christianity onto me!
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 28, 2008 7:22 PM
Re Ed Brayton
I would like to second the motion of Mr. kamaka. An interview with Captain Holcomb would be most informative for Mr. Braytons' listeners.
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2008 7:50 PM
The point that some people posting above are entirely missing is that chaplaincy is intended as a service TO those who serve in the military. It is not intended as a service TO CHAPLAINS, and especially not a service to those who clearly and provenly have deceit on their mind.
In the military, proselytizing by chaplains of any faith ought to be prohibited because it is predatory. And no chaplain should falsely or dubiously wear the insignia of any other religion because this is fraud.
Taxes should not subsidize religious predation or fraud against servicepeople.
Posted by: Tad | December 28, 2008 7:54 PM
kamaka asked Captain Holcomb: "One more thing, how do you reconcile the "Military Chaplain" oxymoronic peace/kill problem?"
Posted by: kamaka | December 28, 2008 8:23 PM
I agree with SLC and kamaka. An interview on Declaring Independence with Cap. Holcomb would be very enlightening, and it would be a great way to tie the blog and the radio show together.
Posted by: Wes | December 28, 2008 8:45 PM
Capt. Holcomb, thanks so much for your input and your candor. It's deeply appreciated, certainly by myself and, I am sure, by many who are following this thread.
The story of the woman with the torch and bucket is supposedly about Rabia al-Adawiyya, the Sufi saint and poet. It's purported to have taken place in Basra, Iraq.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 28, 2008 8:55 PM
Chaplain Holcomb wrote:
and thus strengthens my earlier point: The outcry that a Messianic Jew would "confuse/defraud/mislead" because he wore tablets that are generally representative of the Jewish faith is absent when a Chaplain wearing a cross expresses thoughts that make him a "heretic by orthodox [Christian] standards." Seems like selective outrage. Why is the badge of a Jewish Chaplain in need of "protection" while that of a "Christian" Chaplain is not?
On the other hand, this entire issue is a tempest in a teapot.
Posted by: JD | December 28, 2008 9:15 PM
Well, that's the double-edged nature of religious identification. It both unifies and divides as it hones the distinction between "Us" and "Them". Overly broad identification, or none at all, make it hard for servicemembers to identify chaplains who share their core beliefs. Overly fine distinctions overemphasize religious divisions. Intermediate solutions may do both, and reasonable people may disagree as to where the optimal solution lies. Therefore I won't gainsay the experienced and knowledgeable officers making these decisions, and I apologize if it appears that I have.
There is one thread of this discussion that concerns me, however. Is it true that the Christian cross is considered the "default" insignia, in that it is assigned to chaplains whose religious affiliation doesn't fit any of the categories? I think this would be a cause for concern if true.
Posted by: DaveL | December 28, 2008 9:22 PM
I also find Captain Holcomb one of the more valuable posters. He might be happier with a written interview than a live radio interview though.
Posted by: Erp | December 28, 2008 10:13 PM
Capt. Holcomb would indeed make a very interesting guest for my radio show. I appreciate his comments here very much.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 28, 2008 11:08 PM
J.D.:
I said "perhaps" (possibly but not certainly; maybe; something open to doubt or conjecture). This statement does not even remotely connect with or equate to the issue of the insignia worn by a Messianic Jewish chaplain candidate. And by the way, it really doesn't matter whether or not the person wearing the tablets intended to "confuse, defraud or mislead." As I stated, the tablets worn by a Messianic Jew who believes that Jesus is the Messiah and was resurrected from the dead becomes, in and of itself, a confused symbol.
Please notice that I did not say that I didn't "believe." I said that I didn't "know" and in my "not knowing" I did not replace faith with certitude. There is a great gap between the concepts of "gnosis" (knowledge) and "pistis" (faith) in New Testament theology. You may remember that during the first 8 centuries of its existence the Church fought for its very life in opposition to the Gnostic challenges.
I assure you that this issue is not merely a "tempest in a teapot" for those who are in this arena and dealing with the divisive nature of the "evangelical/fundamentalist eruption." The unintended (or maybe intended) consequences of religion become a focal frame for other activities/actions because religion that "knows" (claims certitude) comes to stand for so much more than faith. I believe that religion becomes the cultural tradition where our highest values center. The result is (at least) creation of confusion between ethnocentric self-interest and religion, and subsequently (and maybe consequently also)religion is then expected to rationalize and justify our ethno-centric self-interests. My observations have inclined me to believe that the pursuit of power, prestige, wealth, and ethnic self-interest (reference the mega-churches and TV evangelists) uses (misuses) a religious vocabulary to create abominations for mottoes like "white, gentile, Protestant America," "cross and flag," "chosen people," "Gott mitt Uns," or the more familiar phrase throughout the South where I grew up, "God's country."
A proper biblical faith will not permit this; however, an unflinching and aggressively ignorant "certitude" will not only permit it but will also cultivate it to an evil (even if unintended!) end. This issue is more, much more than "a tempest in a teapot."
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 29, 2008 10:53 AM
Why is the badge of a Jewish Chaplain in need of "protection" while that of a "Christian" Chaplain is not?
JD - Clearly, neither the badge, nor the lying sack-of-crap trying to pass as a rebbe are what's being protected here. The sensibilities of Jewish service personnel are what's being protected.
In my old neighborhood, Jehovah's Witnesses et al. didn't get much action, but they weren't hassled. However, proselytizing for Jesus while claiming you were offering some sort of "enriched" form of Judaism was a good way to get your ass kicked. This probably wouldn't happen to a "Jews-for-Jesus" chaplain who managed to con some overly-sheltered Gentiles that he was a Jew, but it's not as if no Jewish service members would be tempted.
Seriously, JD, what part of "incredibly offensive" do you not understand? Why would you think it "a tempest in a teapot" for Jewish soldiers to be insulted this way? And by the chaplaincy, no less.
I'm so glad Captain Holcomb is here--he says these things so much more nicely than I do.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 29, 2008 3:00 PM
Well its funny to me that so many of you like to categorize us Messianic Jews as not Jewish.
Judaism is not a club. It is a belief system, one that Yeshua himself ascribed to, and it also had the extra beauty of carrying long standing traditions and practices, which we still observe.
The fact that we do believe in the Messiah having already come once, does not exclude us from Judasim anymore than being Reform or Conservative as opposed to Orthodox excludes most if not all of you here.
Our movement is growing exponentially becuase of the Scriptural basis for it as well as the deeply rooted spirituality. So let's all live and let live in peace.
As for me the cross is not my symbol it's the Star of David and always will be.
Shalom!
Posted by: Alan | December 29, 2008 6:12 PM
Alan,
You can protest all you want to - your belief system is NOT Judaism. If you people were attempting to recreate the beliefs of Jesus' earliest followers (not an impossible task, given the wealth of historical and archaeological data now available), that might be seen as a respectable endeavor. However, as I said earlier - you guys get all of your theology from the Southern Baptists. Many of your leaders have graduated from their seminaries, and their theologians have served in advisory capacities. What you are doing is a form of Christianity. You can eat all the bagels and light all the menorahs you want to; it doesn't change a thing.
Personally, I don't care if you believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I don't even really care if you think he was God incarnate. What weighs with me is your utter complacency over the idea of millions of your Jewish siblings (including, most likely, your own parents and grandparents), along with billions of the rest of your human brothers and sisters, burning in hell for all of eternity. It's a belief so obscene that it ought to be considered beneath the dignity of a human being to believe it - yet most of you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. "Why, yes - LET them go to hell. As long as I get the existential security blanket for a few brief decades - that's all that matters." THAT, Alan, is what gets you kicked out of the family. That is what you did that crossed the line.
And you didn't do it for anything even remotely resembling an intellectually defensible reason - but because some fat bastard with a southern accent told you to. There are no words to describe the depth of shame you ought collectively to feel, but are too goddamn stupid and self-absorbed to.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 29, 2008 7:36 PM
And your subculture isn't growing because you're winning Jewish converts, genius. It's growing because of all the trailer park Baptists who think talking Hebrew is a "hoot", and who get all moist every time John Hagee dons a tallit.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 29, 2008 7:40 PM
Chaplain Holcomb:
You betray a bias, Chaplain. This is an issue of whether or not the Jewish Chaplaincy device is appropriate for a Messianic Jew; it has nothing to do with evangelicalism or fundamentalism. The true "tempest" is the religious free exercise of Jewish military members, Messianic or not. While I advocate for even the smallest religious minority, the fact remains that there has yet to be an official complaint that a military member's free exercise was restricted as a result of this--thus, the teapot.
By digressing to the fundamental/evangelical discussion, you reveal an interest (or pet peeve) that is wholly unrelated to the discussion at hand. By attempting to attach it to some larger, unrelated conspiracy, you assign it value that it does not warrant. (And by the way, I'm very well aware of "that arena.")
I'm sure someone will vehemently respond that the issue over a Messianic Jew and a Jewish Chaplain device is, indeed, part of a larger evangelical/fundamentalist coup. Have at it, but believing in a conspiracy does not make it fact.
And you missed my point. The point was that the cross has also become a "confused" symbol, but no one seems to mind.Molly wrote:
First, as I stated earlier, I do not think that religious adherents in the military, of all kinds, are the gullible, sensitive, simpletons that others seem to think they are. Neither Jewish nor Christian nor Hindu "sensibilities" require official protection in the military (nor in the greater American society).
Second, you failed to read the rest of my message: the "incredibly offensive" thing you are saying is being proposed re: a Messianic Jewish Chaplain is already occurring with respect to Chaplains wearing the cross. Where is your outrage for them?
In the end, rather than turning this into a social discussion, the Chaplain candidate should have accepted the cross, with prejudice if necessary, completed his training, and then lodged formal complaints to change the system. Because he quit, he has no standing, and therefore the complaint, while it looks good in print, comes to an end.
Thus, while we're increasing Ed Brayton's hit count and posting hundreds of comments on his blog, the "tempest" is technically finished. All we've done is pontificate on a non-issue or digress into unrelated ones. Academically interesting, but an academic teapot nonetheless.
Posted by: JD | December 29, 2008 8:24 PM
JD:
Of course "the fact remains that there has yet to be an official complaint that a military member's free exercise was restricted as a result of this." This is primarily so because the candidate did not become an active duty chaplain and serve military personnel in any capacity. Rather than have you believe that I have "betrayed a bias," let me clearly state that I admit to somewhat of a bias in my assessment of the divisive and negative characteristics displayed by those who are engaged in aggressive evangelical tactics.
I do not agree with you that the cross is a confused symbol in the same way that a Messianic Jew wearing the tablets would be a confused symbol. Within the structure of the military chaplaincy the insignia of the cross is worn at the "macro level" and its visibility at the macro level creates no confusion whatsoever. Of course, at the micro level where a theology of the cross is discussed there has always been disagreement and confusion, (e.g., substitutionary atonement, ransom theory, etc.).
Neither do I agree with you that we overestimate the gullibility of military personnel. Certainly, the older, more experienced and more mature personnel probably do not need what you refer to as "protection." However, there is a degree of gullibility among the young troops that is as evident and as plain to see "as the nose on your face." I make this statement based on my 6 years as a young Marine beginning at age 18 and my some 30 years as a chaplain interacting with young Marines and Sailors. Regarding these youngsters, the following facts obtain:
1) Many are away from home for the first time.
2) Many are in the military because it was their only way of escaping from a bad family situation.
3) Many of them have never had any positive attention shown to them.
4) Many of them are hungry for relationships with others that make them feel like they are people of worth.
5) Many come from lifestyles where they have been abused and used and stripped of all dignity and sense of worth.
These are not things that I am "guessing" at; they are conditions that I know to be true because I dealt with them on a first-hand basis every day.
You don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to recognize that these youngsters are gullible, vulnerable, and "ripe for the picking."
By the way, I am very familiar with "Katcoff vs. Marsh." We were required to take it apart piece by piece in the Advanced Chaplain School. All that Katcoff vs. Marsh affirms is that the existence of a military chaplaincy is not a violation of the Constitution. That's all it affirms and nothing more. It certainly doesn't permit the use of federal funds to underwrite those who would practice any form of evangelization in the military.
Furthermore, I wasn't aware that we all should assume the position of some "self-appointed referee" to limit "Ed Brayton's hit count." So what if we increase Ed's hit count? Pray tell what is wrong with that!? Finally, as far as "pontificating on a non-issue or digressing into unrelated ones" is concerned, I would take the position that this stuff "slops all over itself and splashes onto concerns and issues that go far beyond the wearing of an insignia." The "tempest" is far from finished. The issue at hand is merely one more symptom of a "tempest" that is becoming more and more turbulent within the military.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 29, 2008 10:09 PM
The references to "hits" was merely a lighthearted rhetorical device to emphasize the lack of substantive consequence in this debate; it was intended as nothing more, but I'll try to avoid such examples if you find them distracting from the issue.
I've followed your commentary in various places around the web, and I think its fair to say that I do not totally disagree with some of your positions. I'd be more than happy to continue this offline. Feel free to contact me; my info is available through the link in my name.
Posted by: JD | December 29, 2008 10:57 PM
1) Many are away from home for the first time.
2) Many are in the military because it was their only way of escaping from a bad family situation.
3) Many of them have never had any positive attention shown to them.
4) Many of them are hungry for relationships with others that make them feel like they are people of worth.
5) Many come from lifestyles where they have been abused and used and stripped of all dignity and sense of worth
Captain Holcomb, I perceive the world in ways very different from you. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't god... bullshit, there's no god, not one like yahweh, not one like any god described to me. There is nothing in our world that requires a supernatural explanation.
But I can get next to your "maybe there is and maybe there isn't" ideas when they lead you to write such penetrating insights into the human condition.
Sir, it is people who think like you who must lead the way to a rational discussion of the irrational concepts of religion. The religionists will never listen to the rationalists and atheists. But a Military Chaplain? You beat the shit out of Rick Warren for inauguration godspeaker.
Posted by: kamaka | December 30, 2008 12:04 AM
You beat the shit out of Rick Warren for inauguration godspeaker.
I'll second that! (Not a very high bar to begin with, but still...)
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 30, 2008 7:48 AM
J.D.:
I appreciate the civilized exchange of ideas (opinions?) that we have shared. In a forum such as this, after having spoken and then having been challenged, there is always the "yes but..." factor that cannot be satisfied. Were we given the opportunity to speak personally and at length, I'm sure that we both would find ourselves edified by the exchange (at least, I think that I would!). For instance, from your perspective I appear to be "an authoritative arbiter." From my perspective, I find your remarks addressed to me to be patronizing and condescending. Perhaps the situation smacks too much of the "medium becoming the message." At any rate, I wish you the best in the coming New Year and thank you for your stimulating comments.
Jeff and Kamaka:
Thanks for your very kind remarks. Rick Warren is an entertainer and a very successful "pop psychologist." I suspect that he and I are on very different "wave lengths" regarding theology and biblical hermeneutics.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 30, 2008 9:29 AM
Capt. Holcomb - actually I prefer written exchanges with people who defend social conservative positions. It has been my experience and observation that social conservatives share the common trait of heavily depending on rhetorical and logical fallacies rather than accurately framed assumptions upon which to base their argument. This makes it much more difficult to identify and fisk their arguments in a verbal exchange rather than in a written exchange (more false assertions plus they come at you at such a fast rate it's hard to know how to respond or where to even begin).
Ed and I called out JD several weeks ago in this forum where he used this same written approach on a similar topic; so I have little doubt this trend would be disrupted with JD.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 30, 2008 2:54 PM
Michael Heath:
Thanks for your input. I'm sure that you (and Ed) are much more "savvy" than I am regarding these kinds of exchanges. I simply wanted to disengage JD on a civilized note. Obviously, his posture toward me was patronizing and condescending.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 30, 2008 5:42 PM
JD has a couple of articles on his blog in which he's highly critical of Mike Weinstein, who has placed himself (and his family) at some considerable risk while combating religious discrimination at the Air Force Academy in Colorado. He betrays a bias himself.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 30, 2008 6:55 PM
M.H.: Your analysis is interesting, but fails one fact: I haven't been arguing a social conservative position. You'll note I never even took a position on the issue of the Chaplain's device.
Posted by: JD | December 30, 2008 8:23 PM
JD - I never stated your argument here was a social conservative position, so you mischaracterize my point. I inferred your point of reference is that of a social conservative based on positions you took in other threads in this forum regarding Chris Rodda's published assertions and your style of argument, which consistently mischaracterizes others' points as you repeated here with mine, further validating my point.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 30, 2008 9:29 PM
While that comment may bring pity, it has no bearing on either this conversation nor any articles I have written on the subject. Or would you suggest that because of his harassment that he is not subject to critique?
It's related. We're talking about proselytizing in the military. You obviously have issues with the "liberal" position.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 31, 2008 9:46 AM
As I discussed on my own blog entry on this subject (hooray for gratuitous plugs) the best solution is to give everyone a generic symbol. There's no compelling need for the military to distinguish in uniform the various types of chaplains. This doesn't deal with the other deep issues associated with the chaplaincy program but it solves this one.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 31, 2008 12:33 PM
JD:
Since you have awardeded me the "last word," I will have it! This is especially so since you have acknowledged my "initial civility" but ultimately rendered it forfeit.
From the beginning I had the strange feeling that I had met you somewhere before. Not just "somewhere" but in many places across my 40 year religious pilgrimage. Since I have come to believe that the only noun worth investing in is the noun "person," I have been amazed at the way some humans try to nurture the act of being "person," while others can't seem to nurture anything but those acts that define "un-person." (My terms, and a bit awkward I admit!)
The fascinating aspect of this for me is that it seems that there are more "un-person" characteristics among the religious zealots who just absolutely have to defend God and have to be correct on every subject discussed. What does it mean to be "un-person?" First of all, it means that someone is likely to be fooled by the myth that they embrace as their truth. It is to have mistaken the "mask" for the person. It is to "hear the words" of those with whom you exchange ideas without hearing "what is meant." It is to be one-dimensional, shallow, unaware of the silent signs, the signals, the lights being sent out by other powers that you have prematurely consigned to the world of darkness. To be "un-person" is to be alone in your own myth system without knowing that it is myth and without understanding how the myth works. To be "un-person" is to be unhearing and unheard because you are so preoccupied with your own noises. And sometimes the preoccupation is a frustration with a myth of yourself that you cannot get straight. In the name of God or Jesus or whatever, the frustration keeps exacerbating one's aggression, hate, denials, jealosy and that incessant need to be miles above contradiction on any issue whatsoever.
As you have pointed out before, and as I freely admit, the above "has nothing to do with this conversation." (Or so it would seem at first blush, but I would ask you to consider that there is some relevance at another more important level.)
Of course, all of the above can be interpreted as mere foolishness. After all, I am just a preacher but I claim the precedent set by St. Paul when he said to the Corinthians, "For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves!"
And so my last word is: "Ite, missa est."
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 31, 2008 1:10 PM
The cross is a Mithraic occult symbol, and is as offensive to Messianic Jews such as myself and others, as wearing an idol around the one's neck (and Mordecai didn't even look at such a thing). The author of this post obviously has no clue what Messianic Jews believe nor their attitudes toward traditional Christian practices adopted from paganism.
It'd be like forcing a non Messianic Jew to wear a Magen David if that Jew sincerely believed it was originally a pagan symbol. I counsel those in this post to visit http://jerusalemcouncil.org for information as to what we Messianic Jews truly believe.
Posted by: Israel | December 31, 2008 2:22 PM
Israel:
Fat chance.
Capt. Holcomb:
Then of course there are people like me who are only civil to people that are not trying to make me come around to their superior way of thinking. I think you and I have disagreed over some things but I respect your viewpoint. JD's? not so much. Israel's? when kosher pigs flu outta my butt.
Posted by: democommie | December 31, 2008 2:52 PM
Israel- Thanks for your post. And as for the crude statement above about Messianic Judaism not gaining Jewish believers- that is far from true. In Israel and here in the US today there are many new Messianic Congregations filled with Jewish members.Yes we have our Gentile members as well.
Before the truth is truly known it is often despised and ridiculed.
Have a great New Year, and don't be so afraid!
Posted by: Alan | December 31, 2008 5:09 PM
Alan,
I didn't say there were no Jewish believers. My meaning was that Gentile believers account for the dramatic rise in membership in recent years.
And, of course, you ignore the rest of my statement, because you realize that you have no answer that isn't morally reprehensible.
We're all going to hell for all of eternity - but that "truth" doesn't deserve to be despised and ridiculed. Right.
You are a brainwashed drone.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 31, 2008 6:32 PM
Israel,
I just had a look at your website. You believe Jesus was the Messiah. You speak in terms of salvation. That's Christianity. PERIOD.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 31, 2008 6:35 PM
That's Chassidism. Period.
Posted by: Israel | January 7, 2009 3:25 PM
There is a key difference between Messianics and Christans. The Christian cross is a pagan sun worship symbol derived from Tomez and carried through to Mithra, the g*d of the Romans. The Messianics do not recognise the messiah's birthday as occuring on the "day of the sun" , but on it's true date, Succoth. One must understand that the Christian believes he does not have to live within the covenant, while the Messianic never speaks against the law and the prophets and Yahushuah is the messiah and his name should not be replaced with that of the head of the demons: IEOUSE. Christians believe it does not matter and they can continue to live in rebellion to the laws of the father, while Yahushua stated that those who do his father's will are his brothers and mother.
Posted by: netsarim | May 17, 2009 3:48 AM
I'm a Chaplain Candidate in the military. A Chaplain Candidate is a graduate seminary student who has joined the military as a commissioned officer for the purpose of training to be a Chaplain upon graduation. For practicality, the military has to group hundreds of religious faiths into a few broad religious categories such as Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. Each of these broad groups has their own distinctive insignia. It would be impractical for the military to allow a Messianic Jewish Chaplain to wear a different insignia outside of the insignia given to the broad religious category his/her religion is placed into. I’m a Christian, but I’m specifically a Pentecostal Christian. What if I wanted to place a dove signifying the Baptism in the Holy Spirit alongside the Cross insignia? What if the hundreds of Christian groups, not to mention the other non Christian religious groups represented in the Chaplaincy wanted their own customized insignia? Also, one of the primary reasons for the few simple insignias is to help soldiers readily identify a Chaplain as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
Posted by: Shane | July 17, 2009 11:38 PM
Chaplains I usually met were on in it only for the damn money because their church/parish couldn't pay they them enough to get their earthly treasures, and they would compromise their own mother to get promoted or suck off their commanding officer to get another damn ribbon on their uniform. Damn hypocrite bastards.
Posted by: tim | January 8, 2010 8:47 PM
Ministers joining the military to get rich? Man, talk about a strategic miscalculation.
Posted by: DaveL | January 8, 2010 10:29 PM