FEATURED INBOX POST – MRFF Achievements for Christian Clients? (with MRFF response)

Does your organization successfully achieve the goal of protecting military members’ constitutional right to freely exercise their Christian religion? Which achievements can it provide readers, convincing us that it is one of its goals?

(name withheld)

---

A response from Andy Kasehagen, MRFF Grants & Database Administrator

Dear (name withheld),

To better reply to your question, can you please define your subjective definition of ‘Christian’.

The reason I ask you for this very important clarification is that 70.6% of the U.S. population in 2014 identified themselves as Christian according to the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/).  As such 225,143,400 people identify themselves as Christian based on U.S. Census Bureau estimate of 318.9 million total U.S. population in 2014.  Of this number, the Pew Research Center reports the following breakdown (translated into 2014 Census Bureau numbers):

Protestant                           46.5%       (148,288,500)

Catholic                                20.8%       (66,331,200)

Orthodox                             0.5%          (1,594,500)

Mormon                              1.6%          (5,102,400)

Jehovah’s Witness            0.8%          (2,551,200)

Other Christians                0.4%          (1,275,600)

Non-Christian Faiths        5.9%          (18,815,100)

Atheist/Agnostic/Other  23.5%       (74,941,500)

Please also consider this further breakdown of the just the top 15 Protestant denominations as report in 2013:

1. Southern Baptist Convention:16.2 million members
   2. The United Methodist Church:7.8 million members
   3. The Church of God in Christ: 5.5 million members
   4. National Baptist Convention: 5.0 million members
   5. Evangelical Lutheran Church, U.S.A.: 4.5 million members
   6. National Baptist Convention of America: 3.5 million members
   7. Assemblies of God: 2.9 million members
   8. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): 2.8 million members
   9. African Methodist Episcopal Church: 2.5 million members
   10. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America: 2.5 million members
   11. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS): 2.3 million members
   12. The Episcopal Church: 2.0 million members
   13. Churches of Christ: 1.6 million members
   14. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World: 1.5 million members
   15. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church: 1.4 million
   (source:  http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-15-largest-protestant-denominations-in-the-united-states-92731/#zu48AMEYeOC9B6GF.99)

As a Christian myself (Episcopalian in fact) who is all too familiar with the fact that many self-identified Christians view other self-identified Christians as ‘not Christian enough’, ‘not the right kind of Christian’, or ‘not Christian at all’; you can obviously see why I’m asking for your subjective definition what constitutes a Christian U.S. military member.

You should be aware that MRFF’s goal is to secure constitutional religious freedom protections for all faiths (and those of no religious faith) within the U.S. Military.  MRFF does this by working on behalf of its clients to ensure the U.S. military does not endorse/promote any particular faith tradition, or atheism, within its structure or operations.  MRFF does encourage the military to support the individual military members’ private expression and practice of faith, or lack thereof, free of proselytization or other unconstitutional influence from a constitutional secular government entity or those representing that government entity (i.e. The U.S. Military) That being said, the religious faith breakdown of the 40,000+ clients MRFF has assisted is 96% Christians, (mainly Protestants followed by Catholics including Roman and Eastern Orthodox) with the 4% balance of cases being brought on behalf of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, as well as self-described Pagans of various sects, atheists, agnostics, and other free-thinkers.

MRFF’s list of achievements on behalf of all of these clients is available for your review at https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/achievements/.  In addition to this list of achievements since MRFF’s founding, the current MRFF annual report of client services that I maintain for our ongoing participation in the federal government CFC (Combine Federal Campaign) includes services to clients in 23 States and 5 Foreign Countries.

I look forward to your reply to my request for clarification so that I can more directly respond to your question.

Sincerely,

Andy Kasehagen, Grants & Database Administrator

Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)

---

Dear Mr. Kasehagen,

 As per your request to help you understand your subjective view of my objective understanding of word “Christian”, I hereby write you few words that I hope would have helped you come closer to my understanding of the word.

A Christian is a human being of any race, sexual orientation, belief, occupation, age, gender, national origin, religion, height, weight, size of body, social status, etc., who understands the ideas which Jesus the Nazarene taught his students in his last 3 years or so before his death by crucifixion and after his resurrection 3 days after the death. By this “Jesus the Nazarene,” I mean the human being whose characteristics are described in New Testament’s books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (translated to match the meaning of the majority of discovered manuscripts) and further explained in the rest of 27 New Testament books. Simply put, a Christian is a human being who understands and obeys the teachings of that Jesus.

On the contrary, a human being who does not understand and does not agree or obey those teachings is not a Christian, even if the person goes to a “Christian” church (including any one of Christian denominations you kindly listed), and even if the person professes to be a Christian.

I believe there are realities which operate and exist independent from any one’s and any group’s sincere beliefs, desires, preferences, and wishes. If the teachings of that Jesus express accurately this kind of realities, then a person is not a student of Jesus without understanding, agreeing with, and obeying His teachings, and the person is Christian only while she or he agrees with the teachings. Affiliation with a “Christian” denomination or calling herself/himself a Christian does not, by itself and necessarily, include what I mean by the word “Christian”.

Perhaps, being a Christian in my meaning of the word includes publicly expressing beliefs that match Jesus’s teachings? And perhaps, it also includes military Christian chaplains initiating conversations that introduce military members to Jesus’ teachings as a better alternative to other world views, when done without force or manipulation? Plus, a Christian holding to Jesus’ teaching that marriage is between man and woman, not homosexual, and that the end destination of homosexuality is the same place where Satan will live forever, instead of the place where it is much better to be at?

In my sense of the word Christian, is the following goal one of MRFF’s essential goals: To protect U.S. military members’ constitutional right to freely exercise their Christian religion, an exercise which includes that while they serve active duty in U.S. Armed Forces? For example, would MRFF ever defend and fight for the constitutional right of chaplains to exercise the following religious preferences that originate from Jesus’ teachings: To preach against homosexuality and to refuse to do the marriage ceremony for homosexuals?

Sincerely,

(withheld)

---

 

(withheld),

I greatly appreciate the clarification of your view of Christianity.  Before I respond to all of the questions you posed in this email, I want to make sure I fully comprehend your definition.  To accomplish this I’ll focus on your first example of being a Christian (although strangely posed as another question) for additional clarification.

“Perhaps, being a Christian in my meaning of the word includes publicly expressing beliefs that match Jesus’s teachings?” 

MRFF fully supports all military personnel in the public expression of their Christian beliefs as long as that expression is not done under the ‘color of authority’ or acting in an official capacity in any manner.  This includes participation in uniform in public prayer events such as the annual National Day of Prayer event or prayers tied to official mandatory military functions.  Participation in public prayer events out of uniform and while otherwise not acting as a representative of the U.S. Military is fully supported by MRFF.  MRFF takes this stand based on the U.S. Constitution rather than the teachings of Jesus.

That being said, and for the purpose of full clarity, I ask if by your definition of being a Christian that you do not agree with U.S. military members calling themselves Christian when they participate in public prayer events (in uniform or not) since they clearly go against Jesus’ specific teaching that:

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.  So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him (Mathew Ch. 6, Verses 5-8).

Please let me know if I fully comprehend your personal definition of being a Christian as it pertains to your first example.

Sincerely,

Andy

---

(withheld)

I hope you had a safe and enjoyable 4^th of July.

Due to the length of your response and the many issues you raise in support of your position, I have responded (red/bold) within the text of your email.

Sincerely,

Andy Kasehagen

Dear Mr. Kasehagen,

Regarding your words written to me below about participating in National Day of Prayer in uniform, I have the following observations in this paragraph. I happened to watch the video of high ranking military leader stating in National Day of Prayer that he is a redeemed follower of Jesus Christ, or something to that effect, and an organization declared that he should not have been wearing uniform when he said it, apparently because his junior military members might get confused into thinking that they are ordered to become Christian simply by the virtue of seeing their leader participating in the event in full uniform.

That organization was and is MRFF and we stand by our objections to this officer’s actions in uniform.  You’re oversimplification of the comments made by Maj. Gen. Craig S. Olson at the NDP event on 5/7/2015 as having no impact on those under his command appear to be made out of either a failure to fully comprehend his comments and/or a willingness to gloss over the impact of these comments within the highly structured command driven military environment. Maj. Gen. Olson’s comments included statements that “He put me in charge of failing programs worth billions of dollars. I have no ability to do that – NO TRAINING TO DO THAT – God did that” then followed this at the end of his speech by asking the audience to pray for Defense Department leaders, who “need to humbly depend on Christ.”  These comments taken together while delivered in uniform, along with many others during the event by Maj. Gen. Olson clearly point to an assumption that to be effective as an airman in the U.S. Air Force, and by rational extension a service member in the other branches, you must “depend on Christ”.

I do not understand what good reasons there are for opposing his speech words done in uniform

Because there are specific restrictions established against these actions such as Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.12, which states that “Leaders at all levels […] must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief.”  Additionally Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

If he had told the audience something like, “What I am saying here represents my office as military official,” and in the same speech say what he said, then it would have been a breach of his authority.

These ‘magic words’, or something like them, are not required by either U.S. Air Force regulations or the U.S. Constitution.  The implication of Maj. Gen. Olson’s actions and statements can easily be construed as endorsing the Christian faith as a prerequisite for achieving success within the U.S. military.  MRFF would take the same stand if Maj. Gen. Olson was of the Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/etc. faith and stated that faith was a prerequisite to military success.  However, we also believe that the howling that would have come from many in the Christian majority in our country would have drowned out our objections.

But military uniforms may be worn in baseball games, church services, funerals, and other public events that do not support anti-American activities, so I heard. What would be the use of banning the wear of military uniforms in all the above activities in all places across the United States?   Would the military members stop attending those events? No, I doubt they would. And, what harm or specific wrong is done when wearing uniforms in those events without specifically stating that their participations in the events represent their military branch’s opinions? In what way does the participation endorse certain religion in the name of military? When one wears a shirt of certain company, is a person endorsing the company?! Aren’t clothes for covering the body and don’t they have specific purpose for certain events? (These previous four questions may contain rhetorical questions.)

You are obviously (hopefully not dishonestly) equating very dissimilar events/activities with the NDP event in an attempt to create an ‘innocent’ strawman that supports your position.  I’ll assume that you’re equating the uniform of a member of the U.S. Military and what/who it represents with “a shirt of certain company” not as an attempt to be disrespectful to military members but only a clumsy attempt to further your strawman argument.  However, you are apparently unaware that many companies have specific employment policies regarding employee actions while representing the company (for example professional sports franchises [NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA/MLS/etc.]), whether they are wearing logo branded articles of clothing or not.

Secondly, regarding the passage cited in the email below about Jesus telling his students to pray secretly, I have the following to answer in this paragraph. Dallas Willard, a former USC professor who deceased in recent years, wrote a book called “The Divine Conspiracy” in which he addresses his understandings about the passage you mentioned. He says that Jesus is not prohibiting his students from praying in public but illustrating a condition of character which they should be aware of and cautious against, namely, the arrogant spirit that prays in public to show off his own “religious” respectability.

With all due respect to Prof. Willard, I always find it interesting, but never surprising, that one of Jesus’ more specific and clear teachings can be manipulated to support a personal preconception and agenda.  I assume this attempt to cloud the meaning of Christ’s specific teaching in this instance is based on the preconception of Prof. Willard who apparently ‘believed passivity to be a widespread problem in the Church (loosely summed up in his phrase “Grace is not opposed to effort {which is action}, but to earning {which is attitude}”’ (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Willard)

That being said, I wonder how Prof. Willard would view the NDP event put on by Shirley Dobson’s NDP Task Force as anything other than an “arrogant spirit that prays in public to show off [their] own ‘religious’ respectability.”  This event on May 7, 2015 was broadcast worldwide on GOD.TV as well as too many social media links to mention here.  If this high production ‘look at me pray’ event is not showing off religiosity, then you, Prof. Willard, and I are working from different dictionaries.

I find it odd that some passages of the Bible are written sort of hard to understand, and I myself do not understand clearly what Jesus meant when I read the passages like the one mentioned, but I do stay open to possibilities of discovering objective meaning.

Since you, along with Prof. Willard, have stated difficulty in understanding the objective meaning of what I believe is the clear and concise purpose of Mathew Ch. 6, Versus 5-8, and other Biblical passage, I need to ask how you arrived at the following objective interpretation from your previous email regarding:

“Jesus’ teaching that marriage is between man and woman, not homosexual, and that the end destination of homosexuality is the same place where Satan will live forever, instead of the place where it is much better to be at?”

Can you please provide me with the specific relevant biblical citation(s) for this teaching by Jesus so that I can better understand how you arrived at this ‘objective’ interpretation?

On this point of not understanding clearly what Jesus meant, I should add that despite it, I and others who read can see clearly what Jesus did not support, for example, forcing someone or a group of people to accept Christ or his religion; Jesus’s followers cutting off one’s hand for adultery, even if the person does not wish to have his hand cut off; sex slave traffic that is going on around the world; etc. And, on the flip side, we can see that he did support forgiving others even if they did a Christian grave offenses, praying for those who persecute them, loving others as a Christian loves herself/himself; etc.

Third, the paragraph containing words “perhaps” has my speculations in the form of questions, and they are mixtures of question and speculation. They were not examples of being Christians in the sense that I believe that they are but they would be examples of being Christian if they really were. I was speculating, or thinking aloud my speculations, which sidetracked my attention and your attention from the main issue of what I mean by word “Christian”.

So, to elaborate on my original answer, which was something like someone who understands, agrees with, and obeys the teachings of Jesus as expressed in 27 books of New Testament, in next paragraph, I give some descriptions of what I guess would distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. I will list them in affirmative statements to describe a Christian, and you can take these statements and when you turn into someone who does not agree with them or does not live by that kind of character, you may have a non-Christian. The next paragraph speaks same topic as my second paragraph’s list, in the sense that I describe word “Christian” in those two paragraphs.

Here goes this paragraph. A Christian believes (and lives, making decisions, as if what the Christian believes are real and objectively true) that Jesus was and is the Son of God, that a character which does not pay back “an eye with an eye” is better than someone who does, that certain characteristics of human habits are clear indications that the person is heading to hell unless they are replaced with good ones, that there are morally right and morally wrong actions in human life, and so forth. One word of clarification follows. I myself do not understand all teachings of Jesus, though I understand at least little of them, so I may be representing Jesus inaccurately in this paragraph. I do know, however, that similar to many subjects worthy of study, like philosophy, science, history, English literature, etc., there are objective meanings of what he meant that can be understood eventually with sufficient study and reflection.

Please excuse my lengthy words in this email that may or may not have satisfied your understanding of my use of key word Christian. I support the attempt to come to terms with one another’s meanings. On a light note, I found book called “How to read a book for all its worth” (published 1972?) by Mr. Adler and another co-author entertaining and helpful to me.

I should not side track from the topic, but if you are willing to entertain possibility, have you looked into two possibilities, namely, that the founders of the constitution had no objection to praying to a Christian God while, before, and after writing the constitution; and, that when they wrote the article which states Congress shall not prohibit free exercise of religion, they may have been supporting what your organization attempts to oppose, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the founders? I myself am interested in looking into these possibilities, since I do not wish to accept someone’s words blindly without verifying and studying myself when practical, possible, and worthy of my time, though I haven’t yet.

MRFF does not have any objection with anyone praying to a Christian God, or any other, or none at all, for that matter.  Your projection on MRFF that we do not support this, or that we believe our founding fathers didn’t support this, is an extremely unfounded and subjective opinion.  Our objection, like our founders, is to our government’s hindrance or sponsorship of religious activity in any way.  The wisdom of this approach contained in both the body of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) and the 1^st Amendment is highlighted by your stated difficulty (and mine) in deriving objective meaning to all of Jesus’ teaching contained in the Holy Bible.  A difficulty that obviously also clouds our individual judgments of who is and is not a ‘true Christian’.  It would be both highly inappropriate and completely unacceptable for our government, or any of its representatives, to dictate this objective meaning to us or be the final arbiter of who is or is not a ‘true Christian’.  I do not stand for it and neither should you.  Because of this, the strict Constitutional ‘religious hands-off’ requirement that MRFF works to enforce within the strict command driven structure of the U.S. Military is logically the only way to ensure religious freedom for each and every member of the military.   

 Please do not be offended by the above paragraph, as the questions in it are not rhetorical, and I am deeply grateful for your consistent, lengthy replies in the past few days. I do appreciate your replies and if I have written less than concisely, please let it slide by, understanding that my writing level isn’t at the level of writing concisely, at least not yet. Thanks for your efforts, and happy Fourth of July weekend, sir.