The Pentagon recently caused a controversy by revising its list of religious affiliation codes for service members and failing to designate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Christian. The Pentagon found a clever way out, but the controversy reveals a deep question for liberalism: are neutral religious classifications ever possible in a deeply pluralist society?
The controversy began when the Pentagon reduced its list of religious affiliation codes from more than 200 entries to 31. The purpose, it explained, was administrative. Service members identify their religious affiliation or preference, and the military uses that information, among other things, to help chaplains understand the religious composition of units and provide appropriate support. Streamlining made things more efficient.
Some sort of religious classification seems unavoidable here. A military that takes religious accommodation seriously must have some idea of the religious needs of its personnel. The problem is that, in a religiously diverse society that expects the state to be neutral among religions, classifications are never simple.
The first version of the revised list identified many groups as “Christian”: Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was listed separately, without the label.
Latter-day Saints objected. The LDS Church understands itself as Christian. And speaking sociologically and culturally, it is surely correct to describe Latter-day Saints as Christian.
At the same time, there is a real theological issue. Latter-day Saints do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity as Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and most Protestants understand it. For that reason, among others, many traditional Christian communions would hesitate to describe Latter-day Saints as Christian in the doctrinal sense. The Catholic Church, for example, does not recognize LDS baptism as valid Christian baptism.
The point can be turned around. Latter-day Saints do not understand themselves simply as another denomination. They understand their church as the restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ. That claim implies that other Christian bodies, however sincere, do not possess the fullness of restored truth and authority.
So the government had stumbled into a real religious dispute. The Pentagon responded to the controversy by removing the word “Christian” from the list altogether. That clever response manages the problem but doesn’t eliminate it. In fact, the problem never can be eliminated completely. Government must classify religion all the time: for tax purposes, for religious accommodation claims, for chaplaincy, for prisons, hospitals, and the military. Yet every classification creates potential problems. Classify too broadly, and you flatten important differences. Classify too narrowly, and administration becomes impossible. Use theological labels, and the state risks taking sides. Avoid them, and some groups may feel their self-understanding has been denied.
Let’s take a couple of other examples. The revised list contains single designation, “OX,” for Orthodox Christians. Presumably, this category conflates Eastern Orthodox Christians (Greeks, Russians, etc.) with Oriental Orthodox Christians (Armenians, Copts, etc.). But these two families have been out of communion for 1700 years, and strict adherents to each tradition would deny that the other is really “Orthodox.”
The list also has one designation, “EP,” for “Episcopal/Anglican.” But in the US, many Anglicans specifically differentiate themselves from Episcopalians, whom they see as hopelessly unorthodox. And vice versa. Many in each tradition would be uncomfortable being grouped together with the other.
One could go on. The list has one designation, “JU” for Judaism, even though Judaism has many expressions, and one, “IS,” for Islam, even though Islam contains many traditions. To outsiders, these internal divisions–like the divisions between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and between Episcopalians and Anglicans–seem unimportant. But to insiders, they may matter greatly.
In a more religiously homogeneous society, questions like these would be less visible. But they are very salient in a pluralist society like ours. In a religiously diverse society, even neutral religious designations can be very problematic. I discuss the Pentagon controversy, and what it reveals about liberalism, in a new Legal Spirits Short Take, which interested readers can find here.
