On the impossibility of neutral classifications
The Pentagon stirred a controversy recently by revising its roster of religious affiliation codes for service members and omitting to designate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Christian. The department found a clever workaround, but the dispute unveils a fundamental question for liberal thought: can religious classifications ever be neutral in a society that is profoundly pluralistic?
The dispute began when the Defense Department trimmed its catalog of religious affiliation codes from more than 200 entries down to 31. The department explained that the change was administrative in nature. Service members identify their faith affiliation or preference, and the military uses that information, among other purposes, to help chaplains understand the religious composition of units and to provide appropriate support. The simplification was meant to improve efficiency.
Some form of religious labeling seems unavoidable in this setting. A military that takes religious accommodation seriously must have some sense of the spiritual needs of its personnel. The challenge is that, in a religiously diverse society that expects the state to remain neutral among faiths, classifications are hardly ever simple.
The initial version of the revised list labeled many groups as “Christian”: Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. Yet the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was listed separately, without the label.
Latter-day Saints objected. The LDS Church regards itself as Christian. And sociologically and culturally, it is reasonable to describe Latter-day Saints as Christian.
Simultaneously, there is a serious theological issue. Latter-day Saints do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity as Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and the majority of Protestants understand it. For that reason, among others, many traditional Christian communions would hesitate to describe Latter-day Saints as Christian in doctrinal terms. The Catholic Church, for instance, does not recognize LDS baptism as valid Christian baptism.
The argument can be seen from another angle. Latter-day Saints do not view themselves merely as another denomination. They perceive their church as the restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ. That claim implies that other Christian bodies, no matter how sincere, do not possess the fullness of restored truth and authority.
So the government had wandered into a genuine religious dispute. The Pentagon responded by removing the word “Christian” from the list entirely. That deft move addresses the issue but does not eradicate it. In fact, the problem cannot 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 carries potential problems. If you classify too broadly, you flatten important differences. If you classify too narrowly, administration becomes impractical. Using theological labels risks the state taking sides. Avoiding them can leave some groups feeling that their self-understanding has been denied.
Consider a couple of other examples. The revised list includes a single designation, “OX,” for Orthodox Christians. Presumably, this category blends 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 truly “Orthodox.”
The list also contains one designation, “EP,” for “Episcopal/Anglican.” Yet in the United States, many Anglicans specifically distinguish themselves from Episcopalians, whom they view as hopelessly unorthodox. And vice versa. Many in each tradition would be uncomfortable being grouped with the other.
One could go on. The list has a single label, “JU” for Judaism, even though Judaism encompasses many expressions, and a single label, “IS,” for Islam, even though Islam contains a variety of traditions. To outsiders, these internal divisions—like the splits between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and between Episcopalians and Anglicans—may seem inconsequential. But to insiders, they can be of great importance.
In a more religiously homogeneous society, questions like these would be less visible. But they loom large in a pluralist society such as ours. In a religiously diverse country, even neutral religious designations can pose significant problems. I discuss the Pentagon controversy, and what it reveals about liberalism, in a new Legal Spirits Short Take, which interested readers can find here.
