Matters of conscience, Part 1: In part one of this two-part series on matters of conscience, Josh Jackson talks with CH(CPT) Chris Erickson, USA, an active-duty Army chaplain serving with 1-41 Infantry Battalion at Fort Carson, Colo., and LTC Lee Robinson, USA, an Army aviator and West Point professor who directs the American Politics Program. Together, they examine how Christian military leaders can think through gray areas of faith and profession when the Bible does not seem to give a simple, direct answer. Rather than focusing only on what is legal, the conversation explores how leaders can ask what they should do in a given moment. This episode is worth hearing if you are trying to navigate the space between religious liberty, leadership responsibility, and wise judgment in uniform. This is Lee's third time as a guest on OCF Crosspoint. While it isn't necessary to listen to his previous interviews, consider listening to both episodes since Chris and Lee will reference them at a few points. Listen here: Navigating the wall of separation between church and state Faithful Leadership: You won't get this perfect—and that's OK Questions answered and themes covered in this interview include: How should a Christian military officer discern whether something is a matter of conscience? A matter of conscience is defined less by the specific decision and more by the process used to reach it. Lee explains it as an area where civil authority does not dictate the outcome—something shaped by personal conviction, informed by reason, study, and Scripture. Chris adds that leaders must go beyond asking "what is legal?" and instead wrestle with "what should be done?" These situations often arise in gray areas where Scripture does not give explicit direction, requiring leaders to arrive at a decision they can be "fully convinced" of in their own mind (Romans 14:5, ESV). Can a Christian military officer share their faith when asked about their leadership philosophy? Yes, with important nuance. When a soldier asks about a leader's philosophy, that question opens a door the leader didn't force open. Chris argues that a soldier-initiated question is meaningfully different from a leader promoting religion unprompted. Lee's experience illustrates the tension: he shared Scripture-rooted principles without explicitly connecting them to his Christian faith, largely because other soldiers were present. Chris challenged that, arguing honest answers—including the faith source—aren't coercion. Both agree the key questions are: Who started the conversation? Is this a public or private exchange? Could sharing be perceived as using rank to promote belief? How should a Christian officer respect religious differences while staying true to his faith in a diverse unit? Chris argues that a leader needs a settled "theology of approach" before they are ever in the moment, working out in advance what he or she believes about expressing and sharing faith, and about respecting others' spiritual accountability. Romans 14:12 (ESV) anchors this: "Each of us will give an account of himself to God." Every soldier is individually accountable to God, not through their commander. Lee adds that religious pluralism is "our greatest moral argument to the world," and leaders who model genuine respect for diverse convictions honor that. The practical test: Am I seeking to provide comfort and care, or to promote my faith? How should Christian officers balance faith expression with leadership responsibility and authority? A key theme is the distinction between expressing faith and promoting it through authority. Chris stresses that using one's position to promote religion undermines true religious freedom, while sharing personal beliefs appropriately can be part of authentic leadership. He encourages leaders to examine their "why", whether they are seeking to influence belief or simply being transparent about what shapes them. Lee adds that leaders must consider how their actions affect unit cohesion and perception, especially in public or group settings, requiring leaders to think through factors like environment, audience, and intent rather than relying on rigid rules. Is it appropriate for a Christian commander to pray with troops after a tragedy? Lee shares a vivid example from combat after two soldiers in his company were killed by enemy fire. Standing before the formation, he had not planned to pray, but seeing their faces, he believed they needed more than facts. Before praying, he told them that if they were not praying people, he respected that and they did not have to participate. He then offered a non-denominational prayer for the families, for one another, and for the actions ahead. Lee says he would make the same decision again—though he never prayed once as a battalion commander, relying on Chris for that function. Chris frames the moment plainly: "You were not seeking to promote your faith. You were seeking to promote comfort." In his view, stepping in to provide comfort through personal belief is "good leadership"—not an attempt to advance religion. What is the difference between expressing Christian faith in uniform and using military authority to promote religion? Chris argues that Christian leaders do not need to eliminate religion from their lives or silence themselves, but they do need to examine why they are doing what they are doing. The problem is not faith itself but using authority to promote faith. That distinction matters for commanders and chaplains alike. Chris pushes back on the idea that chaplains automatically have broader permission simply because of their role. The goal should not be to pressure others into belief, but to offer comfort, care, counsel, wisdom, and support. A leader may share from personal belief but must not use official position to advance religion as such.
