This article is:
Vickers, Robert. (1986, Spring). The military chaplaincy: a study in role conflict. Military Chaplains' Review 15(2), 76-90.
***
"From 1775 to the Mexican War of 1846-1847, the single greatest hurdle for the chaplaincy was the question of its constitutionality in the light of the First Amendment. The fourth president of the United States, James Madison (1908 [sic]-1817), was heavily involved in the constitutionality question. He strongly opposed any arrangement which would pose a danger to the religious freedom of all people. It was over his powerful objection that Congress finally determined that the government has a responsibility to provide opportunities for worship and faith practices for service personnel. Consequently the chaplaincy was permitted was permitted to continue and was not considered a violation of church-state separation. This governmental position has been challenged even in the past decades."
I personally agree with Madison. Even now the trend is toward a very high percent of the chaplains being conservative Evangelicals, a full 33% being Southern Baptist, according to an article on the Americans United for the Separation for Church and State web site. Then there are problems with chaplains proselytizing in Iraq and there being Christian festival concerts (with a bunch of bands - "Rock Beyond Belief") on the bases. And now that homosexuals can also enlist some of the Evangelical chaplains are refusing to serve them. So the thing is, and this is true with social services outside the military too, but the wide diversity of people in the Army aren't really getting served. And, in my opinion, when churches mix with government they make compromises that only hurt the church. They can't fully serve God and rely on Him and get full council from Him, because they really serve two masters, which is what we're going to see in this article.
***
"The Chaplain's DilemmaI'm having a difficult time feeling sorry for the chaplain, but I'll at least try to understand his situation. It's hard to feel sorry for him because I don't agree with the institution and he chose it, after all. The church I grew up in had a few members from local bases and I think that in a lot of situations I'd rather have local churches and other religious groups available for servicemen at bases. Sometimes there are even coffeehouses in neighborhoods, although those can be not very supportive of the military.
The chaplain faces philosophical and functional role conflicts. The dilemma is so powerful because each role is consuming. Perhaps there is no other role so closely identified with a person's being as the clergy role...
The same is true of the military officers. The governmenta has challenged the commissioned officer to 'uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America,' whether it be morning, non, or midnight...
What we encounter, therefore, is a very difficult and often untenable conflict of roles. Each role constitutes a life-style, a total commitment of loyalties. The problem would not be quite so serious if the twin callings were synchronous. However, such is not the case." (p. 77)
***
Now were in the section of the article on "Specific Areas of Conflict for the Chaplain."
"Church Versus StateIt was difficult to not quote all of that text, but I did leave out a couple paragraphs.
"Clarence Abercrombie, III, writing in his 1977 book, The Military Chaplain, identified the serious problem of mainstream Christianity moving more and more toward accepting United States Military policy as "the will of God."... Abercrombie held that [...] the mainstream American churches have come [sic] clergy who have not had to be 'resocialized' by the military or who themselves did not have to change their values in any significant way in order to move into and become very comfortable with military life and values. The incipient danger in this development, according to Abercrombie, is that God's will and the national will may seem as synonymous.
In the eyes of some observers, the church in the military disappear to be a 'shate-church.' Although, perhaps not in the same way as Judaism in Israel or the Church of England in Great Britain, the military 'church' carries the protection of the state, receives financial support from the state, has officials who are officers of the state, and espouses a common body of doctrine and practices. These are the criteria of a state-church according to Burchard. If the military chaplaincy is a 'state-church,' where are the chaplains [sic] loyalties, and what if those loyalties are in conflict?" (p. 78-79)
This is awful really. You mean that there are churches that are so in sync with the military that they don't even need to be socialized into their way of thinking? That's outrageous. This country is way to militarized anyway, but I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that churches could be that militaristic. That's horrible. I'm sure glad that the writer, Abercrombie, III, had the good sense to recognize this as a disaster. It's horrible and I just hope that these churches also get a clue and listen to this man - he makes good sense and he's right!
We're so messed up.
Then to also recognize the military chaplaincy as a state church, Burchard sounds like someone to take account of too.
I'd be the last person on earth to want to deny someone ministry, but I keep saying that the ends doesn't justify the means. This is another case of it, just like in the Vienna mission. Just because you want to minister to the soldiers, which is a terrific idea and they probably could do some ministering themselves too, that doesn't necessarily follow that the only way to minister to them is through a chaplaincy program. Why does it have to be through a chaplaincy program? Are we so bereft of brains and clever ideas that we can't think of anything else that might not involve perhaps less "areas of conflict"? And perhaps more pure allegiance to God and less dividedness of service?
"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23. If you have all these doubts, you're ministering in sin.
***
"Religious Values Versus Military ValuesSo who are you going to believe? Heck, and it's even a covenant of sorts (see my last post for what that means). Well, even covenants are all relative, I guess. A covenant with the Army makes it right, right? The thing is that it's a mess being unequally yoked, but I stand on the pacifist side.
...The moral contradition comesfor the chaplain when he ... participates in organized killing in the face of the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill'.
Forty five percent of the chaplain's interviewed in Buchard's study, while not alluding to a scriptural base, stated that killing an enemy soldier was a riteous act, while 55% said it was only justifiable. Their stated rationale was that the primary duty and moral obligation of the soldier during wartime was to serve the country and this might be interpreted to mean killing the enemy when necessary.
On the other hand, Burchard firmly announces Jesus to have been a pacifist through and through, and states that Jesus implored his disciples and the early church to refuse to submit to the emperor or to march in his armies." (p. 79)
The thing is that a lot more is preventable than we admit to. By the time we do anything about a problem it's too late usually. For example, I knew about the Balkans issue at least a decade before it exploded, it was a hotbed, mostly around the Kosovo region early on. But even just starting there a lot of blood loss could have been prevented. But you have to be proactive.
And even our (USA) humanitarian aid is so lopsided towards our national interests instead of being where the real needs are and so it can be really manipulative and end out doing more harm than good. And half the time we do stupid things like train future terrorists, like Noriega and Bin Laden.
So you'd have to do a major overhaul of our whole way of thinking about international affairs and where we put our money and personnel. And just for the record I believe that human nature, since the fall (theology) is basically sinful, so I'm not a pie in the sky ideolist that everything is going to be easy. I'm just saying 1) don't wait until the last minute, 2) don't be stupid and train future terrorists - understand who you're working with and just don't get involved with that kind of thing; 3) don't be manipulative with the money and goods you give out and 4) try for once to really get to know the difference cultures and not act like the ugly American, okay?
As for the soldier, does the soldier suspend his/her duty and obligation to go during wartime? I have a problem with this, because it's not really biblicatl to put anything more primary than God. That includes family, girl/boyfriend, church, new car, anything. God is primary and then comes whatever else. For the Christian the military can not be primary, even during wartime. See this is one of the main problems I had with the Vienna mission, that they wanted to be primary - or at least that's how it felt to me, and I don't let anyone take that place, which I already said here umpteen times. So any soldier who's a committed Christian has got to put Christ first. If the soldier can figure out a way to do that and still kill people than I guess he and the army can get along okay, otherwise there will be a problem. So he'd better not figure out that Jesus was a pacifist and get too hung up on that.
***
I'm skipping a couple secctions, one of which does have a few interesting comments about how chaplains' commanders view them."Prophet versis Military OfficerI must say that no matter how tainted I think the military chaplains / H.R. staff were at the Vienna mission, my sense of them was that they probably leaned towards the clergy role if a bent had to be chosen. That doesn't mean that the military officer role influence wasn't there; it just means it wasn't as much as if they would have been sold out military officers. That's just my impression of them taken out of context, because I didn't know them in the military setting.
...
...The chaplain is the conscience of the Army; his job is to provide the moral framework for the military community...
A large number of writers have claimed that the chaplain either should not be prophetic, cannot be prophetic, or will not be prophetic due to circumstances beyond his control. They say that since the state is morally autonomous and not subject to moral absolutes, it is inappropriate for anyone to attempt to be prophetic with regard to the state or its officials. Secondly, they claim that the chaplain has become domesticated through military service, and is thus effectively silenced. They further claim that the chaplain who is wearing the uniform of the government, paid by the sate, and dependent upon senior officers for advancement cannot possibly proclaim a prophetic gospel. In their view, it would be impossible for the chaplain to be prophetic from within the system because his primary allegiance is to the system; 'faith must bow to the state.' The chaplaincy is seen to be too much a part of the system which it serves, and therefore blind to what goes on within the system.
One writer claims that the chaplain learns very easily that if he wishes to survive in the system he must not 'rock the boat.' He further claims that the chaplains who rise in the system are those who compromise. How can one possibly be prophetic and compromise at the same time? A warning is echoed by many that to become overly identified with the military officer role carries with it the danger of becoming socialized into the institution and of losing identity and salve as a clergyman.
...
In the life and work of the chaplain it appears likely that either the role of the military officer or the clergy role will become the dominant one. If the clergy role is chosen, one can count on the risk of possible isolation and rejection, even dismissal; to choose the military officer role, one can perhaps achieve career success but it may take a heavy toll on one's ministerial effectiveness. As Jesus said, each person should thereforce 'count the cost.' (Luke 14:28)
That being said, and this time I just speak for the H.R. director, because I had more contact with him and so I knew him better, I can't imagine him really attempting anything akin to a prophetic action against the military. No, I think he's the time to learn to co-exist rather than do anything prophetic. I expect he would probably accept the military's logic as just the way things are and learn to get by in them. I think he probably had a strong enough no-nonsense presence in the Army and that he was respected for his knowledge and skills and he had a good ministry with the soldiers.
But he wouldn't "rock the boat." I'd be surprised if he ever did.
***
Okay, that's all for this post.
