THE UNIQUE PROPHETIC VOICE OF THE ARMY
CHAPLAIN
MAJ Donald W. Kammer
Introduction
The
United States Army chaplain serves side by side with American, joint and allied
forces around the world. He or she
provides religious pastoral care for soldiers, their families and authorized
personnel.[1]
Yet, the chaplain also serves in the role of a staff officer for a
commander. This dual relationship as
both pastor and staff officer, suggests potential points of tension,
particularly as the chaplain functions as a useful asset for mission
accomplishment, and as a religious leader endorsed by a civilian religious
community.
In the shadow of the
Vietnam War, Harvard’s Professor Harvey Cox once asked the question, “The man
of God, and the man of war: what have they to do with one another?”[2] This suggests a good question and presents a
dilemma that every chaplain must encounter.
What is the prophetic nature of the chaplain’s contribution to the Army
in the context of a military organization that has its own expectations of the
chaplain? Will the chaplain speak the
truth, though it may be divergent to military leaders when those same leaders
determine the chaplain’s career success?
Will the chaplain take a place at the commanders table and offer
contradictory opinion when a policy or a decision is immoral and unjust? Is the chaplain a combat multiplier only or a
person of God or both or more of one and less of the other? Such questions may pose an uncomfortable
dilemma for the chaplain; but chaplains must wrestle with these questions as
they serve in the United States Army, as well as other services. Let us consider if there is room at the table
of war for the chaplain as prophet of God.
Definition:
The Prophetic Chaplain
The job of the Army
chaplain is a position laden with opportunities for speaking the truth
boldly. This may occur through pointing
people to spiritually helpful resources, confronting injustice and evil,
intervening to help an individual or speaking the words of God to those of low
or high position. In a counseling
session a chaplain may advise an individual that fooling around with another
woman's man is immoral. He or she may
comment in a staff meeting that gambling is negatively impacting the unit's
families and hurting the morale of junior enlisted soldiers. In a private meeting with a commander a
chaplain might even express his or her view regarding the morality of an aspect
of an operation or perhaps note the ill treatment of a subordinate or a
captured fighter. The chaplain may speak
based upon his or her own religious principals, but must possess skills in
relational appropriateness and wisdom to exert a constructive influence. The Army chaplain faces a daunting challenge
of being prophetic, that is, being a conscientious representative of one of
The
terms "prophet" or "prophetic" are quite broad concepts and
should be defined for this paper. To be
prophetic, a chaplain must speak the truth when it may be politically and
professionally advantageous to remain silent.
Secondly, a chaplain must also live and walk in truth and have integrity
in order to maintain credibility with soldiers and family members. Chaplains who show poor integrity and
character violate expectations of others, even if they may speak words
prophetically. In his book The Sociology of Religion, Max Weber
offers a view of the prophet which may be helpful for understanding the role
the chaplain performs in the Army. Weber
describes two distinct and separate categories of the prophet.[4] He argues that one kind of prophet has an ethical duty to proclaim the truth; he
also argues that another kind of prophet is called to be an exemplar, and live the truth.[5] For Weber these two kinds of prophets were
distinct. But for the Army chaplain, the
two concepts must merge. The Army
chaplain combines these roles, and speaks out for ethical issues. The chaplain may also speak out as a faithful
representative of his or her religious tradition. At the same time he or she is expected to be
an exemplar in day to day association with others. To fail as an exemplar or as a positive role
model is to fail to be prophetic. To
fail in speaking the truth boldly to leaders is also failure to be
prophetic. To fail to be prophetic is
failure as a chaplain.
It is in the best
interests of the Army and the nation, for chaplains to speak with a prophetic
voice. This may be private, toe to toe
and face to face with a commander, or it may be through an inspirational
article in a post newspaper.[6] In such cases, particularly with commanders,
prior trusting relationships are valuable, and have to be earned. The Army chaplain must also fulfill his or
her denominational calling to offer a prophetic voice, as well as a holy life,
to people of the Army. The Army
chaplain is both commissioned by the President of the
Clear prophetic identity
and practice is crucial for the Army chaplaincy as an institution, lest it
become known as a uniformly docile set of individuals who avoid conflict, in
deference to a serene homogeny. This
kind of chaplain and chaplaincy would quiet the prophetic voice of
conscience. Such a chaplaincy scenario,
a serene institutional uniformity, would diminish the distinctive contribution
of American religious leaders, Pentecostal, Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, Muslim
and Buddhist or other distinctive faith groups who wear the uniform and choose
to serve. A muted chaplaincy with
silenced prophetic engagement would be tragic.
The Army benefits from a vitally engaged chaplaincy, willing to be
thoughtful, truthful and intrepid in speaking prophetic words to the right
people at the right time and for the right cause.
The
nation and the Army would be robbed of a perspective and presence representing
the diverse humanitarian and religious traditions of the nation if chaplains
are ever muted before commanders or even muzzled from a distinctive religious
expression. An Army chaplain must
appropriately offer a commander an opposition perspective to decisions which
may violate the conscience as well as the law.
The chaplain must communicate his or her moral and ethical concerns in
tactful dialogue with commanders, and at the same time, do so in such a way so
as to preserve his or her continued presence for pastoral ministry to
people. The chaplain, to be truly
effective, must have a pastoral as well as a prophetic voice in the Army.
Is There a Soul of
Goodness in Things Evil?
“There
is some soul of goodness in things evil, would men observingly distil it out.”[7] This quote is quite a conclusion to Chaplains in Conflict: The Role of Army
Chaplains since 1914. Stephen H.
Louden, the Principal Roman Catholic Chaplain of The British Army, makes use of
the quote.[8] His application of a Shakespearean quote from
Henry V illustrated a tension which
existed in the British military chaplaincy.
It is the same tension the American military chaplaincy faces. The institution is not pristine. There is
evil and there is good within. To expect the chaplaincy as an institution to
fit a utopian image of spiritual or moral perfection is unrealistic and overly
optimistic.[9] Yet, it is such a utopian expectation that
the critics of the chaplaincy require for the chaplaincy to be justified in
their eyes. This is the expectation of
Harvey Cox, who argues that the evil is poison to the good. Louden suggests that both can exist beside
one another, the person of God with the man of war. But it is not easy, and it must permit a
certain degree of accommodation. Wise
accommodation is important for the chaplain's effective prophetic presence in
the Army. There is a soul of goodness in
accommodation. It is in the care of
people.
Louden
understands that by its very nature the chaplaincy has little to say to those
who point to the conundrum of the institution.
Is it spiritual or is it military and secular? There are many problems and red blood is on
the hands of the chaplain. Yes, it is
the blood of identification with an institution of killing, as well as the blood
of touching and comforting the dying, injured and those who kill. Refusal to be tainted by association with the
institution would mean being absent from ministry to the injured and dying as
well as those who do the killing.
Indeed, the chaplaincy is a profession that blends the military and
worldly as well as the religious. It
would be foolish to argue that the work of the chaplaincy is without any
compromise or accommodation. Compromise
and accommodation are ever present. Is
it possible to gain some benefit from such an institution? Is any benefit derived from the presence of
an accommodating chaplain in the midst of war?
Some
of the critics of the chaplain do not want to see red blood on the hands of the
representative of God. The critics view
the marriage of the clergyperson and the military problematic, leading to an
inevitable compromise of principles.
They have raised a very high bar indeed if they expect the chaplain to
be totally insulated from even a hint of accommodation. The nature of the beast requires a delicate
balance between a prophetic voice and accommodation to reality, serving the
state. Achieving this balance is a
source of tremendous tension and a challenge for chaplains who serve. It is also a challenge for the state, which
is obligated to tolerate the prophetic utterance among its servants. If either the state’s secular or the
chaplain’s religious purpose were to gain primacy in this dance, the program
would fail.
American
sociologist Gordon C. Zahn wanted to eliminate all chaplains from the military.[10] His justification in essence was that they
are unable to speak the truth prophetically and have become a part of a corrupt
system, silenced by that system itself.[11] To Zahn, Judeo-Christian religion anticipates
a certain opposition to the world as a requirement for religious ministry.[12] Military chaplains, as part of the evil
system, are unable to function without compromise. They will always fail to guide their
constituents against the evil values of the worldly military. They can’t turn their back on the institution
and speak the truth they should, because the power and employment benefits of
state are too lucrative. The accusation
is that the chaplains can't bite the hand that feeds them, that they are
irredeemably compromised by their employer.
Zahn cites a World War II era directive from the German High Command
which said that the chaplaincy served as a tool “strengthening the fighting
power of the troops…like every German, the chaplain must also direct his entire
work to the great objective of winning the war.”[13] To Zahn there is no such thing as a prophetic
chaplain. All are compromised
spiritually, mere assets of the state and the evil system.
There
may even be chaplains or commanders in the American Army today who would concur
with the statement of the German High Command, and wish to employ their
chaplains as assets of war, primarily.
There may be commanders or chaplains who would see no problem with
employing chaplains as intelligence assets gaining information about local
religious leaders and local people and their culture. Sending the chaplain to a village and then
debriefing them is only one illustration of numerous ways the chaplain might be
utilized as an asset of warfare. Would
this pose a problem for the chaplain?
How far would he or she be willing to go? Would it violate anything in his or her sense
of religious mission? Such questions
need to be seriously considered, not only among chaplains, but by the
denominations that send them to serve within the military.
Zahn
would see little difference from this portrayal of the chaplain in Nazi Germany
and the prayer offered by the chaplain serving with Colonel George S. Patton
III, in
Cox
and many others serve as vivid critics of the chaplaincy, opposing the evil of
war and the massive American military industrial complex of the time. He views the chaplain as a compromiser with
little believability, a person without integrity. Cox complains that the military has “spread
its metallic claws around the globe to hundreds of bases and bivouacs.”[16] The chaplaincy, complicit in this enterprise,
confronts us with conflicting claims of God and Caesar.[17] What is to be believed from the testimony of
the one who speaks the words of Caesar and the words of God from both sides of
the mouth? For Cox it is the “military
industrial complex which laps up
The
magazine, Christian Century, which
often reflects positions sympathetic with the more liberal wing of North
American Christianity, articulates a point-of-view which would enrage some
anti-chaplaincy activists.[19] The Christian
Century in the past has expressed affinity more sympathetic to the position
of Cox and Zahn, especially in the 1970’s.
Yet in June of 2003 the editor of the magazine, John M. Buchanan
justified continued advertisement for the military chaplaincy in The Christian Century. The Navy regularly places ads in religious
magazines designed to encourage pastors to consider the chaplaincy as a
feasible option for their ministry.
Buchanan responded to certain complaints from anti-war readers, who
criticized such advertisements for chaplains in his magazine. He said,
I’ve learned to respect those who minister, even if I disagree
with what the military is doing. The
actions of the military and the role of chaplains are issues we will continue
to address in the content of the magazine.
And we’ll continue to run ads for military chaplaincy. [20]
The
tension is not an internal struggle only for chaplains. It belongs to the broader Christian
community; and in this case, the editor of The Christian Century admits the complexity. In the article, “Congregation in Uniform,” he
argues that to abandon those within the military culture by denying military
chaplains would be more harmful than to provide the chaplains. For that reason he acknowledges the need for
military chaplains, for the sake of the men and women, the sons and daughters
of
This statement suggests
further reflection upon Louden’s quote of Shakespeare. “There is some soul of goodness in things
evil, would men observingly distil it out.”
The Army chaplain, even if he or she accommodates in some uncomfortable
areas, still has a religious and pastoral worth. Who would provide spiritual sustenance for
men and women if not the chaplain? In essence
it is beneficial to have the chaplain in the system, even a system alien to the
chaplain's own ideologies. The chaplain
performs spiritual work as a prophetic presence, even if toned down, but still
as a religious act and with religious value.
For the chaplain, a
little accommodation is the price to pay for the joy of ministry to people in
need. Who will speak clearly on moral,
ethical and spiritual issues, if not the chaplain? Who will give voice to the needs of the
exploited within the military bureaucracy, if not the chaplain? Who will confront commanders and remind them
of their obligation to do justice, if not the chaplain? Who will point people to God in the midst of
death and tragedy, if not the chaplain?
Obviously, others can fulfill some of these tasks, but it is the
chaplain who is particularly called and assigned to take on such roles. The chaplains may serve in the Army,
yet they also come from a multitude of religious communities in the
nation. They are endorsed by them,
nurtured by them and accountable to them to be uniquely prophetic. These religious communities have various
views on war. Some of the churches in
the
So, what if the chaplains’ voices are silenced; and what
if they are not prophetic when they need to be? What if chaplains are discouraged from
exercising the distinctive of their faith?
What if the demand for military uniformity attempts to swallow up
denominational fidelity to a religious experience, practice or idea, to mute the
chaplains' own prophetic gifting? Would
the pragmatic uniform expectations of an Army culture then mold the
chaplain? Would the religious
communities be willing to accommodate the presence of their ministers in an
institution of war if those ministers had no avenue to be who they have been
called to be?
Where Were the Prophetic Voices
of the Chaplains -
The
Army chaplaincy connection to the
The
day after My Lai, 17 March 1968, the Sunday edition of the News Sheet, a publication of the Americal Division in
The
Army’s intense investigation began after the cover-up was exposed by Rob
Ridenhour, who at the time was a young soldier who collected the information by
hearsay. When Ridenhour left the Army,
he wrote letters to more than thirty congressmen and Senators.[25]
It was more than a year after the
atrocity that Ridenhour’s letter made an impact. He wrote the letter in March 1969, and the
first news report was in November of 1969, reported by Seymour Hersh.[26] Mo Udall was the Senator who eventually
responded to his letter, and within two weeks the Pentagon initiated an
investigation which ultimately resulted in key officers and enlisted soldiers
being charged with court-martial offenses.
These charges included murder and assault to commit murder. However, only one person was convicted. Lieutenant William L Calley, Jr. was charged
with premeditated murder in the killing of more than a hundred men, women and
children. At the time, popular opinion
supported Calley and many viewed Calley as a scapegoat. In fact, there was photographic and recorded
evidence to convict him alone. Other
officers were not convicted although careers ended, eventually. Calley was sentenced to life, but was released
in 1975 after a long string of appeals. The chaplain involvement in this tragedy
was no less than a heartrending failure to speak out and continue to do so
until the truth became known. It was a
blind eye turned or an intentional reluctance to push aggressively for the
truth concerning the murder of innocent civilians.
A
few days after the killings occurred, Hugh Thompson, the helicopter pilot who
witnessed the atrocity, went to his chaplain with the story, but nothing came
of the encounter. No chaplains were on
the scene during the atrocity; however, Thompson indicated that innocent
civilians had been slaughtered.[27] The chaplain covering Thompson’s aviation
unit, Creswell “verbally passed the report” to the Americal’s Division
Chaplain, Francis R. Lewis.[28] At this point the details are uncertain,
because Lewis and others did not remember the precise content of conversations,
which by the time of the trials had occurred, was a year and a half in the
past. Lewis claimed that he passed the
information that Creswell gave to him to four staff officers. He said that he was told that some of the
officers were aware of the complaint and were looking into the matter. Lewis then dropped the ball, believing that
the issue was being dealt with.
Nearly
a year later during the court-martial testimony, the staff officers did not
remember the encounter as described by Lewis.
Indeed, two officers denied that Lewis had said anything to them. The
failure to report this to the legal authorities by both chaplains contributed
to the cover-up. Lewis later said that
he didn’t think that Creswell’s account warranted the attention. Were the chaplains intentionally involved in
a cover-up of the murders of innocent Vietnamese? They may not have intentionally been, but their
actions presented a picture of an ineffective response and hinted at a compromised
system. When the months passed without
any action, the chaplain should have followed-up? The Peers Report points out that the
chaplains should have reported the war crimes to the Army’s Criminal
Investigation Command (CID). The New York Times suggested that the
silence on the part of the chaplains revived “the old two masters problem
concerning chaplains in the armed forces,” meaning that it is difficult for a
chaplain to serve the state and God at the same time.[29] Indeed, this case tarnished the chaplaincy
for years and became a case study in officer basic courses Army wide, including
the chaplain school which trains all Army chaplains. The United States Army Command and General
Staff College at
The
investigation, headed by General William Peers, produced a blunt document, The Peers Commission Report, which
recommended court-martial proceedings for both chaplains along with twenty six
other officers and two enlisted photographers.
This included the most senior leaders of the Americal Division.[31] The silence or failure to follow through on
the part of the senior division chaplain and brigade chaplain was deemed an act
worthy of court-martial by General Peers.
The junior chaplain reported the incident, but the senior chaplain
failed to follow through with action.[32] Both were obligated to act further according
to the report. Harvey Cox’s suggestion,
that the Army chaplain may struggle as a prophetic voice in such an environment
seems to be accurate in this case; these chaplains failed to provide prophetic
leadership during an atrocity and war crime.
Cox
suggested that the Army system and culture corrupted the chaplain’s involved,
hindering their ability to do what was right.
Would a chaplain in the twenty-first century be able to resist this
corruption? Has the Army chaplaincy
adjusted to this
A
few units in
The chaplain must speak out when it is
right to do so. That is the requirement
of being truly prophetic. If this is not
possible, then perhaps the argument of Cox or Zahn or some contemporary critic
of the Army chaplaincy merits consideration.
A chaplain unwilling to speak to a commander over an issue of integrity
or character or justice is a chaplain that need not exist at all. As a branch, the Army chaplaincy should
continue to equip its chaplains with helpful tools for navigating within the
system as prophetic voices. An Army
chaplain must be more than a compliant servant of a massive bureaucracy; he or
she is a servant of distinct religious groups, each with expectations that
their chaplain's will minister with fidelity and integrity. Chaplains work within a system needing a
prophetic voice to provide effective religious care of people, despite the cost
to the chaplain.
Accommodating the
Blessing of Cannons
Harvey
Cox suggests that nearly all key theological voices-post 1945, Martin Buber,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Juergen Moltman, and Johann Metz….all advocate the
elimination of the idols of race and state from the religious community.[37] To them the concept of the military
chaplaincy reflected a bankrupt ideology, more of a crusade mentality-a relic
of a bygone era. Even if there are roots
in western culture justifying the military chaplain, the institution itself
violates the essence of what biblical religion is all about, according to the
critics. This attitude reflects a popular
consensus of the
The
critics' portrayal of a military chaplain is that of a clergy person who
functions as an apparatus to “bless the cannons.” Indeed such behavior may fit the practice of
a few chaplains, who would have no problem with the blessing of cannon as a
means of identification with the work and person of the soldier. Some chaplains would see no problem with such
a tangible and visible symbolic commitment to success in a just war. Other chaplains would have difficulty with
such a practice, and would not join in the deed. To the critics, blessings of this nature
represent the chaplain as a willing and eager participant in war making. Such actions also create expectations in
units that replacement chaplains may not fulfill. It is difficult to fit into the shoes of a
tank-blessing chaplain when the battalion commander has the expectation that
the chaplain will bless his tanks. It’s
not easy for a chaplain to say, “No sir, I won’t bless your tanks because my
theology doesn't allow for that practice."
The commander's response could easily be, "Chaplain, just bless the
tanks." This is the kind of tension
a chaplain may face when arriving into a unit where a commander has such
expectations. In truth, chaplains do
refuse to do such things, but that decision is often made with a cost. This is Zahn's concern and he gets to the
heart of the matter. What he fears most
are perfunctory Enola Gay prayers.[38] Can a chaplain pray for an atomic bomb to
have a safe flight followed by a blessed impact upon the target? Zahn refuses to accept that a minister of God
might be identified with a
The
critics of the chaplaincy occasionally portray the chaplain as one engaged in
the larding of sermons…“with the kind of fire-eating bombast best calculated to
boost the morale of the fighting man and spur him on to the supreme sacrifice
of life, if need be.”[39] Sermons advocating or justifying war (and
weapons blessings) are methods of some chaplains; other chaplains would see
such polemic harmful to the essence and integrity of their efforts of prophetic
ministry. Indeed, partisan and
politicized sermon making, diminishes a chaplain's spiritual authority as a
unique person of God with a prophetic calling.
Chaplains,
may struggle with such behavior, and may be reluctant to pray a prayer as crass
as requesting a high body count for a combat operation. But they would pray for safety and divine
protection for their troops going out on a patrol. Although the chaplain might not pray for a
tank or an atomic bomb, prayer for the soldiers in the tank would be a viable
option, an accommodation. Chaplains must
find a way to relate to the military culture in constructive ways that don’t
violate the conscience of either the chaplain or the soldier. To function in the Army system as a spiritual
leader is a crucial objective for the chaplain.
This means that the chaplain must be able to offer justification for his
or her presence. For some chaplains this
may be quite simple- a prayer for the tank.
Others may have difficulty and must find a reasoned method of
accommodation. The question of how far
one goes to connect with soldiers in the military culture is a source of
tension for the chaplain.
Occasionally
in history chaplains have pushed the limits and even chose to bear arms.[40] Much of the motivation for this may be to
identify with their soldiers as well as self-preservation. In late 2003 the Army Chief of Chaplains,
Major General David H. Hicks, sent a letter to all major command chaplains in
the United States Army, reemphasizing the noncombatant status of the chaplain.[41] That this had to be done is a clear
suggestion that there had been issues related to chaplains bearing arms in the
War on Terror. For example, an embedded
reporter Adam Lusher, accompanied a Brigade Combat Team in an engagement. He reported that an Army chaplain took up an
M-16 weapon in April 2003 during a ten hour battle dubbed “The Battle of Moe,
Larry and Curly.[42]
This
issue of chaplains bearing arms had been dealt with during the Vietnam
War. One such instance can be viewed in
the newsmagazine Time, which carried a popular photograph of a chaplain bearing arms
with grenades attached to crossed ammunition belts.[43] The Army chaplaincy
confronted this problem because of negative media attention. However, in this long war the issue has
appeared once again at the highest levels of the Army. A Chief of Chaplains August 2004 Newsletter
rearticulated the policy.[44] In the document Chaplain (MG) Hicks states
that there had been serious consideration at the Department of the Army level
to eliminate the noncombatant status for chaplains. Hicks states, “but in the end, after hard
work and prayer, we retained our noncombatant status as chaplains.[45]
If
chaplains were to start to bear arms, soldiers and commanders would come to see
them as an actual or potential combat asset, however miniscule. This would
diminish their unique role as a profession set
apart for religious work. In order
to oppose this pragmatic position, which was probably advocated by some commanders
and a few more chaplains, a response was required of the Army chaplaincy. The Chief of Chaplains, representing the
chaplaincy as well as the American religious communities, spoke up
prophetically and argued to maintain the traditional noncombatant status. Such bold leadership at the highest level of
the Department of the Army, to retain the noncombatant status for chaplains, is
one example of prophetic leadership with institutional relevance. Going toe to toe with the big bosses requires
fortitude. This is an illustration of a
prophetic engagement by the Army chaplaincy which contradicted the now elderly
scholarly doomsayers who during an earlier war nearly half a century ago,
prophesied in a different way.
Accommodating the General
with a Prayer
“Chap,
I need a weather prayer, now.” The
results driven style of leadership, hallmark of the focused commander, expects
to employ the chaplain pragmatically.
Most chaplains have been asked to give weather prayers, and this becomes
a matter of some note when they are in the field and weather conditions are
less than perfect. Some chaplains may
feel discomfort about such encounters with their results driven commanders, as
if they really could command the heavens with a prayer. Then again, there are some chaplains who
would feel up to the task. When the sun
shines, it is always a good day for a chaplain.
In
World War II, during the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes, General Patton
asked his chaplain for a weather prayer, for dry weather in December of
1944. Chaplain O’Neill, the Third Army
Chaplain told Patton, “May I say, General, that it isn’t a customary thing
among men of my profession to pray for clear weather to kill fellow men.”[46] Patton replied, “Chaplain, are you teaching
me theology or are you the Chaplain of the Third Army? I want a weather prayer.” He wanted it “Now!” The chaplain went out, drafted it and the
prayer was published, printed and sent to the entire army on thousands of note
cards. When the weather improved the
chaplain was awarded a bronze star and the event went into military
folklore. Not only is this part of
American folklore, many commanders have heard this story; and they don’t
hesitate in expecting the same results from their own chaplain’s weather
prayer.
This
suggests an apt question: “What harm is
there in accommodating the General with a weather prayer?”[47] The chaplain’s encounter with Patton is a
good illustration of a chaplain negotiating a potential conflict through deft
and skill, through accommodation.
Chaplain O’Neill’s prayer is directed against the “oppression and
wickedness” of the enemy, not toward the taking of life. He followed his conviction and at the same
time offered a prayer that pleased the commander. Chaplains encounter such situations
often. They come in a multitude of
guises, but in every scenario the chaplain needs wisdom. O’Neill confronted a commander, General
Patton, who might have felt far more comfortable with the prayer his son
received from his own chaplain in Vietnam, “Oh Lord, give us the wisdom to find
the bastards and the strength to pile on.”
Father O’Neill decided to hold onto his conviction that war was at best
a necessary evil, and not pray for the death of the enemy. This may be a fine point, but it does
illustrate that chaplains are able to exert influence which mitigates the
harshness of war, at least to a small degree.
It also shows there is no consensus in the chaplaincy in how to approach
this subject. One chaplain prays to pile
it on the enemy; and one avoids praying for the death of the enemy, only that
justice would prevail. Each decides how
to pray based upon his or her individual theological and philosophical
perspective. Yet, if the military and
its chaplaincies were to proscribe a manner of prayer, these diverse forms of
prophetic expression would be muted and the unique spirituality of chaplains
quenched.
Accommodation of Multiple
Masters
The
dilemma of serving two masters is not a unique struggle of the chaplain. Multiple roles which conflict occur in other
professions too. But the military
chaplain is one of the best examples of a profession that by nature has built
in tension.[48] The picture of a clergyperson pledging
allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and taking a vow to support
and defend that Constitution, and at the same time maintaining commitment to
God and a religious tradition, presents a picture of tension. The Apostle Matthew wrote,
“No one can be the slave of two masters: he will either hate the
first and love the second, or treat the first with respect and the second with
scorn.” [49]
This text has often been cited as a portrayal of
the work of the military chaplain. This
role conflict is a fundamental avenue of criticism for the opponents of the
chaplaincy. It unites the Vietnam era
critics. Indeed, even Korean War era
sociologist Waldo W. Burchard argues that it “is impossible for a Christian in
military service to reconcile this conflict.
If it is done at all it is through rationalization or compartmentalization.”[50]
Former
World War II chaplain Robert McAfee Brown debates the policy of making
ministers into soldiers, which in his words “legitimates war.” “The chaplain constituted as a military
officer “implies a virtually uncritical sanctioning or condoning of war.”[51] He asks what would happen if the chaplain
came “to see that killing, even in warfare, is an evil that must be directly
opposed rather than indirectly sanctioned.”[52]
Would the chaplain then resist speaking his or her mind, or would he stay in
the system and attempt to work internally, silencing his or her prophetic urge
for a greater purpose. Ultimately this
is about the freedom to speak truth, to be prophetic about convictions. Brown argues that the chaplain must speak
out; but he doesn’t believe the chaplain would resist immoral policies. The silence of the prophet communicates
agreement with the evil, according to Brown.
Brown served at the end of World War II as a military chaplain and later
became an anti-war voice until his death in 2001.[53]
Today's Uniquely
Prophetic Chaplains
Not all who observe the Army chaplaincy today
would agree with Cox, Zahn, Burchard or Brown concerning the hypocrisy of the
chaplaincy. In the twenty-first century,
the make-up of the Army chaplaincy is ethnically, religiously and
philosophically diverse, reflecting a variety of denominations and levels of
acceptance of warfare as a means to resolve conflict. Most chaplains would hold to a just war
theory of sorts, but some chaplains may have views reflecting the position of
their own anti-war denominations. This
diversity of religious and cultural background among chaplains is a healthy
reality. The diversity of prophetic
perspective and expression among chaplains should be valued and encouraged,
because it honors American cherished national values of freedom of religion and
freedom of speech.
Today
the Army chaplain has excellent media exposure.
Scores of books on the market highlight chaplains doing their job as
pastors to soldiers. One simply has to
attend and observe a few military funerals of American veterans, many of whom
served in the last century, to appreciate this; and over three thousand of
these veterans have given their lives in the past few years. The chaplains exert a visible and trusted
pastoral presence that has gained wide respect from the nation. Popular culture also reflects positively on
the chaplains. Recent
films episodically have portrayed chaplains in a more positive fashion. Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan shows a chaplain on Omaha Beach praying for
wounded and dying soldiers.[54] In the recent HBO
series Band of Brothers chaplains are
portrayed both as paratroopers and in the field recklessly providing pastoral
care to soldiers in the midst of combat.[55] News media attention
of chaplains has also been positive.
Chaplains are portrayed on the nightly news in ways challenging some of
the negative stereotypes from the Vietnam era.
The nature of the chaplain’s role continues to be debated within and outside of the military. The denomination that appoints the chaplain may have rejected the decision of the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq. Actually, several major US churches opposed the invasion of Iraq based upon their understanding of the concept just war and these churches reject US policy and the use of military force. Where does that leave their chaplains who serve? Most of the chaplains reconcile the differences and continue to serve in the military. On occasion a chaplain will leave the service for such considerations of conscience, but this is not common. Most retain their professional identity as a minister within an institution of war through accommodation. They choose to live with the tension, even if many of their fellow civilian ministers protest and regard them as outcasts. The nation should be thankful for these military prophets of God who willingly embrace a new culture that often causes tension and may even alienate them form the communities from which they came.
Concluding Comment
The
paper explored the idea that American chaplains, if prophetic, will experience
tension between the demands of their religious calling and those expectations
of the governmental institution they voluntarily serve. A few decades ago, these tensions drew the
focused attention of Vietnam era critics of the chaplaincy such as theologian
Harvey Cox and sociologist Gordon Zahn, as well as others. They argued that the chaplaincy could not
exist as a servant of the state and serve God at the same time. They believed that corruption of the system
would make it impossible for a chaplain to survive as a person of integrity,
that he or she would become absolutely compromised.
I
have sought to show that although the work of the chaplain does have tension
points, each chaplain can creatively employ wise accommodation in order to
perform an effective religious care of soldiers. This is not a perfect arrangement. Being a chaplain is not the same as serving
as a pastor in a parish or a local religious community. But it is a productive vocation and allows
the chaplain to be an instrument of transformation for people and the Army as
an institution. This fascinating
balancing act would never be successful without the generous blessing of the
American churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious communities which
endorse their chaplains, nurture them and hold them accountable to their God.
NOTES
[1] The category “authorized personnel” would include Department of Defense employees, other branches of the military, joint forces or categories such as contractors, often based upon prior contractual and legal arrangements.
[2] Harvey Cox G., ed. Military Chaplains: From Religious Military to a Military Religion (New York: American Report Press, 1973), v.
[3] The Random House Webster’s College Dictionary gives seven various definitions for the word prophet. This paper primarily uses the seventh definition: “a person who speaks for some doctrine, cause, or movement.” In relationship to the Army chaplain’s role as a prophet, the chaplain speaks boldly and truthfully concerning issues that impact matters of conscience and human dignity. This may involve “going toe to toe with the boss,” in private; on occasion this may negatively impact a chaplain’s career.
[4] Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1922), 46.
[5] Ibid, 55.
[6] Sometimes a chaplain may have to raise an issue above a commander, especially if the issue has to do with the care or health of another person.
[7]Henry V, Act 4, scene 1, quoted in Stephen H. Louden, Chaplains in Conflict: The Role of Army Chaplains since 1914 (London: Avon Books, 1996), 1.
[8] Ibid.
[9] The chaplaincy is secular in the sense that chaplains, have responsibilities a traditional pastor may not have, work as a staff officer and may even have additional duties; the chaplaincy is religious in that chaplains have religious responsibilities similar to a pastoral role.
[10] Gordon C. Zahn, The Military Chaplaincy: A Study of Role Tension in the Royal Air Force (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969). Zahn may not wish to eliminate ministers from influencing the military but he was committed to eliminating chaplains as military officers from the military "…the pastor in uniform constitutes an affirmation–rightly or wrongly so-that there is no basic incompatibility between the values represented by the religious community and the war being waged by the secular ruler." Zahn, The Military Chaplaincy, 225.
[11] Gordon C. Zahn, “Sociological Impressions of the Chaplaincy,” Harvey G. Cox, ed., Military Chaplains: From Religious Military to a Military Religion (New York: American Report, 1973), 85-86. Zahn also did a study of the RAF chaplaincy, The Military Chaplaincy: A Study of Role Tension in the Royal Air Force (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969).
[12] Zahn’s focus only on Judeo-Christian religion would not fit a contemporary critique of the chaplaincy as an institution because the institution today has chaplains from other world religions and is more diverse.
[13] Zahn, 60.
This is a quote from Albrecht Schubel, 300 Jahre Evangelische Soldatenseelsorge (Muenchen: Evangelischer
Presse Verband Fuer Bayern, 1964), 145.
[14] General Patton’s son died in 2004.
[15] Doris
L. Bergen, The Sword of the Lord:
Military Chaplains from the First to the Twenty-First Century (Notre Dame,
Indiana:
[16] Cox, Military Chaplains, vii.
[17] Cox, xii.
[18] Cox, vii.
[19] By
“liberal wing” I mean those Christian churches and individuals that generally
in most cases reject war, particularly and enthusiastically the war in
[20] John M. Buchanan “Congregation in Uniform” Christian Century (June 14 2003), 3.
[21] Ibid. The protested add was for the Navy chaplaincy.
[22] Roger
R. Venzke, Confidence in
[23] Americal News Sheet,
[24]
“Department of the Army, Report of the
Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations into the
[25] Douglas
Linder, “Famous American Trials, July 2004,
<http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/mylai.htm> (accessed
2 January 2006). This site at the
[26] Doug
Linder, Famous American Trials: The
[27] Chaplains were assigned to the Calley’s brigade but heard nothing of the crime, nor were they present.
[28] Venzke, 158.
[29] New York Times,
[30] CGSC AY 06-07: L100 Leadership Advance Sheets and
[31] “Department of the Army, Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary
Investigations into the
[32] W. R. Peers, The
[33] The assumption with this statement is that chaplains are visible engaged, involved in such facilities. For a chaplain to be assigned to a detainment facility without ability to constructively be prophetic is another matter.
[34] CGSC AY 06-07: L100 Leadership Advance Sheets and
[35] Ibid., L105RC-255. From a brief synopsis of the LTC West case, compiled by efforts of JAG students of the CGSC AY05-06-001 class.
[36] Ibid, L106RA-300. Article reproduced from the New York Times dated October 23, 2005. by Dexter Filkins. Few of us have walked in the shoes of a West or a Sassaman. I do not want to misrepresent their honorable contribution and service in this paper. Mentioning their examples is meant to be purely illustrative, suggesting that a chaplain does potentially have great influence if he or she is engaged relationally with the boss and his or her door is open. I believe that effective chaplains can be a great resource for the commander, appropriately offering in confidence divergent perspective assisting him in his own decision making process, even in situations as these. Whenever I see a tragic media scandal, I am one who always asks where the chaplain was. Was he or she engaged or neutered.
[37] W. E.
Peers, The
[38] Zahn,
“Sociological Impressions of the Chaplaincy” from Cox, 59. Enola Gay was a B-29 Superfortress bomber
which dropped "Little Boy", on
[39] Zahn from Cox, 59.
[40] This is currently contrary to Army Chief of Chaplains Policy.
[41] David
H. Hicks to MACOM Chaplains,
[42] Adam
Lusher, “The 10-hour battle for Curly, Larry and Moe,” News.telegraph.co.uk,
[43] Venzke, 149.
[44] “The
[45] Ibid.
[46] James O’Neill, “The True Story of the Patton Prayer,” (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950. cited in The Army Chaplaincy: Professional Bulletin of the Unit Ministry Team (Spring 1995), 20.
[47] Ibid.
O’Neill’s actual prayer did not ask God to kill the enemy. He phrased it in such a way to keep his own
conviction that one should not pray for the death of another human being. The text follows: Prayer: Almighty and most
merciful Father, we humbly beseech thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain
these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for
[48] Physicians also face similar issues.
[49] Matthew 6:24, New Jerusalem Bible.
[50] Waldo W. Burchard, “Role Conflicts of Military Chaplains,” American Sociological Review, vol 19, no. 5 (Oct., 1954): 528-535. See also Waldo W. Burchard, “The Role of the Military Chaplains,” (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1953).
[51] Brown, 142.
[52] Ibid, 142-143. If that were the case, then every chaplain would be compelled to leave the institution.
[53] John
Dart, “Frontline Theologian: Robert McAfee Brown (1920-2001),” Christian Century, 10 October 2001, <
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/27_118/79371655/p1/article.jhtml>
(accessed 2 January 2006). Brown was not a total pacifist. He thought the war to stop Hitler was a just
war, however, he was quite prominent in criticism of the
[54] Saving Private Ryan, dir. Steven
Spielberg, DreamWorks and
[55] Band of Brothers, dir. David Frankel and Tom Hanks, 6 discs, HBO Home Video, 2002, CD.