- Some of the Binds of Military Chaplaincy

The following is a segment from a final term paper written in May 2007 by Matthew Harris-Gloyer for a pastoral care course at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California under the instruction of Professor Archie Smith, Jr.A full copy of the paper in its entirety may be obtained by emailing the author at radical23dream@yahoo.com with “Military Chaplaincy” in the subject line.

II. Binds and Critiques of Military Chaplaincy

Before we begin this section, I would like to state that self-reflection is of great importance in endeavors such as these. As it was said in class, “When we do not reflect, we do colonization.” (Dr. Archie Smith in the class “Angels Fear” from class notes, Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 2/12/07). Considering the binds may be one way in which we are to reflect. And, there are binds abounding as I think about ministry to soldiers. One bind is that I am not a soldier. Am I able to properly minister to people whom I do not know? John Wood (Pacific School of Religion D.Min student in the 1980’s) does not think that people outside of the military world are able to help soldiers due to the “language of acronyms” spoken by military people, classified materials not open to civilians, and other difficulties. (John R. Wood, “Spirituality and Wholeness in Light of the Early Stone and Campbell Movements with Implications for Ministry within the United States Air Force Chaplain Program;” D.Min research project (Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 1986), p.78-79.) I agree with Wood insofar that to know those whom one is ministering is important, because much of ministry is built on relationships and relationships are very much built upon a common language, experience, etcetera. However, I disagree that a person must be in the military in order to minister to soldiers. Another way of stating this may be a question from class regarding the winged figure: “Do I need to be a bronze figure to give pastoral care to the bronze figure?” (Anonymous classmate during class discussion “Angels Fear.” Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 5 February 2007) If this were the case then female pastoral care givers would be unable to give care to male care seekers and vice versa. There is certainly an important aspect to knowing those to whom one is giving care, but it is not necessary for a care giver to be exactly like the care seeker.

 

Another bind that I find of significance is regarding the role of the military chaplain. To whom is the chaplain accountable? Wood describes the situation of American military chaplains as serving two masters; the Church and the Army. (Wood, p.80.) Chaplains are an institutionalized part of the Army. They wear the same uniforms as soldiers, have rank, go through some similar trainings, and go to the battlefield with their units. This creates a situation where the chaplain has a vested interest in the welfare of the soldiers to whom he or she is assigned. This is natural and a part of forming relationships, which is an aspect of ministry. However, at what point does this intimate relationship begin to inhibit the chaplain’s ability to perform his pastoral duties? This is a question for any pastor, but it seems particularly acute for military chaplains, because of the greater potential for evil that is characteristic of war and those who fight them. For example, I wonder if a chaplain will be able to question the institution that pays her salary or challenge the soldier who has committed an atrocity. Another question may be “Is a soldier/chaplain able to give adequate spiritual care to a conscientious objector or other who is questioning war?” These are questions that were being asked in the 1960’s and 70’s during the conflict in Vietnam. The American Civil Liberties Union put out a report in 1973 entitled “The Abuses of the Military Chaplaincy” where it is documented that many chaplains were inadequately serving conscientious objectors and the report asserted that some chaplains were attempting to dissuade soldiers from questioning the war. The report also concluded that there was conflict of role within the military chaplaincy and that many chaplains tended to favor the position of the military and those soldiers deemed “patriotic.” (Randolph N. Jonakait, “The Abuses of the Military Chaplaincy” (New York: American Civil Liberties Union; 1973), p.53-60.2 Jonakait, p.43.) However, another study was done by Clarence Abercrombie a few years after the ACLU report that found that a large majority (73.6%) of military chaplains thought that “legitimation [of Army positions] was an improper role and they wanted no part of it.” (Clarence L. Abercrombie III, “The Military Chaplain” (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1977), p.89.) We have come to understand this era of American history as highly turbulent and these divergent reports reflect that turbulence. Nevertheless, what we are able to glean from these reports is that there was confusion and conflict about the role of the military chaplain and to whom they are accountable. Some chaplains have no difficulty (or, at least make no mention of them in their writings) with the dual role to the Church and Army. For example, it was reported in a recent Newsweek article that Army chaplain Roger Benimoff wrote in his journal during the current war in Iraq, “My call to ministry and the meaningfulness of serving in the Army brings fullness of breath in my life.” (Eve Conant, Faith Under Fire in Newsweek of 7 May 2007, p.28.) Chaplain Benimoff began as a soldier in the Army and then later became a chaplain. It seems clear from the Newsweek article that Benimoff cares for and is concerned about the spiritual well being of the soldiers in his unit. And, I wonder if he is so committed to the Army that he neglects the prophetic piece of Christian ministry.

Sharon Thornton writes that the cross of Christ is political. (Sharon G. Thornton, Broken yet Beloved, St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press; 2002.) Thornton’s perspective is that pastoral care providers are called by faith to minister to the needs of the individuals and communities to which they are serving. According to Thornton this ministering will inevitably spill over into the political. I wonder what this perspective might mean if we were to apply it to the military chaplaincy. It might mean that military chaplains would have to become advocates for better health care at Veterans’ hospitals. It could also mean that chaplains might call their congressional representation to secure more and better armor for soldiers.

Thornton’s perspective could also lead some chaplains to seek to advocate for more soldiers to land in
Iraq and to pursue a scorched earth policy or to use nuclear weapons against the Taliban in
Afghanistan. I suspect that Thornton would not appreciate such a use of her theological interpretation of the cross as political. Yet, this illustrates the difficulty of a political understanding of the cross; the politics change with the people whom are being cared for.

- On “War Chaplaincy” for Peace

by Audrey deCoursey

A member of a historic peace church, the Church of the Brethren, tosses out some thoughts on Memorial Day, after reading the exciting spectrum of opinions about military chaplaincy over at the blog of the Adventist magazine, Spectrum.

Because I put my Christianity first in my ethical decision-making, I believe that we must end war. The only question is how military chaplaincy fits into ending war. I tend to like to expand these discussions to talk about not only military chaplaincy but “war chaplaincy.”

We as Christians (especially in peace churches) need to do better pastoral care to all victims of war: members of the military, military families, veterans, and civilian victims. We must not leave pastoral care only up to official military chaplains. If we are in the beginning of an endless, limitless, undefined War on Terror, then we must expand our ministry of peacemaking, to offer prophetically pastoral care.

Congregational pastors need to take on part of the responsibility of ministering to victims of war. (Likewise, seminaries ought not leave the job of training military chaplains to the military institution alone, but ought to provide comprehensive education for future pastors and chaplains who will be living in a warring world.) Families end up doing the pastoral care spiritual leaders neglect. Pastors and all who would minister (priesthood of all believers, anyone?) need to reach out to individual soldiers (and contractors and aid workers and peace volunteers), through letters and calls and counseling when they come home on leave. We need to connect them into their home communities’ lives, connect them into their global community’s news and life, so that the soldiers can remember who they are: not just members of the US military machine, but members of a global body. Most of all, we should strive to remind these soldiers that they (as well as every person they interact with) are beloved children, created by God to be good people.

Does this seem too much like appeasement, bolstering the troops so they can continue their ‘duty’ of war-making? I think it is, instead, radically subversive.

The military survives on a culture of isolation. It creates its own subculture, in which acts are moral that are unthinkable elsewhere. Children are not children; they are enemies or objects. (Too many graphic YouTube videos will reveal that sick underbelly of the war machine.) The only people who matter are the people in your unit, on your side. They are who you can trust. The limited geography of the battle is the limit of reality. By breaking into this sub-world, we throw light on the micro-cosmos in which the battles take place, and we remind soldiers of the wider implications of their daily choices. We support their own realizations that, even in war, they are humans in relationship with other humans.

As pacifist chaplains or citizens or congregations, we don’t need to pontificate to soldiers about the evils of war or the US military. We ought not excuse or ignore harm people have caused, either. We need to offer radical presence that reminds these victims of war (be they civilian or military) of their humanity. This is recognizing the times and places to preach our absolute moral values, and the different times and places to just be present with people in pain. Only when a person has (re)claimed herself, her self-esteem, her humanity, her confidence, can we engage in explicit discussions of our values. These discussions can only be had when we share the implicit value of knowing ourselves as human children in a world God created.

This is the prophetic, pacifist voice of pastoral care: it is reflecting back to a person who she is, in a way that makes her love and believe in herself more, so that she is better equipped with the confidence needed to make ethical decisions, on the battlefield or anywhere else. I believe that our world will know peace when we know who we really are. To claim the loving nature within each human is to plant peace and defy the dehumanization war sows.

Military Chaplaincy

As seminarians, we must consider – what about military chaplaincy? What are the realities of the job? What are the ethical considerations of such work? Where are our loyalties? Is academic theology relevant in wartime realities – and if so, how? Are seminaries today adequately training their students to be military chaplains – or to tend pastorally to the needs of military families, veterans, and civilian victims of war?

God can be found or lost in a foxhole, but rarely does war leave someone’s faith untouched. In some ways, Benimoff’s story is common to people of all walks of life and all beliefs. It is the story of spiritual struggle—and of trying to accept a world of both good and evil, where pain and loss seem unconnected to faith and justice. Such tensions are magnified on the battlefield. Countless soldiers—not just chaplains—have struggled with how to reconcile a God of love with a God who allows the terror of conflict.

Those words come from a recent Newsweek article from 7 May 2007, which follows the story of one army chaplain Roger Benimoff. What are your thoughts?