PART II
THE PRESENT SOUTHERN BAPTIST STANCE ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE MILITARY CHAPLAINCY

CHAPTER V
THE CHAPLAINCY AND CONTEM­PORARY CHURCH-STATE ISSUES

In this chapter an attempt will be made to determine where the Southern Baptist Convention stands today on the military chaplaincy and related church-state issues. It is not too much to say that the average Southern Baptist is totally unaware of what is happening in the renewal of the military chaplaincy. Neither is he aware of the legitimate needs behind the current developments within the chaplaincy nor of any responsibility to influence those developments.

The military chaplaincy is changing every year. It is broadening its scope of ministry and its style of service to military personnel and their dependents. It is becoming a deeply-entrenched institution in our government and "American Way of Life." If any changes are desirable they must be made very soon, or in a few more years it might be too late. Most Baptists seem to be satisfied with the status quo as they know it. Most Baptists do not know about or understand the tensions or problems that exist, and they assume that everything is well. They do not understand that other denominations are making thorough and current studies by special "Task Forces" into this ministry to military personnel, and many are changing the positions which they held only five or ten years ago.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently published a special report by Randolph N. Jonakait, which was a joint research project carried out by the ACLU and the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries. This report makes a strong case against the constitutionality of the chaplaincy. On the basis of this study, and the work of its Church/State Committee, the ACLU has reversed its previous policy and now holds that the military chaplaincy is unconstitutional and its present form should be abolished.

The traditional position of the ACLU was given in the following policy statement officially adopted in 1964:

Any discrimination in the military chaplaincy program against non-majority religions, and any compulsory religious services held by the armed forces or military academies, must be regarded as violations of both the "no establishment" and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The Union does not challenge the constitutionality of the chaplaincy program itself because without it servicemen would be deprived of facilities for the constitutionally protected free exercise of their religion. It is only the elements of compulsion or discrimination which present issues of civil liberties concern. (ACLU Policy Guide #75).

The following is now the current policy of the American Civil Liberties Union, adopted by the Board of Directors of the ACLU at its meeting on February 17-18, 1973:

The ACLU has concluded that the military chaplaincy in its present form has been severely compromised by a range of real and potential abuses under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, specifically:

1. The exercise of a pervasive control by the military command structure over the chaplaincy in matters of selection, rank, uniform, pay, advancement, and scope of duties, has resulted in the establishment of religion which is not constitutionally tolerable;

2. The selection process, controlled by the major denominations, seriously discriminates against minority religious groups, for reasons more related to military convenience than to the religious needs of members of the armed services.

Therefore, abolition of the present program is required by the principle of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Recently an article appeared in The Christian Century which raised the following question:

Since a clergyman in the military who is paid by the state will be seen in both military and civilian sectors as giving religious sanction to war policies of the state, should religious bodies continue to accept the present chaplaincy arrangement?

The author of the article, Charles P. Lutz, indicates that the above question is coming now from denominations that have in the past sanctioned the "just war" theory—as have Baptists. The question is also being reviewed by churches that have held for many years to a view of separation of church and state which is very similar to the Baptist position. Lutz reveals that the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the United Presbyterian Church in the USA are now making new studies of the chaplaincy which will in fact amount to an official reassessment of their ministry to the armed forces. That is, of course, provided their higher church bodies, such as their General Assembly or General Conference, approves and adopts their recommendations.

Moreover, one development has recently taken place which neither Baptists nor other denominations can ignore. It is the organization known as the Coalition for a Demilitarized Chaplaincy, based in New York. Anyone who writes them and sends one dollar will receive a packet of material highly critical of the military chaplaincy as presently constituted.

Many of their positions demand honest and comprehensive confrontation by Baptists. Some of these positions on separation of church and state and the quality of a free and unrestrained spiritual ministry to armed forces personnel should strike a responsive chord among most Baptists. Of course, some of their positions Baptists cannot consistently share, in view of their traditional doctrinal and ethical positions.

One additional very significant publication which has been mentioned before in this study which Baptists cannot lightly dismiss is Military Chaplains: From Religious Military to a Military Religion, edited by Harvey G. Cox, Jr. Here again, some of the arguments and positions Baptists would not support, but they must not be lightly dismissed. They must be faced realistically by unbiased and completely competent members of a broadly based study committee. Southern Baptists must in that way develop their own position on the military chaplaincy and church and state relations and on other related ethical positions such as war and peace and conscientious objection.

In this chapter the purpose is to focus on where Southern Baptists stand today on religious liberty and separation of church and state and the relation of the military chaplaincy to these issues. By now it should be increasingly clear why it has been necessary to spend so much time and space in Part I of this dissertation to consider the historical background and doctrinal traditions and practices of Baptists in these areas. In the annual report of the Historical Commission to the 1972 Southern Baptist Convention in Philadelphia the statement was made that "Southern Baptists need to know their history if they are to understand the present and plan wisely for the future." This statement outlines the framework for this entire dissertation. Part I seeks to help Southern Baptists know their history concerning the military chaplaincy and related doctrines and issues such as religious liberty, church-state relations, attitudes toward war and peace, etc. Part II seeks to help them understand the present in the same areas. Then, based upon the research and conclusions in the first two parts, Part III will seek to help Southern Baptists plan wisely for the future form of ministry to armed forces personnel. In the remainder of this chapter several aspects of Southern Baptist positions on church and state will now be examined and related to the military chaplaincy. The procedure will be to select various issues which can be utilized to determine recent interpretations and applications relative to the military chaplaincy.

Some of these issues are: federal aid to parochial schools, taxation of church property, the "Prayer Amendment" to the Constitution, federal aid to hospitals, charitable contributions, the interpretation and meaning of the First Amendment, and compulsory attendance of cadets at military academies. These will be examined in the light of various resolutions and positions taken by the Southern Baptist Convention in annual session, by leading denominational spokesmen, and by the doctrinal positions as set forth in "The Baptist Faith and Message" which was adopted in 1963 and unanimously reaffirmed in the 1970 Convention in Denver.

The Southern Baptist Stance on Church and State as Shown By Federal Aid to Parochial Schools

A major political issue emerged during the 1972 presidential campaign as both major candidates pledged their support for some form of support for federal aid to parochial schools. By October of 1972 a tax credit proposal was reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee. This proposal was endorsed by both George McGovern, the Democratic nominee, and by President Nixon. The bill approved by the House committee would allow a tax credit for tuition paid by a parent or a guardian to any private nonprofit elementary or secondary school. This tax credit would be allowed to cover actual tuition costs up to a maximum of $200 per dependent. In August during two weeks of hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee, John W. Baker, a spokesman for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, opposed the bill. He charged that federal aid to parochial schools violates both the principles of religious liberty and of sound public policy.

Thus can be seen a battle forming again on this issue which has confronted America for twenty-five years. President Nixon said he is "irrevocably committed" to seeking tax credit legislation in this 93rd Congress, and Baptists and others are in a coalition opposing such action. When the Baptist Joint Committee met in semi-annual session in October, 1972, it adopted a statement requesting the Committee on Ways and Means to "refuse tax credits out of consideration for the American tradition of religious liberty and separation of church and state." Advocates of the proposed legislation say the $200 aid is not aid to religion or to the religious schools but to the parents of children who go to such schools. But James E Wood, Jr., Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs asserts that "the proposed legislation must not be seen as aid to parents but as financial aid to nonpublic schools, the vast majority of which are parochial schools."

Opposition to this tax credit plan for parochial schools is expressed not only by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs but by numerous other religious civil liberties and educational organizations. These include the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

On June 25, 1973, the Supreme Court made a momentous decision which struck down tax deductions for parents of parochial school students. In a six to three decision it interpreted the state plans for such reimbursement of parents as violating the First Amendment ban on the establishment of religion. The specific test cases before it were from New York and Pennsylvania which included not only forms of tuition reimbursement for tuition costs but also state payment for such costs as maintaining attendance records, performing tests and making reports. Majority opinions by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., noted that the tuition reimbursements if given directly to sectarian schools would violate the First Amendment, and he declared that the fact that they are paid to the parents rather than to the schools does not eliminate the unconstitutionality of the practice. Thus the primary effect would advance religion and offend constitutional prohibition against laws "respecting the establishment of religion."

Many feel now that the decision may also preclude the passage of the federal tax credit legislation which President Nixon vowed to support. Others see the decision as "a final blow to efforts to find some method of aiding parochial schools that would pass constitutional muster." It does end a period of wavering and confusion, but, if past precedents are any guide for the future, the advocates of parochial school aid will not stop their efforts merely because of this setback. It does, however, seem to be a victory for the position long held by Baptists and others and is a reaffirmation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Southern Baptists have had a long history of support for strict separation of church and state in the matter of public school education. A good example of a recent and clear pronouncement on the subject is a resolution which was passed by the 1972 Convention in Philadelphia. This is the substance of Resolution Number Six—On Religious Liberty and No Establishment of Religion:

WHEREAS, there is a massive campaign on state and national levels to tax all citizens to finance education in parochial schools, President Nixon has pledged to find ways of channeling tax funds to parochial schools or their students, and tax credit and voucher plans are now receiving major attention ...

WHEREAS, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was designed to protect religious liberty against government's interference or control and the Establishment Clause was designed, as the United States Supreme Court said since the last annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, to protect against the "evils" of government's sponsorship of religion, government's financial support of religion, government's active involvement in religious activity, and political division along religious lines;

Be it therefore Resolved, by the Southern Baptist Convention in annual session at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 6-8, 1972, that we renew our commitment to religious freedom and its corollary, no establishment of religion: affirm our belief that religion flourishes best without government's interference or its tax support.

Again in the 1970 Convention at Denver, Colorado, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a very strong resolution on "Public and Private Education" which vigorously opposed every effort to open channels for tax money to support private church-related elementary and secondary schools. Many Baptist State Conventions have passed similar resolutions and have gone on record as opposing such federal aid to parochial schools.

Yet, as one compares the above position with the position taken by Baptists on the military chaplaincy an unavoidable inconsistency appears. The military chaplaincy is an area in which there are obvious intermingling elements and interests of church and state. The very words of the 1972 resolution of the Southern Baptist Convention in Philadelphia could be used against the military chaplaincy just as much as they could be used against federal aid to parochial schools:

... the Establishment Clause was designed ... to protect against the "evils" of government's sponsorship of religion, government's financial support of religion, government's active involvement in religious activity.

... Resolved ... that we renew our commitment to religious freedom and its corollary, no establishment of religion; affirm our belief that religion flourishes best without government's interference or its tax support.

The military chaplaincy does involve government's sponsorship of religion and active involvement in religious activity. Nevertheless, Baptists have strangely accepted this at the same time that they have strongly objected to government involvement in other religious activities such as religious schools. If Baptists indeed believe that "religion flourishes best without government's interference or its tax support" they can hardly avoid applying this same principle to the military chaplaincy.

The Southern Baptist Stance on Church and State as Shown By Taxation of Church Property

Another area which obviously may be used to reveal the Baptist attitude toward church-state relations is taxation of church property. It has been recognized by many that exemption of church property is in fact a form of subsidy of the church by the state and is therefore a special area of intermingling of interests of both church and state. One writer has said:

In the United States the churches are in theory voluntary associations, supported by the free contributions of their members. There are, to be sure, exceptions to this rule. By the exemption of church property from taxation the state definitely subsidizes the church, and in certain cases (such as that of the chaplains in the army and navy) pays the salary of certain ministers.

John Bennett points out that tax exemption of church property is perhaps the most remarkable of all forms of aid to all religious bodies on a non-preferential basis. It is more than merely an aid that represents an adjustment to avoid injury. Many athiests and secularists have long protested the unfairness of this exemption because of its forcing them to pay more taxes to replace the difference for what the churches do not pay.

Dawson admits that exemption of churches from taxation furnishes a slightly more plausible proof of church-state collaboration than do certain other things such as chaplaincies in the Congress and the armed forces, religious exercises in state colleges, federal educational aids to GI veterans in schools, Thanksgiving Proclamations, the motto on coins, etc. Many advocates of complete separation believe that church tax exemptions should be abolished.

Dawson quotes William George Torpey in his explanation of how such tax exemptions developed:

The exemption of churches ... is something of a hangover from the early period of establishment, when it was argued that since the church was an agency of the state it was illogical for the state to tax its own instrumentality. In later times the reason assigned has been moral and social benefit to society from the constribution of the churches—the saving in crime costs, inculcation of obedience to law, stabilizing of the social order. Thirty-two states have more or less formulated this theory in legal enactments. In most cases it is stipulated that property must be used exclusively for religious purposes; in others exemption is left optional; but income-bearing church property is uniformly taxable. The courts, as a rule, favor a strict construction of the exemption privilege.

Dawson believed that if church properties should not be held strictly to account, and if they should grow in size to such an extent that the burden of taxes should become unbearable, or shifted to a few, the churches could eventually expect withdrawal of this special privilege. Many feel that this very thing has come to pass in America today; therefore the renewed clamor for abolition of the privilege of tax exemption for churches and similar tax-exempt institutions and agencies.

Some have claimed that the loss in revenues to the states is indeed tremendous and that the general rates of other taxation are obviously greatly increased because of this practice of tax exemption for churches and their various agencies. Some denominations have claimed exemption for office buildings, factories, foundries, lumber mills, distilleries, fruit packing, fishing gear, farms and other kinds of profit-producing corporations which are purely secular in character. This does result in unfair competition with similar business concerns required to pay taxes as opposed to the special privileges granted to the churches. This scandalous situation has caused some states to restudy the entire problem of tax revenues and tax exemptions as related to the principle of separation of church and state, religious freedom, and establishment of religion.

Policies concerning tax exemption of various church properties differ from one state to another. Some states exempt parsonages and rectories, and some do not. Some consider the parsonage or rectory as a necessary adjunct to the church, and others regard it as merely another residence and tax it on the same basis as all other residences. All states exempt places of worship from tax.

Many persons and groups feel that there is no inherent right to tax exemption for rectories or even for churches themselves. The United States Supreme Court in its historic 1970 Walz ruling on church property tax exemptions presented a thorough review of the issue of such tax exemption and approved the tradition of exemption in a far-reaching decision. A Duval County, Florida, school member recently called for an end to tax exemption for all clergy residences. Pennsylvania is considering a proposed constitutional amendment to exempt parsonages and rectories from property taxes.

A landmark case challenging tax exemption for two of the nation's larger church publishing houses, the United Methodist Publishing House and the Baptist Sunday School Board, was heard by the Tennessee Supreme Court in December, 1972. In attempting to collect taxes on the extensive properties, the Nashville assessor contended that neither publishing agency demonstrated that its operation was "purely and exclusively for religious purposes." Attorneys for the denomination agencies insist that their operations have not changed since the State's Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that all property used exclusively for religious purposes was tax exempt.

The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs on October 7, 1969, approved the following statement:

Any claim which churches may make for exemption from the payment of taxes or for special tax status must be based on either (1) the concept of religious liberty, or (2) the concepts of equality or equity....

The ability of government to tax certain church property, such as that used for religious purposes, could at least hinder or prosper particular religious movements or manifestations.... Religious liberty does not demand, however, the tax exemption of all church property and activity. Among historically practiced exemptions difficult to justify on the basis of religious liberty, though some may be justified on the basis of equality and equity, are the following:

a. engaging in business projects unrelated to religious concerns ... in competition with private enterprise.

b. ownership of real property which produces income but which is not taxed for local governmental services.

c. claiming of tax exemption for property which is used for personal residence.

Equality and Equity:

Churches, in operating such publicly standardized services as schools, children's homes, hospitals, pension boards, etc., should be given equality in tax privileges with other nonprofit organizations rendering the same social services to the community... The fulfillment of man's religious potentials, both personal and corporate, should be excluded from the taxing competence of the state.... Service to others should not be exempted simply because it is rendered by religious agencies.

In the 1972 session of the Southern Baptist Convention in Philadelphia the following resolution on taxation was adopted:

WHEREAS, Government requires taxation, and Whereas, the present tax structure in our country is in need of reform, and

WHEREAS, Tax laws favoring special interests foster disrespect for our government and encourage dishonesty,

Therefore be it Resolved, that Southern Baptists call upon Congress to effect a meaningful reform of the tax structure without delay, and

Be it further Resolved, that we urge churches to teach that Christian stewardship includes both the payment of taxes to ensure orderly government and the responsible use of tax revenue to fulfill the public trust.

The above indicates that Baptists are very much aware of the seriousness of this problem of tax exemption for churches, especially for certain church-owned properties and operations. They would agree with many other Protestant clergymen, such as Eugene Carson Blake, who has pointed out that "too much tax exemption, for whatever reason, becomes a serious problem to government ..." His main point is that "to continue the present church tax exemptions indefinitely into the future will jeopardize not only the stability of government but the program and effectiveness of the churches themselves."

It is difficult to analyze the Southern Baptist position on the issue of tax exemption in relation to the entire area of separation of church and state. J.M. Dawson has admitted that the churches, including Baptists, were forced to find another rationale to justify tax exemption when it became necessary to dispose of the original argument which was based on the early period of establishment. Then it was argued that since the church was an agency of the state it was illogical for the state to tax its own instrumentality. He seeks in our time to find justification in the moral and social benefit to society from the contribution of the churches.

It cannot be denied that tax exemptions for churches amounts to a form of federal subsidy; yet it appears that Baptists, along with most other denominations, but probably not to the degree of some, will take the course of some accommodation or expediency to attempt, in spite of the subsidy aspect, to justify maintaining a practice which if substantially changed or terminated would hit hard where it hurts most—in the pocketbook. This reaction might be called one of moderation or accommodation in the interpretation and practice of separation of church and state. It certainly is not a strict interpretation.

This willingness to accommodate some kind of subsidy from the government to religious activities is in harmony with the attitude of willingness to accept the concept of the military chaplaincy. In each case there is an undeniable "aid to religion" in the arrangements, but Baptists have consented to both arrangements and have rationalized them. Apparently, when they desire to do so, they can condone what some call a "multiple establishment of religion" when in certain circumstances the government gives equal aid to all religions on a nondiscriminatory basis.

The Southern Baptist Stance on Church and State as Shown In Charitable Contributions

Charitable contributions to churches as a lawful deduction for federal income tax purposes is another issue which may be used to test the attitude of Southern Baptists on church-state relations. This, in turn, may hopefully shed some light on a consistent attitude toward the military chaplaincy with its church-state involvement.

It is often secularists who challenge the constitutionality of deduction of charitable contributions to churches. To them it is clearly a form of state subsidy out of the pockets of nonbelievers. Many persons who would argue for elimination of the special tax exemption privilege for churches, however, would accept the retention of the deduction of charitable gifts for income tax purposes. John Bennett stated that there were certain leaders of the churches who now raise the question as to whether tax exemption (for church property) is a good thing; however, he added, "I am sure that they would apply this only to property and not to gifts."

The Mills-Mansfield Tax Policy Review Bill of 1972 has a portion (Section 312) dealing with charitable contributions. This far-reaching tax reform bill could possibly eliminate income tax deductions for charitable purposes (including religious purposes) after January 1, 1976. This bill, if passed, would repeal 54 provisions of the Internal Revenue Code over a three-year period beginning in 1974.

Members of the Baptist Joint Committee testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on March 27, 1973, presenting their deep concern for the continuation of tax deductions of voluntary church contributions along with other contributions as provided for in the Internal Revenue Code. They pointed out that in the United States federal and state governments have historically encouraged individual and corporate gifts to nonprofit organizations and institutions. A number of reasons were submitted as to why they held that such nonprofit organizations and individuals should be granted this special tax status.

Here are the reasons which the Baptists advanced:

1. Contributions to charitable organizations promote pluralism and voluntarism in public life. As James Madison observed, the best guarantee against the tyranny of a majority is a multiplicity of interests, both secular and religious....

2. These charitable organizations and institutions provide a substantial public service.... The Internal Revenue Code bases deductibility of charitable contributions, not on religious or sectarian considerations, but on a broad class which embraces nearly all nonprofit organizations—both public and private....

3. Tax deductibility of charitable contributions does not involve government subsidy.... Tax deductions ... represent ... the accommodation of government to the sponsorship of such organizations by those individual citizens who have voluntarily chosen, out of their particular interests, to undertake such sponsorship....

4. The removal of tax deductibility of charitable contributions would substantially reduce public services presently available....

5. Finally, uniform tax incentives to encourage charitable contributions provide equitable treatment within the nonprofit sector.

There is a marked similarity between the previous issues discussed—tax exemption of church property or agencies and lawful deduction for income tax purposes of contributions to churches. Many times they are discussed together as one issue because of their similarity. It is conceivable that the legislature and courts could act in the same direction on both issues, or they could possibly restrict one and not the other. Neither is untouchable.

It is significant that the Executive Secretary of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs never suggested that to eliminate the charitable contribution custom would be unconstitutional. Again, as in the church property tax issue, it is highly debatable that any church could claim a constitutional right of tax exemption. The arguments must be made primarily on other grounds. However, it can scarcely be denied that the practice of both church property tax exemption and income tax deductions for contributions to churches do assist and support all churches and religions. The knowledge of the individual church member that his church contribution can be used as a lawful deduction from his income in figuring his income tax does furnish some motivation for supporting his church. Devoutly religious people should not fear that removal of this little motivation would have a crippling effect on the financial survival of their church. If, indeed, a sweeping tax reform should prove to be advisable from a national viewpoint, and ALL charitable contributions should be eliminated, without any discrimination against religious contributions, the churches would not be justified in rising up in righteous indignation. Certainly many abuses of the income tax laws have developed over the years, and everyone would agree that Form 1040 and the complicated instructions that go along with it are badly in need of a major overhaul, and loopholes should be plugged.

There is a serious question about Baptist consistency on the issue of charitable contributions. Impartial observers see here a predominant financial interest which determines the interpretation of Baptists, along with other denominations, on this issue. It is not likely that on this point they would give Southern Baptists a very high rating on the church-state separation scale. They would say that the practice does not measure up to the eloquent preaching on separation of church and state. They would accuse Baptists, along with other denominations that make no profession of a strict "wall of separation" position, of seeking an accommodation with the state for the sake of expediency in this particular issue.

They would, however, recognize a similarity of the Southern Baptist position on this issue with that of the military chaplaincy. In both cases there is a tendency to "look the other way" rather than to struggle objectively with the difficulties and integrity of maintaining a strict separationist position consistent with their past history, tradition, and pronouncements. They prefer to "pick and choose" the issues in which they will tolerate an "accommodation" between the mutual interest of both church and state.

The Southern Baptist Stance on Church and State as Shown By the Prayer Amendment

On June 25, 1962, the United States Supreme Court held that the State of New York could not encourage in its public schools the use of a "denominationally neutral" prayer provided by the State Board of Regents. The text of the prayer was as follows: "Alimighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." Five Justices held that New York had violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Justice Black maintained that "a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."

Justice Douglas, writing a separate opinion in which he agreed that use of the prayer was unconstitutional, based his opinion upon the somewhat broader premise that money from the public treasury could not be used to finance religious practices of any sort. In other words, to finance a religious practice through tax funds is to establish it. He said, "Our system at the federal and state levels is presently honeycombed with such financing. Nevertheless, I think it is an unconstitutional undertaking whatever form it takes."

Justice Stewart cites examples in which the government has financed religious exercises such as chaplains for the armed forces, as well as for both houses of Congress, and similar practices by the states. He cited a Court decision ten years earlier which stated that "we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being."

There was at once a great outcry from people of many religious faiths who thought that the Supreme Court was taking a position of hostility toward religion. It appeared at first that this was the reaction of many Baptist laymen and ministers. The leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention made a great effort to explain the true significance of the Court's decision.

In October of 1970 the Dirksen Prayer Amendment was attached to the proposed amendment for equal rights for women. This procedure bypassed the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate voted against the proposed legislation. Again in 1971 the Prayer amendment bypassed the House Judiciary Committee and was brought directly to the floor of the House of Representatives for debate and for a vote.

Congressman Fred Schwengel (R-Iowa) wrote an article in the Baptist Program entitled "The Truth About the Prayer Amendment." As a prominent Baptist layman in the North American Baptist General Conference he expressed the belief that the proposed amendment would, indeed, "weaken religion and weaken prayer." W. Barry Garrett, of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs wrote an extensive article which was widely published in Baptist state papers on how the proposed Prayer Amendment would affect future church-state relations. The wording of the amendment as proposed in the House of Representatives was as follows:

Nothing contained in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled in any public building which is supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds, to participate in nondenominational prayer. (House Joint Resolution 191).

Garrett felt that the proposed constitutional prayer amendment was premised on a falsehood and that the results would be a basic alteration of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

He continued:

The falsehood is that the Supreme Court has denied the right of voluntary prayer to school children. The truth is that the Court restrained government from authority and supervision of religious activities in public schools....

The prayer amendment introduces additional principles of constitutional law into the life of the nation. These principles are: ... the location by law of certain religious rites (and rights), and the determination and restriction of the substance or content of prayer that can be offered in public buildings.

Garrett continued by listing some of the side effects produced by the proposed amendment:

It denies the principle of voluntarism in religion by restricting the kind of prayers people can participate in and by giving the government authority to determine the content of the prayers that people can voluntarily pray in public buildings.... The amendment authorizes by constitutional law a perverted form of nebulous religion—nondenominational prayer.

A group of seven national religious leaders and nine congressmen gathered in Washington, D.C., and united in expressing alarm over the effort to alter the First Amendment. Carl Bates, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, was one of the seven national religious leaders. Other Baptists and representatives from other denominations were also present and joined in signing a 900-word statement which said, among other things, that

We believe and aver that we ... now have adequate protection of religion in the First Amendment; that the Supreme Court decisions of 1962 and 1963 served to strengthen that freedom, and that, contrary to its supporters' contentions, House Joint Resolution would restrict that freedom.

Both in the statement and in the press conference which followed, the religious leaders and congressmen pointed out that Americans

...are already guaranteed the right to participate in prayer—nondenominational or denominational, and in buildings public or private. None of this has been diminished by any opinions of the Supreme Court; thus the proposed amendment might actually serve to lessen our religious liberty rather than broaden it.... A nondenominational consensus prayer could only serve to reduce religion to its least common denominator, to neutralize it, and finally to create what might be called a nonsectarian public school religion.

Baptist leaders encouraged Baptist laymen and laywomen to write their congressmen about their feelings on the proposed House Joint Resolution. The general emphasis was that such a constitutional amendment was not needed, and that if passed it would be worse than to let the First Amendment to the Constitution stand as is. Carl Bates wrote a personal letter to each Baptist State Executive Secretary-Treasurer and other denominational leaders expressing alarm over the "pending threat to the First Amendment religious freedoms now guaranteed by the Constitution." Bates called the proposal a "harmless sounding but insidious prayer amendment." He was convinced that it not only was not needed but was a positive threat to religious liberty and proper church-state relations. He felt strongly that "a false issue is being raised by those pushing for a prayer amendment and because our people have not been adequately informed about the issues." Robert D. Hughes, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Southern Baptist General Convention of California, said, "I am in personal agreement with the concerns expressed.... I personally am convinced that the prayer amendment approach is misguided and dangerous."

In its semi-annual session in October, 1971, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs charged that the proposed prayer amendment by authorizing participation in nondenominational prayer would open the door for the government to determine what is acceptable prayer. The Committee gave several strong and convincing reasons for opposition to the prayer amendment. One of those reasons is cited here because of its significance and relevance to an aspect of a so-called "General Protestant" military chaplaincy program. The Baptist Joint Committee protested that under the proposed amendment "a new religion of 'nondenominationalism' would in a measure become established which could threaten the integrity of both church and state."

The Baptist Joint Committee's resolution against the prayer amendment was in harmony with actions by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1964 at Atlantic City and in 1971 at St. Louis. In both of these sessions the Convention voted overwhelmingly against proposed prayer amendments and in support of the First Amendment as it now stands. Enough people finally understood the issues involved and contacted their representatives in Washington, and when the vote was taken on November 8, 1971, the proponents of the amendment failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority by 28 votes.

It appears that this is a very pertinent church-state issue on which Baptists were alert, correct, perceptive and victorious. They deserve an "A" rating on the church-state scale for this. The only point to be added is that Baptists were not alone on this issue. Most of the "mainline" churches joined them in taking the same position for almost the very same reasons.

On the prayer amendment issue, as on the military chaplaincy, Baptists are aligned approximately as the other American churches. When the prayer issue came up for a decisive debate and vote most large Christian bodies agreed that there was no need to change the First Amendment because of the school prayer issue. And, as of now at least, Baptists are also in accord with the same large Christian bodies in defense of the military chaplaincy and in active participation with the government in its implementation. Baptists have shown little inclination to change the military chaplaincy or to civilianize it. Some other groups in other denominations are pressing for this, but Baptists are not. Some of those who are encouraging the abolition of the military chaplaincy as presently constituted are doing so on the basis of separation of church and state. Others are doing so for social and ethical reasons which will be discussed in the next chapter. Some are opposed to the military chaplaincy for both constitutional and ethical reasons.

Baptists do not seem to perceive any inconsistency in supporting both the military chaplaincy and the separation of church and state. Baptists have been strangely silent regarding Justice Douglas' opinion in which he asserted that our federal and state government systems are "honeycombed" with practices in which money from the public treasury is used to finance religious practices such as the chaplaincy. Douglas thinks that all such practices are unconstitutional. In the institution of the military chaplaincy federal funds are used to support religious practices. Douglas would strongly oppose this if it were directly challenged and tested before the Supreme Court. One wonders where Baptists would stand in the event of such a case. It is uncertain whether they would file an Amicus Curei (friend of the court) brief, or would be with the friends who challenged the chaplaincy on constitutional grounds of violation of the First Amendment.

The Southern Baptist Stance on Church and State as Shown In Federal Aid to Denominational Hospitals and Colleges

Having surveyed the present stance of the Southern Baptist Convention on church and state as shown by federal aid to parochial schools, taxation of church property, charitable contributions, and the attitude toward the prayer amendments, it is appropriate to examine federal aid to denominational hospitals and colleges. The purpose of this procedure is to discover tendencies or trends that may prove to have a direct bearing on the church-state relationship in the military chaplaincy.

In 1966 the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention requested the Baptist Committee on Public Affairs to accept a two-year program called "Baptist Education Study Task" to examine Baptist policy and practice in higher education. The study group soon faced a major problem in federal aid to Baptist schools, and this led to a study concerning church-state practices of all Baptist agencies and institutions. The survey was admittedly incomplete because of budgetary and personnel restraints. But it did reveal many areas of interaction between Baptist agencies and institutions and the federal government. The Joint Committee report stated that this is "only one side of the coin." The other side would be the high degree of "separation" that has prevailed between church and state. It stated that religious liberty "requires a judicial balance between church-state interaction and separation." The nine areas of church-state interaction which were examined by the Baptist Joint Committee included both the chaplaincies and tax exemption. The conclusions of the survey recognized that both government and church agencies have not ignored ideals and principles of church-state relations but have in fact attempted to hold them dear. The problem was admitted that "the achievement of one ideal or principle does not always harmonize with the achievement of another ideal or principle and adjustment becomes inevitable."

Most Baptists have believed that acceptance of government grants for denominational hospitals and colleges is a violation of the separation of church and state. It was the Southern Baptist Convention's initiative which produced a revision in 1958 to the Hill-Burton Act to permit a church to accept a loan instead of a grant for a sectarian hospital. In 1993 most Baptist Hospital Boards agreed that they could conscientiously accept federal loans but not grants. But now more and more church hospitals and colleges would like to accept grants as well as loans. Mercer University has agreed to accept a $1.5 million direct federal grant and $5 million from the State of Georgia for its new medical school.

In 1971 the Executive Board of the Baptist General Convention of Texas approved recommendations that the state convention's nine hospitals be allowed to accept grants and long-term, low-interest federal loans. A long and careful study was made by a competent committee before such recommendations were made. They were made reluctantly but out of necessity either to change their method of approach and appeal or die, according to one leader.

The committee was aware of the principle of separation of church and state and indicated that it seriously considered it and analyzed it from many points of view. The committee agreed that its recommendations did not require abandonment of the Baptist policy of separation of church and state. The report said that public tax funds, if approved and received, would be utilized only in helping care for the health needs of the elderly, the needy, and others declared eligible for government financial assistance. The committee members declared that no federal or state funds would be used in any manner to carry on any of the religious or denominational activities within the hospital. One quite revealing statement in their report was that "all Baptist hospitals are extensively (and unavoidably) related with and accountable to federal, state, and local governments."

The Special Hospital Study Committee recommended that the Texas Convention approve a policy allowing the boards of trustees to Texas Baptist hospitals to apply for and to accept capital grants for new and improved services where the hospital is using facilities for recipients under federal or state programs. It further recommended approval to utilize federal low interest, long-term loan arrangements where this would relieve the difference between payments for services for recipients of government programs and the cost for providing the facilities required for serving those patients.

Texas Baptists at the Houston Convention in 1971 voted 1466 to 724 to defeat the recommendations of the Special Hospital Study Committee's recommendations. In another action the messengers voted to release the Memorial Baptist Hospital at Houston from the ownership, control, and authority of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. This action was approved by a three to one vote. In a related action they also voted to release the University of Corpus Christi from the control of the state convention.

These actions indicate several trends. First, it is significant that a select and competent committee which spent much time studying the problems was bold and realistic enough to make such recommendations which it held were right and proper, while knowing that they would prove very controversial and unpopular. Secondly, the fact that one-third of a large and powerful Baptist state convention approved their recommendations is in itself significant. Third, the undeniable fact is that most Texas Baptists who attend the state conventions and vote as messengers are not yet prepared to depart from a strict interpretation of the church-state separation principle. They would prefer to give up the tremendous investment and opportunity of their church-related hospitals and colleges than to violate the First Amendment. The 1971 Texas Baptist Annual Convention followed the precedent set by many previous Baptist Conventions in ruling against allowing such institutions to receive federal money, because of fear that it would lead to government control and violate the principle of separation of church and state. It is not likely, however, that Baptist leaders who have strong convictions on church-state cooperation will change their positions and cease their continuing efforts to effect such changes.

Hugh Wamble has pointed out several dangers for Baptist colleges which secure tax funds for their operations. One danger he discussed is that Baptist educators may sacrifice a basic element of the "Baptist genius, namely, devotion to the principle of church-state separation in educational matters." He feared too that they will lose the character that justifies their existence as Baptist schools, because government control goes with government funds. Wamble pointed out that historically, Baptists have opposed the use of tax funds to finance the operation of church-related schools, and he warned Baptist educators if they want to maintain Baptist institutions, they would be wise to avoid dependence on public funds.

Those who reason that it is consistent and permissable to accept federal loans for college buildings have often used the argument that this is not really a subsidy, inasmuch as the loan is repaid with interest. But here the real question is whether or not the low rate of interest is sufficient to cover the actual cost of the loan by the government, or is the government actually losing money on such loans which losses must be made up out of general tax revenues? Government spokesmen have said that since 1965 the building program must get some support from general tax revenues. It cannot be denied that there is indeed a subsidy of religious institutions through such federal loan arrangements.

The dangers cited above come into sharp focus as one considers the goals and purposes of a denominational college. Earl V. Pulias delineated very clearly some of the goals for the seventies and beyond for the church-related college and then raised two crucial questions. He asked first, "Can and will the church-related college keep its purposes clear and strong and work with faith, diligence, and skill toward them?" He then asked, "Will the people who believe in the goals and purposes of the church-related liberal arts college systematically and generously support them, not only morally but financially?" He held that the more important of the questions is the first one.

If Baptists lose their faith and dedication regarding the basic purposes, natures, goals, and values of their hospitals and colleges as distinctive Christian institutions, they will be inclined to accept more and more federal aid and surrender more and more control of their institutions. Or, the process could start at the other end of the scale and move in the opposite direction. That is to say, if Baptists yield to the temptation to accept "easy money" from the government to support their Christian institutions which they should be supporting themselves from their own contributions, it will be easy to yield to the next temptation and weaken or change their belief in the real necessity of the high spiritual purposes, natures, goals, and values for their church-related institutions. Either way the net result is the same.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Southern Baptists are gradually going the way of most other churches and denominations by accepting and rationalizing more and more federal aid. Of course many Baptists in the "purist" view of absolute separation of church and state would not agree with such tax exemption for denominational schools and colleges. But they are opposed by many denominational leaders and institutional heads who have reevaluated their previous positions.

What can be learned from a study of these trends or facts that have a bearing on the military chaplaincy and its particular church-state involvement?

The first obvious point is that if Baptists tend to justify and rationalize the acceptance of federal aid for their hospitals and colleges, then they will very likely continue to accept the federal aid in the military chaplaincy. A second point is that as Baptists move away from a "purist" view of absolute separation of church and state, they will probably feel more and more comfortable with such an accommodation as the military chaplaincy. A third point is a reluctant admission that there are in fact many extensive and unavoidable intermingling relationships between church and state. Since this is so, it becomes easier to accept the military chaplaincy as another example of these extensive and unavoidable relationships.

This is not to say that Baptists will abandon the policy of separation of church and state. It is, however, to say that some Baptists are moving beyond such a strict, absolute "wall of separation" position that they have generally held in the past. They are gradually moving in the direction that permits them to approve more friendly cooperation and accommodation between church and state in certain areas. There will continue to be many heated debates in the state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention Baptists on these issues. Baptists are far from monolithic on these issues.

Any person who points out dangers for Baptist colleges which secure tax funds for their operations could point out similar dangers for a Baptist chaplaincy that is government supported. A select study committee and state executive board which recommends acceptance of federal grants for denominational hospitals could conceivably recommend the acceptance of the federal support of the military chaplaincy. And a group of messengers at any given state or national convention could approve or disapprove their recommendations on the military chaplaincy as they decide to do so. Such is the unpredictable nature of Baptist parliamentary procedure.

The Southern Baptist Stance on Church and State as Shown by its Interpretation of the First Amendment and Religious Liberty

Not many years ago when Baptist leaders were advocating keeping the church and state "absolutely" separate, they usually meant keeping the church completely free of any financial dependence upon the state. They expressed the strong conviction that the church loses more than it gains by accepting funds from government for any of its agencies or institutions under any conditions. In 1971, an article in the supplemental and updated Volume III of the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists admitted candidly that Southern Baptists have begun to distinguish between absolutism and a realistic view of separation of church and state. "Absolute separation" was recognized as a cliché which never was viable and in fact had never been actually and consistently practiced by Baptists.

Baptists faced some hard questions on religious liberty in the 1960's. Public programs were available to institutions of all kinds. The Southern Baptist Convention, under the leadership of the Education Commission, conducted a two-year study, 1965-1967, titled "Baptist Education Study Task." (BEST). The findings began to document the answer to the basic question, "What is the difference between 'religious liberty' and 'separation of church and state'?" The study emphasized the freedom of the trustees of each school to decide what to do.

To this day most Baptists think they would agree with the following statement from Leo Pfeffer:

"The manifest object of the men who framed the institutions of this country, was to have a state without religion and a church without politics—that is to say, they meant that one should never be used as an engine for the purposes of the other.... For that reason they built up a wall of complete and perfect partition between the two.

However, upon serious reflection, they would probably admit that they do not really agree with all that the statement implies. If they did really agree with it they would also agree with Mr. Justice Douglas' famous statement in his radical concurring opinion on the 1962 case of Engel V. Vitale:

The point for decision is whether the Government can constitutionally finance a religious exercise. Our system at the federal and state levels is presently honeycombed with such financing. Nevertheless, I think it is an unconstitutional undertaking whatever form it takes.

This becomes evident as Baptists ask themselves about the things Justice Douglas had in mind when he said, "Our system at the federal and state levels in presently honeycombed with such financing." To mention a few, the following "aids" to religion can be cited: chaplains in both Houses of Congress and in the armed services, religious services in federal hospitals and prisons, the president's religious thanksgiving and prayer proclamations, the use of the Bible in the administration of oaths, funds to parochial schools or their students or parents, the slogan "In God We Trust" on our money, "under God" in the pledge of Allegiance, the words of the National Anthem, tax exemption of church property, etc. All are examples of intermingling of church and state, but are most Baptists opposed to such practices? It seems that most Baptists would accept most of them but not all of them.

In the 1969 session of the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in New Orleans, a resolution on the First Amendment was discussed and passed. It recognized the vital role Baptists played in the formation of the First Amendment. It also noted that the Supreme Court decision of 1962 and 1963 defined the meaning of establishment of religion. The messengers of the 1969 Convention requested the educational agencies of the Convention and those of the state conventions, associations, and local churches to study carefully the contemporary applications of the First Amendment in the situation they face. This could be easily interpreted as a recommendation to "restudy" and review former positions on various constitutional issues in the light of the changing times.

The 1972 session of the Convention adopted a resolution on the Bill of Rights. It recognized the historic witness of our Baptist forebears to freedom of conscience and the right to dissent. It noted that "in times of social unrest ... and military conflict, the rights and liberties of individuals are subject to compromise." It therefore resolved to

call upon the government, and all in authority, for a solemn and inviolate rededication to the spirit and letter of the safeguards contained in the Bill of Rights ... [and to] urge all Southern Baptists to work effectively as Christian citizens in support of these rights through appropriate legislative, judicial and administrative action.

This position is consistent with what Bennett calls the "Baptist doctrine" of church-state relations. Bennett has said:

There is no Protestant doctrine concerning church-state relations. There is a Baptist doctrine that is very clear and that has always had great influence in this country. There is an American doctrine which has been developing since the beginning of the Republic and some aspects of it are still being clarified by the courts.

Bennett continues by stating his grounds for the separation of church and state. In the midst of this discussion he makes a remarkable statement about the Baptists:

If any churches become lax on matters affecting their freedom they get a strong reminder from the Baptists who are in a special way watch-dogs concerning the freedom of the church, and it is good to have them perform this function.

It is a compliment to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington to have this tribute from Bennett who is such a well-informed scholar from another denomination. It is the Baptist Joint Committee that is the "watch-dog" in this area in Washington. Their monthly publication Report from the Capitol, as well as other program reports and the annual report to the Southern Baptist Convention and other affiliated Baptist bodies, indicate a rather consistent interpretation of the First Amendment and religious liberty. Their interpretation of the Establishment Clause is a broad one. That is, they interpret it to mean not merely a law setting up or tending to set up an established church, but to mean any law in any way respecting or dealing with any kind of an establishment of religion.

Bennett states the issue in this way:

Does the First Amendment rule out not only preferential treatment by the state of any religious body (or bodies), but also all aid to or helpful cooperation with all bodies on an equal basis?

Most Southern Baptists would be inclined to say that the First Amendment rules out all aid to or helpful cooperation with all bodies on an equal basis. The interpretation that the wording of the First Amendment rules out only an established state or national church or that it rules out only preferential treatment of any one religion over others is known as the narrow interpretation. The position that the First Amendment rules out not merely this but also any aid or support to any or to all religions even though on an equal and impartial basis is known as the broad interpretation of the Amendment. The Supreme Court has agreed that the First Amendment is to be given a broad interpretation. In his historical treatment of the various versions, amendments, and compromises which were offered in Congress during the first consideration and debates of the First Amendment, Leo Pfeffer pointed out that the members of Congress specifically rejected several versions with wordings which would limit the power of Congress to make a law establishing any particular denomination or religion in preference to another. Congress rejected such a law because it wished to go farther. Pfeffer said that the rejection of all these versions which expressly and clearly spelled out the narrow interpretation of the First Amendment, seems to indicate clearly that Congress did not intend such narrow interpretation. Baptists heartily agree with this.

More recently, on April 23, 1971, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., an authority on the Federal Constitution, addressed the United States Senate on "The Meaning of the First Amendment." He stated that the narrow interpretation of the First Amendment was incompatible with history. James Madison is known as the author of the First Amendment. Senator Ervin stated that an understanding of Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" is crucial in determining what the Founding Fathers meant when they yielded to the insistence of Madison and wrote into the First Amendment the provision that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Ervin said that on a number of occasions in his Remonstrance Madison use the word "establishment" in contexts which showed that in his mind "an establishment of religion" meant an official relationship between the state and one church or many or all churches and the imposition of taxation for the support of one church or many churches or all churches. Senator Ervin stated positively:

I make the assertion without fear of successful contradiction that no man can read James Madison's Remonstrance without coming to the conclusion that what James Madison and the other men of his generation had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment was that there should be no official relationship of any character between government and any church or many churches, or all churches, and no levying of taxes for the support of any church, or many churches, or all churches, or any institution conducted by any of them.

Again, this is the kind of interpretation of the First Amendment with which most Baptists would agree.

Baptists would agree with Justice Rutledge, too, in the Everson case when he said, "Not simply an established church, but any law respecting an establishment of religion is forbidden."

While appreciating in many ways the recognition and blessing which government gives to religion in our country, some Baptists are asking, "How much government recognition and blessing does it take to "establish religion?" The Public Affairs Committee has expressed the opinion that until the Supreme Court

Comes down to Jefferson's and Madison's simple explanation that they were concerned that there be no official church or official group of churches or no official religion in this nation, the Court will probably hand down some disturbing opinions.

One opinion which the Court handed down which pleased the Baptist Public Affairs Committee and the General Committee on Chaplains was the decision that declared compulsory chapel attendance at the nation's three military academies to be unconstitutional. The three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had declared that "individual freedom may not be sacrificed to military interests to the point that constitutional rights are abolished." James E. Wood, Jr., said the court's decision was "most gratifying and reassuring."

It is to be remembered that this concern was one of those which Justice Douglas had in mind when he said, "Our system at the federal and state levels is presently honeycombed with such financing"—meaning financing of religious exercises. So also did he have in mind the military chaplaincy. He held that one was just as unconstitutional as the other.

Southern Baptists have tended to justify the chaplaincy on the basis of religious liberty for service personnel. However, it could be charged that while emphasizing the religious liberty clause they perhaps have not given adequate consideration to the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Baptists are inconsistent when they preach complete separation of church and state while condoning the chaplaincies in the Congress and the armed forces and other intermingling of functions of church and state. They are beginning to recognize this ambivalence and inconsistency, and some Baptist leaders are opting for a redefinition of the meaning of church-state relations which would allow for some friendly and mutual cooperation and collaboration. There are other Southern Baptists, however, who would go the entire way of a purely secular state and insist on complete separation—even to the point of giving up their hospitals, colleges, and other institutions in order to maintain their strict views or principles.

In the way the military chaplaincy is presently constituted and financed by the government there is definitely an aid to all religions which is supposed to be on an impartial basis. This is what has many times been referred to as a "multiple establishment" of religion rather than a singular establishment of one particular national church. Baptists who are strictly against any kind of multiple establishment or against aid to all religious bodies consistently oppose the kind of government aid and support to religion which is inherent in the military chaplaincy.

The comments of the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs on the compulsory chapel attendance decision by the Supreme Court is pertinent in that he emphasized the significance of "the prohibition of the government's use of religion to serve secular ends." There is a real question of whether the military chaplaincy may be an example of the government attempting to use religion to serve the secular end of building the morale of the serviceman in order to make him a more effective fighter. The government attorneys cited precedents which indicated that to survive a challenge that a law is a "law respecting the establishment of religion," governmental action must satisfy three criteria:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion...; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Apparently the members of the Supreme Court did not agree with the government lawyers' claim that under these standards the chapel attendance regulations were acceptable. The points to be noted are implied in the following questions concerning the military chaplaincies: (1) What is the primary purpose of the military chaplaincy? Is it secular or religious? If it is religious rather than secular it does not satisfy the criteria of a "law respecting the establishment of religion." If it is secular rather than religious, then why are the churches involved in it? (2) Is the primary effect of the military chaplaincy one that neither advances nor inhibits religion? It obviously advances religion, and therefore does not satisfy the criteria. (3) Does the military chaplaincy foster "an excessive governmental entanglement with religion?" The word "excessive" is relative. What might be excessive to some might not be excessive to others. But a good case can be made for the argument that there is excessive entanglement with religion on the part of the government in connection with the present program of the military chaplaincies.

Baptists might take some pride in the accomplishments they have made in the area of religious freedom, but it is well to pay attention to what others think of their record. Anson Stokes stated that the Baptist record still left something to be desired:

The Baptists today are typical of those groups who have fought heroically to secure their own freedom from state interference and would fight again to maintain it; but in freedom of thought and teaching, or even freedom for certain other groups, such as Roman Catholics on the one hand, and liberal theologians on the other, their record has not been so uniformly good.

Another source of thought-provoking criticism of the Baptist position on church-state relations comes from Thomas G. Sanders. He charged that Baptists have chosen portions of constitutional views as stated in Supreme Court cases to their liking while largely ignoring other points. He acknowledged that Baptists are not monolithic on church-state issues, and therefore he attempted to give attention to criticism within the Baptist denomination of some expressions of the Baptist position. He also contended that the Baptist-rationalist alliance in the development of American institutions has left its imprint in the very heart of Baptist theology—despite the contention of Baptist writers that they base their views on the Bible. According to Sanders the more conservative Baptists who claim so strongly to represent the New Testament church lack a sense of the history of Christianity in the intervening period.

Sanders recognized that "Religious freedom through separation of church and state was the greatest contribution of the Baptists (in America), along with other groups, to the theory and practice of politics." But he rightly criticized a tendency of some to absolutize church-state separation and to overlook other methods for achieving religious liberty. He cited the situations in some foreign countries which have found absolute separation of church and state to be a "mixed blessing." He said:

An absolute separation of church and state, for example, would deny the right of religious groups to promote particular policies and lead to secularization of government, marriage, and the armed services.

The most important European critic of Baptists in America has been Gunnar Westin, who stated that the Baptists' view of religious liberty developed originally as a form or defense against persecution and was designed to prevent the state from meddling in religious affairs. He argued that this view has value as a principle of defense when religious or political totalitarianism threatens; but in modern democratic countries where religious persecution no longer prevails, a new view is needed, which seeks co-operation between Christians and the state for the good of society.

There is a "curious contradiction between a theoretical separation of religion and politics along with active involvement in politics." Sanders asserted that the separationists have not thought through the relationship between their interests and activities and the ideology to which they are committed. Merely to petition government to shore up breaches in the wall of separation involves an influence upon government that could not take place if there really were such an impregnable wall. Therefore, the separationists are not consistent. J. M. Dawson spoke of "a true cooperative relation between church and state" in the same book in which he reiterated the absolute separationist character of church-state relations.

Frequently the ideological commitment of some Baptists to absolute separation leads them to base their position on legal rather than on theological arguments. Sanders said ten years ago that many Baptists do not share the views of some of their extreme colleagues, and as an example he spoke in rather complimentary terms of C. Emanuel Carlson as a critic and innovator who rejected both absolute separation and co-operation. Carlson acknowledge that there is an area of interaction between church and state where "some coordination, correlation, and adjustment of plans and programs may take place."

There is a great need to recover a more adequate doctrine of the church as the key to a consistent approach to church-state problems. Winthrop Hudson supported many of the conventional separationist positions, but for a different reason—the integrity of the church, rather than for legal or constitutional reasons. He held the position that the vitality of the churches varies in inverse proportion to their reliance on government. This position is much like the old Anabaptist tradition which urged the church to withdraw from the world to recover its integrity and to prune from its membership those who confuse the Christian faith with the norms of society and who are unwilling to make Christ central in their lives. Hudson reserves the rightful place of religious symbols and activities to the churches, while maintaining the right of the churches to influence society and the state. As Sanders said, "a reformation of the contemporary Protestant church-state view requires separationism, but one with a sense of historical perspective and self-criticism."

What can be learned or applied regarding the military chaplaincy from these criticisms from within and without Baptist circles? The comment from Stokes that the Baptist record in freedom of thought and teaching has not been as good as it might have been is especially pertinent as one considers the primary concern of Baptists for freedom. A study of Baptist history and literature indicates that the occasional denial of freedom for Roman Catholics and for liberal theologians is indeed a part of Baptist history in which most Baptists today take no pride.

It appears that some of the Baptist opposition to federal aid to parochial schools is based on the fact that most of such federal aid would go to Catholic schools. This is indeed deplorable. Stokes' charge of denial of proper freedom to liberal theologians is not without factual substantiation. The turmoil and controversy at some of the Southern Baptist seminaries over liberal professors and their teaching and writing shows the denial of academic freedom which can hardly be excused in this modern age. The argument of the denomination is that freedom must be balanced with "responsibility", but that hardly compensates for the lack of credibility and openness which is proclaimed to the world in the Baptist profession of being staunch proponents of freedom. And unless Baptists can maintain a consistent and impartial concern for freedom for all then their professed concern for the freedom of the military chaplain's ministry will lose some of its credibility and validity.

Sanders' criticism of the Baptist position on church-state issues should provide Baptists insight into the variety of methods for achieving religious liberty. What he advocated for the mainline Christian position is the acceptance of an understanding of religious liberty which would allow an accommodation between church and state in areas such as the military chaplaincy. It would avoid the "wall of separation" hurdle. Sanders, Westin, and Stokes are not alone in advocating this view. Many other respected and competent Christian scholars and theologians support this position. They may view it from different perspectives, for different reasons, and may discuss it with different terminology, but their conclusions are the same.

Sanders pointed out that there never has been an absolute separation of church and state in America, and other countries which have tried it have found it a less than ideal. If there were such an impregnable wall of separation in America the Southern Baptist Convention could not cross over it through its Chaplains Commission to enter into any military chaplaincy arrangements or get involved with politics or government in any other way.

It is true, as Sanders suggests, that Baptists tend to base their position on absolute church-state separation on legal arguments too often rather than on theological arguments. An exhaustive study of the relevant material on Baptists and the military chaplaincy and church-state issues and the First Amendment reveals legalistic rather than theological arguments. One could wish for a thorough philosophical rationale for the chaplaincy instead of a review of the legal precedents and arguments.

Winthrop Hudson has touched upon a more significant and important point in his approach to church-state problems. It is the emphasis on the integrity of the church rather than on legal or constitutional issues. This is not to dismiss the importance of the legal or constitutional aspects. But for the Christian and the church the central issue is one of the integrity of ministry to persons in the name of Christ.

The denomination has encountered this same problem in its acceptance or rejection of federal aid for its church-related institutions. The issue is the true nature and mission of the church-related hospital or college, its distinctive purpose in our society, and the willingness of committed members of the denomination to support its own church-related institutions. There is a parallel here with the military chaplaincy. It is necessary to define clearly the nature, rationale, purpose, and ministry of the military chaplaincy, and then for the denomination to preserve its integrity by commitment to the support of the kind of ministry which the church considers to be valid and worthy of its whole-hearted support. The church must not lose its own integrity or its own soul. There is no federal subsidy or easy accommodation with the government which can justify such a tragic loss.

The Southern Baptist Stance on Church and State as Shown by "The Baptist Faith and Message"

The article of "The Baptist Faith and Message" on "Religious Liberty" reads as follows:

God alone is Lord of the conscience. . . Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work.... The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal ... without interference by the civil power.

Following the example of the older Baptist confessions of faith, appropriate scripture references are placed at the end of the article. In this case they are: Gen.1:27, 2:7; Matt. 6:6-7, 24, 16:26, 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Rom. 6:1-2, 13:1-7; Gal. 5:1; Phil. 3:20; I Tim. 2:1-2; James 4:12; and I Peter 2:12-17, 3:11-17, and 4:12-19. The way these scriptures are used as a basis for the article of faith indicates that Baptists are convinced that their faith is indeed based on the authority of the Bible and not merely on rational or legal arguments. Herschel Hobbs claimed that religious liberty is rooted in the Bible and is inherent in man's nature as God created him. Moreover, it is rooted in the lordship of Christ, and man's ultimate loyalty is to God's will and not to man's authority.

In his discussion of "separation of church and state" Hobbs said that this "does not mean that they have no relations whatsoever." He declared that church and state are mutually related in the normal affairs of life. He said that neither church or state should attempt to tell the other how to discharge its responsibilities or try to use the other for its purposes. Hobbs expressed the personal opinion that "no taxes should be levied against property used strictly for religious purposes" and that "the churches should not receive tax funds for use in discharging their educational, healing, or spiritual responsibility." However he admitted that "obviously" there are "gray areas" in the relationship between church and state. These are subject to interpretation on an individual basis. He does not refer to the military chaplaincy as one of these "gray areas." Nevertheless, his handling of this delicate subject ruled out absolutism in any theory of separation of church and state.

Inasmush as any discussion of church-state relations must include a definition of the term "church" it is important to understand the Baptist definition:

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel.... This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation members are equally responsible.... The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages.

It is to be noted that this Baptist definition of the church as a "voluntary organization" coincided in some ways with that of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and others whose combined influence was so strong in shaping our federal constitution. They took only part of the Baptist definition of the church, omitted part of it, and added to it. The result was that between this hybrid Baptist/Jeffersonian/secularist concept of the church as a voluntary society only, and the concept of the church as a hierarchical society and a public society, like the state, there is a "deep and unbridgeable religious chasm.

Hobbs in his interpretation of this particular article of the "Baptist Faith and Message" emphasized the twofold nature of the church: on the one hand, the church is general in nature and consists of all the redeemed of all ages; and on the other hand (and usually in the New Testament), the church is a local congregation acting democratically and autonomously under the lordship of Jesus Christ. He said that the word "church" in the New Testament never refers to organized Christianity or to a group of churches. It is used to mean "either a local body of baptized believers or includes all the redeemed through all the ages."

It is obvious that any denomination which holds such a definition of the nature of the church would logically and consistently advocate the separation of church and state.

A denomination which has a reputation for advocacy of separation of church and state would normally be expected to question seriously participation in a form of church-state collaboration such as the military chaplaincy. It appears to an astute observer that through the device of the military chaplaincy the church resorts to the civil power to carry on a phase of the church's work and ministry. The government uses part of its income from taxes for the support of the military chaplaincy. The government favors those ecclesiastical groups which have a high percentage of seminary-educated ministers over those groups which do not have as many "educationally qualified" ministers. It favors those who are highly patriotic over those who are "less patriotic." And, finally, there are many who are familiar with the military chaplaincy system who hold that in various ways the civil power does interfere with the way chaplains, as representatives of their denomination, conduct their ministry in the armed forces. All of these principles are contrary to the Southern Baptist statement on "Religious Liberty" as found in "The Baptist Faith and Message."

The explanation of this apparent inconsistency is reflected in Hobbs' discussion of "separation of church and state." Many could take his "explanation" to be a denial that Baptists really do believe in separation of church and state. He said church and state are "mutually related." This is not separation. He admitted that there are "gray areas in relationship between church and state." This is not separation. He said there is room for interpretation on an individual basis. This is not a denominational position on separation. The denomination has not hesitated to take a clear and definite position on certain other crucial issues. Yet it has not done so on this issue.

Hobbs has joined with other Southern Baptist leaders who recognize a need for further study and definition of separation. Until such a study is completed it will be difficult to express clearly a Southern Baptist position on the military chaplaincy.

Summary and Conclusion

Southern Baptists are being challenged by other denominations and groups to review and reevaluate the military chaplaincy in view of religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Baptists have generally followed a strict separationist position or broad interpretation of the First Amendment on issues such as federal aid to parochial or private schools, the "Prayer Amendment," and compulsory attendance at military academy chapels.

Some of their anti-clerical adversaries say that Baptists have generally taken merely a moderate position and have retionalized their self-interest in certain matters such as taxation of church property and income tax deductions for charitable contributions.

Some Baptists are gradually departing from their former absolute position regarding federal aid to denominational hospitals and colleges, and some leading Baptist spokesmen now advocate the acceptance of such aid under certain circumstances.

Many Southern Baptists admit that "absolute separation" never was actually believed and consistently practiced by Baptists. Baptists are beginning to move gradually toward the position that there are possibly SOME areas of church and state COOPERATION that do not violate the First Amendment. There are certainly some "gray areas" which Baptists have never challenged, and the military chaplaincy is one such "gray area."

There are some valid points of outside criticism which Baptists need to consider, confront, and evaluate. Baptists are learning the folly of isolation and perhaps should consider the advisability of cooperation with other Christians and with the state in certain ways for the good of society. The trend seems to be away from their Anabaptist forebears on the European Continent and their withdrawal from society toward a greater agreement with the mainstream historic Protestant churches and their involvement with society. The continuation of this trend indicates some cooperation with the other major faith groups and with the government in some form of military chaplaincy ministry. But this does not rule out changes in the form, content, direction, supervision, and nature of this chaplaincy ministry. These would benefit the churches, the servicemen and servicewomen, and the chaplaincy itself, and would have more spiritual and prophetic impact upon the individuals concerned and upon society at large.

Southern Baptists are no doubt sincere in their belief that their concept of separation of church and state is based on the implicit teachings of Scripture. However, they are being prodded by serious scholars to consider the extent of eighteenth century secularist, rationalist, deist, and liberal political influence on this belief. They can do this without abandoning their principles which are properly based on Scripture, experience, and good judgment.

The Baptist position on church and state is dynamic rather than static. It is constantly growing and changing. It remains anchored to certain basic roots, but it is maturing and "coming of age." Hopefully, this is happening in the best sense of the expressions. Baptists have something worthwhile to offer Christendom in the area of church-state relations, as Bennett and others have acknowledged, but they are moving away from an extreme individualism toward a more sophisticated corporateness. They are interpreting and applying the separation of church and state in the light of an enlightened historical perspective and in a contemporary environment.