CHAPTER VI
THE CHAPLAINCY AND CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL ISSUES

Before suggesting a future stance on the chaplaincy, the present stance of Southern Baptists on the military chaplaincy and certain related ethical issues must be investigated. Some of these issues which are inevitably involved with a study of the military chaplaincy are the following: war and peace, pacificism, conscientious objection, political responsibility, citizenship, international relations, freedom and authority. These issues permeate contemporary studies of the military chaplaincy. In Harvey Cox's introduction to Military Chaplains his opening question is, "The man of God, and the man of war: what have they to do with one another?"

Southern Baptists are vitally concerned with the old, vexing, and unsolved questions of war and faith. Many Baptists are alarmed at the increasing military role in our national life. Although they may not agree with the assertion about America's "imperial ambitions," they cannot ignore this subject. Baptists disagreed among themselves about the role of the churches in the Vietnam issue. Southern Baptists agree that there is a crucial difference between serving in an army which is principally for national defense and domestic tranquility, on the one hand, and serving in an army that holds distant peoples under imperial domination, on the other hand. The difference between most Southern Baptists and Harvey Cox and his colleagues is in defining the nature, purpose, and rationale for the Vietnam War. Most Baptists, as indicated by their convention resolutions and periodicals, did not consider the Vietnam War as holding distant peoples under imperial domination.

Baptist theologians have been among those who "exhorted the religious community to extricate itself from the bondage to the idols of race and state, and to call men back to a covenant of justice and peace." The problem, again, is in defining the specific nature of what constitutes an idol of state or a proper implementation of justice. Southern Baptists should be open and receptive to aid from any source "to help all of us to determine where we stand and how we speak when confronted by the conflicting claims of God and Caesar."

Southern Baptists have too long concentrated on the question of the legality or constitutionality of the chaplaincy instead of the more important question of the quality of spiritual ministry to armed forces personnel. Loyalty and constitutionality are very pertinent and valid issues concerning church-state relations. But morality, ethics, and ministry should be the dominating issues.

Gordon Zahn considers the problem of whether the chaplain might give the military establishment a subtle day-by-day endorsement merely by being on the scene wearing the uniform and holding officer's rank. This, Zahn argues, by the power of symbolic communication, provides a symbol of the military's acceptability in the eyes of the church which the chaplain represents. He is seen as "walking evidence that participation in the military and its operations is not incompatible with the believer's religious obligations and responsibilities." Zahn also shows that it is difficult for the average chaplain to understand and counsel the conscientious objector.

Southern Baptists have nothing to fear or to lose by accepting the challenge "to raise the question anew and determine if and how long and under what circumstances they can continue participating in the chaplaincy." The previous chapter of this dissertation explored this very question in the area of church-state relations. The present chapter discusses the military chaplaincy in relation to certain ethical issues.

The Chaplaincy and War and Peace

Baptists are committed to oppose war and the war spirit. One article of "The Baptist Faith and Message" on "Peace and War" reads:

It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

Consistent with the above article of faith, annual sessions of the Southern Baptist Convention have adopted many resolutions on peace. For example, the resolution adopted in 1972 recognized the Judeo-Christian tradition of world peace and addressed the concern of the messengers for the end of the war in Vietnam. It commended the President for his policy of planned withdrawal and urged the government to utilize the resources of war for the healing of the nations.

The 1969 resolution was stronger than the 1972 resolution. It said that "all Christians, including Southern Baptists, should consistently oppose … war" and specifically mentioned the tragic conflict in Vietnam. The messengers urged all responsible leaders to pursue every possible effort to secure an equitable settlement of the Vietnam conflict as soon as humanly possible.

The 1970 convention adopted another resolution on peace. It acknowledged that "all war is deplorable," that the Scriptures plainly teach respect and honor for governmental officials, and it pledged to give full support to the Commander-in-Chief of our nation in those efforts to bring about a just and honorable peace at the earliest possible time.

These three resolutions are fairly representative of those adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention and various state conventions.

Howard P. Colson set forth the Baptist ideal and practice about war as follows:

Always Southern Baptists have condemned war in principle and held up peace as a Christian ideal, but during periods of national crisis, they have reluctantly admitted defensive warfare as a last resort of practical necessity.

As Henlee Barnette declared, it seemed incredible that the statement concerning the crisis in our nation approved by the Southern Baptist Convention in June, 1968, contained no reference to war or peace—especially in the light of the Vietnam Conflict which was such a disruptive and divisive factor in our national crisis. The history of the pro-war tendencies of Southern Baptists from the Mexican War to the present confirms Barnett's opinion that:

Though pronouncements on peace have been made a number of times by Southern Baptists at their conventions, very little has ever been done in a concrete way to implement them. Even today there is no official commission on peace nor programs for peace in this Convention.

It is true that Southern Baptists have many times made some noble pronouncements and resolutions on peace, and their actions have not always been in accordance with their words. The forty-fourth report of the Social Service Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1952 presented to the Southern Baptist Convention six positive steps toward peace:

1. Redouble effort to reconcile men with God.
2. Do not tolerate complacency about war,
3. Combat a mood of war hysteria and blind hatred.
4. Reject fatalism about war.
5. Oppose primary reliance on military strategy to meet communist aggression.
6. Press for positive programs which have immediate possibilities for peace and justice.

The 1952 report warned against militarism and said that "the creation of a great military power is an invitation to and a ready instrument of imperialistic ambition." It must be remembered that this was at the time when the House Bill incorporating the recommendations of the President's Commission on Universal Military Training had just been voted out of the Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Bill was still in committee. It was not at all certain whether the Universal Military Training Bill would become law.

During this time of debate on Universal Military Training, J.B. Weatherspoon spoke out prophetically:

The imperialists in America want to guide the nation to the point where it can force its will on the world. Do we want Empire? Then compel every youth, train every youth, regiment industry and labor and education. That is the road to Empire and war. Do we want peace in the world? Then confine military and gird the mind and heart of the nation to the preservation of democracy and freedom of life at home, and to the task of creating instruments of rational adjustment and cooperation in international relations.

Fifteen years later Southern Baptists indicated that they still held the same positions on peace. The Christian Life Commission's 1967 report to the Southern Baptist Convention contained a strong section on peace. A part of the special report reviewed some of the Convention's historic commitments to peace. The following reflect typical statements:

1891: … to secure the universal substitution of arbitration in the place of war as a means of settling difficulties among the nations….

1895: … a resolution calling for the establishment of a High Court of Nations to facilitate such arbitration.

1911: … a resolution pledging that as Southern Baptists we will talk up peace and talk down war.

1955: … We raise our common voice in behalf of a strong and unfaltering pursuit of international peace.

Foy Valentine has often urged Baptists to proclaim "those eternal certainties concerning peace which are clearly revealed in the Bible," warned them of their responsibility for "the waging of peace," and challenged them to oppose the many factors which militate against peace in the world. He asked the following crucial questions:

What can be done to protect innocent people from the ravages of war? Can the role of the United Nations be strengthened in achieving peace with justice? Have we allowed national pride to become an impediment to peace? Has a military-industrial complex developed in our nation, causing economic self-interest to become a factor in decisions relating to war and to the sale of armaments abroad? Is the ideal of peace being as diligently cultivated as it ought to be by a free and responsible people?

The Christian Life Commission's 1967 report was amended to include the statement that "this is not to suggest the withdrawal of the United States forces from Vietnam apart from an honorable and just peace." It recognized that there were "Hawks" as well as "Doves" among the messengers. Nevertheless, the remainder of the report was approved, including the following closing exhortation:

We call upon all the churches not to be blinded by distorted appeals to false patriotism so that they lose sight of the personal tragedy, the great sorrow, and the fantastic cost attached to the present conflict [the Vietnam War]. A spirit of solemn penitence is in order.

An obvious dichotomy exists in the Baptist body. There is a strong tendency toward peace, which has been inherited from the Anabaptist spiritual ancestors in Europe. And one sees the strong tendency toward patriotism which was fanned to a flame during the struggle for religious freedom in the American Revolution. The Baptist denomination has both the pacifist tendency and the patriotic tendency. At times one aspect has been dominant, and again the other aspect has been uppermost. The pacifist position has sometimes been idealized, and the patriotic tradition has been repeatedly actualized. Many prophetic voices have warned Southern Baptists of the dangers of a false patriotism based on an inadequate interpretation of Romans chapter 13, and a misunderstanding of a "just war." But Baptists are usually disposed to support the government in armed conflict, and they strongly support the military chaplaincy. They do this in spite of questionable constitutional grounds, of tense church-state separation conditions, and of unresolved theological, ethical, and moral problems.

One Southern Baptist has spoken out strongly and clearly on "Authentic Morality and Militarism." At a 1970 Christian Life Commission seminar Frank Stagg asserted that the United States, not Russia or China, is "the most militaristic nation in the world." He based this on the current military expenditure, the military deployment throughout the world, and the involvement in actual war. He said, "No factor behind militarism and war is sadder than that of church support whether by its silence or voiced endorsement." Of course, not everyone agreed with him, but he did arouse the Baptist conscience.

William Pinson has concluded that "the almost fatalistic acceptance of war … has all but silenced a prophetic Christian witness about war and peace." Like Henlee Barnette, Pinson showed that most Christians hold some form of the just war theory, that "in the main, Christians have spoken for peace," but "in periods of war they have given their support to war."

Some influential Southern Baptist leaders have spoken out against war, but none has gone so far as Gordon Zahn, the noted pacifist Catholic sociologist. He has charged the churches of America with permitting themselves to become "fully responsible accomplices to war crimes and atrocities that have been committed by our nation and her allies in Vietnam." He condemned the churches for their traditional emphasis on obedience to authority and also for the host of associated patriotic virtues including the literal application of the Pauline instruction concerning obedience to designated superiors (Romans 13:1-7).

Although there are Southern Baptists who would agree with part of what Zahn says, most Southern Baptists would find his views quite extreme. They would agree that Baptists should restudy Romans 13:1-7 for some forms of civil disobedience under certain circumstances, and many might agree that the Vietnam war was or became a mistake—but not that it was basically immoral. That debate will continue for many years. This illustrates the dilemma of Baptists about a just war. It is difficult to determine when a just war in the beginning becomes an unjust war in the way it is waged, or when the evil it creates becomes entirely out of proportion to any good it might have otherwise accomplished. Most Baptists approve the theories of the just war as propounded in the writings of Paul Ramsey and others who take similar positions.

Thus, Baptists have no objection to serving as soldiers in a just and defensive war. And they, moreover, have felt justified in providing chaplains to minister to persons in such a war. They have not easily condoned a warlike spirit, vindictiveness, or hatred. Yet they do not hold that Christianity is inconsistent or incompatible with every form of war. Herschel Hobbs has stated the Baptist position that "there is a difference between offensive war for greed and defensive war to preserve that which is good." He quoted approvingly the statement of E.Y. Mullins that "there are forms of war and oppression which only war can destroy."

In taking such a "just war" position Baptists have been like most of the other religious bodies in the Western nations. A poll of American Protestant clergy, taken in 1963, revealed that the bulk of the clergy tended to go along with the majority feeling and supported the military program as in past wars.

Probably the area in which Baptists have been most inconsistent with their own past traditions and practices is in their attitude toward conscientious objectors. Historically, Baptists have stressed liberty of conscience and have made some provision for the believer who objected to participating in warfare or in combat for reasons of religious convictions and belief. The 1940 Convention recognized the right of a conscientious objector to his convictions and instructed its Executive Committee to provide facilities for his registration with the denomination. The Social Service Commission reported to the 1944 Southern Baptist Convention that 23 members of their churches were enrolled as conscientious objectors. But Southern Baptists have made no provisions to care for conscientious objectors in camps. They declined to pay any of the expenses or costs connected with those who were so classified. The 1944 Convention approved the following statement:

The preservation of freedom of conscience which is basic to every freedom of our cherished democracy is the first charge upon the Christian churches of America in the midst of this global war.

By 1970 a total of 60 conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War had registered with the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. At the 1969 annual session the Convention defeated a resolution which would have reaffirmed its action in support of conscientious objectors which was taken in 1940; however, it was understood that this did not nullify the 1940 action. The plight of a sincere conscientious objector to the Vietnam War on religious or moral grounds because of religious teaching and training was indeed a sad situation. Some registered with their draft boards and were assigned alternate service. Others did not object to all wars but did object to this particular war. Since the government did not grant exemptions to those who objected to a particular war, these men had to accept civil or criminal penalties for their conscientious action in many instances. Some of them went to jail. Others, rather than face jail sentences, left the country and went to other countries such as Canada or Sweden.

Roger L. Shinn discussed five young men who courageously dissented against national policies in Vietnam. He called these men "five patriots." Shinn agreed with the logic of "selective conscientious objection." He said:

Certainly nobody of Christian or humane conscience could favor all causes in all wars. Hence it followed that a responsible person—unless he was a total pacifist—was morally obliged to distinguish between those wars which he could conscientiously support and those he could not.

Frank Stagg contended that the youth of the country ought to have the option of selective conscientious objection. He spoke of the "incredible irony and basic dishonesty that in the war trials in Germany we required of German officers the exercise of the very principle of selective conscientious objection which we deny our own sons."

Many Southern Baptist Chaplains were ill-prepared to counsel conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War. Little or no assistance or guidance was given the chaplains by the Chaplains Commission or any other agency of the denomination, and, consequently, many of them must have failed to meet their full responsibility as pastoral counselors.

There is a "conditioning" effect of the military establishment which must be counteracted by the church or denomination which the chaplain represents if he is to be able to function primarily as a pastor rather than as a commissioned officer in such situations. Gordon Zahn is probably correct when he writes:

Those who volunteer for service in the first place are likely to be the clergymen with the most favorable attitudes toward the military; once in the service, socializing effects of participation in the military community (exposure to its values and traditions, the experience of camaraderie with fellow officers and men, etc.) could only serve to intensify that original predisposition; this, in turn, will produce a close and committed identification with the service to which one is attached, and to its purposes, leading him to become its advocate, and, when necessary, its ardent defender.

Most Baptist Chaplains have been and are now highly motivated by patriotism and enter the service with favorable attitudes toward the military. It could hardly be otherwise. Even if their understanding of "patriotism" were quite liberal and flexible, if they did not have a favorable attitude toward the military, they would not likely volunteer for this specialized ministry. And even if a few strong and independent chaplains by chance should volunteer to serve the military personnel in spite of an unfavorable attitude toward the military establishment, they would not remain on active duty very long.

This is not to imply that all chaplains on active duty today condone everything in the military establishment, or that they are perfectly satisfied with all that is involved in the present chaplaincy arrangement. But it is to state candidly that without a basically favorable attitude toward the military they would not likely have volunteered in the first place or remained on active duty very long in the second place.

It becomes obvious at this point of the present study that some of the issues being dealt with lead directly into another and a wider area of investigation. Basic to the above discussion of war and peace and related issues is the question of the church's responsibility to the state or to society in the arena of politics, international affairs, and individual Christian citizenship. A rationale for any future stance toward the military chaplaincy must be set in perspective against the background of such issues. And without a clear understanding of the present Southern Baptist stance relating to the military chaplaincy and these social, political, and citizenship responsibilities, no intelligent future stance can be proposed.

The Chaplaincy and Citizenship

"The Baptist Faith and Message" has an article concerning the Christian and society and Christian citizenship. Herschel Hobbs comments that, although Baptists generally do not accept a social gospel, they do believe in "a spiritual gospel which has social implications." The officially-adopted statement reads as follows;

Every Christian is under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in his own life and in human society…. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness.

Hobbs reminds his readers that the Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms—the kingdom of God and also of some nation. Referring to Matthew 11:21 (the "God and Caesar" passage) he says that the Christian should be a good citizen of both kingdoms. He also endorses the often-heard principle that "God has ordained the institution of government." On the basis of Romans 13 Hobbs says that everyone should be subject to government rule. He rules out violation of the law "so long as it does not violate the Christians's relation to God." His position is that the Christian should use "due process" to try to change laws which he believes to be wrong, but "so long as it is the law, the Christian should obey it." This is the position of most Baptists, although they are not completely unanimous on the expression of dissent through nonviolent civil disobedience.

If Christians are obligated to obey all the laws of their government, they are obligated to obey the laws concerning selective service for the military in time of war. Of course there are several alternatives to this position. The church can take a position of pacifism if it chooses to do so, or it can recognize and support the right of individual conscientious objection. There are several possible positions on conscientious objection which the church can recognize and support. These are: (1) conscientious objection to participation in any way in all wars; (2) conscientious objection to combatant duty in the armed forces, along with willingness to serve in a non-combatant position; (3) selective conscientious objection to a particular war on the grounds of individual Christian conscience or conviction that the particular war is immoral or unjust.

The denomination can recognize and support the right of individual "conscientious participation" in war on the part of its members. This is the Baptist position. Another possibility is for the church to refuse to take any official position on war and leave participation or objection entirely up to the individual church member.

Similar possible courses of action are options in citizenship responsibilities for the individual Christian or church member. The basic direction is usually determined in the decision of the church either to "withdraw" from society or to "participate" in society. Either position involves certain consequences and responsibilities. The present Southern Baptist position is to participate in society rather than to withdraw. This is also reflected in numerous resolutions adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention and various state conventions.

This is one respect in which present-day Southern Baptists differ sharply from the older Anabaptists. Unlike the European Anabaptists, English and American Baptists found nothing in the scripture which justified withdrawal from political life. They interpreted Jesus' words in Matthew 22:21 "not only as an injunction for obedience to civil law but as warrant for participation in the government." T. B. Maston followed the same interpretation as he wrote: "It is assumed that the Christian will participate in the life of the world. He cannot count for Christ in the world if he isolates himself from the world." He points out that the two strategies of the church regarding the world and its problems—withdrawal and identification—are somewhat comparable to what H. Richard Niebuhr labels "Christ Against Culture" and "The Christ of Culture."

Thus Baptists have refused to withdraw from the world and leave the running of the government to unbelievers. They recognize that one of the purposes of government is to provide for the common defense. This requires an armed force of sufficient power to do so. Moreover, governments do not operate in isolation from other nations. Commitment to citizenship responsibility therefore involves certain responsibilities in international affairs. Some of these responsibilities lead to "power politics" and the possibility of the use of armed force to settle disputes when all else fails. Baptists seem to be well aware of the connection between citizenship responsibility and responsibility for political decisions that in some instances may lead to war.

Most thoughtful Baptist would agree with the point of view expressed by Ambassador George F. Kennan in a lecture at the Princeton Theological Seminary. While admitting that force cannot be completely ruled out in international affairs, he emphasized that attention can still be given to the ways in which force is applied. He was speaking of the moral implications of weapons and their uses. He held that the weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction goes farther than anything the Christian era can properly accept. He pointed out that prior to World War I a distinction was generally drawn between the armed forces and the civilian population of a hostile country, and efforts were made to see that military action was directed only against those who themselves had weapons in their hands and offered resistance. Kennan said that atomic weapons and area obliteration bombing offends these moral principles. He admitted that in such events as the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, Americans went beyond what the dictates of Christian conscience should have allowed. As an American and as a Christian he expressed regret that these things were done and said that it should be our aim to do nothing like this in any future military encounter. He said:

If we must defend our homes, let us defend them as well as we can in the direct sense, but let us have no part in making millions of women and children and noncombatants hostages for the behavior of their own governments.

It will be said to me: This means defeat. To this I can only reply: I am skeptical of the meaning of "victory" and "defeat" in their relations to modern war between great countries. To my mind the defeat is war itself.

It may be true that in this atomic age war is defeat in one sense, especially if it be general thermonuclear warfare. But no other interest of the state is deemed by it to be more essential than defense against a foreign enemy. The Supreme Court has frequently recognized that this interest in survival is paramount over other interests and that other interests and liberties must yield when the nation's safety is in peril. This includes the demands of military defense as dominant over the claim of conscientious objection to military service. The Supreme Court has rejected the assertion that it is a "fixed principle of our Constitution that a citizen cannot be forced and need not bear arms in a war if he has conscientious religious scruples against doing so." The Court emphasized that the privilege of the conscientious objector to avoid bearing arms comes not from the Constitution but from acts of Congress.

Several Supreme Court cases justify the paramount priority of national defense, notwithstanding the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment. Pfeffer says that it is on this basis (the priority of national defense) that the Federal government can constitutionally finance paid chaplaincies in the armed forces. He admits that if the result is to compromise the separation of church and state, "that is tragically not the only constitutionally secured liberty that is sacrificed to the demands of war." He justifies this as constitutionally permissible because it is necessary to infringe some freedom in the interests of national safety. He qualifies this, however, by adding, "This infringement, however, is constitutionally permissible only to the extent that it is necessary." He was writing in a context which included not only military chaplaincies but also conscientious objection and the "clear and present danger" policy of the Supreme Court.

Therefore, most Baptists agree that the duty of qualified citizens to serve in the armed forces when required to do so by the laws of Congress is a component of civil obedience. Notwithstanding this generally accepted axiom, during the recent Vietnam War thousands of citizens resisted and defied the laws concerning selective service. Many who did so followed the same line of reasoning suggested by Martin Luther King in his "Letter From the Birmingham Jail":

One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws …. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty … is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Most Baptists support Will Herberg who challenged King's view of civil disobedience. Herberg went back to Romans 13 and Acts 5:29 and asked, "When does loyalty to God come into conflict with obedience to earthly rulers?" He answered "When earthly rulers are insensate enough (as totalitarian earthly rulers invariably are) to demand for themselves what is owing only to God—worship and ultimate allegiance."

The early Christians were commanded by the apostles to obey the laws of the pagan state whether they held these laws to be just or unjust—provided the Emperor did not claim for himself the worship and allegiance owing only to God. At that point, as Herberg indicates, they were to draw the line by refusal to participate in the pagan abominations. Many Christians refused to do this, but they did not set up mass picketing of the temples, or organize sit-ins in the public buildings. They merely courageously refused to participate in idolatry and accepted the consequences.

Most Evangelical Christians rejected King's position of civil disobedience. They felt, as Herberg did, that if every man's conscience is absolutized and made the final judge of laws to be obeyed or disobeyed, nothing but anarchy and the dissolution of the very fabric of government would result. There is much evidence to indicate that most Southern Baptists would agree with Herberg rather than with King.

If there is a Christian moral obligation for Baptist laymen to serve in the armed forces in civil obedience to the laws of Congress, this at least solves the moral aspect of the military chaplaincy ministry. Wherever church members are, their pastors or ministers ought to be there ministering to them and to all who choose to accept and respond to their ministry. If there were clear theological justification for Christian refusal to serve in the armed forces, then this in turn would furnish theological justification for pastors and ministers to refuse to work within an immoral and unethical establishment.

Baptists have found no such theological justification for Christian refusal to serve in the armed forces, and they see nothing basically immoral about the presence of a chaplain in the military environment. Most Baptists in America recognize the necessity of the use of military force in certain situations. Dean Acheson asked the question that thousands of Baptists have asked, "Is it moral to deny ourselves the use of force in all circumstances?" Acheson replied that this would be stupid and almost immoral. Ramsey supported Acheson's opposition to the propensity of religious people and groups to mark down the notations "moral" or "immoral" beside the specific policy decisions of magistrates without first considering the nature of politics. Acheson and Ramsey both contend that the church's business is not specific policy formation but that this is the responsibility of the magistrate or politician. They say that the church as such should be concerned with general perspectives upon politics and not with specific directives. That is, they should nurture the moral and political ethos of the nation. In so doing they aid in forming the conscience of the statesmen. Ramsey concluded with this appeal:

Let the church be the church and let the magistrate be the magistrate. Let both keep their distances. May there be less confusion of these roles. Let the President advance policies without playing priest-king to the people in exercising his ruling under God's overruling. Let the churches advise the magistrates under their care in less specific terms, while always renewing in them the perspectives—all the perspectives—upon the political order that Christianity affords.

Of course, not all Christians, and certainly not all Baptists, would consent to Ramsey's advice that the church limit its guidance to magistrates to general perspectives in nonspecific terms. Baptists and others have long maintained what can be called "lobbies" in Washington which definitely advise individuals and committees of government in very specific terms at times. Some call this an inconsistency in the professed church-state relation, but this is in fact what takes place through the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs and through resolutions on specific issues which are adopted at annual sessions of the Southern Baptist Convention and further addressed to individuals or various agencies of government.

On the other hand many evangelicals contend that the church ought not to get mixed up in politics because "politics is dirty." But there are many more influential and knowledgeable leaders who counter by saying that "we are mixed up in politics whether we want to be or not." Articles have appeared in Baptist publications on "How to Preach on Political Issues," and books have been written by and for Baptists to provide guidelines for "constructive, creative Christian citizenship" with a practical "how to do it" approach. Therefore most Baptists find no inconsistency in the ministerial or ecclesiastical role of "advising the magistrate." Accordingly, many Baptists see no inconsistency in the role of the military chaplain "advising the commander or government representative."

The criticism of the chaplaincy does not usually come from this direction. The criticism is more likely to be that the chaplain does not speak out prophetically often enough to criticize and influence the military establishment as much as he should. And this leads into the next issue of this chapter: the question of the freedom of the chaplain to minister effectively within the present context of chaplaincy structure.

The Chaplaincy and Freedom And Authority

Baptists have long maintained a strong tradition for political and religious freedom, including the freedom of the pulpit. The preacher as the divinely-called man of God who is ordained to preach the gospel should be completely free to preach this gospel as he understands it from the Scriptures without hindrance from ecclesiastical or governmental authorities.

Many have questioned whether within the framework of the military chaplaincy as presently constituted the chaplain is indeed free to proclaim the message of God as his conscience dictates that he should. The prophet often proclaims a message of judgment which criticizes the culture and actions of earthly institutions. The chaplain serves under the command of a commanding officer and of other higher commanders on up to the Secretary of Defense and the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The chaplain and other military personnel are controlled by the regulations of their respective service and by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other statutory laws. They take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and voluntarily accept their commission as officers of the armed forces. They are given thorough security checks and are required to maintain strict loyalty and allegiance. They are subject to court martial as are other members of the military. They may be disciplined and given low efficiency ratings and must accept assignments which are given them. They may be "passed over" by promotion boards or "selected" for elimination from the service.

These are powerful tools which can be used to exercise great authority over a chaplain and restrict his freedom of ministry and keep great pressure upon him to conform to what he knows the service expects of him. The chaplain knows that the government pays his salary and determines his career destiny. It would be unrealistic to argue that all these factors have no influence on his ministry within the military establishment. It is the military, rather than the denomination, which really controls the chaplain.

The "Baptist Faith and Message" specifies that "God alone is Lord of the conscience." It declares that "church and state should be separate", and that "the church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work." It expresses the principle that religious freedom includes "a free church in a free state … and implies the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power." Hobbs' comment on this article is that "it denies to any civil government, or religious system the right to come between God and man (I Tim. 2:1-6)." He asserts that "the state should not commandeer the church for political ends" and "the church should be free to determine its programs of worship, evangelism, and missionary activities." These words were not written with the military chaplaincy in mind, but their application should be studied from that perspective.

Again and again the question of the essential purpose of the chaplaincy keeps returning. A former Southern Baptist Chief of Army Chaplains is reported to have said, "The purpose of the chaplaincy is to make better men and more efficient soldiers." This being a prevalent attitude, perhaps Gordon Zahn is justified in claiming that at times the military chaplaincy has been little more than a device for lulling disturbed consciences into a contented acceptance of raisons d'etat when events force "Christian" nations into violent confrontation on the battlefield. If the purpose of the chaplaincy is to make more efficient fighting men then to that degree (to use Hobbs' phrase) "the state has commandeered the church for political ends." Zahn says that the medical officer and the chaplain are in the armed forces because they "can make a contribution, usually quite direct and essential, to the total military effort."

The chaplain's contribution, other than purely religious, is sometimes to reduce the serviceman's fear of incurring guilt by killing the enemy and to motivate him to be a better fighting man. The chaplain can do this even without directly and verbally urging men in combat to greater and more dedicated participation in the war effort. Zahn's position is that merely by assuming military rank and wearing the military uniform and "just being there," the chaplain affirms that there is no basic incompatibility between the values represented by the church or denomination and the war being waged by the state. If this is true, it could be called an instance of the state "using" the church for political ends.

In 1953 Waldo W. Burchard wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in which he concluded that the chaplain sees himself "as responsible to the commanding officer rather than to God." This is a sweeping indictment to which Zahn subscribes in a qualified way with a "provisional (but partial) concurrence."

Many former chaplains have likewise expressed severe criticism of the chaplaincy. One contends that "the conscientious clergyman is muzzled by a vicious system which rewards compromise and punishes integrity." Zahn considers this a "harsh and bitter judgment" and hints that he does not subscribe to such a radical viewpoint. But Zahn still believes his hypothesis that:

through personal associations and involvement in a military role the chaplain cannot fail but be affected by the values and commitments appropriate to that role and general setting in all that he thinks and does. To the extent that he succumbs to the influence of military values and surroundings, he is the less likely to be fully alert, or sensitive to his continuing responsibilities as a practicing official of the ecclesiastical establishment.

Many chaplains vehemently deny Zahn's and Burchard's evaluations of this matter, but it is difficult to propose a rational argument that will withstand their logic. The chaplain's freedom of thought and ministry is gradually and almost imperceptibly eroded unless he is quite conscious of the process and takes deliberate action to keep himself free for a ministry of personal integrity. That the Chaplain can be free must be admitted by all who study the subject carefully. But that it might be as Zahn theorizes should be denied by none.

Another aspect of the problem which Zahn's study reveals is the limited scope of influence a chaplain's protest has, especially in a combat situation. Often the chaplain feels helpless and unable to protest effectively in any way which would influence or change the decisions or policies of superior military authority. This helplessness was shown in the responses to questionnaires which Zahn studied. Such powerlessness, to the extent that it exists with particular chaplains, does contribute to a subordination to the authority of command rather than to the authority of conscience in a situation which is so frustrating that only one who has endured it can understand or appreciate it.

The lack of freedom in the military chaplaincy is a controversial subject. Some chaplains readily acknowledge a degree of truth in this: others vehemently deny that there is any truth to the charge. A few say there is more freedom in the military chaplaincy than there is in the average Baptist church with its congregational government, deacons and other church officers, business meetings, and "programs" from the local association, state convention, and Southern Baptist Convention. The same principle could be applied to other churches and denominations with different systems of church government.

Just as charges have been made about the loss of freedom and the compromise of ministry in the chaplaincy, there have been at least an equal amount of well-documented and carefully-reasoned defenses of the present military chaplaincy. Richard Cheatham wrote a fine article for The Chaplain magazine early in 1971 which frankly faces the problems and discusses the dual role of the chaplain as clergyman and as officer. He begins as though he were convinced that there is a great conflict between the chaplain as a man of God and as an officer in uniform. He asks, "Can he be true to both? Can he honestly be a minister of Christ and simultaneously be a part of the military machine?" He admits that "it appears difficult for a chaplain to speak out in a critical voice against command policy without some form of repressive measures being taken against him." His conclusions, however, are that these criticisms fail to take into consideration the real nature of "the military way of doing things." Within the military framework, he contends that it is possible for the military chaplain to serve in a prophetic way in practical freedom of ministry. Some essentials for such a successful and uncompromising ministry Cheatham suggests are: (1) a thorough understanding of army procedures and customs, (2) a good relationship with the commanding officer, (3) a knowledge of how to use his rank and "privileges" for the good of the men he serves, (4) a good relationship with junior officers and enlisted men. As a good staff officer he can and must oppose whatever he sees as contrary to a Christian understanding of life.

Another defense of the present military chaplaincy system claimed that:

The military commander is, in fact, probably less likely to make arbitrary, capricious, or poorly thought-out decisions than is the bureaucrat in business, labor, government, or academy, safeguarded by tenure and operating behind fuzzy lines of responsibility…. As awesome as the concept of military command sounds initially to one who stands within the Christian context, it is probably no more restrictive than any other system.

The spokesman for this viewpoint gives no factual data to substantiate his theory, so it must be accepted or rejected on its face. There are, however, many chaplains and others in the military or with military experience who would question the above statement. There is little doubt that the military commander, with courtsmartial jurisdiction, has more authority over the members of his command than an office manager has over the civilians who work in his office. The system with the greater authority is likely to be more restrictive. However, that does not invalidate the basic fact that the "awesome concept of military command" over chaplains may be grossly exaggerated by those who do not understand "the system."

In view of the way the military system operates, the chaplain must conscientiously seek his sources of authority. He must be, above all else, God's obedient servant. The chaplain must ask the question: "To whom does a Christian owe obedience?" He can be helped by John Kennedy's four sources of authority for the Christian:

First, he is to obey what he knows of the will of God…. Second, Christ claimed obedience to his own lordship…. Third, the church and its leaders and sources of authority…. Finally, there is the admonition for Christians to obey those who exercise lawful authority in the world. Children are to obey their parents, servants their masters, citizens the magistrates…. The obedience to which the Christian is called leads to freedom rather than to obsequiousness.

This recognition of the legitimate authority of the magistrate over the Christian does not define its nature and limits. It is assumed one could accept the traditional understanding of civil authority which does not extend to ultimate allegiance in matters of conscience, which belong to God rather than to Ceasar. Nevertheless, legitimate state authority has pertinent application in the authority and freedom of the chaplain ministering the gospel to persons within the military system. A measure of command authority, which parallels the authority of the magistrate in civilian life, could be expected and accepted by the military chaplain in his specialized vocation.

The commander is forbidden to exercise undue command influence over the judge advocate in courtmartial cases. The commander does not presume to tell the doctor how to perform surgical operations. In like manner the commander has no authority to tell the chaplain what to preach and how to exercise his professional ministry. The staff officer advises the commander in these matters. The commander does not dictate to the professional staff officer how to practice his profession. If a commander attempts to do this he jeopardizes his own position as a good commander.

The limitation of authority of the military commander is linked to the twin concept of the limited power of government. Government does not have unlimited power. This could be illustrated in many ways. For example, the present government is limited by the Constitution. It is also limited by an idea of an eternal, unchangeable law which is universally binding upon all. This law, which is based upon right reason, is sometimes called natural law. The power of government, and the authority of military commanders, along with all human authority, is limited by the inalienable rights of man. Civil authority is likewise limited in that it has no jurisdiction over matters of religious belief and practice. James B. Wood, Jr., says that any denial of religious liberty is beyond the rightful jurisdiction of the state because (if for no other reason) it violates the fundamental rights of man. Similarly, it is beyond the authority and jurisdiction of civil government to use political means for the promotion or the prohibition of religion. Wood concludes as follows:

This is precisely the theological basis for disestablishment and the separation of church and state, in which government is expressly prohibited from establishing or maintaining any jurisdictional power over religion.

The concept of the limitation of the authority of governmental representatives, such as magistrates of military commanders, should effectively remove them from the "chain of command" or authority over the chaplain as "the man of God" in his function as minister of the Lord.

It may seem strange that, when one concept of authority justifies the citizen's obedience to civil authority, another principle (that of liberty of conscience, or ultimate obedience to God) turns all people back to the limited authority of the state. But this is not new. Over three hundred years ago, in their Standard Confession of 1660, after English Baptists affirmed their support of civil authority, they added:

But in case the Civil Powers do, or shall at any time impose things about matters of Religion, which we through conscience to God cannot actually obey, then we do hereby declare our whole intent and purpose, that we will not yield, nor in the least actually obey them … but suffer whatsoever shall be inflicted upon us, for our conscionable forbearance.

The chaplain's serving under the authority and command of a military officer is to some extent similar to the citizen's obedience to civil authority and government. There are particular differences in the two relationships, but it must be remembered that the New Testament does not make such a great distinction between the clergy and the laity. The citizen-soldier and the citizen-chaplain face essentially the same basic tensions. If they both follow similar courses of thinking and spiritual inclinations, they should both arrive at approximately the same conclusions concerning their duties and vocations regarding the military establishment.

Indeed, this is basically the situation which the Christian faces regarding participation in politics. If the Christian citizen has an obligation to get involved in politics and offer his public service, and the Christian citizen in a time of national emergency is obligated to offer his military service, then the pastor is obligated to minister to the persons who risk their all in a cause of justice and national defense.

This, however, does not mean that the Christian politician lowers his standards of integrity, or that the citizen thoughtlessly volunteers for any war of aggression or wanton devastation, or that the chaplain sacrifices his conscience and meekly follows the orders of higher commanders without speaking out prophetically as the situation warrants. Authority is balanced by freedom; duty is balanced with conscience; and involvement is balanced with morality. For the Christian it can be no other way.

The same fundamental ideas were emphasized in different words in an outstanding message delivered by Foy Valentine to the Southern Baptist Convention in Portland, Oregon, June l4, 1973. Baptists believe in morality as an important part of the gospel. Valentine criticized the position taken by B.F. Skinner, who wrote that man is not formed for personal freedom and is not meant for individual dignity. The Christian is free and morally responsible, and the chaplain must be free and morally responsible.

Baptists clearly expect all their ministers, including military chaplains, to be morally responsible prophets and evangels. One position that Valentine criticized is a ruinous withdrawal from the moral battle, withholding moral judgment, and everlastingly attempting to maintain moral neutrality. He suggested that this "often results in an insistence that it is better to be prudent than prophetic." There are those who want an "evader and not an evangel, a parrot and not a preacher, a puppet and not a prophet." He said that victims who accept this concept of the ministry "have an overpowering desire to rock no boats, make no waves, muddy no waters." While these words were not addressed specifically to chaplains, but to all Southern Baptist ministers and churches, they reflect the advice of some senior supervisory chaplains and commanders to chaplains who were struggling to maintain the prophetic freedom within the authoritarian military system. The chaplain must be free to challenge the state of affairs within the military structure and to call attention to things there that are not as they ought to be. Baptists have every right to question whether the chaplain in the present arrangement of accommodation with church and state relations, in military uniform, and under military command, can effectively exercise the prophetic function in freedom and challenge the status quo.

The present Southern Baptist position is apparently an assumption that the chaplain can do this, and that the present system of government pay, military rank, and acceptance of military obedience do not constitute a crippling limitation on the freedom of ministry. This is the position of the report of the Home Mission Board in response to the O.K. Armstrong Resolution presented in the 1972 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Conventions. This position was approved by the Home Mission Board in its fall meeting on November 29, 1972, and was approved at the Portland Convention without a dissenting vote. The key word in the statement is the word "crippling" in the phrase "crippling limitation on freedom." It suggests that the present military chaplaincy system does constitute some limitation but not a "crippling" limitation on the freedom of ministry. Webster's dictionary definition of "crippling" is: "lame; worn out; inferior; to deprive of strength, efficiency, wholeness, or capability for service." The report did not dare omit the word "crippling" and stated forthrightly that these things do not at all limit the freedom of ministry.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is possible that the military chaplain can minister without a crippling of his freedom within the present chaplaincy system of accommodation with church-state relations. Suppose, too, that the acceptance of government pay, military rank and acceptance of military obedience, do not necessarily compromise the chaplain's ministry. There still remain crucial issues. The present system may not be the best system of all possible alternatives for ministry to armed forces personnel. It may not provide the most effective exercise of prophetic function in the maximum atmosphere of freedom in Christ to minister to armed forces personnel. The churches dare not assume that the opponents of the present chaplaincy system will continue indefinitely to allow its existence without repeated court attacks and tests. It is folly to presume that the present chaplaincy system is so secure that there is no need to plan for other future alternatives either because of possible legal reasons or abuses of the present system.

The Southern Baptist Convention's cooperation with the government in the present military chaplaincies (and other government-supported chaplaincies) seems quite positive and strong at this time. In the Portland Convention in June, 1973, the messengers approved a revised statement of the Home Mission Board which provided for the program of the chaplaincy ministries. The purpose of this program is

to bring Southern Baptist ministers into contact with chaplaincy opportunities and assist churches, associations, and state conventions in providing a spiritual ministry to military personnel and their families and to persons in hospitals, institutions, and industry.

Its functions include the following:

Recruit qualified chaplaincy candidates and grant denominational endorsement or approval as required by the military, hospitals, institutions, and industry.

Its relationships include:

Work directly with Chiefs of Chaplains of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Director of Chaplain Service, Veterans Administration; and with hospitals, institutions, and industry regarding the employment of chaplains.

Many Baptists casually glance at such reports in the Convention Annuals or Books of Reports and are completely unimpressed by the magnitude of Southern Baptist support of government-paid chaplaincies. The June 1973 report on numbers of chaplains indicated:

Army, 235; Navy, 154; Air Force, 150; Veterans Administration, 57; hospital [some of which are government-sponsored and paid], 183; institutional [some of which are government-sponsored and paid], 88…. A total of 186 denominational endorsements or approvals were granted in 1972. Chaplains in various reserve categories number 738. The chaplain seminarian program enrolled forty-seven students during 1972.

It can be seen from these statistics that no small number of ministers is involved in this total program—possibly 1500, or approximately the same number as the career foreign missionary personnel of the denomination.

There seems to be much complacency regarding the present system of accommodation with government-paid chaplaincies. However, as William Pinson in an address at the Portland Convention in June 1973 said:

We must not be afraid to tackle the difficult issues of our world. Playing it safe is unbecoming to one who should not fear even death itself. Hiding in church buildings carefully avoiding controversial issues … betrays a lack of confidence in the resurrection.

He emphasized that Christians must work for peace, racial harmony, justice and constructive social action. He reminded Baptists that the Word of God judges men, including their cruelty in war.

Martin E. Marty pointed out that in the past Southern Baptist concern for social reform has been related to conventional issues (such as anti-saloon forces) or restricted to certain "elites" like professors, editors, and a few preachers, rather than the mass of Baptists. It is to be devoutly hoped that present conditions among Southern Baptists have changed from what they were in earlier periods.

Hopefully J.T. Ford is not merely one of the few "elite" preachers among Southern Baptists of whom Marty wrote. Ford spoke about peace and gave several signs of hope for our day. He urged Christian people and organized Christian groups to become active in the life of the nation and the community. He cautioned against the danger of church retreat from the world and the fate of taking refuge in its theological cloisters and avoiding dedicated and responsible support for democratic government.

Southern Baptists need to listen to the many modern prophets who are calling God's people to courageous action to serve him in freedom above all earthly authorities. Ford said that his experiences and his "exposure to the entrenched evils of our social situation" led him to conclude that Southern Baptists "are probably the world's greatest practitioners of evasion and cowardice!" Their greatest sin is that they have known to do much more than they have been willing to do.

Among some specific suggestions which Ford offers are the following:

We need to recover a wholesome sense of appreciation and regard for the heritage of freedom, justice, and dignity to which our nation was originally cormmitted….

We can made a conscientious effort to keep growing in our understanding of Christian discipleship, American citizenship, and world service.

We can and we must link ourselves vitally and dynamically with other Christian people for the communal blessing to our own lives and the additional strength of group influence and actions in the social situation…. There are some things which we can do together which we cannot begin to do separately.

These suggestions are directly applicable to the possibilities of chaplaincy reforms.

The chaplaincy was established by the Continental Congress in 1775 to minister to soldiers who fought to defend freedom against arbitrary authority. The chaplaincy ministry of the third century of the nation's history must be completely free for an authentic religious ministry without restraint from military or governmental authority. Chaplains, too, must grow in citizenship. They can best do this by being clergymen first and American citizens and military officers second. The Southern Baptist chaplaincy must work in cooperation with other fraternal Christian bodies, not in isolation from them. Constructive changes in the chaplaincy system can be brought about more effectively through cooperation. This lesson from past experience has been learned well by contemporary Baptist leaders and people.

The Chaplaincy and Other Issues of its Contemporary Social Environment

Another lesson which must be learned and applied is that which comes from the contemporary social environment within which the chaplaincy now operates and will operate in the future. There are some very significant changes occurring in our society today which affect the style of ministry of the government sponsored chaplaincy and which must be considered in the development of a denominational stance toward the chaplaincy of the future. Some of these changes have already been addressed in this paper; now some others will be considered.

Numerous social concerns which merit serious study in the reexamination of the military chaplaincy have dominated the field of Christian ethics during the 1960s and 1970s. The quest for world peace is intricately related to the military chaplaincy. The overcoming of racism in society must also include the overcoming of racism in the military. Here the military chaplain must make his unique contribution. The improvement of our natural environment is another issue which the chaplain must not avoid. The matter of war's destruction to the natural environment must not be ignored. Technological developments must be controlled to insure their use in a humane and constructive way. The chaplaincy, and the church's involvement with the military establishment, must consider these developments. International political and economic justice must be considered within the context of a restudy of the military chaplaincy. The role of the chaplaincy is inextricably involved in a study of the justifiable forms and limits of political violence.

Today there is a reemergence of extensive studies on the issue of revolution. Many, such as Richard Shaull, have spoken about the need for Christians to be involved in the social and political revolutions going on in the modern world. Other scholars and earnest Christian laymen are asking for help to decide the revolutions to be supported and the limits of revolutionary action for Christians. The chaplain, along with the Christian ethicist, must attempt to clarify the theory of justice which one uses to judge a society unjust, and the just means which one can use to challenge a society which is unjust. The chaplaincy dares not blindly endorse the status quo in the name of some vague "Christian citizenship obligation," and it must not avoid facing the issue of justifiable resistance in the name of conscience to immoral and unjust establishments in society.

The student and campus demonstrations cannot be written off without thoughtful study of the legitimate complaints involved. The just nationalistic aspirations of oppressed and underdeveloped people around the world must not be lightly dismissed in an uncritical support of military operations to suppress them.

Merely to talk or write about these contemporary issues, rather than to apply them, will not suffice. The Southern Baptist Convention has gone on record repeatedly stating that the objective of a church is to apply "Christian principles to man and society that God's purposes may be achieved." Relevant issues pertaining to the military or government sponsored chaplaincy must be applied as Christian principles in the modern context in which the chaplaincy ministry takes place.

Secularization is a pertinent contemporary issue affecting the chaplaincy. Harvey Cox brought this issue to the forefront with the publication of his book, The Secular City. Martin E. Marty's The Modern Schism has as a subtitle Three Paths to the Secular. The separation of church and state raises for many the specter of a secular state and society. Many fear that a diminishing or withdrawal of the churches' support for the chaplaincy will increase secularism in the military and other government sponsored institutions with chaplaincies. Marty pointed out that legal secularization occurred with separation of church and state years ago and that now the corollary matters of belief, ethos, and mores are being worked out. There is no doubt that we are now living in an age of secularization, and this has its advantages as well as its disadvantages.

This secularization may be a part of the maturing of modern man. It is not all well to make too great a distinction between the sacred and the secular. In many ways the Christian life can and should become desacralized. Christians should come to church to share an experience of worship and a knowledge of the faith, and then they should go out into the "secular" world where they belong and live their faith. This is the great advantage of secularization. This, too, is one rationale for the chaplaincy. The military community is part of the world community which needs the ministry of the gospel. It is ironical and inconsistent that those who advocate the church's "involvement" in social action are frequently at the same time calling for the total withdrawal of the churches from the military chaplaincy.

However, the danger of rationalizing any and all kinds of ministry is the uncritical acceptance or endorsement of the secular environment or phenomena. Ernest T. Campbell has a sermon entitled "Two Cheers for Christian Secularity!" He says:

Two cheers but not three. Why do we withhold that vital third cheer that would make endorsement complete? For the simple reason that Christian secularity is not an unmixed blessing. For one thing, the source and center of man's freedom from the powers is more frequently assumed than proclaimed.

There is the ever-present danger of falling into the clutches of a secular autonomy rather than of living under a divine Lordship which is the only source of genuine Christian freedom. There is a real tendency to celebrate the secular in such a way as to accept much of what goes on under its name without Christian criticism.

The military chaplaincy is not immune from such Christian criticism. It should be subject to a critical evaluation under the insights of Christianity along with such a reevaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of secularization as proposed by Bonhoeffer, Harvey Cox, and others. The military chaplaincy must be prepared to defend itself against the charge of being a form of "civil religion" to which the political and state leaders appeal to justify the rightness of a given pattern of social organization and values. The genuine Christian dialogue and witness need not depend on state pressure and direct government support for survival and justification. Moral persuasion, prophetic proclamation, and practical incarnation should be utilized rather than official authority.

The Christian faith involves responsibility for the transformation of the institutions and structures of society, and this includes the military establishment. It can transform and influence it better in one way from the inside, and it can influence and change it better in another way from the outside where it has a free and independent basis for action. This is the dilemma of the church and of the chaplain. It is desirable to be free to criticize the establishment from without, and it is also advantageous to exert influence from within the system. If the church's mission is a movement of humanization, and if the gospel is a critique of all of human life, then there should be some place for the military chaplain within the military system. This is in accordance with the principle of service to mankind in bringing the redemptive presence of God to all persons in terms of unity, reconciliation, social justice, and peace.

Another factor bearing on a restudy of the military chaplaincy is the contemporary phenomenon of urbanization. It is a well known fact that a tremendous population shift has occurred in the United States, as well as in the rest of the world, from rural areas to great metropolitan urban centers. The significance of this is noted in the concentration of chaplains in military installations near large urban communities. In the large and medium-sized cities of the United States there are many churches of practically all denominations surrounding the military installations. This fact has been recognized by the House Appropriations Committee which recently recommended that the services review their requirement for chaplains and chaplain assistants:

Considering that many of the military bases in the United States are in or adjacent to cities or towns with religious facilities, the need for such a large chaplain corps and enlisted assistants appears questionable.

The yardstick for chaplain manning used to be one chaplain per thousand men, or per 850 men in combat. The United States Army by the end of June, 1974, will have approximately one chaplain per 500 servicemen. This is a very high ratio, especially in peacetime. The current proportion of the church's involvement in a peacetime military establishment does seem to be excessive in our highly urbanized society.

In addition to urbanization, the issue of technological change relates to the military chaplaincy. Warfare is becoming more and more complex because of technological progress. It has been said that the First World War was won by chemists with their development of high explosives and poison gases; the Second World War was won by physicists with their development of the airplane, radar, and atomic power. Much of the technological gains of the past century have been channeled into armaments. Yet there exists the possibility of channeling these technological developments into things that will unite, enrich, and raise the quality of human life on earth. The church's excessive support of the military chaplaincy has caused some questions of conscience regarding its drain from peaceful pursuits and excessive involvement in dubious military causes.

A closely related contemporary issue is the economic changes that have taken place largely as a result of these technological changes. The income of the advanced technological countries is growing, and the gap is widening over the per capita income of the underdeveloped countries. The "have-not" countries are gazing with envy on the growing riches of modern technology which they cannot enjoy. The church must consider the moral implications of utilization of its trained manpower resources to address the great problems of the next fifty years: the feeding of a hungry world in which nearly one half is always on the edge of starvation; the raising of the standard of living among the underprivileged, so that they are no longer ravaged by illiteracy, squalor, and disease; the control and peaceful use of atomic power; the ordering of national priorities. These are more compelling reasons why the churches must restudy the chaplaincy of the future.

Mass communications such as television and radio have brought the issues of war into family living rooms. The ethics of the churches' positions on war is a sharply focused issue today. The civil rights movements, campus riots, antiwar demonstrations and other highly publicized events have prodded Christians to seek better solutions with the aid of Christian insights. These insights must include a reexamination of the rationale for, and the extent and format of, the military chaplaincy and other forms of government-supported chaplaincies. These areas form the context in which a government-supported chaplaincy must be reexamined.

Some significant trends have been detected in recent years which point the way toward the environment of the chaplaincy of the future. For example, the lay leadership movement which has been growing will probably continue to grow and flourish in the future. The non-professional religious leader will function alongside the professionally trained religious leader. The layman in the military will be a source of leadership alongside the chaplain, and this contribution can be supplementary to and not in competition with the military chaplain. Many contemporary young people, in the military and out, prefer a less structured system of religion than that offered by the average seminary-educated chaplain. There is no reason why the laity cannot share a spiritual ministry with the chaplains.

It is highly likely that in the future the military chaplain and congregation will share more of a common ministry with neighboring civilian congregations. This will reduce the duplication of effort in common interest programs for chaplains and civilian clergymen and laymen. At the same time, it should reduce the total manpower requirements for military chaplains as more cooperation is achieved with surrounding civilian churches. The only long range qualification to this trend is speculation that in order to reduce air pollution, the major large army posts of the future may be located away from large cities and highly populated areas. They may be located in open areas such as Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Nevada, and other western states of low population density. However, experience has shown that wherever large military installations are built, civilian communities will soon grow around them, and these civilian communities will certainly contain churches of many denominations. Baptists will not likely miss such an opportunity to establish new churches where there are large military populations nearby.

Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter the present stance of the Southern Baptist Convention on the military chaplaincy has been examined in the light of positions recently expressed in related social and ethical issues. Particular emphasis has been placed in this study on war and peace, citizenship responsibilities, and freedom and authority as all these matters are related to a government-paid chaplaincy ministry.

It has been learned that Southern Baptists profess to believe in peace, and they confess a duty to do all in their power to put an end to war. But during periods of national crisis they have almost without exception justified every war in which the nation has been involved and have done very little to implement their pronouncements on peace. They have weakened in their support of the right of the conscientious objector—especially of the selective conscientious objector.

Southern Baptists are still highly motivated by patriotism—as were their spiritual ancestors during the days of the American Revolution. They generally support the principle of obedience to government institutions. They believe in "getting involved" in society rather than in withdrawing from society. They accept the burden of responsibilities which inevitably accompany such involvement—such as the responsibility to bear arms in defense of their country.

Emphasis on political and religious freedom has long been a tradition of Baptists. They believe that the preacher in the pulpit should be free to proclaim the Word of God, but they are not aware of infringements of freedom for chaplains in the armed forces. They have repeatedly stated the principles of a free church in a free state, of the state's incompetence to function in ecclesiastical areas, and of the church's primary freedom to determine its programs without being used for political ends. But they have had an almost unbelievable blindness in ability to apply these principles directly to the present establishment of any kind of government-paid chaplaincy.

Baptists believe in the authority of government, but they do not believe that this authority is unlimited. Yet they have not made a serious effort to define and insist on the limits of authority of government over the chaplains or over the denominations which endorse the chaplains. Obviously one problem which Baptists and other denominations with a congregational form of church government have in asserting more control over their own chaplains is derived from their doctrinal concept of ecclesiastical authority. Their teaching is that ecclesiastical authority is centered in the local church rather than in the denomination. No denominational agency desires to exercise authority over the chaplains and really supervise their work and require their allegiance and responsibility. No agency of the Southern Baptist Convention wants to pay the salaries of the chaplains or take responsibility for their supervision if the government relinquishes this supervision. Therefore, no one wants to disturb the existing state of affairs. The easy course of action is to let the government pay the bills and do the job for the churches.

There are, however, several powerful voices speaking out prophetically for change among Southern Baptists on the issue of war and peace, citizenship, and freedom. If voices like those of Ford, Pinson, Valentine, Barnette, Carlson, Wood, Stagg, and others cited in this study are heeded by the rank and file of Southern Baptists there could indeed be a revitalization of ethical concerns which would inevitably have great impact on the future stance of the denomination toward all forms of government-financed chaplaincies.

It remains to be seen whether these voices will be heeded. If they do prevail, and if real change does sweep accross the Convention, it will be an omen of changes to come in the concept, nature, and operation of an effective chaplaincy ministry to the military. On the other hand, if these modern prophets crying out for social changes are not heeded and supported, the only changes which can be expected in the military chaplaincy system are those which may come through court decisions. It would be better for change to come voluntarily and constructively through the free decisions and commitments of the churches of the land.

In the next part of this study (Part III) the closing chapters will propose a suggested position for Southern Baptists to consider regarding the military chaplaincy of the future. This will be formulated as it has developed out of the principles discovered in the background study in Part I and in relation to the contemporary positions on related ethical and church-state issues as revealed in Part II. The objective is to develop a 1,000 word statement which will be consistent with Southern Baptist teaching and practice in these areas which are demonstrably related to the ministry of the military chaplaincy.