CHAPTER VII
FOUNDATION PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED STANCE ON THE MILITARY CHAPLAINCY

Having examined the past and present positions of Baptists on issues relating to the military chaplaincy, sufficient data has been accumulated and principles discovered to point the way toward a future stance on the military chaplaincy for Southern Baptists. This is the objective of Part III of the dissertation, to which these last two chapters will be devoted.

In this chapter an attempt will be made to review the information, results, and conclusions of the previous chapters in a search for some foundation principles, convictions, beliefs, traditions, and doctrinal positions and precedents. These results will be woven together and proposed as foundations for the development of a future stance for Southern Baptists relative to the military chaplaincy. This process is in one aspect a study of a consistent rationale and sound position on the military chaplaincy. The ingredients of such a study come out of the Baptists' experience in the past and present as they have confronted the various related issues. This is not a static but a dynamic situation, for Southern Baptists are still struggling with and agonizing over some of these great concerns. The outcome is not at all certain as of this date, but some patterns are emerging. Trends are appearing, and prophetic voices are being lifted to challenge, criticize, and correct unwise courses of action.

Foundation Principles of Church-State Relations Concerning the Military Chaplaincy

One of the first principles which has emerged from this study is that of consistency with historic and biblical teachings on religious liberty. This is not to claim that Baptists have always been consistent in their practices and in their interpretation of religious liberty as found in the Bible. It is rather to say that consistency has been a goal rather than an achievement.

One evidence of this continuing search for consistency is a fifty-year old sermon by B. Y. Mullins on religious liberty. The things that Mullins declared in this address at the Third Baptist World Congress, Stockholm, Sweden, in 1923, are consistent with the things believed and practiced by earlier Baptists and by Southern Baptists today.

Religious liberty implies certain things and excludes other things which relate to the area of the military chaplaincy. Mullins said that religious liberty implied the rights of free utterance and propagation of truth, of free association and organization for religious purposes, and of men to demand of governments protection in the free exercise of their religion. He said, too, that religious liberty excluded state authority in religion and the right of the state to impose taxes for the support of one form of religion. It also excludes the imposition of religious creeds by ecclesiastical authority and centralized ecclesiastical governments. Mullins added that religious liberty imposes certain duties, among them loyalty to the state. He based this on the doctrine that the state is ordained of God, and he stated frankly that "Baptists have ever been ardent patriots."

Patriotism deserves careful study because of the specific relevance of this point to the present study on the military chaplaincy. Mullins stated that if a man has free access to God and hears God's voice he will become a champion of law and order. But his next sentence states that such a man will also "become a champion of the economic rights of men." This goes beyond the contemporary "law and order" concept, as does the next statement: "He will become an advocate of the Golden Rule in all industrial relations." Moving more in the direction of the "moral word in the gospel" and the social implications of the gospel, he says:

He will become an evangelist of brotherhood among the nations, of peace on earth and goodwill among them. He will oppose war because he knows that war is directly opposed to the gospel of Christ.

This is far from the blind citizenship concept which automatically and uncritically follows the policy of the government. Loyalty to the state is not unlimited, for Mullins says that religious liberty involves "the supreme duty of loyalty to Jesus Christ." Here again, as so often before in this study, the full circle is traced from the sovereignty of God who has ordained the state as an institution to avoid anarchy, to the duty of citizenship and loyalty to the state, and on to supreme or ultimate loyalty to the Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ as the Spirit and Word of God enlightens the Christian conscience.

The principle of loyal citizenship can be easily misunderstood. Messengers in the 1972 session of the Southern Baptist Convention in Philadelphia voted to designate Sunday, July 1, 1973, as "Christian Citizenship Sunday." Local churches were encouraged to use this Sunday just before the national celebration of Independence Day to emphasize the "Christian dimensions of citizenship." It was suggested that opportunities be used at this time to study the teaching of such scriptural texts as Romans 13:1-7; I Peter 2:9-14; Matthew 22:21, and I Timothy 2:1-3. It was noted that "the classical thoughts about citizenship which have been recorded in the documents of democracy and the annals of church history" could appropriately be heard at this time in "sensitive awareness of a citizen's heritage." Such thoughts on citizenship are consistent with all that has been previously discussed on the subject in this study.

Neither the present-day Baptists or those of previous generations mean that citizenship is to be irresponsible. The plea then and now is for responsible Christian citizenship. No longer can an emotional call for patriotic response get the quick stampede of enthusiastic response that was witnessed, for example, during the Revolutionary War or the Civil War. Baptists are gradually becoming more sensitive, critical, and responsible in the exercise of their Christian citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state. Rather than speaking too much of the principle of loyal citizenship it would be better for Baptists to speak of responsible citizenship. This would clarify the thinking of all concerned on the chaplaincy.

Baptists should lead in a gospel-based freedom and responsibility to criticize the government when it is appropriate for Christians to do so. One Baptist, Vernon C. Grounds, has stated: "An evangelical cannot deny that, historically, his faith has been complacent, compliant, and compromising, an uncritical ally of whatever authority might happen to be in power." Baptists need this ability to subject the national policies to the judgment of the Word of God in all areas affecting the military chaplaincy and church-state relations. The apostolic command, "Be not conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2), means one must avoid an uncritical acceptance of the standards of the age.

Repeatedly in this study it has been noted that Baptists since the early seventeenth century in England and America have maintained the principle that Christians should be conscientiously involved in politics. Since most political questions have moral and spiritual dimensions they cannot be ignored by the Christian. Robert D. Linder has said that the moral and spiritual dimensions of politics is characteristic "of nearly all of the most warmly debated issues of present-day America: war and peace, social justice, racism, militarism, separation of church and state…."

Baptists understand that political neutrality through inaction amounts to an endorsement of the status quo. The Baptist Senator Mark 0. Hatfield, who has often spoken to Baptist conventions, has repeated the old truth that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!" He said that this is precisely where we find ourselves today in Christian ethics and political morality. He contended that for too many generations too many good men have done nothing but stand by as neutral observers while crucial contests were being fought in the political arena.

When Christians stand by and do nothing, the same thing can happen anywhere which happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. Most German evangelicals rationalized their obedience to the Nazi government on the grounds of patriotism and Romans chapter thirteen. Many persons feel that there are too many uncomfortable parallels between the political developments in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s and the present political climate in the United States. The same uneasy parallel exists in many ways in the expected role of the military chaplain in both the Nazi Army and in the United States Army, and in the utilization, preaching, and conduct of the chaplains in both situations. The military chaplaincy can easily be misused when the evangelical churches either stand idly by as political spectators, leaving the field to the extremists, or identify with conservative politics and the status quo.

Another basic element which must be considered is the priority of biblical religion over civil religion. Senator Mark 0. Hatfield recently spoke of the danger of misplaced allegiance, or possible idolatry, of "failing to distinguish between the god of an American civil religion and the God who reveals himself in the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ." The temptation of "civil religion" is to manipulate religious impulses in the land to sanctify national political life.

All Christians are concerned about the implications of America's civil religion. Thomas Howard says that "our bluff has been called" in the assumption that America is a Christian country. For many years no one really challenged the view that America and Christianity are identical. The first attack of this concept came from secular forces who saw the American-religious identity as a confusion and contradiction of the country's political ideas. The second challenge to the identification of America and Christianity was made in the name of Christianity itself by dedicated forces who saw the American civil religion as a mockery and a contradiction of Christian truth. Thus many have demanded that America stop its duplicity. The protesters and challengers have been saying that even though the establishment of religion is prohibited, Christianity, or a Judeo-Christian religion, is nevertheless established. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all, but it is limited for those millions of citizens who do not accept the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures as normative.

Howard, along with Stokes and Marty, pointed out that at first Protestantism was established in this country; then, after the impact of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, Catholicism and Judaism were recognized. A parallel exists in the military chaplaincy where at first only Protestants were allowed, then, during the Mexican War, Catholics were admitted, and later President Lincoln changed the word "Christian" to "religious" in order to allow Jewish chaplains to serve in the armed forces. Today there are many other religious groups not represented in the chaplaincy, and it is still primarily a Judeo-Christian establishment.

There is evidence to indicate that a certain kind of religion is established through the chaplaincy. Peter Berger and Daniel Pinard contend that:

Careful scrutiny of the materials disseminated by the chaplaincy reveals that there is a specific content that corresponds very appropriately to the military context. Put simply: there is not only religion in the military, but there is a specific constellation of religious communication which, both in context and in content can be called military religion.

A thoughtful study indicates that what Berger and Pinard call "military religion" is practically the same thing which others call civil religion. One serves to legitimate the military enterprise; the other serves to legitimate what is vaguely called "the American Way of Life." Both establish an affinity and unity between the symbols of the Judeo-Christian tradition and of the national state. Both omit any reference to the possibility that religious conscience may be called at certain times to resist the authority of the state and its military arm.

Christians who sadly observe their favored civil religious establishment eroding under secular advances in America today should remember that Christianity did not begin under such hospitable circumstances as it has enjoyed in America. Nevertheless, the early church in the New Testament and for 300 years was vigorous and dynamic. Roger Williams and others pointed out that the church's power and prosperity which it gained through cooperation with Rome led to apostasy and deprived the church of the spiritual power that primitive Christianity enjoyed.

The New Testament does not lead the church to expect any official, or even special, place in society, much less a union of church and state or support by the state. American Christians may lose some power and prestige by living as a minority presence in a society which is officially nonreligious and secular, but in doing so they could discover that the loss of the established American civil religion is in fact the lifting of a burden, a burden the Christian faith was never expected to carry. It may also be that should the established government-paid chaplaincy be lost, the churches would find a similar burden lifted and new spiritual vitality realized with the development of other alternative ministries to military personnel.

Another basic consideration which is important to the military chaplaincy and church-state issues is constant awareness of change which produces a capability of flexibility and contemporaneity. America is changing. The times are changing. Concepts of church-state relations are changing. The military chaplaincy is changing. Baptists are changing and growing. Procedures and relationships which were accepted in the past should not be automatically and uncritically accepted today. Baptists should not stop where they have stopped in the past. For example, James B. Wood, Jr., has suggested that Baptists move on beyond mere concern with church rights and vested interests, and demonstrate their genuine commitment to human rights and human values. He wrote:

It is to be fervently hoped that Baptist commitment to the sanctity of human rights may come to be as descriptive of Baptists in our day as was our Baptist commitment to religious liberty in an earlier day.

The rights of the universal commonwealth of mankind are prior to the nationalistic rights of citizens of a particular state. H. Richard Niebuhr's keen insight on this is as follows:

Religious liberty is rooted in the acknowledgment that loyalty to God is prior to every civic loyalty; that before man is a member of any political society he is a member of the universal commonwealth in which he is under obligations that take precedence over all duties to the state; Religion, so understood, lies beyond the provenance of the state … because it concerns men's allegiance to a sovereignty and a community more immediate, more inclusive, and more fateful than those of the political commonwealth. Religious freedom … is an acknowledgment by the state of the limitation of its sovereignty and of the relative character of the loyalty it is entitled to claim.

While Southern Baptists have their distinctive positions on religious liberty and separation of church and state, they must be sensitive to other Christians who have different viewpoints on certain issues such as federal aid to parochial schools and to the military chaplaincy. Authentic Christian love is always in order toward other Christians and nonbelievers. Many Christian groups were recently bitterly disappointed in the Supreme Court decision denying aid to parochial schools, and from their viewpoint rightly disappointed and hurt. Baptists must always show understanding and love toward such groups, although they may generally disagree with their specific position on this issue. Any change in the military chaplaincy structure will cause disappointment to some within the Southern Baptist Convention and to other Christians without the Convention. Much patience, love, understanding, and insight will be required when such change in the chaplaincy is debated and accomplished.

Southern Baptists need to get their house in order in such areas as aid to hospitals and colleges and on taxation of church property if they are to have a credible foundation from which to speak on changes in the military chaplaincy. It must be honestly admitted that both the military chaplaincy and tax exemption for church property constitute a form of government subsidy for religion.

The same consistency must be recognized in the implications of the Southern Baptist position on the prayer amendment. The Baptist position was proper but Justice Douglas pointed out that the same logic of "honeycombed" federal financing of religion is equally applicable and unconstitutional for public school prescribed prayers and for government chaplaincies and other practices.

This principle of consistency applies equally to acceptance of federal aid to denominational hospitals and colleges as it does to acceptance of federal sponsorship for the military chaplaincy. If it is questionable for the denominational agencies to accept tax funds for their schools and hospitals, then it must be questionable to accept government-paid chaplaincies. Although many Baptists cannot agree with this today, James Madison saw it clearly nearly two hundred years ago. He said that it was better to be true to a right principle than to compromise on such an issue of establishing government chaplaincies in the armed forces. In the early years of the American republic many Baptists were among those who petitioned the government that the office of chaplain be abolished not only in the Army and Navy but also in Congress and in relations with the Indian tribes.

Many appeals for the practical separation of church and state have been resolved within the last century. However, the protest against government chaplaincies has been virtually ignored. Benjamin F. Underwood said in 1876:

The presence of Chaplains in the halls of legislation, in the army and navy, and in other departments of the general government, is as unconstitutional as it is unjust. Congress, having been invested with no ecclesiastical authority, has no constitutional right to create an ecclesiastical office, or to induct any person into such office created by the Church. The appointment of Chaplains by the Government of the United States is an unauthorized act of political legislation.

Baptists who have little sympathy with the philosophy of Underwood should not reject out of hand the force of his arguments. Baptists have often entered into alliances with rationalists on positions held in common. Such an alliance secured the victory of religious liberty in this country during the revolutionary and early national period. Again as recently as the 1973 hearing of the "Parochaid Cases" before the current Supreme Court session Baptists allied themselves with others, including some secularists and rationalists, in presenting a common position.

Some Baptists have been disturbed when they discovered the company in which they found themselves on certain issues. For example, in the "Prayer Amendment" controversy they found themselves aligned against the conservatives and fundamentalists and with the pro-ecumenical Protestants and secularists. They were in an alliance with a group of Americans which were:

…reaching back to a different aspect of American origins: the non-religious character of the United States Constitution. They believed with the court that the government should express a wholesome neutrality in the matter of bringing official religion into public institutions, arguing that secularity has as many rights as religion and that there is no such thing as a neutral expression of religion.

Baptists would be well advised to think less of the groups with which they are aligned and more about the truth and integrity of the positions which they adopt in the coming decades. Truth is truth, regardless of who espouses or opposes it. And consistency in support of truth is much more important with Christians than any uneasiness in identification with any particular group in support of common causes. This is not the first generation of Baptists who have realized that they have more in common with certain groups which they least considered their ideological colleagues than they do with other groups often thought to be their spiritual kin. Again, this fact must be kept in mind when considering reforms to the chaplaincy, or a changing stance toward the chaplaincy.

Baptists have traditionally maintained that both government and religion function best when they function separately. They have also contended that when the church accepts federal aid it loses more than it gains. This has been found true in areas such as education, hospitals, and social welfare. This is another principle which must be remembered when considering foundations for a future stance toward the military chaplaincy. It is inevitable that with federal funds comes federal control.

There are several constitutional principles in connection with the First Amendment that are directly applicable to the Baptist posture toward the military chaplaincy. These comprehensive interpretations have been mentioned before in this paper but should be reviewed and summarized here. One fundamental assumption is that in America there were to be free churches in a free state, and one should never be used for the purposes of the other. The government cannot constitutionally finance a religious exercise.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment extends this restriction to the states as well as Congress. In the Everson case in 1947 Mr. Justice Black gave a broad and comprehensive interpretation of the establishment clause. The critical paragraph in his opinion reads as follows:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-church attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither the state nor the federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state."

The above opinion rests on a broad construction of establishment to support separation of church and state, and it is in accord with majority Baptist beliefs. Any future stand of Southern Baptists toward the military chaplaincy should be measured against these ideas and principles.

The Baptist position on separation of church and state was supported a year after the Everson case when the Supreme Court dealt with the problem of "released time" for religious education in Illinois. Except for one justice, the entire court endorsed the theory of "separation" as developed in the Everson case and applied it to nullify the Illinois released time plan. Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring, and joined by three other justices, said

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped…. "The great American principle of eternal separation" … is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity.

We renew our conviction that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."

It is significant that the one justice who voted against the other eight justices tried to justify his dissenting opinion by, among other things, citing the armed forces chaplaincies as supporting the kind of "aid" to religion which was being tested in the McCollum case. The other eight justices were apparently not impressed by the force of his argument. Another point which Mr. Justice Reed made in defense of his minority opinion was compulsory attendance at the government-supported chapel services at the military academies. On December 18, 1972, the Supreme Court unanimously acted to declare that such mandatory attendance at religious services is unconstitutional. This was a decision with which Baptists heartily agreed.

If the primary effect of a law is the advancement of religion, that law is unconstitutional. Since the primary effect of the chaplaincy is to advance religion, Baptists should be especially interested in the opinion expressed by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Schempp case. The crucial test as expressed by Mr. Justice Clark was as follows:

What are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

The thoughts expressed in the above opinion cast doubt upon the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy. Several justices hearing the case nevertheless indicated that in their opinion the chaplaincy may be constitutional.

Mr. Justice Brennan said:

There are certain practices, conceivably violative of the Establishment Clause, the striking down of which might seriously interfere with certain religious liberties also protected by the First Amendment. Provisions for churches and chaplains at military establishments for those in the armed services may afford one such example…. It is argued that such provisions may be assumed to contravene the Establishment Clause, yet be sustained on constitutional grounds as necessary to secure to the members of the Armed Forces … those rights of worship guaranteed under the Free Exercise Clause. Since government has deprived such persons of the opportunity to practice their faith at places of their choice, the argument runs, government may, in order to avoid infringing the free exercises guaranteed, provide substitutes where it requires such persons to be.

This philosophy is the basis of the rationale for the chaplaincy which was contained in the recent position approved by the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Randolph N. Jonakait has challenged the logic used by the Brennan approach to this issue. He says that the difference between soldiers and the rest of society is not spelled out. The government deprives other employees of the opportunity to practice their faith at places of their choice, but it does not feel justified or obligated to hire clergymen to conduct services for them wherever they are. Civilians, too, as well as soldiers, are working for the government at remote spots far from any religious community which they feel to be acceptable for their religious needs. The State Department does not furnish its career foreign service personnel with suitable chaplains in their overseas locations.

Neither can the "isolated" drafted soldier provide the distinguishing factor, because as of July 1, 1973, the draft was ended. It can now be argued that the soldier who volunteers for military service is no longer compelled or coerced to do so, and he should know the burdens of his condition when he agrees to enlist or accept a commission. Moreover, the modern soldier is less isolated and has more free time than ever before.

More important than all these arguments pro and con is the simple, direct statement of the Supreme Court that the "first and most immediate purpose" of the Establishment Clause "rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."

Baptists have had a history of mixed practices concerning accommodation with the state in certain borderline instances of church-state cooperation. Paul G. Kauper presented and discussed the "Accommodation Theory" reflecting the meaning and application of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He suggested that this theory found its first expression in Zorach V. Clauson, where the Supreme Court held that a state could authorize an arrangement whereby public school children could be released one hour a week for religious instruction off the school premises. He said this case represented a more moderate approach of necessary interrelationships between government and religion. It is supposed to take account of various long-accepted historical practices, such as the military chaplaincy, tax exemptions for churches, and certain kinds of government recognition of and cooperation with certain religious factors in American life. However, government is not to become "too deeply involved" and is to accommodate its laws and actions to the demands of a pluralistic society without "undue" involvement.

In the Zorach case Mr. Justice Douglas made a long statement qualifying complete and unequivocal separation of church and state. He did not include the military chaplaincy among the instances of acceptable accommodation of church and state. He said, "Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction." In the military chaplaincy the government finances religious groups and religious instruction. After stating clearly that the constitutional standard is separation of church and state, Mr. Justice Douglas said, "The problem, like many problems in Constitutional Law, is one of degree." While willing to accept certain accommodation such as the municipalities' provision of police or fire protection to religious groups, Thanksgiving Day proclamations, etc., he has gone on record elsewhere expressing the opinion that the chaplaincy violates the Constitution.

Baptists, many other Protestants, some Catholics, Jews, and members of other religious groups, are quite aware of the fact that accommodation is the way toward a union of church and state. William H. Marnell, stating the logic of the situation, has said that if a religious class in a public school classroom is an establishment of religion, then military religious services constitute an establishment of religion. So also are denominational services in a public hospital, mental institution, or prison, all an establishment of religion. Acceptance of his argument implies that an accommodation theory of interpretation and application of the First Amendment must be followed in order to justify chaplaincies to the armed forces, prisons, hospitals, and religious classes in public schools. The accommodation or cooperation theory leads directly to justification of federal aid for religion in parochial schools and other church agencies and institutions.

Admittedly, much can be found in American historical experiences and traditions to furnish instances of such church-state collaboration. But as Martin Marty noted, many things are changing today, including movement away from a religious state toward a secular state. Marnell may be right when he says, "To talk of the total separation of Church and State is to talk of something that cannot be on sea or land because the same human beings comprise both." But, on the other hand, as Robert Linder has said, "Actually there is no such thing as a 'Christian nation' or a 'Christian government,' and there has never been such in the United States." It was a secular entity, not a Christian nation, that was fashioned by the founding fathers in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Furthermore, there is no longer a Protestant or Christian hegemony among the ruling citizens of this country. This is the day of religious pluralism.

Other Basic Ethical Princioles

An important part of this inquiry is to consider the military chaplaincy ministry of Southern Baptists not only in the light of a realistic and defensible church-state doctrine, but to do so in the light of other allied ethical teachings of Southern Baptists. These past and present ethical teachings have been set forth in broad perspective previously in this dissertation. Now it is proposed to review these teachings in order to formulate some foundation principles upon which to concentrate the thinking of the denominational body as it takes its stance toward the military chaplaincy. To borrow a metaphor from the game of golf, taking the stance is an essential element for the beginning of a good game.

To begin with, there is a group of ethical principles which relate to the Christian and society. The first basic element to be considered might be called responsible involvement in society and the political order. The Baptist Faith and Message states that every Christian should seek to bring the whole of society under the sway of the principles of righteousness. The Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms—the kingdom of God and also of some nation. Supreme allegiance, however, is due to God. Obedience to the nation is an obligation "so long as it does not violate the Christian's relation to God." The military chaplain gives allegiance to both God and Caesar.

It is recognized that sometimes this dual allegiance will involve resistance to government policies which are evil and idolatrous. Baptists in the American Colonies resisted and disobeyed laws which violated their conscience. To them such disobedience was a sacred duty. Christians are to be involved with the state, but they are to maintain a critical view of the state. Withdrawal from society is not the solution.

Baptists feel free to speak out on political issues, but they have been advised to speak as a denomination on general perspectives concerning politics rather than to make specific directives. English Baptists of the seventeenth century advocated obedience to civil authority in "all earthly things" but denied the king's authority in "heavenly or spiritual things." Virginia Baptists also early organized their General Committee of Baptists to speak out on political grievances. They would not accept either tyranny or anarchy. Baptists have frequently spoken out on politics in both general and specific terms.

Baptists have expressed different attitudes toward war and peace. They have generally made a careful distinction between the different kinds of war. They have sometimes made mistakes of judgment in properly evaluating the full implications of certain military activities of their country. They have generally condemned war and have advocated peace; yet they have supported war to the point of an almost fatalistic acceptance. Some of these positions seem contradictory, but they are all found in Baptist teachings and practice. Baptists can conscientiously serve in an army which promotes self defense and domestic tranquility. To be consistent, however, they should avoid serving in wars of aggression, wars that are not vital to American security, and wars which are unjust and do more harm than good.

Isaac Backus wrote that the Revolutionary War appeared justified because there was no other way to avoid "abject slavery", and it was necessary "to repel force with force." Yet he defended the rights of the conscientious objector, opposed offensive warfare and a standing army in time of peace, and he advocated that the military be kept under strict subordination to civil power. These steps to avoid militarism are well to keep in mind as foundation principles for Baptists today as they consider a contemporary position toward the military chaplaincy.

If Baptists are to maintain a position consistent with their past historical interpretations of religious liberty they must observe the axiom of Christian sympathy for the genuine conscientious objector. Baptists have made many statements about the conscientious objector and opposition to warfare on the grounds of Christian beliefs.

Southern Baptist chaplains should have special assistance from their denomination in counseling the conscientious objector and in dealing with other unique problems. The denomination sends its chaplains into a specialized environment where they are subjected to strong sociological conditioning and environmental influences likely to be the opposite of those for which the denomination traditionally stands. In such a situation some kind of continuing training by the denomination is necessary. Otherwise, such pressures and environmental influences, and a continuing counter-educational program of the military, tend to lead the chaplains to condone practices which are at variance with the theological and ethical positions that their denomination expects them to represent. There is a danger of the chaplains becoming isolated from their denomination and forgetting that they continue under the ecclesiastical discipline of their denomination.

It is not sufficient for denominational agencies to take the attitude that after seminary training the denomination cannot take further responsibility for the education of the military chaplains. By providing some chaplains training conferences the denomination and the Chaplains Division recognizes some responsibility for a continuing education designed to keep the chaplain close to his denomination. Therefore, the point at issue here concerns the extent of such continuing education which is required under the circumstances. The denomination must share the blame if it allows the spiritual ministry of its chaplains to be weakened within the military environment because the denomination does too little supervision and provides insufficient continuing guidance.

Baptists need to follow the course of working for peace—not merely talking about it. By this is meant activism for the cause of peace, including advocation of arbitration in place of war, and the support of the United Nations. And this attitude should be reflected in the chaplains who represent Southern Baptists in the armed forces. Closely related to these underlying positions should be opposition to the growing militarism of the United States. Baptists should be aware of the dangers of inordinate militarism and must warn their associates and chaplains of this tendency in the nation. Baptists ought to encourage the reduction of the huge military budget, and they can limit the Baptist contribution to the growing military strength and resources of this country by limiting the number of active duty chaplains. These resources are badly needed for other national priorities for peace and the general welfare of the people of this country.

Southern Baptists can greatly assist in checking the growing national pride and power of the military-industrial complex. One way to check it is to speak out strongly and to take the initiative in proposing substantial changes in the military chaplaincy as far as the denomination's involvement is concerned. Such positive action would be a message that others could not fail to understand.

Another basic ethical principle which should be considered in reviewing a revised position toward the military chaplaincy concerns sympathy for all those who are oppressed and dehumanized. This includes particularly all who are dehumanized by war and the military system. It also includes all who are oppressed in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Certainly the government should not contribute to the oppression of people anywhere.

Another basic ethical attitude relating to the Christian and society is that of courage to confront controversial issues. William Pinson challenged Southern Baptists regarding this in the June 1973 Portland Convention. J. T. Ford has also chided Southern Baptists for their "evasion and cowardice." Much courage will be required to stem the tide and change the course of such a deeply established national institution as the military chaplaincy. But if Baptists find such action advisable in order to be true to and consistent with their primary beliefs and traditional practices they should not be deterred from taking the lead in such a course of action.

Every activity for social reform in society is strengthened if it is undertaken in concert with others of like opinion and persuasion. Therefore, the policy of cooperation with other Christians is advisable in connection with a reform of the military chaplaincy. As Ford said, "We must link ourselves with other Christian people … for the additional strength of group influence and actions in the social situation." As Southern Baptists find other Christians who are in basic agreement with them on a reform of the military chaplaincy they should join their forces in the common cause. But if they must stand and act alone out of good conscience they should not hesitate to do so.

In addition, there are ethical principles which relate to the Christian and the church. The primary source of these is a thorough and balanced interpretation of the whole word of God. There can be no overemphasis of such passages as Romans 13 and no neglect of other passages such as the Apostle John's writings in his epistles and the book of Revelation. Certain passages used in the past to justify war and automatic civil obedience must be reexamined. Southern Baptists will have to avoid captivity to prevailing social, cultural, and political situations which lead inevitably to the endorsement of futile wars and which contribute directly to the building and maintenance of morale which sustains such war effort. Loyalty to the whole word of God must be urged upon the members of the churches by the leaders of the churches and of the denomination.

Another basic policy which is helpful in planning a future stance toward the military chaplaincy is the support of consistent morality and rejection of doubtful morality. This leads away from the quagmire of pragmatism and expediency, such as the subtle endorsement of the military establishment by chaplains wearing the full military uniform of a commissioned officer with all the usual insignia of officers' rank. Perhaps the old Anabaptist doctrine of non-participation in official civil positions should be reexamined. It is not necessary to reject the total participation of an individual Baptist in any capacity in civil government. This would imply withdrawal from politics and would remove Christians from public office. Baptists will not retreat to that extreme position. But perhaps the ordained minister, serving in his capacity as a minister of the gospel, should reconsider the rationale for the Anabaptist position. Likewise, so should any agency of the denomination, serving as a function of the church, review the old Anabaptist conscientious avoidance of involvement in civil government. It is still a valid principle today that religion is not advanced by government control or interference.

The excuse is sometimes offered that the churches cannot afford to finance all the auxiliary religious services provided by the government. The same excuse could be offered concerning the operation of denominational universities, colleges, seminaries, hospitals, foreign mission work, or home mission work. Stinginess on the part of a church constituency is no excuse for falling back on government resources to finance religious ministries. Since the time of Roger Williams, Baptists in America have believed that church members, and not "strangers," should maintain and support their ministers. Presbyterians have said courageously that:

The fact that such a method of operation would add millions of dollars to the budget of each denomination of any size is not a valid argument against such an approach if we are to put principle above the cost of such faithfulness.

Another policy which should be observed in any arrangement concerning the work of the ministry is the assumption of church or denominational control over its ministers. This is especially important to maintain instead of government control of chaplains. Herschel Hobbs is correct when he says that to Baptists, religious freedom means that "the church should be free to determine its programs of worship, evangelism, and missionary activities" without interference by the civil power. In the military chaplaincy religious programs are formulated by the government in various ways, and certain evangelistic and missionary activities desired by some denominations are seriously discouraged or effectively prohibited. The church that endorses chaplains has little control over these religious programs, which are a part of the Command Operating Program.

The basic religious program objectives originate in the Office of the Chief of Chaplains, are taught by the military chaplain schools, are implemented in service regulations and directives, are authorized and approved by the local commanders, and are supervised by senior supervisory chaplains and other staff officers. Budgeting and programming documents are very stringent and effective in limiting the religious program. Efficiency reports are also very effective means of keeping the individual chaplain within the expected guidelines on religious activities and programs.

The argument that denominational endorsement alone furnishes sufficient church control over the chaplains is unconvincing and inadequate. The full meaning and implications of denominational endorsement must be reviewed by all Baptists as they were by American Baptists in 1972. Charles Wills, Secretary of the American Baptist Committee on Chaplains, has written:

Compliance with educational standards and pastoral experience is not sufficient, of itself, for endorsement…. Chaplains are representatives of the denomination, are subject to our jurisdiction in matters of moral or religious concern, and … the chaplain owes a loyalty to the Church he represents…. The Committee on Chaplains does not surrender its concern over the original and continuing fitness of American Baptist clergy who serve as chaplains…. The Committee on Chaplains exercises an evaluative function.

Southern Baptists and other denominations would do well to pursue the American Baptist clarification of the full meaning of denominational endorsement of chaplains. All churches should insist on church authority over the chaplains along with a corresponding reduction of military authority over the chaplains. Such a position would enhance the freedom of the chaplain's preaching and witnessing ministry. It would limit the authority of the state or the military to commandeer the church for political or military ends.

In order for the denomination to exercise effective control of its chaplains it is necessary to have a widely representative policy-making body from the whole denomination to exercise the management function over the chaplaincy.

Southern Baptists have demonstrated this search for such a commission or committee in the past. They have had several systems of supervision of the chaplaincy. Sometimes it has been under a special committee appointed by the Executive Committee, again under "A Committee on Public Relations" in Washington D.C. (which became the Baptist Committee on Public Affairs), then under a separate Convention Commission. This Chaplains Commission was originally under the Executive Committee and then (in 1941) under the Home Mission Board. The Chaplains Commission continued until 1959 to be listed as one of the separate Convention Commissions, and it reported directly to the annual sessions of the Convention for many years.

In 1959 the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a report from a professional management consultant agency which had far-reaching consequences for the Chaplains Commission and the Home Mission Board. One of its recommendations made the former Chaplains Commission a division of the Home Mission Board rather than a separate Convention Commission.

Until 1941, and to some extent to 1959, Southern Baptists had recognized the need for broader denominational representation in the Chaplains Commission. They understood very well that church-state issues and other ethical implications were involved in the military chaplaincy. Thus they tried to provide for the consideration of these constitutional issues and theological implications.

It is suggested that the professional management agency survey and report on the reorganization of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1959 missed the true Baptist distinguishing characteristic as it concentrated on streamlining the denominational organization according to modern management principles. One way to recover these guiding beliefs regarding the military chaplaincy is to provide a broad-based Commission or Special Committee to review continuously denominational policies on the entire area of government-paid chaplaincies. This Commission or Special Committee should have representative members from the Baptist Committee on Public Affairs, the Christian Life Commission, the six Southern Baptist seminaries, the Home Mission Board, and the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. It must be adequately staffed and funded to undertake thorough and independent studies, and it ought to report directly to the Southern Baptist Convention each year. Its function should include, among other things, recommending changes in policies and programs of the chaplaincy and directing the full-time staff which supervises the chaplaincy ministries of Southern Baptists.

As these objectives are accomplished they should minimize the jurisdictional power of government over religion and magnify the denomination's control of its own chaplaincy ministries. Now is an appropriate time for a provision for greater freedom for the chaplain in his religious ministry. To be morally responsible the chaplain must have prophetic freedom to exercise his religious ministry without restraints placed upon him by the government or military establishment. The chaplain prizes identity with the soldiers to whom he ministers; yet too close an identity with the system can possibly be a handicap when it becomes necessary to challenge and criticize this establishment. An effective denomination-wide Commission can insure the balance of "identification" with authentic ministry and witness.

Another aspect of the same cluster of problems involves the limitation of the chaplains' duties to those which are purely religious, moral, and spiritual in nature. This is necessary in order to avoid contribution to the military warfare effort. The chaplain's mission in the army is not to reduce the serviceman's fear of incurring guilt by killing the enemy, or to motivate him to be a better fighting man, or to improve his morale. The chaplain is there to be a man of God ministering to the spiritual and religious needs of the men just as the civilian clergyman does in his parish and community.

The chaplain must have increased opportunities to speak out effectively and protest immoral practices. This matter has been raised repeatedly by those who have investigated the My Lai incident in Vietnam. They have asked, "Where was the chaplain?" Many think that the chaplain could speak out in situations like this from outside the military establishment better than he could from within the establishment. But, either way, he must not be a "muzzled minister."

The final basic action for Southern Baptists to consider in contemplating their stance toward the future of the military chaplaincy will be difficult for many to accept. But it is crucial, and it must be said. The result of this study seems to indicate clearly that Southern Baptists must observe the policy of limitation of the numerical extent of their involvement in the military chaplaincy, and they must seek to increase other forms of civilian ministries to the armed forces personnel. The last report (June 1973) revealed a total of 539 Southern Baptists on active duty in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This number plus other Baptists comprise a very large percentage of the total church support of the military chaplaincy.

A reduction of this huge investment of ministerial manpower and denominational support seems advisable for several reasons. Baptists cannot complain about the cost of national defense expenditures and a growing militarism when they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The Chaplains Division says the denomination cannot finance the chaplains' salary and allowances; nevertheless, it consents in allowing the state or the secular citizen to subsidize this religious support out of public tax funds. If Christians feel that this support might be justified in critical and unusual war situations overseas in time of combat, this does not mean that massive support is equally justified in the United States during peacetime. Most servicemen have churches easily accessible in the civilian communities nearby most military installations. Nearby civilian ministers could come on the installations and provide much of the religious services and coverage as needed on a voluntary basis or by the financial support of their own church constituency or by those servicemen who benefit directly from such services.

There is therefore a question about the need for as many chaplains as we have in the present all-volunteer peacetime armed force. It is time to drop the facade and face hard facts. The basic axiom is that if there is to be any intermingling of church and state it must be kept to the absolute minimum necessary. Baptists have traditionally opposed intermingling of church and state in the past. Today they are beginning to modify some of their strict separationist views to allow some accommodation as necessary under unusual modern circumstances, but they cannot consistently go beyond that degree and kind of accommodation which is actually necessary. As one Southern Baptist wrote over fifty years ago, the question is not, "Is religion necessary to the well-being of the State?" but, "Is religion advanced by government control or interference?"

The traditional Baptist answer to the second question has been, "No, religion is not advanced by government control or interference." The answer to the first question has been uncertain depending on the circumstances, and wartime has been one of those circumstances which Baptists have reluctantly accepted. Some say that religion is necessary to the wellbeing of the state, but that need not imply a union of church and state. Religion in the lives of the individual citizens certainly aids in the total well-being of the state. And religion in the soldier contributes to his total well-being as a whole person, but the chaplain is not with the soldier on the battlefield to inspire the soldier to be a better fighter.

The Baptist position has been that the chaplain is with the soldier to minister the Gospel to the individual person for whom Christ died and who is the object of God's eternal love. This, and this alone, justifies the chaplain's presence on the battlefield. The chaplain's presence overseas on the battlefield in a combat situation provides the soldier the sole opportunity to hear the Gospel and to be ministered to by a man of God.

But the same situation and justification does not prevail in the United States in peacetime. Isaac Backus did not even believe in a peacetime army. Today most people accept a need for a small peacetime army backed up by a Ready Reserve for defense purposes, but it is out of order for the church to lead the military establishment to think that the denominations will provide an unlimited number of chaplains. When the denominations say, "No, there is a limit to our participation in unwarranted militarism," then the government will probably reevaluate its manpower requirements, military expenditures, and utilization of military chaplains.

There is one additional principle which seems to belong alone in another category. It concerns neither the Christian and society nor the Christian and the church but rather the Christian and his relationship to the Word of God as perceived by his conscience. Baptists need to underscore this characteristic doctrine of voluntary response of each individual to the Word of God as he understands its meaning and application by his conscience. This idea is basic in the understanding of Roger Williams, John Clarke, and other Baptists since their time; it is practically synonymous with the concepts of "soul liberty," "liberty of conscience," or "religious liberty." It rejects in an explicit way all forced worship.

This idea is often found to be central in the memorials which Isaac Backus and his contemporaries presented to their representative assemblies. For example, Backus said to the General Court of Massachusetts in 1772:

The free exercise of private judgment, and the unalienable rights of conscience, are of too high a rank and dignity to be submitted to the decrees of councils or the imperfect laws of fallible legislators…. Religion is a concern between God and the soul with which no human authority can intermeddle.

The very doctrine of individual regeneration or justification by personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior demands this kind of liberty of conscience. This kind of personal faith cannot be forced or coerced. The Baptist concept of the church is that of a body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior who have voluntarily associated themselves into a society of like-minded persons to obey and serve their Lord in freedom of conscience. Every Baptist minister, whether pastor, evangelist, missionary, or chaplain, must make this principle the basis of his message and of his ministry. This will be revealed in the way he preaches and witnesses, and in the challenges and invitations he extends to his hearers.

All Protestant chaplains are informed that their primary worship service emphasis is to be given to the "General Protestant" service. They are sometimes told that the invitation for individuals to respond to the proclaimed Word, to make a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or to dedicate or rededicate their life to Him, is not appropriate as an order of worship in a General Protestant service. Sometimes they are told that baptism by immersion is not appropriate in such a service, although the baptism of infants is commonly practiced without criticism. Baptist chaplains who have strong conscientious or doctrinal scruples about providing so-called "Open Communion" to a General Protestant congregation have constant difficulties with this in military chapel services.

It is difficult for the church to be the church, as understood by Baptists, in the situation of an interdenominational "General Protestant" community. Baptists are not the only ones who have trouble with this situation. For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod published a manual to guide Lutheran chaplains in their ministry to service personnel. This booklet stated that the chaplain's

… only religious authority is that given him by his church. Denominational limitations or religious authority cannot be removed or changed by military command or necessity. The chaplain does not have a moral right to perform a religious function which his Church does not authorize him to perform, or in the performance of any function to transgress the religious authority imparted by his Church.

The Presbyterian way of phrasing the fundamental situation is that it is the problem "of the church's self-understanding and integrity." It states that the primary objective of the church is faithful witness. It continues with the following admonition:

The church and its chaplains must be keenly sensitive to the erosion, exploitation, or softening of its witness. The church needs to be courageous enough to resist any such encroachment and, if necessary, must not hesitate to exercise the right of withdrawal from such a system to establish such other approaches as it may devise.

This seems to be good advice from a fraternal denomination which has often stood beside Baptists in the past two centuries in America on common issues concerning religious freedom. The recommendations of the Presbyterian 177^th General Assembly could well be supported by Southern Baptists. They can strongly endorse the following admonition:

… being constantly alert to any tendency on the part of the state to infringe on the freedom of the church to witness in faithfulness to its Lord, or to impose any theology of its own making upon the service personnel or chaplains.

If the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., can make such strong and clear statements on the military chaplaincy, many are wondering why Southern Baptists have been so silent on the same issues which they profess to believe. Yet, when a resolution was placed before the Southern Baptist Convention on this subject in 1972, the only decision was to refer it to another agency, which endorsed the status quo and took no further action.

Now the time has come for someone to make a move that will disturb the status quo. But, hopefully, and in the long run, it just might save the chaplaincy ministry to military personnel. When other religious groups, including Catholics and Jews, are making bold new reassessments of the military chaplaincy, Southern Baptists can no longer remain silent. In fact, with the historical and theological traditions of religious freedom and separation of church and state as the best way to secure religious freedom, Southern Baptists are obliged to participate in all these efforts.

This dissertation up to this point has suggested the reasons for a new Southern Baptist stance toward the military chaplaincy of the future. This chapter has set forth some of the background principles for such a stance. Attention is called to the fact that the development of a new Southern Baptist stance toward the shape of the military chaplaincy is not the same thing as to spell out in detail all the forms, policies, and procedures of a future chaplaincy program. Merely to develop a stance toward the shape of the future chaplaincy ministry is a necessary prerequisite for the next step. That next step will be to formulate in detail the policies, procedures, programming, funding, administration, and supervision of the new ministry. That will have to be a new study in itself.

This study makes an estimate of the situation from the Baptist viewpoint, sketches some preliminary outlines, and proposes some new directions for the chaplaincy. The next and final chapter of this study suggests some possibilities along these lines. The final chapter proposes a position statement of approximately 1,000 words on the future of the military chaplaincy. It provides a discussion of the statement in view of certain responses received from selected well-informed persons who are involved with the issues concerned.