CHAPTER VIII
A POSITION STATEMENT ON THE FUTURE CHAPLAINCY
The fundamental principles for the position statement suggested below have been set forth in the preceeding chapter. Those background principles enable the reader of the 1,000 word position statement to understand that there were substantial factual data for the position. However, since these "foundation principles" grew out of the first six chapters of study they should be considered against that background and in that context.
The procedure was to write a tentative 1,000 word proposed position statement on a Southern Baptist stance toward the future shape of the military chaplaincy and send it to a selected list of agencies and individuals for their review and comments. The persons and agencies on the mailing list who received a personal letter from the writer, along with a copy of the position statement and Chapter VII of the dissertation, are indicated in Appendix F.
The position statement is as follows:
A Proposed Position Statement on a Southern Baptist Stance
Toward the Future Shape of the Military Chaplaincy
Baptists have believed since their beginning in the principle of religious liberty; they have tested it in the American experience and have found that the separation of church and state is the best means of securing the blessing of religious liberty. They have endured the injurious results of both church and state when either exercises authority or control over the other, interferes with the other, or makes undue accommodation to the other. The church must be free of government financing or subsidy to maintain an effective and free witness and ministry within a free society.
Being guided by the precepts of the whole moral Word of God and the principles of Christian ethical teachings found therein, Southern Baptists are therefore urged to consider this statement regarding a denominational stance toward the future shape of the military chaplaincy.
FIRST, that we affirm ultimate allegiance to our sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ above all earthly loyalties, and that we test all other responsibilities by our higher obligations to him and his will; and that we refuse to allow our religion to be manipulated to sanctify national political goals.
SECOND, that we condemn war as contrary to the revealed Word and will of God, except in the direst circumstances as a last resort to avoid abject slavery to totalitarianism which would destroy all possibility for justice, righteousness, and freedom; and, inasmuch as atomic and thermonuclear war threatens the destruction of mankind, that we take a more positive stance against war.
THIRD, that we take corresponding actions to work positively for the causes of peace and brotherhood in the world.
FOURTH, that we undertake a serious review and major reform of the denomination's participation in the military chaplaincy, and as applicable to other forms of government-paid chaplaincies, for the following reasons:
a. Selective service laws are not now operable to force unwilling persons into the service; America's overseas commitments are being reduced; the bulk of military personnel are stationed in the United States or in places where local civilian churches are available and accessible; most military personnel are free on the weekends to attend civilian church services as they please; and even in many "isolated" military locations dedicated laymen are available to conduct religious services and witness for Christ.
b. Over-identification of the chaplain with the military establishment and the government has unavoidably dulled the cutting edge of the chaplains' ministry and added an intolerable burden to his dual loyalties to God and Country.
c. Challenges will doubtless eventually be presented in the courts testing the constitutionality of the chaplaincy as a possible violation of the First Amendment. This can force the churches of the nation to provide other alternative civilian ministries to service personnel. Rather than wait for the courts to force this issue upon the churches, it is recommended that Southern Baptists voluntarily take the lead in gradually reducing their manpower support to the chaplaincy and its dependence upon government financing, and correspondingly provide for the payment of salary and allowances of their chaplains and civilian ministries to military personnel. Such action results in the following benefits:
(1) It provides a better quality of ministry by minimizing the jurisdictional power of government over religion and magnifying the denomination's control of its own chaplaincy ministries; provides more freedom of the pulpit in prophetic utterance and propagation of the gospel; frees the chaplain and the denomination of pressure to support causes of doubtful morality.
(2) It is more consistent with our historical positions regarding the separation of church and state, and reflects our trust in what we believe to be right principles rather than accommodation with bad ones.
(3) It provides better utilization of civilian ministers and churches in the vicinity of military installations for effective ministry to their entire communities.
(4) It reduces our identification with and support of excessive militarism, and gives more credibility to our stated positions on war and peace. Accordingly, it provides manpower resources to form and staff a Baptist Peace Commission in direct proportion to the corresponding reduction of support for the military chaplaincy.
d. It is recommended that we work toward the goal that the number of chaplains be gradually reduced to the minimum number deemed absolutely necessary; that they be endorsed, supervised, and controlled by the denomination rather than being controlled by the military; that their basic salary and allowances be gradually assumed by the denomination and by voluntary offerings, and that the government provide only the necessary logistical, administrative, and auxiliary support; that maximum utilization be made of civilian ministers who volunteer their services or are paid by their own churches, associations, state conventions, or by the Home Mission Board, to supplement the truly essential military chaplains; that all chaplains be divested of all non-religious duties and responsibilities and utilized only as clergymen; that chaplains in the Reserve Components eventually be paid by non-government funds just as active duty peacetime chaplains are to be paid.
e. Finally it is recommended that a widely-representative Chaplains Commission or Standing Committee, composed of members from the Baptist Public Affairs Committee, the Christian Life Commission, the six Southern Baptist seminaries, and members of the Home Mission Board and the Executive Committee, be immediately constituted to review the entire area of denominational cooperation with and accommodation to the military and government chaplaincies. It is further recommended that said committee be adequately staffed and funded to make thorough studies of the implications of such denominational involvement, to report regularly to the annual sessions of the Convention, to establish policies, to recommended further changes, and to direct the staff which supervises the chaplaincy program.
The Statement and Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State
The view here on religious liberty and separation of church and state emphasizes a strong Baptist position which is consistent with our historic expressions and actions. It is supported by recent pronouncements by convention resolutions on specific issues and by statements of denominational leaders and publications.
Religious liberty is the more basic Baptist doctrine derived from Scriptural teaching, and separation of church and state is its corollary and means of securing and maintaining religious liberty. Not all Baptists elsewhere in the world have accepted the separation of church and state as interpreted by most Baptists in America and especially by most Southern Baptists. The statement does not attempt to speak for all Southern Baptists, much less for all Baptists, and certainly not for other churches or denominations. It attempts to speak with a consistent tone for the majority of Southern Baptists as this tone is understood from the study and experience of the writer. However, in view of the denominational policy and church government of Baptists, it is difficult to assess accurately the Baptist position on religious liberty. Not all Southern Baptists agree with everything in this statement on the military chaplaincy. This individuality is one evidence of the Baptist distinctive of liberty, which includes the freedom to disagree. The Baptist understanding of separation of church and state does not imply a complete severance of mutual interests on the part of government and religion. Neither does it include a separation of people, for the same people are in both the church and government. It does, however, include a separation of organized entities and of the functions of these entities.
It is true that sometimes Southern Baptists "do not make the finely drawn distinctions of separation of church and state often made by their leaders." However, there are also occasions when Baptists make surprising distinctions of separation of church and state that are ahead of those of their denominational leaders. For example, Texas Baptists in 1971 rejected the recommendation of their state denominational leaders that they accept federal aid for their hospitals. They did this on the basis of separation of church and state after their leaders had tried to justify such action as an acceptable accommodation between church and state.
Some Baptists are ambivalent with regard to the dilemma created by our church-state stance. They think it is entirely possible to observe the separation of church and state while cooperating in an enterprise which serves the purposes of both church and state. There are great dangers in the attempt to observe separation while cooperating in the present military chaplaincy arrangement. This accommodation exposes itself to strong tensions, dilemmas, and conflicts. These tensions and conflicts may be rationalized and accepted in war time when the survival of supreme values is at stake. But they should be tolerated in peace time only to the extent of genuine necessity and only as the church can maintain its integrity and speak prophetically and minister responsibly and freely under God.
It should be noted that the proposed position statement does not rule out any accommodation between church and state. My contention is that "undue" accommodation is bad for both church and state. The moderate view expressed here allows for some cooperation under certain conditions.
The Statement and War
The argument here on war and peace is intended to be strongly weighted for peace and against war except "in the direst circumstance and in the last resort." It is recognized that Southern Baptists are not pacifists. Neither is the writer a pacifist, and the statement is not pacifist. The context of the statement regarding war notes the threat that atomic and thermonuclear war poses to the destruction of mankind. If war is not ruled out "except in the direst circumstances as a last resort," the implication is that war is justified in less than the direst circumstances and in situations other than as a last resort. That is just the point. Every possible avenue of peaceful settlement of international problems, such as diplomatic negotiations, the influence of world opinion, economic sanction, and arbitration, should be exhausted before warfare is utilized as a means of imposing military solutions to world or national problems.
The viewpoint advanced here in that there is too great a willingness and inclination to use military force, rather than to use peaceful means. It is time to move in the other direction. This is especially important in view of the huge stockpile of atomic and thermonuclear weapons accumulated by Russia, The United States, China and France. The survival of civilization is at stake. No one knows when a small conventional war could escalate into a general nuclear war. Weapons of mass destruction demand a new attitude to warfare in this age.
The just war theory may still be morally supported by Christians, provided it is properly understood and implemented with great restraint under certain extreme circumstances. One restraint would be to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction against non-combatant and innocent civilians. One of the extreme circumstances in which just war can be supported is after everything else has been energetically attempted and has failed to produce a peaceful solution, and the lesser of two evils is to fight a legal, declared, defensive warfare as a last resort to avoid abject slavery to totalitarianism which would destroy all possibility for justice, righteousness, and freedom for mankind. This position is sound and realistic, and consistent with majority Baptist teaching and tradition.
The argument expressed here supports disarmament as an ultimate and ideal goal, but it does not favor immediate, unilateral disarmament in the face of totalitarian rearmament.
The Statement and the Reform of the Military Chaplaincy
The issues on the reform of the military chaplaincy focus on the main conclusions of the dissertation. These recommendations were not formulated until all the background data had been studied. When the research was started my only assumption was that the Baptist position on the military chaplaincy needed a thorough review in the light of Baptist church-state doctrine and contemporary ethical teachings. The recommendation for a major reform of the denomination's participation in the chaplaincy was a result of the study, not a basic assumption which the research was designed to prove or support. There was no bias in the beginning of the project either to defend the present chaplaincy system or to build a case to support its radical overhaul.
My statement recognizes the common nature of all government-paid chaplaincies—whether military, hospital, or institutional. All of these forms of chaplaincies have the distinguishing characteristic of using government tax funds to pay clergymen to perform religious functions. In this respect there is no difference between the military chaplaincy, the Veterans Administration chaplaincy, and the federal or state prison chaplaincy. If the churches object to the government's paying military chaplains, then, to be consistent, they must also object to the government's paying institutional chaplains.
Some Baptists seem to be under the impression that "the Supreme Court has indicated that the chaplaincy is constitutional." It is amazing how overconfident and comfortable many Baptists are about the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy. It must be remembered that, as a matter of fact, the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy has never been considered by the Supreme Court. It can be anticipated that eventually the chaplaincy will be directly challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union.
When this happens, no one knows what the decision of the Supreme Court will be. It may be conjectured that, based on past opinions on related decisions from the present justices sitting on the court, if this does happen within the next two or three years, they probably will decide not to hear the case. If the present Court does hear the case, the majority will probably vote to sustain the chaplaincy. But the membership of the Court changes from year to year, and their opinions and interpretations, and applications of the constitution change with the times.
Another factor is that those who are out to abolish the military chaplaincy will not stop with their first defeat. They will continue their attacks until they win their victory.
When the constitutionality of the chaplaincy is so challenged and is declared unconstitutional, the churches must not be caught unprepared, having made no contingency plans for such an eventuality. It would be wiser to anticipate the possibility of such an eventuality and prepare for it beforehand, rather than to have it forced on the churches suddenly without prior preparation. This is my contention. It would be much easier to begin now to make a gradual transition over a period of years to a system more in harmony with the traditional separation of church and state.
My suggested plan presents a feasible solution to the financial problems of chaplaincy reforms. A special issue of The Chaplain presented a summary of the estimated cost of an all-civilian chaplaincy. There the total figure of $47,835 annually per chaplain was given. The amount, however, included the administrative and logistical expenses, facilities, equipment, maintenance, secretarial expense, training, support, and all other associated costs. My proposal does not recommend that the churches immediately assume ALL of these associated costs. The churches can begin by assuming salaries and allowances, which, according to the estimate is approximately $11,000 per chaplain per year. It is not proposed that even this be done immediately but gradually. The proposal is that Southern Baptists work toward the goal that this change in the chaplaincy be accomplished gradually.
First, the number of Southern Baptist chaplains on active duty can and should be reduced. It is feasible, for example, to reduce the total number from the present 539 to 400 in three years, to 250 in another five years, and to 150 in another five years. This assumes that the "gap" is filled by civilian pastors who volunteer their services to military personnel or are paid from other than government funds.
The denomination need not begin by assuming the salaries and allowances of all its chaplains. There are various ways whereby it could gradually implement such a plan. The Southern Baptist Convention ought to set a date when it will begin to pay the salary and allowances of all new chaplains called to active duty. It could decide next when it will begin to provide similar financial support for all chaplains to whom is granted ecclesiastical endorsement for "Indefinite Category" or for "Regular Army, Navy, or Air Force." In the next phase of the plan the Convention could set another date when it will begin to provide support for the Reserve Components Chaplains and other government-paid hospital and institutional chaplains. This should logically be done as they are granted denominational endorsement and begin their chaplaincy duties. Such a plan would not impose a sudden and intolerable financial burden on the denomination. In the meantime, the churches could be educated, prepared, and motivated to give their voluntary offerings to include this additional ministry of our denomination. It is my recommendation that such a gradual transition be started as soon as possible.
Thus over a period of time, as government-paid chaplains retire, the younger generation of chaplains gradually would be paid by the denomination. This may involve an increase of approximately $300,000 to the Southern Baptist Convention Cooperative Program during the first year of its implementation. It would increase gradually over a period of twelve to fifteen years to less than two million dollars per year. This amount would be less than 1% of the present Cooperative Program budget and then an estimated 2% of the total Cooperative budget by 1985, assuming it keeps increasing at the present rate.
During the Civil War, when the Southern Baptists supplemented the salaries of the military chaplains, and paid the entire salaries of hundreds of civilian ministers who served the army in various ways, the members of the churches responded most generously, and religious revival was at the highest level it has ever reached in the military. There is no basis for the view that Baptists will not support a worthy cause which is properly presented to them. Baptists who believe in Christian colleges, universities, seminaries, and hospitals, support them financially. Baptists who believe in home missions and foreign missions give voluntarily to advance those programs. Likewise, Baptists who believe in providing chaplains to armed forces personnel will respond as good stewards to meet this missionary need and opportunity.
A valid question concerning the writer's proposed stance on the Southern Baptist chaplaincy concerns the government's provision of logistical services. Some apparently hold that Southern Baptists should pay all of the expenses of the chaplaincy program or else keep the present system and have the government finance everything.
The implication here is that complete separation of church and state would not be achieved with the expense divided as I propose. This is true. But my answer to this is that my recommendation does not call for immediate complete, absolute, rigid separation of church and state. Such is not now possible. Some accommodation and cooperation must be allowed for the present, but only up to the point of necessity—and that only as it does not compromise the integrity of ministry or witness. A cooperative arrangement whereby the church pays the salary and allowances of the chaplains and the government pays for the logistical support is a reasonable, consistent, and defensible arrangement at the present time. It does not call for undue accommodation either from the church or from the state. Under the present conditions the military chaplaincy does serve legitimate mutual interests of both church and state. But as long as the church contributes nothing to the costs, it has a weak case for pleading for more control of its chaplains or for minimizing the distinctively military character of the chaplaincy as presently established. Perhaps the time will come in the future when the denomination will decide that it can and should completely civilianize the chaplaincy to military personnel and assume all related costs. This could very well be one of the further changes to be recommended by such a committee or commission as proposed in my position statement.
There is a difference of opinion over the issue of the freedom or restriction of the chaplains. Some chaplains claim that there is no restriction on their work. Others admit that they are constantly hindered. More than fourteen years experience in the active army chaplaincy has revealed several specific instances in my own ministry and in that of other chaplains that restrictions do occur in certain situations. More freedom is desirable for the most effective ministry within the present military chaplaincy system. This fact has been recognized by several churches, and others have called attention to the potential for such dangerous restrictions of the chaplains' freedom. Greater denominational control, and correspondingly less military control, should help to give the chaplain more freedom in his ministry.
There are Baptists who are uncomfortable in the church-state accommodation of the chaplaincy but are not willing to go as far as the position here proposed. They hold that it may be possible to increase church supervision of its chaplains and to exercise greater influence on the actual programs conducted within the Armed Forces while retaining the identification with the present military chaplaincy arrangement. Some think that a redefinition or clarification of the meaning of denominational endorsement could provide for greater church control. However, Jonakait's study for the United Churches and ACLU concludes that the power of denominational endorsement, and its revocation, "will probably never serve as an effective civilian control mechanism." My experience in the chaplaincy leads me to agree with him on this. More than mere denominational endorsement, and the power of its revocation, is needed. The church must have at its disposal many lesser powers such as the power of reassigning the chaplain to a different locale or to other duties within the army, and the power to evaluate him and grant or withhold salary increases, promotions, and other recognitions and responsibilities.
It is the dream of many that the religious bodies of America might some day work out a "quid pro quo" in which they furnish qualified and endorsed clergymen to minister as chaplains to institutions and agencies of government, with such government agencies paying the expenses in return for the religious bodies exercising actual control of the chaplains and having an equal voice in the determination of programs. It is my opinion, based upon the research for this study and upon my personal experience, that it is unrealistic to expect this to happen. But, even if it were to happen, it could possibly result in more intermingling of church and state than exists under the present arrangement. Now, at least, there is more actual control and authority from the side that funds the costs. To have the government pay the entire expenses out of public tax revenues, and to have the churches in control of the personnel and programs so financed, would not improve the church-state difficulties that presently exist. Secularist taxpayers would have even stronger grounds to bring suits in the courts under such an arrangement.
The established military chaplaincy has served its purpose well in the past. Now is the appropriate time to move beyond the old concept to a better way of making available to service personnel the best possible opportunity to worship God according to their conscience. The government's obligation to service personnel is to provide them the opportunity or accessibility to worship if and as they choose. The government must not be so hostile as to deny that privilege. But that does not mean the government is obligated to hire the clergymen and support their own denominational missionary activities which are in excess of the minimum required to provide worship services for military personnel. It is a well-known fact that many chaplains of all faiths spend much of their time and energy working in behalf of local activities of their own church or denomination.
Under the present system in many situations, the government pays for a chaplain who cannot meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of the particular local military unit personnel, because he is not of their denomination or church, and his style of ministry is not adequate for them. To this extent such servicemen are "unchurched," even if they happen to have a chaplain with them. These men seek their spiritual satisfaction from the local civilian churches or from lay leadership Bible studies and group devotions. In such instances the chaplain's presence does not provide them freedom of worship according to the dictates of their conscience. Thus the chaplaincy still does not serve the function for which it is allegedly justified from a constitutional basis—to provide freedom of religion for military personnel.
This study concludes that Baptists treat the military chaplaincy as an exception to their traditional attitudes on church-state matters. Southern Baptists have historically held to the principle of separation of church and state. Many have decided that inasmuch as absolute separation is impossible, we can draw a line of separation to include the chaplaincy. The position held in my proposed statement is that there are great dangers in such accommodation, however expedient it may appear on the surface. Baptists who hold a broad interpretation of the First Amendment have great difficulty in this area. Some denominations do not have the problems that Baptists have, because their theology, ecciesiology, church-state doctrines, and traditions are quite different from Baptists. But Baptists must reconcile their practices with their own theology, ecciesiology, church-state doctrines, and concepts of missions and evangelism.
There are some justifications for a limited number of military chaplains to remain for the present within the military establishment. One reason for this is to coordinate the work of the civilian ministers until an alternate system is developed. Another reason for some military chaplains to remain in the armed forces is to influence the military organization from within. What appears needed today is both a small reformed military chaplaincy, and a larger supplementary civilian chaplaincy ministering to military personnel.
The position statement proposes "that a widely-representative Chaplains Commission or Standing Committee … be immediately constituted to review the entire area …" Such a review is needed, and peace-time offers an excellent opportunity to review and carefully analyze the chaplaincy.
There are several reasons to think that such a special committee or commission would be more responsible than the present Division of Chaplaincy in the Home Mission Board. First, it gives more consideration to religious liberty, church-state, and government-related issues which the perspective of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington can provide. Second, it pays more attention to the war and peace issues which the Christian Life Commission has expertise to furnish. Third, it provides the scholarly interpretation of the theological issues which the various Southern Baptist seminary faculties are admirably equipped to supply. Fourth, it has the advantage of overall denominational perspective, coordination, and insights from representatives of the Executive Committee. It benefits from the knowledge and skills of other commissions and institutions which have proper program interests in areas related to the chaplaincy. In other words, it avoids the "tunnel vision" of the present system, which is merely a division of one of the four general boards of the Convention.
Baptists should be aware of the fact that through the military chaplaincy system "the church has bridged the traditional wall of separation and entered an alliance with the state wherein the operative power and authority over the exercise of this ministry rests largely in the hands of Government." Southern Baptists, in spite of their background of strong support for religious freedom and separation of church and state, are weakening on this issue. They are adjusting to more and more accommodation with the state. Many twentieth century Southern Baptists have moved from the old Anabaptist position of "Christ Against Culture" to the modern "Christ of Culture" position as portrayed by H. Richard Niebuhr. Baptists will learn that they cannot remove the offense of Christ and the cross, or gain more disciples for Christ, by means of these church-state cultural and ethical accommodations. We shall one day discover that the accommodation of modern culture-Christians is no improvement over the anti-culturalism of the Anabaptists. What is needed for Southern Baptists today is to move on to the "Christ the Transformer of Culture" position. Without rejecting separation of church and state, we can move on beyond separation of church and state.
My position challenges Baptists to take a firm stance on the solid ground of our own traditions of religious liberty. The statement here is appropriate and reasonable. Its implementation is feasible. Such positive action as herein suggested would free the Southern Baptist chaplain from appearance of compromise resulting from government support and control. Our forthright leadership in these reforms of the military chaplaincy will have a great influence on the decisions of other denominations and on the attitudes and policies of the government. The position here proposed deserves study and implementation without further delay. It is a forward step toward the goal of a free church in a free state.