I have long wondered about the propriety of military chaplains. Mind you, I know some military chaplains and even have them for friends. But the complications to jure divino Presbyterianism that come from ministering as an agent of the state pale in comparison to the sort of ministerial promiscuity that goes on among the denominations (both liberal and non-Protestant) represented in the chaplaincy.
And sometimes you find support for your views in the oddest of places. I was reading John Frame’s book, Evangelical Reunion, recently and came across this:
A fellow minister in my presbytery is a navy chaplain. He is a pretty strict Calvinist, zealous to maintain doctrinal purity in the church. He would, I have no doubt, strongly oppose any candidate for the Presbyterian ministry who was charismatic in his theology.
Yet, in a recent report of his work as a chaplain, he told the presbytery that God had given him a fellow worker who was a member of the Assemblies of God. The chaplain rejoiced, for this worker was a real evangelial believer who proclaimed the gospel. There was little if any conflict between them; the theological difference seemed small compared with the great gap between the Christian and the non-Christian servicemen.
I could not help but remark (mentally!) that my fellow Presbyterian was rejoicing in a kind of alliance that he would certainly repudiate within his denomination.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Of course, Frame was using this as an argument for greater unity and cooperation among Presbyterians and evangelicals. But can’t it also be used to pull the plug on ordaining men as military chaplains?
Old Life 
I’m an Army officer (but not a chaplain) and an orthodox presbyterian, and I have very mixed feelings on this issue.
On the one hand, the chaplaincy raises some obvious ecclesiastical problems, such as that expressed above. In addition, military chapels on posts and bases are parachurch organizations at best, since generally no discipline is administered, and a “Protestant” chaplain can mean anything from a Southern Baptist to a mainline Presbyterian, and even Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are usually considered Protestants. The quality of training and overall ability of chaplains, regardless of denomination, varies greatly – some are wonderful evangelicals, others are there because they make the same pay as any other officer, which is probably a lot more than they would otherwise in ministry.
On the other hand, when a unit is deployed, if there weren’t chaplains, soldiers would have little chance of even being able to attend a simple non-denominational worship service. A year in Iraq or Afghanistan is too long to just listen to .mp3 sermons from your NAPARC church back home, and the fellowship groups that would form in the absence of chaplains might be even worse off theologically. Contracting pastors to serve as non-military chaplains in the field is definititely not a good solution, from a unit-cohesion standpoint. In garrison, chaplains do play an important role in counseling wayward soldiers; without them commanders would have to send soldiers to go get counseling at the post/base non-religious counselors (which, admittedly, might not be that much worse in many cases).
In either case, reformed chaplains are serving as missionaries, much like those who go to any foreign country. Should we continue to send this type of missionary? I think so, with the proper appreciation of the potential difficulties.
LikeLike
There is another problem, too, namely the possibility of the chaplain being co-opted to be a mouthpiece for the military. It is possible to be so gung-ho that the chaplain forgets that he is a minister representing a particular denomination.
LikeLike
It is possible to be so gung-ho that the chaplain forgets that he is a minister representing a particular denomination.
That reminds of the scene in The Patriot when Rev. Oliver’s (René Auberjonois) sermon is interrupted by the colonial militia to recruit men to fight the redcoats. He pleads a lot of 2K at the barging in, but then ends up passionately removing his clerical collar in order to join, saying, “A shepherd has to guard his sheep.” Then he leaves them.
What was up with that?
LikeLike
As someone who has contemplated the chaplaincy the one thing that keeps coming back to me is “He who pays the piper calls the tune…”
LikeLike
” Contracting pastors to serve as non-military chaplains in the field is definititely not a good solution, from a unit-cohesion standpoint. ”
Hm. So much the worse for “unit cohesion,” I’d say. Why wouldn’t you say this too? Why is unit cohesion a priority over biblical ministry?
Shouldn’t the churches be “humbly petitioning” the government on this very point? If the churches were the ones “contracting” (paying their own ministers), and the military did not interfere, then problem solved. Right?
Would we think it legitimate for a minister to be in the pay of Wal-Mart as Wal-Mart’s chaplain?
LikeLike
Baus, ya, I think I agree. I guess I was straying off into thinking about what unit commanders would say if someone told them their chaplain was from now on going to be a contractor, not an organic part of their unit. It’s a fairly radical idea for the military mind, and I don’t think it could ever happen in our lifetime. But since we’re talking about what should be, not what could be or what’s most practical, yes, I agree that for 2KT / spirituality of the church reasons, chaplains should be primarily accountable to their denomination / church, not to the military.
LikeLike
Gentlemen,
The chaplaincy has difficulties. You may even be able to argue persuasively that it isn’t how we’d do things if we were in charge. But Dr. Hart’s post seems pretty callous. And Baus, I’d suggest you refrain from speaking on matters that you aren’t qualified to address. Your comment re: unit cohesion sounds silly.
Members of the body of Christ are serving in some pretty tough places under some pretty tough circumstances (physical and spiritual). All I’ve heard so far (with a minor exception in a comment above) is the implied suggestion that we shouldn’t be ministering to our armed forces. Nice. You’d leave the sheep without an under-shepherd.
As a vet (US Army Field Artillery Officer) who is now an ordained PCA pastor, your callous approach thus far has lost you any influence with me on this issue. I see a very theological post that is vacuous with respect to any pastoral care or concern. The two need not be separated.
Why don’t you instead recognize this as the aberration that it is (like emergency room MDs working on the Sabbath as an act of mercy) and instead shape the conversation as an exploration of how we might improve the means of ministering to our armed forces so that the sheep have oversight consistent with our polity (or at least more consistent with it)? Serving in combat isn’t normal. And unless you are ready to argue that Christians shouldn’t serve in the armed forces, then you have an obligation as a shepherd to discern how best to minister to them instead of shouting “King’s X” on the basis of polity and implying that all PCA chaplains should be withdrawn. I don’t know about any of you, but my congregation has members and family serving overseas. I can’t be there to preach, teach, pray, and minister to and with them. I appreciate the fact that we not only have chaplains, but thank God we have PCA chaplains, that can and are ministering to them.
LikeLike
Matt,
I’m not sure your criticism of Darryl’s post is fair. He’s not implying that we shouldn’t minister to members of the armed forces. In fact, I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion. He is simply questioning the legitimacy of a military chaplaincy, given the nature of the two kingdoms, as well as some of the serious complications involved with it (e.g. non-confessional ecumenicalism). As a vet of the Army myself, I know that there are other ways to minister to those in the service, such as planting solid Reformed churches in military towns, both stateside and overseas. How great would it be to see a NAPARC church outside the gate of every Army fort, Air Force base and Navy base across the globe? This does not require a chaplaincy and allows the church to function in its commission and proper realm.
Granted, ministering in a combat zone or on a ship at sea presents greater challenges for officers of Christ’s church, but perhaps our presbyteries and classes need to explore this more.
LikeLike
And think about this. Imagine a world where the United States was not a superpower and only fought wars to defend its own territory. Hmmm. I seem to recall some of our nation’s greatest presidents even thinking this should be the policy. If that were the case, then many of our sheep could go to the local church, except in a time of war.
And to keep the imagination juices flowing, imagine a church that advised her members not to serve in the military if the armed forces engaged in overseas wars. I can certainly see a church advising a member not to move to a place where the only church was Roman Catholic. So why not do the same for potential soldiers?
No, I am not a pacifist. Yes, I am an anti-federalist. And yes, I don’t think our churches have been all that savvy about American foreign policy or the wars that follow from it.
LikeLike
But that’s not the world we live in, dgh.
LikeLike
Chaplains make the best of a bad situation. It is good to have a doctor when you need one on the Sabbath or special missions of mercy, but the analogy might hold that said doctor receives his salary not from the hospital but from the insurance company.
LikeLike
So, Dr. Hart, according to your logic, we shouldn’t have fought in WWII? I agree not every war we’ve fought in has been wise or right. But I’m also going to be a bit slow to make that call sitting in my study when Presidents and their cabinets have more information that I do. I don’t mean I’ll follow blindly, just that it’s too easy to play Monday morning quarterback when you have no idea what intelligence information has led to the decision. I also think there’s a difference between “only fighting wars to defend our own territory” and “not to serve in the military if the armed forces engaged in overseas wars.” We may have to fight overseas in order to defend our territory. Any view that rejects this outright is, in my opinion, naive.
@ Mike Brown – thanks for the reply and the encouragement to read the o/p in a different light.
As for federalism, I’m a southerner, so I’m more of a states’ rights person myself. 🙂 But a little American history demonstrates quickly that the projection of power is the best defense of our sovereignty. The first 20 years of our nation’s existence involved a struggle between those arguing in favor of a Navy and those against. All the arguments against were very persuasive (at least for me) and sourced in mistrust of the federal government, and they prevailed for a time. But then US interests in trade with Europe and along the Barbary Coast were threatened. The economy began to collapse. Americans were being forced out of their ships and into British and French warships in which they even sometimes had to fight against their own countrymen. American merchantmen were being taken along the Barbary Coast and sold into slavery. All the while the American government was powerless to do anything but bribe the foreign nations and seek diplomatic solutions. None of which worked. The result was the formation of a standing Navy, which by the end of the War of 1812 corrected all of these problems by establishing America’s ability and determination to defend herself. And that’s just one example of where weak federalism failed to protect our nation’s interests. Federalism has a lot of problems. But I’m not sure how being anti-Federalist gets anyone off the hook in this conversation. What are you suggesting by making this point? That because the federal gov’t ought to be weak domestically that we shouldn’t trust them or be lead by them in foreign affairs? (honest question)
I like Mike’s idea above. And, in fact, there is already a move to accomplish this. A good friend of mine is a PCA pastor serving a (non-chaplaincy) congregation in the Ramstein area in an attempt to minister to our soldiers and airmen stationed there. But as Mike points out, unless my friend can deploy with those men, they are once again left shepherd-less in a time of great need.
I need to apologize to Baus for my comment above, which was needlessly antagonistic and should have been better explained. To so flippantly dismiss the importance of unit cohesion demonstrates a gross lack of understanding regarding the military. To frame the conversation (and so early in the conversation!) as a matter of being biblical vs ignoring the Word is an unnecessary and unhelpful dichotomy. We haven’t yet established that there is no means by which we can both satisfy the demands of Scripture and not do harm to the cohesive nature of the military unit. If you haven’t ever served, please consider being more cautious about speaking up with regard to what matters in the military. I suspect most believers in the armed forces would like a solution that is both biblical and maintains the kind of unit cohesiveness that helps keep people alive rather than dead in combat.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if this will help very much because I myself don’t know enough about the topic, but within Lutheran circles, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod sends civilian ordained pastors to minister to their troops, whereas in the Missouri Synod, my own church, our pastors are enrolled in the military chaplaincy, hold rank, and so forth. My understanding is that the WELS does this for both the confessional reasons that DGH outlined and also because if a pastor is transferred as a soldier from one place to another, that changes his ministry, which is something the state doesn’t have the right from God to do. I believe that the Missouri Synod sent civilian chaplains to the Civil War, but by the time of the First World War, they and the WELS had pastors in uniform (despite their suspicious fluency in German). I’m not sure why the change occurred, but I do see the theological difficulty of allowing the state to control one’s pastors. The WELS got out of the military chaplaincy program around the Second World War because the military was by then categorizing us as generic “Protestants,” so we would have to minister to and publicly pray with (inside Lutheran baseball issue) Christians with whom we were not in doctrinal agreement. Missouri has tried to maintain its confessional Lutheranism while participating in the program, but I think it does involve inevitable compromises that not every minister is willing to make, apart from the thornier question of whether or not he should make them at all.
LikeLike
I’m a long-time civilian (JAG) employee of the Army. My family and I attended Army military chapels while we were stationed in Germany for many years–and we were frustrated by the lack of any permanent Reformed witness–other than the church Matt alludes to (God bless Doug Hudson!). I agree with Rev. Brown–the prebyteries and classes should be exploring how to serve the military overseas and in combat zones in a distinctly Reformed way; in my experience, this is not happening, and any Reformed witness is being diluted in the mishmash of the Army chaplain system which is designed to appeal to a “general” evangelical Protestant (usually Baptist) crowd. The Lutherans are doing a better job at keeping themselves separate than the Reformed in the chaplaincy.
LikeLike
I am not sure that my comments are useful but I am of a mixed mind on this topic. I would be interested to know if any NAPARC denominations have tried to post a civilian pastor at any of the larger bases overseas apart from military Chaplains, this is an interesting idea and something that I have not experienced in my carrier in the military. I think that this would be a great service in addition to the military Chaplains, not as a replacement.
I have been helped both as a recipient of the military Chaplains and by referring people under me to the Chaplain. In one instance my unit was passing through a forward operating base when I was informed that my wife was having complications with her pregnancy. To make a long story short the doctors stateside needed me to have genetic testing done and the results sent to them, the Army medical unit was refusing to preform the testing. My commands Chaplain, located stateside, was briefed on the situation and after contacting the Chaplain for the medical unit was able to clear up the red tape in a single phone call.
From my perspective in addition to a theological role the Chaplains play the pastoral role of an honest broker with family hardship issues, martial counseling, and other heart and minds issues that can easily be overlooked or pushed to the side by commanders and senior enlisted. It is very easy to get focused on the front sight and look only at the current mission, the Chaplain is there to remind us that our people are human beings with spiritual needs. I am not sure how this can be done by someone outside of the organization
For people not experienced in “unit cohesion” it is essential to the successful functioning of an organization. Much of unit cohesion comes from trust, and this trust must be earned by living working and training with the unit, suffering the same hardships. Seniors must trust that the Chaplain is a professional who can function productively, physically and mentally, in the unit and juniors must trust that the Chaplain is not just the lapdog of the command.
I don’t think I have the answer to any ecclesiastical problems but I wouldn’t throw out the good for want of the perfect.
LikeLike
If I could comment as a guy who’s more Reformed Baptist, and a former Marine Sgt who has served over in Iraq. I’ve seen the good and the bad of military chaplain, and as a young Marine, I have always struggled with the lack of Christian fellowship, not because I wasn’t living a Christian life in the military and seeking other brethren, but because there is such a small light of Christians at times.
I think what Matt has to say should provide some caution to those who are quick to dismiss military chaplains. One of the biggest need of the believers, and I’m sure Christians from NAPARC in the military, will be fellowship and spiritual nourishment through the body of believers. Provided that they are stateside, or a safe overseas base, that’s not a problem, as there are local churches one can attend offbase, even if it might not be a NAPARC, the believer has the choice of something that reflect closer to his conviction. But when these brethren are in deployment, on a Navy carrier for six plus months, in a lone hill top Army fire base in Afghanistan, or an “outside the wire” posts quartered with Marines, and assuming there are believers, are they not to gather, or observe the Lord’s Day together as believers? Pastors who are civilian contractors with the military can only go so far in such situations, and military chaplains are able to fill in more of these needs.
I think any denomination should view their chaplains in the military as missionaries, and getting church plants near military bases that can assist chaplains when they are stateside and plugging in the NAPARC members and new believers would be great.
Like Gundek, I agree with his last comment, “I don’t think I have the answer to any ecclesiastical problems but I wouldn’t throw out the good for want of the perfect.”
LikeLike
DGH – really, you think that a church should advise her members not to serve in the military if the armed forces engaged in overseas wars? Most of what I know about the spirituality of the church I learned from reading your stuff – wouldn’t this suggestion be inconsistent with that doctrine? Obviously a church should advise members not to move somewhere where there’s only a catholic church – that’s a spiritual kingdom matter. But whether a nation should be involved in an overseas war, especially if it’s a just war – isn’t that an earthly kingdom decision that the church shouldn’t take part in?
LikeLike
Matt, your speaking on whether I’m qualified to address the issue is what’s silly. You have absolutely no way of knowing what I am or am not qualified to address. Sorry, bro.
LikeLike
I forgive you, Matt. Let me clarify: I did not say (nor do I believe) that unit cohesion is unimportant. However, I do believe that if anything important (no matter how important, or what it concerns) suffers because of obedience to the Lord (and important, good things can and do suffer because of obedience), then we must nonetheless be obedient, and the important things must suffer.
Now, it seems you would disagree that obedience to the Lord concerning church ministry conflicts with U.S. military practice on this issue. So we disagree, not about the military, but about what constitute obedience to the Lord.
LikeLike
Advise, Paul, advice. Heck, I’d advise a church member not to shop at Staples or Walmart if they really loved their neighbor. Doesn’t mean shopping at Staples or Walmart is a sin.
LikeLike
I understand that; but you mean you – yourself – giving advice, not the church qua church, correct? Otherwise, what’s the difference between that and a denomination “advising” the president that women shouldn’t serve in the military (which I think we agree is beyond the scope of what the church should do)?
I – myself – would advise someone not to be a Phillies fan, even though most of the time I don’t think being one is a sin. But my church should DEFINITELY not give such advice.
LikeLike
Paul,
Darryls’ point aside, I think you’re on the right track here, making an important distinction between what an individual member may do and what the church mayn’t.
But speaking of “what’s up with that,” I’ve always myself wondered what gives with the idea that the church begrudge a member’s calling in the kingdom of man (where Jesus is equally Lord, by the way). If some place is absent a true church it seems to me the onus is more upon the church to get a-plantin’ instead of possibly standing in the way of where Jesus is calling someone to carry out his vocation. That doesn’t solve our friend’s obvious spiritual problem with regard to his earthly calling, but it has always seemed an odd, if convenient suggestion to me that a piece of vacant land is somehow Joe Believer’s fault instead of the church’s.
LikeLike
I just got in the mail today a flyer from a chaplain out of a southeastern presbytery asking for help in planting PCA churches next to every base and military school at home and overseas. He may not share DGH’s philosophy, but he’s advocating the same sort churchly response.
LikeLike
Paul: it is one thing to write a letter to the president, it is another to give intstruction to church members. Most General Assembly reports are “pious advice.”
But if Luther — Mr. 2k himself — can offer instruction to soldiers about war, why can’t a good spirituality of the church guy? Maybe your 2k theology needs a little fine tuning.
LikeLike
So what does that mean? We establish chaplains for bailed out Wall St. firms? Why can’t we aspire to be Canada?
LikeLike
Matt, by my logic (and Machen’s in fact) we would have not fought a war to make democracy global, as in that good (?) Presbyterian, Woodrow Wilson’s logic. And if the U.S. does not intervene in WWI, a second European war may not have taken the proportions that it did, and who knows what a less emasculated Germany would have meant for the Russkies and their little experiment with socialism.
LikeLike
This is a good idea, if there can be a Burger King in Bagram there can be a First Presbyterian Church of Bagram.
LikeLike
Luther – as Luther, not the church – giving advice is fine. Luther also advised Germans to pillage and kill all the Jews in Germany. If he’d been successful America wouldn’t have needed to become involved in a foreign war in 1941, and then all our problems would be solved!
LikeLike
How about a prison chaplain? While his primary purpose (in the eyes of the state) is to protect prisoners’ religious freedoms under the Constitution, his primary purpose (in eyes of his church) is to minister in Word and sacrament. Are the two compatible?
Of course, I speak personally. Not all churches send men to be chaplains with an eye toward Word and sacrament. Still, is this setting any different from the military setting? Does Hebrews 13:3 have any cause to play on the field, or is a prison chaplaincy a bastardization of that text?
LikeLike
Paul: Puh-leeze. Luther died in 1546. American entered the war in 1941. You do the math (not to mention the soul sleep).
LikeLike
I’m not sure how playing “what if” really answers my question. It isn’t about how WWII might have been avoided, but whether or not there was any moral justification for our involvement when it did. Your argument against participation in foreign wars assumes that all foreign wars are unjustified. I’m not playing “what if” when I ask about WWII. I’m pointing to a foreign war that seems to be an example of where your logic fails. And if it was indeed right for us to get involved in WWII, you are back to trying to figure out how to provide pastoral care for those men fighting it instead of trying to figure out how to “pull the plug on ordaining men as military chaplains.”
Not all wars fit the “forcing democracy on everyone” mold. Some are actual responses to madmen such as Hitler (who you’ll recall did a wonderful job of restoring the German economy and pride PRIOR to launching his all out offensive on Europe and the Jewish people). The response to Hitler was “preemptive”. It wasn’t fought on a hunch. America entered late after most of the continent had been taken by the Germans (and we had been attacked by Japan).
So here is a foreign war against which it’s unclear to me how you can object. If there was ever a “just war” in our country’s history, it would seem to be this one.
LikeLike
Should’ve been “wasn’t preemptive”.
LikeLike
Matt, at this point, you and I are disagreeing about foreign policy, not chaplains in the military. I do think that if the U.S. had followed the advice of George Washington when he left office, the nation would have been less inclined to enter wars that did not directly involve self-defense. You may disagree and that’s fine. By your policy, the United States would continue its current role of global cop. The point for this discussion is that such a policy has implications for churches and their members. Fighting wars of self-defense puts churches and their members in less awkward situations.
Selah.
LikeLike
As a retired Marine and Navy Chaplain, I’ve seen the best and the worst. I have also witnessed the abuse of government-official power. Unquestionably. I’ve seen budgets adjusted in favour of liberal mainliners at times. I possess, in writing, at home, several missives given to me by a Roman superior–in writing. For example, “You shall cease and desist from using Protestant sources for sermon preparation or using references to the Reformation. Protestant theology is not for normal people.” I have others; this same fellow had done this under the radar screen for ten years preceding me. Utter and deafening silence on the matter, including the JAG community. Fortunately, I have been able to turn five Churchmen-Pastors from the chaplaincy, but that has been more personal than reasoned. There are some good Churchmen, as Chaplains, that have and are conducting good ministry. Of all, those serving in the defense of national objectives, afloat, in the air, in the deserts, under the sea, they above all people deserve ministry.
LikeLike
These are the brave and are standard or those who wish they could be. Semper Fi, if any Marines are reading this.
LikeLike
An interesting dialog among you all! I’m glad to hear some Reformed discussion on the military chaplaincy. Who am I? I’m the “endorser” for 6 Reformed and Presbyterian denominations: PCA, OPC, RPCNA, KAPC, KPCA and URCNA (Your assignment is to figure out who they are…or check out my website at http://www.prjc.net). Together, the six make up the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains and Military Personnel (PRJC). What is an “endorser?” Most military and civilian chaplaincies require an endorsement from a recognized religious body declaring they are “legit.” I describe my role as a “Catch, Credential and Care” role as we seek chaplains for these 6 denominations. I am privileged to Care for over 250 PRJC chaplains serving in a variety of chaplain positions. My responses to some of the issues brought up in this discussion:
1. “Chaplains are beholding to the State”: Not true! One cannot be a chaplain in the federal system (military, prison, Veteran’s Hospitals) without an endorsement. This endorsement declares they are ecclesiastically legit but more than that, it is a declaration that they will faithfully represent their faith-group as they perform religious support. PRJC chaplains must faithfully represent the Reformed faith or I will pull their endorsement. Though they are paid by tax-dollars, they are “beholding” to their denomination…period! Many other civilian chaplaincies also require an endorsement.
2. “The military should be served by civilian clergy of the various denominations.” Simply not practical. There is no way a civilian clergyman would be allowed to serve a constituent in a theater of war – their lack of training, knowledge of the environment, preparation, unit involvement, etc. would put troops (and themselves) in danger. Allowing any civilian clergy to simply show up would also present some interesting challenges, i.e., a well-funded cult group could flood posts with “clergy” simply because they have the funds to do so. Some groups (including the WELS body) have tried to serve their members in theaters of war, but they cannot gain access for the above reasons (Just last week I had a chaplain ask me if I could help him advise the WELS group to “approve military chaplains.” Why? Because WELS clergy were not allowed to visit their members in areas of conflict).
3. “Constitutional Views:” Chaplains are allowed to be in the military to bridge the “free exercise” and “no establishment ” clauses of the First Amendment. They allow every troop to have free access to religious ministrations. In this regard, chaplains “Perform and Provide” religious support (the Navy calls it “Provide and Facilitate”). When a chaplain preaches, teaches, marries, buries, counsels or “performs” any ecclesiastical function, he does so according to his stated faith…and he does so with complete liberty; he also “provides” when he helps other faith groups freely exercise their Constitutional rights (a chaplain will gladly help another group with chairs, lights, pianos, heat, sound systems, rooms, etc that they might worship according to their personal beliefs). As a sidelight, historically speaking, it’s important to note that chaplains have been part of the military since Geo. Washington assigned them in 1775…before any Constitutional issue. Washington recognized the tremendous need for spiritual care in a rough environment.
4. “Wal-Mart Chaplains:” The PRJC has chaplains serving in hospitals, prisons, hospices,
nursing homes, Civil Air Patrol, police, fire and NASCAR chaplaincies. The market-place chaplaincy (businesses) is a fast-growing chaplaincy field…If Wal-Mart wanted to hire a PRJC man as a chaplain, I’d be quick to endorse him for the job. Gospel Calls are as broad as wherever God opens up the opportunity for Gospel Service. All PRJC chaplains have been approved for their ministry through their presbyteries and are sent out to proclaim Christ boldly by that presbytery…the point being that calls to chaplaincy positions are vetted at the Presbytery or classis level.
4. “Reformed Chaplains and Other Evangelicals:” PRJC chaplains rejoice whenever they can work with and/or support another evangelical. They understand the body of Christ is diverse but they know how to stand their theological ground when required. The PCA, for example, is an Associate Member of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)…so is the Assembly of God…therefore, PCA chaplains cherish any fellowship they have with a fellow evangelical, Calvinist or not. Because of this spirit, our PRJC men have been powerfully used of God to positively affect other chaplains, too, in their theological journeys.
5. “Reformed Churches Near Posts/Bases:” Go for it! Get your denomination to plant as many churches as God allows near our military folk. A good Reformed church becomes a key ally with the Reformed chaplains in the battle for the souls of our troops. I would also love to find men willing to serve as a Reserve chaplain…and plant churches near these bases – a wonderful way to serve a civilian congregation and serve his country!
My only wish is that that we might find more Reformed men to serve in this incredibly wonderful Constitutionally-allowed federal and civilian chaplaincy world. Paul’s words to Colossians are appropriate: “Pray…that God may open a door for our message that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ…(making) the most of every opportunity.” Col 4:3,5
LikeLike
Thank you, Chaplain Lee, for your input. I think some of my frustration, as someone who worshipped in military chapels overseas for almost twenty years centers, centers on your paragraph “Reformed Chaplains and Other Evangelicals.” I would have appreciated being built up in my Reformed faith through attending a Reformed worship service; unfortunately, the Reformed chaplains I ran across did not do this–at times, contenting themselves with an “NAE” mentality–as long as a worship service is led by an “evangelical,” it’s all good. The Lutherans were good at establishing a separate identity–as were the Episcopalians; the Reformed–not so much. We should be doing better than this, in my humble opinion. We have so much more to offer in our Reformed faith.
LikeLike
Richard: if our PRJC chaplains could, they’d solo lead worship services to maintain a more Reformed focus. The “general Protestant” service is a source of frustration. But, thru Bible studies, etc, they work hard to present the Bible thru our Reformed lens. Among the 3500+ military CHs, only @150 are PRJC…so a military person will run across broader types as a rule. So…we need more Reformed clergy in AND outside the gates!
LikeLike
The arguments in favor of the chaplaincy seem to suggest that the need determines the method. Or do we believe that Jesus has prescribed how the church is called to make disciples?
LikeLike
Ryan: To an extent, need does determine where and how the Gospel goes out. Jesus never “approved” youth pastors, executive pastors, campus pastors, music pastors, seminary president callings requiring ordination, various chaplain ministries, etc…Jesus simply prescribed, “Go and make disciples….” Wherever a unique opportunity to proclaim Christ surfaces in the world, Christians should determine how to meet that need under the clear mission of “Go!”
LikeLike
From what I understand, the operative verbs in the Great Commission are teach and baptize, which then might also point to what Christ revealed through his servant Paul in the pastoral epistles about the work of ministry.
LikeLike
and your point is…?
LikeLike
Maybe the Great Commission doesn’t give you the green light you think it does.
LikeLike
DGH,
I appreciate your post. I’ve been coming to the same conclusions (after thinking about one of my WSC classmates who has ended up in the chaplaincy). A confluence of influences accounts for my conclusions: MGK’s distinction between common and saving grace, your biography of Machen, your “Secular Faith” and Ron Paul have all forced me to rethink many political convictions I had previously taken for granted.
What I’d really like to ask is if you wouldn’t mind addressing the Church, the individual Christian and war. In light of all those influences above, I’ve read pre-Constantinian Christians like Tertullian and Lactantius who seem to have thought that being a Christian was incompatible with fighting in a war. I read your reply earlier on this page in which you say that you’re not a pacifist. So I would very much appreciate reading your thoughts on the matter. I no longer understand how to be a Christian and a non-pacifist.
Many thanks,
Chris
LikeLike
I’m posting anonymously to avoid naming names.
I have served in the military. I have a great deal of experience with military chaplains. I know for a fact that a NAPARC military chaplain has conducted a Roman Catholic Mass. Now don’t get me wrong, he did it because he felt he had to. He was on a ship sailing the seas, and there was no priest to be found. It’s his job, you see, to facilitate the worship of those Roman Catholics aboard. After all, don’t those Romans have a right to practice their religion? They do, says the military, and thus they have chaplains to facilitate that practice.
But is that all that chaplains do? No, they also serve as advisors to the commanding officer. They participate in the planning of missions and give advice one way or the other. Is this something that a minister should be doing? This is far from a small compromise in two kingdoms theology.
Think about things from a larger perspective though. Aren’t we presbyterians? Don’t we believe that the ministry of the Word ought to take place in the context of the Church? Yet chaplains operate outside the church. There are no elders. There is no church discipline. If the three marks of the church is your guide, then there is no church here. Chaplains operate outside the church.
But if they’re operating outside the church, how can they fence the table of the Lord’s Supper? What elders can approve that communicate’s profession of faith and approve him to take the Lord’s Supper? Perhaps you say that the person is a member of a church back home in the US. Ok, but what about someone who converts under the ministry of the Chaplain? If you believe that chaplains are so needed and so effective, obviously there will be converts. How can he then administer the Lord’s Supper to them? How can he properly baptize them in a combat zone without elders there to receive that person into membership along with a duly established congregation?
Now there’s two marks of the church that are either absent or cannot be done properly by a chaplain. Yet chaplains administer the sacraments ALL THE TIME. How are NAPARC chaplains not completely violating their ordination vows when they do these things? Certainly those vows are violated when the Roman mass is conducted by a Protestant!
If this man is truly called to the ministry and trained toward that end, wouldn’t the church be far better served, wouldn’t that man’s gifts and training be put to much better use if he planted a church instead of serving as a military chaplain?
But, you say, what about all those poor people in our churches who have joined the military and need a NAPARC chaplain? Should we just neglect them?
My answer is, yes. I’m here to tell ya that if you think that everyone in the military has access to a NAPARC chaplain, you’ve got rocks in your head. I was VERY fortunate to have access to one, but maybe 10% of the military has such access. Some of the comments on this post seem to indicate that we’ve got THOUSANDS of chaplains, one for every unit. This just isn’t the case. If you’re a pastor and a young man in your congregation comes to you and says that he’s thinking about joining the military, I would hope you wouldn’t say, “Sure, that’s a GREAT idea! You’ll surely be able to continue to attend proper worship services, no matter where you go, because NAPARC participates in the chaplain program!” A more truthful response would be, “Son, understand that when you enlist you do not sin. However, you will be sacrificing your access to the properly administered means of grace most likely. The chances that you’ll be able to attend a solid, gospel-preaching worship service every Sunday is almost none. Make such a decision very, very carefully.”
But I suppose that some may react to such statements with outrage. “Don’t those people deserve access to the means of grace???”
YES!!! Yes they do if they are members of the church. They absolutely do!
BUT CHAPLAINS DO NOT PROVIDE THAT FOR THEM.
Chaplains are not pastors without churches – they are NOT pastors because they are operating outside of the visible church. They may be members of the presbytery, and they may be ordained, but they are NOT pastors. They do NOT have a flock of congregants, they do not have elders and therefore they cannot properly administer the sacraments or conduct church discipline.
Not only that but they cannot proselytize. They cannot tell the Roman Catholic that he’s miserable because he’s seeking to be justified by his works, when the Bible proclaims that justification is by faith alone. They CANNOT do that! They have to put on their Roman Catholic hat when counseling a Roman Catholic; when counseling a Muslim, they have to counsel them from within THEIR faith, not the faith of the chaplain.
Chaplains represent a far greater compromise than merely a blurring of the distinctions between the two kingdoms. That would be bad enough, but that’s just the beginning. They compromise literally EVERYTHING all the time, and if they don’t, they’re disobeying orders.
When I was just discovering the reformed faith, I discovered that my chaplain believed it to. He was a NAPARC chaplain. But I noticed that his preaching didn’t touch on distinctly reformed doctrine. When I asked him why he wasn’t preaching these things that had so profoundly affected me, his response to me was something I’ll never forget.
He said it’s not his job. He said that was not what he was called to do. And he also mentioned that he wanted to be promoted.
I have posted anonymously. By keeping my name out of it, the chaplain’s name is kept out of it. I’m not trying to judge him personally. Rather he serves to show what’s wrong with the institution of the chaplaincy.
LikeLike
Anonymous hit the nail on the head (with a little exaggeration–I wouldn’t say chaplains “compromise literally everything all the time.) However, military chapel services and chapel congregations cannot serve as churches with the marks of the church. The military does not work that way, unfortunately. Again, my experience has been that Lutheran–Missouri Synod types and to some extent the Episcopals, are able to keep their distinctives in their worship services–NAPARC types, not so much. Our family wound up abandoning the happy-clappy General Protestant service, led by a conservative evangelical Baptist, for a military Episcopal service which had the semblance of a Word and Sacrament ministry. The local OP and PCA chaplains were too busy with their own things and military “requirements” to lead a Reformed worship service with the means of grace.
LikeLike
Isn’t a military chaplain simply one example of what happens when the magistrate promotes the true religion, as so many one-kingdom folks want. In other words, the mixing of religion and politics is not just a problem for secularists (i.e., those who object to established religion as in the First Amendment). It is also a problem for confessionalists (i.e. those who object to religious establishments because they deny the spirituality of the church).
LikeLike
Chris, for conservative reflection outside the red-state-blue-state hiccup, go over to Front Porch Republic where you’ll find Paul-like themes without the encumbrance of the GOP. For ways of being 2k and not being a pacifist, I recommend Luther. His advice to soldiers, “Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved” seems properly Augustinian.
LikeLike
It’s all so ironic, isn’t it? The whole point of the WCF and Savoy was a National Confession for the Church that the State (Parliament) asked for. All politics in 17thC England was theological and all theology was political. You could say that the Magistrate (i.e. Cromwell’s settlement) “promoted true religion”.
Owen, for example, would have been a little surprised today at the separation between State and Church. I’m not arguing that Owen was right, but the Congregationalists definitely wrote Savoy in the hope that it would provide a Confession for the State in the new settlement.
I find it hilarious that you could call “mixing religion and politics” a problem for Confessionalists when it was precisely those who wrote the Confessions that mixed religion and politics. If you have time, read the preface to Savoy!
Smectymnuus
PS, I’m sure a scholar of your calibre will understand the pseudonym, right? No cheating with Wikipedia!
LikeLike
Smectymnuus, that’s funny. When I go to google with your name I get a recipe for something like humus that uses red instead of garbanzo beans.
Pardon me if I recommend that you bring your thinking about confessionalism into the 21st century. It no longer means people who write confessions. It means people who have a high view of the church, with the confessions being the corporate profession of the church. You may want to check out Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession.
LikeLike
You don’t think it is funny that two-kingdom advocates, like yourself, have a quasi-Roman Catholic view of a Confession written by theologians who were most definitely not two-kingdom proponents? I think it’s hilarious …
I love the WCF, but I wouldn’t waste $1 on Clark’s book.
And, what is your thinking about Confessionalism? Oh yeah, “promoting a distinctive modern idiosyncratic American form of confessional Presbyterianism which does not actually enjoy quite the deep historical genetic precedents and antithetical categories which the authors claim for it.”
Trueman couldn’t have been more right!
My daughter loves humus, btw.
LikeLike
But would you waste $14 on Clark’s book? Badop bop.
Which is more idiosyncratic? Adjusting the claims of the confession and church power to the realities of a post-Constantinian world? Or thumping one’s chest about how confessionalists have abandoned Owen and Cromwell while paying deference to modern liberal-democratic nation states and being content with inspirational writings from Banner of Truth? I know which is funnier.
LikeLike
Smecty,
Greetings from Prov 26:5! Your Christian Charity is overwhelming, providing such a solid witness for Christ that I’m just dying to emulate your views simply because they’re yours.
Echo_ohcE
LikeLike
Say on, dgh!
LikeLike
Echo, I thought you were a Marine. Isn’t it “Semper Fi”?
LikeLike
“were” being the key word. I’m no longer faithful.
LikeLike
I thought of your military chaplains post today when I read the USAToday Religion blog:
Can military chaplains bless demise of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell?’
“You can see why military chaplains have long been the subject of church-state conflicts, for the perfectly logical reason that these pastors work for, and answer to, both the church and the state.”
LikeLike