Liberty for church, chaplain & state

An Adventist Peace Fellowship conversation with Alexander Carpenter, Ryan Bell, Johnny A. Ramirez and Monte Sahlin

___________________________________

I find it immoral to have military chaplains. While they don't actually kill, they are involved too closely in the machine of war to lay claim to the Adventist tradition of "objection." Or anything resembling the non-violent witness of Christ.

Having tax paid chaplains in these mostly "symbolic" roles in the legislature and the military allows religion (and its prophetic voice) to be co-opted to spread a symbolic patina over the proceedings. A Hindu or Atheist tax payer should not have to fund Christians or religious work in governmental institutions. I think that Christopher Hitchens is right to point out that this is offensive in a liberal democracy, and counter to the non-establishment clause. In addition, certainly not having a chaplain does not preclude free exercise. Any church that wants to hold services should pay for their own chaplains to accompany soldiers into battle. And while they are on base, they can always worship at local (off base) churches.

There's no way that the military can have a chaplain for each faith represented in a fighting unit and so we get a watering down of religion or conversion pressure like this report posted by a Buddhist chaplain about a Jew and a Pentecostal. (Not a joke set up.)

While there may be an arguable good for Adventist PR to have Adventist Senate chaplain Barry Black paid to pray over politicians and some chaplains praying with soldiers before they kill to ease their conscience or fears, tax-paid religious leaders run counter to American principles of "separation" and the Adventist practice of "conscientious objection." Not that I don't cross a few Adventist principles myself, but work for peace and keeping religion and government apart seems like core ways to keep faith free and prophetic.

Chaplains exist in the chain of command, they are not autonomous, but employees of the Pentagon. As every chaplain I have talked in depth about this acknowledges, they function as morale boosters. As Bush et al keeps emphasizing, this (contra cut and run rhetoric) morale is necessary for the war machine. The presence of chaplains in the military adds to the moral authority of the Bush administration and the military-industrial complex.

The bottom line: chaplains should not be funded through taxes. it is a violation of the establishment clause.

- Alexander Carpenter studies critical theory, visual culture, and religion at the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA.. He is a member of the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

___________________________________

I think there is a difference between mingling with, eating  with, befriending and ministering to people who do any manner of contemptible things. But military chaplaincy is part of the military institution. I think if we can give serious thought to this it will more than the denomination has done in a long time. There was never a question in the Seminary. It was just assumed that military chaplaincy was an unqualified good. From talking to military chaplains and reading various articles and websites, I would have to conclude at least two things bother me deeply.

1) Military chaplains serve the role of asking the blessing of God on the military campaign. Chaplains do not get to decide which campaigns to support and which to protest. As a member of the armed services you are expected to follow orders. That includes asking God to bless the efforts of our military as they head off to wage preemptive, immoral and unjust wars as well as those that might pass the "just war" tests.

2) Military chaplains serve the role of helping the soldiers manage their emotions. If a soldier is all messed up because they had to kill a child who had a gun pointed at him, the commanding officer can't have that guy on the sidelines. He needs him ready to go back to war the next day. The chaplain has to counsel him through that and get him read to do some more killing.

If a military chaplain became convinced that a certain war were immoral and a soldier came to him or her and expressed their conviction that the war was immoral, that chaplain cannot counsel the soldier to follow his or her conscience.

I think when you really see what the chaplains are required to do, it pretty atrocious. Can there be civilian ministries to military men and women? Absolutely! I think this is a must, in fact, and if an Adventist church were located near a military base (there must be dozens like that) I would say this is a primary mission field. How would that ministry be carried out? I have no idea!

Ryan Bell pastors in Hollywood and is a member of the steering group for the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

___________________________________

In my opinion there is a difference between endorsing a war state and ministering to troops.  I believe that this line is best walked by the chaplains themselves who are working a hard job in hard situations. 

Is there an industry that our clergy should avoid?  Is there an institution where our clergy shouldn't minister?  I talk about my fear of becoming a compromised pragmatist but I don't think we're helped by absolutist positions either.  In my humble opinion having clergy ecclesiastically endorsed serving in the military says more about our commitment to the salvation of the troops than our approval of war or armed conflict. The notion that we should abolish the chaplaincy within the military is not worthy of our great commission church- I believe that yes, politicians and soldiers are worthy of our ecclesiastical attention.

It is pretty obvious when we look at the job done by military chaplains that their position is morally compromised.  But when I look at Adventist parish pastors I also see plenty of moral compromises- I don't think that chaplains have a monopoly on morally compromised clergy.

I would argue that we are all compromised at some level by the world and that our lives are, if anything, a series of inherent inconsistencies and compromises.  I would say that is true of our personal lives, the lives of our clergy, parish clergy, evangelists, chaplains and beyond.  I do not believe we can be entirely sanctified or perfected until Christs second coming.  Until then we will continue to have institutions in need of continual reform and people in need of continual renewal. 

My question is not if the system is good but if we should be present in it.  In Nazi Germany Adventist nurses did pretty atrocious things.  It is the best example of compromised pragmatic Adventist relations with the state and serves as a stern lesson to us as we discuss how deeply our clergy should be embedded within the state today.

I do believe that we should strive to perfect our institutions and protect the integrity of our clergy in its relations with the state and its institutions as we should strive to consistently side with right against might. Speaking truth to power is a Christian duty we should never abandon.

In one of my favorite shows, Yes, Prime Minister, there is a statement that in today's world politicians want to talk about faith and parsons want to talk about politics.  Well I am a Christian first and an activist second.  When we see the military we should see them as Christ does.  And I can't believe that my Lord would not cavort with politicians, soldiers or military.  Call it my evangelistic impulse. Yes, even they deserve the good news. 

Military people involved in armed conflict overseas need salvation too and the status quo is that you have to join up to reach them.  And we should be there in Iraq amongst the troops.  I don't envy the chaplains who have to confront these dilemmas we've outlined day in and day out!

- Johnny A. Ramirez, is starting an M.Th. in Christian Ethics & Practical Theology at the University of Aberdeen. He is a member of the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

___________________________________

Let me try to re-frame the debate here. I am a pacifist and believe that the worst case of "lowered standards" in the Adventist Church is the way in which we have moved from being a Peace Church in the beginning to one that (like most American Protestants) teaches that killing in war is such an inconsequential moral decision that, unlike whether or not to attend the cinema or wear earings, the church leaves it up to the individual to decide. But, having spent a lot of time interacting with a number of chaplains (Adventist and others, military and others), I don't think their role has a whole lot to do with the institutional witness of their denomination toward war or even their personal stance on the matter.

This may surprise you, but when they feel free to share with fellow clergy whom they trust as close friends, some military chaplains are not at all supportive of current war policy. The role of a chaplain (military, brothel or hosptial or prison ... or industrial?) is very much like that of an noncombatant battlefield medic. It is a slightly counter-cultural presence, not at a decidely counter-cultural presence. It is paying the price of  ambivalence on some moral issues in order to be right where people are hurting and in need of immediate care.

After 40 years as pastoral worker, I am acutely aware that in almost every instance in which I provide care for someone, I must pay that price of some moral ambivalence. When I go to the bedside of a many dying from lung cancer after decades of smoking, it is not the time to talk to him about his smoking habit. Nor, do I rightly represent the compassion of Christ by having a personal policy of refusing hospital visits to people who inflicted their disease through long years of bad health habits. When I go into a prison to lead a worship service, the men singing hymns with me are almost all people who (a) have committed violent crimes and (b) are not completely honest about accepting responsibility for what they have done. They will all tell you a story that puts them in a positive light. And that is human nature.

Almost no one I talk to as a pastor is ready to plead guilty to all their sins, open their minds to the moral implications of their lives that go beyond their understanding and radically change the entire tenor and character of their lifestyle and social position. We would all like to think that we regularly have such 100% conversion stories, but that isn't reality. The nature of pastoral ministry is not just to accept people where they are, but to go to them where they are and bring the presence of Christ into their lives; to do otherwise is to  deny the character of God who loves us in our sin and continues to
extend patience to us for a lifetime as we continue to sin no matter what he does to help us grow.

Thankfully, the ministry of the Christ is not all pastoral. It is also prophetic! Any wholly-formed clergy person has in his/her heart and mind both the image of Barry Black and the image of Jim Wallis. I have marched for peace and civil rights as well as sat at the deathbed of an unrepentent murderer. I am the same clergyman both places, but in one context I function as prophet and in the other I function as pastor. This is entirely consistent with the full character of God; he loves us and hates our sin. He hates our sin for what it does to us, as well as what it does to others. If this is too complex and
compromised for you, then that is because the character of Godis that complex and compromised.

- Monte Sahlin is the Director of Research & Special Projects for the Ohio Conference and chairman of the board for the Center for Creative Ministry and a member of the steering group for the Adventist Peace Fellowship. He is also a part-time teaching as associate faculty at the Campolo School for Social Change at Eastern University and adjunct faculty for the DMin program at Andrews University. His next book, "Mission in Metropolis," comes off the press in July.

___________________________________

POLLS

Comments

[Arlyn]

Thank you, this is the best of what the Spectrum Blog can be- a TRUE SPECTRUM of understandings from sincere God-loving people. Coherent, convincing in turns, consistent, and respectful. Thank you for a nice Memorial Day present, Alex, Johnny and Monte.

[Bill Cork]

I was an Army chaplain for a relatively short time, in the Reserve and Guard, and will share my thoughts, but perhaps you should get the perspective of a long-timer like Barry Black or Gregory Matthews (the latter was one of my instructors at the US Army Chaplain Center and School).

The military will insist that the purpose of the chaplaincy is to ensure the free exercise clause. No, it isn't possible for a chaplain of each religion to be assigned to a battalion, but each chaplain has the responsibility to ensure that the religious needs of the men in his or her unit are met.

Chaplains exercise an incarnational ministry which requires them to be with the men and women they serve--a switch to a civilian chaplaincy, unpaid by the military, would result in chaplains who couldn't go all places with them. The soldiers and sailors would be cut off from any services.

Chaplains represent the church which endorses them, and are not permitted to violate its tenets. At the same time, they are staff officers, with a responsibility for ethics and morale and pastoral counseling for all the members of the command. They are to advise the commander on issues of morality in war.

The military realizes the potential for conflict and tries to instill safeguards. Though chaplains have a chain of command, through the battalion commander or equivalent, they also have a supervisory chain, through the brigade and division chaplains. Theoretically this should help to protect a chaplain if he gets in a place where he finds himself in conflict over principle.

They warned us in chaplain school that we should be prepared to suffer for standing up for what is right. At the same time, they trained us to speak up. During one field exercise, an officer playing a commander had a sign on his desk, "No Prisoners," or something similar. They expected us to comment on it and to express to the commander that it was unsuitable. When no one did, they spent a long time chewing us out and reminding us of our moral obligation--and of potential consequences.

Now, I had some of my best experiences of ministry in the Army Reserve and National Guard. You are ministering to a great many people who might never darken the door of a church. When you are with them at 2:00 a.m. on top of a tank, or in an army hospital, talking about matters of life and death, it is a time of grace.

I knew conflict, though, too. When I was a First Lieutenant, I had a Christian Science chaplain who was a Major insist that I co-lead a communion service with him. I couldn't. He was furious, but I had folks who were looking out after me and he realized he had crossed the line.

There are some stories in the news that portray the chaplaincy in a false light. The recent row over a Navy chaplain who supposedly couldn't pray in Jesus name was one such instance. In the chapel, or with individuals, he could pray however he wanted. This wasn't enough for him. He wanted to pray in an evangelizing and exclusive way in a military ceremony which all were required to attend--and then participated in public protests wearing his uniform. That's why he was removed.

I'm more troubled by cases like that of Chaplain (CPT) James Yee, the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was accused of being a spy. He did his job according to military regulations--he was meeting the religious needs of prisoners and advising the command. What got him in trouble was when he gave (as he was supposed to) a briefing for new personnel on religious issues. One reserve officer, who obviously didn't know Army Regulations on the role of a chaplain, got the idea that Yee was overly sympathetic, and from the moment of that first briefing turned against him and began to make accusations. Yee did what was right, and the establishment turned against him and the chaplaincy branch did not stand up for him.

I wrestled with moral questions of my own. I went in as a Chaplain Candidate in 1986, and did the Basic Course and CPE at Walter Reed that year. It was the time of Reagan's secret wars in Central America, and I had patients at Walter Reed who told me the truth of what was going on. I had to hold it inside. In 1993, when I left the ordained ministry, I branch transferred to the Adjutant Generals Corps and served as a personnel administrator in the National Guard; now I had to carry a weapon. In 1994 I visited Guatemala with a missions group; two years later, I visited El Salvador. I heard many stories of people caught up in the wars in those countries, and the role the US played. Charles Teel had been an important mentor of mine while in college and graduate school, and that influence returned at that point with a vengeance. I was ashamed.

By now I wasn't active in the Guard; family needs were keeping me from drilling with my unit. But I had reached the point where I could no longer in conscience serve, and I resigned.

I respect our chaplains; they are walking a fine line and they know it, but they do it for love of soldiers and sailors and Marines and airmen. I am dedicated to our veterans, and am involved in retreats for them. But I would have a difficult time following my conscience in the military today, especially after the way they treated a man of conscience, Chaplain Yee. He deserved a medal, not the persecution he endured.

So on this memorial day I lift my glass to chaplains like Yee who wouldn't bow to the system, to soldiers who are willing to sacrifice all, to veterans who are abused by bureaucracy, to families of soldiers who pray that this will be over soon and their loved ones will come home safely.

[David Hamstra]

Thanks for the insights, Bill, and to the authors of this post.

[Audrey]

Over at the blog of Seminarians to End War, we’ve been having a little discussion about the role of seminaries in training seminarians to be able to enter military chaplaincy. I invite you to check it out and join in the debate: http://sewpeace.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/military-chaplaincy/

Now, if you’ll allow a member of a different historic peace church (Church of the Brethren) add a few of her thoughts…

Because I put my Christianity first in my ethical decision-making, I believe that we must end war. The only question is how military chaplaincy fits into ending war. I appreciate Johnny’s complication of the issue. I tend to like to expand these discussions to talk about not only military chaplaincy but “war chaplaincy.”

We as Christians (especially in peace churches) need to do better pastoral care to all victims of war: members of the military, military families, veterans, and civilian victims. We must not leave pastoral care only up to official military chaplains. If we are in the beginning of an endless, limitless, undefined war on/of terror, then we must expand our ministry of peacemaking, to offer prophetically pastoral care.

Congregational pastors need to take on part of the responsibility of ministering to victims of war. (Likewise, seminaries ought not leave the job of training military chaplains to the military institution alone, but ought to provide comprehensive education for future pastors and chaplains in a warring world.) Families end up doing the pastoral care spiritual leaders neglect. Pastors and all who would minister (priesthood of all believers, anyone?) need to reach out to individual soldiers (and contractors and aid workers and peace volunteers), through letters and calls and counseling when they come home on leave. We need to connect them into their home communities’ lives, connect them into their global community’s news and life, so that the soldiers can remember who they are: not just members of the US military machine, but members of a global body. Most of all, we should strive to remind these soldiers that they (as well as every person they interact with) are beloved children, created by God to be good people.

Does this seem too much like appeasement, bolstering the troops so they can continue their ‘duty’ of war-making? I think it is, instead, radically subversive.

The military survives on a culture of isolation. It creates its own subculture, in which acts are moral that are unthinkable elsewhere. Children are not children; they are enemies or objects. (Too many graphic YouTube videos will reveal that sick underbelly of the war machine.) The limited geography of the battle is the limit of reality. By breaking into this sub-world, we throw light on the micro-cosmos in which the battles take place, and we remind soldiers of the wider implications of their daily choices. We support their own realizations that, even in war, they are humans in relationship with other humans.

As pacifist chaplains or citizens or congregations, we don’t need to pontificate to soldiers about the evils of war or the US military. We ought not excuse or ignore harm people have caused, either. We need to do what Sahlin is may be suggesting here: offering radical presence that reminds these victims of war (be they civilian or military) of their humanity. This is recognizing the times and places to preach our absolute moral values, and the different times and places to just be present with people in pain. Only when a person has (re)claimed herself, her self-esteem, her humanity, her confidence, can we engage in explicit discussions of our values. These discussions can only be had when we share the implicit value of knowing ourselves as human children in a world God created.

This is the prophetic, pacifist voice of pastoral care: it is reflecting back to a person who she is, in a way that makes her love and believe in herself more, so that she is better equipped with the confidence needed to make ethical decisions, on the battlefield or anywhere else. I believe that our world will know peace when we know who we really are. To claim the loving nature within each human is to plant peace and defy the dehumanization war sows.

[Audrey]

One more thought on the ministry of peacemaking:

I would also argue that protesting our government’s dogged continuance of this war is a form of ministry, to the Iraqi people. Jesus Christ did not just talk at people about spiritual matters. He healed and fed their physical bodies. And the ministry the Iraqi victims of this war need most right now is a tenable end to the war that is decimating their country. Ministry to spirits cannot be disconnected from ministry to bodies, especially in war.

Similarly, advocating for our federal government to take better care of our troops (by adequately funding VA hospitals, by supporting their families) is ministry – to their bodies as well as their spirits.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Audrey and Bill,

Thanks so much for your thoughts! Your two comments are each examples of the best that blog conversation can be.

The thought that Christian denominations would, because of an unwavering resolve to stand against war, opt-out of being embedded within the military,
and,
being that experience shows us that non-embedded persons have no access to troops in war areas like Iraq,
the possibility that fighting men and women would have no where to turn for spiritual guidance strikes me as utterly immoral especially as the objections to being embedded are being made on moral grounds. I see it as a case of good resolve providing for bad results.

I like your summation of Montes point- embedded chaplains as a radical presence that reminds these victims of war (be they civilian or military) of their humanity. I like the prophetic, pacifist voice.

/ here's a link to the Adventist experience within Nazi Germany. I am well aware of the dangers of compromising with the powers in exchange for access and overt existence.
// I have a friend who advocates for a return to a church of the way (pre-Constantinian style)
/// that would mean we'd either have a truly oppressive state or a truly revolutionary church
//// or, how bad was imperial Rome really?

[Elaine]

One of the most neglected areas of this are the many post-traumataic survivors of this war. They are sorely neglected, to the extent that they have been refused acknoledgement of their conditions by the benefits paid as former military personnel. Who is ministering to them? Their needs do not end when the war is over but only begin and some are still fighting (Vietnam) battles of the past 30 years. What can the church do to help them with their multitudes of problems--especially when they've been dismissed by the military?

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

War is immoral. Preemptive War is doubly so. So why pick on chaplains? WWII, my war, is full of stories good and bad about chaplains. The three that gave up their life jackets to others, the chaplain who helped pass the ammo at Pearl, the chaplain attached to the 115th Med. Bn. 40th Infantry Div. who did card tricks. I think the issue is entirely personal. If one doesn’t believe the military should have paid chaplains as part of the officers corp then they certainly shouldn’t join up.

I don’t think one should judge those who do! Neither do I think it is a politically viable issue nor is it part of the Gospel Commission to terminate chaplaincies.

My personal experience indicates that the Army chaplains were much more interested in me and much more helpful to me than the civilian SDA ministers assigned to major army posts to assist on issues of bearing arms or the Sabbath. After two attempts to secure such help, I decided to make my own case with better results. I do salute Elder C. B. Haynes for his efforts in making the case for non-combatant status in W.W. II. He was the Patton of the General Conference. Tom

[Arlyn]

At the end of Time, is God the war machine or the military chaplain while millions of sinners die?

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Arlyn

Not one of your better questions! If based on my entry. Tom

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

P.S. Arlyn, your question was facetious without substance or provocation. Have you ever been assigned as head medic of a triage unit? Have you been there as men slowly bled away from wounds so grievous as to be inoperable in the field? Have you ever cared for a man used for bayonet practice with four puncture wounds thorough each lung? Or with Small pox so bad there was not a clean spot of skin to inject penicillin? Or with second and third degree burns over 90 percent of his body? Or a man with both legs blown off above the knees? Or with an 18 year old with a belly wound crying for his mother?

War is immoral but it is also real. The pain, the fear, the doubt can be wiped away with medications. It can also be assuaged by a trained emphatic counselor. Why deny a wounded child of God either? I know war! I hate war! I can not stop war! I can relieve the pain, the doubt, and the fear and I have been there, big time!

Moreover, I trust God with saint and sinner alike. That is why He is God and you and I are not. Tom

[Zane]

Thanks all for the insightful post(s). Has anyone seen the French film "Joyeux Noel"? One of the main protagnists in the film is a military chaplain...He looses his ecclesiological and military credentials when he holds an ecumenical, inter-ethnic, worship service on Christmas Eve which inevitably brings about peace on that battle field between the English and French (and one other country I can't remember.)
Great movie that illustrates many of the points already made.

Also, (I posted this show earlier), but "This American Life" has a great episode on the Ten Commandments that recently aired. For the sixth commandment they interview a military chaplain. Check it out: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=332

[Arlyn]

Actually, Tom, I was noting the similarities. Never had thought of God's role as a military chaplain at the end of the Great Controversy War until now.

[Arlyn]

Ah, how the written word doesn't communicate tone and demeanor! As the military chaplain brings a physical embodiment of God's presence and all that heaven can offer to the bloody field of unfortunate casualties- God is like a military chaplain in the bloody, ferocious battle of Good and Evil, of Right and Wrong. Both the leader of Good and the Healer of all.

[Henk]

Just back from my holiday, and I see one of my favourite topics. Why is it that nearly everybody thinks that war is something man cannot have a hold on? Is it really that inevitable?
As I noted in a thread a couple of weeks ago, the US has not seen a war on its own soil for more than a century. On the other hand, we can hardly find a past or present war on this planet where the US wasn't/isn't involved in. The US was/is all too willing to fight a war. Inevitable? And the chaplains? Methinks they have sold their souls to the lowest bidder. They should stand in front of the military officers that try to lure young men into the army, and advice them not to do it. See whether they will be chaplains for long...

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Just So noboby thought they were first! Tom

Recessional
(A Victorian Ode)
God of our fathers, known of old --
Lord of our far-flung battle line --
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine --
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies --
The Captains and the Kings depart --
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

Far-called our navies melt away --
On dune and headland sinks the fire --
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe --
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law --
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard --
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard.
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
Amen.

R. Kipling. In the Days of Queen Victoria.

[Henk]

Very true, Tom. The Victorians had their blindness, and we have ours. My song: Where have all the flowers gone... A bit more up to date than Kipling's, but true as well.

[Chris Blake]

Alex, Ryan, Johnny, and Monte,

Excellent work, gentlemen, which in turn led to excellent commentary. This is a prime example of what could be done in a Sabbath School format. Consider a Contemporary Events (or Thematic) Quarterly with weeks: "The Great Controversy" "Is War Inevitable?" "What Is a Just War?" "Biblical and Contemporary Warfare" "Conscientious Objection and Noncombatancy" "Adventism and War: A Historical Perspective" "Conscription around the World" "Aid to the Enemy?" "Military Chaplaincy" "The Bonhoeffer Legacy," "Nuclear Considerations" "Adventist Peace Fellowship: Swords into Plowshares" and "Prince of Peace."

What activities could be addressed for each week? Create refugee survivor kits. Write to an Adventist CO. Pursue ideas for peacemaking, including praying for policy makers, writing letters, and conflict resolution tips. (Log onto the Global Directory of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution Programs www.peacejusticestudies.org I just spent a productive Sunday with Kelly Guinan, director of the national Peace and Justice Studies Association). Through it all, we could encourage Sabbath School members to model peacemaking even when they strongly disagree about peace.

Think we could get more people showing up Sabbath morning for that?

[Bill Cork]

From the program, "Speaking of Faith," a chaplain interview:

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/soulofwar/index.shtml

[David Hamstra]

Since we're posting poems:

"In Westminster Abbey"
by John Betjeman

Let me take this other glove off
As the vox humana swells,
And the beauteous fields of Eden
Bask beneath the Abbey bells.
Here, where England's statesmen lie,
Listen to a lady's cry.

Gracious Lord, oh bomb the Germans.
Spare their women for Thy Sake,
And if that is not too easy
We will pardon Thy Mistake.
But, gracious Lord, whate'er shall be,
Don't let anyone bomb me.

Keep our Empire undismembered
Guide our Forces by Thy Hand,
Gallant blacks from far Jamaica,
Honduras and Togoland;
Protect them Lord in all their fights,
And, even more, protect the whites.

Think of what our Nation stands for,
Books from Boots and country lanes,
Free speech, free passes, class distinction,
Democracy and proper drains.
Lord, put beneath Thy special care
One-eighty-nine Cadogan Square.

Although dear Lord I am a sinner,
I have done no major crime;
Now I'll come to Evening Service
Whensoever I have the time.
So, Lord, reserve for me a crown.
And do not let my shares go down.

I will labour for Thy Kingdom,
Help our lads to win the war,
Send white flowers to the cowards
Join the Women's Army Corps,
Then wash the Steps around Thy Throne
In the Eternal Safety Zone.

Now I feel a little better,
What a treat to hear Thy word,
Where the bones of leading statesmen,
Have so often been interr'd.
And now, dear Lord, I cannot wait
Because I have a luncheon date.

[Henk]

After this poetry party, let's consider some real-time heartbreaker. Quote:

"I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me."
...
"I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey's brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times."
...
"This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.
Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it."

Speak about desillusion... As someone said, to come to the truth of war, don't listen to the generals (or the chaplains, for that matter), but listen to the mothers who have lost their sons and daughters.

[Arlyn]

listen also to the mothers whose children came home (do they regret it?) and mothers whose children don't have to fight because others did it for them.

[Henk]

Arlyn,

Why should I listen to them? Can they tell me what war really is when they haven't lost anything they hold precious?
In order to find out what dying is, you go to the living?

[Darius (statrei)]

Maybe the point is that chaplains can offer nothing more than can be offered by a trained counselor. We may convince ourselves that chaplains are closer to God because they are sent by the church and the church is the agent of God on earth, but deep inside we must know that this is not true. Take away the chaplains claim to have a direct link to the Creator and he becomes an ordinary counselor, thus making the complaint of church state--collusion unnecesary.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Darius

Does your comment fly in the face of the current position of the General Conference that ordination--the "laying on of hands" sets pastors apart from the rest of us? What about "What is bound on earth is bound in heaven?" What is a chaplain but a trained counselor? If a trained counselor why not role switching doctrinally? etc? To start the argument that chaplains are different and end with there is no difference or benefit--why the issue in the first place? Chaplains may make no difference on heaven or hell. They can, do, and have made a difference to the wounded and dying, even the frightened and confused. If one thinks chaplains are wrong or worthless don't be one. But why deny access to those who need/want one? If one is going to debate war--then debate the entire concept of conflict resolution through and by the use of deadly force? Certainly chaplains are the least of the evils of war. Tom

[Arlyn]

Henk, do you sincerely believe that victims are the only experts? And war is nothing more than nonpurposeful mutual suicide- that it doesn't impact those left living beyond the loss of lives?

maybe you do. Then, I understand why you say what you say.

[Henk]

Arlyn,

Of course this is off topic, but I can put it in a way that centers around the question of chaplains.
The question whether there should be military chaplains is a very old one - as old as some churches that have seen themselves in the first place as "national" churches, instead of part of the mondial "catholika".
As soon as churches are more like a national denomination, they make themselves part of national ambitions. The last time we could see that - and its consequences - in full swing was when the German churches allied themselves with "the Third Empire" in the 1930's.
This kind of thing is not confined to Germany. The other day I read that the logs of people that visited your vice-president have been tampered with by his lawyer, of all people. And why? Because among those people were a host of religieus leaders that did not come by just for a nice chat. The right-wing christians belong to the most agressive nationalistic churches you can count on when it comes to the immoral and illegal war in Iraq; they will defend it to their last breath. Is this what you and I expect from religieus leaders? No wonder that chaplains that belong to these churches have lost themselves in immorality; they are prepared to leave the status quo in the military intact - and their caring for the dying is just sugar topping on a pile of dung. They have exchanged the catholika for national ambitions, for oil, for land, or for "ideas of superiority". They are willing to stand by a machinery its main purpose is greed at the cost of Gods most loving creation: mankind.
No, I cannot understand people who will defend the concept of war as an inevitable human activity.
Especially chistians have a higher calling. Someone has to start a war and change the "department of defence" into a "department of agression". "Defence" is the most often used eufemism of the deceitful and least understood by the ignorant.
That is the reason why I would say: don't listen to the generals if you want to understand what war is; listen to the grieving mothers. Just the same, don't listen to the chaplains either. As I said, they have sold their souls to the lowest bidder.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Hasn't anyone read Romans 13 lately? War is hell, yes but why assign everyone caught up in war to hell? Come on guys join the real world. I've been to war. I want no part in it. But I am not going to sit on a high horse and say we should be defenseless or that humanitarianism has no part in the tragedy of war. Yes the United States has used its Department of Defense for some very aggressive acts. Yes chaplains have used their offices for some very dubious functinos. But so has the Church. The next blog will pick on the medical profession for "patching" up warriors to fight again! Yes we made a mistake in Iraq but don't blame the chaplains for that! Nor the physicians. Not even the Generals. Try a couple of draft dodging elected officials. Tom

[Henk]

Yes, I hear you, Thomas. You're determined to be "even-handed".
I'm not sitting on a high horse either when I'm condemning certain actions, among these the decisions of certain ministers to be chaplains. I'm in the ministry, Thomas, and I've seen people defrocked because they ended up in the wrong bed. In the US you can transfer such "failures" from the east to the westcoast, and nobody notices. But here, in a small country you can find yourself another job.
I've seen ministers defrocked because their hands were pocketing churchfunds. Great sins, you know. But Lo and Behold, if you kill a man in war you get praised and decorated, because you're apparently a patriot.
I've been in the army, and I have seen what a satanic organisation it is. The Word is clear, Thou shalt not kill. Period.
Therefore, my "real world" is the world of my Lord, and He tells me to inflate any presumption, that's my profession as a minister.

OK, the medical profession is next. Maybe. Any qualms about abortion, risky physical gender changes by operation, euthanasia, etc.? I bet you have your reservations, and you should have them. Physicians take the oath - at least in my country they do. Chaplains take an oath as well, but to the wrong party.
No, I'm not blaming the chaplains for Iraq. What I'm blaming them for is for giving churchmembers the impression that the army is ok. As far as I am concerned one can only serve one Master and He is definitely not the God of America. Sorry Thomas, I beg to differ.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Hank

Should our police be armed?

Hank, You have every right to differ. No need to beg. What you should not do is "beg the question".

Tom

[Henk]

What question am I begging, Thomas? Although there is something odd in getting the police in this debate, as if the police and the military belong to the same category. But, to come to Romans 13, I will give you a exegesis. Give me a couple of hours.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Hank:

As to Romans 13: The U.S. government is the most benign on earth when it comes to individual rule of conscience. One can serve in the U.S. military as a combatant, or as a non-combatant, or refuse to serve in the military and accept other humanitarian alternatives. Presently, there is no compulsory military service. The choice to serve is entirely voluntary.

One has every right to freedom of speech under the U.S. Constitution. Even speech that condemns the choices and actions of others.

My point is, and has been simply: We, as Christians, can make our personal choices as citizens, as informed by Scripture. But as Christians, we are in no position to condemn the motives or actions of others. God alone is our and their judge. Neither you nor I would be comfortable serving in the military even as chaplains. That is not to say that honest men and women of faith, differ with our view. My remarks are simply, we do not have the right to judge them.

I personally believe that the war in Iraq was based on poor judgment. I believe that the U.S.A. has lost serious standing in the world. I believe, we may be under the judgment of God for our aggressive actions. But then our history is replete with broken promises to native Americans and others.

I believe you beg the issue by including—sinful acts of others. So I added the police. Some sins are also crimes are they not? If you are against sin are you also against crime?
If so what societal methods would you suggest to combat crime? Would it include: deadly force? If so how does that differ from protecting one’s homeland?

I did not ask, do you want to join the police force. Tom

[YourFriend]

I, too, was in WWII and actually conferred with a military chaplain on occasion. I found him of little help. I see a problem with paying chaplains with tax money whether military or governmental as in the Senate. And I do not see it as judging to be convinced that such activity crosses the line of separation of church and state.

As a matter of fact a chaplain was assigned to our unit and was with us both state side and in the European Theater of Operations. I recall nothing of substance that he ever did. I did find an SDA War Service Commission Pastor helpful when several of us needed assistance.

[Henk]

Thomas,

There was a very unfortunate situation in the Netherlands when we were occupied by the Germans 1940-45. Orthodox members of the Dutch Reformed Church were of the opinion that the apostle Paul, in Romans 13, ordered obedience to the Germans. These Reformed people thought that as Paul lived also under the rule of the Romans and apparently recognized their authority, so they should recognize the authority of the German regime. The problem with Paul is in verse 1 where he states that "all authority" comes from God, and the Reformed people thought that the German authority was implied in the word "all". Verse 2 they interpreted to mean that resistance against the Germans is resistance against God.
The context of Romans 13 makes it evident that Paul is not speaking of a military occupant but of civil authority. In our situation it will be all the more difficult to agree with Paul because we ourselves vote people into power - it's not an act of God, or, to put it in another way, we have difficulty to see God as the author of the democratic voting proces.
So yes, we need civil authority, we need guardians of the civil laws, but this our civil authority did not come from God, because we are not living under His (theocratic) rule; instead, we choose ourselves what sort of government we prefer. As far as I know, any religious or philosophic structure to make God the present author of democratic authority, has failed.
Thomas, your country is very different from mine. It is seldom indeed when a police officer uses his gun in the Netherlands. Although violence in our society has increased, it does not even approach what is happening in the US. Even compared with Canada the US has proven to be a trigger-happy nation.
Do I allow for a policeman with a gun? Yes. Under the conditions I am living in I see some justification for the use of force in situations where aggressiveness has to be controlled. But let's be fair, Thomas, that is a totally different cup of tea than allowing for the military. The violence of the military is indiscriminate and directed against other nations (except in cases that the military is ordered to quench a civilian protest, as happened once in your country), and usually there are far more civilians killed in war than "brave" soldiers. War has nothing to do with the authority of God - we are not living in a theocracy anymore. (Even so, I have a few OT questions to ask when I face God in judgment). Whether we like it or not, in our world there are dictatorships and democracies, feudal states and kingdoms. They all have their way of ordering their society, with or without guns. Within strict boundaries I allow for the use of force (not violence), but that does not mean that I agree with the use of Romans 13 as a justification of war.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Thank Henk

Sorry about the previous typo's. I have German and Danish relatives who also lived through the Nazis era. Some in the army and some in the resistance. I was a medic in the South Pacific on three assault landings. I never carried a weapon. I was under direct fire. Of course, Paul was writing to Christians in Rome--but the ruler was one of the Ceasars of which Jesus declared: "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's." I guess the debate has been and will continue to be What is Ceasar's? That is not my debate. My issue is" "Why condemn, out of hand, someone who decides what is Ceasar's differs from what you and I decide?

I am not making a case for war. I am making a case against judging the moral intent of chaplains as a profession. I see no value in a contest of "Can You Top This!" I am making a case against categorical condemnation which has been the trend of this thread.

My personal view is there is no valid reason for the United States preemptively attacking Iraq. The price in human suffering is beyond human measure. However, I don't see that chaplains have contributed to that suffering. Obviously you and others differ. So be it. Tom

[Henk]

Well, Tom, there is a case to be made for moral judgments. I do not want to be judgmental, but on the other hand christians have a duty to differentiate between right and wrong. The largest part of what the apostle Paul writes is full of moral judgments. I condemn attitudes, opinions, actions, anything that is contrary to (what I understand to be) the call of a christian. As a pastor I come across all kinds of unchristian things. The hardest time do I have when people know something is wrong, but nonetheless look for some sort of accomodation. Their "concern" for themselves is always liberally in favor of "God does understand my situation".
To be a military chaplain is not something that is indifferent to the spirit of christianity. The point is not whether they are good people or bad people; their choice is a wrong one as they position themselves in the camp of the enemy of christianity. And as we are not talking about ignorant people, I cannot but come to the conclusion that their choice is a travesty to their christian calling to the ministry. In my eyes it's no different from being a pastor in a brothel and being paid by the pimp.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Henk

I think we understand each other. We disagree on judgment of motive. You believe their choice is immoral. I am willing to let God be the judge of that. You and I agree that war is immoral. We don't seem to agree than defending the innocent is proper Christian behavior.

But for me at least the topic no longer merits our debate--The issue will continue until the end of time. The Bush/Cheney strategy is obviously a failure. To argue otherwise is certainly vain at this point in time. Recall, that I spoke out against such action months before the first strike and that in a very right wing environment. Tom

[Robert]

I probably look at this way too simplistically. (1) Men and women, including believers of various faiths, join the army (voluntarily in US today, involuntarily in times past and in many countries today); (2) due to the nature/location of their assignments, they haven't access to church; (3) if we believe people have a spiritual nature, not just physical, then the military needs to supply for their spiritual needs just as it does their physical; (4) individual freedoms are necessarily curtailed in the military--thus, just as a soldier can't dictate what the cook serves to nourish his/her physical body, he/she can't specify what denomination his/her chaplain is, and there is necessarily an accommodation here. Both the soldier and the chaplain have an obligation to try to make it work as best they can, with respect for the diversity of beliefs but the commonality of human spiritual needs. (5) Because the soldier is removed from access to his/her normal church/pastoral support, the state, in recognition of the needs of the soldier, rightfully should pay for chaplains to support the spiritual needs of soldiers.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Robert

I think you hit on at least the top layer of the issue. Those who take a negative view see Chaplains as the Hophni and Phinehas the sons of Eli. When Stalin was told that his military actions did not meet with favor with the Pope, he is quoted as saying: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Overlooking, of course, the comment of Jesus in the garden: " "Thinkest thou, that I cannot now pray to my Father, and shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" Matt. 26: 53 Thus, pacifists take a negative view toward any human effort at self-defense. Obviously, there is consensus that the Iraq adventure was unnecessary, foolish, costly, and inhuman. But to blame the chaplains is wide of the mark. In a life time of 82 plus years I have found civilian pastors and military chaplains about the same mix of human frailties--including subservience to their pay masters. The issue is not chaplains but how to get out of the current mess without creating even more human misery. The second issue is how to prevent future misadventures. Certainly, the Moral Majority is more of the problem than the solution. My heart and prayers go out to the boots on the ground and the families they represent. Tom

[faye]

It seems to me that subject of war is too complex for one single position on all wars. However, as to the Iraq war, to go as a chaplain would be to place oneself in the service of the state and, in some manner, to support its' unjust and destructive war.

I have attached an excerpt from an article in Harpers October 2002 called 'The Road to Babylon'.

THE ROAD TO BABYLON
Searching for targets in Iraq
by Lewis H. Lapham

...Mark Twain remarked... in 1905 during the American occupation of the Philippines. Objecting to the fraudulent piety of statesmen who don't know what they're saying, Twain wrote a story, "The War Prayer," in which an "aged stranger" enters a church where the congregation has been listening to an heroic sermon about the glory to be won in battle by young patriots armed with the love of God. Motioning the startled minister to stand aside, the aged stranger improvises a bitter peroration that makes clear the true meaning of the prayer:
O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
The story didn't see the light of print until 1923, thirteen years after Twain's death. The editors to whom he tendered the manuscript thought it "unsuitable" for publication at a moment of high and patriotic feeling.
© Harper's Magazine Foundation Oct 2002

[2007 auto detroit ford show]

I've basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. Not that it matters. I just don't have anything to say these days. I've just been hanging out waiting for something to happen. Not much on my mind these days.