Chaplains and Lethality

The social media account of an Army infantry battalion recently praised its chaplain for strengthening its lethality by fostering spiritual resilience through religious worship. This characterization of the chaplain’s ministry is inconsistent with the chaplain’s unique calling and non-combatant status. Through nearly 27 years of chaplain ministry, my church frequently reminded me that it did not send me to the Army to bless or facilitate violence.

The Army (FM 3-0) defines lethality as “the capability and capacity to destroy” and firepower as its primary source. It is an attribute of Army formations. Insofar as the Army associates lethality with individual fitness (FM 7-22), it does so only in terms of physical training for strength, endurance, and speed. The Army becomes more lethal by training to become more lethal. The means include individual and collective training, training center rotations, command post exercises, professional military education, and other means, none of which belong to the chaplain.

It is simply inaccurate, then, to attribute increased lethality to either spiritual readiness or the ministry of a chaplain. By itself, having a deeply reflective spiritual life no more makes a person or an organization capable of effectively applying military force than does having a happy marriage or a close friend or a rewarding hobby or a great sense of humor. These are all things that enrich people's lives and make them more capable of coping with adversity, but none of them prepare Soldiers to put steel on target.

I understand that lethality is the current administration’s buzzword and that military organizations are now tempted to validate all kinds of activities by claiming they contribute to lethality. The battalion PAO who posted this message probably thought they were doing the chaplain a favor. There is a better way to promote the value of the chaplain’s service.

Readiness is also one of the administration’s stated priorities. The need for readiness applies across the spectrum of mission capabilities, both lethal and non-lethal, that the Army offers the nation. Describing the chaplain’s institutional contributions in terms of increased readiness, as FM 7-22 does, is both more accurate and less objectionable than describing them in terms of increased lethality. Even that characterization, however, fails to grasp that the chaplains lose their value to the Army if they come to be seen as just a means to an end. To best serve the Army, chaplains must be seen as representing something greater than the institution.

As an Iraq veteran, I recognize that the Army kills people and destroys things when the mission requires it. I accompanied my Soldiers throughout their combat deployment. I always felt that one of the most valuable aspects of my presence was to remind Soldiers that a world of compassion and peace exists beyond the world of violence, and to remind them of their humanity in the midst of an inhuman situation. I was the one visible non-lethal presence in the unit, and I think that’s the way it should be.

One of the ironies of tying chaplains to lethality is the fact that chaplains help Soldiers pick up the pieces after they have participated in lethal violence. Chaplains cannot help Soldiers heal from moral injury if chaplains are portrayed as undergirding the violence.

Popular posts from this blog

If My People

Performative civil religion was on full display this week during the America Reads the Bible series of public Bible readings. The performance is supposed to commemorate the 250th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence. During the event, a series of politicians, MAGA supporters, and other ostensibly notable figures will read aloud the entire Protestant Bible in piecemeal fashion. The readers are using the King James Easy Read Bible, one of many obscure revisions of the KJV. The live readings take place at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. Tickets are $50. You can also register to watch a live stream. I cannot understood why anyone thinks merely reading the words of the Bible aloud will mean anything to God, have a positive effect on the nation, or draw anyone to Jesus. On Tuesday, President Trump read from Second Chronicle. The organizer's website features a recording of the president's reading on the home page of it's website and declares, As...
Read more

The Problem with Religious Affiliation Codes

Religious preference codes only exist to give commanders and chaplains a big, one-over-the-world view of the religious needs of the unit as a whole. They reside in the big Army database of personnel records as useful data points for generalized planning. They are not terribly useful for individual religious support where people don't always fit their labels. There, chaplains need to get to know their soldiers personally.  Soldiers entering the Army are overwhelmed by an avalanche of administrative requirements. It’s a normal human response to proceed through that process without much thought.  I found that Soldiers had often chosen their religious preference codes hastily, and the religion coded in the personnel database did not accurately reflect their religious identities.  The previous list of religious codes was long (5 single spaced pages) and not logically organized. It was a jumble of institutional identities and religious categories, most of which were going to be...
Read more

Is the President Saving Religion?

The president spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast on February 6, 2026. The event is sponsored by a Christian organization, but its official website says that it is open to people of all faiths. It is supposed to bring national leaders of faith together regardless of political affiliation.  As a Christian pastor, I would like to respectfully offer some reflections on the president’s 77 minute speech. This essay is long because the speech was long. What’s In the Speech What was the tone of the speech? Uplifting? Inspiring? Unifying? Spiritual? I would characterize it as political. It’s tone matched the tone of all his speeches, if you know what I mean. Most of it echoed themes and talking points common to every speech he makes. Little of it had any bearing on on the purpose of the assembly, and I can’t begin to address those parts of the speech. Simply put, I found much of it objectionable.  But what about the rest, the parts that talked about religion? In over 12...
Read more