Make the Chaplain Corps Great Again

The Secretary of Defense has promised to make the military chaplain corps great again. I have been associated with the military chaplaincy for 35 years. I can tell you that it is already great.

Foundations

Here are some basic truths about the chaplaincy that I did not hear the secretary mention. Military chaplaincy is rooted in the first amendment. Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting thereof.

The chaplaincy exists first and foremost to facilitate the free exercise of religion for those whom the government has ordered away from home. In Army language, chaplains perform religious ministry for those who wish to receive what they have to offer and provide opportunities for religious life for members of other faith groups. Chaplains are advocates within the command for the free exercise of religion. That includes protecting those who do not wish to participate in religious activities from religious coercion.

The United States government should not favor any system of religious practice and belief (or non-belief) over another. There is a reason that the Danbury Baptist Association asked Thomas Jefferson to assure them that the state would not intrude on its religious life. Government intrusion into the practice of religion distorts the practice of religion. Excessive entanglement of the government with religion in the chaplaincy endangers the long-term survival of the chaplaincy.

Chaplains honor the existing religious commitments of their constituents. Chaplains offer their religious beliefs to those who are receptive but don’t push them on those who are not. Military formations and all-hands events are not the place to evangelize.

Let me address three items that the secretary does mention in his video.

The Army Spiritual Fitness Guide

The secretary does not like the Army Spiritual Fitness Guide. I agree. The Spiritual Readiness component in Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) is not very helpful. Thankfully, the official documents related to spiritual fitness (FM 7-22 and its offspring) are almost entirely ignored. They have very little impact on Soldiers, commanders, or chaplains. Chaplains do what chaplains have always done.

How is it bad? Chaplains and religious adherents cannot recognize themselves in its language. It appears to them as academic gobbledygook with little relations to their experience of religion. I remember taking the H2F “Spiritual Fitness Assessment” one year and thinking, “This is horrible.” Any secular assessment of spiritual fitness is bogus.

It's perfectly appropriate to for the Army to talk about the values, purpose and meaning in life without trying to describe those things in quasi-religious terms. I think the Army needs a different word than "spiritual" for these discussions. People are always going to hear that word in the context of religion. Ultimately, the answers to those questions are beyond the Army's ability to cultivate. The government cannot possibly give me the meaning of my life or human existence or even provide me with a roadmap to the answer.

In fact, the government does need non-religious language to talk about the role of religion in service members’ lives and the work of chaplains. I saw a good example of the right way to talk about this in a presentation by Dondi Costin, who was then the Air Force Chief of Chaplains. In a speech to denominational endorsers, he provided evidence that religious participation has a positive impact on people’s lives. “Religious participation” is an objective description of a measurable activity. The idea was clear, concrete, and based on empirical research. Providing opportunities for religious participation is good for the military.

There are values that we should share as Americans and as service members. The Army has always used chaplains to promote values education. There is a danger, however, when chaplains come to be seen as company men and women, promoting values and beliefs simply because of their usefulness to the Army. Paradoxically, the chaplains' greatest value to the Army is beyond company values.

While the government wants chaplains to increase military readiness, the church of Jesus Christ does not exist to make better warriors or citizens. The first amendment recognizes the basic human right to religious freedom. It does not exist for the sake of military readiness.

Emotional Support Officers

The secretary said that chaplains are not emotional support officers. That is a rather derogatory and dismissive way to describe one of the chaplain’s core functions. Chaplains are available for confidential conversations with everyone. Chaplains provide comfort and encouragement to the wounded, and that includes those with moral and emotional wounds. Chaplains are not therapists, but their care for people is informed by both the human sciences and the chaplain's own theological foundations.

Only a tiny fraction of Soldiers and Family members attend chaplain-led worship services; many more address their chaplains as "padre" and look to them for support. Most members of the Army family have come to expect that chaplains are there to care for them regardless of their religious affiliation.

This kind of care contributes to Soldier and Family well-being, and ultimately, to readiness. I don't know why the secretary would denigrate it.

Religious Preference Codes

The secretary is deep into the minutiae on this one. He doesn’t like that there are so many religious preference codes, and notes that most service members choose from only a handful of possible choices. I wonder which recent codes he objects to.

It’s true that the list is long, and many religious groups you’ve never heard of are on the list. So what? America is a religiously diverse country, and the religious landscape is constantly evolving. The fact that some codes are little used is irrelevant. Religious minorities are welcome and accommodated. The first amendment applies to everyone.

I did find that Soldiers often chose their codes hastily, and the religion coded in the personnel database or listed on their dog tags did not accurately reflect their religious identities. Soldiers entering the Army are overwhelmed by an avalanche of administrative requirements. The list of religious codes is long and not particularly well organized. It’s a normal human response to proceed through that process without much thought. As a chaplain for war-fighting units, I saw each soldier face to face during our unit’s periodic Soldier Readiness Processing. I showed them the religious preference recorded for them in the personnel system and asked them if it was accurate. I also checked their dog tags. If they wanted to update their preferences, I directed them to the S-1 table.  Having accurate information was important as I planned to support my soldiers in combat and later when I visited with wounded or dying soldiers in on the battlefield.