Against the Military Chaplains Modernization Act

Senator James Lankford, an Southern Baptist minister from Oklahoma has introduced a bill he has entitled the Military Chaplains Modernization Act of 2026. Here is a relevant extract regarding Army Chaplains.

7217. Duties, responsibilities, requirements, and protections for Army chaplains

(a) DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND REQUIREMENTS.—

(2) The Army Chaplaincy shall be overseen by the Chief of Chaplains and shall—

(B) meet the religious requirements and care for the spiritual needs of members of the armed forces, other authorized persons, and dependents of members, potentially in isolated or combat environments;

(C) have a primary role in providing for the free exercise of religion and other religious requirements associated with the free exercise of religion;

(D) facilitate meeting the religious needs and requirements for members of the armed forces to whom an assigned chaplain cannot directly minister;

(b) PROTECTIONS.—

(1) A chaplain’s duties, responsibilities, and requirements, as set forth in subsection (a), shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the chaplain’s sincerely held religious beliefs and the manner, form and tenets of the chaplain’s religious-endorsing organization.

(4) No member of the Armed Forces may—

(B) require or assign a chaplain to perform any task or action contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the chaplain or contrary to the manner, form, or tenets of the religious-endorsing organization of the chaplain, consistent with section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1);

Color coded emphasis added

As written, the MCMA bill appears to allow chaplains to opt out of meeting the religious needs of service members who hold different religious beliefs. The red text effectively takes away the requirement to fulfill the duties in the blue text. Chaplains can say "no" to any part of their constituencies they don't want to support. 

Paragraph (a) of Section 3 indeed requires Army chaplains to provide for free exercise of religion and facilitate the religious needs and requirements for service members. Paragraph (b), however, says chaplains are not required to perform "any task or action" contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. “Any task or action” could fall squarely in the “facilitate meeting the religious needs” arena. 

No chaplain is ever forced to preach, teach, pray, or conduct religious ministry in opposition to their conscience.  There is difference, however, between facilitating religious support and performing a religious function. Tasks and actions that facilitate meeting the religious needs of my troops should never be optional. 

The requirement to facilitate meeting the religious needs of service members and their families is a compelling interest under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The chaplain is the commander's staff officer who ensures religious support takes place on behalf of the Unites States government, not the chaplain's endorser. 

It appears to me that some chaplains and endorsers are now wanting to opt out of the "facilitate" function as well. The law cannot allow that to happen. I can only assume which social changes are driving this change in direction.  Chaplains cannot pick and choose which of their constituents they will support and those they will not. A chaplain cannot say, "I will facilitate religious support for Catholics but not Muslims. I will ensure Jews can have their religious needs met, but not gay or lesbian Christians. I will put a Methodist man on the preaching schedule, but not a Presbyterian woman." 

There is a LOT of language in this bill about protecting chaplains. There is very little about supporting service members. Chaplains ALWAYS have a duty to facilitate meeting religious needs and supporting the free exercise of religion, even for people with whom they sincerely disagree. Unless this requirement is clarified in an amendment prior to passage, this bill should not become law. 

There is also nothing that I see about discriminating against subordinate chaplains simply based on religious identity. The protections all seem to be focused on chaplains refusing to do certain things, not on a senior chaplain's or commander's discriminatory preferences. 

The bill creates an adversarial environment in the chaplaincy and will further erode trust and unity. 

The National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces Covenant and Code of Ethics provides a much better guide for chaplains than this bill.  


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