Military chaplains
Dr. Hart:
I’m certainly supportive of your advocacy of 2K theology, but the examples you use here seem misplaced to me.
You begin by noting the compromising entanglements that Chaplains face in the military. These entanglements may exist in some form, but the manner in which they exist, in my experience, has never been due to problems with our country’s law or our military’s doctrine (admittedly, the effects of DADT’s repeal haven’t had time to take effect yet). In the Army at least, there is a clear distinction made between performing religious services and providing them. The former is done by Chaplains because the state has hired them to preserve the free-exercise rights of service members. The provide function is done by Chaplains as an explicit expression of their particular faith tradition. These two hats that Chaplains wear has always seemed to me to comport quite nicely with 2K ideas: on behalf of the state, we ensure the free exercise of religion for all Warriors, and on behalf of our denominations, we conduct religious services in line with our faith traditions. Honesty of course requires me to admit that there are pressures for Chaplains to lose their denominational distinctives. But I would simply point out that those pressures really don’t have anything to do with current law or policy (again, let’s wait to see what happens with DADT’s repeal). In fact, those pressures are in spite of them. In my opinion, any pressure to conform results from the overwhelming presence of evangelical, I-don’t-have-an-ecclesiology-or-a-system-of-doctrine Chaplains in our nation’s military. They as a group hate putting people in “boxes” (lots of stories I could share here, but won’t for space). So those issues are not policy driven, but people driven. Certainly, taking Reformational Chaplains out of the mix isn’t the answer to that problem. As a parting shot on Chaplains in the military, we have to remember that the military isn’t the Church. So Frame’s shock-and-awe at a Presbyterian Chaplain’s appreciation for the faith of his Pentecostal colleague shouldn’t seem so scandalous. They were not a part of the same denomination, as Frame noted, so what’s the big deal about affirming the catholicity of the faith despite some people’s wacky backgrounds (see Peter Wallace here, http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=128)?
Your use of women in the military also seemed to miss the mark. You rightly observe that women have the right to self-defense, but you wrongly confuse that, I think, with their participation in military service, as if “tactical” issues were the only thing at stake (it’s not clear what you meant by that). The truth is that women serving in the military poses a serious moral dilemma, whether arguing from the perspective of natural law or God’s moral law. First, it requires men to reprogram their protective instincts toward women. If caught in a firefight (perhaps this is what you had in mind earlier), male soldiers must repress any urge to provide special protection to their female counterparts, simply expecting them to expose themselves to danger like anyone else engaging in combat with the enemy. How does this change men when they come back to their wives after a deployment? Second, it requires women to reprogram their natural nurturing motives. They must teach themselves to function among men as men, repressing the beauty of their femininity so as to conform to the aggressive and hard character of military culture. How does this affect their relationships with the husbands and children? Third, it creates a sexual-relational environment that promotes sexual immorality. The truth about college campuses is that putting men and women in close proximity to each other for extended periods of time tends to lead to all kinds of debauchery. Guess what a Forward Operating Base often becomes? You guessed it. WLC 99 clearly teaches that establishing conditions that foster sin is in itself sinful. Nature certainly teaches something similar.
Again, I appreciate your advocacy of 2K. I just wish you had picked better examples, or at least better understood the ones you picked. As always, I would be interested in receiving your feedback.
Chaplain (CPT) Ken Honken
"it creates a sexual-relational environment that promotes sexual immorality"
ReplyDeleteProstitution around US military bases and the use of foreign prostitutes by servicemen has been widespread throughout history: perhaps a co-ed military alleviates the "necessity" of prostitution.
If one must classify sexual misconduct along a continuum, I would think that fornication would be a bit more forgivable than contributing to the sex-for-hire industry, especially since the latter contributes to organized crime and the physical abuse of women.
Several issues:
ReplyDeletei) One has to weigh the potential benefits of forward operating bases, as well as the potential evils of not having them, over against the potential evils of having them.
ii) If, say, forward operating bases are necessary or highly advantageous to our national security, then we may have to accept the lesser evils which go along with that.
iii) Foreign bases benefit the local economy of the host country. They also augment the national defense of the host country.
iv) A coed military is not a military necessity.
v) Prostitution is complex. It’s often driven by economic desperation. But that goes to a different question. Why is the job situation so bad for women abroad? What can or should be done about that?
vi) There are some high-end prostitutes who do it because it’s lucrative, not because they can’t make a living any other way.
vii) Prostitution isn’t limited to callgirls. If you have homosexuals in the military, that, in turn, will create a demand for callboys as well.