Introduction 

There he was in a blood-spattered Humvee. The ring and roar of mortars, bullets ripping through flesh, and yells. The sights unmentioned and horrible. Why was he there? Why was a chaplain there? This essay explores that question. 

Specifically, why would a non-combatant be in the military?[1] What is the ethical framework underpinning the non-combatant status of chaplains, and what are the theological and practical principles that guide ministry in military contexts? Even though there is a long history of chaplains serving as non-combatants, some argue that chaplains should be combatants.[2]

If the war is just—if there are good moral grounds for engaging in combat—then should not the chaplain be the first one willing and able to take up arms and fight? If there is truly just cause, then the chaplain should be willing to lead from the front, right?[3] He or she should not fear death and should have a holy conviction that the war is right.[4]

In fact, Darrell Cole concludes his essay by saying: “Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war do a vicious thing: they fail to show love toward their neighbor as well as toward God.”[5] So, why are chaplains non-combatants? Because there are  other important theological considerations. My thesis is that although there is theological warrant for warfare, the chaplains’ non-combatant status is essential for their role in providing spiritual guidance, moral counsel, and upholding religious freedom within the military. This is the chaplain’s God-given calling, and it must be the focus, not engaging the enemy. 

Theological Principles

Some argue that in light of Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies (Matt. 5:38-42) and the value of human life (Gen. 1:26-27), chaplains should not engage in combat. But if that is true for chaplains, why is it not true for all people? What about “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9)? That is true. And there are times to make peace by striving to righteouslywage war. How does “turning the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39) square with warfare? One answer is that Jesus meant individuals should not take the law into their own hands. What about king David being unable to build the temple because he was a man of war (1 Chron. 22:8;  28:3)? Chaplains are not serving under the old covenant or building a temple.

The Bible does not say it is wrong to wage war, but it does say to serve in the military justly (Lk. 3:14). So, war is not wrong. But there are a few biblical reasons why chaplains should be non-combatants. First, from a Christian perspective, governing authorities should be obeyed (Romans 13:1-7),[6] and chaplains are currently non-combatants. Although, chaplains are allowed to defend themselves.[7]

The most important aspect of the chaplain’s non-combatant status, however, is the chaplain’s particular calling and stewardship to focus on spiritual fitness. Chaplains can best serve military personnel and the mission by being non-combatants. Biblical stewardship is the calling to be faithful with what God has given (Matt. 25:14–46; 1 Cor. 4:2) because He owns and gives every good gift (e.g., Lev. 25:23; 1 Chron. 29:11–12; Ps. 24:1; James 1:17), including our time and talents, and wants them employed to His glory (1 Cor. 10:31). Chaplains have specifically been given the responsibility to provide “religious support and spiritual care” which importantly “ensures all Airmen and their authorized dependents have opportunities to exercise their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.”[8] That is the important calling chaplains should focus on. 

Chaplains focusing on spiritual fitness is absolutely vital. George C. Marshall, who among other things served as the 3rd United States Secretary of Defense, said, “I look upon the spiritual life of the soldier as even more important than his equipment. … The soldier’s heart, the soldier’s spirit, the soldier’s soul are everything. Unless the soldier’s soul sustains him, he cannot be relied upon and will fail himself and his country in the end.”[9]

It should also be considered that military members are literally trained to kill with powerful killing machines. As Samuel Huntington puts it, “They are specialists in the application of violence.”[10] It is thus important that they have moral guidance by their side. Chaplains must advise commanders, guide military members, and restrain unjust actions when needed.[11] 

Chaplains being non-combatants allows them to focus on their distinct role of holding the all-important spiritual realities before the military, as well as providing for the free exercise of religion. So, the non-combatant status of chaplains facilitates focusing on morals and morale. These are very worthy goals that make sense of chaplains being non-combatants.[12] 

Moral and Ethical Framework

Just war theory best captures the teaching of the Bible. It also allows a much-needed moral and rational framework to evaluate military decisions. Just war theory establishes moral boundaries around military conflict by identifying conditions under which warfare is ethically defensible.[13] There are three main considerations: right to go to war, right conduct in war, and justice after war.[14]

Just war theory is an important theological and ethical foundation because, as has often been said and experienced, “War is hell.” It should not be entered into casually. Also, human life is incredibly, even inestimably, valuable. There must be strong reasons to allow for violence and destruction. Further, all resources are finite, so their destruction should not be taken lightly. 

A realistic view of the world will see the clear persistence of evil, and the government’s moral responsibility to defend its people’s lives, property, and social order.[15] The Bible teaches war is, sadly, inevitable in the fallen world (Matthew 24:6-8). What must be asked is how it can be waged justly with minimized destruction.[16] Chaplains have a vast part to play here, and it is another reason why they are non-combatants. Chaplains must reckon with the dark realities of conflict and understand there will be casualties and chaos.[17] In the midst complexity, evil, and gore, they must tenaciously pursue righteousness. 

Implications for Chaplaincy Practice 

A chaplain’s non-combatant status is important for various reasons. Primarily, it allows them to focus on what they are uniquely trained and equipped to focus on. Chaplains can best support the military mission with God’s word, rather than with a gun. Aquinas, the eminent 13th-century philosopher, believed chaplains should be non-combatants because he did not want warlike pursuits to prevent them from focusing on their God-given jobs.[18]

The non-combatant status also enables chaplains to function as religious leader liaisons and build relationships with indigenous religious leaders.[19] This has proven especially beneficial in some Muslim contexts. Chaplains are often especially respected for trusting God and not wielding a gun. This facilitates promoting peace and reconciliation.

Lastly, all officers, including chaplains, have sworn (or affirmed) to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The chaplain does this in a unique and powerful way. The chaplain does it from the pulpit and with the pen and by providing for the religious expression of all military members. This is a high ideal. And it is worth chaplains going to battle and being shot at, all the while not carrying a gun because we as a nation believe that all people are created equal and have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” One of these rights is the freedom of religion.[20] Chaplains exist, in large part, to help protect First Amendment rights.[21] 

Conclusion

The non-combatant status of chaplains is important from a theological and practical standpoint. While one may acknowledge the arguments for chaplains as combatants, chaplains should retain their non-combatant status. This status allows chaplains to focus on their unique calling of spiritual guidance, moral counsel, and upholding religious freedom, which are vital for the well-being of military personnel and the success of the mission. Chaplains are to be faithful stewards ofthe gifts and responsibilities given to them, focusing on their primary calling (2 Corinthians 10:4; 2 Timothy 2:4).

The mission of the chaplain corps is spiritual fitness; spiritual resiliency. It is to “nurture the living, care for the wounded, and honor the dead.” It is not killing the enemy or even defending themselves. That is why chaplains are non-combatants.

We have explored the complex relationship between Christianity and warfare, with a specific focus on the role of chaplains. Some may cite biblical passages advocating for pacifistic peace,[22] but there are times when war is necessary to oppose evil, even while chaplains demonstrate heroism, willing to serve without weapons, to accomplish their important mission of advocating for and facilitating religious freedom and providing spiritual care. Chaplains oppose evil not with a gun but with godly grit.

Why was a chaplain in a blood-soaked Humvee? So, he could wipe up the blood, the tears, and serve for peace as Jesus did. So, he could—in imitation of Jesus—bring to flesh the hope, calm, and peace of God in a cursed, chaotic world. That is why we have chaplains who do not engage in combat. Their focus is daring love, compassion, and peace. Reminders of the good we fight for. 

Notes

[1] Chaplains’ noncombatant status stems from the Council of Ratisbon in A.D. 742, prohibiting them from carrying weapons (Michael C. Whittington and Charlie N. Davidson, Matters of Conscience: A Practical Theology for the Evangelical Chaplain Serving in the United States Military [Liberty University Press, 2013], 201–202). “The chaplaincy, it can be argued, has been alive and well either formally or informally for as long as man can imagine. The chaplaincy is as old as war itself.” (Steven A. Schaick, “Examining the Role of Chaplains as Non-Combatants While Involded in Religious Leader Engagement/Liaison,” 1).

[2] For example, Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Joseph Friedman, has said, “The DOD’s insistence on unarmed chaplains does not make sense” (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2023/Pistol-Packing-Padres/). Friedman says, for example, that when a chaplain is in a combat situation the chaplain becomes a tremendous liability to the combatants around him.

[3] Chaplains are spiritual leaders, that assumes people should follow them. But if chaplains are non-combatants essentilly because it is wrong to engage in combat then it follows that no one, not least the miliatry personel looking to the chaplain’s spiritual leadership, should engage in combat. In other words, if combat is morally and biblically wrong for chaplain’s then it is wrong to all people. It is different, however, if the question is one of prudential wisdom and not transcultural ethics.

[4] Chaplain William Emerson is an example here. In fact, Schaick says, “The Revolutionary War cannot be understood apart from the influence of clergy, many of whom alternated between fighting and preaching for the very freedoms their faith required.” (Schaick, “Examining the Role of Chaplains as Non-Combatants While Involded in Religious Leader Engagement/Liaison,” 2).

[5] Darrell Cole, “Good Wars” https://firstthings.com/good-wars/. He even says, “war-making, when just, can be a form of love” (Ibid.). Jeff Myers simiarly says, “A shameful peace based on nonaction is not to be preferred to a just peace based on action.” (Should Christians Support Israel?: Seeking a Biblical Worldview in an Impossible Situation, 83).

[6] There is clear warrant for civil disobedience in certain limited circumatances: Exodus 1:15-21; Daniel 3:6; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2. But the regular pattern is faithful and grateful obedience: Matthew 22:15-22; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:12-17. 

[7] Department of the Air Force Instruction 52-104: 3.2. says “chaplains, as religious personnel, serve exclusively in a humanitarian capacity. Chaplains, therefore, will not engage in activities that could create perceptions of combatant behavior or that compromise the protected status of other chaplains in the field.” But it also says they “have the inherent right of self-defense.”

[8] Air Force Instruction 52-101:1.1.

[9] George C. Marshall, quoted in Donald W. Shea, “A Ministry in the Eye of the Storm,” Army, September 1991, 54.

[10] Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The theory and politics of civil–military relations, 18. 

[11] Jo Brick wisely says that “while legal frameworks are important in regulating behavior, the ethical factors and the question ‘Can I live with myself if I do this?’ are drivers of individual behavior that are more important in complex circumstances. Military professionals must be trained in facing the inevitable dilemmas that arise in the course of military operations. Increasing moral fitness in military professionals is an important means of preventing moral injury. Training in the laws of war is, of itself, not enough. The law is easy; ethics is hard” (Jo Brick, “The Military Profession: Law, Ethics, and the Profession of Arms” in Redefining the Modern Military: The Inersection of Profession and Ethics edited by Nathan K. Finney and Tyrell O. Mayfield (Naval Insitute Press: Annapolis, MD, 2018), 62.

[12] Another important aspect is non-combatant status is supposed to allow chaplains to continue to provide relgious care if detained along with prisoners of war. To retain military religious status, chaplains must belong to a force whose members qualify for prisoners of war status, be designated as exclusive religious personnel, and serve exclusively in a religious capacity. This ability would be compromised if they were to engage in combat which would leave soildeis without much needed spiritual care (Naomi K. Paget and Janet R. McCormack, The Work of the Chaplain (Judson Press, 2006), 45.). One of the problems, however, is that “the purported immunity granted by the conventions has not been exhibited by U.S. enemies in over seventy-five years” (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2023/Pistol-Packing-Padres/).

[13] See for example Hak Joon Lee, Christian Ethics: A New Covenant Model (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021), 467–468 and David P. Gushee and Glen H. Stassen, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 462.

[14] Aquinas, 1274, 2.40.1. Here are the conditions that must be met before starting a war: just cause: Typically self-defense or protecting innocent people from serious harm, legitimate authority: War must be declared by a proper governing body, right intention: The goal should be justice (e.g., peace), not revenge or conquest, last resort: All peaceful options must have been tried first, probability of success: There should be a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, and proportionality: The expected benefits must outweigh the harm. Here are the rules that apply during war: discrimination (distinction): Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians, proportionality: The force used must not be excessive relative to the military objective, military necessity: Actions must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military goal, and no inherently evil means: Some methods (e.g., genocide, torture) are forbidden. These principles guide how wars should end and what happens after the war: fair peace terms: Avoid punishing populations excessively, reconstruction: Help rebuild affected societies, accountability: War crimes should be addressed, and the restoration of rights: Aim to reestablish a just political order.

[15] Lee, Christian Ethics, 467.

[16] “Defenders of the Just War tradition regret that they live in a world where they have to kill human beings in order to restrain evil; that is to say, they regret the Fall. But they find it to be even more regretful for Christians to stand idly by while people are being abused and killed unjustly” (Darrel Cole, “Good Wars”).

[17] As John Keegan says so powerfully, “What battles have in common is human: the behaviour of men struggling to reconcile their instinct for self-preservation, their sense of honour and the achievement of some aim over which other men are ready to kill them. The study of battle is therefore always a study of fear and usually of courage, always of leadership, usually of obedience; always of compulsion, sometimes of insubordination; always of anxiety, sometimes of elation or catharsis; always of uncertainty and doubt, misinformation and misapprehension, usually also of faith and sometimes of vision; always of violence, sometimes also of cruelty, self-sacrifice, compassion; above all, it is always a study of solidarity and usually also of disintegration for it is toward the disintegration of human groups that battle is directed” (John Keegan, The Face of Battle). 

[18] Aquinas, 1274, 2.40.2. I disagree with Aquinas’ second reason. He says warfare is “unbecoming” because those who give the Eucharist should not shed blood, even if they do so in accordance with just war theory. Perhaps this line of reasoning works in a Catholic theological system but not in mine which has a different view of the priesthood. 

[19] Schaick, “Examining the Role of Chaplains as Non-Combatants While Involded in Religious Leader Engagement/Liaison.” This is an important consideration. Donald Rumsfeld once said, “Overall, we are not doing a good job… of trying to include religious leaders to show respect for their faith as part of stability operations” (Donald Rumsfeld, keynote address, Eisenhower National Security Conference, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington, DC, 25 September 2003).

[20] Protecting this right is vital and we can and should thank God for our freedoms. “Denying religious freedom is a precursor to denying all other freedoms. If the state can put itself in between citizens and God, there is no other part of life within society that the state will not see itself as apt to disrupt and intervene in, either.” (Andrew T. Walker, Faithful Reason: Natural Law Ethics for God’s Glory and Our Good, 286). “The state that recognizes and protects religious freedom is not an omni-competent state, but rather a state that acknowledges the rights of conscience and the prerogatives of the institutions that men and women freely sustain to express and pass on their religious convic-tions. It recognizes its duty to serve, and not to impede, those communities of civil society. Thus the recognition of religious freedom in full is a crucial barrier to the totalitarian temptation that seems to exist in all forms of political modernity” (Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “In Defense of Religious Freedom, ” First Things, March 1, 2012, https:// http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/03/in-defense-of-religious-freedom. Quoted in Walker, Faithful Reason, 287).

[21] This does not mean, however, that all religious requests will be granted. Commanders must weigh religious freedom with safty and mission impact. As Andrew Walker has said in reference to general soceity: “Restrictions on religious liberty are indeed legitimate insofar as rightly authorized authorities carefully delineate what harms a religion’s adherents pose to society and does not arbitrarily penalize. Public health and public safety cannot countenance threats to sound order under an absolutized appeal to religious liberty” (Faithful Reason, 283).

[22] My advocacy of righteous realism agrees with Andrew T. Walker, who says, “Christian pacifism fails to adequately love one’s neighbor. It is an over-idealized ethic that cannot be reasonably pursued in an age marked by sin” (Walker, Faithful Reason, 272).

*Photo by Eduard Delputte