- I have a fondness for terms that carry more meaning in their original language than in translated English.
- I cannot understand why "change for the sake of change" is worse than "constancy for the sake of constancy".
- I am far too impatient with people whom I consider are more black-and-white than me.
- I prefer the synoptics to John; Luke to Matthew and Mark; and Acts to Paul.
- that the Catholic I would most prefer to discuss theology with is not Balthasar, Kung, Rahner or even de Lubac, but Graham Greene.
- I pity social and political progressives who promote their various issues mournfully.
- I'm grudgingly grateful for my fundamentalist schooling.
- I prefer Tom Waits to Bob Dylan.
- I feel envious of people whose car, desk or handwriting is much neater than mine.
- that caffeine is a drug, but I am not addicted.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Mea Culpa
Following on from Ben at Faith and Theology, and many others, I confess:
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Legitimate Witness of Military Chaplaincy
About a month ago Ben at Faith and Theology pointed me to Swords to Plowshares where Scott reviews Richard John Neuhaus's homily "Bearing Witness in a Time of War" given at the memorial mass for the Military Vicariate.
As I commented on Scott's post, I'm surprised and confused that the legitimacy of the witness of military chaplains could be questioned so stridently. Even by the most avowed pacifist. Because "mission is the mother of theology" the issue is primarily missiological, and only subsequently theological. I'd very much like to understand the approach of Scott and Aric, as it seems so foreign to my understanding of the legitmacy -- even missiological necessity -- of the witness of military chaplaincy.
At this point I need to disclose that my father was a soldier until my mid-teens, and that not many years after that I enlisted in the Australian Army as a part-time soldier. I initially trained as a combatant but recently transferred to a logistical role from which I'm better able to pursue the possibility of becoming an Army chaplain.
Part of my journey to this point was my discovery of a missional approach to both theology and ministry, similar to that of the Gospel and Our Culture Network, sparked by the work of Leslie Newbigin. I came to see the military as a particular sub-culture within the broader social context of the (post-)modern West. (Incidentally, this is why Neuhaus' homily was given at a mass of the military vicariate; the Catholic church recognises the need for a distinctive ministry to the military alongside the parish structure. So too do a number of Protestant churches and para-church agencies to varying degrees and with varying effectiveness.) As a soldier I could appreciate the military sub-culture's own distinctive traits such as values, beliefs, and behaviours, which were sometimes even at odds with those of the broader context: some might decry the lack of democracy, I celebrate the co-operation not possible where free-market competition is unfettered. I share the symbols, stories and practices that formed this sub-culture: I still retain the badges of my previous units.
Whether or not one believes that the exercise of violence is ever legitimate, let alone redemptive, the presence of violence in any culture does not preclude the possibility of legitimate Christian witness. In fact, I would think that the witness of the shalom of God's kingdom becomes even more necessary in cultures with more anti-Christian elements. That chaplains may not always explicitly condemn the exercise of violence does not therefore constitute an implicit endorsement of it. If this were the case, then legitimate Christian witness in a consumerist culture that does violence to our collective humanity by commodifying its various aspects would not be possible.
As I commented on Scott's post, I'm surprised and confused that the legitimacy of the witness of military chaplains could be questioned so stridently. Even by the most avowed pacifist. Because "mission is the mother of theology" the issue is primarily missiological, and only subsequently theological. I'd very much like to understand the approach of Scott and Aric, as it seems so foreign to my understanding of the legitmacy -- even missiological necessity -- of the witness of military chaplaincy.
At this point I need to disclose that my father was a soldier until my mid-teens, and that not many years after that I enlisted in the Australian Army as a part-time soldier. I initially trained as a combatant but recently transferred to a logistical role from which I'm better able to pursue the possibility of becoming an Army chaplain.
Part of my journey to this point was my discovery of a missional approach to both theology and ministry, similar to that of the Gospel and Our Culture Network, sparked by the work of Leslie Newbigin. I came to see the military as a particular sub-culture within the broader social context of the (post-)modern West. (Incidentally, this is why Neuhaus' homily was given at a mass of the military vicariate; the Catholic church recognises the need for a distinctive ministry to the military alongside the parish structure. So too do a number of Protestant churches and para-church agencies to varying degrees and with varying effectiveness.) As a soldier I could appreciate the military sub-culture's own distinctive traits such as values, beliefs, and behaviours, which were sometimes even at odds with those of the broader context: some might decry the lack of democracy, I celebrate the co-operation not possible where free-market competition is unfettered. I share the symbols, stories and practices that formed this sub-culture: I still retain the badges of my previous units.
Whether or not one believes that the exercise of violence is ever legitimate, let alone redemptive, the presence of violence in any culture does not preclude the possibility of legitimate Christian witness. In fact, I would think that the witness of the shalom of God's kingdom becomes even more necessary in cultures with more anti-Christian elements. That chaplains may not always explicitly condemn the exercise of violence does not therefore constitute an implicit endorsement of it. If this were the case, then legitimate Christian witness in a consumerist culture that does violence to our collective humanity by commodifying its various aspects would not be possible.
Rather, chaplains, like all witnesses to God's shalom must first engage in a ministry of presence before engaging in a ministry of either demonstration or proclamation. Ultimately the community that is a sign, foretaste and conduit of God's shalom must subvert every anti-Christian aspect of the surrounding culture. Chaplains -- indeed all Christians sent to this mission field -- must learn the language, hear the stories, value the symbols and observe the practices of the military sub-culture to be fully present in it. This is basic missional work. Then from within this sub-culture, as part of it, we use the sub-culture's language to tell shared and rival stories, to fill symbols with greater meaning, and to re-orient practices towards God's telos. I intentionally wrote this sentence in the plural, because this vocation is the work of witnessing communities.
The vocation of chaplains is integral to the formation of witnessing communities, present in the the military who legitimately use its particular language and culture to demonstrate and proclaim the shalom of God's kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
