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.
3 comments:
I don't necessarily want to weigh in on the viability of chaplaincy or not, but in regard to the statement that "the issue is primarily missiological, and only subsequently theological", I have to take exception. Missiology is not extra-theological, but rather a subset of theology. We cannot suspend the theological to make some sort of missiological conclusion about what is or isn'g a viable practice of witnessing. To do so, I think is extremely dangerous.
Hi Cam.
It seems to me that the military is no mere "sub-culture" (such as ethnic sub-cultures), and is not analogous to broader society, as you seem to suggest when you say "the presence of violence in any culture does not preclude the possibility of legitimate Christian witness."
While, indeed, a shared culture develops within the military as a necessary result of human interaction, the military is an institution assigned with the sole over-arching purpose of making war. All participation in this institution exists for that purpose, and any individual motivations and interests must be either relinquished or remain secondary.
Most cultures (whether broader, national cultures, or smaller sub-cultures) do not serve such a solitary purpose. If they do, then the possibility of witness within them would similarly depend on the theological and moral status of that purpose.
So then, while violence exists in every society, the military is unique in that its very existence is for the preparation for and execution of violence.
Thanks for your thoughts, and the opportunity to respond.
Peace.
By way of disclosure I also am a candidate for the Reserve Chaplaincy. The Military is necessary here in Australia because it exists elsewhere. It may not always be necessary however when times necessitate its existence it cannot be created instantly and therefore it must exist when it is not needed. There is always the possibility that a Government may misuse the Army. It is not posable to say that the Government does not have the responsibility to provide for and protect its people since in so many ways it takes on as a collective the responsibilities of individuals who at least in the bible are encouraged to provide for families. Also in the Bible Governments are authorized as sword bearers. the Army is the sword. The men and women of arms do not decide how they are used, rather the government elected by us decide and so it is that we also need to take care of these people we ask to defend us. We may then protest the Government but not the Warrior who obeys our Government. We have the right and the responsibility to remove a government if it exceeds our wishes. I think that this was the error we made regarding Vietnam. However i believe that I have a responsibility to care for our military people and nurture the very best character in them that I can not only for there sake but for our sake and the sake of those of other nations in which our Army may enter. The military is a part of our culture and yet does not reflect the whole of our culture, so I think it is justifiable to refer to it as a sub culture in much the same way that perhaps pacifists also reflect a part of our culture and yet not the whole of it in that perhaps a pacifist may desire peace at any price while most would want a just peace. I do acknowledge however that as a Chaplain I must always struggle with the issues and am certainly not blase about these matters. Bruce
Post a Comment