The Ugly Side
Of The U.S. Air Force Chaplaincy
Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A.
Having been unable to find a full-time ministry
position in the civilian world (which is very common in the United States due
to the unequal ratio of trained ministers to open church positions) I enlisted
in the United States Air Force in 2004 with the hope of finishing seminary and
then applying for the Air Force’s Chaplaincy Program. The U.S. has had military
chaplains since 1775 when the Continental Congress created the Chaplain Corps
in the Continental Army to minister to the spiritual needs of our soldiers.
Before joining I had researched the
chaplaincy program on the internet and even called the Air Force Chaplain Corps
office where I spoke with a Chaplain about the program. Almost everything that
I learned made it appeal to me: an opportunity to minister the Gospel to people
who needed to be ready spiritually to die at a moment’s notice, the
government’s backing and approval of my ministry, a great salary with excellent
benefits, and the sense of patriotic value that comes from serving in the
military.
Only one person really presented a valid
argument against me pursuing this. He was a conservative Methodist minister and
he warned me about a friend of his who had joined the chaplaincy, only to find
out that chaplains are pressured to promote universalism.
I took him at his word but I thought that surely his friend was mistaken or
perhaps overreacted on some things. However, after enlisting I began to realize
that his friend’s experience was true and that there is a dark and hidden side
to the U.S. Air Force Chaplaincy that most people are unaware of.
One of the first things that made me
question the Chaplaincy was when I was stationed at Keesler Air Force Base for
technical training. I remember being forced to go to a briefing at which a
chaplain was discussing why people should not commit suicide (suicide is a big
problem in the Air Force). As he discussed ways to deal with suicidal thoughts
he mentioned that God was one source of help when we were discouraged. What
struck me as odd however, was that even though he was a Christian chaplain (I
believe that he was Southern Baptist to be specific) he talked about God in a
general sense without giving any explanation of who He was. I remember being
struck with the impression that he had worded his briefing so that whether one
was a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or any other religion he or she would assume that
he was talking about their God, not his. That made me feel a little
uncomfortable although I didn’t think much of it for very long.
Later when I was stationed at Tinker Air
Force Base I found myself at another mandatory briefing in which a chaplain was
present. This time it was a Pentecostal chaplain and as she shared with the
class what services the chaplaincy program at the base had to offer I was very
surprised when she made a statement to the effect of “If you are a Mormon and
you would like to meet with someone from the Mormon church let us know and we
will get you someone from there to minister to you.” I couldn’t understand
that. Pentecostals (as well as all evangelical Christians) know that Mormonism
is a cult and that those who are involved in it are lost and on their way to a
burning hell. How could she talk about it as if it was just another Christian
group?
At every base I served at (a total of four)
I attended the chapel services and in two of the chapels I was even allowed to
preach. My wife also became very involved with the Protestant Women of The
Chapel, at one point even becoming an elected officer. At one of the chapels
(the one which we attended the most) I asked a chaplain (a Wesleyan) if it
would be alright if I went over to the dorms and handed out witnessing tracts.
I guess I expected him to be at least somewhat supportive as having preached in
and taught Sunday School in Wesleyan churches I knew that they were evangelical.
You should have seen him cringe almost and tell me something to the effect of
“Ah, uh, I don’t know…that’s a very tricky issue…you would need to talk to the
First Sergeant about that.” Well I got the point. The chaplain could not give
me permission to share the gospel (in fact it seemed to make him very
uncomfortable that I had asked him for permission to do so) and if he couldn’t
I certainly didn’t think that the First Sergeant (who had absolutely nothing to
do with the chapel program) would let me do it either. So I just got the
addresses of the dorms and mailed the tracts anonymously.
While I was in the Air Force the issue of
freedom of religious expression came to the forefront. A Jewish student at the
Air Force Academy had initiated a law suit claiming that he was being unduly
pressured to convert to Christianity. In connection with this the issue of
“praying in Jesus’ Name” became a focal point of debate and chaplains were
discouraged from praying in Jesus’ Name at non-chapel related events even though
the Bible is very plain in that Jesus taught his disciples that we were to pray
“in his name” (Jn 14:13-14, 15:16, 16:23-26). I know that at Tinker in 2008 the
Base Commander was putting pressure on chaplains to not pray in Jesus’ Name. I
know this because one day after a chapel service a very discouraged chaplain
was sharing, out loud as if he didn’t care who heard him, that this was the
case. For him it had become an issue in which the church group which sponsored
him had had to become involved because if he chose to give into the pressure of
the Base Commander they would no longer sponsor him with a religious
endorsement and without a religious endorsement he could no longer be a
chaplain.1 Ironically, this particular Base
Commander attended the chapel and had even been known to get up in front of the
congregation and deliver the children’s message. Why did a high ranking
officer, who attended and took part in the Protestant chapel services, pressure
a Christian to not pray in Jesus’ Name?
On more than one occasion a particular
chaplain (another Pentecostal), knowing the amount of theological education
that I had, encouraged me to become a chaplain. In our first discussion I
shared with him how that I could not do so because I knew that Jesus said we
were to pray “in his name” and that the chaplains were not allowed to. He
acknowledged this and shared with me the story of a very high ranking chaplain
who refused to obey the Air Force and prayed in Jesus name and was disciplined
for doing so. I asked him how could he pray one way when the Lord told us to
pray another way and he said that he would just substitute another title for
Jesus such as if he was at a Chief Master Sergeant’s retirement ceremony he
would pray “in the name of the Chief of Chiefs” or something like that. But
Jesus didn’t tell us to pray in the name of the Chief of Chiefs. He told us to
pray in His Name and anything else that is substituted in order to keep from
mentioning his name is nothing less than a refusal to acknowledge him in our
prayers.
Another incident that troubled me involved a
prayer event that the chapel sponsored. It involved going to various stations
that were set up to pray for specific things. There was some relaxing,
spiritual sounding music playing in the background and overall my wife and I
felt like it was a very spiritually uplifting experience. However, before we
left we went to the CD player to see which CD was playing. We really liked it a
lot as it seemed to really set the mood for prayer and reflection. However we
were shocked when we saw that the CD was labeled as music for Zen Buddhism Meditation. The only people involved in the
prayer event were Protestants and Catholics. The event was all Christian
oriented and even featured communion at one of the last prayer stations. So, we
really did not understand why they were trying to mix Zen Buddhism into a
Christian event.
Concerned by this I sent an email to one of the Chaplains but received no response. I saw this chaplain later but he seemed like he felt uncomfortable around me and didn’t mention the email. Thirty two days later he finally responded and seemed generally supportive although I don’t know why it took him so long to write back about this.
Every week in the Tinker base newspaper a chaplain
was asked to write a religious article. Of these articles that I read they were
usually more generically religious than Christian in tone. In other words, even
if they were written by a conservative Christian they didn’t really seem
Christian in their message but just referred to God very vaguely so that one
would not know which God they were referring to. I know of one incident in
which a chaplain was asked to write the Christmas issue article. Being a
Presbyterian, he of course wrote about the true story of why we celebrate
Christmas. But after turning his article in the Head Chaplain (affiliated with
the Calvary Chapel) told him that his Christmas
article was too Christian and
could not be published as it was because it was too one-faith oriented. How else is a Christian supposed to write a
Christmas article? Even if this was a case where a secular newspaper had
approached the chaplains and asked them to write religious articles but with
the stipulation that they could not promote Christianity, why would a Christian
minister agree to write a religious article with the condition that he not
promote Christ? Could a real Christian write an article instructing people
about religion and not feel the least bit convicted knowing that he had
willfully held back the Creator of the one true religion?
Perhaps the biggest negative experience that
I had involved a third Pentecostal chaplain. He was in charge of the young
adults, a group which my wife and I attended when my work schedule would allow
it. Once, he sent out a mass email saying that he had a special treat for the
group and was going to have a Jewish woman come speak to the group. My wife and
I assumed that if she had been invited to speak to a Protestant Christian young
adults group that she herself would be a Messianic Jewish Christian. However,
after arriving, indirect things that she started saying didn’t really seem to
fit with a person who believed in Jesus. At first her comments were more subtle
in nature. Finally, my wife asked her if she was a Messianic Jew and she told
us that she was not. A young lieutenant who was in attendance and who had went
to school to be a minister (though he was not a chaplain) asked her directly if
she thought that we (the Christians) were going to go to Heaven and there in
our Christian meeting she very arrogantly told us that she believed that we
ourselves thought we were going to
Heaven. The implication was that she did not believe that we were saved, just
that we were deluded into believing that we were saved. She took the
opportunity to share with us her feelings that Jesus was not the Messiah
because, in her opinion, he did not fulfill the prophecies regarding him. She
also made very negative comments against Messianic Jews and shared that she did
not even want to be around them as she viewed them as some sort of cult-like
group and did not even consider them Jewish.
What was most disappointing about this was
not the fact that an unbeliever had been invited to address a Christian group
on spiritual matters but the way in which the Pentecostal chaplain behaved.
When the young Lieutenant tried to get the speaker to pointblank tell the group
that she did not believe that we were saved the chaplain stood up and stopped
the conversation. Why would he do that? Didn’t he want the impressionable young
adults to know the truth? Did he not want the speaker to be presented with the
Gospel? If he believed that Jesus was the only way why did he stop that from
being discussed?
After the speaker was finished the chaplain
stood up and told the group that he thought we should all take a trip to the
speaker’s synagogue. And then, after
this woman had showed her obvious disdain for Christ, even sharing that she did
not believe that any of us were saved, the chaplain encouraged everyone in
attendance to give her a round of applause. WHY would a Pentecostal preacher do
that? Pentecostals believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.
The final straw came after the speaker left. After she was gone the chaplain stood up
and started talking about how we needed to feel sorry for this lady because she
was so bogged down in rabbinic tradition and that she was in real need of
Jesus. Didn’t he find that a bit hypocritical to keep her from being presented
with her need for salvation while she was there, only to emphasize her need for
it after she had gone? What is wrong with that picture? The chaplain did not
want her to hear about Jesus that day, that is all I know.
Well, I decided that I had to say something
about this and I sent the chaplain an email. I just felt that I had to.
Surprisingly, he responded back in a timely manner and said that he would like
to meet with me to discuss this. We met at a Starbuck’s and while there we
discussed the chaplaincy and the issues that I had with it. He admitted to me
that the chaplains who were more administrative, rather than pastoral (which I
took to mean evangelical) were the ones who got the promotions to the highest
ranks. At one point I asked him if he had ever done anything contrary to what
the Holy Spirit had told him to do because of one of his commanders. Rather
than saying yes or no he gave a long, drawn out answer in which he said that
that would be a sin but would never say “yes” or “no”. His long, drawn out
answer made it obvious that he had and just didn’t want to admit it. Apparently
he felt that if he spoke negatively enough about what I had asked him that I
would just assume he had never done it. But it was obvious to me that he was
trying to avoid telling me that he had let his commanders pressure him into
disobeying the leading of the Holy Spirit.
In regards to the Jewish speaker he claimed
that he had only invited her to help us understand the Jewish roots of
Christianity but that her comments got out of hand. That in and of itself should
show how compromising the Air Force chaplaincy is to the point that it would
let not only an unbeliever address a Christian youth group but an unbeliever
who has completely rejected Jesus Christ. I took him at his word that he meant
well in inviting her but why did he stop the Christians from
presenting her with the gospel? His reason for doing so will be exposed in
just a few paragraphs.
The real question here is where is all of
this heading? Why are evangelical Christians who believe that Jesus is the only
way to Heaven not wanting to witness and presenting a generic God (who is
whoever the individual wants him to be) rather than the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ?
· Why did a Southern Baptist chaplain
purposely word a briefing on how God can help people overcome suicidal thoughts
in such a way as to not let anyone know who the real God is?
· Why did a Pentecostal chaplain encourage a
group of young airmen that Mormons were on the same level as mainstream
Christians?
· Why did a Wesleyan chaplain discourage me
from sharing the gospel?
· Why did the Base Commander at Tinker, who
attended and took part in the chapel services, put pressure on chaplains to not
pray in Jesus’ Name?
· Why did a second Pentecostal chaplain
purposefully replace Jesus’ Name with other phrases when praying?
· Why did a Christian prayer event at the
Tinker Chapel use Buddhist Meditation music in their program?
· Why did a Calvary Chapel chaplain reject a
Presbyterian chaplain’s base newspaper Christmas issue article for the religion
section because it told the real meaning behind Christmas?
· Why did a third Pentecostal chaplain invite
an unbelieving Jewish woman to address a Protestant youth group, allowing her
to inform the group that there was nothing special about Jesus, and then stop
the conversation when the youth group wanted to present the gospel to this
woman?
Rather than look for a hidden conspiracy,
all we have to do is read what the Air Force has written upon the subject of
religion and it will become very clear that the chaplains are being pressured
to promote universalism-the belief that
all religions are equal and that all religions will lead one to heaven.
In
a 2005 article entitled There Are Many
Roads To Texas Col. Lela Holden of the Air Force Surgeon General Office of
Congressional and Public Affairs criticized those who believe that there is
only one true faith stating that the traditional Christian understanding of
Jesus being the only way to Heaven did not make sense:
And if there are many roads to Texas, or to
success, how is it possible there are not truly many roads to God? For those of
us who believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, loving Creator of our magnificent
universe, and the source of our individual beings, how is it possible that any
human can limit that Creator to only one road to understanding, loving, and
worshipping Him?...Does it make sense to say that only one religion offers the
definitive road to God? I think not.2
Colonel Holden finished out her article by
encouraging all Air Force personnel to “respect that others’ roads to God are
valid” and that the “belief that one’s own religion is superior is not
sufficient to truly build the teamwork our Air Force and country need.”3
It could not get any plainer than that. The
Air Force does not want its members to be Christians and it is obvious that
they are putting pressure upon the chaplains to discourage people from
embracing Bible based, evangelical Christianity.
What happens when a chaplain refuses to let
the military tell him how to serve and worship his God? Let’s look at the true
case of what happened when one chaplain decided to follow God instead of
Government.
In 1991 Chaplain Lieutenant Colonel Garland
Robertson was faced with a dilemma. The U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq (for
the first Gulf War) but his military parishioners and several U.S. Christian
leaders were questioning the decision to do so. Faced with his civilian
ministry colleagues and the concerns of the troops under his spiritual care he
wrote a letter to the editor of his local paper expressing his concern over the
decision to go to war. These were his personal religious feelings and he had no
intention of refusing to go to war. He merely wanted to encourage people to
take into consideration what God might think about this decision.
The Air Force’s reaction was swift.
Robertson was forbidden and restrained from preaching in any of the chapel
services. His leadership of the base chapel choir, special educational classes,
Bible study and prayer services with those detained at the base stockade were
all taken away from him. Stripped of all his duties he was removed from his
chapel office and placed in a windowless, closet-sized room adjacent to the
base runway where he was given the task of writing book reviews. Robertson’s
“discipline” didn’t end there. He suddenly found himself charged with fraud and
was forced to undergo psychological evaluations. When his first and second
evaluations gave him a clean bill of health a third was ordered at which he was
finally found to suffer from a “personality disorder so severe as to interfere
with the normal and customary completion of his duties.”4 The Air Force
psychologist responsible for authoring two of the three evaluations of
Robertson testified that the wing leadership “wanted his head”5.
At an official Board of Inquiry held to
investigate Robertson he was accused of being “disrespectful in words and
actions towards his immediate superior”; that his “leadership skills were below
standard”; and that he was diagnosed as “having a personality disorder.” After
hearing extensive testimony the first and third accusations were thrown out.
His mysterious fraud charge was also eventually dropped. The second regarding
his leadership skills, however, was sustained even though a previous
performance appraisal had noted that Robertson was “an outstanding pastoral
chaplain, always eager to help others and consistently displays
industriousness, conscientiousness and diligence in his ministry.”6
One might not be surprised to see the military act this way but what about the
chaplaincy program’s leadership? Surely the chaplain leadership does not
support a chaplain not being able to serve God as his conscience determines.
Surely the higher ranking chaplains would never encourage their subordinate
chaplains to compromise their faith, or
would they?
In the midst of Robertson’s “discipline” a
letter from the Chief of Chaplain’s office in Washington, D.C. arrived
indicating that he was on his own in this one. An officer was eventually sent
from there and reminded him that “compromise” was essential for becoming a
successful military chaplain. When Robertson suggested that perhaps
“cooperation” was a better choice of words the officer reinforced his
intentional use of the word “compromise” by giving the analogy that, “If Jesus had been an Air Force chaplain
he would have been court-martialed.”7 Before leaving,
he encouraged Robertson that compromise was necessary in order to maintain a
presence in the Air Force.
At his board of inquiry a civilian employee who
had worked at the chapel where Robertson was a chaplain testified that her
former boss, the senior chaplain at Robertson’s chapel had taken her aside one
Sunday morning “to tell me he had to get Chaplain Robertson out of the service.
Chaplain Elwell went on to tell me that this task must be accomplished by a
certain date… so that [Robertson] would not be entitled to full retirement
benefits.” She said that it seemed evident, that the senior chaplain “had been
told that part of his job was to remove Chaplain Robertson”8 and the one chaplain who did stand by Robertson’s
side was not allowed to renew his chaplaincy contract after his three year term
was up.
The Air Force does not play around with
chaplains who will not put them before God and any chaplains who hope that
their chaplain supervisors will stand by their side if they choose to do so are
placing their hopes in something that is not there.
This type of pressure to not speak when God tells
chaplains to speak is shown even more clearly in that while I was attending the
Tinker Air Force Base Chapel they had posted on the wall there a Code Of Ethics For Air Force
Chaplains which at the bottom stated that it was approved of by
the Chaplains Office at the Headquarters United States Air Force in 2005. In
essence it is a list of what is and is not considered ethical behavior for
an Air Force chaplain and consists of eight statements worded in the first
person. According to this list one thing that a chaplain must be able to say in
order to be considered ethical is, “I will not actively proselytize from other
religious bodies.” Apparently those who take the words of Jesus seriously that
we are to “make disciples of all nations”9 are unethical.10 I also believe
that this was the reason why the Pentecostal chaplain stopped the young adults
group from witnessing to the Jewish speaker—he
had to or else he would have been in violation of the “Code Of Ethics For Air
Force Chaplains”.
Is it really a big deal for a chaplain to
refrain from praying in Jesus’ Name? Look at what is really happening when a
chaplain gives in to their commander’s order to not pray the way Christ taught
us to pray. The Air Force does not want Christian chaplains to pray in Jesus’
name because, as noted above, they want to create a universalistic religion
that they can impose upon the armed forces. Jesus, because of his unique claims
to be the Son of God and the only
Savior of the world, keeps that from happening. If they are unable to get
people to forget about Jesus and his message of being the only way to salvation
(Jn 10:9) then they know that they will never be able to convince the military
into accepting universalism. This is one of the reasons why chaplains are
discouraged from praying in Jesus’ name. Jesus warns us that:
Whosoever
therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father
which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my Father which is in heaven. Mt 10:32-33
Chaplains
who refuse to pray in Jesus’ name are denying Jesus, plain and simple. There
are no ifs, ands or buts to this
issue. Jesus told us to pray in his name and James reminds us that “to him that
knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin (Ja 4:17).” There is no
way of getting around it. Not praying in Jesus’ name simply because a military commander
tells you not to is a sin!
There are some chaplains who have tried to
justify what they are doing by claiming that it is worth compromising in order
to have a “Christian witness” in the armed forces. They rationalize that it is
better to have a “weak” Christian presence that no Christian presence at all.
Anyone who thinks about that will see how utterly ridiculous that is—God does not desire a Christian witness in
the military so badly that He would rather have a compromising, weak witness
than no witness at all nor does He call a chaplain to minister in such a way.
That doesn’t make any sense at all and I don’t see how anyone who had any
relationship whatsoever with the Father could even come to such a conclusion!
Besides, even if there were no chaplains at all there would still be Christians
who joined the military and these people would provide a Christian presence and
witness for the other soldiers.
Many Christians are obviously wondering why
would chaplains who come from denominations that believe that Jesus is the only
way to Heaven and that it is our duty to pray in Jesus’ name stay in the
military under such conditions. A
chaplain’s contract only lasts three years but it seems that the majority of them
decide to renew term after term despite the pressure to apostatize. For the ones who have given in I can only
find one real reason--$$$. The salary of
a chaplain compared to the salary of a civilian minister is in most cases as different
as Heaven and Earth. A chaplain’s salary varies depending upon which base
he/she is stationed at.11 A married
chaplain who is just starting out at Tinker Air Force Base will begin making
$52,702.08 a year,12 of which
$15,996.48 of this will be tax free as housing and food allowances are not
taxed, but he also gets 100% health coverage for him and all of his dependents,
free gym memberships for the whole family, free legal advice, tax free shopping,
low-cost flights around the world, and a whole list of other benefits equaling
to thousands of extra dollars a year. The starting salary and benefits for a
beginning chaplain is higher than the salary that most ministers who have been
in the ministry for 50 years are making by the time they retire. I hate to say
it, but it truly appears that the love of money is the root cause of the
compromising chaplains staying in the military. They certainly are not doing it
so that they can make a difference by taking a stand for the Name of Jesus.
The real question is, why, if God is
sovereign, is all of this happening? Why is God allowing the government to put
pressure upon evangelical Christians to deny their Lord and Savior and reject
his great commission? The answer is simple. For years chaplains enjoyed freedom
to witness and pray in Jesus’ Name. There were many godly chaplains who
ministered powerfully and effectively in the United States. But as it was with
Job, Satan noticed the large financial blessings that God had bestowed upon the
chaplains through their generous government salaries and benefits. He saw that
the chaplains were ministering (and ministering hard) but who wouldn’t under
the circumstances? Just as Satan questioned whether Job served God only because
He blessed him, so Satan questioned whether chaplains would serve God if it
meant possibly losing His blessing.
This is all a test just like Job’s to see who will really serve God when the
possibility of losing one’s military salary, benefits and retirement comes into
play. Sadly, some have failed their test miserably and shown the Lord that they
are ministering as chaplains more for the benefits than for the Lord because
when the threat of losing the benefits for praying in Jesus’ Name was thrown
out I saw how quickly some chaplains were to distance themselves from Jesus’
name. I shared this once with a chaplain (the Pentecostal chaplain who prayed
in the name of the Chief of chiefs) and he just got quiet and didn’t say
anything. What could he say; he knows in his heart that if Jesus tells us to do
something we should do it no matter what the cost.
As my time in the Air Force came to a close
and the issue of the chaplaincy weighed upon my heart, I was reminded of Moses.
The author of Hebrews tells us that Moses chose “rather to suffer affliction
with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season,
considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt;
for he looked to the reward (Heb 11:25-26).” The benefits for Air Force
chaplains are very nice, much nicer than almost anything that the civilian
ministry world has to offer. But they come at a heavy price. Chaplains will
invariably find themselves like Moses faced with either compromising what the
Scriptures and their consciences are telling them is right in order to enjoy
the “pleasures of sin for a season” or take their stand with God and
acknowledge that suffering “reproach” for praying and evangelizing the way that
Jesus said will lead to “greater riches” than anything that the Air Force could
ever give.
A Final Word To
The Chaplains
I would like to offer one last word to any
chaplains who may have read this article. Any chaplain who starts out with good
intentions and then gives into the Air Forces’ temptation to compromise will go
through a series of stages until he finally becomes what the Air Force wants
him to be. You will begin by compromising in some seemingly “little” way such
as closing your prayers in some other formula than in Jesus’ Name or not
speaking up when you feel the Holy Spirit leading you to. At first this will
bother your conscience but eventually you will find that the more you resist
the Holy Spirit the less your conscience bothers you (1Ti 4:2). In the
meantime, while your conscience still bothers you, you may try to appease it by
being “overzealous” when it is convenient. You know that the Holy Spirit has
led you from time to time to witness to certain individuals but you did not
because it was inconvenient, however, when you find someone whom it was
convenient to witness to you become very zealous and go on and on talking about
the Lord. This has the effect of appeasing your conscience but it never quite
completely takes away that guilty feeling. From time to time God will send
people or circumstances your way which will be attempts at getting your
attention and encouraging you to remember that Christ must come first, the
military second. But even these are never designed to override your free-will.
You will still have the choice of either choosing or rejecting these
messengers. Eventually you will come to the conclusion that it is better for
you to compromise so you can still be a “witness” rather than leave the
military. By this time you have deceived yourself into thinking that you are
doing something good (by compromising) when you are actually living in
rebellion against God (2Th 2:10-12). By this final stage you are self-deceived
and rather than being a minister of the Lord you have become a minister of the
Air Force.
One of the first stories that I shared was
of a Wesleyan chaplain who discouraged me from witnessing even though Wesleyans
teach that we should be active in sharing our faith. Several years after that
event this particular chaplain’s Wesleyan Church supervisor was invited to
preach at the Tinker Chapel, most likely through the efforts of this chaplain.
He preached a great message on how all Christians need to be active in
evangelizing. While he preached on this topic I looked at the Wesleyan chaplain
who had discouraged me from giving out witnessing tracts and he appeared to be
very deep in thought, to the point of appearing to feel a little troubled by
what his ecclesiastical supervisor was saying. His facial expressions were not
those of anger or frustration but looked more like guilt and (as strange as it
sounds) conviction. What he was really thinking I don’t know. Only he can say
for sure but by all appearances he looked as if he sat there feeling guilty.
Today the Air Force chaplaincy is filled with chaplains who have a guilty
conscience. They know that their Bible and their Savior has commanded them to
preach the gospel to all people regardless of what the government says but yet
they choose every day not to do it. “No
servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other (Lk 16:13a).”
Chaplain you are going to have to decide whom you are going to serve: God or
the Government. Both want your undivided attention and loyalty. Both are
promising you great rewards for giving it. Both will not be satisfied with
being in second place.
Which one will
you choose?
1 A religious
endorsement is basically a religious organization’s stamp of approval upon an
individual. It usually carries with it ordination. Having an approved religious
organization endorse you is a requirement for becoming a chaplain in the United
States military. Different religious organizations have different requirements
in order for an individual to retain their endorsement. In this chaplain’s case
it was a requirement for him to pray in Jesus’ Name.
2 Col. Lela Holden. There Are Many Roads To Texas. Archived
here.
3 Col. Lela Holden. There Are Many Roads To Texas. Archived here.
4 Ken Sehested,
Loyalty
Test; The Case of Chaplain Robertson, Christian Century, March 2, 1994. The accuracy
of this article was confirmed in a personal interview that I had with Garland
Robertson. Compare
also Garland
Robertson vs. United States Of America, United States Court Of Appeals For The
Tenth Circuit.
5 Ken Sehested,
Loyalty
Test; The Case of Chaplain Robertson, Christian Century, March 2, 1994. The accuracy
of this article was confirmed in a personal interview that I had with Garland
Robertson. Compare
also Garland
Robertson vs. United States Of America, United States Court Of Appeals For The
Tenth Circuit.
6 Ken Sehested, Loyalty
Test; The Case of Chaplain Robertson, Christian Century, March 2, 1994. The accuracy
of this article was confirmed in a personal interview that I had with Garland
Robertson. Compare
also Garland
Robertson vs. United States Of America, United States Court Of Appeals For The
Tenth Circuit.
7 Ken Sehested, Loyalty
Test; The Case of Chaplain Robertson, Christian Century, March 2, 1994. The accuracy
of this article was confirmed in a personal interview that I had with Garland
Robertson. Compare
also Garland
Robertson vs. United States Of America, United States Court Of Appeals For The
Tenth Circuit.
8 Ken Sehested, Loyalty
Test; The Case of Chaplain Robertson, Christian Century, March 2, 1994. The accuracy of
this article was confirmed in a personal interview that I had with Garland
Robertson. Compare
also Garland
Robertson vs. United States Of America, United States Court Of Appeals For The
Tenth Circuit.
10 Photo
of the Code Of Ethics For Air Force
Chaplains taken in
the Tinker Air Force Base chapel. This document was “pulled to be reviewed” in
2005, not because it contradicted the Bible, but because it contained a clause
stating “…I retain the right to instruct
and/or evangelize those who are not affiliated [with any religion].”
Apparently it was never completely removed because it was still hanging in the
chapel at Tinker as late as the summer of 2008 which was the last time that I
was there.
11 The base pay
for chaplains all begins at the same level of O-2. Chaplains also receive a
housing and food allowance which varies based upon the geographic location in
which they are stationed and whether they have dependents or not.
12 This total
includes their base salary, food allowance, and housing allowance.