Replace the Clergy? Think Again.

Back in November Captain Timothy Riemann, a student at the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Warfare School, wrote an article in the Marine Corps Gazette titled Replace the Clergy that argues for disbanding the active duty chaplain corps.

For years, the Navy Chaplain Corps has undergone little scrutiny or evaluation of its capabilities or effectiveness. Once examined, it becomes clear that the Chaplain Corps is expensive and provides a redundant religious capability, and its members are routinely employed beyond their capabilities. Therefore, the Department of the Navy (DoN) should begin phasing out active duty chaplains, replace them with licensed professional counselors (LPCs), and utilize the Reserve Chaplain Corps for duty exclusively in combat-designated areas.

You can imagine the outrage and general opposition to such an article (the comment tally was well over 100 as of this writing). While I think Capt Riemann’s argument is mostly without merit, the discussion it has encouraged has brought up some valid points.

First let me tear down the main points of his argument, because I can’t in good conscience discuss it without addressing its gaping holes.

Argument 1: Chaplains are not really qualified to perform counseling

It was self-evident at the Chaplain Corps’ inception that its duties were explicitly religious in nature and that the regulations did not stipulate any other secondary or collateral duties. The contemporary Chaplain Corps’ mission and areas of influence have stretched well beyond shipboard divine services.

Roles change over time. The role of submarines today is vastly different than when they were first put into service. Many of the duties officers and senior enlisted perform today would be completely foreign to those just a few generations ago. If you told Chesty Puller that he would have to hold a “human factors council” each month to analyze the risk of each of his Marines he would have said you were crazy. We might not receive specialized training to take on these new roles, but as leaders we are in the best position to accomplish them.

Chaplains have a truly unique place in the military. They have the ear of commanders and access to resources well above their actual rank and position, yet operate free from most restrictions from those very commanders. I would argue that it is their unique position which allows them to serve in a counseling role, far more than their religious training.

Somewhere along the line, the military recognized that the chaplain was where troops went when they had a problem they couldn’t go to their peers or chain of command to resolve. Instead of limiting the chaplain’s role, we have expanded it to foster this kind of interaction because we recognize its value.

Argument 2: Cost

Riemann argues that having active duty personnel perform a job is less cost effective than a contracted civilian force. This is a whole other can of worms that I’d rather not open, but I think it’s fair to say that filling active duty positions with contracted (or government civilian) employes is not always the optimal solution that we are led to believe it is.

The bottom line is that we need to decide whether the job requires a uniformed service member or whether the benefit of having a uniformed service member in a job outweighs the added cost. We could go to a civilian medical corps supplemented by reservist doctors to save money, but is that really a better solution to keeping troops healthy and fit for combat?

Argument 3: Existing civilian community religious activities fulfill the religious needs of service members

One of the responsibilities of many active duty chaplains is to administer religious worship via an on-base congregation. The pews of these congregations are notoriously empty as statistical evidence suggests. A recent survey of 165 DoN personnel showed that less that 17 percent of them admitted to ever being members of an on-base congregation. There is a real lack of “demonstrated necessity for religious representation in areas which provide sufficient opportunities for worship.” Around large Marine and Navy bases, there are often extensive population centers with ample churches, temples, and mosques that make the on-base, chaplain-driven congregations redundant.

Now here’s something that I think we as Jews have a real perspective on. While you may be able to find a church on every corner near most bases, the same is most definitely not true for synagogues. Looking past the less-than-broad survey (likely consisting only of his EWS classmates), having religious opportunities available to minority religions is a legitimate need. It’s not always having a chaplain either. The Religious Program Specialists (RPs), who he also hints should be scrapped, are often the very people who order our kosher MREs, siddurs, and other ritual items. The chaplains and their staff can also arrange for a space to worship and, when necessary, arrange for transportation to services.

The point is, the entire religious staff works together to support the religious needs of service members. While it may be easy for a captain to take care of his religious needs on his or her own, that’s not the main focus of chaplain support. Expecting a young E-1, new to the service, new to his unit, and likely new to this area of the country, to seek out a local synagogue, arrange for transportation, and time off to attend is ludicrous. Observing your religious obligations should not be that difficult.

There is also the issue of local religious activities having the capability or desire to reach out to troops on base. Even if they do, without a chaplain corps, there is no conduit to reaching those troops on base. How is Congregation Beth Shalom supposed to find (let alone help out) Private Cohen who lives in the barracks somewhere in Camp Lejeune?

Argument 4: The stigma of mental health

Since Riemann sees no real need for religious support in the military, he sees the primary job of chaplains as “counselors”. He therefore concludes that we should replace the existing chaplain corps with Licensed Professional Counsellors (LPCs). Aside from all of the arguments above, it would provide service members with better mental health care and provide them with an easier path to get it.

Having a civilian counselor collocated with a ship or Marine command would ease the stigma of mental health. If talking to the civilian LPC is one day seen as simply a routine occurrence, Marines and sailors would be more willing to seek out the help they need.

This is perhaps the wackiest of his ideas yet. I’ll admit that some Marines have reservations about seeing a chaplain about a problem, but that pails in comparison to the sheer dread I’ve experienced when you suggest a “mental health professional”. In both cases, the hesitation is sue to a fundamental misunderstanding, but in both cases the effect is real. I think what would likely happen is this proposed LPC program would help a handful of people but fail miserably and eventually get cut.

So what’s the point?

So if this is such a horrible argument and naive understanding of military chaplaincy, why point it out at all? Aside from providing a strong counterpoint from the Jewish perspective, I wanted to draw attention to a comment thread on the original article. An active duty chaplain posted (emphasis mine):

I can agree with the Captain to an extent.  It is obvious that the Captain is speaking from the perspective of having encountered too many inept chaplains.  As an active-duty chaplain, I concur that too many chaplains are not adequately trained and/or lack enough “real life” experience to be of any good to anyone.  I agree that there are too many active-duty chaplains that are complete narcissistic, self-glorification seeking, non-caring, careerists who are completely incapable of giving a flip about anyone but themselves and their career.  This issue has been a great frustration for me in my limited years of experience in the Chaplain Corp and has me seriously wondering how much longer I can take this insanity.  Unfortunately, a lot of the sincere and good chaplains feel this way and end up getting out due to sheer weariness for having to deal with the ruthless, careerists who have visions of grandeur for themselves.  Thus, the corps is left with the type of chaplains that the Captain has developed a strong distaste for and justifiably so. In encountering so many of these types of chaplains it has me fearing what I will be like should I last 20 years (if the corps is still around).

However, I don’t agree that the chaplain corps should be eradicated.  There are many of us who are qualified to do what he suggests.  All Navy chaplains are required to have a minimum of a Master level degree.  It’s just that the good ones get burnt out too fast from being abused by the cutthroat chaplains and all you’re left with are the inept ones; hence, an unhealthy Chaplain Corps.

What I believe would help is if rank in the chaplain corps were eradicated because far too many chaplains live by the right side of the collar rather than the left side.  By having only the religious symbol as the collar device on both sides of the collar then more chaplains will be forced to remember Who they really work for and Who they are ultimately accountable to.  Rank so often becomes the “Precious” that drives many chaplains, quite literally, insane like Gollum. Too many chaplains like to pretend to be and live vicariously through the Line Officers not realizing that the Line Officers have to be of a completely different mindset out of necessity.

This is not the first time I’ve heard this sentiment from a military chaplain. In fact a chaplain candidate I know became so frustrated with the careerism he experienced at one location that he eventually dropped out of the chaplain program.

There are some fantastic chaplains out there. I have had nothing but great experiences with the Jewish chaplains I’ve encountered and have served with many Christian chaplains who bent over backwards to help me out and make sure my needs are met. However, just like any of the officer ranks, the very best are the ones who are in it to serve their troops, not themselves. If the chaplaincy needs an overhaul at all, it would be a restructuring of the career paths for chaplains – not the end of the enterprise itself.

The idea of eliminating the chaplaincy would be a tremendous blow to not only troop morale, but to the very freedom to practice religion while serving in uniform. Such an action would hurt us all, but I think would be felt particularly strongly among Jews and other minority faiths.