Federal Chaplains

[Gregory Matthews]

People often ask me questions about my service as a Federal chaplain and how I can be both a SDA minister and a Federal employee.

Here is a brief response that I have written:

Federal Chaplains have a unique relationship to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which in one clause prohibits the establishment of religion and in another clause guaranties the free exercise of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from setting into effect a religious organization which would provide clergy to the government. Thus, the government is dependent upon the various religious denominations to supply it with needed clergy. The free exercise clause requires that a government which takes its citizens into environments where they cannot receive religious nurture and counseling must make some effort to provide for their free exercise. IOW, there is, contrary to the understanding of some, a Constitutional requirement for government chaplains provided by the various denominations.

The consequences of these two parts to the First Amendment are that: 1) The government cannot hire Federal chaplains without the permission of their respective denominations. 2) Federal chaplains can only remain employed with the permission of their respective denominations. 3) Individual chaplains must operate in a pluralistic environment while maintaining the tenets of their denomination. In order to perform this function, the various denominations have established Endorsing Agencies which certify chaplains for employment and, when required, withdraw endorsement which terminates the employment of the chaplain. This is true for all Federal chaplains.

As the U.S. Military is one of the oldest of the government agencies, it has the most developed chaplaincy. In the early days of the Army chaplaincy, their chaplains were often used as education officers to teach basic educational skills to soldiers who needed that type of training. They were also commonly used to provide recreational services to the soldiers. That became an area of concern to the denominations and some were adamant that Federal chaplaincies should not exist and that they would not provide such. This issue became more settled as Congress became involved. Chaplain duties were more clearly restricted to pastoral care, within the context that the various denominations have some differing ideas as to what is appropriate pastoral care and the Army came to require that chaplains be supervised by other chaplains, in a dual relationship with the Commander. This is just common sense as a person not endorsed by a religious denomination should not be telling a clergyperson how to perform their pastoral services. So, while we chaplains are protected by this and cannot be required to violate denominational and personal tenets, we can be required to support others in their practices by coordinating them with pastoral care providers who can meet their sincere needs.

This pastoral role for Federal chaplains has another aspect. We exist to protect vulnerable people from unwanted attempts to convert to other faiths and beliefs. People have a right not only to choose to believe and practice a set of religious beliefs, but they also have a right not to believe and practice. Federal chaplains also serve as the guardian of the rights of those people.

[Kevin H]

Excellent description Greg. It is a ministry that I admire. Also, with our views of religious liberty and hell, I believe that Adventists are in a unique position to be faithful to this position compared to those who's denominations tend to be more focused on making people just like them to avoid the fire.

Thank you for your ministry Greg!

[Gregory Matthews]

Thank you Kevin.

I wrote this because many people do not know.

Recently I spoke to a well-known SDA evangelist, who has served in pastoral roles as well as in evangelism. He was dumbfounded to learn that the Church, acting through the General Conference and/or the NAD had anything to say about my employment. He thought that the denomination had no control over me.

Well, the denomination has a lot of control over me, even though I am a Federal employee.

Well, after 50 years of service to God and country, my 2nd retirment is proceeding. It is time. But, I have enjoyed these past years.

[Gail]

Interesting! I am happy for the way the Government handled that. I am happy that the Government has thought fit to provide for its military's spiritual needs. It didn't need to.

[Gregory Matthews]

My position is that under the First Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide. When it takes our men and women overseas, in combat and peace, they all to often do have the ability to recieve spliritual nurture in the community. So, the government has an obligation to provide.

Think about it. Would it be possible for our men and women in Iraq to worship and recieve spiritual nurture in the community? Not realy.