# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S58
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

58 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

“1, The application for, and appointment to, chaplaincy
conflicts with our doctrinal stand on the divinity of the
pastoral call. Also, the Training Manual of the War Depart-
ment, entitled The Chaplain, specifies duties to the chaplain
which are in direct violation of the divine call of a Lu-
theran pastor.

“2 The appointment to chaplaincy and the regulation
of the chaplain’s duties by the War Department are a
violation of the principle of separation of Church and State.

“3 The spirit of doctrinal indifferentism pervades the
regulations of the War Department pertaining to the office
of chaplaincy and fosters unionism.” (Wisconsin Proceed-
ings, 1941, pp. 43 f.)

I. The Chaplaincy and the Divinity of the Call

“The chaplain is the religious and spiritual leader of the mil-
itary community. ... His relationship is analogus to the relation-
ship of a clergyman to a civilian community.” (Department of the
Army Field Manual, F M 16-5, The Chaplain, January 1952 —
hereafter referred to as “Manual”’—p.8.) “The chaplain in the
military service is a representative of a recognized denomination”
(Manual, p.12). For such a religious, spiritual office a divine call
is an absolute prerequisite. “No one should publicly teach in the
Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly
called” (A.C, Art. XIV). Consequently an important question
suggests itself: Does the chaplain’s call measure up to the standards
the Bible sets for the divine call?

A Strange Situation

When the Wisconsin Synod declared that “the application for,
and appointment to, chaplaincy conflicts with our doctrinal stand
on the divinity of the pastoral call,” it was pointing, though by no
means exclusively, to dangers involved in a situation where, ac-
cording to prevailing procedure, the candidate for the chaplaincy
takes the initiative, where his acceptance depends on other factors
besides his Church’s endorsement and call, and where his appoint-
ment and salary come from the government. Perhaps safeguards
can be set up to insure that the legitimacy of the call is maintained
when the position of chaplain is obtained. It may be argued
that the Church, on occasion, has taken and does take financial
support from the state and that the government, which supplies
the chaplain’s salary, is receiving value in return in the way of
increased military efficiency. But there are obvious dangers in the
circumstances under which the chaplain is called, and these
dangers, while they will by no means be our only concern, will
give us reason to pause and consider before we call men to serve
in the chaplaincy. It is admitted and maintained by us that the
Church has the right to call men into special types of service unlike
the parish ministry if that can be done without violating Scriptural
principles. But it is also maintained by us that under the present
system it is not possible to call chaplains for reasons far weightier
than the dangers to which reference has been made.