# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S59
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 59

The Church Is Limited When Calling a Chaplain

“Our Confessions, in accord with Scripture, Matt. 18: 17-20;
1 Cor. 5:13; Rom. 16:17; 1 Peter 2:9, expressly teach that the Office
of the Keys belongs to the whole Church and that Christian min-
isters therefore hold their office by virtue of their call from their
churches” (Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p. 574). “Tt is necessary
for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain
ministers. And this authority is a gift which in reality is given to
the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church.”
(Smalcald Articles, “Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope,” p. 67.)
The Church, which has received from its Head the precious gift
of the Keys and the inalienable right to call ministers, has the holy
duty to cherish this gift and right and to guard it zealously.
It ought never surrender any part of its right or even give the
appearance of doing so.

It is difficult to reconcile the chaplain’s call with this mandate.
True, the Church extends a call to the chaplain, but only by suf-
ferance of the government. True, the Manual says, p.3: “The
chaplain’s spiritual authority . . . is imparted in the ordination that
his denomination has given him.” And yet the chaplain is what
he is, not only by virtue of his call, but also by virtue of a law of
the land. This law providing for military chaplains was originally
passed in 1831, has been modified frequently since then, but never
repealed. As long as the law stands, there can be chaplains. Should
the law ever be rescinded, the present chaplaincy system would
fall, no matter how many calls the chaplains might have. In such
an event it would be only too apparent that the power and authority
of the Church to call chaplains is not by any means absolute but
conditional, and that upon the yea and nay of the government.

Though the government is willing to say that the chaplain’s
spiritual authority is imparted in ordination, yet it jealously re-
serves for itself the right to say when and where, by whom and
for whom this authority is exercised. Under the chaplaincy system
the Church must surrender rights that are inherent in the absolute
authority to call. It can call only those who meet government
standards, and only in such a number as is allowed according to the
quota basis under which the system operates. It must suffer its
called servants to be stationed and transferred, promoted and
discharged, at the government’s beck and call. Its called servants
must observe numerous and specific regulations of the Armed
Forces regarding their work. Its called servants are placed under
the supervision of a military commander, who somehow, “without
trespassing upon the ecclesiastical field” (as A R 660-20, p. 4, says),
is to make himself “ultimately as completely responsible for the
religious life, morals, and morale within the command as he is for
strictly military affairs” (Manual, p.13). It is obviously to the
interest of the government to set standards for all in the military,
to determine the number of the chaplains and the station of each,
to see that chaplains earn their salary, to guard the chain of
command. But at the same time it should also be obvious that
under such a system the Church’s absolute authority to call is
being infringed upon. And that is something the Church dare not
invite, but should resist steadfastly.