# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S63
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 638

spiritual authority to teach and to preach in public, to conduct
religious services,” etc., to ordination (cf. Manual, p.3), thereby
yielding that the source of spiritual authority is not to_be found
in the government, but by no means ceding all rights and concerns
regarding the exercise of the authority. The real intent of the
statement just quoted is explained and a reference to a “dual”
nature in the chaplain is made in Section XV of “Denominational
Coverage Requirements,” S T 16-160, The Chaplain School, 1 Octo-
ber 1950, and reads: “As a chaplain you function in the military
service by virtue of a dual authorization. The President .. . has
delegated to you, through your commission as an officer, such
military authority as you may require to accomplish your task. ...
You receive the religious authority you require to function as
a clergyman in the military service not from the Army or the Air
Force but from your denomination.” The distinction is between
the military status of the chaplain and his function as a clergyman
in the military service. There is no indication that his function as
a clergyman is being further divided, as alleged, into separate areas
marked “promotion of civic righteousness for the government” and
“spiritual work done for the Church.” But there is an indication
here, as in so many other places in the regulations, that the gov-
ernment wants as chaplains not only those who can serve as
promoters of civic righteousness, but bona fide clergymen with
authority to function as such from their denomination, but func-
tioning in and for the military service. The conclusion is inescap-
able that, no matter what distinction we might wish existed, when
the government commissions chaplains, it is invading the field of
the Church and violating the principle of separation of Church
and State.

The Regulation of the Chaplain’s Duties by the Government
Is a Violation of the Principle of Separation of Church and State

Furthermore, that principle is violated when the chaplain’s
duties are regulated by the state. The government may yield that
it does not supply the chaplain’s spiritual authority and may insist
that he be guided by the rules of his denomination; but it is still
encroaching upon the Church’s domain when, within these limits,
it regulates the field and flock, the work and words of the chaplain,
as it does when it tells him whom he is to serve and how he is to
do it, when it orders him to teach the character-guidance program
and to preach at the general Protestant service. The government
makes the chaplain “the religious and spiritual leader of the
military community” (Manual, p. 8), “morally obligated to provide
for the religious needs of the entire command” (Manual, p. 2).
It assigns him to a particular post, where there may be members
of his own denomination, of other denominations, of no denomina-
tion. He is made the spiritual leader of all; all are placed into his
charge. They may decline his ministrations; he may in certain cases
provide the ministrations of another. But that does not change the
fact that the government is establishing a relationship between chap-
lain and men which lies in the religious field. In any other setting
that would be recognized as a violation of the principle of separation
of Church and State and should be so recognized in this instance.

We do not accuse the government of maliciously invading the
realm of the Church and deliberately attempting to dominate or