# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S64
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

64 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

destroy it. We appreciate the attempts of the government to render
the Church its due and to safeguard denominational heritages.
If, however, we are convinced that in the chaplaincy system the
principle of separation of Church and State is being violated, we
will have to voice our convictions and act accordingly.

I. The Chaplaincy and Unionism

But the most serious charge the Wisconsin Synod makes
against the chaplaincy now, as before, is unionism. Back in 1941
it said: “The spirit of doctrinal indifferentism pervades the reg-
ulations of the War Department pertaining to the office of the
chaplaincy and fosters unionism.” The Manual of those days has
since been revised. A number of grossly unionistic statements
have been removed. But the basic error still remains, and the
charge of unionism still stands. The term as used here is to be
understood in the sense of the sentence of the Brief Statement,
Sect. 28: “We repudiate unionism, that is, church fellowship with
the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to God’s command,
as causing divisions in the Church, Rom. 16:17; 2 John 9, 10, and
as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely,
2 Tim. 2:17-21.”

The Chaplaincy Involves in Unionism by Making the Chaplain
the Spiritual Leader of a Certain Group Without Regard
to Denominational Lines

“The chaplain is the religious and spiritual leader of the mil-
itary community” (Manual, p.8) and is “morally obligated to
provide for the religious needs of the entire command” (Manual,
p.2). The chaplain dare not regard those of his own church body
as his exclusive charge nor adopt a purely passive role in dealing
with those of another denomination. The Manual is explicit on this
point. “In maneuvers and in combat situations he (the chaplain)
takes every opportunity to make personal contact with small groups
and individuals” (Manual, p.9). “The chaplain makes calls in the
interest of the religious welfare of the command in the homes of
personnel who reside within or near the military reservation. . .
Such calls are not to be confused with official social calls” (Man-
ual, p.9). There are similar stipulations reminding the chaplain
of his responsibility to all in his unit in confinement and in the
hospital. (Cf. Manual, p. 9.)

The chaplain has personal duties and direct responsibilities
over against those of other denominations in his charge. But he
is under a system which promises to safeguard the denominational
tenets of all. “Freedom of worship inherent in our democratic way
of life has long been recognized by the military establishment”
(Manual, p. 3). Chaplains are taught: “You are expected to respect
the convictions of others. The Army prides itself on its lack of
denominational bias and lack of religious coercion. ... The religious
convictions and the freedom of conscience of all personnel will be
respected.” (Denominational Coverage Requirements, S T 16-160,
The Chaplain School, 1 October 1950, XVIII c—d.) From any other
viewpoint we would heartily approve of these stipulations. But
when they serve as the fundamental principle guiding the chaplain’s
relation to those in his charge, then an intolerable situation is