November 16th, 2010 by in News

Ethics of Military Chaplaincy: A Panel Discussion

Last night The Burner attended the “Ethics of Military Chaplaincy: A Panel Discussion” at Fuller’s Pasadena campus. The event was hosted by the Fuller Peace and Justice Advocates (PJA) and the Just Peacemaking Institute. On the panel were professor of pastoral care and counseling David Augsburger, associate dean of D.Min. Kurt Fredrickson, USN chaplain Frank Riley, veteran and activist Jake Diliberto and former Military Counseling Network director Dave Stutzman.

All the participants were either Fuller employees, faculty, alumni or students, and sometimes a combination–all part of the Fuller family, and further, the family of God. “(I’m so glad/I’m a part/of the family of God…”) Moderator and PJA head Peter Sensenig kept a great reign on the discussion when it approached ‘out-of-hand-edness.’ Among the points brought up were 1) Chaplains serve as salt and light to Christians in the military, 2) Chaplains serve a necessary role as counsel to those experiencing trauma, 3) Chaplains are there as a handicapped third-party between soldiers and their superiors, 4) Chaplains are disingenuous to the Christian call to be loyal to God above all and 5) Chaplains are the agents of the Pentagon to keep enlisted men in line and protect the order of the military.

What? Out-of-hand-edness in a Christian discussion? Sad but true. While the topic was supposed to be “should Christians be involved in the military as chaplains” (the implication coming from the Mennonite and Christian pacifist tradition that Christians don’t serve in the military), it’s hard to keep thoughts about war and pacifism in general–two subjects that contain a great deal of passion for most Americans–from leaking into and distracting from the subject at hand.

What did the panel decide? TB is letting the Seminary’s underwear show a little here, but the fact that the vehement disagreement is allowed and encouraged on campus is one of the great traits that Fuller is known for. And though Sensenig began by reminding all of those in the room that we are all on the same side, the tone in the room for the most part did not reflect that we were all on the same side. In Christian civil discourse, there is no room for grandstanding, sarcasm, melodramatics or disrespect. An attitude of respect, reconciliation, and common ground is a great witness to the Christian idea of peacemaking–for Christians and non-Christians alike.

And though some panelists were trying, there was a missed opportunity here to demonstrate that Christians of all political and theological tenets could come together under the reign of Jesus and get along–you know, and missing out on the whole “resounding gong and clashing cymbals” thing.

 

  • 11-16-10
  • News
  • Print Print
 
 
  • Jake Diliberto

    Dear author:

    Your blog post is misleading. You stated, “And though Sensenig began by reminding all of those in the room that we are all on the same side”– yet you forgot to mention the following sentence. “However we do have different points of view”.

    Secondly, where in the bible does it say “all christians need to get along”. Did Peter and Paul “get along” after their food fight in Galatians? How about woman and men debating leadership in Timothy? Did they “get along”? Or perhaps, when Jesus confronts pharisees, was he “getting along”.

    Moreover, the point of the panel was NOT (as you stated) to debate “should Christians be involved in the military as chaplains”, rather it was a panel highlighting, discussing, and informing on the “Ethics in Military Chaplaincy”.

    The most displeasing remarks in this blog post illuminates my opinion that Evangelical christians have lost their tenacious spirit. Jesus was not always light and soft mannered with everyone. Jesus did not “get along with everyone”, rather he was very confrontational on many issues. He fought for people and for those who did not have a voice. He did not bow down to mediocrity or to the powers of the Roman Empire.

    It is amazing the most critical point of view regarding last night, is the panelists did not get along.

    Lastly, the idea that “some panelists tried to get along”, is devoid of considerations of pre-panel meeting. Where some panelists attempted to coerce the discussion in an unethical way.

  • Dave Stutzman

    As a participant on the panel, one could say that I represent more the perspective of “Whew! Glad that didn’t get too outta hand.” Knowing the differing starting points of the panelists, I was personally pleased that the discussion maintained a level of civility despite the edge and emotion that I am sure was palpable to all that attended. I believe that there are few places where this issue can be examined and debated that included the level of diverging views that was evident among the panel Monday night. For that I am grateful to my fellow panelist for bringing their passionate convictions and willingness to engage one another.

    Having said that, I am with you on that it matters how we engage in discourse as Christians. So, given all the limitations a panel might offer, what might be some other ways Fuller could facilitate discussing this issue and others related to war and Christian ethics?

  • http://theburnerblog.com theburnerblog

    Jake,

    Thanks for the response and for helping to bring the issues of military chaplaincy to light.

    While I myself may frequently fail to practice civility in debate, I still believe that as Christians we must follow Christ’s and the NT’s instructions for charity and love in the midst of disagreements. Four reasons for this:
    1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
    2. “Do everything without complaining or arguing…”
    3. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving as God in Christ forgave you.”
    4. The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. Tenacity is not one of them.

    In my experience, the wisest and most intelligent people I have met have also been the most kind, most humble and most gracious. I had hoped for–and thought that Peter Sensenig was calling for–the old “unity, liberty, charity” thing.

    David Moore

  • http://theburnerblog.com theburnerblog

    Dave,

    Thanks for your time on the panel and for responding.

    I liked the panel and thought it to be very valuable. As I wrote in the post (or at least meant to convey) was that I appreciated Fuller’s interest in fostering discussion about important, difficult, and sometimes emotional topics. I say, “More forums!”–while then saying, “More civility!”

 
 

CALENDAR

Events @ Fuller