The American Military Partner Association recently published a press release (and submitted to the US Department of Defense) a list of “Top Needs of LGBT Military Spouses and their Families.” The AMPA took a significant pot shot at US military chaplains — and substantially avoided the truth to do so. At #5, the AMPA listed an LGBT need as “Military Chaplain and Counseling Support,” saying

The North American Mission Board (NAMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention announced that NAMB endorsed chaplains are prohibited from ministering to same-gender military couples.

The AMPA’s statement is flatly untrue, but, like Tom Carpenter and Jason Torpy’s portrayals of this same subject, mischaracterization is necessary to make a political point.

The truth is Southern Baptist chaplains will minister to everyone. Like all chaplains, they will do so from their theological position. Since the Baptist position includes the belief that homosexuality is sinful, their ministry may include counseling from that perspective. For example, a military homosexual that comes to a Baptist chaplain for “couple’s counseling” could expect to be counseled that such a lifestyle was not appropriate. The same would be true if a heterosexual military member went to a Baptist chaplain while co-habitating. That member would likely be counseled that lifestyle was sinful.  Both of those situations might be true whether the chaplain was Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, or any of a variety of other faith groups that do not affirm homosexuality.

While it is obvious that every chaplain will minister from his faith tradition to whomever comes to see him, the AMPA predicted dire consequences for homosexuals in the US military as a result of this false SBC position:

With a disproportionate number of chaplains (around 1,400) endorsed by the NAMB, this has major implications for our military families in accessing support and guidance, especially for those located in places with limited numbers of chaplains, like on ships and remote bases. This problem was compounded when prohibitions were put in place on Roman Catholic chaplains as well.

Again, “prohibitions” were not “put in place” for Catholic chaplains.  Catholics have always held the same theological beliefs regarding homosexuality.  Only because the military changed its policies on homosexual behavior did chaplain-endorsing groups have to publish specific guidance to their chaplains on how to minister in the new environment.

The AMPA complaint is thematically similar to the arguments that won DADT repeal — repression requires active correction.  However — again — both Baptist and Roman Catholic chaplains will provide “support and guidance” to anyone who comes to them, homosexual or not. The AMPA basically repeated the claims of Jason Torpy, essentially claiming the Southern Baptist position was so restrictive they were incapable of performing their duties as chaplains:

The NAMB has specifically prohibited their endorsed chaplains from:
•Performing pastoral counseling of a same-gender married couple.
•Assisting or supporting contractors or volunteers leading same-gender relational events, thereby cutting off same-gender couples from “Strong Bonds” events and similar type programs.
•Offering any kind of relationship training, on or off a military installation, which would give the appearance of accepting the “homosexual lifestyle or sexual wrongdoing.”
•Conducting a service jointly with a chaplain, contractor or volunteer who personally practices or affirms a “homosexual lifestyle” or such conduct.

The first bullet is simply not true. Southern Baptist chaplains will not provide counseling that affirms a homosexual relationship — just as they will not affirm any other relationship the Christian faith believes is sinful — but they will still counsel anyone who comes, even homosexuals.

The melodramatic impact of the second bullet — “cutting off” — is not true. The issue of homosexuals in chapel-provided marital counseling is so sensitive the military has said they’ll actually bring chaplains in specifically to lead retreats for homosexuals.  If that isn’t the US military bending over backwards to provide services specifically for homosexuals, what is?  In point of fact, the AMPA knows this accusation to be false, because they were the ones to falsely report “evidence” of this just a few months ago.

The last two bullets are simply reaffirmations of the Baptist theological position that affirming sin is inconsistent with the Christian faith. As has been asked before, why would anyone expect a chaplain to join services or events that promote theological beliefs or practices with which they disagree? Where is the support for the religious freedom of the chaplains (and the servicemembers they serve)?

More importantly, why does the homosexual AMPA lobby feel they should be able to dictate the services provided by a religious faith?

There are chaplains that believe homosexuality is not sinful. There are even homosexual chaplains. While they may be a small portion of the chaplaincy, homosexuals themselves similarly make up a small part of the US military demographic. Homosexuals in the military need unique “Military Chaplain and Counseling Support” as much as any other group that identifies by sexual behavior. Apart from that, the US military chaplaincy provides the same services to all.

That the AMPA homosexual lobby needed to degrade and misrepresent the US military chaplaincy — or at least the Christians with whom they disagree — speaks volumes to the “tolerance” they espouse.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---