Update: The Forum on the Military Chaplaincy — a homosexual advocacy group largely friendly to Mikey Weinstein’s mission — asked for input on this story on their Facebook page.  Between the normal invective and banter were two significant comments:

From Chaplain Gil Richardson, who said:

Chaplains desiring to go through SFQC or Ranger School submit a request for exception to policy to conduct training with weapons thru a Chaplain Channels in order to attend the training. If approved for either course, the Chaplain endures the same hardships and challenges. If he graduates and is awarded the tab (in the case of SF Chaplains assigned to SF units, he also is awarded the Green Beret), then they do have much more credibility in the special units…

Back in the early and mid 90s, the [Ranger Training Brigade] Chaplain had to be “tabbed” (graduate of the school). A tabbed Chaplain understood firsthand the stresses of the course and had simply more credibility with students and cadre alike…

Once the training in either course is over, the exception to policy ends. Please do not confuse or equate training in an elite, challenging course with normal practice (no weapon when serving as a Chaplain).

From Chaplain Brian Hargis, who said:

This is an old post that continues to get republished. The last guy (Pete) graduated early 2014. In Jan 2015, SWCS put a stop to all Chaplains and PAs from attending SFAS and the Q Course. It was a waste of $500,000 to train men that would never use the skills.

These comments from two knowledgeable chaplains provide significant background to undermine Mikey Weinstein’s ludicrous calls for punishment of the chaplains.

---

Earlier in February, the US Army posted an article entitled “Special Forces Tab, Green Beret, SFQC — A vehicle for Chaplains,” in which it discussed three chaplains who have completed Army Special Forces training. Michael “Mikey” Weinstein — a self-declared advocate for military religious freedom — took issue in a formal complaint (PDF) to the Army [underlining original]: 

[T]he article highlighted the sense of camaraderie with Special Forces soldiers these Chaplains claim such training fostered, [but] it neglected to mention that these Chaplains are violating Army Regulations.

Army Regulation 165-1 states:

3-1f. Noncombatant. Chaplains will not bear arms in combat or in unit combat skills training…

The Army should punish this clear violation, rather than praising it as a “vehicle for Chaplains.”

This is an unusual battle for the MRFF to pick. Notably, the complaint lacks the marks of Weinstein’s authorship (alliterative appellations, overuse of adjectives and redundancies, etc), which raises doubts about MRFF investment at the start. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with “religious freedom” — the purported mission of Weinstein’s “charity.”  More importantly, chaplains have been attending the SF course and others like it for years — so why complain now? Chaplain Peter Hofman, mentioned in the complaint, finished SF training two years ago — and also obtained his Ranger tab in 2009.  Chaplain Tim Crawley was the subject of a Christianity Today article highlighted here last year, and though he was included in the article as ‘chaplain number 4,’ Weinstein appears to have missed him (Weinstein demanded punishment for only these “three” chaplains).

Four Chaplains who completed the US Army Special Forces Assessment and Selection program, as well as the Special Forces Qualification Course. (From left to right: Chaplains Timothy Maracle, Mike Smith, Tim Crawley, and Peter Hofman.)  Weinstein omitted Crawley from his complaint.

Why the sudden MRFF concern now?

Simple: One of the chaplains said “Jesus.”

From the complaint [emphasis added]:

While these Chaplains apparently believe that going through SFQC and carrying weapons helps them connect with the Special Forces soldiers they will counsel, MRFF submits it will actually have the opposite effect. In the article, Chaplain (Maj.) Hofman directly compared his mission with Special Forces with the mission of Jesus. As if that weren’t enough of a problem, he did so while carrying a weapon. The chilling effect such conviction while armed will have on the willingness of soldiers to seek counsel from him can only be monumental.

This is what Chaplain Hofman said [emphasis added]:

An instructor walked up to him and said, “What’s your deal man?”, which led him to believe he had done something wrong. The instructor then clarified his initial question by asking why Hofman, as a chaplain, was learning about assaulting objectives and carrying weapons.

“I could tell he was irritated by my presence and after a little back and forth I finally said, ‘Well sergeant, I think the SF motto: ‘De Oppresso Liber’ is an important mission,” he said. “In fact, it is the same mission that Jesus stated was his mission in ‘Luke 4’ quoting from ‘Isaiah, chapter 61’. It’s a mission that I would like to be a part of and the SF community is a brotherhood that I would be honored to serve in’. Apparently, that satisfied him because he walked away…”

The “chilling effect” Weinstein cites is moot, since even SF chaplains don’t carry weapons and aren’t “operators” — regardless of any qualification training they may have obtained.

Weinstein has previously intimated that he would prefer the US military eliminate the chaplaincy outright, but if it has to have one, he wants it neutered. That a Christian chaplain would dare say “Jesus” (in a non-profane way) while in training apparently galls him.

To the core of the issue, however: Has the US Army been violating its own rules for years, and has it now been saved from embarrassment by the astute observation of Mikey Weinstein?

It seems unlikely.

While Weinstein accurately quoted the Army regulation, he seems to be misapplying it and ignoring a bit of context. Some context can be seen in another portion of the same regulation, in which chaplains are directed to participate in their unit training (AR 165-1, 9-4.c.(1)):

All chaplains support and participate in their unit training plan; however, chaplains will not bear arms (see para 3–1f).

Thus, when training with their assigned units, chaplains are not permitted to carry weapons in their unit’s combat skills training. The Special Forces courses (and other courses like the Ranger course) don’t appear to be the “unit combat skills training” prohibited by regulation. Rather, they are specialty qualification courses.

This also appears to be why other non-combatants — including doctors, dentists, and lawyers — have attended these courses, as well, though Weinstein appears to only care about the Jesus-talking chaplain.

All that said, the Army can interpret its internal regulations however it chooses to do so. Should it decide to prevent chaplains from attending in the future, it could certainly do so. It would be unwise to use Weinstein’s logic, however:

If a handful of Chaplains [sic] violate this very clear regulation, the enemy has no reason to honor the protected status of any noncombatant.

Does anyone seriously think “the enemy” decides whether or not to adhere to the Geneva Convention based on what a chaplain does in a training course?  If the US military even remotely believed this to be true, this wouldn’t be an Army rule, it would be a DoD regulation.

For its part, the Army’s logic makes more sense: A unit should train like it fights — and not as if its chaplain its a combatant. That restriction does not categorically prevent a chaplain — or any other noncombatant — from attending certain qualification courses.

Virtually every objective observer would agree that a chaplain (of any stripe) would be able to relate to his troops better if he had experienced the same qualification training they had. This is a truism confirmed repeatedly throughout the military, best told by former enlisted troops or officers who subsequently became chaplains. While a born-and-bred chaplain with no military background cannot duplicate the experiences of those prior service chaplains, there is no doubt he can better serve his troops, his unit, and the mission of the US military by attending training. That Mikey Weinstein would dismiss it out of hand speaks to his blind prejudice.

Should the chaplains be punished? Absolutely not, despite the fact Mikey doesn’t like it.

Should the US Army allow noncombatants to carry weapons during SF qualification? That’s a different question, and totally unrelated to Weinstein’s self-appointed role as interpreter of US Army regulations. To date, the Army has permitted it — both for chaplains and other noncombatants. Whether they continue to do so or not is totally within their discretion. Given that carrying weapons is likely required for completing the course and earning the Tab (as opposed to getting a “participation ribbon”), it is likely a decision that would not be made lightly, nor without the advice of the US Army chaplains corps.

The root of the complaint is Mikey Weinstein’s Christophobia. A chaplain said “Jesus,” and Mikey Weinstein demanded punishment.

The greater issue is that a chaplain’s ministry benefits from shared experiences, and Special Forces chaplains can minister to the Special Forces in ways no other man could.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---