# Chaplains and Consequences of Removing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 19, 2010)

I just read this overture from the Rocky Mountain Presbyter (PCA) and I wanted to get the input of the chaplians here about this issue. You can read the overture from Andrew's Blog here: PCA 38th General Assembly Overture From Rocky Mountain Presbytery

So, do any of the chaplains here share the concern about having your freedom to preach the Scripture being restricted or lost if the Fed's remove the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy? Is such a move from the Presbytery/GA helpful to you? 

Just asking for informed opinions on the matter.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 19, 2010)

The reason each of the potential consequences of a repeal of DADT begins with "may" is because no one from on high has addressed the consequences of a repeal in terms of how a chaplain conducts his ministry. The "may" is there based upon an assumption that upon repeal of DADT, homosexuality would be treated like any of the other "things" protected by EO regulations.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 19, 2010)

So there have been no official statements about the consequences for chaplains from any level of government or military? Even statements to calm the fears?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 19, 2010)

Not that I'm aware. Again, IF homosexuals are treated like every other "protected class" covered by EO regulations, then these consequences will very likely occur.

While a GA decision wouldn't have any legal weight, it WOULD at least serve as a buffer (albeit a small one) should these things come to pass. 

Quite frankly, I'd want the GA to publish a definite position in order to keep chaplains ministerially honest. Unfortunately, I've encountered far too many chaplains who are willing to keep silent about a whole host of moral issues in order to "build bridges" or "gain credibility" with the pagans. I can so TOTALLY see a great many chaplains merely opting to keep their mouths shut (after all, there's so many other parts of the Bible to be preached that DON'T talk about homosexuality! I can just preach THOSE passages!) in order to get along.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Apr 19, 2010)

I was under the impression that once one was behind the pulpit, everything was fair game. The govt could not dictate what one could or could not preach. Am I missing something?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 19, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I was under the impression that once one was behind the pulpit, everything was fair game. The govt could not dictate what one could or could not preach. Am I missing something?



Try preaching against something protected by EO... see what happens. Remember, whenever someone's "religious freedoms" butt up against someone else's perceived "civil rights," their civil rights win.


----------



## Herald (Apr 19, 2010)

So what are the options? I suppose a chaplain can: A) Resign his commission B) Not preach certain topics C) Preach but be willing to face the consequences. Are there any other options?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 19, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Not that I'm aware. Again, IF homosexuals are treated like every other "protected class" covered by EO regulations, then these consequences will very likely occur.
> 
> While a GA decision wouldn't have any legal weight, it WOULD at least serve as a buffer (albeit a small one) should these things come to pass.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'd want the GA to publish a definite position in order to keep chaplains ministerially honest. Unfortunately, I've encountered far too many chaplains who are willing to keep silent about a whole host of moral issues in order to "build bridges" or "gain credibility" with the pagans. I can so TOTALLY see a great many chaplains merely opting to keep their mouths shut (after all, there's so many other parts of the Bible to be preached that DON'T talk about homosexuality! I can just preach THOSE passages!) in order to get along.


 
So, if something similar would happen from the OPC GA it would add more of a buffer since they use the same endorsing agency, correct? I imagine if would help defend the chaplains if the denomination had something official in writing on the position. 

But, could the military just refuse to recognize those denominations or the joint endorsing agency?


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 19, 2010)

Oh my, you fellas are in quite a quandary. Not only for your personal convictions but for supporting the troops who share your perspectives on the scriptures. (I know a great reformed guy serving in Iraq right now.) May God grant you wisdom in how your proceed if these changes come about.


----------



## yeutter (Apr 20, 2010)

Rocky Mountain Presbytery has done us a favor by calling our attention to this issue. We need to remember the servicemen in our parishes in prayer. We also should keep all faithful chaplains in our prayers


----------



## darrellmaurina (Apr 22, 2010)

I live and work five minutes outside the gates of Fort Leonard Wood in southwest Missouri. This is a potentially devastating issue, not only for chaplains but also for the entire character of our military in which conservative Christian positions are not only tolerated but fairly widely held because the people most likely to enlist are southerners, rural northerners, and patriotic conservatives regardless of residence. At the absolute minimum, normalizing homosexuality in the military will create a recruitment problem in the groups that now are most likely to enlist.

Those who, like me, are in U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton's district (chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a prominent conservative Democrat) need to send letters expressing their views on dont-ask-don't-tell. Those who are not in uniform but live in the districts of another member of the House Armed Services Committee need to do the same. The distinction is important: Rep. Skelton understands military members writing him on political matters, but not everyone in Congress does, and there could be consequences for those wearing the uniform if they make a Congressman angry with a pointed letter.


----------

