The Military-Educational Complex: The Fraught Relationship between U.S. Military Chaplaincy and Theological Education

Theological education institutions and the U.S. Federal government exist in a complicated relationship. Theological education systems are directly affected by Department of Defense (DoD) decisions, while religious education institutions train the chaplains who will serve in the military. These realities prompt us to think carefully about the nature of this relationship. We investigate whether the U.S. Federal agency charged with executing violence on its enemies also does violence to theological education systems. We do so by examining the complicated history between theological education and military chaplaincy to argue for a renewal of possible modes of relationality. 

The history of the relationship between these entities is a nuanced and dynamic interweaving of mutual interest and responsibility. Two movements are at work here: a drive toward greater professionalization and a move toward individualization. Ted Smith traces these movements in *The End of Theological Education* (2023). Beginning in the nineteenth century, he charts the development and then the unraveling of voluntary associations as the primary force and shape of religious life in America. Smith argues that it was congregations, denominations, and seminaries as voluntary associations that called for and formed ministers as professionals in their religious traditions. Professionalization names the process by which ministers developed and laid claim to unique expertise and authority around the goods related to their religious traditions. Individualization names the forces pull at the threads that hold together these robust forms of associational life. 

Smith does not specifically discuss military chaplaincy, but we apply his framework of professionalization and individualization to this context to deepen understanding of these processes. The relationship between theological education institutions and the U.S. Federal government exemplifies, participates in, and exacerbates these dynamics of professionalization and individualization. The story of this interplay is instructive for the possibilities for chaplaincy both within the military and more broadly.

Until the late nineteenth century there was relatively little oversight or standardization of theological education in America. Individual institutions largely regulated their own standards and curriculum until a growing realization of the need for regulation of educational standards coalesced during World War I to form governing bodies like the American Council on Education (Cable 1970; Smith 2023, 47).   

During World War I the relationship between military chaplaincy and theological education is characterized by close, mutually beneficial coordination. The origins of the professionalization and individualization that Smith discusses are also present during this era. Of particular note is Harvard University’s convening of a symposium on the accreditation of theological education in August 1918, precipitated partly by America’s entrance into World War I, that was the beginning of today’s Association of Theological Schools (ATS) (Miller 2008). Of note also was the government’s adjudication of qualifications for military chaplain applicants and the advent of the predecessor bodies to the National Conference on Ministry to the Army Forces (NCMAF) that consolidated standards for Endorsers of military chaplains.

The interwar years and the period around World War II saw the expanded professionalization of military chaplaincy in tandem with the standardization of theological education programs (Smith 2023, 61-62). The DoD created the Armed Forces Chaplaincy Board (AFCB) to centralize oversight of military chaplaincy. That chaplaincy expanded to include Jewish chaplains and to desegregate Army chaplain training (Dorsett 2012, 36) in an otherwise segregated military (Stouffer et al. 1949, 571). Willing collaboration between the DoD and theological education institutions grew, with military chaplain schools taking up residence at Harvard (Gushwa 1977, 108) and William and Mary (Dorsett 2012, 32).

Two further significant shifts showcase the unraveling of the influence of voluntary associations in the context of military chaplaincy. The first occurred in the midst of Vietnam. The second occurred in the wake of 9/11.  

During and after the Vietnam War, a divide emerged between institutions of higher learning, including theological education, and the DoD. Protests against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict burgeoned to become a fissure between the stated aims of theological education institutions and the DoD–and often co-opted even the appearance of cooperation between these organizations. The collaborative relationship between the military and theological education institutions never fully recovered after Vietnam. The result was that in the next moment of crisis, the AFCB decided to go it alone. In the process, the military inadvertently accelerated the forces of individualization.

The events of 9/11/2001 revealed the depth of unraveling of relationship between the DoD and the various voluntary associations, including ATS and theological schools. DoD’s interests centered around fielding enough chaplains, and of a diverse faith representation, for the emerging conflicts. DoD published a quick-turn policy memo in 2002 to change the existing requirement for a three-year in-residence theological Masters degree to now allow for non-resident degrees and a more flexible 72 credit hour degree requirement that no longer necessitated ATS accreditation (DoD 2002). While well-meaning, the unilateral move by the AFCB highlights the distance between the ATS, endorsers/NCMAF, and seminaries and may have had unintended effects: the rise in online theological education and the lowering of degree standards. Many theological education institutions chose to adjust their degree programs to the now-loosened federal military chaplaincy requirements. By the turn of the twenty-first century, the center of gravity had shifted from a network of voluntary associations (churches/endorsers, seminaries, ATS, etc.) to individuals—individuals who often earn online degrees and sometimes even pay for their endorsement through loose affiliation with parachurch organizations. Fast, cheap, and online Masters degrees may have happened anyway, but the demand signals would have been much weaker were it not for a surging demand for chaplains.

A close reading of history shows a variety of modes of relationship between theological education institutions and the U.S. Federal government. It is clear that the Federal government, and particularly military chaplaincies, have had a significant influence on theological education programs of study. Past examples of the collaborative and destructive dynamics of this relationship indicate potential possibilities and dangers in the future. The options before theological educators and the DoD, therefore, are what to make of this long and storied connection in the future.