On the issue of visible rank for chaplains, I need to get my head around the question of what rank represents. For some, rank in the Army generally, signifies authority or power. Higher ranking individuals make decisions that affect many others. They sit on varied boards and committees and, of course, advise the civilian leadership on the use of armed force by this country. For others, rank signifies approved experience, trust, and the incarnation of values held in high regard by superiors and subordinates alike.
Perhaps one tangential question is whether chaplains need to be recognized as experienced and trusted counselors by wearing some symbol of their longevity and success in the Army. From 1918 to 1926 General John J. Pershing, Chief of Chaplains John T. Axton and Bishop Charles Brent debated this question. Volume IV (on pages 28-31) of our Chaplain Corps History, “The Best and Worst of Times,” by Chaplain Robert Gushwa goes into detail about the arguments put forth in those times. Some of the comments from a poll of 126 chaplains were interesting: “The failure to provide insignia of rank for chaplains is the occasion of constant embarrassment of members of the corps…chaplains advance in rank by reason of experience and exceptional accomplishments,” (Chaplain Axton); ” An officer without rank does not fit into the military structure,” (Chaplain Daniel Jorgensen); “Insignia of rank saves confusion and explanation,” “The enlisted man is not going to trust an officer who is not entrusted by the government with an insignia of rank, ” “Without an insignia of rank, a chaplain could be mistaken for a welfare worker.” (Results of the Chaplain Poll)
Other chaplains noted that if Army chaplains lost their rank insignia, and Navy chaplains did not, there would be even more confusion. In modern times the same logic could be applied to NATO chaplains with rank and US Army chaplains without.
Finally on March 19, 1926, the Adjutant General’s Office issued the following statement, ” It is recommended that the insignia of rank be restored to the uniform of the Chaplain. This recommendation is made in the belief that an immediate contribution to the efficiency of the chaplains will result.” Chaplain Axton commented, “Many would be made happy and none unhappy by this move.” Shortly thereafter the Congressional Act of 1926 guaranteed for the first time in American history that chaplains were given the rank, pay, and allowances of their respective grades up to and including that of colonel. (“The Best and Worst of Times, p. 31.)
It is sad that 100 years after the Congressional Act of 1926 our current civilian leadership still wishes to raise the question and make a decision in opposition to chaplains in general and to the will of Congress.
I would add the following with regard to faith badges/codes: During World War II the Army recognized three principal religious faiths: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish identifications. Many denominations, mostly Protestant, were lumped together in one group. The Eastern Orthodox were frustrated because they were consistently identified as Protestant. It took them almost a generation to gain recognition as a separate faith group. During the Vietnam era, there were about 200 different faith groups recognized in the Army. Again there were some that had a harder time being recognized than did others…the Wicca come to mind. But the proliferation of religious groups continued. At the present there seem to be several choices: 1) Revert to the WWII model and lump everything not Roman Catholic or Jewish into one Protestant basket, then figure out what symbol would represent all those diverse groups; 2) Revert to the Civil War model and create one branch badge for all chaplains such as an open book, the word “Chaplain” or just the letter C. If Army chaplains are to be available to help any soldier, their denominational identification should not matter unless they are performing specific faith rites. Let the soldiers ask what faith the chaplain represents if they care. 3) Ask the endorsing agents what general identification they would prefer and allow. This may really be a NCMAF issue rather than a DACH one.
Respectfully, John Brinsfield, Chaplain (Colonel, Ret.) Chaplain Corps Historian 2002-2011)
