Air University Review, July-August 1978

The Air Force Chaplain’s Role

functioning in two institutions

The installation chaplain picks up his telephone. The voice on the other end says "Chaplain, Colonel James here. One of my staff officers has a little problem. Perhaps you can help."

"I'll be pleased to help if I can."

"Well, Colonel Robby's daughter wants to get married this weekend. He said she talked with Chaplain Jones about performing the ceremony, but Jones said that he couldn't do it--or he wouldn't do it."

"Several days' notice on performing a wedding ceremony isn't much time, Colonel, and there are requirements and sometimes restrictions placed on chaplains by their churches."

"What do you mean restrictions and requirements of the church? Jones is a military chaplain, isn't he? He'll do what you and I tell him to do..."

Although this conversation never really took place, it is similar to conversations that have taken place many times. In this hypothetical situation the base commander, although a senior military officer, failed to understand that the chaplain's authority to perform marriages is not controlled by the Air Force but by the church. Had the commander realized that the chaplain's authority to perform religious rites is given to him by his church, it is unlikely that this misunderstanding would have existed. *In this situation, the commander's perception of the role of the chaplain was that of a hired professional, a member of his command who was there to perform certain functions at his request. In some respects this is true, but in others, especially those governed by the chaplain's denominational church, it is not.

*When referring to the Air Force chaplain, I will use the masculine gender. I know women are serving on extended active duty as chaplains--five at the time this writing--yet it is awkward to refer to the chaplain as "he or she" or use the plural "they."

Understanding the role of the chaplain both as an Air Force officer and as an ordained clergyman subject to the authority of the church will enable any commander to make more effective use of his chaplain, will lead to a better under-standing between the chaplain and the commander, and will enable the chaplain to develop more effective ministries for the people he serves in the Air Force community.

The Air Force chaplain is a commissioned officer who wears the same uniform as other Air Force officers and obeys the same regulations, and yet he is also a minister, priest, or rabbi representing his church. Although he has left the job environment of the church or synagogue to serve as an active duty chaplain, he still retains his institutional status in the church. As a clergyman, he is subject to the ecclesiastical authorities of his denomination. He is required to attend meetings such as annual conferences or retreats sponsored by his church. He continues to function as a clergyman only because he has been ordained and endorsed by his church. He has, so to speak, one foot in the church and one foot in the Air Force. This institutional duality is a major factor in the way he perceives his role and how effectively he functions in it.

Understanding the institutional duality of the chaplain's role together with the concomitant expectations of the role by both the church and the Air Force is not an easy task. A model focusing on roles and their influence on social behavior, developed by J. W. Getzels and E.G. Guba, is helpful. First, we will examine the Getzels-Guba model and then look at a modified version of the model showing the dual-institutional environment in which the chaplain functions. It should enable the reader better to understand the Air Force chaplain, his role, and the way he functions as a clergyman in a military environment.

The Getzels-Guba model of social behavior, developed to explain the dynamics of social behavior in a given institutional environment, relates role expectations and role perceptions of individuals or groups operating within a given institution and cultural social structure. (See Figure 1.) The model is based on a sociopsychological theory of social behavior that conceives of any organization, or sub-organization, as a social system.

The model focuses on two dimensions, the institutional and the personal. The term "social system" is conceptual rather than descriptive and should not be confused with "society" or "state."' For the purpose of this article, the Air Force community may be considered a social system, with a specific military organization such as a wing as a particular organization within the more general social system. However, a wing or a chaplain section within a wing can also be considered a social system in its own right. The model is applicable regardless of the level or size of the unit under consideration.

In Figure 1 the institutional axis is shown on the top of the diagram and consists of institution, role, and role expectations. An institution is defined by its roles, and each of the roles is defined by its role expectations. In like manner, the personal axis, shown at the lower portion of the diagram, consists of the individual, his personality, and his need-dispositions. Again, each term defines the term that precedes it. The individual is known by his personality, and his personality is determined by his needs-dispositions.

Recognizing the influence of these two dimensions, we can better understand the behaviors of an individual as he tries to meet his personal needs while also trying to meet the expectations that the institution has for the role he occupies.³

When a person's behavior meets institutional role expectations, he has obviously adjusted to the role. When a person is able to meet all of his personal needs while simultaneously meeting the institution's role expectations, Getzels and Guba say that he is integrated. Of course, it would be ideal for both the institution and the person if both institutional and personal requirements could be met.⁴ However, meeting all institutional expectations and personal needs is seldom, if ever, found in practice and perhaps too much to hope for. It is inevitable that a certain amount of strain or conflict between the person and the institution will result when all needs and expectations are not met.

Sometimes a person must choose between meeting his personal needs or institutional requirements. If he chooses the latter, he will be unhappy. If he chooses to meet his personal needs, the institution will be unhappy. Generally, he compromises, and in so doing, he behaves in a manner that is not fully satisfactory either to him or the institution.⁵

Whereas the model in Figure 1 helps explain the behavior of people in institutional roles, it needs some modification to illustrate the role expectations of Air Force chaplains. Chaplains are members of not one but two total institutions, the Air Force and the church. *This can be illustrated by modifying the model as shown in Figure 2 to show not only the Air Force's role expectations for chaplains but the denominational church's expectations for its chaplains.

*Erving Goffman in his book Asylums (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Anchor Books, 1961) defined total institutions as institutions that have an "encompassing tendency." They are different from other institutions inasmuch as they create something of a "world" for the people who belong to them. Both the church and the Air Force into this category.

Of course, role and personality factors that determine a person's behavior vary with specific acts, roles, and personalities. Even in the military where roles are less flexible than the roles of a free lance artist or writer, each person stamps the role he occupies with his own style of expressive behavior. No one would expect all commanders to operate in the same manner. Neither do people expect all chaplains to function in the same way. They have different personalities, different styles of leadership, and different styles of ministry. The individual dimension is always unique.

Denominational churches have certain expectations for their chaplains. A chaplain must meet these expectations if he expects to continue representing his church may decide that it will no longer allow him to represent it in the military chaplaincy. When he is unable to meet the role expectations of both the Air Force and his church, the chaplain experiences role conflict. *When asked or ordered to do something that would result in his acting in a manner unacceptable to his denomination, the chaplain is placed in an awkward situation. He has to choose between the demands of the two institutions. If he chooses to meet his church's expectations, the commander may be unhappy. If he chooses to meet his commander's demands, the chaplain's church may chastise him for unacceptable behavior. If placed in such a situation, the chaplain will generally choose to meet the demands of his church. The hypothetical wedding incident illustrates this kind of conflict.

*"Role conflict" can be defined as the awkward situation of occupying simultaneously two roles that are regulated by incompatible norms. It may be impossible, or impossible only at great cost, to conform to all norms.

That a military chaplain experiences role conflict is not surprising, however. Attempting to meet all role expectations of two social institutions as different from one another as the church and the military is extremely difficult and sometimes almost impossible. Richard G. Hutcheson, in his book The Churches and the Chaplaincy, has pointed out that the surprising thing would be the absence of role conflict itself is not necessarily a negative factor.⁶ The chaplaincy is a profession which deliberately makes role conflict a way of life, and the relevant question is not whether it exists, but how useful the results may be."⁷ It is possible for role conflict to inspire the chaplain to greater creativity in his ministry in a military environment.

While the chaplain lives and works in a military environment, wears the uniform rather than a clerical, serves Air Force people, conducts services in an Air Force chapel, and obeys Air Force regulations, he remains very much in the institutional environment of the church. While many of his goals are military goals, the very nature of his role in his church makes his goals primarily religious goals.⁸ In the military environment, as Hutcheson has pointed out, chaplains work for goals established by institutions outside the military and are subject to both the authority of the military and to the authority of those outside institutions.⁹

The chaplain is constantly reminded by the denominational structure which oversees his work in the military that he is indeed a member of the clergy of his particular denomination and is expected to fulfill the expectations of the role. His church's representatives visit and counsel with him. He, in turn, is required to provide them with monthly or quarterly reports of .his activities. All of this serves to remind him that he owes his primary professional allegiance to the church.

Hutcheson stated it succinctly when he said,

Although it is true, then, that a chaplain is a church professional whose ministry takes place in a secular institution outside the church, it is not true that he has "left the church and entered the military." In a real sense he takes the institutional environment of the church with him into the military. A substantial part of the perceived world in which he lives and works is determined by church norms rather than military norms.¹⁰

While the Air Force chaplaincy is effective as it exists today, it can be made even more effective when both the church and the Air Force recognize to a fuller extent that the chaplain is fully a member of both the Air Force and the church, with responsibilities to each institution. At the local level a chaplain can function more effectively when he knows what is expected of him by his commander. The commander, on the other hand, can utilize his chaplain more effectively if he knows the limitations placed on the chaplain by his denomination. It is a wise chaplain who requests to have a conference with his commander--a conference in which the commander is candid about how he perceives the chaplain's role and the chaplain, in turn, shares his own perceptions of his role. It will do much to lead to a greater understanding between the commander and his chaplain, lessen role conflict dilemmas, and will quite likely result in a more effective chapel program on that base.

The primary role of the chaplain is to serve people. He wants to meet not only their religious needs but their human needs as well. When the chaplain fully supports his commander and his commander, in turn, fully supports him, the entire Air Force community benefits. Together, they can do much to make the Air Force community an even better place to live and work, an environment where people are able to grow, to become more fully human, and in so doing meet personal as well as organizational goals. After all, that is what both the commander and the chaplain want-and what those who live in the Air Force community need.

Notes

1. Jacob W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Conflict and Empirical Study," American Sociological Review, April 1954, p. 424.

2. Ibid., p.429.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., p.431.

5. Ibid.

6. Richard O. Hutcheson, Jr., The Churches and the Chaplaincy (Atlanta John Knox Press, 1975), p. 20.

7. Ibid.

8.Ibid., p. 21.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., p.22.

Chaplain, Colonel, Mack C. Branham, Jr., (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is the Installation Chaplain, Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina. He served four years in the Chaplain Professional Division at Headquarters Air Training Command and three years at the USAF Chaplain Resources Board, Air University. In addition to his duties as installation chaplain, he is deeply involved in teaching courses in communication skills and human relations. Chaplain Branham is a graduate of Air Command and Staff College.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor