Rev. Peter M Preble – Page 96 – Open-Minded, Open-Hearted Minister & Soul Friend

What is Your Legacy?

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Fr. Peter

Several years ago I taught a class a local college called Death and Dying. The class was a multi-disciplinary look at the process of dying from the spiritual to the scientific. The discussion involved not only the person who has died or is dying but the people left behind. As part of the class I asked each student to write their own obituary. In order to do this you have to ask the question how do you want to be remembered? What is it you want people to say about you at your funeral? These are not easy questions to answer.

When giving them this assignment I reminded them that it is not the size of the house we live in or the type of car we have or even the profession that we had, it is about the impact that we left on the world, good or bad, is how we will be remembered. I have participated in many funerals and head many eulogies and I have not once heard someone say, “he drove a great car.”

Soon, Christians all around the world will be starting the season of Lent. This is the time that leads up to the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prior to the start of lent in the Orthodox Church there are three weeks of preparation, yes we prepare to prepare. These three weeks point the faithful towards repentance and reconciliation.

This past Sunday is what is called the Sunday of the Last Judgment and the Gospel comes from the twenty fifth chapter of St. Matthew. In this chapter Jesus speaks plainly to his followers about what will happen when the last judgment will take place. He uses the analogy of a shepherd separating the sheep from goats. The sheep on one side and the goats on the other and in this case one of the groups will get to heaven and the other group will not.

Love of God and love of neighbor is the marker by which we all will be judged. Did we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those who are sick and those who are in prison. They ask Jesus when they did not do these things for Him and He answers that if we do not do these things for all then we are not doing them for Him. And, notice that he does not qualify how we are to do these things.

Nowhere does He say that is they meet certain criteria are we to help. He does not say simply write a check so others can do what He is commanding us to do. Jesus did not write checks, Jesus involved Himself in people’s lives and made a difference that is what we are called to do, make a difference.

In my sermon on Sunday I drew attention to the Cross and that the cross is made up of two pieces. One of the pieces goes straight up and down and this signifies our relationship with God, from the earth to heaven, us and God. The other piece signifies out relationship with those on either side of us, our neighbors those that we are commanded to help.

The place in the center of the cross, the part where the two sections come together is the intersection of love of God and love of neighbor and that is where we are, that is the place where we should dwell, that is the place where ministry takes place and it is that place, that central place on the cross, where we will be judged.

The coming season of Lent is the perfect time to start to think about your legacy and how you will be remembered. Make this season the time you begin to work the impact you will make on the world. You do not need to travel to some far off country to help just look out your window at those who live right next door.

This essay originally appeared in the Quaboag Current, and the Tantasqua Town Common.

Blog

Fr. Alexander Schmemann: Forgiveness Sunday

Posted on March 2, 2014 by Fr. Peter

In the Orthodox Church, the last Sunday before Great Lent – the day on which, at Vespers, Lent is liturgically announced and inaugurated – is called Forgiveness Sunday. On the morning of that Sunday, at the Divine Liturgy, we hear the words of Christ:

“If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses…” (Mark 6:14-15)

Then after Vespers – after hearing the announcement of Lent in the Great Prokeimenon: “Turn not away Thy face from Thy child for I am afflicted! Hear me speedily! Draw near unto my soul and deliver it!”, after making our entrance into Lenten worship, with its special memories, with the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian, with its prostrations – we ask forgiveness from each other, we perform the rite of forgiveness and reconciliation. And as we approach each other with words of reconciliation, the choir intones the Paschal hymns, filling the church with the anticipation of Paschal joy.

What is the meaning of this rite? Why is it that the Church wants us to begin Lenten season with forgiveness and reconciliation? These questions are in order because for too many people Lent means primarily, and almost exclusively, a change of diet, the compliance with ecclesiastical regulations concerning fasting. They understand fasting as an end in itself, as a “good deed” required by God and carrying in itself its merit and its reward. But, the Church spares no effort in revealing to us that fasting is but a means, one among many, towards a higher goal: the spiritual renewal of man, his return to God, true repentance and, therefore, true reconciliation. The Church spares no effort in warning us against a hypocritical and pharisaic fasting, against the reduction of religion to mere external obligations. As a Lenten hymn says:

In vain do you rejoice in no eating, O soul!
For you abstain from food,
But from passions you are not purified.
If you persevere in sin, you will perform a useless fast.

Now, forgiveness stands at the very center of Christian faith and of Christian life because Christianity itself is, above all, the religion of forgiveness. God forgives us, and His forgiveness is in Christ, His Son, Whom He sends to us, so that by sharing in His humanity we may share in His love and be truly reconciled with God. Indeed, Christianity has no other content but love. And it is primarily the renewal of that love, a return to it, a growth in it, that we seek in Great Lent, in fasting and prayer, in the entire spirit and the entire effort of that season. Thus, truly forgiveness is both the beginning of, and the proper condition for the Lenten season.

One may ask, however: Why should I perform this rite when I have no “enemies”? Why should I ask forgiveness from people who have done nothing to me, and whom I hardly know? To ask these questions, is to misunderstand the Orthodox teaching concerning forgiveness. It is true, that open enmity, personal hatred, real animosity may be absent from our life, though if we experience them, it may be easier for us to repent, for these feelings openly contradict Divine commandments. But, the Church reveals to us that there are much subtler ways of offending Divine Love. These are indifference, selfishness, lack of interest in other people, of any real concern for them — in short, that wall which we usually erect around ourselves, thinking that by being “polite” and “friendly” we fulfill God’s commandments. The rite of forgiveness is so important precisely because it makes us realize – be it only for one minute – that our entire relationship to other men is wrong, makes us experience that encounter of one child of God with another, of one person created by God with another, makes us feel that mutual “recognition” which is so terribly lacking in our cold and dehumanized world.

On that unique evening, listening to the joyful Paschal hymns we are called to make a spiritual discovery: to taste of another mode of life and relationship with people, of life whose essence is love. We can discover that always and everywhere Christ, the Divine Love Himself, stands in the midst of us, transforming our mutual alienation into brotherhood. As l advance towards the other, as the other comes to me – we begin to realize that it is Christ Who brings us together by His love for both of us.

And because we make this discovery – and because this discovery is that of the Kingdom of God itself: the Kingdom of Peace and Love, of reconciliation with God and, in Him, with all that exists – we hear the hymns of that Feast, which once a year, “opens to us the doors of Paradise.” We know why we shall fast and pray, what we shall seek during the long Lenten pilgrimage. Forgiveness Sunday: the day on which we acquire the power to make our fasting – true fasting; our effort – true effort; our reconciliation with God – true reconciliation.

Introduction to the DRE/OCA 1975-1982 Forgiveness Sunday Vespers.

Blog

Arthur Buckminster Fuller, Preacher, Chaplain, and Patriot

Posted on February 27, 2014 by Fr. Peter

When I began my study of the chaplaincy during the time of the American Civil War, the first person I came across was the Reverend Arthur Buckminster Fuller. He graduated from Harvard College in 1842 and then Harvard Divinity in 1847, but it was the fact that Chaplain Fuller was one of the 66 Union Chaplains killed during the war.

Arthur Buckminster Fuller born August 10, 1822 to the family of Congressman Timothy J. Fuller and Margaret Crane and settled on the family farm in Middlesex County Massachusetts. Fuller received a classical education at Leicester Academy and Harvard College graduating in 1843. He then moved on to Belvidere Illinois where he ran an academy and that same year became a lay preacher in the Unitarian Church. The school closed 18 months later and Fuller returned east and entered the Divinity School at Harvard. He served several churches over the next years and was well known as an outspoken evangelist for his plain speaking that was attractive to the “regular” folk and farmers in the area.

He practiced what he preached and was active in the temperance movement and was also an outspoken abolitionist. He served on the Boston School Board and was an advocate for free public education for all. In the mid-1850’s he published two sermons advocating the replacement of all “foreign” influences in the Boston School System. Believing that only Protestant theology should be taught in the school system, this was a direct attack on the Roman Catholic Church. Fuller was a progressive thinker for his day, and he believed that it was proper for a woman to pursue a professional career outside of the home.

With the start of the Civil War Fuller resigned his pulpit at the Unitarian Church in Watertown Massachusetts. He signed on as regimental chaplain with the 16^th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment and prepared to serve in the field with his unit. When asked whether he had a sense of the danger he could face he responded, “I am willing to peril life for the welfare of our brave soldiers, and in our country’s great cause. If God requires that sacrifice of me, it shall be offered on the altar of freedom, and in the defense of all that is good in American institutions.” As a Unitarian, he believed he was required every day to make it a holy day and that salvation demanded not only to serve God but service to his fellow man.

The 16^th Massachusetts was not engaged in the war straight away, and Chaplain Fuller busied himself visiting soldiers in the post hospital, preaching, and teaching soldiers and former slaves to read and write. In 1862, he witnessed the Battle of the Ironclads the Monitor and the Merrimack. He would later write in his journal about the fight, “David had conquered Goliath with his smooth stones or wrought-iron balls, from his little sling or shot tower.”

Chaplain Fuller was not like other Regimental Chaplains and was found at the side of his soldiers on the battlefield. He did not carry a weapon of any kind but there he was, right next to his troops, praying and offering what assistance and encouragement he could during the battle. “I know no holier place, none more solemn, more awful, more glorious than this battlefield shall be” he would write in his journal.

When the 16^th was relieved of duty on the battlefield, Chaplain Fuller was sick, and he needed time to rest. Chaplains, for the most part, were much older than the average soldier he was forty-one years old at the date of the battle, and were not accustomed to the harsh life of the soldier. Along with that, chaplains were tireless in their service and support of their soldiers often sacrificing their health for that of their troops and that is what happened to Chaplain Fuller. He was finally convinced to take leave and he returned to Massachusetts for some rest and recuperation, but that was to be short lived.

Chaplain Fuller returned to his regiment in October of 1862 and was greeted warmly by the soldiers of the regiment. From that point on the regimental surgeon would not let him go into battle with his troops, his health being so fragile the doctor did not want him to be a liability on the battlefield. Chaplain Fuller would remain behind and offer what service he could with the troops in the rear. His illness was such that in December of 1862 he was declared un fit for duty, and he would have to resign as chaplain. In a letter to his wife he wrote, “You can hardly realize the pain I felt when I found I could not share the field campaign without throwing away health and life.” He was willing to sacrifice all he had but the Army would not let him.

He preached his final sermon to the regiment on Sunday, December 7, 1862 and was discharged from the Army, and he prepared to return to Massachusetts. Writing again to his wife, “If any regret were mine, it would be that I am not able to remain with my regiment longer, but this is, doubtless, in God’s providence.” His only consolation was that a place had been found for him as a hospital chaplain so he would be able to continue to serve.

As the assault on the City of Fredericksburg started, Rev. Fuller lingered with his regiment. Perhaps he was not quite ready to leave their side or maybe it was God telling his to stay we shall never know. The engineers building a bridge across the Rappahannock came under fire from Confederate snipers, and it was decided that an assault would be made across the river. The call went out for any available man to help row the boats across the river, and Fuller was right there to volunteer.

Reaching the other side of the river he found himself with the men of the 19^th Massachusetts. He stayed with them as their chaplain had long since abandoned them, and he was of the firm belief that the men needed a minister by their side during the battle. He secured permission from the regimental commander to stay and stay he did; he was shot and killed instantly. He died doing what he was called to do, and he died serving his men to his last breath.

His funeral was held in Boston where he was given grand eulogies by several ministers that knew him and his work. The funeral procession brought the flag draped casket to the Mount Auburn Cemetery in Boston for its final resting place.

Located at the grave is a simple stone that marks the place where he rests. Along with the dates of his birth and death as well as those of his educational achievements, is this quote, “I must do something for my country.”

Chaplain Fuller loved the Union but he loved his fellow man more and he believed that his place was on the battle field alongside those who had answered the call to duty. He paid the ultimate price for his devotion not only to duty but to his soldiers. His story can teach us about what it takes to truly be a shepherd of our flocks. “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” John 10:11

Blog

Is there time for manufactured social media drama?

Posted on February 24, 2014 by Fr. Peter

I have been very active in social media these last few years. I look upon my time spent engaging people in this forum as an extension of my ministry and the work that I do in my parish. I have met some wonderful people on Facebook and Twitter and have had some really meaningful conversations. I have reconnected with family and friends from my past. It has been a wonderful means of communication.

However, I came to the conclusion that the list of “friends” I have on Facebook was getting out of control and I needed to make some changes, so I decided to cull the list and remove some people. Part of the reason for this decision is that I was missing posts from family members and was therefore out of the loop on things going on in my own family. I have a rather large extended family located all over the country and this is how we communicate with one another.

This was not an easy decision to make, but most of the Facebook friends I have never met or even corresponded with, so it was not that difficult. So I started through my list and removing people. Almost immediately I started to get messages – “why have you defriended me”, “what have I done wrong”, etc., and I have had one tell me that I was unchristian for doing this. This is exactly why I started this process. I have little or no patience for drama, and the level of drama in social media has gotten way out of hand.

So I continue to reduce my list and I continue to get nasty messages asking why I have dropped people. But I am sticking to my guns and reducing the list and therefore reducing the drama in my life.

I did not come to this decision lightly, I never come to a decision lightly, by the way, and I spent time thinking and praying about it. Now I know it sounds silly to pray about whether or not to cut friends from your social media lists, but I pray about all the decisions I make – it is what I do. But I came to this decision partly from some events in my own life these past few weeks.

Two members of my extended family died from cancer. As a priest I preside at many funerals, and funerals are difficult no matter who the person is, but when it is a member of your family it is that much more difficult. Seeing your family in pain, and not really having any answers for them or even a way to fix it, is difficult for someone whose entire job it is to have answers. But spending time with my family around these two events brought me to the decision that I needed to focus my time better and not get caught up in the drama.

A few weeks back I wrote a column called “Live Like You Were Dying.” The column was based around what we would do if we only had a few short weeks left in our lives – who would we spend that time with and what would we do. I am not saying I only have a short time left, but if we all live like we do the world might be a better place. For some, drama in their lives is important to them. For me it is not, and I would like to reduce the amount that I have now.

Worrying about things you have no control over is very counterproductive and requires vast amount of energy that could best be used on so many other things and helping to make other people’s lives better. There are so many real problems in this world – wars, poverty, hunger, etc. – that need our attention. I do not have time for the manufactured drama.

I do believe that there is a value to social media. Like I said, I have reconnected with family and friends that I had lost contact with over the years. Connecting with guys that I spent time with in the Army and shared those moments that only they understand is, for me, time well spent. Talking with people about issues of theology or church history or even spending time listening and maybe helping out where I can, these are all valuable uses of my time. But engaging in silly arguments over politics or other nonsense is just that, nonsense, and I no longer have the stomach for it.

We are given only so many days to be on this earth and each one of them is a precious gift. I believe we are called to live our lives in the best possible way we can before our time ends. When the book is written on our lives, what do we want our legacy to be?

Blog

Revising History

Posted on February 17, 2014 by Fr. Peter

In a recent Facebook exchange I was accused of being a revisionist historian mainly for my position on whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian nation, I do not believe it so. My first reaction was one of pride for being called a historian and then I started to think about the revision part and I find it interesting that only someone who disagrees with your position would call you that.

I am a firm believer that one should not write about anything to do with history for at least 100 years after the event has taken place, and then it can still be a problem. I am also a believer that historians should write history free of emotion, present the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Now I will admit that we all view history from our own place in history and that can be problematic. But I do not think revision is always bad.

For example, in biblical scholarship we know far more about the way the people lived in biblical times today than at any other point in history. The study of Scripture cannot truly be accomplished outside of the historical reality. The Scripture we read today was written by someone to someone else at a different point in history then we are today. The length of days were different, the way people lived and how long they lived were different, so we need a good understanding of what the time was like in order to understand that is being said. We also need an understanding of the writer and what their influence was. St. Paul was a Pharisee, a lawyer if you will, so he writes from a very legalistic view of life. St. Peter was a fisherman and wrote in plain language from experience, and on and on we go.

In modern times, I believe that history has, and will continue to, treat Richard Nixon much different than when he first resigned from office. Our historical view changes the further we get away from the actual event and the less emotion is placed upon that event. Emotions only cloud our judgment and give us an irrational view of events and that is not good in historical scholarship.

When I research a particular event or time in history I also look at what was going on before and after the event. What was in the newspaper of the day, what were people reading, the jobs they had, etc. In order to gain a clear understanding of the issue there has to be a clear understanding of the day.

To say that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation does not diminish the role of our country in the world today. We were, some think we still are, a shining beacon, a “city on a hill” if you will to other nations around the world to what true freedom looks like. Was it founded on Christian ideals, sure it was, but was it founded as Christian, I do not believe so and if that is revisionist so be it.

The point of all of this is to say that we should not be afraid to take another look at history, even if it shakes the very ground we walk on. We have to be open to where the journey will take us, a journey to new discovery.

Blog

Bringing Eastern Christianity into a direct conversation with the modern and postmodern West

Posted on February 14, 2014 by Fr. Peter

I would like to draw your attention to a blog that has taken on a new direction. Fr. Oliver Herbel has been writing a blog called Red River Orthodox that has mostly dealt with Orthodoxy in his part of the world and would also be used as his parish blog. His direction has changed and he has enlisted the help of other authors to bring the Orthodox church into a conversation with the modern and postmodern west. They have posted several essays and, if they are any indication of where this will go, it is going to be great.

The approach is much more academic than most will be used to and the essays are designed to elicit conversation around these topics and so far that has proven true. For some the topics will raise their hackles and that will be fine as long as the discussion is worthy of Orthodox Christians (if you are not sure what that is please consult your spiritual father for guidance.) The point is we should not be afraid to talk about these subjects and even critique what we do as an Orthodox Church in the modern and postmodern world. Our faith is timeless but the way we present the faith needs to be updated (notice I did not say change) to fit the world we live in.

This is what Fr. Oliver has written about the purpose of the blog:

Red River Orthodox is taking on a newfound purpose. In the past, this blog has been an extension of my parish’s web presence, focused on Orthodox issues that directly affect us here in Fargo. At times, however, the posts have taken on larger issues within the OCA or American Orthodoxy of which we should be aware. Because our parish webpage will soon be changing to a WordPress format, which will be much easier to update, I will be moving parish-specific posts to that site. Therefore, Red River Orthodox will now shift in a new direction, one no other blog has taken on as its mission: a commitment to bringing Eastern Christianity (whether Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic) into a direct conversation with the modern and postmodern West.

I believe this is sorely needed. There is much dialogue and scholarship that relates specifically to this but sadly, it has not been placed together in a central hub, in a format accessible to a wider audience. Such a hub is needed.

Red River Orthodox will post essays, from a range of authors, that directly engage contemporary examinations of the typical topics interfering with a serious theological and historical appreciation of the West: Augustine, Anselm, atonement, salvation, anthropology, philosophy, ecclesiology, morality, etc. Therefore, the new Red River Orthodox will engage issues directly related to ecumenical relations between Eastern Christians themselves and between Orthodox and Catholics (and, at times, Orthodox and various Protestants). This blog will also include critiques of aspects of Eastern Christianity that seem to be hindering healthy Eastern Christian engagements with the West.

One feature on this blog will be a monthly atheist-Christian exchange between Jon Lindgren, professor emeritus of economics (NDSU) and former mayor of Fargo, and myself. Originally conceived as a monthly column for the Fargo Forum, we will keep to the format originally intended for the paper: a 400 word limit and a shared topic uniting each set every month.

At times, Red River Orthodox will also present essays engaging topics of cultural and theological importance that may be “hot button” issues. Often, such issues are deemed unworthy of exploration (e.g. why would someone even ask/consider such a thing?). Here at Red River Orthodox, they will be considered. We will do our best to present such hot button issues in such a way that we do not present ourselves as merely presenting one side or ideology. To assist us with this endeavor, we will enlist posts from guest authors. This should not be construed as us necessarily agreeing with the posts, though perhaps some or all of us will. Keep in mind that even amongst ourselves we differ on how to address some issues and concerns.

At times, this will mean that essays are posted with which I disagree, perhaps fundamentally. The purpose of Red River Orthodox is not to roll out all of our ideas and views nor (on the other extreme) to cherry pick quotes from the Fathers of past ages but to do something more along the lines of what the Fathers themselves did—engage the issues and situations around them creatively. Doing this, though, entails a willing to take risks. We hope this will enable Red River Orthodox to take on a wide range of topics with integrity. So, stay tuned! If you like the first several essays, keep reading, you’re bound to find one you don’t. If you don’t like the first several essays, keep reading. You’re bound to find one you do. Our hope is that this will be an insightful and dynamic website.

Blog

Do Symbols Matter?

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Fr. Peter

History is filled with very important symbols – not only people like George Washington and John Adams, but things like the flag and the Declaration of Independence. But what is important – the actual person or document, or the spirit that these hold for us? Of course these are secular symbols and for now, anyway, I will lay aside a discussion of sacred symbols as I believe we are talking about two very different things. Or are we?

For the last several months I have been engaged in a research project concerning sermons that were preached at the time of the American Revolution, more specifically, on the days set aside in our land for humiliation, fasting, and prayer. These were days, not usually a Sunday, when colonial Americans would come to their respective churches to hear patriotic sermons and to be called to a sense of reconciliation. There was a shift in tone as we moved into military action against Great Britain, but the message was still the same: In the words of Abigail Adams, “He who neglects his duty to his Maker may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.” Duty towards one’s maker made him a better patriot.

At Plymouth Harbor there is a Roman Doric portico containing a rock with the date of 1620 carved on it. This temple contains a relic, a relic of the founding of our nation. In the words of the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, “This Rock has become an object of veneration in the United States. I have seen bits of it carefully preserved in several towns in the Union. Does this sufficiently show that all human power and greatness is in the soul of man? Here is a stone which the feet of a few outcasts pressed for an instant; and the stone becomes famous; it is treasured by a great nation; its very dust is shared as a relic.” It would seem, by its placement in a temple, that this rock is sacred and is deserving of veneration. But what do we truly know about the history of those who first stepped foot on that rock? Are their deeds and actions worthy of veneration or is it the desire to be free, free to worship however we feel called, the important part of the story? If we lose the symbolism in the symbol it simply becomes an idol, and idols should never be worshipped.

During the American Revolution, and most wars for that matter, soldiers carried Bibles with them into battle. Religion was very much part of the fabric of American life in the Colonies, and the soldiers believed that the Bible would protect them in battle. They held the Bible in a very sacred position; almost more than the words and spirituality itself, the book was sacred and it protected them in battle.

At the National Archives in Washington, D.C., one can see the original Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are displayed behind climate-controlled, bullet-proof glass that descends into a safe below ground when the Archives close to the public. The room they are kept in has special lighting designed so that the documents do not fade, and special care and attention are given to preserve them from all harm. Sometimes, it seems, we give more attention to the document then we do to what is written on it and the spirit that is contains.

Before Thomas Jefferson took pen to paper the words he wrote were created in his mind, based on and influenced by many things, religion being one of them. He spoke in terms of biblical writers and of inalienable rights for all of humanity (I know he said all men) that would go forth into history. He not only wrote these words for the American Colonies but for all of humanity for all time. He set forth a sense of natural law that has influenced every aspect of not only the United States, but many other countries around the world. Each and every word was chosen precisely for its meaning, a meaning that was termed treason by the government of Great Britain, and words that had never been written before.

But words only have meaning if they are put into action, and their transforming power is realized. The Bible is truly sacred, but if all we do is carry it around it becomes just another book. The words written on those pages have to become part of the fabric of our lives if they are to truly have the meaning that Jefferson intended them to have. Otherwise, his effort and the lives of many others was in vain.

Do symbols matter? I believe they do, but only if those symbols go beyond the cloth and paper and stone and become part of each one of us. Next time you hang your flag outside your home, consider the lives and the more than 200-year history that have brought us to this time, and take it into your heart and your mind.

This essay originally appeared in the Quaboag Current, and the Tantasqua Town Common.

Blog

George Washington and Army Chaplains

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Fr. Peter

James Caldwell, the "soldier parson" — James Caldwell, the “soldier parson”

On this day, February 7, 1776, General George Washington notifies his troops of a new policy regarding chaplains’ pay. He’d advocated for better treatment of his chaplains, and he’d succeeded!

Shortly after Washington assumed command of the American army during the summer of 1775, the Continental Congress approved its first act regarding chaplains. This act set chaplains’ salaries at $20 per month just above that of lieutenants. Washington was unimpressed. He wrote the President of Congress, noting that the pay was “too Small to encourage men of Abilities.” He asked that a way be found to increase chaplains’ salaries.

Congress approved Washington’s request. It passed an act providing for the appointment of one chaplain to every two regiments. The chaplains had more responsibility, but their pay was also increased. Instead of $20 per month, they were to receive a little more than $33 per month. Washington announced the change on February 7, 1776.

After a few months, Washington decided that the system (unfortunately) did not work for logistical reasons. If regiments were separated due to the demands of war, one regiment might find itself without a chaplain for a while. Washington wrote Congress again. He asked that chaplains be assigned one per regiment, with a salary “competent to their support.”

Congress initially agreed, but the new policy did not last. Eventually, fiscal concerns caused chaplains to be assigned one per brigade. A brigade was a much larger unit of the army; it could be composed of several regiments. In other words, there were fewer chaplains, overall, in the army.

Washington objected again. Interestingly, his main concern was for religious liberty. He wanted many chaplains of a variety of faiths. If there were fewer chaplains overall, then, by definition, there were fewer choices for his men. They were more likely, he wrote Congress, to be compelled “to a mode of Worship, which they do not profess.” Washington preferred the old system, with more chaplains and a greater likelihood that the men could have “a Chaplain of their own religious Sentiments.”

Perhaps what is most interesting about all of these events is the great importance that Washington placed upon the presence of chaplains in his army. He thought they served a valuable function, and he advocated for them consistently. Remember that Washington often faced shortages of supplies and funds. Yet he thought it important to spend some of these valuable funds on chaplains.

Blog

Song of the Week ~ Super Bowl 48 National Anthem

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Fr. Peter

This is by far the best I have ever heard this performed. Soprano Renée Fleming singing the National Anthem at Super Bowl 48 February 2, 2014