{"id":15175,"date":"2025-01-11T13:11:12","date_gmt":"2025-01-11T02:11:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/?p=15175"},"modified":"2026-03-31T13:47:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T02:47:56","slug":"the-myths-that-prop-up-defence-chaplaincy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2025\/01\/11\/the-myths-that-prop-up-defence-chaplaincy\/","title":{"rendered":"The myths that prop up Defence chaplaincy"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the Australian Defence Force, there\u2019s an oft-repeated line about the role that religious chaplains play. You hear it from chiefs at Senate estimates, in letters from government ministers, and in comments by chaplains themselves. And it goes something like this: \u201cChaplains support people from all religions and also people of no faith.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem is: it’s a myth. And this myth remains seemingly unchallenged by government and Defence hierarchy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chaplains may like to believe their own public relations material and think they can meet the needs of all people working in Army, Air Force and Navy. But if you think about it for more than, let\u2019s say, one second, you will realise they simply cannot. For all kinds of reasons, many people simply do not want to speak to religious agents about their problems. Religion is <\/span>the<\/span><\/i> barrier to care.<\/span><\/p>\n

While the Navy recognised the need to introduce secular roles into its chaplaincy branch a few years ago, Army and Air Force still have not provided this option for their workforces. Instead, they continue to rely on religious chaplains \u2013 and, <\/span>increasingly, Pentecostal and evangelical chaplains<\/span><\/a> \u2013 with theological degrees and experience in church pastoring.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a workforce of about 60 thousand, and with <\/span>new official data<\/span><\/a> showing 61 per cent of personnel identify as not religious and 6 per cent say they are gay, lesbian or bisexual, it\u2019s conceivable that thousands of Defence Force personnel currently do not have access to the frontline wellbeing support \u2013 support that is uniformed and embedded in units \u2013 that they want and need.<\/span><\/p>\n

And all of this at a time of a mental health crisis, with unacceptably high suicide rates, among Defence personnel and veterans.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Many Defence personnel would be naturally circumspect of engaging with chaplains who have theological and ideological views at odds with mainstream Australia on all kinds of social issues. Church groups have spearheaded opposition to wildly popular public policies such as same-sex marriage, access to abortion, and voluntary assisted dying.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, an <\/span>Air Force investigation into the culture of its chaplaincy branch<\/span><\/a> found \u201cevidence of tension within Chaplaincy related to theology and ideology\u201d, and made a number of recommendations to combat the problem of \u201cconflict\/dissonance\u201d between faith and Defence values. <\/span>Appearing at the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide<\/span><\/a> last year, Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, acknowledged that the Air Force Chaplaincy Review had found an \u201cunhealthy mix of theological beliefs\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Rationalist Society of Australia has previously unearthed much evidence of chaplains espousing \u2013 in official Defence publications, no less \u2013 <\/span>theological views<\/span><\/a>, including on same-sex relationships, sexual ethics and non-religious people, that raise serious doubts on whether chaplains can provide non-judgemental care.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider the issue of suicide \u2013 the subject of the Royal Commission. Faith traditions such as Catholicism have historically viewed suicide as \u201csinful\u201d. Yet, the taxpayer-funded committee of religious clerics advising Defence and overseeing chaplaincy recruitment, known as the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services (RACS), <\/span>told the Royal Commission<\/span><\/a> that world religions have been \u201cperceived<\/em> to be against any individual contemplating suicide” (emphasis added).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Catholic Church continues to tell governments that voluntary assisted dying \u2013 now legal in all Australian states \u2013 is really \u201csuicide\u201d. Clearly, suicide and voluntary assisted dying for the terminally ill are two completely different things. This surely raises the question of how Catholic chaplains can support a terminally-ill Defence member who is contemplating accessing voluntary assisted dying, or who may be dealing with a relative in such a situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite identifying issues of theology clashing with Defence values, the investigators behind the Air Force Chaplaincy Review found \u201cperhaps reassuringly\u201d that there was no evidence that the conflicting theological and ideological views of chaplains impacted other service personnel or their families. But, if chaplains can\u2019t even get their own houses in order, how can we have any trust that it doesn\u2019t adversely impact their work?<\/span><\/p>\n

While the official line claims that chaplains serve all<\/em>, if you look closely enough at Defence chaplaincy promotional materials you can find statements that muddy that picture. In one promotional video, for example, <\/span>an Air Force chaplain says<\/span><\/a>: \u201cThere are people who would not want to come and see a chaplain. But, for the most part, we\u2019re here to help, and people recognise that.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

In an edition of the <\/span>Army Chaplaincy Journal<\/span><\/i> \u2013 now removed from the Defence website \u2013 a chaplain wrote that he \u201ccouldn\u2019t be everything to everyone\u201d while serving in Afghanistan. He added:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI was very conscious of my strengths and limitations of ministering in a pluralistic setting, in which few publicly acknowledged denomination and faith group affiliations, whilst most remained silent and distant from all things religious.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One would think that Army and Air Force could simply ask their personnel what type of pastoral care and wellbeing support they would prefer and then act on that information.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Such a survey may have taken place in 2021. There have been a couple of articles, written jointly by chaplains, academics and Defence department staff, and published in the Army\u2019s chaplaincy journal, that have trumpeted the results of an \u201cADF Survey\u201d as evidence of faith-based chaplaincy being \u201cfit for purpose\u201d. <\/span>Yet the full survey results have not been made public, meaning there is no way for independent observers to validate the results. The Department of Defence has also rejected a Freedom of Information application by the Rationalist Society of Australia for a report on the data.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The little detail that has been reported in the journal articles raises questions over whether the authors actually reached the right conclusion. <\/span>According to the article in the 2023 journal<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026recent Australian research of a random sample of military personnel (n = 2783) reported that, of those who were offered a question about their religious affiliation, 28.4% (n = 317) identified with a specific religion, yet nearly four times that number (n=1230) of military personnel had utilised chaplaincy services. Furthermore, over 85% of those who utilised chaplains were satisfied or very satisfied with the support they received, while 10% were \u2018undecided\u2019, and only 5% \u2018unsatisfied\u2019\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Firstly, it appears that only some respondents were asked a question on religious affiliation. On what basis were individuals offered the religion question? The proportion that identified with a religion (28.4 per cent) is below the known religious affiliation of Defence personnel \u2013 which would have been around 40 per cent at the time of the survey in 2021.<\/span><\/p>\n

Were only people who did not see a chaplain asked the question on religion? If so, then a lower-than-representative proportion of members who did not see a chaplain were religious. And the corollary would also be true: that a higher-than-representative portion of members who did see a chaplain must be religious. If that were the case, it would seem to disprove the authors\u2019 central claim.<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, only 44 per cent (1230) of the sample self-selected to see a chaplain. And, of these, 15 per cent were not satisfied with the chaplain. That leaves a majority of people surveyed either not having seen chaplains or not being satisfied with them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Strangely, the same authors argue that the national Census results show that \u201csecularism as a belief\u201d is held by \u201conly a small and reducing number of people\u201d. They claim that Australians calling themselves secular, rationalist, or humanist have declined at a faster rate than Christianity \u2013 over 20 per cent compared to 8 per cent \u2013 between 2016 and 2021. Somehow these experts missed the fact that, for the 2021 national Census, secular, rationalist, humanist and atheist groups <\/span>staged a national campaign<\/span><\/a>, attracting <\/span>widespread media attention<\/span><\/a>, that encouraged non-religious people \u2013 even members of their own organisations \u2013 to mark \u2018no religion\u2019. The larger category \u2018no religion\u2019 surged in the 2021 Census, <\/span>reaching almost 39 per cent,<\/span><\/a>\u00a0even with a biased Census question that assumed all respondents had a religion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Publicly available survey data on religious chaplaincy show a <\/span>reluctance from non-religious people to seek help from religious chaplains<\/span><\/a>. Of more than 1000 respondents to a 2020 Dynata survey, only 22 per cent of non-religious people said they would be likely to seek support from religious chaplains, whereas 49 per cent said they would seek non-religious pastoral support.<\/span><\/p>\n

A 2017-18 report by the Australian National Audit Office titled <\/span>Managing Mental Health in the Australian Federal Police<\/span><\/i><\/a> showed that AFP employees experiencing high stress levels were overwhelmingly (78 per cent) unlikely to want to seek help from a chaplain. Indeed, only 12 per cent said they would see a chaplain.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another myth that has helped to maintain the status quo for religious chaplaincy in Defence is the argument that personnel already have access to other secular support. But, as former head of Navy chaplaincy and secular reformer <\/span>Collin Acton has pointed out<\/span><\/a>, this commonly used line is a \u201chalf truth\u201d. Defence personnel do, of course, have access to secular support such as social workers, medical professionals and psychologists. But these professionals are not uniformed and embedded in military units like chaplains are, and are not immediately accessible. Chaplains are, therefore, the first port of call.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Acton had to fight against entrenched religious interests within the military to finally achieve secular reform in 2020, with the introduction of a handful of secular Maritime Spiritual Wellbeing Officer (MSWO) roles in Navy\u2019s chaplaincy branch. Despite then being <\/span>\u201cforced out\u201d of Defence<\/span><\/a> in 2022 for continuing to publicly advocate for Army and Air Force to follow Navy\u2019s lead, he has <\/span>continued to lead the way in advocating for secular reform across Defence<\/span><\/a>. In January last year, <\/span>he wrote on <\/span>Pearls & Irritations<\/span><\/i><\/a> that Defence\u2019s almost exclusive reliance on ordained ministers of religion not only was out of touch but also posed an inexcusable risk to the health and wellbeing of Australian service personnel.<\/span><\/p>\n

Last year, a Defence review of the secular roles delivered vindication for Acton. The <\/span>Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal\u2019s final report<\/span><\/a> confirmed there was \u201cstrong demand\u201d to access support from the MSWOs and recognised the roles as having delivered a \u201ccomplementary non-religious alternative\u201d in helping Navy to meet the mental health and wellbeing needs of its personnel.<\/span><\/p>\n

In recent years, Defence Force leaders and the minister responsible for Defence personnel, Matt Keogh, have pledged to \u201cexamine the lessons\u201d of the Navy\u2019s initiative and consider adding secular roles into Army and Air Force. Clearly, the time for reform is now. But how much longer will Defence continue to trot out the myths that prop up religious chaplaincy?<\/span><\/p>\n

Published 11 January 2025.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

If you wish to republish this original article, please attribute to <\/i><\/b>Rationale<\/b><\/a>. <\/i><\/b>Click here<\/i><\/b><\/a> to find out more about republishing under Creative Commons.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Photo by Department of Defence (Commonwealth of Australia).<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the Australian Defence Force, there\u2019s an oft-repeated line about the role that religious chaplains play. You hear it from<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":447,"featured_media":15176,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[621,744,392,350],"coauthors":[79],"class_list":["post-15175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ethics-religion","tag-australian-defence","tag-chaplaincy","tag-mental-health","tag-military"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15175","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/447"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15175"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15175\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16250,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15175\/revisions\/16250"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15176"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15175"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=15175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}