Jordan Henricks (’24) Publishes an Article on Military Chaplaincy
The following is an excerpt from Military Chaplaincy Review article “A Third Way for the Chaplain Corps: Resisting Secular Spirituality and Religious Nationalism” by Alumnus Jordan Henricks, STM, MDiv (’24), published March 27, 2026.
“We are going to make the Chaplain Corps great again.”[1] I suspect all religious affairs personnel in the armed forces experienced an emotional response to this announcement. Many of us became excited about the prospect of a new era for the Chaplain Corps, as we believe religious liberty in the armed forces to be threatened and feel limited in our ability to minister. Others of us fear that decades of advocating for justice will be tossed aside, and we feel compelled to stand up for those who identify with less prevalent religious traditions or no tradition at all. Both reactions are valid and their seeming opposition might obscure how they each reveal deep uncertainty about what it means to be a military chaplain today. Secularity presents unique challenges to religion and spirituality associated with military ministry.[2]
Now is the time to reevaluate our sense of identity and purpose as a Corps. The Chaplain Corps and numerous chaplains—perhaps inadvertently through the acceptance of holistic health frameworks or in pursuit of institutional relevance—have gradually embraced secular spirituality rather than accepting the challenges of secularity. This move puts at risk the foundation of religious affairs, which is to “enable and support free expression of religion” and “guard against religious discrimination of any kind.”[3]
The Chaplain Corps also faces an emerging phenomenon in response to secularity in the form of religious nationalism. This is not unique to religion in the United States but rather is an emerging global trend with which we must contend. Military chaplains desperately need clarity regarding the challenges associated with secularity as we seek to faithfully provide for the free exercise of religion. In the face of secularity, the Chaplain Corps faces two challenges: it must resist reducing religious traditions to a category of holistic health and resist the fusion of religion and nationalism.
In a pre-modern era, with few exceptions, individuals kept the traditions of their parents. However, the liberalism characteristic of modernity, with its emphasis on individual rights and freedom of conscience, set the conditions for secularity. The mantra “separation of church and state” concisely articulates the American model of secularity, which captures an institutional commitment to maintain neutrality that enables the free exercise of religion in a pluralistic society.
Spirituality, religious or nonreligious, must be understood contextually. Ideas about spirituality depend on one’s tradition and worldview. The Constitution protects religious freedom and any provision of support or protection for the exercise of spirituality needs to be understood within that context.
Religious nationalism is a response to tension between nation and religion associated with modernity. And it is fraught. Religious nationalism unequivocally threatens the principle of nonestablishment. The sectarian nature of religious nationalism challenges the status quo of liberal democracy. However, these claims alone are not sufficient to establish an argument against religious nationalism. After all, the status of the United States as a secular nation-state is unique in the world. Political science scholar Ahmet Kuru suggests only the United States and France meet essential criteria of a secular state, which include an institutional separation of state and religion, a secularist state ideology, no privileged religion, and no state management of religion.[21]
In contemporary culture, we must resist reducing religious traditions to a category of holistic health and resist the fusion of religion and nationalism. This is not a problem limited to military chaplaincy. A research initiative led by scholars from Brigham Young University and Harvard explores religion as resource for education, and they introduce the idea of a nonsectarian “third way” that is “meant to be a middle ground between the secularists and growing sectarianism.”[29] A third way is a cultural recommitment to the separation of church and state not just for political reasons, but for religious ones. For religious people in a liberal democracy to remain steadfast in their convictions today, a robust commitment to a third way is required. Our democratic republic demands it, and our military service members depend on it from their religious affairs professionals.
CLICK THE LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE