Kermit Johnson was the former chief of army chaplains and a recently retired army major general when this interview appeared. He attended West Point and the U.S. Army War College, fought in Korea, and had held assignments at every level of the army, including a position at the Pentagon. At the time of the interview, Johnson worked at the Center for Defense Information.
Johnson was interviewed by Richard K. Taylor, who worked with Sojourners peace ministry.
—The Editors
Taylor: How did you decide to become an army chaplain?
Johnson: I had no intention at first of becoming a chaplain. I started out as a line infantry officer. But I had experienced a conversion to Jesus Christ during my third year at West Point. After the Korean War, I resigned my commission and was for a time a lay missioner in the Orient. I entered Princeton Theological Seminary in 1957. In my last year I felt led to go back into the army as a chaplain.
How many years does your chaplaincy span?
Twenty-two years. I became deputy chief of chaplains in 1978. In 1979, President Carter appointed me chief. I retired on June 30, 1982.
You have made a rather dramatic shift in your thinking about nuclear weapons and war. What happened?
Basically I'm a conservative person. It took me a while. The roots of my change started in the mid-'70s, when I was studying at the Army War College. I started looking into the question of Christianity and violence. I studied ethics and did some reading in just war theory. Later I started applying just war theory to nuclear war. I concluded that using strict just war criteria there cannot be a moral nuclear war.
At first my study of ethics led me to apply ethics internally to the structures and policies of the army. I became deeply involved in questions of sexism, racism, and the drug scene. But later I began to apply ethics in an outward way, that is, in terms of the purposes for which an institution exists.
I became very ill-at-ease at being even a small part of this present U.S. administration. I don't agree with our interventionist policy in Latin America. I'm very exercised about human rights, civil rights, and the environment. I feel that, contrary to what the Moral Majority says, many of the basic positions of this administration are immoral. They offend not just my faith but my humanity.
I am also disturbed by the insensitivity of the administration to the very real concerns of the peace movement; for example, the president saying that it's bought and paid for by the Soviet Union. I was sitting at lunch one day with a high-ranking defense official who complained to me about the involvement of the Roman Catholic bishops in the nuclear area. He said they were "tampering in geopolitical areas." Of course I said to him that any time there's a possibility that human beings will be killed, you are in the moral area.
Another time I attended a seminar for clergy leaders at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies. A well-known political scientist said in a rather condescending way that clergy really ought to stay out of the nuclear area because "the church can make mistakes."
Whereas the government cannot?
I guess that's the implication. But of course the church is always involved, either by acquiescence or by critique. Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, once said to German churchmen: "You are free to seek your salvation as you understand it, provided you do nothing to change the social order." If church people were to comply with such government directives, it would be the end of moral speaking. So I'm saying that my radar goes up when I hear people in positions of power trying to post "off limits" signs, saying, "This is only for experts." I know then that the "off limits" area bears investigation.
It sounds as though the German experience, the failure of the German church to speak out against Hitler, was influential in your thinking.
Yes. I've read a lot of Bonhoeffer and others on that period. I don't think you can live in the 20th century with some realization of what happened in Germany in the '30s and '40s and not have it make you look at events today with a sharp eye.
Most of us in the peace movement have a difficult time picturing a general spending time reading Bonhoeffer or worrying about the ethical issues of nuclear deterrence. Perhaps we imagine you thinking mostly about how to build better missiles.
I really bristle when the facile warmongering stereotype is applied to leaders of the armed forces. There's all sorts of insensitive garbage put out by the peace movement about people in the Pentagon. These stereotypes just fix people in concrete.
As for chaplains, we're just clergy-persons whose field of ministry is in the military. Why shouldn't we be reading Bonhoeffer? Why, I even read Sojourners!
I think that's really important; it's crucial that we in the peace movement don't engage in stereotypes.
There are a lot of stereotypes on both sides. I was uncomfortable with the military stereotypes of peaceniks as being a suicidal people who really don't have the best interests of our country at heart and who are unpatriotic, reckless, stupid, not understanding the facts. And I find in the peace movement the same kinds of stereotypes about the military.
Are there others in the military raising similar questions?
I'm not unique. Chaplains and others in the military are looking at the moral issues of nuclear war. But it's done quietly. They feel the institutional constraints, the limits that any institution sets on those who are a part of it. Nothing of a self-critical nature is done in public. There are places where these issues are discussed, but not on the front pages of newspapers. Questioning is going on, perhaps not sharply, all over the place.
What would you think about people from the peace movement and people in the military sitting down together for dialog?
I believe it's a good idea. But the peace people would have to understand the need for confidentiality and privileged communication. Trust must be present before any dialog can take place.
What are your current views about nuclear deterrence?
I believe that it is immoral to threaten to use or to use nuclear weapons, which is the basis of nuclear deterrence. Joseph Goebbels said, "Even if we lose, we shall win, for our ideals will have penetrated the hearts of our enemies." That's precisely what has happened. In response to the Nazis, we were willing to do indiscriminate area bombing in World War II. This total-war concept was carried forward into our policy of nuclear deterrence, which means the willingness, if need be, to use genocidal weapons against an enemy.
Last fall, Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams made a speech in Chicago. The essence of the whole speech was in three words at the end of it: "Deterrence is moral."
This issue troubled the Catholic bishops greatly in their pastoral letter. They condemn nuclear war in every way but are stuck with Pope John Paul II's words, "morally acceptable." They strongly condemn the arms race, but you are in a bind if you support, even in a qualified way, the basis on which the arms race exists, namely, nuclear deterrence.
What do you think is a better approach?
Even though nuclear deterrence is immoral, I don't think that one or a few people are responsible for where we are today. There has been complicity on the part of literally thousands of people, for which we all bear some responsibility. Some had questions all the way along, but never confrontations incisive enough, powerful enough, to turn the thing around. The reasons for keeping the deterrent always seemed to outweigh the reasons for disarmament. And of course, as Thomas Merton said, when the bombs are dropped, there will be "good reasons."
What's the way out? I don't see a moral choice. I see three possible directions, each of which has its own immorality. The first is to continue to affirm nuclear deterrence and the arms race. I've said already why I disagree with this.
The second immoral choice is unilateral disarmament. I see this as immoral because I believe the defense of a nation is a moral cause. Now I admire pacifists, I always have. They are necessary to any nation to remind people of the value of human life. But I regard pacifism as a Christian witness, and I think you have to distinguish between that individual witness and what you're asking a government to do, the government of a nation that includes more than just Christians.
The third immoral choice is bilateral phased reductions of armaments. I support this direction because, while it isn't moral, it's less immoral than the other two directions. The reason I call it immoral is that at any point down that disarmament ladder, if you became involved in a war, you'd still have part of your nuclear deterrent, and using it would be immoral. You're still relying on nuclear weapons, even while you're getting rid of them. Only when you get down to total elimination of nuclear weapons are you in a position to say that you're taking a moral course.
How do you see the phased reductions beginning? What about the nuclear freeze?
I don't care how we start. A nuclear freeze? Sure, I'd buy a freeze. I don't think the administration's arguments against it are valid. But I think the best way to begin would be to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty that would eliminate all testing of nuclear weapons. The groundwork for such a treaty was completed in 1980, including an agreement on verification. The problem is that President Reagan said last year that the United States will not pursue it. The reason, I think, is that the administration wants to test its planned 17,000 new nuclear weapons. A comprehensive test ban would put a crimp in those plans. This is where citizens have to get involved and put pressure on the administration.
So, if a test ban was in place, you'd begin to work on other similar agreements to start the phased reductions?
Yes. If we can stop the arms race, the push toward new weapons systems, then we're immediately attacking the first-strike, the "hair trigger," the destabilization problem. Then we can start the reductions.
How do you respond to the argument that the nuclear deterrent is morally acceptable according to just war criteria because the United States now has weapons aimed at military targets, not at cities or civilians?
There are 60 military targets within the city of Moscow alone, and 40,000 military targets throughout the Soviet Union. The number of civilian deaths in a nuclear war, therefore, would be horrendous. You can't brush that aside by saying, "Oh sure, there'll be some 'collateral damage,' some innocent civilians will die, but that's just an accident."
In a sermon you delivered last February, you said that the light from the bomb has blinded us to the light of Christ. If "the god of this world" really is blinding our eyes to the light of Christ, as your sermon said, then shouldn't we reject totally the light streaming from the bomb? How can we hang onto the bomb in any sense?
Yet the phased reductions idea assumes that at any point along the way there would still be reliance on the bomb. Are you saying that we have to be sort of influenced by the light of Christ, but we still have to hang onto the bomb in some ways?
I admit this gets very dicey. For the individual Christian, it may be more clear-cut to advocate unilateral disarmament, to stop paying income tax, and so on. But that doesn't solve the problem of this country's complicity in nuclear weapons. He or she has to realize that this nation will never go the unilateral route. It's just absolute dreaming to think that it will. Neither will the United States and the Soviet Union drop right down to zero nuclear weapons. What we have to encourage is movement in that direction.
I hold the Niebuhrian, and I believe biblical, understanding of being inevitably part of this sinful world. I think the problem with pacifists is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a Christian witness that's clear and distinct. But they also want to make this into national policy for a population that can't accept it, and without crimping the Soviet Union in any way whatsoever.
I'll grant that early Christians were pacifists. But can you imagine any of them going to the Roman Empire and saying, "This is what your defense policy, your subjugation policy ought to be"? Pacifists are trying to live as if Constantine never came along.
We live in the post-Constantinian age. This accounts for what appears to be double-clutching. Unlike early pacifists, we not only witness to our faith, but also have access to power and participate in government. The question is, how do you do both responsibly? As a Christian you may be willing to be a martyr, but should you demand this for others?
The new Roman Catholic cardinal of Paris made the same point in an interview recently. "Who could offer his nation as a martyr?" he said. On the other hand, he didn't express any concern about making his nation complicit in killing tens of millions of other people, turning them into martyrs. It would seem that, if the choice is to crucify or to be crucified, then a Christian would have to come out for being martyred.
That's the toughest thing you've said. You hit me at my point of weakness. I could never press the button to start nuclear war. I could never do that. Nor could I ever recommend it. I frankly am still wrestling with this tension between Christian witness and Christian involvement in public policy.
Things can look pretty discouraging when you see the possible destruction of the world and the difficulty in turning things around. What signs of hope do you see?
I see real signs of hope in the grassroots, the fact that people are becoming so knowledgeable and morally concerned. The people that you represent are a real hope, I think, provided that you and they don't lose contact with the rest of us sinners.
Is there anything you'd like to say to us through the pages of Sojourners?
I don't want to lecture peace movement people. I think they probably have more to say to me than I have to them. But the most important thing I'd like to say is that if you want to speak peace, your life and behavior have to communicate that peace. I realize that nonviolence is sometimes necessarily a threatening thing, but there still has to be love.
To pacifists in the peace movement I'd want to say that although we may not be full-fledged allies, certainly we are at least co-belligerents. We stand side by side against the ideas and forces moving us toward nuclear war. We pray for the miracle and act on the hope that nuclear weapons can be eliminated. On this we can agree.
The forces that face us are formidable and possess great momentum due to the groove of history, our culture's values, human fears, and the need for security. If we can agree that nuclear idolatry is the most immediate life-threatening danger facing humankind, we can work in partnership to remove this menace.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!