Historians familiar with Anne C. Loveland's earlier work, American Evangelicals and the U.S. Military: 1942–1993 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996), will recognize its connection to this present book. There is congruency of the time period studied and topics discussed. However, in the present work, the author's objective is to examine the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps as a religious subculture and how it changed as it was impacted by and responded to U. S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and the conservative vs. liberal struggle within American religion, especially American protestantism. The author's research shows that even as it was responding to external issues, the Office of the Chief of Chaplains (OCCH) intentionally guided the Chaplain Corps to practice cooperative pluralism, respecting the religions of all army personnel, and to develop an institutional ministry that was secular in nature so that the Chaplain Corps became integral to institutional needs of the army. Sectarian-evangelical chaplains and their endorsing groups represent a counter-movement in that they protested and obstructed the direction set by OCCH. The chapters of the book progress chronologically with two major themes interwoven: the role of chaplains in building soldier morale and challenge of accommodating religious pluralism within the army. The sources for this work are primarily the annual reports prepared by Chiefs of Chaplains, Chaplain Field Manuals through the years, articles appearing in Chaplain periodicals, and the personal insights of army and navy chaplains.

A study of the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps is valuable because the Corps exists at the intersection of church and state. The Chaplain Corps serves two masters: the U. S. Army of which the Corps is part (chaplains are commissioned officers swearing to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution) and the civilian religious groups who endorse chaplains to serve in the army. Of the two—denomination and military—military is primus inter pares. While Loveland articulates “intrinsic limitations” (53–54), these limitations are not unique to army chaplains. Institutional chaplains serving in hospitals, correctional facilities, industry or education balance denominational identity with institutional mission and the religious plurality that is American society.

Loveland argues that, in the 1960s, the religious consensus within the Chaplain Corps came apart in the face of religious pluralism and the fragmentation of American protestantism into conservative and liberal factions. In the 1950s, the Chaplain Corps developed for itself and taught to military personnel a “religion of democracy” (ROD). ROD was a cultural strategy that integrated the moral and spiritual ideas of protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism. ROD represented a highly spiritualized conception of the origins and nature of American democracy, Americanism, and the American Way of Life (6). Loveland is adamant that ROD was not civil religion though no explanation was given for the distinction. Most important is that ROD “supported military preparedness and the use of military against enemies” (7). Ultimately, the leadership of the Chaplain Corps reshaped the army chaplaincy into their pluralist and inclusive vision.

Evangelicals were unsuccessful in their efforts to control the army chaplaincy.

Readers will find the chapters dealing with the Vietnam War the most enlightening. First, Loveland examines chaplains in the U.S. during the war.

While many clergy in mainline protestant denominations expressed anti-war sentiment, army chaplains supported the war. Critics in civilian denominations criticized army chaplains for their support of the war, claiming that chaplains surrendered their consciences to the army. This anti-chaplain criticism from external groups generated internal conversation about how, if at all, chaplains should express a prophetic responsibility. Second, Loveland describes how Chaplains with combat troops in Vietnam practiced a ministry of presence as they stayed in forward positions and counseled soldiers before and after encounters with the enemy. The book includes an extended discussion of Vietnam chaplains and war crimes, specifically the My Lai massacre (72-83). Loveland relates numerous examples of the ways in which the lessons learned during the Vietnam War shaped the work of the Chaplain Corps in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

It is common to think of the Chaplain Corps leading Sunday services for the troops, counseling soldiers through personal crises, and ministering to the wounded at aid stations near combat zones. Loveland's research shows that this is only part of the work of the Chaplain Corps. The book recounts two occasions, first in the 1950s and again in the 1970s, when the army faced serious internal crises. In both of the crises, the Chaplain Corps initiated internal programs to alleviate the crises. In the 1950s, the Corps developed and taught the Character Guidance program in response to rampant immorality among military personnel and the need for soldiers to understand and value democracy. In the 1970s, the army faced a triple crisis of decline of discipline and morale among enlisted personnel; incompetent leadership on the part of the officer corps; and the erosion of the professional military ethic (85). In response to these crises, the Chaplain Corps developed and taught courses in ethics and moral leadership. The manner in which the Chaplain Corps responded to these internal crises solidified its place in the institution and convinced commanders of the value the Corps brings to the army. Loveland describes the twenty-first century Chaplain Corps, “It codified the ministry of presence, defined a new prophetic moral advisory role for chaplains vis-à-vis commanders, and expanded the chaplain's religious leader engagement assignment. Together with the institutional ministry and the teaching of ethics, world religions, and moral leadership, it invested chaplains with more authority and influence in the military organization than they had ever had before” (145).

Historians of American religion and of military history will value the work Loveland did for this book. Unfortunately an aggressive editing process limited critical analysis and developed explanations.