Chaplains in public schools
In today’s paper, Judith Bessant argues against the proposal that Christian chaplains should be employed by public schools:
Employing Christian clergy in state schools also reflects a double standard in the way it contradicts the officially stated commitment by the same people who have been promoting the teaching of “Australian values”. Those values include “freedom” from unnecessary interference and control, “respect” - which includes having regard for “another person’s point of view” and presumably their religious views, and “understanding tolerance and inclusion”.
Employing Christian chaplains in state schools “to improve” values and provide guidance for students is a provocative and divisive act. It is disrespectful of the religious and secular beliefs of the many Australians who are non-religious or non-Christian. It also denies parents the right to teach children their own religious and cultural beliefs. Indeed it is as offensive and confrontational to non-Christians as it would be for Christians to have religious teachers or spiritual leaders committed to Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam in schools teaching their children about their religious values.
There was a chaplain at one of the public schools that I attended. But from what I could see, the chaplain was about as far from the “values based education” as one could imagine. Rather, she did the sort of things that you would expect a chaplain to do - she was the one who broke bad news if it was necessary, she was the one that followed up with people who had been bereaved, she was the one who students spoke to if they were having difficulties or issues. It was all non-compulsory and involved very little explicit religious content.
Perhaps this episode in the culture wars might accomplish something for the good of school students, totally separate from what is suggested by the rhetoric.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I’m not on anyone’s case, mate. I’m not the one that seeks to change the arrangements currently in place.
I don’t mind chaplains being in schools, I just don’t think they should get government $$$. If governments have to fund school counsellors, then I have no problem with that at all.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I think the article above demonstrates that the argument that JWH and his opponents are having is a long way divorced from the experience of what chaplains actually do in public schools. So while I support chaplains, I don’t agree with JWH’s presentation. My experience of chaplains (and in addition to those that I have experienced in schools, I know several both in school and other environments) is similar to Toddy’s.
Why not employ a counsellor for that job? Because what Toddy has described is much more than just a counsellor. The fact is JWH couldn’t dictate that a chaplain had to be religious or of a particular religion. That would be against the rules. So if he wants to put a chaplain in every school he can only do it by job description and he is just going to have to deal with it if a particular school believes that position could be better filled by a muslim chaplain.
I don’t see the big deal about chaplains - football clubs have them, unions have them, hospitals have them, aged care facilities have them, industries have them. It is not the same as a social worker or a counsellor or a welfare officer, and nor should it be.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
There’s no deal - they just shouldn’t be paid by the government.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Sorry Luke - I should have asked before (dumb assumptions…) - what part of Aus do you live in, and what has been the arrangement re chaplains over the past bunch of years? We may be talking very different experiences, because our state-based Ed Depts may operate differently…
June 30th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I’m in WA like you Toddy - although I grew up and attended school in WA, I’m familiar with both systems.
June 30th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Lets refer to the article for a minute. 1st, I don’t think the author (in whichever capcity sh’s writing in!) understands the nature of chaplaincy within a school or other community-based setting.
2nd, when she writes ‘In this context certain conservative political elements now see it in their interest to employ chaplains in state schools’, she implies that chaplains are new. They are not. Also, very few of the chaplains I’ve met have been terribly conservative or political…
She goes on - ‘It is also a context in which racists exacerbate minor differences in cultural and religious practices. There are loose affinities between conservative political elements, centred around the Howard leadership, certain players in the media who actively promote racism and “Australian values”, and fundamentalist Christians who promote hatred towards groups like Muslims and Asians.’
This is plain wrong to assert in the context of chaplaincy. If it exists in other areas of the church or the broader community, then lets deal with it at that level. I’ve never known any worker within a school (chaplain, nurse, psych, phys-ed teacher, principle etc) who has espoused these ‘virtues’ and kept their job - it’s illegal! And for good reason.
I’m concerned that this article is very fear-based, and is finding ‘angels under every apple-tree’
June 30th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Tried to trackback to this post but nothing happened…:(
See my thoughts here:
http://www.mattglover.com/wordpress/wordpress/2006/06/25/chaplains-in-high-schoolsthe-debate-continued/
July 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Dan this is the issue as I see it.
Should there be chaplains in schools,if so who pays?
Why should govts pay for Christian chaplains - will churches support muslim,hindu and atheist and gay chaplains?
What happens when govts pick up the bill for chaplains? In industry, companies use them as “pastors” and makes dam certain they know their place; and by and large their churches ignore them.No industrial chaplain to my knowledge is being consulted as churches work out their positions on the new IR legislation. Shouldnt they be cosulted after all arent they supposed to be experst on the workplace.In the army the chaplains run real dangers of becoming “institutionalised” and pretty remote from their churches on what one chaplain described as their $120,000 + package!
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The issue of chaplains, however we might wish to debate the issue,at this particular time in the political cycle, cannot be separated from the wisdom and might of JWH.
I reality, I suspect, when the govt puts the cash on the table the churches will grab it and run.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
I reality, I suspect, when the govt puts the cash on the table the churches will grab it and run.
too true
October 30th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Dead right abtruth;check syd anglican blog on chaplains;
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=2203
October 30th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Perhaps it would be considered rude to raise the association, but my 16 year old daughter made the perceptive comment that chaplains in schools is another opportunity for pedophiles to spread their influence.
Who really wants to give the institutionalised churches more leeway for their pedophile priests to molest our children?
Many of us would be aware of the ongoing legal problems in the Christian churches with pedophile (and often homosexual) priests. Is anyone aware of related problems with other religions?
More chaplains in schools? No thanks.
October 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
surely you’re not serious sanders??
October 30th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
I’m not saying all priests are gay pedophiles. Please don’t think that. Some are heterosexual pedophiles. I believe there is a majority that are trustworthy. Though, I can’t support this majority assertion with evidence.
You realise, don’t you bec, that many churches consider themselves above the law. In spite of what they publicly say, they behave as if God’s law is higher than our own laws.
October 30th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Sanders, I agree that churches consider themselves about the law.
However, I don’t believe that churches are any more likely than any other religious institution to harbour paedophiles. And there’s plenty of paedophiles who are swimming instructors, Cub Scout leaders, teachers…No, I don’t believe that “chaplains in schools is another opportunity for pedophiles to spread their influence”…
October 30th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Apart from the pedophile problem, and the possible lack of training or inappropriate training (theological for example), and apart from the dissension in multi-cultural schools who may then miss out on the financial benefit, and apart from the fact that there are needs in much higher-demand in state schools, and apart from the wedge-politics that the prime miniture is playing, I have nothing against government funded chaplains in schools.
October 30th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Have you noticed the little johny’s none-too-subtle appeal to conservative christian values at opportune times? Calling a public meeting of Christians leaders (without inviting other faiths, e.g. muslims), discussion of “values” in a way which obviously means judaeo-christian (but not muslim), and the chaplainacy in schools at a time of divisive public debate over minority extremist mufti speeches - which can only serve to further polarise people.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Sanders,
I went to a state school, and my folks are both teachers who are very committed to the state system, and very committed Christians. They throw their full support behind chaplains, raising money to pay them etc. I and many others at my school have benefited immensely from chaplains. I’ve also seen teachers and parents who were INCREDIBLY anti-chaplain switch once chaplains came in and they saw the results of their presence.
My understanding (and I could be wrong!) is that chaplains receive training in not only theology but counselling etc.
I agree with your concerns re: wedge politics, but I can’t agree with the rest.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
If chaplains are trained as counsellers and can use that skill to great benefit in a school, then of course most people would support that part of it. But of what use is the religious connection? How can the component of faith be anything but devisive in many schools. One person’s faith is another persons meaningless fantasy.
I can understand a chaplain offering psychological support to a student grieving over a tragic event, or having relationship or other problem, but I cannot see discussion in the realms of faith ever having any real practical help to anybody.
Imagine being told, after exhausting all other means of support, that it’s ”
“God’s will” or “Jesus loves you” - how is that helpful? Especially if told to a Zoroastrian or Calathumpian or atheist who may not believe it. Even worse, imagine a chaplain attempting prayer or some other religious ritual. All these are of no use in real counselling situations.
So drop the faith part and do it properly. Employ trained, secular counsellers.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Committed Christians? Is that code for people who believe in their faith to the exclusion of all others? Sure they may “respect” people of other faiths, but they still, selfishly, place higher credence in their own.
It’s this type of attitude that lies behind support for Howard’s wedge politics.
Until people can get out of their “faith ghetto’s” and openly embrace and accept, as equal, all religious view-points, the divisive public debate will continue.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:51 am
Sanders, as a matter of interest, have you had any personal encounters with school chaplains? (I’m just trying to discern if your concern is an academic one, or if you’ve had a negative experience of a school chaplain) I’ve spoken with a number of chaplains… and agree with Bec that in many places the presence of a chaplain turns the “anti chaplain” brigade around completely… because the job of a chaplain is not to push a triumphal religious agenda, but to be like the presence of Christ in a community.
As for: “I cannot see discussion in the realms of faith ever having any real practical help to anybody”… well that may be true for you, but no competent chaplain would push such a discussion onto an unwilling participant. I believe humans are spiritual beings not just physical ones… the (to my knowledge) universal practice of religious customs and beliefs in indigenous societies, and the inability of hostile governments to stamp out religious faith (ie under communism) is testament to the persistence of a search for meaning in the human heart. We do not only want our immediate problems solved; many are also in a quest for transcendent meaning and purpose. Or us Augustine wrote in the 4th century: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless til they find their rest in you.”
Chaplains are a safe place in a school for those who have an issue that is religious in nature… a religious conflict in their home, questions about the beliefs of a parent or family member that are unsafe to raise with that person, a hunger for meaning, questions about God. Not everything about human experience is a simple problem to be solved or a pain to be discussed.
If your encounter with Christians has led you to think they would glibly finish a counselling session with: “It’s God’s will” or “Jesus loves you”, well I’m really sorry. I don’t think I know any Christians who would be so puerile, but I guess they must exist if that’s your experience.
I am also annoyed that Howard is cynically trying to get the religious right on side… I think he has been an extremely divisive PM and dammit… politically successful in doing this. (Don’t blame me… I’ve never voted for him… and ranted enough about this to anyone who will listen!)
October 31st, 2006 at 7:28 am
If someone has a “hunger for meaning” or questions about God, how could any self-respecting person, let alone a professional counseller, attempt to sooth with stories from a particular religious tradition. Imagine how silly they would sound if they started using Greek myths, or stories from the Aboriginal dream-time. Sure, these stories have had emotional resonance with some people and are often interesting cultural artifacts.
And on the Christian response, when you cut it back to bare bones, it really does get down to platitudes such as “it’s God’s will” or “God is with us in our suffering” or “she’s going to a better place”. I know they are meant to sooth emotionally, but, sorry they just do not work as a satisfactory conclusion or explanation.
But no religious tradition, in fact no-one, has clear-cut answers to these questions. They may pretend they have, but I think it is deception to bring that pretence into a counselling situation. Wouldn’t it be more useful to gradually, safely bring people into the reality of the human condition? Tell them that these stories are just that - stories or myths that provide a way of thinking about the world, that have proved to be socially cohesive in some cultures at some times, but not to place to much credence in them.
In our society, the current practice of faith and religion is definitely not a universal uniting force. Besides, we have more universally accepted ways of understanding the world through science. Re-introducing partisan religion is really a step backwards.
Once again, why is so difficult for Christians, Muslims, Atheists, whoever, to move out of their faith ghettos, away from the underlying spiritual arrogance that feigns outward respect for other faiths and holds one’s own faith as the “correct” truth?
October 31st, 2006 at 8:09 am
It is possible to end up with vacuous nothingness if you go too far down the path you suggest. The meaning and purpose of life is… well… er… whatever feels right to you… er… some people think this… others think that… I have no idea what I believe but I don’t want to offend anyone because that feels bad… er…
There is no compelling vision that leads you to sacrifice, to morality, and to genuine goodness in that kind of uncritical fuzziness.
A prerequisite for respectful inter-faith dialogue is to have some conviction about what you believe, as well as a transcendent appreciation that our common humanity compels us to understand and cooperate with one another.
From my point of view, the simplistic platitudes you characterise a Christianity are just that… a caricature.
I should also note that I simply cannot imagine any trained counsellor would throw out the platitudes you suggest in a counselling situation… they would lose their job. And at least in Victoria where I live, CCES chaplains are professionally qualified and are carefully screened.
Perhaps we need to delineate what chaplains do from the broader issue you’ve raised… is particular religious conviction necessarily “spiritual arrogance”?
October 31st, 2006 at 8:20 am
Sanders,
Yes, “committed Christian” might be described as “code for people who believe in their faith to the exclusion of all others”. That’s how I’d describe myself. I don’t believe it’s “selfish” to place “higher credence” on my own faith - I respect people of other political persuasions, but I still place higher credence on my own, otherwise I wouldn’t hold it!
So - “this type of attitude” certainly doesn’t “support Howard’s wedge politics”. I despise Howard’s wedge politics, as would my parents. It is possible to hold beliefs firmly without supporting wedge politics or living in a “faith ghetto”. I can openly embrace and accept others and see their religious view-points as equal from a sociological point of view but not from a spiritual or theological point of view. I’m catching up today with a friend who’s a committed Muslim - I have no doubt that he places a “higher credence” on his faith than on mine, and vice versa, yet terms like “divisive”, “wedge politics”, “religious ghetto” certainly don’t describe our friendship!
And that’s why I don’t have a problem with chaplains…I believe there’s an incredibly big difference between someone who proselytises, and someone who is a trained counsellor who also happens to be a person of faith.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
A couple of things which might help the exchange:
*check out the govt statement re chaplains
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/school_chaplaincy_programme/default.htm.
NB The govt will set up a “reference group”(cf ABC Board as a model of”balance”!;and will have the final say on who is to be appointed.
NB.The control govt has over aged care/employment contracts/community welfare programs run by churches but funded by govt;eg.Contract requirements that the church keeps silent!,and make no criticism of the program.In my own denomination our aged care board would never consider any criticism of got aged care policy because of this requirement.
NB.Army chaplaincy:a done deal between the mainline churches and the defence forces ensures that both Islamic and pentecostal ministers are not only excluded but that they will never reach positions of say, head of chaplaincy(as they could in the USA armed forces)
*check out what chaplains actually do:Christian Research Asociation-”School chaplaincy”-”most school chaplains spend much of their time in pastoral work..they counsel…”
October 31st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Oops forgot the CRA link: http://www.cra.org.au/pages/00000026.cgi
October 31st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I don’t know how you can hold to a particular faith knowing that it is mainly a product of your upbringing what particular one you follow, and knowing that others hold different faiths just as passionately. Furthermore, I personally could not subscribe to a particular faith when I can see that a world view informed by the myths and stories of religion is less meaningful than one informed by modern scientific advances. It also seems a form of self-deception to think that there is some kind of supernatural reality behind the faith. It’s not just possible to end up with vacuous nothingness if you follow a particular faith - it starts with vacuous nothingness.
Given that there is such disagreement over the religious/faith aspect of chaplains in schools, and much agreement over their counselling role, I would argue is a further reason not to have chaplains. You think faith informs counsellers for the better, I think it doesn’t. Personally, no faith seems to be a better option.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Alan…ouch!! Now THERE is reason for concern.
Sanders…
Firstly, while my faith is partly a product of my upbringing, I also made a very conscious decision to follow Christ. Similarly, I was raised in a particular ideological environment and vote in a similar manner to my parents - but that is not to say that I do not choose who I vote for! I know others vote differently, and I can live with that, but I still think that they’re wrong and I’m right.
A “world view informed by the myths and stories of religion is less meaningful than one informed by modern scientific advances”…well, I don’t believe that I have to choose between the two, and believe me, my faith adds immensely to my sense of meaning!!!
“seems a form of self-deception to think that there is some kind of supernatural reality behind the faith”…um, how? You’re assuming that the “supernatural reality” doesn’t exist…well, I believe it does exist, ergo, no self-deception involved.
I’m not even sure what you mean by the last sentence of your first paragraph.
“Given that there is such disagreement…I would argue is a further reason not to have chaplains” (sic). Um, no. There’s also argument over the ideological aspects of teaching English, but nobody’s suggesting that we should get rid of English teachers.
Your post above reminds me of a conversation I had with my GP years ago when I was being treated for depression…he was glad that I was seeing someone trained as a psychologist, but became concerned when he found out that the psychologist was working as a chaplain. Now, I can understand his concern to some degree - there’s plenty of dodgy chaplains out there, and plenty of dodgy Christian psychologists. But there’s also very good ones, and I personally appreciate being able to see someone who can relate to my faith. I would find it far more difficult relating to a psychologist that regarded my faith in the terms that you describe faith in above - and there are plenty of those psychologists around!
October 31st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Bec
the above exchange reminds me of exchanges with Donald Duck (aka Ozzie Osterich aka Keiren Green aka ‘am a thiest’)
October 31st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
I respect your personal faith decision, Bec, but can you understand that
a) no one particular faith can be agreed on as the correct faith and
b) partly because of this, a chaplaincy position is more likely to be divisive in state schools that have a diverse cultural profile.
The idea of a school chaplain seems to belong to a past era. Would you feel comfortable, for example, having your children counselled by an Islamic cleric at school? Probably not, and I wouldn’t either, and that’s even accounting for the subtle differences in our respective belief systems.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Sanders,
I agree with (a)
I also agree with (b) - but the point I made earlier was that, in my (very limited!) experience, the concerns that people initially have about the IDEA sometimes evaporate once they see it in PRACTICE.
I would be comfortable with my (non-existent!) children being counselled by an Islamic cleric, provided that cleric was supportive of their spirituality and did not proselytise. I see enough wisdom and beauty in Christ, whom I follow, to believe that my children would be equipped to make a decision for themselves.
This is not to say that I am overjoyed about Howard’s proposal…I’m deeply skeptical of it. However the arguments you’re putting up just don’t measure up to my personal experience, or those of many others. I’ve got friends who are chaplains in state schools, and they just aren’t the kinds of people you’re describing in your posts!