It’s not quite right to say that chaplaincy is a statutory requirement
for equality –although it seems that most HEIs interpret it in a way that
chaplaincy seems to be a main way to try to address the appearance of religion
(including non-belief) as a protected characteristic.
I’m also keen to question the terms ‘secular’ and ‘secularisation’. It
is often seen as a bad thing but we should recall that some of the impetus for
it grows out of the European religious wars following the Reformation –it became
evident that moving religion (indeed, in the fullness of time any strong
ideology) away from absolute power moved it away from the apparently strong
temptations to murder opponents. One of the things about the Baptist and many
other non-conformists is that, as people who were mostly persecuted, they have
a strong ethos of separation of religion and state and of religious tolerance –it
is interesting to note that the oft-persecuted Shi’ite Muslims tend in the same
direction.
In addition to this practical response to abuse of power by religious
agents (and later by agents of ‘secular’ ideologies) there are theological
reasons for supporting secularism at least of a certain kind. I’d note here the
distinction between hard and soft secularism and I’d making a theological case
for the latter. Hard secularism is a way to characterise anti-religious
ideology –the immediate aftermath of the French revolution is an extreme
example: the replacement of a religious ideology of governance by
anti-religious. Hard secularism can be more tolerant than that: modern France
and Turkey operate hard secular regimes (in theory) by excluding all religious
expression from the public sphere (government, education, publicly owned space
etc –hence debates about hijab-wearing or crosses on classroom walls).
Soft secularism (in theory the state of India) recognises that people
come into the public sphere with religious identities and commitments and
rather than excluding them, seeks to be impartial about their claims (perhaps
the USA is this too) and to make sure that they don’t become co-ercive.
I think that latter approach can be defended theologically. The idea of
doing as you’d be done by in Jesus’ teaching seems to indicate that if we would
like the right to practice our faith, we advocate for all to have that right –even
those who are our ‘enemies’. If we want to be able to commend our faith to
others, we must allow them the same privilege. Furthermore, as I read the
teaching of Christ and of Paul I find a scepticism about religion particularly
where it becomes a legalistic thing (and state religion has to be legalistic –by
definition). I’m also interested to note that in the first chapters of Genesis
the duty of humanity is to tend creation and there is no temple. The impetus
towards religiosity flows from the conversation with the serpent and its
aftermath. So I’m in favour of trying to help the churches to think about
secular life as the arena of Christian mission and effort: our tending of
creation and society is our religion. Chaplaincy might be a way to help promote
this insight among the churches.
This impacts on chaplaincy in several ways in my view. One is to alert
us to our own faith’s impetus towards treating others hospitably, with dignity
and to do so particularly when they are in some way our ‘enemy’ (that is, they oppose us or what we stand for). This does not
mean downplaying our distinctive message and its challenge to consider Christ
as the one to be followed, it means doing that in a way that is appropriate and
respects the humanity and dignity of others.
At its best an organisation’s policies and systems are ways to make sure
that people are dealt with even-handedly, with justice and dignity. So in broad
terms, as chaplains it is appropriate that we abide by an organisation’s ethos
etc when we work with it. It is also appropriate that where it becomes clear
that polices and systems are prejudicial, harmful or unjust, we should find
ways to challenge that. Ways that will be effective. Sometimes that means, as
in all small-p political matters, being prepared to be patient and pragmatic,
finding allies and seeking to build momentum for change and finding right
timings. All the while trying to find the best ways to support those who are
badly done-by and to advocate for them in the best ways we have at that time.
This is a dimension of the prophetic side of chaplaincy. I think that the
personal spiritual challenge for chaplains is to love the institutions and
their people appropriately –that is without it becoming a wilful blindness to
faults and especially faults that can be rectified. I think also it means being
realistic too about human nature which is also capable of subverting the best
schemes. So sometimes the prophetic dimension of chaplaincy could involve
being, in effect, a whistle-blower or supporting those who are speaking out
about misuses of power and privilege. We should also be wary of our own
tendencies to subvert the good and cultivate a certain lightness to our
perceptions and agenda and practice self-examination.
From where I am at the moment, globalisation appears to mean a series of
mechanisms for allowing capital to maximise its returns while creating a race
to the bottom for labour. Universities have been subjected to this regime. I’m
convinced, theologically, that human systems and organisations are purposed by
God to serve human welfare (which also entails the welfare of the ecosystem)
and so I’m not happy about the way that a particular set of views about marketisation
and metrics have come to dominate the running of Higher Education because I
think that in the longer term they tend to have negative impacts on important
things like human welfare and quality of education. So I tend as a chaplain to
try to encourage questioning of systems that ensue from that kind of
globalisation agenda. (That's not to say that some aspects of HE didn't need some shaking up -there are positives things about improving teaching and research and putting the student experience much more at the heart of thinking -however, I dissent about the means currently employed ostensibly to achieve these ends).
I also try to encourage human-welfare-centred interpretations of
legislation and policy. For example in our HEI, I support vocally and in
meetings, interpretations of the Prevent duties that focus on safety of
students rather than more authoritarian and politically paranoid
interpretations. I also try to encourage thinking based in properly thought
through evidence rather than prejudice and ill-founded fears.
