Chaplaincy: secular and global ministry?

I was recently asked how I thought about chaplaincy as a Christian minister given the secular context, multifaith nature and impacts of globalisation. This was my response. Perhaps I should remind readers that I'm in Britain working as a chaplain in a university and we work within a framework of human rights legislation particularly equality and diversity.

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.