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.

Secularities and religions

As a brief way into helping managers and others at my university to think about how the university should handle matters of religion, I have tended to use a distinction I learnt from Phil Lewis who was our diocesan interfaith advisor when we were in Bradford. It  has proved useful in helping people to think about what they mean by "secular" when we talk about the university as a secular institution. What appears to be the default in many people's minds is that secular means to exclude religion. In Phil's binary this would be "hard secularism" and the explemplar national exponents would be France and Turkey who work to remove religious symbols and ideas from the public square. Religion can only be practised in private and can have no influence on public affairs.

The contrast, and the sort of stance we try to encourage people to take, is 'soft secularism'. The national exponent of this would be, in theory, India (though this is under threat) where the state remains impartial about religion but recognises that citizens come to the public square as, among other things, religiously-identified actors.

In this article, Building Ethical Bridges in a Secular Age | Comment Magazine | Cardus,  a three-part distinction in made using the words 'freedom' and 'religion' but varying the adjective between them.

• Freedom of religion—the state does not impose a religion on its citizens: there is no state religion. 
• Freedom for religion—the state does not restrict the free practice of religion by its citizens. 
• Freedom from religion—the state excludes religion and religious voices from the public square, in particular, in relation to law and public policy making.

I think that this is a useful way of thinking about it in a secular organisation. The final point, of course, is pretty much the "hard secular" approach. The first two are both "soft secular" approaches. The first point is about impartiality: not favouring one above the rest. The second point is about allowing all expressions to flourish. These first two points are complementary. However, the human rights approach does restrict the second by making clear that expressions that infringe the rights and freedoms of others are not covered. This reminds us that there is, in fact, a fine line between allowing religious expression and one or more of them becoming an imposition on others.

Beyond this the referenced article makes a case for a post-secular approach.
one of the arguments is this:

... we should point out that everyone has beliefs, so the argument that those with religious beliefs should be excluded from the public square because of those beliefs is discriminatory and anti-democratic. The new option, "none," in answer to the survey question about religious belief, reflects a belief system.

One of the reasons I became convinced of the importance in broad terms of a soft secular approach was noting how the hard secular approach was, covertly, an imposition of a particular viewpoint which has a bearing on religion. As such it functioned in a quasi religious way. In the European human rights framework, religion is paired with philosophical viewpoints. This would include "hard secular" approaches. To be truly pluralist and respectful of the rights of others, the hard secular approach has to be eschewed: it ends up imposing a particular religiously-significant stance on people who conscientiously may believe that their faith is supposed to have a public-square face.

It does require though, an acknowledgement that there are no easy answers. At least with the hard secular approach there is a clarity, even if it can be somewhat oppressive to religious actors. With a soft secular approach, the messiness of understanding, dialogue, compromise and negotiation is implied as no single solution will fit all societies and communities and over time the actors and circumstances and interpretations change, meaning that we will be engaged in constant monitoring, listening, learning and dialogue. But then, isn't that what human society is about anyway? Why should we expect religion and spirituality to be different in that respect?

First women fined under France's Burka ban

Well, I've been wondering when it would happen, and here it is:
First women fined under France's Burka ban | RFI:

A French court on Thursday imposed fines on two women for wearing the full Islamic face-covering veil, for the first time since a law was passed making it illegal to wear it in public.

You may remember that the enforcement of the law mostly depends on other citizens making a complaint given that often police would not be around to observe it. I wonder whether, as well, some of the other people who said they would try to get arrested for fulfilling the law's strictures without a niqab. When will those cases come to court.

One of the things I pointed out in earlier comments is that this arguably flouts the EDHR, and so it is no surprise to read that this will be tested:
"Yann Gré, who is the lawyer for the two women, declared that they will appeal against the ruling and are ready to take the case before the European Court of Human Rights."
Of course, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut situation. It is estimated that about 2000 women in France wore niqab before the law. This may now have halved. I'm no fan of niqab, but I don't think that bearing down on people's beliefs like this is a terrible afront to freedom of conscience. Which is the point of the EDHR's protecting of life-stance beliefs. Far from creating a neutrality, the French form of secularism creates a public sphere in the image of humanistic rationalism. It is itself a belief-system and it, ironically, persecutes other belief systems whose actors cannot enter the public realm shorn of their life-shaping commitments.

Hitch, Blair, and the non-event debate on “religion”

A hat-tip to Doug in a comment in his post: Hitch, Blair, and the non-event debate on “religion”. The hats-off-in-respect is for this paragraph:

“Religion” is not only a slippery concept, but in this particular modern use is fundamentally also a secular one that assumes “religion” is one of a variety of activities or behaviours that humans can choose to engage in. That definition begs the question of the presumption of a neutral place to stand, it flattens to the point of absurdity the differences, say, between Islam and Buddhism, and it ignores the long-standing traditions of polemic against false “religion” in many major “religious” traditions

I've been trying to express all of that succinctly in a variety of fora for a good while, so I wanted to make sure I could find that bit again for future use. The only thing I'd want to do with it as of this moment is perhaps to expand a tad the 'neutral place to stand' bit to make explicit that the secular standpoints are themselves philosophical actors on a par with 'religion' in the public space.

France banning niqab: big mistake

I think that we really do have to learn to distinguish hard and soft secularism. The former is probably a threat to civilisation, the latter is messy but probably the best we can do. Here's why hard secularism is self-defeating.

"The worst about all this fuss is that we are completely off target. Women donning the full veil are not against modernity but represent rather its sophisticated product, just like westernised Buddhists. The veil, surprising as this may seem, is good news for modern values. Some smart young women keep a niqab in their bag but only wear it in Paris's Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud, in order to draw attention to the fact that they belong to the best Muslim set, that they really have got that Muslim chic, something like the equivalent behaviour in a gay district. This deep western social movement is no threat to modern values, but rather vindicates the latter under unexpected aesthetic guise: it is so individualistic and depoliticised that it is more of a real threat for Islamism and terrorist networks themselves."

-Raphael Liogier.
For the record: I'd rather they didn't wear niqab etc, -sI do find it disconcerting to lose a whole set of social signals (one reason I don't like phoning strangers about delicate matters). But then the reasons given don't really add up unless hoodies are banned and any costumes of a carnivalesque nature are also banned from public places...
France's attack on the veil is a huge blunder | Raphael Liogier | Comment is free | The Guardian:

Talking God in public debate

A heads-up for a useful report from Theos. It's Jonathan Chaplin's Talking God , The legitimacy of Religious Public Reasoning. TalkingGod1.pdf (application/pdf Object) It's particularly useful to those thinking about how secularity and religion co-exist in public space. I recognise useful stuff from the point of being a chaplain in HE and FE as well as the obvious relevance to political debate. At the launch event, the author said something really helpful which encapsulated something I'd been saying for years but never yet found a satisfying way to say.

The majority of commentators appear to think it is inappropriate for religious believers to appeal to their own faith commitments in public debate. The reality is that secular commentators have their own faith commitments. It is just as reasonable for public reasoning to be religious as 'secular'. The challenge for all parties is to ensure that their arguments enrich political debate.

Quite so.

God, America and the future

Not sure about the article but the first comment was a doozy: "News flash: secularism is not the wave of the future. It turned out to be a self-liquidating(*) fashion in one little corner of Eurasia for a few generations.
And I'm an atheist...
(*) because its participants don't reproduce"
!!!
There's one thing the US presidential contenders all have in common: God | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited:

Secularism, the State and Turkey

Turkey is a very interesting country to keep an eye on if you are interested in the relationship between religion and power and equality. I first got interested as a HE chaplain involved in discussing policy on religious diversity. One of the models of secularism we referred to was the "hard" secularism of Turkey (and in the other corner, the "soft" secularism of India). This International Herald Tribune article gives some background and some surprising information too.

The position in Turkey since Ataturk has been this:

"Political power is to remain in the hands of the secularist elite. Thus the 'secular republic' equals the 'republic of seculars' - not the republic of all citizens. Moreover, the secular elite holds itself responsible for preventing religion from flourishing; it is the proper role of the state, they believe, to suppress religious communities, restrict religious education and ban visible signs of observance such as the head scarf."

So you can understand that we were not very happy about that model of secularity for a university: the feeling was that some recognition of religious identity was fine and was arguably the best interpretation of the EU regs which were bringing about the rethink about the place of religion in university life.
The interesting thing is how religious parties have responded in Turkey.

The AK party's evolution is an interesting story. Islamic circles in Turkey have long hoped for a return to the glorious Ottoman and Islamic past in order to rid themselves of the ruling autocracy, which they regarded as the West's evil gift.
However, since the 1980s, thanks to their growing interaction with the rest of the world, they have come to realize something significant: The West is better than the Westernizers.
Noting that Western democracies give their citizens the very religious freedoms Turkey has denied its own, Muslims of the AK party have rerouted their search for freedom. Rather than trying to Islamize the state, they have decided to liberalize it. That's why in today's Turkey the AK party is the main proponent of the effort to join the European Union, democratization, free markets and individual liberties.

In effect this is what a lot of Muslims in the West have come to think too. The problem for Islamic views, as I understand it, is that democracy and inter-communal equality are not really foreseen and legislated for in the Qur'an and Sunna. What that means is that some Muslims are trying to think beyond the usual categories of Muslim control of the state or another religion controlling which are the main situations envisaged by the Islamic sources. Are there resources in the tradition where the Muslims are regarded as partners, on a par with others? And if so, what effect do they have?
The threat is secular fundamentalism - International Herald Tribune: