Australian school chaplain proposal stokes church-state row

Australian school chaplain proposal stokes church-state row

-12/11/06

By Douglas Hynd

A proposal for Australian government funding of school chaplains has set off an extended debate on the boundaries of church state relationships.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, recently announced the Australian Governmentís National School Chaplaincy Programme, which will provide up to 20,000 Australian dollars a year directly to government and non-government schools that want to provide chaplaincy services for their school community. The programme is to assist schools in providing greater pastoral care and supporting the spiritual wellbeing of their students.

The Prime Minister was of the view that school chaplains are already making valuable contributions to the personal, spiritual and emotional wellbeing of many school communities nationally. The Australian Government will invest up to 30 million dollars annually for three years to make these services available to all schools. School communities will be expected to contribute funding and support for chaplaincy programs at their school.

According to his announcement: “Each local school community will decide if they want to participate in this voluntary programme. The choice of chaplaincy services, including the religious affiliation and denomination, is entirely a decision for the school community, including teachers and parents.”

Says the PM: “Schools that apply will need to demonstrate evidence of extensive consultation with and support from their broader school community. Schools that already have chaplains will also be able to apply for support. Individual chaplains for whom funding is provided will need to be approved by the Government.”

“Chaplains will be expected to provide pastoral care, general religious and personal advice and comfort and support to all students and staff, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

“A chaplain might support school students and the wider school community in a range of ways, such as assisting students in exploring their spirituality; providing guidance on religious, values and ethical matters; helping school counsellors and staff in offering welfare services and support in cases of bereavement, family breakdown or other crisis and loss situations.”

Concluded Howard: “Some states have limited support for chaplaincy programmes. This new Commonwealth funding will be in addition to state programs. It is to be hoped that none of the states committed to funding chaplaincy services will withdraw or reduce their funding because of todayís announcement. Further, I encourage all states and territories to fully match this Commonwealth Government commitment and to ensure chaplaincy services are not denied to those government schools that want them.”

The subsequent debate in the media has focussed on the concerns of many Australians who see this proposal as yet another unwarranted insertion of ‘religion’ into what should be a secular public space. Much of the anger evident in critique from this perspective seems to be grounded in an assumption that the only form of religious engagement that is possible is one that takes a ‘Christendom’ form of control and coercion.

The real issue at stake is the insertion of government veto into the heart of the operation of Christian churches and any other faith community that may be interested in taking up this offer. The sting in the tail of the Prime Minister’s proposal to provide funding for chaplaincies is that an effective veto power over appointment will be held by the Government. As the press release states Individual chaplains for whom funding is provided will need to be approved by the Government.

Government approval of individual chaplains will require bureaucratic vetting and ministerial decision. The criteria on which approval will be given have not yet been drawn up but the potential for extensive political interference is very real.

The integrity of any faith community lies in its authority to call and approve its leaders and teachers. Churches have had to fight long and hard to assert their independence from state power in the West, that is what the arguments about the separation of Church and State have all been about.

The chaplaincy programme as announced will cross the line between Church and State that has been drawn with much pain and at substantial cost by faithful Christians throughout the centuries.

While there is a good argument for the churches to refuse to participate in efforts to obtain this funding and boycott the programme, all the signs from the Anglican churches are of eagerness to participate. The Roman Catholic church has so far been more cautious and noted some reservations about the proposal.

The rush to accept the money and position of influence seems to ignore the reality that churches elsewhere in Asia for example are still having to fight government attempts to control their life. Governments ruling on the suitability of people to act in any role on behalf of a faith community is a thoroughly bad idea, critics say. The exercise of this form of control over the suitability of religious figures for public roles has normally been engaged in by governments of totalitarian tendencies.

If chaplaincy and pastoral care placements in schools are sought by the local community, then churches should raise the money themselves and work with the local community to that end, opponents of the current plan say. That way the Christian community will retain the integrity of its identity and mission as a community that is not subservient to governments of whatever political persuasion.

Action with the community at a local level will avoid the stigma that will be associated with receiving funding under this programme, a stigma that will hinder the engagement and witness of the Church in substantial sections of the Australian community, dissenting Christian say. They argue it will also build stronger connections with the community and be a more faithful witness to the way of Jesus than accepting government funding under conditions that make the Church subservient to the Government.

Doug Hynd is a public servant and a sessional lecturer at St Mark’s National Theological Centre, Canberra. He is a member of the Anabaptist Association of Australia and New Zealand (AAANZ).

Australian school chaplain proposal stokes church-state row

-12/11/06

By Douglas Hynd

A proposal for Australian government funding of school chaplains has set off an extended debate on the boundaries of church state relationships.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, recently announced the Australian Governmentís National School Chaplaincy Programme, which will provide up to 20,000 Australian dollars a year directly to government and non-government schools that want to provide chaplaincy services for their school community. The programme is to assist schools in providing greater pastoral care and supporting the spiritual wellbeing of their students.

The Prime Minister was of the view that school chaplains are already making valuable contributions to the personal, spiritual and emotional wellbeing of many school communities nationally. The Australian Government will invest up to 30 million dollars annually for three years to make these services available to all schools. School communities will be expected to contribute funding and support for chaplaincy programs at their school.

According to his announcement: “Each local school community will decide if they want to participate in this voluntary programme. The choice of chaplaincy services, including the religious affiliation and denomination, is entirely a decision for the school community, including teachers and parents.”

Says the PM: “Schools that apply will need to demonstrate evidence of extensive consultation with and support from their broader school community. Schools that already have chaplains will also be able to apply for support. Individual chaplains for whom funding is provided will need to be approved by the Government.”

“Chaplains will be expected to provide pastoral care, general religious and personal advice and comfort and support to all students and staff, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

“A chaplain might support school students and the wider school community in a range of ways, such as assisting students in exploring their spirituality; providing guidance on religious, values and ethical matters; helping school counsellors and staff in offering welfare services and support in cases of bereavement, family breakdown or other crisis and loss situations.”

Concluded Howard: “Some states have limited support for chaplaincy programmes. This new Commonwealth funding will be in addition to state programs. It is to be hoped that none of the states committed to funding chaplaincy services will withdraw or reduce their funding because of todayís announcement. Further, I encourage all states and territories to fully match this Commonwealth Government commitment and to ensure chaplaincy services are not denied to those government schools that want them.”

The subsequent debate in the media has focussed on the concerns of many Australians who see this proposal as yet another unwarranted insertion of ‘religion’ into what should be a secular public space. Much of the anger evident in critique from this perspective seems to be grounded in an assumption that the only form of religious engagement that is possible is one that takes a ‘Christendom’ form of control and coercion.

The real issue at stake is the insertion of government veto into the heart of the operation of Christian churches and any other faith community that may be interested in taking up this offer. The sting in the tail of the Prime Minister’s proposal to provide funding for chaplaincies is that an effective veto power over appointment will be held by the Government. As the press release states Individual chaplains for whom funding is provided will need to be approved by the Government.

Government approval of individual chaplains will require bureaucratic vetting and ministerial decision. The criteria on which approval will be given have not yet been drawn up but the potential for extensive political interference is very real.

The integrity of any faith community lies in its authority to call and approve its leaders and teachers. Churches have had to fight long and hard to assert their independence from state power in the West, that is what the arguments about the separation of Church and State have all been about.

The chaplaincy programme as announced will cross the line between Church and State that has been drawn with much pain and at substantial cost by faithful Christians throughout the centuries.

While there is a good argument for the churches to refuse to participate in efforts to obtain this funding and boycott the programme, all the signs from the Anglican churches are of eagerness to participate. The Roman Catholic church has so far been more cautious and noted some reservations about the proposal.

The rush to accept the money and position of influence seems to ignore the reality that churches elsewhere in Asia for example are still having to fight government attempts to control their life. Governments ruling on the suitability of people to act in any role on behalf of a faith community is a thoroughly bad idea, critics say. The exercise of this form of control over the suitability of religious figures for public roles has normally been engaged in by governments of totalitarian tendencies.

If chaplaincy and pastoral care placements in schools are sought by the local community, then churches should raise the money themselves and work with the local community to that end, opponents of the current plan say. That way the Christian community will retain the integrity of its identity and mission as a community that is not subservient to governments of whatever political persuasion.

Action with the community at a local level will avoid the stigma that will be associated with receiving funding under this programme, a stigma that will hinder the engagement and witness of the Church in substantial sections of the Australian community, dissenting Christian say. They argue it will also build stronger connections with the community and be a more faithful witness to the way of Jesus than accepting government funding under conditions that make the Church subservient to the Government.

Doug Hynd is a public servant and a sessional lecturer at St Mark’s National Theological Centre, Canberra. He is a member of the Anabaptist Association of Australia and New Zealand (AAANZ).