Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Australia

May 26, 2014

The school chaplain and the poisoned cake

Terrifying tales of damnation have no place in our secular schools. With the budget boost to the chaplaincy program will schools be teaching kids what to think instead of how to?

User login status :

Share

Last week I was in Brisbane promoting my latest bookFor God’s Sake: An atheist, Christian, Jew and Muslim debate religion. My co-author (the Christian) and I (the atheist) had been invited to discuss it by a church group. God bless them, the Christians have proved to be our most profitable customers.

The formal proceedings went very well, with lots of intelligent questions and quite a lot of humour. All very civilised. It was only during the drinks afterwards that I began to feel I was in a less friendly place than I had thought. A young woman approached me. She was very polite and looked perfectly sane, but the conversation took an odd turn. “If you knew a cake was poisoned,” she asked, “wouldn’t you feel it was your duty to stop people eating it?”

I knew what she was getting at — or thought I did anyway — so I cut straight to the chase. “But the cake is not poisoned.” I said, “And I can prove it, because I’ve been eating it for years and have come to no harm.”

“The cake is poisoned, you just haven’t noticed it yet.” She wasn’t having any of it, cake or argument. “It is our duty to convert you because otherwise you will burn in hell.”

“You are kidding, right?” I still had hopes that this was an attempt at humour.

“Not at all, sadly.” And she shook her head at me pityingly.

“So, you believe that however exemplary a life I might lead — I could be Aung San Suu Kyi or Nelson Mandela — if I don’t believe in your god, he will condemn me to burn for all eternity.”

She nodded her head this time. “If you don’t acknowledge him as your saviour, I am afraid so.”

One of the reasons I chose secular schooling for my children was to keep them away from just this kind of ghastly– and, to small children, terrifying — nonsense. Unfortunately, those who think the, ahem, cake is poisoned see it as their duty to get to my kids and your kids and save them from the pit. And you can see why: if you believe that the unbeliever or wrong-believer will burn in hell for all eternity, you might be prepared to bend or even break all sorts of rules to do so.

And that’s the rub for some school chaplains. The rules of the federal government’s chaplaincy program say that they may not proselytise or counsel students. Which, given it is called a chaplaincy program, was stretching credulity even when the funding for the program was expanded to include secular chaplains under the previous government. Now that the Abbott government has once again restricted the program to Christian chaplains only, while also generously increasing the program’s budget, even that tenuous credulity has snapped.

Indeed a Brisbane school chaplain is currently under investigation for declaring that he wanted to “disciple” students and parents at the public school at which he worked — and if that ain’t proselytising, I don’t know what is.

In fact, if chaplains aren’t permitted to either proselytise or counsel, just what are they supposed to do? I am sure there are lots of lovely, sane, kind and helpful chaplains who make themselves useful in underfunded schools, but that’s also part of the problem. That very underfunding also makes some schools very vulnerable. If they take a Christian chaplain they can access some of that quarter of a billion dollars Treasurer Joe Hockey has just made available, but how can they be sure they get a nice one and not a poisoned-cake one?

Worse, cuts in education funding generally, like the loss of the majority of the desperately needed Gonski funding, means that principals are now having to cut professional, peer-reviewed, evidence-based programs for vulnerable students and accept a (hopefully) well-meaning but essentially untrained amateur instead.

Nathalie Brown, an independent child behaviourist who works in Victorian schools, told me that three of the schools where she has been working have contacted her since Hockey’s budget to say they are seeking loopholes in the program so that she can continue to help sometimes severely troubled kids. She said: “The level of behavioural problems in some of the children I work with … will an untrained chaplain be able to help?”

It’s a good question, particularly as, according to the rules, they are not actually allowed to try.

Many of the chaplains themselves already realise this and there have been anecdotal reports that they are seeking the advice of professional counselors on how to help because they are painfully aware of the skills they lack. When the chaplaincy program was first introduced I believed that one of the reasons for doing it was that it was help on the cheap. Chaplains are usually part-time and doing the job for love rather than money. Given the substantial boost in funding to the program in a budget that is all about cuts, that no longer makes much sense.

Now I believe there is something much more sinister afoot. Conservatives in general are fond of control. They like law and order, mandatory sentencing, the army, border protection and cutting welfare to force people into work. They believe in obeying the rules and respecting authority.

The fundamental value at the core of secular schooling is a belief that there are as many ways to live a good life as there are people living lives. Secular schools are about encouraging diversity and helping difference to thrive. Ideally they should never moralise about sexual orientation, try to police the genders, or try to convert people to the one true anything. They are meant to teach children how to think, not what to think.

And therein lies the conflict. The chaplains, even the nice ones, are the foot soldiers of the people who believe the diverse liberal cake is poisoned and it is their god-given mission to stop our children from eating it.

*This article was originally published at Women’s Agenda

Jane Caro —

Jane Caro

Novelist, author and social commentator

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Jane Caro

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

33 comments

Leave a comment

33 thoughts on “The school chaplain and the poisoned cake

  1. Don

    firstly the metaphor used is not apt. it should be somewhat reversed.

    we, the believing Christians (lump us all together for simplicity) HAVE a cake, or let’s now more aptly say, a medicine, that if you accept that it will cure your disease and therefore take it and it does cure your disease, or vice versa, and you are still left with the disease/illness you will continue to suffer, which is, yes, lack of salvation and eternal life, and Scripture would fairly emphactically suggest that means, yes, the opposite of eternal life is eternal damnation. however it does also say that Jesus will return to judge (all) the living and the dead, and you could rely on that judgement.

    of course if you are religiously aethiest, this shouldn’t matter a damn (pun intended :-), but if you are, I suggest that you goo and look at the sky at night and wonder how it all came into such a perfect being and vision, and where ‘matter’ itself comes from, and follow this up with looking around this world, and its tens of thousands (and far more) of such literally amazing creatures, and wonder how all of those came into being, and indeed, how organic matter such as every creature, and plant and flower, incl us, was ever formed from the INorganic matter of the supposed (but discredited) ‘big bang. and, finally, it is one thing to say that the giraffes with the longest necks are the ones that survive (and black moths, and not white moths, survive when industrial pollution turned the buildings, etc, black): it is quite another to say whales evolved from wolves, as some do. you really really think that butterflies and flowers, wolves and whales, all derived from the same single source? in which case, who is more delusional, you or me?

  2. Don

    @mjpc. @cml. et al.
    you don’t have to be a “non-evangelising Christian’ or non-Christian, to believe that this program is misguided and inappropriate in its implementation.

    as an evangelizing Pentecostal Christian, and having had some peripheral involvement with this program, I firmly believe that the way it is implemented is quite inappropriate and illogical.

    the need for a such a program is definitely there, and certainly helps children with behavioural & social problems which of course mainly stem from family problems

    unlike what some believe (@scott), there is much much bigger problem/need tan just someone to listen to them, although thatis part of solution.

    but one inherent issue is how you (they) deal practically and helpfully with issues of child abuse/violence, sexual abuse, inadequate care etc that they are confronted with on a daily basis?

    but WHY this entire program should be run through SU and use only practising Christians of some sort is beyond me. (btw I believe, contrary to what has been posted, that some modicum training is required, and a Blue Card of course).

    it seems to be that, by definition, using practising Christians is actually detrimental to the program’s outcomes. one, they come with have an inherent agenda and a belief in ‘good works’, but they are – quite rightly -prohibited from doing any actual evangelism, yet because of the Christian requirement, some or many of the people concerned will be quite unlearned and unwise in their understanding of Scripture and indeed evangelism, and indeed of children, families, and society.

    why this this program would not be open to ANY folks who have a gift and a caring for this need (any of whom could be Christian, but not as a requirement) is beyond me. and why individual schools couldn’t just advertise locally and employ the best person as they saw fit. (this would also enable easier job sharing too.)

Leave a comment