Should Christians Support School Chaplaincy?

A couple of weeks ago, Tony Abbott did his best to explain the purpose of military action in Iraq and Syria. In doing so, he argued the case for plural societies governed by secular states.

Much of the conflict arising in the Middle East states across the globe has sprung up as a result of complex geopolitical problems involving a variety of ethnic, religious and cultural groups pushed into somewhat arbitrary national borders not of their own making.

Mr Abbott’s solution to these problems is to maintain those existing borders, while developing democratic secular states, within those borders, that can be all things to all people. The fundamental principle, as he explains, is the separation of religion and governance:

I would like to see, over time, an understanding by all people and cultures, and religions, that there should be separation of church and state, that there is a sense of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

It’s an interesting observation (that the problems of the Middle East are partly, if not entirely, attributable to ethnic or religious nationalism) given that one of the nations that we are banding with to rid the Middle East of Islamic State has reportedly beheaded individuals for the crime of apostasy.¹

The separation of church and state is, of course, a concept that has been widely accepted in Western cultures for some time. However, it is not something that has found full expression in all Western nations, and certainly not in Australia.

Indeed, in Australia we have a massive school chaplaincy program, funded by the Commonwealth² and run by a large Christian organisation that has a strong focus on mission.

What is interesting about Mr Abbott’s comments is that he directly quotes Jesus as the basis for his claim that church and state should be separate. In doing so, he frames this separation as very much a Christian concept. Ironic, then, that Mr Abbott’s government (i.e. the state) is comfortable funding a Christian organisation (i.e. the church) to deliver what is undeniably a religious program. The difficulty here is this: if Jesus taught the importance of separating church and state, then shouldn’t Christians avoid anything that compromises that important separation? And shouldn’t the state avoid programs that promote or favour Christianity over other religions or, indeed, over other world-views in general?

Let’s consider the words of the Man himself. The quote comes from a story told in three of the accounts of Jesus: the books (or “Gospels”) of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Although the common saying (“render unto Caesar”) has continued on in the old King’s English, newer bible translations give us the words in modern day English. Here is the version in Matthew:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words, and they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think: is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”

They said, “Caesar's.”

Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

Understanding this story requires us to first understand two things: firstly, the reality of the plural society that the Jews of that time found themselves in and, secondly, the enormous shift that Jesus’s life and teachings were going to bring about to their religious paradigm.

The nation of Israel was a monotheistic, monocultural nation. They were a people with a common ancestry (i.e. ethnicity) who wished for national sovereignty under their God. They wanted an earthly monotheistic nation. However, for some time they had found themselves under the authority of other empires: the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, the Greeks and, in the time of Jesus, the Romans. The Romans were the evil empire, asserting an authority over the Israelites to which they had no right. This, then, was the trap that the Pharisees had set for Jesus: to try to trick him into either challenging the authority of Caesar (and so landing himself in trouble with the Romans) or endorsing the rule of the Roman Empire (and so discrediting himself to the Jews). In response, Jesus turns their entire worldview on its head, by explaining that one can both honour God and pay one’s dues to the authorities. In effect, he said that worship of God was not dependent on a monotheistic Israelite nation, but on a person’s spirituality. One could be both a citizen of Rome as well as a worshipper of God.

But the paradigm shift brought about by Jesus was far more substantial than a social studies class for his fellow Jews. His establishment of a new religion³, upon the foundations of Judaism, completely revolutionised the way many cultures understood religion. The shift was this: Jews were a monotheistic people group; being a Jew and following the Jewish God were one and the same. Conversely, being a gentile (i.e. a non-Jew) equated to being an enemy of the Jewish God. The message of the Gospel brought about by Jesus was that people of any nation could call on him as their saviour and lord. Being born a Jew (by birth or immigration) does not equate to a relationship with God, and being a gentile does not preclude one from a relationship with God. This effectively turned religion from national citizenship to personal spirituality. It is a religion that transcends borders.

This concept is found widely in the teachings of Jesus. He never once called on the Israelites to rise up against their Roman overlords. In fact, he rebuked those who proposed it. Instead, he spoke frequently of the Kingdom of God (see, particularly Matthew’s Gospel) as a distinct, spiritual kingdom. The citizenry of that kingdom is constituted of the millions of believers across the world and across generations.

This is the foundation for the ability to separate church and state: that one can believe in Jesus but still maintain one’s place in the world, that one can both be a citizen of any earthly nation and be part of God’s kingdom.

And so we can conclude that, according to the teachings of Jesus, Christians have no place in pushing for a Christian (or “Christianist”) government. Christians ought not to bring about Christian empires, because the true Kingdom of God transcends our earthly borders and governance structures. Indeed, that is the beauty of the Gospel (a word which simply means “good news”): that it is available to anybody, regardless of your place in the world.

This is not to say that Christians cannot exert their democratic right to influence public policy in line with their views (as is the right of any individual or group in a plural, democratic society). But this understanding of the teachings of Jesus does draw a line between Church and State, such that the Church should not be seeking the introduction of “Christian” laws or public programs.

And this is all a very long-winded way of coming to the topic of school chaplaincy programs. Given the leader of our state, Prime Minister Tony Abbot, and the head of the church, Jesus of Nazareth, appear to agree on the importance of dividing church and state, how is it that we have a well-funded public program that is exclusively run by a Christian organisation? It seems to defy both the state’s and the church’s stated objective to keep each other at arms length.

This is a very important question, because many Christians support the chaplaincy program without ever questioning whether it even fits within a system of ethics consistent with Jesus’s own teachings.

Let’s take a look at the two most common defences that Christians make for the chaplaincy program.

The first is that it is worthwhile because it is beneficial to students; there are many social needs in schools and chaplains help to meet those needs. Part of this makes perfect sense. There is much social need in schools. The question is whether chaplains are best placed to meet those needs. At schools we have children who are being abused or neglected at home, or dealing with parents who are in violent relationships, or are in financial stress or are misusing drugs and alcohol. We have children who are being bullied or are dealing with various forms of depression and anxiety. We have students who are struggling with the stress of expectations and anxiety about the future. We have children who feel out of place in large, institutional learning environments. We have situations where students self-harm or attempt suicide. We have students who sometimes have to deal with friends getting sick and dying, or taking their own lives. These are all very real, serious problems. They require real, serious attention. Are chaplains really best placed to meet these needs?

In some cases, maybe. In small schools, where chaplains have good relationships with parents and administrators, and they’re known in the community, and well connected to other social services. Or in circumstances where chaplains are actually well trained in counselling or mental health treatment. But, by the same token, there are plenty of other professionals out there who would be of great use in a school, who would meet the needs of students, but who are excluded because they either don’t fit Scripture Union’s criteria or they can’t accept being a “chaplain”, with all of the religious baggage that it carries.

This is why this first defence fails. Yes, many chaplains bring a lot of benefit to students. But so could other organisations and individuals who are excluded. Under the former Labor Government, the program was relaxed to allow schools greater discretion as to who provided these kinds of services in their schools. Under the current Coalition Government, that flexibility has been removed so that Scripture Union is the exclusive provider.

The second defence is that school chaplaincy is not actually a “Christian” program. After all, the funding agreement expressly prohibits chaplains from proselytising (“bible bashing”) students. This is, to be blunt, a hopeless defence. In the first place, if Christian mission is not a part of the program, then why do so many Christians (or Christianists) fight and tooth and nail to keep it? On the flipside, if Christians feel like it is a sly way to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ in schools, then there is an obvious ethical issue around dishonesty and accepting government money on a somewhat questionable basis.

What then, is the benefit that Christians feel they have in having Christian chaplains in schools? There is an argument to be made that Christians are called to be active in the community, displaying to the world a love that mirrors the love that Jesus has shown to us. But, surely this would find better expression in volunteer and charity work, than in positions paid for out of the public purse, which many in our communities oppose. Surely, giving their time freely, even sacrificially, rather than for a wage, would be a better mirror of the love that Jesus showed.

There is a final point to be made on the importance of the separation of church and state. It is that the church should not lean on the state for assistance for one central reason: it should rely exclusively on God. God does not need favours from humankind, and his kingdom is not reliant on the blessing or assistance of earthly kingdoms. Christians ought to trust entirely in God for their sustenance of the church and the spread of the Gospel.

So, should Christians support school publicly funded chaplaincy?

____
¹ Apostasy is the "crime" of forsaking the national religion, in this case Islam.
² Due to a successful challenge to the Constitutional validity of this funding, the money will soon be passed through the states.
³ Christian readers may not appreciate the idea of Christianity as a new religion, given that Christianity holds itself as a continuation of the story of the Old Testament. But, in many respects, Christianity is a new religion, in that Jesus completely revolutionised dominant religious tenets of Judaism.