If we were starting from scratch and looking at what we need, we wouldn’t say “what we need are community vicars embedded in all our units”.
So that’s our starting point — clean break from what is in order to actually think about what we need.
Some good questions raised above and actually part of why it’s been so difficult to get Humanist chaplains (although not in other countries).
I’ll reflect more and come back (much) later.
But, we currently have to jump through hoops set by the religious institutions , so obviously there’s no clear “like for like” if the framing is “theology degree” and “X years spent as a vicar” or whatever it is. And being a church youth worker / lay reader doesn’t meet these higher standards anyway.
Pastoral care etc is absolutely teachable and has nothing to do with being religious.
Teachers have a breadth of experience in pastoral management. And most schools have specifically trained pastoral care staff. Likewise, local authorities have many trained pastoral/welfare staff. There’s certainly other people out there who would be perfectly competent to do the same role we require from chaplains.
And we of course have the Humanists. A prime example of non-religious access to similar networks.
I don’t think I can agree with this idea. We already have a great padre team and I don’t think they need watering down. If you want non-religious support call them something else not chaplains or padres. I can’t imagine someone on the battlefield asking for a humanist… “quick get me a non-religious chaplain to tell me it was all for nothing and this is the end”
@Air_Suggestion I think you need to try to listen a bit more when people talk about what they need, rather than thinking you know what’s best for them.
Firstly, I cannot abide people saying “there are no atheists in foxholes”.
How insulting would it be if I laughed about how weak your own beliefs were, claiming that I thought you’d crumble and turn your back on your god the moment you found yourself in a foxhole.
It’s fundamentally insulting that you don’t afford my philosophical worldview the same respect you expect for your own.
It is demonstrably untrue that there are no atheists in fox holes.
I may whimper into my sleeve and cry out for loved ones, but the idea I’m suddenly going to be convinced of your religious worldview and the presence of a god (which one, I wonder?) demonstrates just how uninformed you are.
That brings us onto the need for people who actually understand what it’s like to not view the world through a religious lens where everything is governed according to some divine plan (*other religious views are available).
You are a clear example of why the status quo is completely unfit for what is now a majority of people who don’t conform to that view of existence.
We need support in those moments that is actually helpful and comes from a POV of genuine understanding.
Finally, most people getting shot at do so without a chaplain by their side anyway, so your argument is flawed on many levels.
Sorry for being a bit snippy, but your response went beyond a healthy and well-reasoned disagreement. Sometimes this stuff brings out some quality ignorance that I can’t help but find offensive.
Well, you did mock the stated theological belief of a very large if not majority % of the UK, depending on the survey data used and how you interpret it.
It’s odd that a thread about a news item celebrating inclusivity being discussed by members of an inclusive organisation would be the place you choose to do that.
Would you suggest to a Christian that their beliefs are so weak that they would (or Indeed should) be keen to turn to a Pujari?
You were ok until you suggested that more inclusive pastoral provision was a dilution and then…the rest of it.
You could have stuck with this and remained inoffensive:
But you could also take a look at the growth of “unaffiliated chaplaincy” and consider how the evolution of language can cause a term to adapt in its meaning; does the role of a chaplain or their belief (or not) in a deity hold greater importance for the responsibilities they hold?
Yes, it would be similar to calling a chiropractor a Doctor. Two equally valid professions but theres only one of them id like working on me when im having a heart attack.
To be more specific, you’re commenting on what works for YOU.
But it’s not all about you. The chaplaincy’s “all souls ministry” excuse for the status quo tells you everything you need to know about how they view the non-religious.
You are now firmly in the minority and no one is even looking to take from you, only to address historic privilege that has left the non-religious without bespoke support. If it’s important enough for you, it’s good enough for us too.
A previous DCAS literally referenced this in his suicide letter and still, achieving positive change is like “a treacle of resistance”, to quote him.
One is actual medicine with scientific backing and the other has a firm grounding in international quackery, claiming that back manipulation can replace vaccinations in protecting against things like malaria…
You humanists are a sensitive bunch… all I’m saying is if they want to be some sort of emotional support workers pick another title, padre and chaplain are taken.
Humanism is Christianity without Christ, and that’s from Nietzsche, an atheist who saw the movement as intellectually dishonest.
But hey you do you and I’ll do me… just use a different title
Respectfully, you would do well to reflect upon how your messages come across. I wouldn’t exactly describe them as appearing to meet Christian expectations and teachings.
