Diversity and Pluralism

The plurality of religious traditions and cultures has come to characterize every part of the world today. But what is pluralism? Here are four points to begin our thinking:

* First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.

* Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.

* Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.

* Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table -- with one’s commitments.

Diana L. Eck. Director of Harvard’s Pluralism Project

If an institution has had a history of chaplaincy it is usually of the Christian variety.

When religious pluralism begins to be recognised as a reality by the chaplaincies of institutions an initial response is a recognition that people of other faiths have an equal right to access the services of chaplains.

So what are the choices for the Christian chaplain?
1. to continue to try to meet the needs of all within the institution – in which case the chaplain soon finds that she has no rights to enter the sacred space of the person of another faith.
2. to continue to try to meet the needs of all within the institution, but refer the faith needs of others to appropriate persons outside the institution.
3. To invite suitable representatives of other faith traditions to establish a multifaith chaplaincy service where each minister to their own adherents.

These choices each represent a response to religious diversity.

They are not necessarily easily taken. Some Christians, having had the monopoly on chaplaincy within institutions for so long, are hesitant to give up their status and control to others, whose faith, from their perspective, is inferior or defective. Some object to a vocation of Christian origins being taken up by others outside, and, in the past, seemingly opposed, to Christian faith. Some religious people have long – very long – memories!

Then there is the difficulty of a chaplain, employed by a Christian denomination, having to deal with the denomination’s own values and priorities. The chaplain may be caught between the pluralistic values and inclusive culture of the institution and the narrower culture of the employing church. Her job description is not able to deal with these realities.

So the step of recognising the validity of other faiths can be a very big one for some. But accepting the reality of religious diversity is the beginning of a process of respecting those of other faiths for who they are.

A number of multifaith chaplaincies express this recognition of mutual respect within their mission statements. Within the paradigm of acceptance of religious diversity, such a multifaith chaplaincy works under a common rubric of mutual respect and agreed ethical behaviour.

This was the case at Flinders University with the formation of a multifaith chaplaincy service within the existing Religious Centre at the turn of the Millenium.

But note that none of the Eck’s points about religious pluralism are necessarily met because of this achievement:

1. while individuals recognise and respect each other, nothing need change for each chaplaincy – each may still “do her own thing”.
2. There is no dynamic within the structure to produce understanding, to go beyond mere “tolerance”.
3. There need be no “encounter of commitments”, building relationships across difference.
4. There need be no urgency to enter into dialogue.

The Religious Centre at Flinders University began to recognise religious diversity in the late 90’s. That itself was a big struggle. But the eventual acceptance of the right of religions of other faiths to be able to access the Religious Centre did not necessarily mean an end to hostility. “Walls” may still be built while accepting the reality of diversity. Ignoring others or other passive forms of exclusion may be as damaging as outright denial of the rights of others.

What we needed was to establish an environment that would encourage religious pluralism.

This has been signalled in the change of name from Religious Centre (diversity) to Oasis – faith, spirit, community.

Pluralism, says Eck, is “an achievement”.

It’s still early days.

The "Lone Ranger"?

What picture of the contemporary chaplain is conjured of a chaplain at work?

It may be one that corresponds to the picture of St Martin, moved by compassion, encountering the poor man: the chaplain working as an individual with another individual; the hospital chaplain at the bedside or the prison chaplain in the cell.

Or we may picture the chaplain among a group, perhaps leading a memorial service in response to some community tragedy; the Army chaplain leading prayers with the troops or the school chaplain speaking at a school assembly.

These are common images, but they are of the chaplain as a loner.

When St Martin left the army to follow his vocation, inspired by the vision of the incident with the beggar, he set up communities of compassion. These were places of sanctuary where anyone, no matter what station in life, no matter what religion or race, could find shelter and sustenance. They were communities of open hospitality.

It has been easier for the churches to promote an individualised chaplaincy, based on the beggar encounter image. Churches can understand a model that is a simple extension of the parish priest model; the chaplain-priest in geographically isolated settings. If the parish can’t come to church, the church goes out to the parish in the person of the priest – to those confined in hospitals or prisons or abroad in the armed services. It is the priestly model. The priest-chaplain conducts religious services, hears confessions and connects with those communities.

Such a model assumes a level of religious uniformity within those communities. Even in our religiously pluralistic situation today, the appointment of chaplains of other faiths in the armed services or police forces is dependent on the relative number of people of other faiths who may be served by such an appointment. This is perfectly reasonable if one assumes an individualistic model of chaplaincy in the tradition of the priest-chaplain ministering to his (sic) adherents. If there is a sizeable Catholic constituency, a Catholic chaplain is appointed to minister to Catholics; a reasonable number of Buddhists, a Buddhist chaplain to Buddhists etc. Draw a pie-diagram of religious adherence and appoint accordingly.

Such a model begs the question, is there a chaplain for the religiously non-committed or for the “secular humanists”? Is the role of chaplain irrelevant (not seen to be needed) among the non-religious? And what about those minorities who don’t make the cut?

I think that in the university context a community model of chaplaincy is worth exploring, one that is strategised beyond the individualised image of St Martin and the beggar to St Martin’s communities of hospitality.

Elements of Chaplaincy

One of the difficulties of defining our roles as chaplains today is that life is so unsettled. I have had great difficulty coming up with a neat job description that still leaves me open to respond to the needs of the day. The realities of life have their own life, and don't seem to recognise neat job descriptions.

In adopting an open stance to chaplaincy, one that can accommodate change, I have found it useful to recover generic elements of the chaplaincy tradition to provide a set of values and priorities, so that I place myself within the disciplines of that tradition.

I have written about this in a sermon for the commissioning of a chaplain ("Chaplaincy -then and now". http://www.flinders.edu.au/oasis/chaplains/geoff_papers/)

I believe that although chaplaincy has been a Christian tradition, these generic values and priorities may be adopted by those of other traditions who may want to adopt chaplaincy as a means of ministry. This seems to be particularly relevant in our situation, as the traditional avenues of pastoral care, through extended families and village life, assumed in Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and other societies, seem to be breaking down in the west. Chaplaincy may therefore be a useful vehicle for all traditions, a way of connecting and responding existentially to religious and spiritual needs as they present themselves.

This was, after all, how chaplaincy began. St Martin of Tours saw a beggar shivering in the cold. He responded out of compassion. What could he do? He cut his cloak in half and gave half to the beggar.

So the first element of chaplaincy is responsive.

Chaplaincy is not "doing a job"!

The encounter with the beggar had a profound effect on Martin. He had a dream that night in which he saw Jesus wrapped in the half of the cloak that he had given away. He was reminded of the Gospel message of St Matthew, Chapter 25 - “In as much as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me”.

The second element of chaplaincy is vocational conviction.
This means that there is congruence between the aspirations of the chaplain and the chaplain's religious experience.

I now remind myself that a non-religious person may also be a chaplain. But whatever the source or inspiration of compassion, there is a conviction that it is the primary motivation in each encounter and there is a commitment to practice it.

Vision and Faith

Thank you again for inviting me to the opening of Oasis. I enjoyed the experience.
I have just watched the DVD - it shows what a great venture Oasis is and so important to students. A comment on the DVD suggested the founders of the Religious Centre could not have imagined that it could have developed in the way it has. I can assure you that is right. That is what happens with vision.

In reply to this email and FaithI suggested that perhaps it was not that I had vision, this transition from Religious Centre to Oasis, of chaplaincy intent on serving the adherents of the appointing body to one of a community of chaplaincy colleagues intent on serving the whole university. Rather, for me it was more mundane, though nonetheless an outcome of hoping to be faithful to the two great Christian commandments, to love God and Neighbour, within the rubric of a vision of the Kingdom of God as revealed to us in the Christian Scriptures and exemplified in the life of Jesus. That all sounds rather grand, but I assure you it was just a day to day response to what was put in front of me.

When I first started at Flinders, there were three Christian societies who used the Religious Centre - the Flinders Christian Fellowship (under the auspices of the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students - AFES), the Student Christian Movement (SCM) and "Universe', a group associated with independent and pentecostal churches.
The Flinders Christian Fellowship (FCF) was by far the largest group with the highest profile.

One day I had a conversation with the FCF staffworker who said that his primary role was to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I agreed that we shared that aspiration, but only now, looking back, can I see how we had a fundamentally different view of faithfulness.

For him, it was primarily a matter of conservation. It meant maintaining the tradition he had inherited, the same organisational structure, and the same methodology - exposing students to a literalist reading of Scripture that justified an exclusivist ethos.

I remember several students who were deeply disturbed by this aproach. Their identity as Christians was threatened because they did not give the "correct" answer to the questions being posed by FCF leaders. Being "faithful" meant sticking to a very narrow way - and of course we know that Jesus said something about "narrow ways" - which would support their position! So, by FCF definition, they weren't "Christians".

Yet what I observed seemed to me a form of spiritual abuse, perpetrated by the leaders of this group, consciously or unconsciously, to maintain their power and control over the group. "The first thing I decide about chaplains", said their leader to me, "is whether a chaplain is a friend or an enemy". Well as far as I know, AFES has never befriended a University Chaplain, so I guess my evangelical credentials would never be sufficient to be welcomed onto his side of his line. I was not needed for them to play their game.

I had myself been a member of such a group when I was an undergraduate; and a supporter as a graduate.


Some years ago, I hosted a meeting of evangelical graduates in my home in support of the General Secretary of AFES based in Sydney, who would visit the various groups around Australia to give support to their leaders. He told of some disturbing research: if I remember rightly, that over 80% of graduates from AFES groups had left the church within 5 years. (In those days "leaving the church" equated with renouncing faith.)

As I look at AFES today, it seems that nothing has changed.

My attitude to FCF is one of sadness. These students are being let down badly because they are not being given the theological tools to deal positively with the realities of life. I can only pray that they will one day break out of the closed theological circle into which they are being indoctrinated. I hope that as I try to be faithful to those two simple commandments to love, that love is enough to communicate the Good news of Jesus. Two Presidents of FCF, having graduated, have later apologised to me for their behaviour. What a pity that they have to look back on this time of their life, thinking that they were being faithful, when they were actually being conditioned to prejudice and judgementalism.

Being faithful to one's tradition is of value when one sees that the tradition is a means to a much bigger end, rather than just an end in itself.

Within my tradition, I don't think that vision is being able to see the way ahead clearly. Faith is not about certainty. Faithfulness is believing that what is needed will be given as you take the step into the path that love demands.