An interesting foot-note to this topic. While browsing the other day I came across the fact that Ian Harper is a board member of Access Ministries. It was from this site:

http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au

As far as I can make out the IPA is either the key outfit behind OLO or certainly a principal supporter of OLO.

The plot thickens!

Lance, this topic is clearly important to you however you have fallen into the same bear trap that you are pointing out.
Face facts religious ministers want converts that the only reason they are doing it. If they didn't then they would support having trained councillors instead of religious people, that anyone could access. Do you have children? would you feel comfortable knowing the only councillor they had access to at school was a wiccan priestess?
you are right about One thing religious people do have their own jargon which can be miss understood. What you're wrong about is who it's misunderstood by.

Kenny,
Any Chaplin who is serving in the Public School system merely to make converts as you claim is not doing his duty to society. Society functions on social values and not on religious dogma.

If you want to see a criminal rehabilitated you do not give him religious dogma of a denomination, you demonstrate the values of living peacfully in society.

Lance,
The debate is about an unbalanced scenario, so the debate will reflect that.

The scenario is unbalanced in several ways -
* the virtual monopoly one provider has for two services into schools.
* the skewed pronouncements by that provider
* the distress felt by those who seek other services
* the distress felt by those who seek other providers.

To claim the language used negates the pronouncements by the service provider seeks to down-play the complaints. The language is valid in seeking a level playing field.

Throwing in some skewed bald assertions such as 'messianic atheists' or 'atheism is politically naked' only skews the debate that you very nearly channel and focus when you mention secularism they way you do.

Words are important, but even more so definitions of words.

It is said that he who controls the definitions controls the debate.

With a compliant media, atheists feel comfortable they are able to control the debate. However, slogans will only get them so far.

Thanks, Lance, for raising this important subject. There is not enough real debate going around. Although this website is doing its part to try and address this.

"...it serves none of us well to lift an evocative phrase from a very specific faith context, and broadcast it in the public domain, without the most careful of research."

It would be hard to find a more open admission from a theist that they are, in fact, talking dangerous nonsense among themselves. What does it remind me of? Oh, yes, the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Jon J,
What is your life experience with children? What positive model are you?

The fact that he was once a child himself and has grown to be man with some life experience surely must have some influence on his psyche.

David

Philo,

I have two children who are happy, healthy, reasonably successful and fairly bright. Both have chosen to be atheists, as far as I can tell through their own volition. And you?

I agree with Lawton's central point here. The one paragraph that jumps off the page in terms of it's foundational centrality to combating 21st century anti religious nonsense that so commonly abounds in our major media outlets, is this one. It is worth repeating:

"The phrase that’s really had the fourth estate agog in the past decade is ‘separation of church and state’. It’s become as irresistible to crusading social commentators as a solitary bush dunny to a swarm of blowflies. It’s so exquisitely utilitarian to the pursuit of blessedly God-free public discourse. Pertinent facts include that no such phrase appears in the Australian Constitution, which in fact protects religious expression. The Constitution enshrines a “principle of state neutrality” as distinct from “separation of church and state”. And that it’s U.S. origins have to do with keeping the government and any religious group organically distinct from each other, particularly in contrast with the British model of an ‘established’ church. None of this is any challenge at all, however, to members of today’s commentariat for whom the only history that isn’t all ‘crap’ anyway is the convenient kind".

Well said.

Thanks for ALL the comments. I'd have been on here responding sooner, but for some server issues preventing me from registering.

What I detect in several comments is some of the very conspiracy theorising I'm wanting to caution against. It's not helpful to make assumptions from outside a community about what goes on within it, much less about what the people within it are thinking. You may be very mistaken, and so a bit of humility helps us all. All of us have a set of values and goals that matter to us, but we don't deal with every social context the same way and we don't expect the same outcome. Life is far too complex for that. We adapt what we do and say according to what's appropriate or helpful, and we do it almost constantly, daily in the great variety of relationships we have.

So, whilst encouraging people towards personal faith commitment is a very high value for Christians, we don't spend the bulk of our time doing it, and in some social contexts we simply don't do it at all. In the case of anything done in state schools in the name of the church(es) the assumption is that we are guests on someone else's turf, on a narrowly defined basis. Essentially we are there to serve schools, students and indirectly families, by presenting and living Christian values. Parents are free to accept or decline.

Not imputing sinister motives to people we don't know is a sound social principle in all sorts of contexts.

LanceL, Monday, 30 May 2011 9:16:35 PM

Your whole preceding post is just special pleading for special conditions and special treatment.

'You may be very mistaken' is a common charge, even between or amongst christians, and in this case it may apply to your own approach to this.

Many people want to interact straight-forwardly - without the lens, hoops, or other metaphors for religious hurdles - so do not want the fog of religious terminology or dialogue that you plead special consideration for.

McReal,
Your starting point is suspicion ... suspicion about what Christians are up to, and suspicion about what we say. Why? And what would change that demeanour?

LanceL.
How dare you skew and extend my point - about YOUR communication style - to me being suspicious of all Christians.

How dare you comment on my "demeanour" when I make a point about how you are pleading for special consideration. Play the ball not the man.

It would be appropriate for you to address the points I made in the first post (Monday, 30 May 2011 2:14:51 PM) about the primary debate being about an unbalanced scenario.

LanceL, your arrogance is breath-taking.

How about all you cynics switch channels for a moment and recognise that what Lance is saying about incompetent debate is also true of other areas -esp in the Age and the ABC . Take Qanda. If Tony Jones and ABC were serious about science and practice change in conservation they would have a range of scientists and practical people dominating the debate - but they always have polys.
Take the Age yesterday -its a very quick and predictable read ( mostly)for me so I no longer buy it . Dick smith outlines a genuine concern about population but he ,like the greens, provides no more than a good intention: No people and role respecting means for moving into a better future so that its almost impossible for me to take him seriously. We must put our feet firmly on the ground if we are going to move forward.http://politicaceleste.blogspot.com

But Lance, you have admitted you hold an irrational belief, and you worship a deity who is documented as using lying and deception as a tool for his own ends:

"And the ... Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth and do so. Now therefore, behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these, thy prophets." (1 Kings 22:20-23)

So why should we believe anything you tell us?

Lance, "It's not helpful to make assumptions from outside a community about what goes on within it, much less about what the people within it are thinking."

Some of us have been within the community and note the great disparity between the way many chaplaincy and RE supporters portray the issue and the way it was portrayed and dealt with when we were part of that community.

Jane Douglas's excellent article spells that more clearly than I've been able to put it http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12102

I've also posted links to SU Qld material which spells out quite clearly their goals.

I'm a former chaplaincy sponsor who knew a number of people working as chaplains and RE teachers quite well. It was very clear to all involved that the goal was evangelising children, it was known that they needed to be circumspect, no sinners prayer in the classroom but promotion of christain club's, youth camps, youth group's, christain concerts etc all worked to get access to the kid's outside the boundaries of the school environment.

There was never any suggestion that the primary purpose of the churches involvement in RE and chaplaincy was anything other than evangelising of children (and then their families).

It is true that christain's don't spend all their time evangelising people, it's true that in some social situations most manage to restrain themselves, it's probably true that many chaplains and RE teachers manage to avoid outright pleading to convert within the school's but it's not true that evangelism is not the primary purpose of much of the churches involvement in that area.

Someone once said, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", that seems to have been lost on supporters of christain chaplaincy and RE programs in state schools.

R0bert

The problem here seems to be that McReal and some others, is painting all chaplains with the same brush and this is patently not the way things are. There are only some who abuse the system, but the majority are doing their best to be honest. It was a mistake in the first place to call the position "chaplains", they should have been called "Councillors". That way, the predominance of religious people may not have occurred.

If the article had been written by someone outside the church (which it might well have been), the rabid anti Christians would have accepted it at its face value. In my experience, and I have been on both sides, most churches, even the most fervent evangelicals, spend most of their time and efforts doing good works and lead by example. Their evangelizing is generally only a small part of their operations. The outrageous TV evangelist types might get most of the public attention, but they are really in the minority, at least here in Oz. We shouldn't judge the wider church by the way groups such as Hillsong perform.

David

VK3AUU, "Their evangelizing is generally only a small part of their operations."

I draw your attention to material I've posted from the Scripture Union Qld web site
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12045#207007
I'll repeat
"Welcome to SU QLD... We're the largest employer of school chaplains in Australia. What makes us tick is that we want to bring hope to a young generation. And we do this through our school chaplaincy service, camps, holiday programs and kids-at-risk programs. Please stick around to find out if we can help you or your family in any way.""
Tim Mander - CEO, SU QLD" - http://www.suqld.org.au/home/

"so that they may

come to personal faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,

grow in Christian maturity and

become both committed church members and servants of a world in need." - http://www.suqld.org.au/about/index.php

It's quite clear that "the largest employer of school chaplains in Australia" believes that evangelizing is generally the reason for what they do. The material referenced by others from Access suggests that they hold a similar view.

What do you base your claim on?

R0bert

There has been balanced debate overall it is only becoming aggressive in some aspects because the Christian Lobby is fearful of not getting their way. The fact is, it is not all about them.

The message is really very simple and fair. Leave RI for the Church alone, leave public schools to provide education including some aspects of comparative religion.

Schools are not recruitment grounds and it is all very well to argue proselytising is not the main agenda but it is very naive. Like pink batts, the Chaplaincy program is not well audited or monitored leaving the way open for unqualified counsellors to take advantage of this program. While it is not the end of the world, as many have already said sometimes RI can work against any proselytising agenda and there are worse things, however I can think of many better and worthwhile services that taxation revenue could be utilised.

There is no offence to be taken here. Leave personal belief systems in the home and respect the right of parents to be able to make choices about their children's values and religious affiliations. If they want Church based counselling or RI services they are very accessible in most Australian communities.

Robert, I take your point. As far as the SU is concerned, it punches above its weight as far as school chaplaincy is concerned, but the general run of the mill churches are likely to more honest in their following of the guidelines. I get the impression that most kids these days, see through a lot of the BS promulgated by the SU by the time they have grown through adolescence. Most of them use the camps as a means of meeting with the opposite sex and the proselytizing is seen as a bit of a bore.

If you go back a couple of generations to the people who the Jesuits attempted to brain wash in the Catholic schools, most won't have a bar of the Catholic church any longer, so I wouldn't be too concerned about the ultimate outcome of the Chaplaincy program. In the main, it probably fills its intended role of providing counciling (sic) where it is needed. Kids are smarter than grown ups think.

David

David I agree that the effectivness is not impressive but there are vulnerable kid's who do get sucked into this stuff. Kid's who should be getting real help who are instead being told that "The answer is Jesus". Most kid's are smart enough to see through it but enough get sucked in that it is legitimate concern. The churches would not be doing this stuff if they didn't think it worked.

For some it's relatively harmless, for other's not so harmless. Either way schools should not be allowed to be used as a recruiting grounds and any external groups using shools for that purpose should be on an out of hours opt-in basis (Auskick being one that comes to mind which operates that way).

R0bert

Just briefly - thanks everyone for the continuing discussion. I'm at work (no, not evangelising ... ) and flat out ATM. Will get back to this later.

"McReal, and some others, is painting all chaplains with the same brush and this is patently not the way things are."
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 8:34:31 AM

David, I am not painting all chaplains with the same brush, I am complaining at the commentary in the context that the chaplaincy program is a virtual monopoly, and that we are now being told we need to use and respect the christian language used to prop up that monopoly AND to expand its influence.

Rather like a group of immigrants from a non-English speaking country coming into the community and expecting the community to learn & speak their foreign language, and then criticising us for not doing so.

""It was a mistake in the first place to call the position "chaplains", they should have been called "Councillors". That way, the predominance of religious people may not have occurred.""

A requirement for the position is a religious affiliation and religious qualifications, not counselling qualifications. Changing the name of the position does not change the intent.

It is unreasonable to expect secular public schools to skew themselves into special language and special practices.

"A requirement for the position is a religious affiliation and religious qualifications, not counselling qualifications. Changing the name of the position does not change the intent.

It is unreasonable to expect secular public schools to skew themselves into special language and special practices."

You won't get a lot of disagreement from me on those two points. The whole idea was not well thought out in the first place.

David

The other worrying part of all this is that the kids who get to see the "counsellor" need counselling for a reason. Chances are they will be the least robust, emotionally speaking, in their peer group.

What a temptation to put in the path of a "counsellor" who just happens to belong to a self-defined group of evangelizing Christians.

It isn't fair on either of them.

"You won't get a lot of disagreement from me on those two points. The whole idea was not well thought out in the first place."

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 4:53:36 PM

Cheers, I wasn't ranting at you, just in general.

OK, finally a chance to get back to this discussion ...

I think the first thing I'd like to highlight is that whilst this debate - including my own contribution to it - has application throughout Australia, the primary locus here is Victoria. That's significant because the bulk of the present media attention is on the work of Access Ministries, and AM is a Victorian organisation only. It's a body that exists to provide and resource Christian RE & chaplaincy in state schools - only in Victoria. Secondary school chaplaincy is a more recent development, though it does predate the Howard government chaplaincy program. But primary school RE is a program with a very long history established and regulated by state legislation, and AM operates strictly within state government guidelines. I highlight this because that's a very different scenario from other states. Organisations like SU Qld don't work with such guidelines because the guidelines don't exist like in Victoria.

So .. I can't speak for what's possible in Qld, but I can say that proselytising is forbidden under the legislation that governs RE in Victoria. (The same is true, incidentally, of any chaplaincy funded by the Federal government - so that of course is nation wide.)

I'll say more in a separate post....

(continuing ...) The second thing I'd say is that I am a Christian minister. I mention that simply because several comments have alluded to "what Christian ministers / churches really want", with the implication that we can't help ourselves when catch our prey ;-) Simply, I humbly submit that I'm well placed to know what ministers and churches want - and also what we actually do and don't do. I have also had members of my congregation involved in school RE as volunteers, and am familiar with the syllabus they're required to teach from. It is not a syllabus that provides scope for proselytising, and any teacher caught contravening the guidelines would be warned - and finished if repeated. (NB: the class teacher must stay in the room.) This is all because we are respectful of the basis on which we are in the schools. Our chaplains and volunteers DO NOT evangelise the students, whatever their personal values may be.

@McReal - if I've misunderstood you then I apologise unreservedly. I didn't at all intend to try to turn anything back on you or to duck any question. I'm sorry it came across that way to you. What I think I'm trying to suggest is simply that jargon is a part of life in every sphere. All sectors of the community have it, and it's pretty normal for it to be both misunderstood by people outside the group and very difficult for people to explain to the uninitiated. We don't routinely assume there's something shifty going on if we don't understand the lingo ;-)

What's pertinent in this case is that the phrase "make disciples" was used in-house, in an address to a Christian conference audience. It is Christian language, and Christians have a wider context in which it's practical meaning is understood. And it's not about preaching or forcing anything on anyone. The phrase would not have been used in a public forum, precisely because a general audience would not have the means of understanding it correctly, and misunderstanding would be highly likely! What has happened here is that some enterprising journo has found (presumably via Google?) an audio file of an address (from 3 years ago) posted on a website.

Hence the comments in my article about language peculiar to certain groups, quotes out of context, etc.

Lastly about the 'monopoly' (to use your term). Few mature Christians would dispute that other faiths or belief systems have an equal democratic right to be heard by people of all ages. So there'd be few arguments from the Christian quarter if other faiths etc were given a place in schools. The chief burden of an article such as mine is not to keep others out, but to keep us in - by seeking to dispel some of the alarm about what Christians are doing in schools.

Lance,

Here's a transcript of Evonne Paddison's speech - which does appear to cover the discipling of schoolchildren quite comprehensively - that is, it's not just a throw-away reference. Scroll down to controversial passages highlighted in yellow - although it's worth reading in its entirety.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55338278/ACCESS-Ministry-s-Evonne-Paddison-s-speech-to-Anglican-Evangelical-Fellowship

LanceL,

There are a number of issues around the whole situation and your commentary on it. Many of us are aware of the context of Padderson's disciples comment - it is not the word disciples that irks, it is the the shift towards aggressive evangelising and proselytising (the latter I define as providing services as bait such as chaplain-provides breakfasts of scripture provided snacks, or hospital services in Africa).

It is not that RE is in schools but the increasing aggression and monopolising that is going on as religiosity in society decreases. i.e. the balance is shifting on those 2 fronts.

It is telling that in your most recent post you talk about "a burden to keep us in". That is what I referred to as special pleading for the language and for the unbalanced opportunity. You fail to address the issue of Access Ministries having the monopoly for RE AND chaplaincy; as it seems SU QLD do in QLD, and another organisation does in NSW - Gener8.

The christian community is increasingly failing to deal with those issues of monopoly and stridency with grace and truth, as are politicians.

I suggest you look at a number of these issues on light of the posts here, particularly those by R0bert, such as the one at Tuesday, 31 May 2011 7:33:38 AM

Hi guys,
Just a quick check-in to say I haven't "gone to ground". Just a busy week. (Including conversations on this subject through other forums.) Our conversation may reach a stalemate at some point, but I certainly haven't jumped yet :)

Catch ya' soon ...
Lance