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.