"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.