ix.Chaplaincy as advanced outpost of the Church?

Many commentators on chaplaincy, especially university chaplaincy, have noted the particular degree to which this work calls for creative innovation and adaptation to meet the profound changes shaping contemporary society. Moreover, the innovation demanded of chaplaincies commonly runs ahead of parallel adjustments required of church communities. Why should this be so? Partly because, compared to their geographical settings, universities generally have much greater levels of social diversity through processes such as internationalisation. Compared to their environs they also possess an inherent over-representation of the younger generations who are an important harbinger of social innovation. But the challenge also arises because, until very recently (with such initiatives as the Religious Literacy Project), universities (some Church Foundation institutions included) have tended to be more resistant locations for public religious discourse and practice than society in general. The cumulative combination of these factors means that new social and religious trends tend to impact ministry earlier and more sharply in chaplaincy than in other settings (c.f. Gilliat-Ray, 1999, p.26). As Miranda Threlfall-Holmes rightly observes, “[c]haplaincy may well be the canary in the mine for the churches’ relationship to society” (2011, p.xvii).

Adapting to this ever-changing context has placed great demands on university chaplains. What were once familiar and productive methods of working have had to be abandoned, with understandable reluctance, for new experiments. Accordingly Keith Lamdin has referred to chaplaincy as the ‘research and development’ wing of the church (1999, p.150). Guest et al concur: “Chaplaincy has become a site for innovation and experiment in public and plural faith, a focus for adaptation as chaplains reach out beyond the normal boundaries of the church.” (2013, p.142)

Over the past thirty years many chaplaincies have experienced an inexorable movement from being essentially Anglican to fully ecumenical Teams and then to various Multi-faith forms of working (though often retaining a full-time Anglican co-ordinator). And while the same story has not been repeated in quite the same manner in Church Foundation contexts, precisely the same external pressures that shaped this transition have been experienced. Guest et al (2013, p.142) helpfully capture the main lines of transformation that have been required. Chaplaincies are under pressure to reinvent themselves as:

• Open to inclusive spiritual exploration
• Embodiments of social cohesion
• Safe havens for any student finding university culture challenging (so aiding student retention and contributing to a more highly rated ‘student experience’)
• Leading multi-faith awareness and affirmation.

Chaplaincy cannot easily retreat to a safe Christian enclave without denying its distinctive calling.   It is the socially ‘embedded’ (Ballard, 2009) character of chaplaincy which requires such adaptation in order to better engage with all in the university, with the ‘un-churched’ and ‘de-churched’ alike. Consequently, if McGrail & Sullivan are correct that “[t]he breakdown of the stable patterns of chaplaincy life and work that we observe [in universities] may reflect or fore-shadow a slower but no less real transition at parish level” (2007, p.84), there is a clear requirement for those responsible for the parish task to take a profound and urgent interest in the experience of chaplains.

While Church Foundation chaplains have so far been able to hold on to a more robust understanding of decisively theological identity and its relevance – due to operating in generally more sympathetic and informed environments – the imperative for adaptation to recent religious and social shifts in the student and staff bodies remains. Church Foundation chaplaincies are vital advanced outposts of the church requiring nurture and commanding attention.