Is engaging in this sort of ministry incompatible with professional chaplaincy?
Much confusion exists about what my profession is. People know what a pastor is. They understand what a Catholic Priest is. But people generally do not understand the category of chaplain.
In addition to this confusion, professional bodies are in tension over chaplaincy.
On one side are those advocating for a pluralistic and relativistic stance on religion where feigning “neutrality” on theological matters is the “standard.”
On the other–where I stand–are people who believe our faith group ordination and theological training ought to be permissible professional resources in appropriate circumstances.
In the military and government settings, this tension between the chaplain’s faith group and charge to serve all is “resolved” through a simple statement:
We perform for our own, and where we cannot perform, we provide.
What this means is a Catholic priest who is a chaplain will perform Mass for Catholic individuals but will not perform a Shabbat service for Jewish individuals. He will provide a referral to a Jewish Rabbi for that spiritual care need.
Now, some spiritual care interventions are available to everyone regardless of faith group or non-faith group affiliation. Examples of such interventions would be grief support and empathetic listening. In this sense, the chaplain is everyone’s chaplain.
This is one way that chaplains are different than a pastor. We are caring for people outside of our specific faith tradition as part of our regular spiritual care practice.
That said, a false assumption or inference comes along with this broad-service reality:
Everyone must be comfortable coming to the chaplain for spiritual care or said chaplain is a professionally deficient spiritual care provider.
I call this a false assumption as this expectation is simply unrealistic. All you need is some basic critical thinking skills to realize this.
Some people will not come to a chaplain simply because of who he or she is. It can be simply a matter of gender difference or because the chaplain isn’t of their faith group. For example, a Muslim man might feel uncomfortable coming to a female chaplain because she is female.
Is it the chaplain’s fault the care seeker has such preferences leading them to not go to the chaplain? No.
Yet people who assume a chaplain MUST make everyone comfortable to come to them would impugn the chaplain’s professionalism over such preferences. It is truly an unjust stance to take.
A more realistic expectation is one where the chaplain’s door is open to all. Whether or not someone walks through that door is up to the individual as an adult whose agency is respected.
To be clear: A chaplain ought not to refuse to either perform or provide spiritual care for someone who comes to them for such care. They DO control that. But a chaplain does NOT control whether or not someone chooses to come to them in the first place.
Besides, no other profession is expected to manage everyone’s opinions and preferences about them like this. In healthcare, we understand people have differences of opinion, and sometimes that means changing providers.
It is uncharitable to attribute such differences in opinion to a lack of professionalism on the part of the provider that a care seeker dislikes or disagrees with.
Let me tie this all together and apply it to the question of this post:
Is Divorce Minister blog content and professional chaplaincy incompatible?
This blog takes some strong stances against abuse, adultery, abandonment, stealing, lying, and victim shaming. The tagline here is: “Taking adultery seriously.”
Some people–especially those who have committed such sins–will be upset by such a strong stance against those behaviors.
If you assume chaplains care from a place of nowhere (theologically speaking) and MUST make everyone comfortable with them, then such an offense is a problem.
People might not come to you because they are “offended.”
What is lost–which is all too common–is the faithful spouse crowd. A provider–whether a chaplain or therapist–who ascribes to this school of thought is a safe person for them. A so called “neutral” provider is not.
Think about it: If you were a domestic abuse survivor, would you feel safe going to a provider who was morally neutral over the wrongness of such behavior or even thought you shared some blame for being victimized?
Having a firm stance against adultery is exactly what is needed for many faithful spouses to feel safe enough going to a religious representative like a chaplain.
Do faithful spouses count? Apparently, they do not for those making such a criticism of a chaplain taking a principled, moral stance against abuse, abandonment, adultery, cheating, and victim blaming.
In addition to all that, the major world religions oppose adultery.
A professional chaplain must be endorsed by a recognized religious body, and ergo, it is a fair assumption to believe a chaplain is aligned with the belief system of their faith group.
Most people understand a faith leader ought to oppose adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, and abuse. Generally speaking, it ought not to shock people that a faith leader ACTUALLY agrees with following The Ten Commandments.
So, if the problem is fear of a chaplain taking a dim view on cheating, such a care seeker probably will not go to a chaplain over such matters in the first place even with the chaplain’s door wide open to them.
So, this suggests the objection is less about access questions. It comes across more as someone wanting to silence moral objections to their widely understood bad behavior.
In other words, the problem is NOT with a chaplain closing the door on people seeking care. Discrimination is not happening on the part of the chaplain simply because he produced content expressing the chaplain’s views decrying adultery and abuse.
Sharing a professional opinion is not the same thing as refusing care to someone.
The real problem is the accuser strongly disagrees with the chaplain’s school of thought and is weaponizing such a disagreement to attack the chaplain’s reputation and professionalism.
So, to answer the original question:
The content here is NOT incompatible with professional chaplaincy.*
*My professional chaplain endorser plus my bishop would agree. And I will remind my readers these words are my own opinions and do not represent ANY institution to which I belong.
