Chaplaincy or Church? : Duane W.H. Arnold, PhD
I’ve done both.
For a little over four years, I served as a university chaplain for the Episcopal Church. Now, on a university campus of 42,000 students, most of whom were commuters, one’s ministry is mainly involved in gathering a “club” of those Episcopalians and Anglicans who might be on the campus. In addition to the students, there was also ministry to those faculty members who shared this faith background. At the beginning of each term, I would receive cards in the mail from parish pastors giving me the names of students from their churches who were attending the school with the hope and expectation that I could involve them in the ministry of the chaplaincy. We did occasionally attract students from other traditions, but we were sensitive to the other chaplaincies on campus – Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian and evangelical – and, generally, we each “plowed our own field”.
On campus we often cooperated with the other chaplaincies in holding larger events or bringing in speakers like Jesse Jackson. When, however, I brought in people like Robert Webber, John Stott or Kenneth Leech, it was mainly with my own group in mind. In such a chaplaincy, I pretty well knew the people who would attend Bible studies, Morning or Evening Prayer, or celebrations of the Eucharist. It was a small group that liked being a small group and, as chaplain, my ministry was to care for the needs of that group and to provide for an Anglican presence in the life of the university.
Following my time as chaplain, I went onto the staff of a parish church in New York City, St. Thomas, Fifth Avenue. In the course of my first week, I realized that this was to be a different sort of ministry. First was the service schedule which, in the course of an average week, consisted of 26 different services, some requiring all clergy to be present and others divided up among the five of us on staff. I also had the responsibility for premarital counseling, a schedule for hospital visitation and a list of shut-ins to visit on a weekly basis. Additionally, the rector of the parish asked me to construct an Adult Christian education program as well as a young married couples group. This, of course, is not to mention sitting on boards and committees both in the parish and in the city.
This was anything but a “club”. You seldom knew who, or how many might show up. Usually, at the 8 a.m. weekday Eucharist, there would be a group of 15-20 with three or four regulars and the rest visitors. One morning, however, I walked into the chapel to officiate only to find Archbishop Desmond Tutu and his entourage occupying the first three pews (thankfully, I had met him before in Detroit). To build a young marrieds group, we held champagne receptions for twenty at a time in our apartment, often barely knowing those who had been invited into our home. For the midweek adult education lectures, the 50-100 that attended changed week by week as regulars would invite friends or people would have interest in a particular topic. On any given week, you could see regular parishioners, guests from out of town, the editor of Newsweek or someone who had just arrived in the city looking for a church. The goal was to be expansive and welcoming.
It has occurred to me, however, that it is very easy in certain circumstances for a church to be transformed into a chaplaincy. It often happens as a congregation ages. We know the numbers have decreased, but it is easier not to change. Moreover, while we may say that we want to see the church grow, new people will, by definition, create a dynamic that may disturb what we find comfortable and predictable. Additionally, many new churches not only begin as a chaplaincy style “club” but also find it difficult to move beyond that model. This is often owing to a leader or leadership team that finds the evolution from a chaplaincy model to a church model to be a threat to their perceived authority. Keeping things the same in a closed group means that you can keep the dynamic that you know.
Moving from chaplaincy to church means there will be some surprises, some risks and some setbacks.
Yet, recently, I’ve been looking at the Church in the book of Acts. From the Ascension in the first chapter to Paul’s preaching in Rome in the last chapter, it is a book of surprises. It is the surprise of Pentecost, Matthias brought into the Twelve, Paul’s conversion, the mission to the Gentiles, new personalities and characters appear and disappear in the course of the story. The whole book takes you from a small tightly knit group in an upper room to a diverse collection of men and women spread across the breadth of the Roman empire. I think that too often we read the book as “theology” when we should, perhaps, be reading it as an adventure. At each stage in that adventure story, I am struck by the expansive and welcoming nature of the Church in that first generation, despite the risks and setbacks.
Looking back, I’m glad that I had the experience of a chaplaincy and pleased that there were people who were helped by its work. I believe, however, in our current state in America it is “Church” that is needed and not a “club”.
Duane,
It seems to me that we’re drawing ever tighter circles around who is allowed in the club.
Political views mean more and social media facilitates arguing doctrinal minutia that becomes another hill to die on.
We live in strange times…
Michael
Over the last three decades, I feel like I’ve watched it happen. So-called mega-churches have taken on the role of being welcoming and expansive, albeit often with paper thin theology. Other churches, many of them aging and some which are new plants, very much seem like clubs. The clubs become delineated by politics, age, style of worship and, in some cases, leadership. Using again the example of my time in NYC, I had no idea of other people’s political views… none! Moreover, in addition to my age group, I had friends in the congregation ranging from 20 years old to others in their 80s. Being in the city, we lacked a large group of children in the church, but did the best we could with the twenty or thirty that we did have… I miss this sort of church. The club model may work in a chaplaincy, but I think it is a death sentence for a church.
There is a tension in the theology and practice of church between, on the one hand, a church desiring to be in but not of the world, and, on the other hand, desiring to be welcoming.
There is a spectrum which at one end, for example, holds mass only in Latin or uses only KJV Bibles, and at the end holds seeker sensitive services which only slightly resemble church. Then, there is the Benedict Option for some, and in Revelation John hears a voice which says “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues.”
Duane, what practices or principles have you found most effective for resolving this tension? We want to be welcoming, but without compromising our faith and allegiance to Christ. We want to be welcoming, but the world rejects most of what we believe. How does this all work?
Jean,
My answer may differ from Duane’s, but I go back to the original announcement of the Gospel in Luke 2.
It was “good news for all the people”.
I believe there are still people who desire to hear that “good news” undefiled by politics or worldly passions and who want to participate in a community devoted to spending that news and living out it’s implications.
We just have so much static on our bandwidth that people tire of trying to hear it over the noise…
Jean
I’m not sure that I’ve found “practices or principles” that are effective in all circumstances, but I know a working church when I see one, as I think is the case with most of us.
From the article and my own experience, I would offer a few possibilities. Firstly, consistent pastoral practice – hospital, nursing home and shut in visitation. Secondly, educational opportunities based in the church at a mature level. Thirdly, involvement of the laity at all levels. Fourth, being intentional in reaching out to a variety of age groups and taking their needs and desires seriously.
I guess that I would say that in some ways, it more about “practice” than “theology”. We can maintain our theological integrity while adjusting certain practices…
Duane, you’ve listed some good ideas. Thanks.
Michael, I agree that the Gospel is good news for all people. But that is not the way most people see it. I agree with many of your social observations. I wouldn’t speak for all churches, but I think some churches marry politics to religion to transform religion in the the good news that they feel their target audience wants. For example, the xenophobia that some church leaders exhibit complements the xenophobia that their followers feel.
“I wouldn’t speak for all churches, but I think some churches marry politics to religion to transform religion in the the good news that they feel their target audience wants.”
Yes.
In doing so they distort the Gospel and stunt the spiritual growth of the people.
Michael/Jean
The very idea that we can classify or quantify the political leanings of either a church or of parishioners is, in itself, appalling and destructive…
Duane,
Agreed!
Again, in NYC, there were services held which, on occasion, city politicians attended. Dinkins visited as did Giuliani. There was never anything made of their political affiliation… BECAUSE IT WAS CHURCH! Also, neither of them “politicized” their visits… because it was church!
The club mentality that is expressed in churches may vary according to the size of a local congregation. Both large and small church provide a sense of identity and in some cases, belonging. I think as a person determines to continue growing (intellectually, emotionally and spiritually), their need for a club can diminish and they recognize a desire for something even more substantial, ever present in their lives. But this change doesn’t always happen on its own, we have to be purposeful in our growth and not fight the temptations to stay in our present state. I wonder if some people’s negative experiences in churches was due to their need for a church, while the church that they tried to be a part of was really a club.
Duane:
” I think that too often we read the book as “theology” when we should, perhaps, be reading it as an adventure. ”
Worth repeating.
And then you post this “…albeit often with paper thin theology. ”
How thick does one’s theology have to be?
Personally as I study the scriptures more and more I find my “theology” getting simpler and less cumbersome.
I also found your description of working in the NY church enlightening.
Thank you!
pstrmike
“I wonder if some people’s negative experiences in churches was due to their need for a church, while the church that they tried to be a part of was really a club.”
Absolutely spot on the money…
MM
When I refer to paper-thin theology, I’m really speaking of “seeker friendly” situations with little to no theology being evidenced…
Duane:
My biggest complaint about the type of churches you mention is this; in my opinion they are really all about the men and women one the stage and not God.
I find there is relatively little, if any, teaching about God (theology) and the way to “walk” daily with Him.
Of course actually teaching and leading others to walk with Him draws very few people and therefore no fame and fortune.
How often do we hear a message about God instructing us to treat others with justice and lovingkindness and how that may be the best worship of Him we could possibly do? Maybe this is how one lives their best life now.
Thank again, I really appreciate what you have written here.
MM
Thank you…
Another good read posted here…
I have a great grandson, Desmond, because his parents are admirerers of the African cleric
From a dispensationalist viewpoint (sorry) one of the biggest dangers of overlapping politics with the Faith is that it opens a door for Satan to install his Antichrist
(no he is not Trump… ?)
Em,
Why is it that the church tradition that overlaps politics and faith the most is dispensationalism?
I don’t get it. I’ve lived in the same county for 48 years. I’ve been a Christian for 38 years, and have been a member of 5 churches, and still have friends from all 5.
I’d say of those friends maybe 10% at most are overtly interested in politics, with 6 or 7 our of ten being republican. It’s just not something that’s discussed much.
My free range, “unchurched” Christian friends don’t like institutions, including the govt.
I have a pretty large sample size. Maybe east coast central Florida is different…
Rhetorical Jean? Oh well.
It isn’t “politics.” It may, however, be that we look for signs per Matt 24, as the Church has done down through time. .. You do it your way and we watch from a slightly different scenario expectation….
One should not confuse dispensation with the loosey goosey rapture preachers popular with, perhaps, naive or worse folk today… the ones with the itching ears? ?
Jim
It seems to be a different time. I have friends stretching back 50 years… I would be hard pressed to tell you their political leanings. It was our fellowship that was important, not who we voted for. Times, it seems, have changed.
They haven’t changed for me, Duane. Again, maybe it’s where I live. I see it online, but not in real life.