Every few years, usually prompted by an external voice rather than within the school itself, this question surfaces again: should a school’s chaplain sit on the board?
To some it sounds reasonable, even obvious. If the chaplain holds the deepest understanding of the school’s spirit, why wouldn’t you want that voice where the major strategic decisions are made?
But the evidence, both legal and practical, tells a more complicated story.
Across Australia, the UK, and North America, independent schools have wrestled with this tension between mission fidelity and governance integrity. What the best boards have learned, sometimes painfully, is that good intentions don’t always translate into good governance.
The temptation of the “spiritual seat”
The argument for chaplain participation can seem compelling. A chaplain in the boardroom brings an instinct for care, a live reading of community morale, and a constant reminder that schools are communities of people.
Some say those perspectives can humanise otherwise abstract debates about budgets and property. The chaplain might be the one who asks, “how will this decision feel for the people who live it?”
But the moment a whole school community’s chaplain (who is actually or nominally a staff member depending on the model of tenure) crosses into governance, the legal and relational landscape changes entirely. The chaplain stops being a “steady presence” and starts being part of the governance tier that oversees, evaluates, and ultimately holds the principal accountable. Their pastoral neutrality, the very thing that makes them trusted, is gone.
The legal truth
The fiduciary barriers are fairly clear. A chaplain who is also a board director holds an unavoidable conflict of interest: they’re both employee (or at least act within the operational line of authority) and governor. No amount of disclosure cures that.
A chaplain cannot objectively vote on the principal’s performance, on the parameters shaping their own salary line, or on policies that directly govern their work. In practice, this structure undermines principal authority and exposes the board to unnecessary risk.
Even the non-voting model, where an operational chaplain attends meetings “for advice only”, carries hazards. Boards can easily slide into a culture of spiritual deference, where someone who is deeply involved in the operational life of the school but isn’t legally accountable for governance still shapes the direction. And because a chaplain’s words carry moral weight, even gentle observations can quietly steer decision-making in ways that are messy given the operational role.
The emerging middle path: theological listening
A model I see developing in some quarters appears to avoid both extremes. Instead of making the chaplain a board member, some schools are appointing a role sometimes described as honorary board chaplain, a spiritual advisor who accompanies the board but remains outside its legal structure.
To avoid the tensions and pitfalls above, this person typically isn’t the school’s operational chaplain. They could be a local minister, theologian, or former educator trusted to help the board think in theological and ethical dimensions, without the entanglements of employment or operational placement.
Their job is not to manage or vote, but to listen and occasionally ask the kind of questions that pierce the comfortable logic of spreadsheets:
- What does this decision say about who we believe we are?
- Where is grace or justice in this conversation?
- How do we measure the health of our spirit, not just our balance sheet?
In some schools this model sits within a mission or ethos committee. A sub-set of directors and the honorary chaplain interrogate the significant decisions of the board, looking for the places where spiritual compass and actual direction align, or don’t, as the case may be.
Done well, this arrangement can keep governance clean and pastoral influence strong — two qualities that rarely coexist when blurred.
Why it matters now
Independent schools that trace their roots to faith or ethos movements face a growing challenge: maintaining spiritual authenticity while meeting contemporary governance expectations.
We’re no longer in the era where goodwill and trust could substitute for structure. Today’s parents, regulators, and courts all expect boards to demonstrate independence and accountability, yet most or all of these groups also expect schools to remain true to their founding spirit.
The presence of an honorary or advisory chaplain may be one of the most effective ways to hold both truths at once: governance that’s compliant, and leadership that still listens for the whisper beneath the metrics.
A thought to leave with your board
The question isn’t really “should our chaplain sit on the board?”
It’s “how does our board ensure it keeps listening to the spiritual and moral centre of the school, without confusing who leads, who governs and who serves?”
That’s a more demanding question. But it’s the kind that healthy boards, and wise chaplains, aren’t afraid to sit with.
