By Adrian Pyle, Director of Chaplaincy and Connections
Someone recently named something simple yet profound for me. They suggested that one of the things I keep encountering in church-influenced schools work is the difference between “meeting a requirement” and “inhabiting a relationship.” We can write agreements, recommend minimum chaplaincy time fractions or clarify what schools are technically required to do, and some of that is (sometimes unfortunately) necessary. But such things don’t of themselves create a living connection. The more interesting examples of interaction seem to occur when somebody sees possibility rather than obligation.
– This might mean that a principal becomes curious about the school’s place in the wider church rather than asking for the minimum requirement.
– A chaplain might connect school, congregation and community in creative ways.
– A local ministry arrangement that includes a school might start with what this particular place and relationship needs rather than the positions we have historically funded.
Perhaps the question underneath several of these conversations is not “What does this school or the wider Church have to do?” but “We realise we belong to each other, so what becomes possible?” That feels like a different conversation, and perhaps a much more Uniting Church one.
