Page 67 - 3.faith-ministry

67

Some respondents identified that there were no inter-faith or inter-denominational
tensions. To this end chaplaincy is ‘faithless’ and is ‘deliberately loose and
flexible’, and geographical factors also played a part in the lack of multi-faith
chaplaincy. There was no perceived tension within the police service or indeed
the church with regard to chaplaincy although a potential conflict with the overtly
Christian Police agenda was highlighted although no actual evidence to support
this view was provided. The CPA is perceived as being much better at publicising
their work within the constabulary.

Question 15 – How can these tensions be resolved?

In terms of the lack of a proper profile for chaplains three chaplains identified that
better ‘infra-structural support’ would help reduce the barriers to their work. Such
support should include improved communication through access to email, better
publicity for the ministry, and better opportunities for dialogue.

One chaplain identified that the barriers can sometimes be human, with some
people within the constabulary being resistant to chaplaincy. This ‘can result in a
lack of help being available to others who do need it and (who) would take it up if
it was given a little more prominence’. Another respondent felt that chaplains
needed ‘more time to be available, just to be there and be accepted’, and that
they had to deal with the banter and even blasphemy they might encounter.

One respondent also addressed the tension regarding who could be a minister
within the service, stating that ‘all ministry is valid’, and that lay people were
already being used as chaplains within the constabulary. It was likewise felt that
‘serving officers with ministry skills would be welcomed’ as they had in other parts
of the country.

Question 16 – Should the effectiveness or performance of chaplaincy be
measured?

There was a degree of consensus among chaplains with regard to this issue, with
four out of seven interviewees stating that performance could not, or should not
be measured. It was felt that the ‘benefit (of chaplaincy) cannot be measured’, as
the results of an encounter with a chaplain may only ‘materialise a long time
afterwards’, and ‘cannot always be seen’. It was suggested that
‘spiritual....wellness cannot be measured’.

Monitoring performance was viewed as problematical as not only are there ‘no
means of identifying where they (chaplains) have been used’, but ‘such
measurement would be hard to make’ as their work may not be ‘quantifiable’, and
there is ‘no records system’ of how or when chaplains are deployed. One issue
that was identified is that ‘the nature of the chaplain is to be discreet and
confidential’, which may make record keeping difficult. Also the fact that chaplains
were part-time was a factor in that it is difficult to have too many expectations of
them. It was suggested that to introduce performance measurement would need
the ‘whole ethos’ to be changed, as ‘no-one knows what anyone else is doing’.
Dialogue with officers and human resources would be required. One chaplain did