Pentecostal Chaplain supports secularism
Ian | 16 May, 2009 | 16:11I missed the article that Carleton University’s Charlatan had written about my stance on the Iron Ring, but it has some good quotes.
Specifically, Matthew Glombick, our campus’s Pentecostal (think Jesus Camp Christians) Chaplain, had the following to say about both the convocation charge and the Iron Ring Obligation:
Matthew Glombick, U of A Pentecostal chaplain, said the rewording of the charge makes it more specific and meaningful.
“The term ‘glory of God’ can be somewhat vague and ambiguous for people with a limited religious background,” he said of the old convocation speech.
As the university’s chaplain, he said university events are already a largely secular affair. “Many of the students involved do not seem to have a strong, specific religious orientation, and the existing religious orientations among students are varied,” Glombick said.
Glombick said he supports Bushfield’s decision not to sign the obligation and is in favour of altering the language in certain ceremonies to include a diverse range of beliefs.
“It only seems fair that charges and obligations like the one signed by engineers reflect the values of the majority of those signing them,” he said.
Secularism is not specific to atheists and humanists, it’s a system that ensures equal and fair treatment of all participants in a ceremony.
I’m not trying to impose atheistic beliefs on others, and it’s good to see others get it.
It’s too bad Mr. Glombick wasn’t one of the chaplains who spoke before the General Faculties Council and advocated for continuing religiosity in the ceremonies.
Related posts:
Subscribe to posts
I'm glad you appreciated my comments Ian. However, it's
Matthew Glombick | 4 June, 2009 | 11:26I’m glad you appreciated my comments Ian. However, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that I “support secularism.”
I will say that I recognize the significantly secular nature of current Canadian culture, and since this is a democratic nation, I think that secularism needs to be respected in political matters like ‘official charges’.
I definitely still personally “support” a theistic, faith-based approach to life (including politics) more than anything, but I recognize that my own perspective cannot be respected if I do not respect that of secularists who disagree with me.
At the same time, I hope that gaps can be bridged and that Canadians can increasingly see the interrelation of what is “sacred” (from a faith-perspective) and what is “secular” (at least in terms of everyday material realities that are not ordinarily considered from a spiritual standpoint).
For that reason, I was happy that the convocation charge still retained the word “God,” but made it more open to reflect the diverse nature of Canadian perspectives on faith and spirituality.
Reply