Lindsay de Wal, nearing completion of her PhD, is a pioneering humanist chaplain who became the first non-religious Head of Chaplaincy in the UK’s NHS in 2018. She currently leads chaplaincy at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, offering non-religious pastoral care. Trained in humanist counselling, de Wal is active in the Non-Religious Pastoral Support Network (NRPSN) and Humanists UK. Her research focuses on non-religious chaplains in faith-dominated settings. Advocating for accreditation, professional standards, and inter-belief collaboration, she emphasizes mentorship, inclusive dialogue, and professionalization to ensure chaplaincy thrives. De Wal champions a humanist agnostic perspective and aims to move the field from survival to meaningful institutional recognition.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we’re here with, preliminarily and tentatively, Dr. Lindsay de Wal. She is a pioneering figure in humanist pastoral care and chaplaincy. In February 2018, she became the first humanist appointed as Head of Chaplaincy within the UK’s National Health Service, specifically at Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust—an appointment that received national and international attention. Currently, she serves as the Head of Chaplaincy at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, supporting patients and staff seeking non-religious pastoral care. Lindsay holds a master’s degree from the University of Humanistic Studies (Universiteit voor Humanistiek) in Utrecht, Netherlands, where she specialized in humanist and existential counselling, coaching, and pastoral care.
She is accredited by the UK Board of Healthcare Chaplaincy (UKBHC), is affiliated with the Non-Religious Pastoral Support Network (NRPSN), and works closely with Humanists UK. In addition to her clinical roles, Lindsay serves on the NRPSN Council, is a trainer and supervisor for humanist pastoral carers through Humanists UK, and is a tutor for the MA in Existential and Humanist Pastoral Care at the New School of Psychotherapy and Counselling. She has completed her VIVA and is finalizing her PhD at Middlesex University, where her research focuses on the experiences of non-religious chaplains working within predominantly faith-based chaplaincy teams in UK health care settings. We’ll explore all of that in more detail. Is most of that correct? So, the big question to start: 2018 and before—what initially drew you to humanism? It’s always a fascinating journey for most people.
Lindsay de Wal: I think it all started in the Netherlands. I wasn’t even in the UK yet when I discovered humanism. As a child, I was always deeply interested in life’s big questions. I was a very introspective child—you might not guess that now since I speak quite a lot. But I would constantly wonder: Why do we wake up in the morning? Why do we want to be kind to others? What motivates us to live meaningful lives? I wasn’t raised with any specific religious framework—my parents didn’t take me to church, which is fairly common in parts of the Netherlands. So, for me, the foundation was always philosophical and existential curiosity—searching for meaning without expecting quick or clear answers.
And from “What is the purpose of life?” And so I had to figure that out myself. So when I was looking into universities after completing my high school degree, I thought, “well, maybe psychology,” but I wasn’t very interested in the diagnostic side or in focusing specifically on mental health issues. I just wanted to be that listening, empathetic ear. And then, I came across the University of Humanistic Studies, the only university dedicated to training humanist chaplains. So that’s how I got into the work I’m currently doing—first in the United States and then in the UK. And so yeah, it’s been a fascinating journey for me.
Jacobsen: As you’ve learned more about it, and as you’ve integrated this into both your personal and professional life, how has it shaped your worldview? Because there are natural stereotypes about humanists. And I’m not even talking about the more ridiculous ones you might hear in certain parts of the world—like being associated with devils, witches, or automatically being atheists. There are plenty of agnostics, too.
De Wal: Yes, exactly. I really had to think that through, because I didn’t have to define that much in the Netherlands. Everyone was called a spiritual caregiver. When I went to the United States, that was the first time I was confronted with the tension around the term “spirituality,” which we discussed before this interview. I was told that if you even mention that term in the States, people within the humanist tradition might look at you oddly—because they don’t want to hear anything that sounds vague, like “spirituality.” It’s often more atheism-focused in that context. So that was the first time I had to reflect on what I meant by spirituality—my views.
When I had to start defining this in a UK context, I think a journalist from The Guardian—one of the first to cover my appointment in 2018—called me right after publishing the article. He said, “I just need a title. Are you an atheist?” He asked this because he wanted to run with the headline ‘Atheist Leads Priests.’ And that’s still the title today if you look it up. I said, “No, I don’t think atheism defines me.” I would say “humanist.” But I suppose that wasn’t juicy enough, so the label “atheist” stuck.
I would now define myself as a humanist agnostic. Humanist in the sense that I have this one life and aim to do good for other people, sentient beings, and the world around me. And agnostic because—I haven’t died. So, I cannot make definitive statements about what happens after death. But I’m not focused on that. I don’t believe in a higher power or a spirit. I will see—or not—when I die. That depends on what happens when the lights go out. So, in that sense, I combine an agnostic position with a humanist stance.
And I think, like you say, within the humanist or broader non-religious traditions, there are so many different ways of looking at those questions—just as there are with Christians.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges and opportunities for humanists in the pastoral care sector? In other words, why should more humanists get involved in this field?
De Wal: I think especially nowadays, people are really exploring questions like: why am I alive? What is the purpose of what I’m doing with my time—the limited time we all have on this planet? Much modern focus seems to be on hedonistic fulfillment but not necessarily on the fulfillment that comes from acknowledging your talents and skills and giving something back. Especially among the younger generation, there’s a strong interest in global connection and supporting others through volunteering.
From a humanist perspective, chaplaincy is all about connecting with the world around you, giving back, and recognizing what you can bring to others—especially by being a listening, compassionate presence for people going through challenging times. Unfortunately, the chaplaincy field is still widely perceived—and structured—as something for people of faith, whatever their faith tradition, and not for non-religious people.
But our society is changing rapidly. People no longer align strictly with pillars of organized religion, as might have been assumed in the past—that people either go to a Christian church, a Muslim mosque, or a Hindu temple, for instance. Instead, people increasingly form their own personal spiritual or philosophical views, often drawing from multiple traditions.
That shift demands more from chaplains—whether faith-based or non-religious—in how they respond to this individualized way of making meaning. There is also a significant trend in the UK: the British Social Attitudes Survey shows that 53% of people now identify as non-religious. That is why the chaplaincy field needs to broaden and challenge the myth that it is only for those with religious faith.
There is so much work to be done. That reality is a key driver for me, and it motivates others who want to contribute their voice and support to this space.
Jacobsen: What is the importance of accreditation, training, standardization, and benchmarks—minimum standards—for practicing in this field?
De Wal: That should be very important. I’m not entirely sure about Canada, for example, or what training is required there. I know that Clinical Pastoral Education—CPE—is common in the U.S. and perhaps in parts of Canada. That tends to be a professional standard used in health care chaplaincy to practice and reflect within diverse belief settings.
Here in the UK, we do have professional standards set by the UK Board of Healthcare Chaplaincy (UKBHC), but unfortunately, these are currently only considered ‘desirable’ criteria. So while it would be excellent for people applying to either salaried or voluntary chaplaincy roles to be on the register, it is not a mandatory requirement—unlike, for example, psychologists who must be accredited through the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) or similar professional bodies.
That lack of compulsory professional standards is still a major issue. Education is also a barrier, especially for those from minority faiths and for non-religious individuals. Many job advertisements still ask for credentials such as being a minister or vicar or having a theology degree. But why would someone study theology unless they’re deeply interested in the social development of religion or are already committed to a particular religious tradition?
For instance, Muslim colleagues may not wish to study theology in the traditional sense; they may come from different educational backgrounds that are equally valid for chaplaincy. However, sufficient, standardised high-quality training is still a challenge that meets the standard required for salaried chaplaincy posts, either for (minority) faiths or non-religious individuals.
There’s a huge gap, which makes it difficult for people from those groups to reach a level playing field when applying for chaplaincy roles. My research reflects this, too: many non-religious or minority-faith individuals are stuck in voluntary roles with limited opportunities to gain the necessary experience or qualifications to progress in the field.
Jacobsen: When conversing with other pastoral carers or chaplains from faith-based groups, what do you notice as distinguishing their methodology and assumptions in their practice compared to a humanistic orientation?
De Wal: I think what’s interesting—especially through my research—is that I look closely at faith-based and non-religious practitioners’ assumptions, perceptions, and experiences. One of the tools I use is a story completion task, where both types of practitioners respond to hypothetical scenarios involving patient interactions. What stands out is that their actual approach to care is very similar.
They both ask for consent to engage in conversation with someone. They aim to be present to provide a listening, empathetic, person-centred presence. They don’t proselytize. Their respective spiritual or philosophical frameworks guide them.
Differences emerge, though often subtly, at the end of those interactions—especially around rites and rituals. For example, some faith-based chaplains might offer a prayer, but not all do. Of the 108 practitioners I interviewed—64 of whom were faith-based—only five mentioned that they regularly offered prayer. That surprised me and challenged not only my assumptions but also those held by many non-religious practitioners, who often believe faith-based colleagues always offer prayer.
On the flip side, there are assumptions that some faith-based practitioners hold about their nonreligious counterparts. One concerns crisis support—what we call “on-call” in health care when you’re summoned in the middle of the night. The dominant worry is usually from a Christian frame: “How can a non-religious chaplain support a Christian patient in crisis if they can’t offer prayer or rituals that are meaningful to the Christian faith?” That’s a real concern. Operationally, it’s seen as a barrier to including non-religious practitioners in on-call rotations. That perception can unfairly count against a non-religious chaplain.
There are also doubts about the training of non-religious chaplains. Some faith-based practitioners assume that those accredited through the Non-Religious Pastoral Support Network (NRPSN) have only done a short weekend course. While there is an accreditation weekend, that’s only one part of what’s often a much broader education. Many non-religious practitioners also hold counselling, philosophy, or communications degrees—but that nuance is often overlooked. There’s a misconception that a weekend course alone qualifies someone to work as a full chaplain, and that breeds skepticism.
Interestingly, assumptions exist on both sides. Both worry that the other may be pushing an agenda—whether a religious one or a so-called “atheist agenda.” And then there are more harmful stereotypes. Some non-religious individuals assume that faith-based chaplains are universally opposed to issues like LGBTQ+ rights or uncomfortable with topics like suicide or abortion. That frustrates many faith-based chaplains, understandably. People forget that chaplains are human beings first. Their faith or philosophy may influence them, but no two individuals respond the same way—just like among non-religious practitioners.
So, many assumptions are made on both sides. They appreciate each other’s strengths and build understanding through inter-belief dialogue only when they begin working together. Unfortunately, there are still too few opportunities for that to happen—especially because many non-religious chaplains are in volunteer roles, not salaried ones, and therefore lack the same level of influence and institutional presence.
Jacobsen: The UK and the Netherlands have integrated social support systems across various services—whether in reproductive health or otherwise. Those systems likely allow for more robust chaplaincy practice compared to countries with less developed infrastructure. What do you think the challenges are for those contexts? What would be your recommendations for enacting policy change or advocacy to raise national standards on these rights issues so that the quality of care improves and chaplains and carers can better perform their roles?
De Wal: Yes, well, the first challenge is the introduction of mandatory registration. In the UK, for example, registration with professional standards associations—like the UK Board of Healthcare Chaplaincy—is still considered desirable rather than required. We need that to change. Just as psychologists must be registered to practice, the same should be true for chaplains. Alongside that, there also needs to be formalized training pathways.
I mentioned Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) earlier. We’re piloting it now at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals within a UK context. Practitioners from various belief backgrounds, including non-religious ones, come together to reflect on their practice, learn from each other, and explore new perspectives. For instance, a faith-based practitioner might say, “I hadn’t thought of it that way,” after hearing a humanist approach, and vice versa. It creates mutual growth and understanding.
CPE is a globally recognized model active in Ireland, Australia, the USA, the Netherlands, Belgium, and more. It links local practice to an international community and prevents chaplaincy training from being isolated within one national framework.
For the field to be taken seriously as a health care profession though, we need lobbying at the government level. That’s the tricky part. Across all belief systems, chaplains need to unite around this shared goal. Otherwise, chaplaincy as a profession is under threat. If it is not professionalized, there’s a risk that it will be absorbed or sidelined by other well-being services like psychotherapy, which already integrate spiritual and existential elements. For example, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) includes publications and practices that engage with spirituality, even if their frameworks differ.
In times of healthcare budget cuts, it is not hard to imagine a policymaker saying, “let’s just let psychotherapists handle the spiritual aspects too—they’re already trained, accredited, and recognized—unlike this loosely defined group of chaplains.” That’s a real risk.
So, the first major step is lobbying for chaplaincy to be registered under Allied Health Professions in the UK. But that will take time, effort, and sustained conversations with government ministers—and there is no guarantee of success.
Even if that conversation begins, there’s already resistance. I brought this up last year, and one of the first concerns was: “What are we going to call it if we formalize it?” And that’s where the field gets messy and conflicted over titles and roles. Some people are very particular about not using “pastoral care.” Others do not want to use “chaplaincy.” Even in this interview, we’ve used both terms.
So, before we can effectively lobby the government, we first have to unify the field—and that alone is proving difficult.
Jacobsen: You hold leadership positions. You’ve helped shape policy or advocated for change, right? How do you mentor others on an individual level?
De Wal: How do I mentor my staff, peers, or new chaplains? I recommend primarily through supervision. For example, within the NRPSN, our teams have regular supervision sessions, such as reflective practice and well-being check-ins. My leadership style is very democratic. I involve people so they understand why we’re heading in a certain direction, and we do that collaboratively. I’ve found that even the so-called boring aspects—like why certain payments can’t be authorized—help people understand the broader context of the NHS. That, in turn, helps them see the wider implications for our field.
It’s a very close-knit community, and we try to support one another. Because resources are limited, we can’t always look externally—we have to rely on each other, whether we come from a faith-based or non-religious background.
Jacobsen: Now that you’re finishing your doctorate, what are you looking forward to?
De Wal: I want to fight for this profession. I’m passionate about chaplaincy and about increasing the visibility and inclusion of non-religious practitioners in the field. But I also do not want to exclude our faith-based colleagues—we need each other. I advocate for a multi-faith and belief-inclusive model because I care deeply about supporting people to live meaningful, purposeful lives in whatever way they define.
So, lobbying governments will likely be next. That will be interesting. I’ll combine religion and politics, Scott—two notoriously tricky arenas that do not always mix well.
Jacobsen: Do not have those advocacy conversations over dinner.
De Wal: No, exactly. As I wrap up my PhD, I aim to help move the field from surviving to thriving. If you think of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we’re at the survival level right now—just trying to keep our heads above water. If chaplaincy is under threat, how can we even begin to think about things like self-actualization or inter-belief dialogue? That kind of vision requires stability, infrastructure, and resources. So, professionalizing the field is how we move from surviving to thriving.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite humanist quote?
de Wal: What popped into my head was something we say during our training courses: “Dancing in the moment.” But that’s not from a famous person at all.
Jacobsen: That’s pretty good. Well, thank you very much for your time today, Lindsay. It was great to meet you, and I appreciate your insights and expertise.
De Wal: You too. Thank you so much. Nice to meet you, Scott.
The post UK’s First Humanist NHS Chaplain on Non-Religious Pastoral Care: An Interview with Dr. Lindsay de Wal appeared first on TheHumanist.com.
Read More TheHumanist.com
About Author
