This contribution discusses two forms in which spiritual care in the Netherlands can be organized: in terms of a (church) office which reflects the current form, or as liberal profession which is a form to be conceivably pursued as an alternative proper to the sociocultural and institutional developments that this text indicates. The historical Dutch context of pillarization is tributary to a form of spiritual care that seems less apt to deal with the challenges ahead. The conditions and requirements of a liberal model are presented, but also put into perspective of the limited opportunities of the professional association of spiritual care to manoeuvre in politics and policies.

Ryan van Eijk reacts on a previously in this periodical published article on prison chaplaincy in the Netherlands. This article argued that the growing religious individualisation as well as a political rethinking of the role of religions institutions ask for system adaptations and that the denominational approach is subject to discussion. Van Eijk criticizes this thesis and presents arguments and reasons why the current model is a good one. According to Van Eijk prison chaplaincy cannot and should not be organized only from the right of the detainee, for also aspects like the task of the government and denominational organizations and the detention context have to be considered.