Meet the Harrisburg pastor bringing ‘church' to ‘state'
An ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in America, Zeigler has worked in the Pennsylvania Capitol since March 2024 with the goal of providing religious and spiritual guidance through 'prayer, discipleship and evangelism.' (Capital-Star/Vincent DiFonzo)
The Rev. Ron Zeigler has a proposition for Pennsylvania lawmakers: Take a minute from your busy day, sit with him and let him pray for you.
Amid the busyness of the Pennsylvania Capitol as the legislature scrambles to pass the state budget on time, Zeigler frequents the East Wing cafeteria with a sign that invites all who pass by to sit down and talk with him.
The reverend possesses a unique title — state Capitol minister — in which he provides pastoral services to Capitol denizens — lawmakers, civil servants, staff and just about anyone working in the building. By providing a 'political free zone' to talk with him, Zeigler says he's able to connect with state employees and lawmakers across the political spectrum.
'I tell folks if I'm a lobbyist of any kind, it's for Jesus Christ,' he said. 'What's most important to me is not the Republican or Democrat agenda, but the kingdom of Christ.'
An ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in America, Zeigler has worked full time in the Capitol since March 2024 with the goal of providing religious and spiritual guidance through 'prayer, discipleship and evangelism.'
He works for Ministry to State, a Washington, D.C.-based Presbyterian ministry that reaches 10 state capitals and Washington, entirely funded by donations.
Founder Chuck Garriott was inspired to create the organization after tragedy shook the nation. He was a pastor in Oklahoma City in 1995 when a powerful truck bomb detonated outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 167, including 19 children, and injuring more than 600 others.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in American history.
'In the aftermath of this tragedy, Chuck and the elders at [their church] recognized a profound reality: Those serving in government face unique spiritual and personal challenges, and the church is uniquely positioned to offer them the care and support they need,' according to the organization's website.
'Motivated by this conviction, [they] began a ministry to the Oklahoma state capital, hosting a weekly luncheon Bible study that soon grew to more than 80 regular attendees,' the site says.
In 2003, Garriott moved to Washington to establish Ministry to State, with the goal of replicating its Oklahoma City ministry in state capitals around the country. It maintains its position as a nonpartisan source of spiritual guidance for civil servants and elected officials.
Steve Bostrom, the minister in Montana's Capitol, got involved after moving to Helena from North Carolina to start a church. Soon after, he began ministering to state legislators, leading to his full-time Ministry to State position.
Bostrom sees precedent for Ministry to State's mission in the Bible, pointing to the missionary work of the apostle Paul, who, 'in his travels went to many capitals.'
'He was strategic, trying to reach leadership,' he said.
Zeigler, a former public school teacher turned clergyman, said he was initially intimidated when Ministry to State's associate director for state capitols, Thomas Eddy, offered him the Harrisburg ministry
'I'm just a regular guy. I pastor small churches, and not that many people know me outside of my smaller circles,' Zeigler said. 'These are some significant people that work here in many ways. So I was a bit intimidated.'
Zeigler initially told Eddy he didn't think he was the right fit, but '[Eddy] was really convinced that this ministry was for me,' he said.
He told Eddy that 'the main gift God has given me is that I see people.' Eddy replied with a question: What is a group of people in American culture 'most people would rather not see and don't think well of?' Eddy's answer: civil government leaders.
'You're exactly the kind of person we need here,' Eddy told him.
In his role, Zeigler makes himself available for discussion or prayer with 'anyone who could use someone,' with the goal of building personal, long-lasting connections.
'I'm here to see people not get eaten up by working here, it's a challenging place to be,' he said. 'I pray that they are able to stay faithful to their oath of office and just encourage them.'
From 'long theological conversations' to simply listening to people talk about what troubles them, he said his conversations can vary wildly in topic.
'If there's anything I can do, I can pray, and I can just be available. And that's where this got started,' he said.
During one particularly busy session day in the Capitol, Zeigler greeted a custodian in the hallway: 'I just said, 'Hello, how you doing?' She said, 'I'm feeling pretty sick, but today, it's all hands on deck.'
He asked if he could pray with her. She agreed.
'I prayed that she'd be able to get through the day and that maybe once things settle down, that she might be able to get off early,' he said. 'When I was done, she was in tears, and she reached over and just gave me a big hug.'
As an ordained minister, Zeigler holds his conversations in confidence, which he compared to the confidentiality of a priest or lawyer.
'The most rewarding parts of my ministry at the Capitol are talking with people about what it's important to them, and praying with them and for them,' Zeigler said. 'Simply caring for them as people is very rewarding.'
Although Zeigler is Presbyterian, he works to connect with people of different religious beliefs. He says he is not present in Harrisburg to convert, but to minister, although he is not shy to preach when it's asked for.
'I'm here as a Christian minister, but I'm not pressing on anybody,' he said. 'I make sure it's clear that I'm here to talk about what's important to you. If you want to hear what I think about something I'm glad to tell you, and I'm glad to talk, but I will never press and say 'you got to believe what I believe.''
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
18 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Indianapolis Star
20 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
San Francisco Chronicle
30 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time," saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. "I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy. The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China.
