What I present here is very largely dependent on a piece I wrote a few years ago (Law, 2010). I offer it here for the sake of convenience, but mostly because I still hold to its essential veracity. You must judge for yourself!
There have been many attempts to enumerate a list of ‘distinctives’, a set of features that indicate the peculiar identity of a Church Foundation University (see, for example A Guide to Governance (2007, C.1.3). I wish to argue that while this instinct is not wrong, it is of itself insufficient. Christian distinctiveness does not sufficiently lie in one, or a combination, of the following: the presence of posts covered by a Genuine Occupational Requirement (GOR); the particular constitution of the Governing Body; the presence of a chaplaincy team, chapel and regular Christian worship; the presence of conspicuous Christian signs and symbols; the name of an institution; a subject mix biased towards the public services; the presence of a department of (Christian) theology. The reason for this assertion is not just that these features could be accidentally replicated in any HEI, but because in and of themselves they are inherently insufficient. Rather, the sine qua non of distinctiveness, I wish to argue, lies not in attributes but in process.
An analogy may be helpful. Assuming nothing untoward has happened, the engine of the car you parked last time it was used contains all the required components to function: pistons; combustion chambers; camshaft; valves; ignition system; fuel delivery system; crankshaft; and the rest. But the presence of these components alone is insufficient to constitute an engine one can use to propel the car forward. What is required is that these constituent parts come to serve the enabling of a living process: the controlled combustion of fuel and air. This alone provides the energy for motion. In the absence of this process, all one has is a hefty lump of metal and plastics which, at best, is a favourable site where the process of combustion might take place.
In a Church university, there is a parallel situation. The list of ‘distinctives’ serves to delineate, at most, a site favourable for the occurrence of a process which holds the key to meaningful distinctiveness. What then is this process? It is one whereby the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as lived and affirmed by the Anglican tradition, can creatively interact with the prevailing ideologies of the day so as to contribute towards the institutions self-understanding and of the purpose of education, the quality of its common life, and the dignity and inherent value of its members. In the absence of this process of interaction, any number of static ‘distinctives’ will not guarantee an institution of a particular character. They will be merely a form of background ornamentation to a life they cannot shape.
Another way of expressing this is to say that an Anglican university needs to be one in which there is a public theology concerning its purpose and operation. What then would foster the kind of public theology, the kind of process, required? It seems to me that there are at least six conditions:
- The Institution needs to be home to a living Anglican (Christian) community where the Gospel is honoured and practiced, where it is authenticated and lived.
- The institution will require a department of theology whose teaching, research and general presence provides the academic legitimacy for a public theology that serves the interest of the Kingdom of God (not merely the historical and comparative analysis of texts with a religious content).
- There is a need to ensure that those who would not hold the positions they do in the absence of a particular faith commitment (for example, Head of Institution, chaplain(s), members of the Governing Body), and those who hold pivotal positions in the shaping of the Institution (both managers and student leaders) can readily converse together.
- The presence of a clear public theology would provide the required context in which the Christian signs and symbols of the institution, together with its symbolic geography (such as the size and location of the chapel) could speak authentically. That is, for example, such public theology would provide a context in which the viewing of a cross would become more than the seeing of a Christian ‘logo’; it might become, rather, an invitation to consider what self-sacrifice in the common good means in a time of consumer virtue.
- Such a public theology needs to be sustained by a continuing, living relationship with Anglican church at local, diocesan and national levels. Without this nurturing interest by the wider ecclesiastical body, a body of public standing, there is the danger that the theological voice within the university will collapse back into an expression of private preference without wider claim to attention.
- Finally, this public theology must take its place in policy documents, it must be voiced at committee meetings, it must be the subject of open discussions. In short, it must become part of the common ‘currency’ of the exchange of ideas that is the life-blood of a university community.
It must be underlined that what is envisaged here does not seek to close down debate nor exclude the views of those within the institution (and beyond) who may not be able to subscribe to this public theology in its entirety. Rather, quite the reverse. It is envisaged as a way of securing and enhancing the democratic functioning of the institution, a way of enhancing the place of conversation as one of the essential marks of a university informed by Christian insights (c.f. Markham, 2004, p.11; Higton, 2006, pp.21f).
One method of helping to secure the place of a public theology that can shape and influence the institution is through a ‘foundation committee’ or equivalent. Thus, for example, such a body exists at Winchester University which sponsors its ‘Christian Foundation Strategy’ covering such fundamental areas of university life as:
- Engaging both the formal and informal curriculum
- Research and Knowledge Exchange
- Community engagement (both locally, nationally and internationally)
- Enriching and extending chaplaincy
- Music-making as a university-wide cultural activity
- Physical expressions: signs, symbols, spaces, documents
No thoughts yet on “Anglican identity as process”