The primary ‘text’ of Christianity is, uniquely, a life. To draw upon the insights of one of the towering figures of twentieth century theology, Karl Barth, scripture is the word about the Word. The living person Jesus Christ is the definitive Word of God, and the text of scripture the primary and authoritative witness to that Word. Depending upon historical and social context, depending upon the perspective that generates one’s question, the life of Jesus is open to plural interpretations; that is its power and advantage: history never renders text as life anachronistic. And both the Apostle’s and Niceno-Constantinopolitan creeds reflect the revelatory nature of Christ’s life by taking an essentially narrative form; they thus preserve the inherent openness and richness of Christ to theological interpretation, while setting certain boundaries around what it means if we are still to be authentically talking about God.
As Ian Markham (2010) observes, however, since the Reformation various groups of Christians have felt the need to augment the hermeneutic openness of the classic creeds with tighter definition, finding plurality not conducive to doctrinal exactitude. Thus the Anglican Church has its, somewhat sprawling, Thirty-Nine Articles, and the UCCF the rather more tightly constrained Doctrinal Basis.
Notwithstanding the fact that most church university chaplains are unable, in good conscience to sign up to the UCCF Doctrinal Basis – commonly because its very particular view of scriptural authority, atonement and judgement – relationships between chaplains and Christian Unions are generally very positive. This stems, I think, from the way in which the Church Foundation heritage, not least through the provision of a prominent and central chapel, means that chaplains and CU executives and members meet primarily as people, not abstract entities. Personal relation triumphs over inherited misconceptions of each other which sometimes persist elsewhere. And this is something to be celebrated! Additionally, today’s Christian students, even those whom Guest et al (2013) characterise as ‘Active Affirmers’ (who attend church frequently at university and at home) tend to be less concerned with intellectual and doctrinal matters per se and more concerned with affective experience and participative belonging; they desire to be part of a close, supportive group (c.f. Robinson, 2007, p.159; Guest et al, 2013, p.196). Additionally, as active student Christian participation has generally declined, the ability to sustain a variety of different Christian societies has also fallen. The CU is thus commonly the main, if not the only, ‘show in town’ with the result that its membership tends to be broader than before. This is not to suggest that there will not be occasions when speakers and contributors affirm sharply defined evangelical perspectives which the group will appear to affirm. It’s rather that one-to-one conversations, even and especially with Executive members, reveal a much more enquiring and reflective approach than one might have first assumed.
The Christian Union are likely to be the most publically visible and active expression of student Christianity in the university, expert at mobilising their resources and enthusiastically committed to their faith. And whatever one thinks about particular strategies, tactics and understandings of the Faith displayed (and there will be inevitable moments of awkwardness), it is, I suggest, beholden upon us as chaplains to do all we are able to support and encourage their desire to be faithful witnesses of Christ.
This, however, may not come without cost. Let’s be honest: it can be painful to find that, despite ones full-time commitment to the University, despite the fact that this is ‘your Anglican Chapel’ and these are the students you are paid to minister to, one is not asked to address the largest regular gathering of Christian students. It can be discouraging to listen in on descriptions of how Christianity and the university relate which completely bypass chaplaincy, erasing one’s existence and purpose.
What matters above all, though, is working at personal relationships, because through the development of trust avenues of opportunity will open up, and contributing to and participation with the CU can come in many forms: providing prayer support; playing in a worship band; being a valued confidant; as a source of financial and material resource. Through good personal relations not only do we become free to gently tackle activities and views we find questionable, but we can also explain what it is that we are seeking to do in, with and for the university. If something approaching a shared understanding of purpose can be found, even while being honest about differences, then the CU – or at least key members of it – can be a brilliant source of support and encouragement for one’s own ministry in return.
I find the older I become, the less I want to listen to people who simply think the same as myself; I want to be challenged to reconsider, adjust, open and even rebuild my views. In this respect I have found that working with the CU does not disappoint.
No thoughts yet on “Working with the Christian Union”