The identity-relevance dilemma arises in situations where one’s identity is not just opaque to one’s context, but is necessarily so. That is, it arises when one’s identity belongs to a different order of things than the prevailing view. It is a dilemma that chaplains may experience acutely since they are in the odd position of being hired by their institution to tend to a dimension of human experience that, within the institution, many will see as implausible (Speers, 2013, p.255).
To explain both the nature of the dilemma, and why it is inescapable for both chaplaincy and the Anglican (Christian) Foundation identity of universities, a necessary place to begin is with the Christological question. We need to begin with the fundamental Christian question: Who is Jesus of Nazareth and what is his significance?
Why should one pay attention to the time-conditioned, culture-conditioned, geographically-conditioned, pre-scientific Jesus? Why should one bother with a Jesus rejected by the religious authorities and experts of his day and executed as a subversive by the Roman state?
What claim on our attention, what relevance to us, has this individual?
Any plausible solution to this question must hold two things together simultaneously:
- It needs to explain what is distinct about Jesus, what are the defining characteristics of this person. It needs to address the question of identity in such a manner that the Jesus we are talking about is not made redundant or inherently replaceable.
- It needs to explain why this person should be of general interest. It needs to address the question of relevance so that the significance of Jesus is not consigned to irrelevance beyond a limited ghetto of understanding
The orthodox solution to the Christological question comes about by offering a theological response. In other words, no satisfactory account can be found by simply understanding Jesus within the ordinarily available categories of historical persons (though various ‘heretical’ approaches have attempted this). The classic solution resulted from affirming that in Jesus the particular and the general, the contingent and the necessary, the specific and the universal hold together in one person who is both fully human and fully God. And precisely because of his identity (decisively revealed in the resurrection) Jesus is the one through whom God will bring the world (every particular here and now) to a saving consummation and fulfilment (in the eternal, universal then) of the Kingdom of God.
“[I]n the aftermath of [Jesus’] resurrection, [Jesus’ disciples] travelled to and beyond the edges of the world they knew, convinced that they would not reach the edge of his significance.” (Higton, 2004, p.26).
Jesus’ identity determines his relevance and vice versa; but no final account can yet be given. Because the Christological question concerns both God and the eschatological future, both beyond the limits of present human conception, it is a properly open question. It must be forever asked anew and responses formulated afresh.
If it is as representatives of, and witnesses to, Jesus and the Kingdom he brings that chaplains are to find both their identity and relevance, then we also will find ourselves embroiled in something of this same Christological dilemma. Chaplaincy will not fit without remainder into the commonly available categories of ‘secular’ sources of support. Only within a theological frame can a satisfactory account of Chaplaincy be given, but, in a secular and multi-faith society, this framework of understanding is both open to dispute and no longer readily understood. The collapse of the Christian metanarrative as a shared perspective in Western society has rendered Christian theological and ethical perspectives both suspect and obscure.
Contemporary society, including the University, seems content to receive contributions from chaplains made towards the ‘well-being’ of individuals and communities. Chaplaincy is accepted, even sought out and welcomed, in a ‘crisis situation’. But, attempt to draw from one’s motivating tradition and perspective in contributing to the shaping of public thought and policy and one will encounter resistance (c.f. Elaine Graham, The Anglican Identity Report 3.8). The relevance of benevolent action is accepted – especially if ‘professionalised’ and given secular credentials, e.g. via counselling training – but not our identifying speech. There is thus a very real temptation, for the sake of making chaplaincy appear relevant in the contemporary context, to offer an accountof its purpose that will fit within a secular view: chaplains as pastoral counsellors, or contributors to (largely undefined) well-being, or experts in matters of religion and spirituality. To do so, however, would be to sacrifice our distinctive identity.
Without fully embracing such perspectives, it is however useful to try to understand the non-theological models of chaplaincy held by others with whom we work, not least for the illumination it provides to potential areas of misunderstanding or conflict (c.f. Threlfall-Holmes, 2011, p.116f).
One area of possible misunderstanding can occur in relation to Student Services. Here the value and relevance of chaplaincy can easily be judged by a “passive, consumer demand-led view” (Threlfall-Holmes, 2011, p.125), that is on a take-it- or- leave- it basis as but one component of a larger resource. The problem is this both squeezes chaplaincy into some specialised ‘spiritual’ niche, leaving out of account our much broader concern with ‘life in all its fullness’, and puts our apparent worth at the mercy of the principle of the autonomy of choice; if chaplaincy is not asked for directly, it is clearly not required. This situation can then be compounded by forms of information technology that rely on the user to already know what it is one is looking for. With bookshelves there is always the chance of serendipitous discovery; search-engines are more precise.
Understanding the difficulty for chaplaincy then leads to a choice; one in which both identity and relevance are at stake. One can either accept the imposed ‘secular’ model of relevance and attempt to compete for a ‘market share’ as a supplier of welfare resource. Or, for the sake the integrity of one’s identity, one can elect to operate in ways that escape the reactive ‘helpdesk’ approach while patiently engaging in dialogue with the services of those one seeks to complement. The latter will mean actively creating opportunities for engagement, not passively waiting on the demand of others.
In many ways those of us who offer chaplaincy within a Church Foundation environment are in a privileged position because we can call upon the foundation narrative as a means to locate and defend our theological identity. I am acutely aware, however, that for some of our colleagues who work in large secular universities, or for example as NHS chaplains, this luxury is absent. They are constrained to fight for their relevance by seeking to demonstrate a generic competence in the areas of religion and spirituality. And this may mean having to subscribe to an essentially secular moral and political demand for pluralism. I have no wish to judge those who find themselves in the unenviable position of adapt or perish (c.f. Newitt, 2011, p.113). Perhaps they are the brave heralds of a way to survive a future that is coming to us all. Yet awareness of the existence of such harsh environments should make us treasure the favourable context that Church Foundation ministry affords for the retention and defence of our distinctive identity as chaplains.
Just as for chaplaincy, any solution to the question of the distinctive identity of an Anglican (Christian) Foundation University as a whole will need to lie along precisely the same axis as Christology. It will need to find an inherent link between particularity and a general claim to attention. This, in very brief outline, implies the following:
- Distinctiveness alone is not enough. One must rather ask: Distinctiveness for the sake of what?
- In general terms an answer will need to be: distinctiveness for the sake of a particular understanding of education as a contribution to the common good.
- More specifically an answer will need to suggest that the defence of what counts as genuine education (as opposed to training or skill acquisition) – which is virtually universally recognised as beneficial – requires a theological framing which Anglican (Christian) Foundations continue to explicitly instantiate.
In the light of these conclusions distinctiveness, then, is perhaps exposed as the wrong term, especially if it is taken to imply that which can be found here and nowhere else. A better word might be characteristic. Our question thus becomes: What is the characteristic identity of an Anglican University (which could in principle be found elsewhere, but truly belongs here) that serves the common good? But while the question remains a constant, answering it will be a permanent and open task. Just as the Christological question, it is one that must be answered again and again. There are at least two reasons why this should be so. First, the context for which an answer is sought is for ever changing and shifting. Secondly, every account of Anglican (Christian) identity is always selective, provisional and inherently revisable. For when we speak of what it means to be Anglican we always make a selection from the array of the possibilities, practices and beliefs that have been identified by those who came before as Anglican (c.f. Hong, 2013, pp. 226f). And, as we do so, we contribute to a continuing evolution of its meaning.
No thoughts yet on “The identity-relevance dilemma unfolded”