iii.Working with other faiths

Many of our institutions will, in various ways, have set up a network of Faith Advisors to work alongside chaplaincy in meeting the religious needs of students and staff. When I look back over my experience of chaplaincy, some of the most rewarding occasions have been those where I have been working in cooperation with such a group. There are a number of different reasons for this.

First, I have experienced such groups as freeing places where one’s religious commitment is axiomatically accepted without the need for justification. Unlike the quasi-secular requirement for silence, which one feels like an assumed atmospheric pressure in many university contexts, here is a place where one can both be, and is encouraged to be, oneself. This then extends out into the work of chaplaincy. When working with the university community, I do not need to take on the guise of a pretended expert in religion in general, or that of a manager of faith resource. Being able to direct specific questions and requests to the appropriate Faith Advisor means I can remain who I am; I remain, an Anglican (Christian) minister.

Secondly, I have found those representing other faith traditions to be some of the most instinctive supporters of the Church Foundation identity of the university. They immediately understand the reductive economic pressures on education, and willingly share a vision for education which is life-giving and for research that probes and tests the limits of what may count as true. This support is doubly effective because it also bursts apart the assumed offence that is meant to be taken by those of other traditions (according to some secularists) when the Anglican (Christian) perspective takes the floor. But such support also chastens Anglican claims encouraging an appropriate degree of humility.

Thirdly, chaplains and Faith Advisors can together become credible sponsors of inter-faith dialogue, building upon the ‘social capital’ accumulated through time spent together – times when humour often expands generosity and sharpens perception. Dialogue requires the trust that comes from building positive relationships, and the development of trust is needed if dialogue is to reach to a level of engagement beyond surface politeness and pragmatic considerations. As a guide to the various cumulative levels through which dialogue might pass over time, the Jesuit fourfold strategy is beneficial (O’Connor, 2013, p.285):

• The dialogue of living as good neighbours
• Action for the common good
• Dialogue of religious experience
• Dialogue of theological exchange

Finally, at a time when the global community is marked by such extreme forms of disagreement resulting in a titanic litany of woes, the university has the opportunity to model a different form of community where disagreement does not damage but enhances its purpose. Demonstrating how the religious traditions can take their place in this refreshing environment is an urgent and necessary task.

In working with those of other faiths, however, it is important to be careful of one’s assumptions. Not all those who appear to describe themselves in religious terms actually see themselves in this way. Both ‘secular Jews’ (see Blumenthal, 2013, p.104f), and if Guest at al (2013) are correct, emerging ‘secular’ Christians would not regard themselves as religious. One also has to be careful that a focus on legitimate, but conspicuous religious needs (place for ritual, food dress, feasts etc.) does not lead one to ignore the more diffuse requirements of the ‘spiritual but not religious’ group who may well form the majority of our students and staff.