This article has been written due to a number of queries that people have raised with me about Fusion - a new(ish) organisation for Christian students. I am in no way affiliated with Fusion. Neither am I affiliated with The CU Movement (formally UCCF) or CICCU (the Cambridge branch thereof). Further, I have no affiliation with SCM (Student Christian Movement). I am currently a graduate student at Robinson College, Cambridge, studying for an MPhil in Criminological Research. Most of the questions I have received have related to an article written by Rupert Evans (the former president of CICCU 2001-2002). The article is named "Student Witness in Confusion" and can be found here.
Preliminary questions and remarks:
Firstly, I think I wish to raise a few critical questions. I am not opposed to the operation of Christian groups on campuses, but I think that I would raise questions about their statuses. Is there a biblical precedent for Christian groups unrelated to the Church? How do their principles of operation interact with those of the Church? Whilst I think it can probably be argued that Christians have formed themselves into groups to do evangelism for many years, I would question the distinct separation from the Church that they maintain. I submit that it is due to a low ecclesiology that these groups can be inter-denominational, but of course they are not fully inter-denominational without their higher Church brothers and sisters. It may not be incorrect to label themselves "inter-denominational", but it seems here that "some denominations are more equal than others". Perhaps this could be demonstrated more clearly by the publication of the lists that these groups often keep of "sound churches" to which they will recommend their students. If one wishes to label one's group a "Christian Union", then it must strive to unite *all* Christians and not just those who have an Evangelical disposition.
Further, I think that these Christian groups run on an extremely tenuous basis, especially considering their (often) yearly change of leadership and the risk that although they are labelled non-denominational, their student leaders often emerge from only one or two main churches. Of course it is preposterous to assume that leaders be disregarded if they come from the same church, but the leaders need to be open to the danger of seeing their own churches as "the most faithful to the Gospel".
Direct response to the article offered by Evans:
In response to the criticism that students often join Fusion cells without considering the differences between its theology and that of UCCF, I would add that previously students joined CUs without understanding the different between its Evangelical theology and a more "catholic" understanding of the Christian faith. Due to the formative nature of the faith of students when they start university, there is a distinct risk that they will fail to understand that they are not joining a Christian *Union*, but an Evangelical Christian movement.
1. Fusion definition of unity
I share with Evans his concern for Christian truth and would also agree that truth is not ambiguous. I would raise questions about what he might consider "non-essentials". Items of doctrine are only going to be "non-essential" if those who hold those items consider them to be non-essential. I know that sounds rather obvious, but if one believes that miraculous signs and wonders are essential to one's presentation of the gospel, they are not going to be labelled non-essential. If one considers the doctrine of the Trinity to be essential to one's presentation of the gospel, that will not be labelled non-essential. If one considers that the "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" is essential in the presentation of the faith, then that will not be labelled non-essential. I suggest that if there is no church, then there is no gospel. These questions need further contemplation. We are presented with the question "who is doing the labelling?". Considering that these groups are non-affiliated with the Church, do they have any special knowledge of what is truthful over and above what the Church considers truth?
Evans notes "It [Fusion] emphasises the validity of worshipping and meeting with God in whatever ways a person wishes, instead of looking at how the Bible has defined worship and how God has ordained that we are to meet him."
To some extent I am sympathetic to his portrayal of the consumer culture that causes us to seek churches at which we are comfortable, which sing the songs we like, which "preach the sermons that we like and which tailors the Gospel according to our needs.
However, the question that I would raise is one of biblical interpretation. I believe that the Bible defines "worship" in a way that encompasses out entire lives. On a personal note, I would add that I think the Bible defines worship in such a way as to place the celebration of the Eucharist at the centre of the life of the Church. This raises a further question. Who has the authority to say "how the Bible has defined worship?" I do not think, in the current climate, that we can claim neutrality about truth any more. Whether or not you admit to it, you are interpreting the Bible. There is no such thing as "what the Bible says" aside from the proclaimation of the Church. There is no such thing as "how God has ordained that we are to meet him" outside the proclamation of the Church. How is one to know that one is even reading rightly wihout the Church's witness to our Lord Jesus Christ?
I share also Evans' concern for unity. Evans notes that UCCF has "largely been the only Christian organisation seeking to do evangelism on campuses". My question is why this has been so? Why have UCCF had this power and privilege over the gospel proclamation? What is it that makes the UCCF witness more intrinsically truthful than that of Fusion or SCM?
My next suggestion may be somewhat controversial. I submit that there never has been a "united witness to non-Christians" in universities or otherwise. There are some readings of the New Testament that suggest that in Paul's letter to the Galatians, there is disunity between Paul and Peter:
Gal 2:11-14 "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
From the New Testament we learn in 1 Cor 12:
"One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ"."
I do not see why two organisations attempting to do the same job has to be a hindrance to witness. If the organisations learn to work alongside one another and complement one another's witness, it could be seen as an improved opportunity to reach students with the Gospel.
In line with my argument that there has never been a united witness to non-Christians, I would further add that college Chapels, SCM and the CUs all attempt to do a similar job. I have never heard it expressed that Christians found it confusing that a CU and a chapel could operate in the same college. Why should it be confusing for Christian students to have two groups meeting for fellowship? We are not talking about uneducated people falling about the wayside, but undergraduates who ought to be perfectly capable of making their own investigations. Why should Fusion not just be another opportunity to witness to non-Christians?
2. Fusion's method of evangelism
I do not know how much truth there is in Evan's statement that Fusion marginalise the need for the verbal proclamation of the Gospel. My question, I think centres around whether Evans thinks that a purely verbal proclamation is enough? I do not think that the ways in which Jesus and Paul evangelised were just about verbal proclamation. The ways that they preached the gospel involved verbal proclamation, but it also involved signs and wonders. Jesus did not say to the blind man, "Believe in me and I will save you", but "Get up off your mat and walk". Leaving aside the question of the miraculous today, the ways that they spread the gospel complemented their witness. Who was it who said that verbal proclamation was to be the chief method of witnessing the Gospel?
I think I share George's Lindbeck's cultural-linguistic approach [1] to understanding doctrine. It is my feeling that the CU method stresses the cognitive approach, which of course is going to appeal particularly to scientists, mathematicians, engineers etc. My guess, from what Evans says is that Fusion's witness is in danger of being experiential-expressive. I am guessing this from Evan's reference to "highly emotional experiences or the practice of prophecy and speaking in tongues". Lindbeck notes that an experiential-expressive understanding of doctrine sees "interpreting doctrines as noninformative and nondiscursive symbols of inner feelings, attitudes, or existential orientations." [2] I am cautious, however, of going too far down this line. I suspect that Fusion's witness may be a curious combination of cognitivism and experiential-expressivism. In order to better understand this part of my argument, I refer the interested reader to Lindbeck's work "The Nature of Doctrine."
With the cultural-linguistic approach in mind, I think that I can only applaud part of the way in which Fusion chooses to spread the Gospel. Lindbeck, "Pagan converts to the catholic mainstream did not, for the most part, first understand the faith and then decide to become Christians; rather, the process was reversed: they first decided and then they understood. More precisely, they were first attracted by the Christian community and form of life. The reasons for attraction ranged from the noble to the ignoble and were as diverse as the individuals involved; but for whatever motives, they submitted themselves to prolonged catechetical instruction in which they practiced new modes of behaviour and learned the stories of Israel and their fulfillment in Christ."[3]
Evan's reference to Romans 10:14,17[4] is interesting. However, this is only part of what the Bible has to say about salvation. Considering that I do not possibly think Evans can be referring to "hearing" as literally "listening" due to the exclusion of the deaf from his enterprise, I fail to see why "hearing" cannot be interpreted in a wider sense.
Romans 10:14b "And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?"
Preaching does not just involve speaking, it involves careful listening. Preaching is what we do with out lives, when we glorify God, it is not merely reserved for Sunday mornings. If preaching is what we do with our lives, it involves loving our neighbours in a far wider sense than quoting bits of the Bible at them. I don't think that this is what Evans is suggesting, but there is a danger it might be interpreted that way.
Romans 10:17 states "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."
We know that the word of Christ can be seen, heard and understood in many ways. Again, I reiterate that verbal proclamation is only one way in which we appeal to people to know and love the truths of the Gospel.
I sympathise with Evans in his note that the Old Testament prophets did not change their methods when they failed to persuade people, but I think I would ask whether the method to which he refers (verbal proclamation) is the only method the Bible encourages.
There is a danger, I think, that modernism has produced (and consequently, of which, I have almost certainly been guilty) that people need to understand the Gospel. Jesus never really said that. When he called his disciples from their boats, he said "follow me, and I will make you fishers of men". He did not say "Please open your Torah at page 314 and listen as we read aloud.". He did not say "Our understanding of fishing comes from a biblical exposition that I will outline to you for the next hour.". He did not say "I know that sounds like a big claim, but I want you to understand it so that you know it's true". No. Jesus said "follow me". He encouraged them firstly to follow, on sheer weight (presumably) of his authority. Modernity, of course, is an age that has stressed the written word. I wonder how much Evangelicalism has consequently bought into that pattern. What's wrong with the words of Francis Assisi?
[Note to Angela: here add the notes from Willimon in his book "Preaching the gospel to the person who has everything," on preaching in the wrong order]
3. Fusion's Gospel
One wonders how willing Jesus would have been to be pinned down on theology or doctrinal position.
I would share Evans' concern if Fusion really are encouraging people to "meet Jesus" as a private and emotional experience. I simply do not know how representative the picture that Evans presents of Fusion is. Ironically, I see in Fusion's mission a not-so-subtle rejection of the often dull and dry concentration by conservative evangelicals of gospel proclamation that fails to involve the emotions. I would further point out that Evans' understanding of the atonement is rather one-sided. Propitiation is only one understanding of the atonement. Morna Hooker in "Not Ashamed of the Gospel" gives a good explanation of why this is so.
I do share with Evans the danger of being unclear about one's doctrine and thus the problems that might be encountered through heresy, but I have not looked through any of Fusion's material myself and cannot say whether or how much they are not concerned with doctrinal fidelity.
4. Fusion's denominational and church ties
I wonder whether the confusion that Evans notes with regard to Fusion's identity between church group or Christian organisation comes from the issues highlighted in my preliminary remarks.
I quote Evans that "Fusion cells are supported by full-time Fusion 'associates' who are employed by local charismatic churches. This makes life very hard for Christian Unions as their leaders do not have the time or resources to 'compete' with full-time, paid, church workers."
I would ask, I think, about the role of the "staff workers" in the CU movement? Are these not full-time, paid workers? I would further add that I do not think Fusion and the CUs really ought to be competing.
Conclusion
I hope that I have raised a number of useful questions with regard to Evans' article. I do not know enough of the way in which Fusion interpret unity to raise questions more specific to its pronouncement. I can only hope that its interpretation is wider than that of the CU movment. I have heard far too many tales of people who have been told that they are "not Christians" by their Christian Unions for professing a much more catholic approach to doctrine than the CU movement.
I offer my broad support for the way that Fusion do evangelism. I pray that they will see the fruits of their labour and also that their methods may be learned from and shared by those in the CU movement.
Again, I have only been able to raise a few questions on Fusion's presentation of the Gospel due to my non-involvement with Fusion. I am sympathetic to Evans' presentation, but I would raise questions about whether the gospel that the CU movment promote is one that could be claimed by the wider Church.
I strongly contest the idea that charismatic evangelicalism "denies the sufficiency of Scripture". This is in effect what Evans' art icle suggests. This is a criticism by those in the strongly conservative Evangelical camp. One wonders how many cell meetings Evans has been present at to listen to the way the Bible is used. I fail to see why Fusion's theology is not safeguarded by the limits of the biblical canon. Anybody who has belonged to the charismatic movement for a decent amount of time will have come to understand that any word of knowledge, prophecy or interpretation of tongue must be compared to the Biblical witness to validate its truthfulness.
I should point out that Evans' note that King's College Cambridge has no CU group due to the infiltration by Fusion means that King's does have what Evans' might see as a "united witness" to the Gospel. I am sure that it should not be the case that he thinks that a united witness provided by the group in which he was a part is correct and one provided by another Christian group is incorrect.
Closing remarks I strongly disagree with Evans that "the charismatic and conservative wings of 'evangelicalism' have diverged so much in the last 20 years that it may not be entirely unhealthy to stop pretending that we only disagree on minor issues and to have two different student groups to show both Christians and non-Christians that we do stand for different gospels sitting under different authorities." Indeed, this is not exactly standing for a "united witness". Perhaps it is my naivety that leads me to believe that even in spite of the Reformation, Christians may still view one another as brothers and sisters. In light of that, I refuse to accept that charismatic evangelicals and conservative ones have diverged so strongly that they represent different gospels. Part of the problem (I think) with the CU movement is that it fails to adhere to the creeds of the Church, made by the ecumenical councils. Why on earth should a movement be allowed to call itself a "Union" of Christians, when in fact it is no such thing? It is time to remember that both the CU movment and Fusion are Evangelical Evangelism Societies.
One last comment... The philosophy of our culture that has influenced Christian circles until recently has been modernist philosophy. Modernist philosophy is no better or more neutral than post-modernist philosophy. Modernism only dates back as far as the Enlightenment and when Jesus instructed his disciples to "follow me", he didn't say that they had to have a particular worldview to follow. It just so happens that Evangelicalism has made great gains in adhering to the status quo of modernism, but I think Evangelicals are going to have to learn that modernism is no more biblical than post-modernism or any other philosophical movement.[5]