Mission: Admission?
In speaking to J. John, (an exclusive interview as some lesser quality papers than Christis might claim) he saw the Mission as aiming to give students who were not Christian, an opportunity to learn something of Christianity. An overflow of this process would be to encourage further those who already consider themselves to be Christian. Those who had simply been in churches as Christian apologetics would be able to re-understand their faith.
Personally, I would agree that the former is important; especially in a country like Britain which is ostensibly secular but with underlying Christian moralities and morés, it is helpful for people to be able to see the context into which these moralities and morés were created. However, once on has established this, I feel that it is important for the individual for themselves to consider whether they feel it is relevant for Britain in the last decade before the 21st Century. Therefore Christianity shouldn’t be used in a way for people to re-understand their faith on the basis of what other people tell them but to create more questions and fewer answers, allowing people to decide for themselves what Christianity means. Furthermore, I would argue, that at the moment, Christians already do this, therefore, by taking the opportunity to question we are simply explicitly acknowledging what is already implicit, and creating structures for the development of Christian thought which only arises from questioning, rather than simple acceptance.
During the actual Mission talks however, the aim of learning about Christianity seemed to be interpreted as persuading that Christianity does not contradict itself, and is right. Particularly on Monday night, J. John spoke of the forms of logic, and although Christianity may not conform to the logic of humanity, (well, he actually said mankind, but since he was an ordained Anglican priest, I decided to let the matter rest) i.e. our belief in rational logic and scientific hypothetical logic; Christianity does have a logic, the logic of personal knowledge. His metaphor of a kiss here was particularly useful (in rational and scientific terms an exchange of microbes and carbon dioxide, but as we may know, a personal knowledge gives a contradictory but still logical view of the kiss as something of much greater value.)
At other times J. John gave arguments to authenticate that Christianity was more powerful (in terms of supporting evidence) than Islam, Buddhism and Judaism, and again that the resurrection must have occurred, and that there is no possible response to the resurrection except through Christianity.
The tone taken also was very confrontational, we were asked to address the issue of whether we believed the aspects of Christianity that Mr John had talked about and the need to be a Christian if one did. To an independent observer, this did not seem to be an educational process of introducing Christianity for the benefits of a wider knowledge of Christianity throughout campus, but of a wider number of Christians throughout campus.
Another important indicator of this point, I feel, is that when I asked him about the success of the Mission, although J. John acknowledged that one of the reasons was that it was an enjoyable and stimulating event, the first reason he gave, and clearly the most important in his view, was that around 200 people had attended the event. In the spirit of the Gospels, Jesus clearly gives the view that commitment is much more important than the size of the following, there is nowhere in my Bible which records rewards for miracles in a commitment to God (Judaism or Christianity). Indeed, Jesus asks disciples, not only the apostles but all disciples, to be “the salt of the Earth”, a metaphor which is theologically important because salt was heavily used in New Testament times in cooking; a little salt enriches a meal immensely, but large quantities of salt leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
Despite what J. John said during the meetings that I attended, I was not converted to the form of Christianity which he was advocating. As a liberal, so called, Christian, I felt isolated from large parts of the meetings, the idea of personal Father God, the implications that this has, in terms of sexism and the imagery of sexual orientation had the effect of dissuading me away from Christianity rather than closer to it, a feeling felt by many secular people that went to the Mission also.
My own personal belief is that Christianity is larger than any one expression of it. Although I believe that J. John was willing to accept this, the views that he was putting forward were only considering one evangelical expression, with the aim of influencing people to “convert” to Christianity, rather than give a true educational account of Christianity. It is in this sense that I feel that the CU mission was an attempt at admission into the Church. My interpretation of Christianity is much wider than this, although I do not say that I hold the truth and the answers, I do not impose my views, however subtly upon other people, as a salvation to their own problems. For me, I believe the idea of Missions needs to be rethought to be more inclusive, representative (especially of other religions and interpretations of religious truth) and most of all, at providing seeds of questions rather than providing all the answers.
This article is a response to the CU mission at York which this year took place on February 10th, 11th and 12th. Although independent, I fear that my views will not be uncontroversial. However, it is simply an articulation of my own understanding of Christianity and I therefore apologise in advance to all those who are offended by this article.