FCCU: A reply
Chris Charlton has something to say about FCCU
Dear Christis,
I would like to raise some concerns with your regular writer James Porter. The last two things of his that I read only served to concern me greatly about how his mind works.
First of all, let us approach his letter of the last issue. Like Voltaire, though I disagree with what he says I will defend to the death his right to say it, especially a defence of his own work, but really; have the last thirty years of literary criticism passed him by? Since Roland Barthes’ seminal essay, The Death of the Author, Porter’s claims that “I am the author and I AM RIGHT” carry no weight. The essence of Barthes’ theory is that, once the word has left the author’s pen, the author has no control over its meaning. Consequently any meaning that the reader finds, or fails to find, in Porter’s (or anyone else’s) work is equally valid. Porter’s defence against Greg Melia’s excellent points is fundamentally flawed and based on the assumption that as author, he doesn’t need to explain himself.
However, my minor qualms about Porter’s defence in this letter pale beside my feelings towards the allegedly satirical “FCCU” story. If I were to pick holes in Porter’s style, I would suggest that satire should be self-explanatory, even if it excludes people who don’t understand all the jokes; if you’ve never heard anything about government policy, most of Rory Bremner’s jokes will leave you cold. This is both satire’s greatest strength and most significant weakness — it will only ever appeal to those who understand it anyway. Trying to tack on an explanation to the satire only lessens the effect of the story itself, just as a joke isn’t funny if you have to explain it.
Anyway. What I was more concerned about was his argument. I just don’t see where he’s coming from. If he has genuine concerns about the Christian Union (and UCCF) and their approach to evangelism and the rest of campus, surely a well thought out, considered piece would be the best way to express those concerns. Instead, Porter has chosen a furious and somewhat bemusing attack on some of the more obvious clichés which beset the CU without giving serious consideration to the motivation behind it.
Don’t get me wrong. I am no CU apologist or masquerading committee member. I stopped attending CU in my first year and have never really been tempted to return more than for the occasional event. I personally don’t find most of the things they do to be particularly helpful to me or anyone else I know, and I agree that the approach of the CU as a body can seem judgemental and unforgiving to the point of legalism. So it isn’t that I disagree with every word Porter writes. I just don’t agree with how he’s done it.
The CU would argue (and have, to me, at great length) that their main role is mission and the spreading of God’s message onto campus. Can anyone who has read the last three verses of Matthew’s gospel deny the centrality of this notion to the concept of Christian service? Of course not everyone will find their approach effective — different people will be looking in different places to find truth, and will be looking for different paths to it. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating the concept that all faiths lead to God, by the way. What I mean is that some will, like Paul, have a major epiphany when God speaks directly, face to face, to them. Some, like C.S.Lewis, will seek God through academia — through research and careful thought. Others will seek God through trying to experience him personally in their daily lives. Not all will look to the Bible as their first source of inspiration — to return to Paul (or any of the disciples), it was the personal encounter that happened first, and subsequently the Bible backed up all they had seen. The Bible is not the only road to God. Jesus is the only road to God. The Bible is a way to Jesus.
Sorry about that digression. Anyway. If James Porter wants to attack the CU, maybe he should give some thought to how much he’s tried to show God’s love on campus over the past three years. I know I haven’t done as well as I could. I’m pretty sure he won’t have either. Let him who is without sin…
Now on the Doctrinal Basis he and I may agree rather more. However, I would ask him to consider the rationale behind the existence of such a document. More or less by definition, the University of York Christian Union will be made up, for the vast majority, of young Christians. I use that term in every sense you could. For these people, strict guidelines and a firm hand guide them in the right direction. It is easier to follow a faith that is black and white than one with grey areas.
That doesn’t mean it’s right, of course. Personally, I consider the Doctrinal Basis (DB) to be a pain in the neck, as it prevents other Christian societies from working with the CU as much as we’d like without signing up to it. To do so would compromise our members, who might not individually agree with everything in it.
The irony is that the DB, put in place to keep young Christians well-advised and adhering to Christ’s teachings in a difficult environment (for many, it will be the first time they’ve been away from home for longer than a week), precludes the CU from working with the University Chaplaincy in any serious way — the Chaplaincy being a body that…er…tries to keep young Christians well-advised and adhering to Christ’s teachings in a difficult environment.
The real problem with the DB in these terms is that the CU are great. They are a fabulous group of people fully committed to sharing God’s love with everyone they meet. It would be great for other organisations on campus — say Christian Focus, or Revelation, or hey — even Christis — to be able to get involved in the CU’s work and involve them in ours on a more profound level. I would love to see us working together, publicising each other, meeting and praying together and discussing projects of mutual interest. Recent events have suggested this may be beginning to happen.
There is an organisation on campus called the CLM, or Christian Leaders’ Meeting. It exists to promote such inter-societal good relations, and boy does it work. Representatives of every Christian society on campus attend to talk about what they’re up to and pray together. This is what we need. It’s not perfect — most joint projects the CLM tries to organise at present go ahead without the CU’s help — but it’s a start. Pray it works.
So rather than knocking a highly laudable project of the CU’s, let’s thank God for the people who became Christians as a result of God speaking to them through it. And let’s think about how we can all work together to, in our own different ways, spread that message of love.
To all of you, I have a simple message. Unity is good. It’s not the same as uniformity. Let’s work together, celebrating our differences, correcting one another in love and celebrating the fact that we share in one God and in the death of his Son.
Satire is destructive. Let’s be constructive.