Let All Campus Ministry Models Be:
A Response to Wolterstorff, Smith and Valk
By Shiao Chong
As I read and re-read the articles by John Valk (Anastasis, Spring 2002), James Smith (Anastasis, Fall 2002) and Nicholas Wolterstorff (Anastasis, Spring 2003 & Fall 2003) on what campus ministry should be or do on the (North American) post-modern campus, I felt the need to write a response, albeit with a little intimidation and trembling – after all, who am I to critique the likes of Valk, Smith and especially Wolterstorff! But let me begin from a general observation to addressing some specific points in each essay and finally to attempt or ‘essay’ my own approach.
Modernist Approach
First of all, I found it ironic that in their concern to engage the post-modern age, the authors have, essentially, a modernist approach – by prescribing one model of campus ministry as the one necessary for our post-modern times. Valk champions a faith and learning integration model, while Smith argues for campus ministry as a worshipping community situated between church and university, and Wolterstorff suggests that campus ministers should guide scholars toward fidelity in their scholarship. All three approaches suggest a one-campus ministry model shoe that fits all (or most) secular universities, with the implication that other models are somehow deficient. I find this very modernist.
In the spirit of Wolterstorff’s “let the [different] voices be heard,” why can’t we just let all the different campus ministry models be heard or just plain be? Why can’t we acknowledge that different university campuses, each with their different ethos, different challenges and opportunities, invite and require different models of campus ministry that faithfully embodies Christ’s ministry to that campus? Isn’t there more than one way to engage the post-modern world? Why do we need one model as a standard for all?
My initial guess is that it has more to do with a question of identity. Underlying all these discussions is the unspoken question, “What should a Reformed campus ministry be? What makes a campus ministry Reformed rather than, say, Evangelical, Pentecostal, etc.?” I will return to this subject of the Reformed identity shortly.
Integration
Wolterstorff finds Valk’s integrationist model deficient because, “the Christian scholar, when working as a Christian scholar, does not find herself with two things that must somehow be integrated, her faith and her scholarship.” In my view, the key phrase here is, “when working as a Christian scholar”. I think that many Christian students, in particular, and even some Christian professors, are pressured to conform to a secular-faith based scholarship by the practices of current academia. As Wolterstorff himself pointed out, the secular academia’s models of learning/scholarship are ultimately based on reductionist assumptions. Thus, the Christian scholar may very well not be working as a Christian scholar but rather adopting a secular-faith based scholarship. The disjunction occurs here, not between her Christian faith and her scholarship as such but between her ought and her is, between her Christian faith based scholarship (ought) and her secular faith based scholarship (is), between what she wants and should do and what she has been trained and current academic structures promote her to do.
Thus, integration, in my opinion, should be integrating one’s Christian scholarship (faith) into the structures of a secular scholarship (learning) in such a way that it is not assimilation/capitulation but transformation/renewal. Our common language of faith and learning is a short hand for this difference between Christian and secular learning.
I am not dismissing Wolterstorff’s already integrated or ‘integralist’ Christian scholar as fiction. Indeed, Wolterstorff himself is probably a living example of this. Rather, Wolterstorff’s ‘integralist’ Christian scholar is the goal at which we seek to arrive, not the starting point. Our starting point is often the student/scholar who experiences a disconnection between her ought and her is. I agree with Wolterstorff that Christian learning and learning as practiced by others are not always different in assumptions and results. But it often seems that way at the onset by the Christian student new to academia. The goal is to guide them towards becoming the healthy ‘integralist’ Christian scholar. And this is a communal process, not an isolated individualistic pursuit.
Space in the Classroom
Like Smith, I have reservations about Valk’s proposal for campus ministry “to carve out new space in the university – a place in the classroom, a place at the centre of the academy.” My reservations, however, differ from Smith’s. Smith sees Valk as confusing the roles between Christian professors and campus ministers. Instead he suggests that, “the campus minister serves a prophetic function, reminding the Christian professor and scholar of the essential role of the church in the development of a Christian mind, nourishing it through the organization of worship and liturgy, and creating space for Christian theoretical reflection.” But it seems to me that the prophetic function can, and probably should, be fulfilled in more ways than one. To me, Valk’s classroom teaching campus minister acts as a role model Christian scholar, as another way of serving the prophetic function.
My own reservation with Valk’s proposal is that I am not clear if he allows for other ways of carving out space in the classroom. Is teaching in the classroom the only way to create a Christian voice in the centre of academia? What about Smith’s suggestion of empowering and equipping Christian professors to be the Christian voices in their respective classrooms? Is that not also carving out a space for campus ministry in the classroom? What about equipping students? What about writing a textbook or an article that becomes a reading assignment for the class? Does the campus minister have to physically be in the centre in order for the campus ministry’s presence to be there?
Church & Worship
My biggest reservations are for Smith’s article. Two main points I find troubling: campus ministry as “church for the university” and the notion that “the worship life” or “the liturgy [is] central to the vocation of campus ministry”. Smith defines church (as he writes in his reply to Stacey Van Dyk’s letter) as, “a eucharistic community gathered around the preaching of the Word, governed by a plurality of elders and bishops, which participates in – and is accountable to – a broader community, both geographically and historically.” In effect, Smith is suggesting that campus ministry is an agent of the institutional church for the university. And if campus ministry is the institutional church for the university, worship that is so central to the institutional church is thus also central and definitive of campus ministry. Thus, for Smith, “both the lectures and the liturgy” are central to the campus minister’s vocation.
If I am not mistaken, it was H. Evan Runner who coined the word, “Churchianity”. As I understand it, it means the reduction of Christianity to the institutional church. I see Smith’s model as moving dangerously close to that. True, Christian Reformed campus ministers and the like are commissioned by specific institutional churches/denominations. But this does not necessarily mean that they, therefore, function as ambassadors of the institutional church. In fact, in the CRC, pastors, evangelists, missionaries, elders and deacons are seen as ambassadors of Christ, first and foremost, not of the church. (A reading of the ordination forms at the back of the CRC’s Psalter Hymnal will bear this out.) Even though the church calls and ordains them, and they are accountable to the institutional church, submitting to its discipline and governance, these commissioned ones are not seen as merely agents of the body, but ultimately agents of the head, Christ, for the sake of the body. There is a slight tension here, of course, but it’s a healthy one, in my mind. Campus ministers have that same tension of representing Christ and ultimately accountable to him, but always accountable to him through the institutional church that also represents Christ to the world.
Smith not only reduces church to the institutional church but also reduces worship to the worship service. It is true, as Wolterstorff says, “our work is [not] our worship. Working and worshipping are two distinct dimensions of our life before God.” But surely, we cannot reduce the worshipping dimension to the liturgical setting of a worship program either. Where two or three are gathered in prayer of praise to God, even in silent prayer, that, in my judgement, is a worship team.
I am not knocking liturgical worship (neither am I taking sides on the worship wars). I believe the worship event is central to the institutional church. I believe it does transform and shape the hearts and minds of Christians. But I want to be careful not to idolize the worship service. In all the increased emphasis on the worship service lately, I find it curious that the bulk of the gospels focus on Jesus’ teaching and preaching outside of the institutional synagogue, outside of the formal worship setting, in the hills, in homes of people at dinner time, in all sorts of informal and often unplanned settings. Clearly, in my mind, what stood out, as key formative events, for the gospel writers were the everyday, personal, even somewhat informal, mentoring and teaching of Jesus. But according to this worshipping model, campus ministers who focus on such mentoring without worship services are deficient.
I am not saying that campus ministries should not do worship. Far from it! Just because the worship service is not definitive of campus ministry in general does not preclude the worship service from being central to any specific campus ministry. Neither are lectures or bible studies central or definitive of campus ministry in general. But the engagement of faith with learning and the expression of faith in worship that are normally embodied in lectures and liturgy are important to campus ministry. Are they definitive? I think it’s time that I attempt to articulate some thoughts on what campus ministry is or should be.
What is (Reformed) Campus Ministry?
What then is campus ministry? By now, you probably detected some hints on where I stand. Taking a cue from Bill Lewis, campus minister emeritus from Columbus, Ohio, metaphor and narrative, rather than definition, are characteristic of the biblical story, and therefore more appropriate for articulating understandings of what campus ministry is. I am, thus, less inclined to define campus ministry by models or propositions. I suggest, instead, the metaphor of incarnation. Christ’s incarnation, or “in-fleshing”, was a concrete actualization of “God with us”.
I suggest that campus ministry incarnates the triune God’s ways within the specific context of higher education. Another way to put it: campus ministry is not the church for the university, but rather, campus ministry is Christ and the church with the university – it is “God with us” in a specific vein. “With” rather than “for” suggests give and take, dialogue rather than monologue, alongside-ness rather than over and above. It also suggests vulnerability and risk, just as Christ made himself vulnerable, even to the point of death. I think any ministry is always risky business, to varying degrees. To be Christ and the church with the university involves allowing oneself to be vulnerable to change and transformation that is mutual, not just one-sided. And this kind of transformation may be good for us, the church, and the university, and also the Spirit’s way with us and with the world. But it’s not something one can specifically plan for.
To suggest that campus ministry incarnates God’s ways with the university is also to allow multiple forms or models of how that incarnation can take shape. I believe every campus has its own challenges, needs, ethos, structures, and opportunities that call forth for different forms of incarnation. Furthermore, the ethos and practices of the campus minister and of her tradition, of her institutional church or organization (I am including parachurch groups here) also give shape to that incarnation. It may well be that for one campus ministry, worship is essential, while for another, carving out space in the classroom is a faithful incarnation of God’s way with that university, given that campus minister’s gifts and tradition
This “definition” is, of course, relatively fluid and porous. Welcome to the post-modern world! But I think it is in line with the biblical text. The history of Christian theology shows that we are hard pressed to find definitive definitions in Scripture on many of our doctrines.
Does this, however, mean that there are no differences between Evangelical, Liberal and Reformed incarnations on campus? As I suggested, the shape, form or model that incarnation takes is affected by not only the university’s unique circumstances, but also by the campus minister’s gifts and his institutional church and tradition’s ethos, practices and beliefs.
Again, I rely on metaphor rather than definition by propositions. The dominant motif or metaphor for the Reformed tradition, in my judgement, is a vision of God on the throne. I believe this vision of God on the throne (Isaiah 6 for instance) informs and shapes all of Reformed theology and practice. It can be expressed (though not exhausted) by the concept of God’s sovereignty. But a vision of God on the throne is more than just assent to God’s control. It is more than that. This metaphor of God moves Calvinists to emphasize grace in their theology. This vision motivates them to logically deduce (rightly or wrongly) predestination from Scripture. This Reformed vision is the reason why Reformed Christians typically emphasize Christ as Lord rather than Christ as Saviour. Because of this vision of God, Calvinists define the Christian life as primarily gratitude to God. This Reformed motif places the preaching of God’s Word as central to Reformed worship, in contrast to sacrament-centred worship. Inspired by this vision, Reformed Christians seek to realize Christ’s Lordship over all areas of life. I can go on and on
Reformed campus ministry, I offer, is an incarnation of God’s way with the university that is deeply informed/shaped by this vision of God on the throne. This does not, in my opinion, lead to any specific model of campus ministry. One can be worship centred in a Reformed way, or be pursuing integration in a way that is infused by this Reformed vision. One can be any shape or model but still Reformed by primarily drawing inspiration from this metaphor of God enthroned over all creation. This also means that Reformed ministry is not always different from other traditions’ ministries, despite different dominant metaphors.
Therefore, let all the various models be: be it centred on worship, lectures, small groups, mentoring, counselling, so on and so forth. Whatever model it is, let it be a faithful incarnation, a faithful rendering of “God with us”, for that particular university, during a particular time, led by a particular campus minister, sent by and accountable to a particular church tradition and institution. And Reformed campus ministry is such incarnations deeply inspired by the Reformed vision of God on the throne.
Shiao Chong is the Christian Reformed Campus Minister at York University in Toronto, Ontario.
