Michael Schluter, October 2008

Despite the fact that over half the British population still identify themselves as Christian, our political leaders now insist that many Christian institutions cannot receive public funding. Even those who would argue in favour of creating Christian universities in Britain today, as Nigel Paterson does in his Cambridge Paper, ‘Do we need a Christian university?’, accept that there are a number of barriers that make this unlikely. Other problems include:

• Finding sufficient committed Christian staff to cover each subject specialisation
• Finding sufficient students prepared to support, or accept, an overtly Christian ethos, and willing to pay the additional costs of a private sector university
• The perception of exclusion of those with other faiths, especially from faculty positions
• The diversion of scarce Christian resources from evangelism, social action and other mission-based activity to help fund Christian higher education.

In countries where governments are hostile to Christian institutions, is there any alternative? In the UK, this question is of immediate relevance to the new colleges of higher education which originally developed on a Christian foundation, perhaps as teacher training colleges, but now are expected to have a wider intake of students. They are caught in a difficult dilemma: they wish to retain their Christian ethos but also have access to public funding. They also wish to be more inclusive in recruitment of faculty and students for reasons of both student numbers and access to academic excellence.

The Jubilee Centre suggests that one solution to this dilemma is for such colleges and universities to base themselves on ‘Relational Thinking’. Relational Thinking is a school of thought based on the ethical values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Any relationship, whether between individuals, organisations or nations, can be analysed in terms of five domains: communication, time, information, power, and purpose.  Hence, all areas of public and private life can be viewed from a relational perspective, which allows the possibility of constructive intervention. For it is through relationships that community development and cohesion, and personal well-being and health are realised.

Moreover, Relational Thinking does not just see the world through a different lens, but proposes that the values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition should influence the way relationships are formed and sustained.  These values include justice, mercy, social harmony, truth, hope, loyalty/faithfulness, responsibility, forgiveness and love ‘other-person-centredness’. The eight principles undergirding a Relational society, as explored by the Jubilee Centre and Relationships Foundation are:

1. Family networks - for the love, support and welfare of the individual.
2. Personal and family rootedness - to build strong communities.
3. A shared national culture - to foster inclusion and cohesion.
4. Justice and reconciliation - as the basis for achieving peace and social harmony.
5. The wide distribution of political power and economic assets - to promote accountability and community development.
6. The use of money and other resources, and the structuring of financial systems - to foster healthy commercial, social and international relations.
7. Influencing organisations to think relationally - to uphold a social environment in which relationships thrive.
8. Fulfilling duties - particularly to those who are disadvantaged either relationally or materially.

Although a Relational college or university falls short of a fully Christian-based institution in its ability to proclaim and honour Christ, it still would differ sharply from its secular counterpart.  Some examples of the difference which this Relational ethos would make to a college or university, over the secular alternative in Britain or France today, would be as follows:

(a)   The goal of the college or university would be significantly altered. The 2003 White Paper defined the goals of higher education in the UK as follows:

‘We see a higher education sector which meets the needs of the economy in terms of trained people, research, and technology transfer. At the same time it needs to enable all suitably qualified individuals to develop their potential both intellectually and personally, and to provide the necessary storehouse of expertise in science and technology, and the arts and humanities which defines our civilisation and culture’. (Cm 5735, Jan 2003)

In contrast, a Relational approach to higher education would stress in its goals the ability of students not just to acquire knowledge but to understand how to use their knowledge for the well-being of their immediate community and wider society. Both faculty and students would need to accept the relational values stated above rather than the Christian doctrines which lie behind those values.

(b)   Changes in the content of courses. If the goals of society are defined in Relational rather than economic terms, it makes a significant difference to the understanding of subjects in the social and behavioural sciences such as economics, sociology, psychology, geography and management studies. In the natural sciences, there will also be differences in lines of enquiry, as well as in the starting point of the subject, although technical descriptions of processes will be the same. Choice of literature to study in modern languages, and its critique, will also be different if the goal of the educational process is defined in terms not just of knowledge accumulation but of character development.

(c)   The social norms of a Relational college would also be different. Rather than an almost exclusive concern with examination results, college faculty would seek to promote mutual respect and understanding among students. Thus, a deliberate focus of policy for college governors would be to promote among students patterns of communication, relationship continuity, understanding of background, mutual respect and shared values and goals so as to build lasting friendships – across class, gender, ethnic and social boundaries. Given the importance of small numbers in enabling a group of people to know each other, the larger student body would need to be broken down into smaller groups - whether these are called ‘colleges’, ‘halls’, or by some other name. Membership of these smaller units would need to reflect the diversity of the student body, and also to last through the three years at the college or university, as with college membership in the UK’s older universities, to ensure continuity of relationship for students through their period in tertiary education. As far as the faculty-student relationship is concerned, the challenge for faculty to find time to spend with students while meeting the requirement to publish will remain as long as governments assess teaching ability of higher education faculty by numbers of research publications.

I believe that these priorities would prove attractive to both faculty and students, and so help to maintain student numbers, and would satisfy government criteria for funding. Of course, there is no reason why such priorities could not also be adopted by universities established on a secular foundation. However, an intentional focus on relational goals for the content and process of higher education are probably necessary to achieve the relational outcomes set out above in an individualistic and materialistic culture. Thus, ‘Relational Colleges and Universities’ – by pointing to the source of their values – potentially could act as a witness to the relevance and power of a Christian worldview in societies where ‘Christian Colleges and Universities’ are not a practical option.

• Share