'Fusion', the new initiative recently launched by leaders of some new churches, including Pioneer, Ichthus and YWAM, has issued a 'Fusion Position Paper' setting out 'philosophies and practical aspects'.
The main issue highlighted is an approach to Christians working together on campus which is different from UCCF. The UCCF modus operandi has always been that of making a distinction between primary and secondary truth. The gospel is primary, whereas denominational and movement distinctives can be laid aside as secondary.
Fusion comments: 'The 'Gospel Unity' philosophy of UCCF which necessitates the laying down of some beliefs and practices means that the only speakers encouraged are those who maintain a 'middle ground' . . . In contrast our approach to unity ... would be perhaps more like the kind of thing that occurs at Spring Harvest, where people are encouraged to express their traditions with freedom. We all come together and allow those emphases to come out under the authority of scripture... allowing people to be free to express who they are in God.'
This approach appears very naive. What may (or may not) work for one week a year together at a Butlins camp, is very different from what is required in an ongoing daily three or four year witness together on a campus. Surely the Bible does encourage us to play down differences and major on essentials (see 1 Corinthians 15. 3,4, where the gospel is of first importance and 1 Corinthians 13, where love means not insisting on our own way).
While Fusion claims to seek to create new evangelistic initiatives, its primary grassroots strategy appears focussed on CUs and CU committees and has obvious potential to divide gospel witness.
Leadership
Another area of concern has to do with leadership. Fusion's vision is not to run big meetings on campus, but to set up cell groups whose format will be that of Welcome, Worship, Word and Witness. The position paper states concerning the Word aspect: 'This will be a good 40 minutes of the evening, and will be a place where people can learn, study the Bible, be disciplined, challenged, prayed for etc. Specific material will be given for each meeting for the leader to use.' Else-where, they state: 'These cells are to be experiential, not just about academic learning, but about experiencing Jesus.'
Concerning the leadership of these groups, the paper states: 'Fusion wants to empower and release students into leadership at a grass roots level. We aim to provide them with training and relational discipleship ... Fusion aims to maintain a serving role. We will form cells, shape them, but will resist controlling them and having too much of a hands-on role.... Initially, of course, we may be quite hands-on, however, as time goes by we will hopefully see the work of cells, primarily led by students emerge.'
With this background, a Christian Union executive may be tempted to say to themselves: 'Let's be open to both UCCF and Fusion.' But when it comes to practicalities, what will be involved? If they decide to go along the Fusion line it will mean that either alternative groups will have to be set up, or the CU would have to hand over their existing fellowship groups and let Fusion determine what is studied, and how.
Also, the statements of Fusion concerning training of cell leaders runs into practical difficulties. At college, most students can only be in a position of leadership in the CU for one year. In which case, won't the hands-on approach of Fusion have to be repeated every year?
Thinking it over
At present many CUs are thinking through the issues, but it is too early to see whether Fusion is making any headway. For example, none of the churches in Cam-bridge has expressed support for the initiative. In the south of England, we understand that only two colleges have shown any real interest.
One of the main strongholds of Fusion seems to be the Hull Christian Union. Here the Fusion position paper's promise of co-operation with other groups does not seem to be holding true. Hull University CU has been backed by a pro-Fusion group of churches for over two years.
During that time, the local evangelical Anglican church led by Melvin Tinker, a well-known writer on evangelical issues, and his evangelistic outreach team from St. Johns Newland, have been constantly rebuffed in various attempts to work with the CU. This culminated in a clear message from the CU executive that they did not wish to work with them.
This Fusion-backed CU's ideas for evangelism in the past have included: putting up £4,000 (of Christian money) as a reward in a debate as to whether the resurrection of Jesus actually took place. They lost the debate and duly handed the money across to a very grateful group of unbelievers (whom, we are told, gave it away to charity).
Unfortunately, the Position Paper's rambling and rather Byzantine style, is peppered with seemingly contradictory statements, and does little to clarify how these things will work out in practice. As far as we understand, since the Fusion position paper was first circulated, there has been some rethinking of some of the issues. Contacts give us the impression that Fusion will seek to launch itself more fully at the beginning of the next academic year.
