Berkley Center

Pembroke College despises St. Aldates Church.

The church wakes the college by blasting “new life Christian music” out of it windows. It often attempts to stuff our mailboxes with promotional material. Much like the kebab van, it attracts people of dubious character to the college at all hours of the day. Perhaps worst of all, it robs Pembroke students, faculty, and staff of already scarce parking. Moreover, communication between the church and the college usually involves exchanging some “colorful” letters at best. At worst, it consists of fellows throwing some choice words at church members in the Pembroke parking lot. Either way, the college neglects to establish strong, positive relations with the church, while remaining as cordial as possible. Obviously, this conflict remains rooted in technical disagreements (e.g. parking, noise levels) and does not extend to some deeper resentment. Or does it? I often wonder how deep this mistrust runs.

Arrogance. This word seems to come up often when discussing the church with a vocal member of the college. Perceptions suggest that church members believe they are somehow better than the non-believer or average Joe who is not in church on a Sunday morning. I do not doubt that some church members express dismay over those irritable academics next door who think they are better than everyone else. College and church members alike refuse to accept the condescending language and attitude coming from their neighbor. Indeed, I was stunned when some British students look confounded talking to someone from the church. The interaction was as if the two spoke different languages. Certainly, I do not want to paint the picture of secular academics in opposition to fundamentalist loons. I merely want to explain the perceptions that exist and awkward nature of the interactions. Of course, the college remains rooted in its own religious tradition: the chapel, Grace in Latin at formal dinners, etc. So this underlying resentment does not come from a conflict merely between the religious and the secular. It seems to be aimed exclusively at the “New Life” brand. In referring to “New Life,” I am invoking a cross section of Protestant Christian denominations (often non-denominational) that practice in unorthodox manners (“megachurches”, services in amphitheaters, rock bands, strikingly modern translation Bibles, etc.) and speak much of religious revival.

Generally, I find that secular members of the college remain quite supportive of religious believers except when it comes to this brand. Why are the “New Life” churches so mistrusted compared to other traditions? Why does this church speak a language the college cannot understand or vice versa? One explanation may be that these churches are not really a tradition at all (hence being considered new). So they have not had time to translate their language into an acceptable secular tongue. Whenever a conflict arises, they appeal to a higher authority to justify their attitude or actions instead of giving a rational explanation for how they conduct themselves. However, I remain unconvinced that they cannot translate to secular language, because “New Life” Christian music sounds quite secular at times (e.g. Relient K, The Afters). And many different religious believers suffer from hubris over being the chosen ones, so this aspect is not unique of “New Life” churches. Another explanation may be that some people perceive these churches to represent an intolerant Christian fundamentalism clocked in catchy tunes. And they think that the fact that their music often sounds secular is deceptive at best.

As expressed in part by Jürgen Habermas, language consists of intuitive understandings in addition to acquired patterns and meanings. So it seems plausible that the religious speak a language of their own due to their intuitive beliefs and understandings, whereas secular understandings remain rooted in reason alone. Obviously, this means that any rational person should be able to understand something or someone on secular terms. Thus, the burden of translation falls on the religious; because the secular will refuse to take up their beliefs for the sake of understanding. Furthermore, the religious should be able to provide explanations via reason if their assertions hold implications for secular society as well. In other words, the religious must translate their language if they expect the secular to consider their concerns, but the religious cannot expect the same treatment from secular society. Perhaps, this imbalance explains some of the tension between more secular institutions and distinctly religious ones. This burden may seem reasonable, but not everyone will perceive it as fair. And I do not think it is a stretch to assume that fairness matters to many people, especially in the United Kingdom. So perhaps “New Life” churches just happen to be the avant-garde, an anti-translation movement. They may want to be understood on their own terms. And they funnel their resentment into petty conflict as do the more secular who resent the “New Life” camp for demanding a change in this seemingly reasonable relationship.