Feast of St Matthew

"Some as Apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the Body of Christ"

Ephesians 4: 11, 12

Today is my name patron's feast day, which I celebrated by going to morning Mass at St Mary's, Cambridge. It was nice to see three of my friends there (two I met through church, and one fellow physicist).

Given the reading (a small section of which is quoted above), I thought today might be a good day to say a little about the different way the student communities of which I've been a part have preferred to build up the Body of Christ.

Unfortunately the ANU congregation is rather small, and seems just below the critical mass to get a lot of events moving. Hopefully this is changing now, but I'm not around to see it.

My first experience in a substantial Catholic tertiary student group was therefore my involvement with the Catholic School of Action in the second half of 2006. Here I met a community of students that was primarily charismatic. I remember my first 7pm Mass at St Benedict's, Narrabundah: it's quite overwhelming (singing in tongues, 'prophetic' words - my use of the inverted commas is meant to avoid any theological misunderstanding: I'm recounting the description of them, not offering an opinion on what prophecy is and hence whether or not they were prophetic). Now I'm not opposed to the charismatic movement, but I do have some things to say about it.

The first is that I think it's easy for charismatic worshippers to mistake how the Holy Spirit moves. While I believe that their worship in tongues is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, I don't think it's nearly as direct as they might maintain. We are all called to worship God faithfully. For some people, loud and strange utterances are their genuine expression of love and respect, in which case they can be appropriate. For me, and for many, this is simply not the case. Obviously, we are not at all being moved by a different spirit, simply being moved to express ourselves in our way.

I'm also concerned that various attitudes can be carried over from worship practices into doctrinal attitudes. Contrary to many protestants' beliefs, the Catholic Church has always maintained its teaching that salvation is through grace, which comes from putting one's faith and trust in Christ. It follows St James, however, in teaching that true faith is (not just can or should be) exhibited through works. Works of caritas (neither love nor charity is a sufficient translation: the best translation I've come across is outwards-reaching love, i.e. real concern for one another, contrasted with amare, which is a more inwards-turning love, that one may feel when 'in love' or enjoying the love of one's family. Latin scholars may fault my interpretation, but I'm trying to speak theologically rather than linguistically) are thus the 'measure' of one's faith. Obviously I wouldn't recommend trying to measure anyone's faith! I occasionally get the feeling, though, that those of a charismatic inclination do, perhaps unconsciously, in some way measure or assess someone's faith, and on the basis of their response in worship. I think this is a very dangerous shift in emphasis from the life we are meant to lead to the support we have to lead it.

So, while I admire charismatics' sincerity and devotion in worship, I certainly don't feel completely at home in a charismatic group.

In July 2007 I found myself in a very different group of Catholic university students. It was the annual conference of the Australia Catholic Students' Association. Students here tended to belong to what is known as the 'radical orthodox' school. Now I would consider myself orthodox, and it's easy to forget just how radical the call of Christ is, but that's not what's meant here. I guess the hallmark of radical orthodoxy is a preference for the Latin Mass, and an accompanying focus on what was considered important at the time it prevailed. While I admire the way these students put the sacraments at the centre of their lives, I think too many put too little emphasis on the very important next step: to use them as a source from which to reach out in order to carry out Christ's mission of looking after the poor and visiting and welcoming those in need. Although it shows itself in a different way, I guess the imbalance is similar to that possible for a charismatic worshipper.

During my semester in Berkeley (August to December 2007) I found myself part of a community where I really felt at home. I felt the students there really recognised what was important in Christian life. Interestingly, I was convinced by what went on, rather than simply finding a reflection of what I already felt was important. I had felt that I knew what my task as a Christian is: to serve God through serving those around me (that's rather all-encompassing, but I don't think a narrower definition would be sufficient), and the purpose of a faith community was to provide support in carrying out this service. The community I joined, however, seemed to have a different primary purpose. This was one of love, care and support for each other, recognising that college is a challenging time for anyone, especially at a competive university like Berkeley. By joining the community, I found myself able to thrive and enjoy my time there.

Obviously there are difficulties with this attitude as well. It's easy to see the faith community as one of support for each other, and forget that the purpose of this support is to allow us to reach out to others. That's especially the case for those of us in a career like mine, where I'm effectively investing a lot of time in myself in the expectation that that will enable me to serve God through my career. There are some serious questions about priorities that arise here: I don't have all the questions, let alone all the answers, but it's easy and dangerous to forget that there are questions!

It's pretty clear that I felt the Berkeley community was closest to my heart with their religious priorities. I think St Paul's message is clear: we do need a variety of voices within the Church, but I found one more appealing than the others, and think we could do with more of it.

MIT seems to be a bit of a mix. Outbreak the Friday before last felt like Berkeley, there's a definite emphasis among some of my Catholic friends on doing things just how the Church teaches, a trait among the radically orthodox (and one I feel very much at home with: I don't see any point doing something some way other than the right way), and last Friday I went to a students' prayer meeting with a distinct (though not overhwelming) charismatic character. It's good to see that MIT is home for all within the Catholic faith.