Interfaith at Oasis

I have been asked to contribute an article to the Uniting Church’s national Relations with Other Faiths monthly news. We decided to pick up on one of the themes for my presentation to the national Spiritual Care Australia Conference in Hobart on April 21 and to the University of Tasmania the following day – the progression from mono- to multi- to inter-.

Australian universities have become places of increased religious diversity. In 2012, one in three students studying in Australia were international students, adding to the mix of faiths on campuses across the nation. With this changing landscape, university chaplains have been forced to reassess how they meet the spiritual needs of students.

The Uniting Church first appointed Geoff Boyce as chaplain to Flinders University in 1997. He steered the evolution of the University’s chaplaincy and the Religious Centre to become the Oasis Centre – a space for hospitality, well-being and inclusive spirituality.

This week Geoff is speaking at the Spiritual Care Australia National Conference in Hobart for chaplains about what he’s been doing at Oasis and the journey from a multi-faith to an interfaith conception of chaplaincy.

He writes:

“I’m often asked, ‘what does a chaplain do?’, ‘What exactly is Oasis?’

“I wish I had some neat answers! It’s a complex story rather than a ten second sound-bite!

Chaplaincy evolved out of the church’s need to provide religious services to those geographically displaced from their local church – those in hospitals, prisons and armed services, for example. There is little need in today’s universities because most religious needs can be met in the local community. The days of traditional ‘looking after our own’, sectarian chaplaincy in secular higher education institutions are numbered. Such chaplaincy is of little consequence to a modern university.

At Flinders the changed role for chaplaincy emerged from the internationalisation of the university. Harmony on a pluralist campus requires attention to social cohesion in the face of difference. This attention to the quality of relationships, a concern also quite central to religions, broadened the scope of an inclusive multi-faith chaplaincy to attend to the whole campus – pastoral care to all, regardless of faith or no faith.

So the next step for us at Flinders had to go beyond multi-faith in a Religious Centre – chaplains of the different faiths offering pastoral care to their own. Multifaith (literally many faiths) is an essential first step beyond religious sectarianism, but it doesn’t have the capacity in itself to deliver the harmony we need in our pluralist context. Not that there isn’t a lot of work to be done in that first step of recognising and respecting the rights of others to their belief systems!

Interfaith (literally, between faiths), focuses on the quality of relationships between people of diverse faiths, and also those of no particular faith practice. In Uniting Church language, it is a kind of ‘Ministry of Reconciliation’. It aims to be an inclusive, whole of university, pastoral contribution to university life.

The creation of an Oasis Team has been at the heart of the Oasis interfaith initiative. The team comprises appropriate representatives appointed by religious communities as well as other volunteers who subscribe to the pastoral vision of Oasis and its disciplines. Some of these are members of staff and others, retired members of staff. The team models what we are on about in its own team-life, and offers that ‘inter-life’ to students and staff.

It was surprising at the time, but looking back, I can see that it was not such a big step for a progressive university, at a time of restructuring student services in 2012, to embrace Oasis within its administrative structures, to appoint staff to sustain it and provide a modest budget for its activities. We had always strived to be of service to the university as well as our own constituencies. But we had not expected this!

‘Secular’ in our context does not mean a-religious, anti-God or athieistic. We at Oasis claim the meaning of ‘secular’ as understaood at the time Adelaide, the ‘City of Churches’, was first established – that no one religion be privileged over another or be used to exclude others. The ‘secular’ was a means of protecting freedom of religion, critical in the lives of the various groups escaping religious oppression in the UK and Europe at the time, and providing a means for peaceful and prosperous life in the new utopian colony.

In an ideal world, all university staff would be pastoral carers, customising every situation and conversation to individual students – students who come from highly diverse cultural, national, religious and academic backgrounds. But the pressures in the modern university are often forbidding.

Oasis is founded on what has been learnt in its evolution: from sectarian, often protective and individualised; to a ‘community of colleagues’, a multifaith chaplaincy with a broader agenda of respect for diversity; to an open, intercultural and interfaith enterprise fostering a culture of care.

The challenges of religious and cultural pluralism require major shifts in thinking for chaplains – no longer the ‘rescuing’, ‘telling’ salvation paradigm, but the hospitable, listening, empowering and long-term-committed mentoring (‘walking beside you’) paradigm, directed toward individual and corporate well being.

It means being closely connected to the life of the university but not meddling in it with hidden religious agendas, it means working collaboratively, connecting the disconnected, doing what needs to be done without taking over, enriching and enabling.

Arguably our longest-running collaboration has been with International Student Services. Some years ago they shared with us a concern about the spouses of international students and their families, often isolated in their flats while the students, often the husbands, were on campus. Responding to this directly was outside the ambit of International Student Services. So we agreed to co-host an English Conversation Class for the spouses each week. While the draw card was English language, our real concern was to reduce the isolation of families and build an ongoing community of support. But it also worked the other way, as hospitality is wont. Our Oasis Team member was inspired to undertake a degree in Indonesian. Now her fluency in Indonesian has opened the way for deeper collaboration with the International Office in building friendly relations with Indonesia through our Indonesian alumni.

At the same time, students who have experienced the unconditional hospitality of Oasis at Flinders return to their home countries as Oasis Ambassadors to affect greater interfaith understanding in their home communities.

The opportunities for good are endless!

Anatomy Memorial Service

For the last seventeen years, at the start of each academic year, the three universities in Adelaide conduct a combined memorial service for the families and friends of those who have bequeathed their bodies to medical science in the presence of the new medical students – medicine, physiotherapy, dentistry et al.

There is a welcome address by the host Vice Chancellor, an address by one of the Professors of Anatomy, and four reflections by graduate students from the different universities in different fields.

Then three university chaplains, at least one from a non-Christian tradition, address in turn, the families and friends, the students, and an aspect of faith that relates to the occasion, such as grief, science and religion etc. This year it fell to me to take this last slot and I decided to address the university itself, represented by the Vice Chancellor and staff.

Family and friends of donors, students, Vice Chancellor, staff and colleagues:

My name is Geoff Boyce. I am the Oasis Coordinating Chaplain at Flinders University.
Oasis is a university centre for hospitality, well being and inclusive spirituality, aiming to inspire a culture of care.

This afternoon, we turn aside from our daily challenges to focus on this moment. For me, this ceremony brings hope. Hope arising from the generosity of the donors; a generosity that induces deep respect and nurtures our human capacity for empathy.

Someone once said that nothing can be truly given unless there is someone who can truly receive.

So as my contribution to this ceremony, I wish to address my thoughts to the universities themselves, as the receivers of the generosity of the donors and their families, to acknowledge their continuing tradition of both contributing to the advancement of knowledge, as well as its transmission to students and the wider community.

As the result of the generosity of donors, the university is enabled to further its research, leading to greater medical understanding. Students benefit through enhanced learning experiences; and the wider community ultimately benefits from enhanced medical knowledge, and proficient medical care by those graduates, who, in the future, will take our lives in their hands.

In paying respect to the university, I think we should acknowledge the many difficulties and frustrations universities face in sustaining their tradition: the many diversions imposed on them to survive, such as the interminable search for funding, the pressures of external political ideology, and the need to construct self-protective mechanisms in the face of uncertain threats, to name a few. Dare I mention arranging enough car parks?

In fact, these diversions are no longer considered diversions, they have become normalized as essential to the survival of the university.

I think most of us recognize similar challenges in our own lives. But the demands on such large and complex human institutions are particularly exacting.

From where I stand as a university employee, I believe that one of today’s great challenges for the university, given the many pressures that frustrate its endeavour, is the protection of the space needed to nurture the spirituality of its members; to resist being over-run by a dominant utilitarian, risk-averse and consumerist culture, that inevitably leads to a toxic self-interest, blind to compassion and destroying trust and hope among its members and the wider community.

There is a writing in the Christian tradition, often repeated at marriage services: “now these three abide…” (that is, these three qualities are foundational and timeless) – “these three abide – faith, hope and love – but the greatest of these is love”. By ‘love’ I understand the writer to mean, empathetic acts of sacrificial compassion. Such acts require space for their enactment.

Faith, hope and love are what the donors have expressed, and I dare say the families expect of the university.

I commend the three universities for providing this opportunity today, for expressing their commitment to human dignity, and for providing the hospitality that allows us to express care for each other, in the context of the pursuit of knowledge and compassionate service to humanity.

Thank you.

What Exactly IS Oasis?

I have been trying to work out why I can not find a direct answer to the question, ‘What does a chaplain do?’ or ‘What exactly is Oasis?’

I am in complete sympathy with the questioner, genuinely wanting or needing to know. I should have an answer. But I can’t seem to nail it.

I have tried to console myself that if you ask a person to describe what a banana tastes like, they would have great difficulty explaining. But as the Oasis Coordinating Chaplain, shouldn’t I know what Oasis is? Shouldn’t I be expected to reel off a cogent answer?

My problem has come to the fore again, because we have begun to meet with the Campus Planner to work out what needs to be done with architects and builders to fit out the ‘new Oasis’ – starting only with the shell of the building we have been moved into.

At the same time, the new Director of Student Services needs answers to that question to become confidant that what the university is providing for students fits in with the university’s strategic plan, is comprehensive, and its elements are not unknowingly being duplicated by different student service agencies.  Fair enough!

And the University of Tasmania are flying me over to Hobart in April to consult with them about what we have been doing at Flinders, and what is this ‘Oasis’ thing?

As a result, I have been beating myself up of late for not having some clear answers.

But I am beginning to see what should have been obvious from the start – there are no neat answers! The defining question is incompatible with the very nature of Oasis, and also with chaplaincy. Or put another way, the nature of chaplaincy and Oasis is likely to be incompatible with the culture of a utilitarian, segmented, consumerist, institutionalised bureaucracy. Universities have become competitive, multi-million dollar businesses. Chaplaincy may easily be seen as small fry of little consequence.

Chaplaincy evolved out of the church’s need to provide religious services to those geographically displaced from their local church – those in hospitals, prisons and armed services, for example. There is no such need in today’s universities because most religious needs can be met in the local community.* The days of traditional ‘looking after our own’, sectarian chaplaincy in secular institutions are numbered. Such chaplaincy is of little consequence to a modern university,

At Flinders the changed role for university chaplaincy emerged from the internationalization of the university. Harmony on a pluralist campus requires attention to social cohesion in the face of difference. This attention to the quality of relationships, a concern quite central to religions, broadened the scope of an inclusive multifaith chaplaincy to attend to the whole campus – pastoral care to all, regardless of faith or no faith.

In an ideal world, all university staff would be pastoral carers, customizing every situation and conversation to individual students – students who come from highly diverse cultural, national, religious and academic backgrounds. In a pastorally caring university there would be little need for chaplains or for a centre like Oasis. But the pressures of the modern university have created new needs – we do what the university would normally be expected to do but is unable to do.

To take up such opportunities requires a major shift in thinking for chaplains – no longer the ‘rescuing’, ‘telling’ salvation paradigm, but the hospitable, listening, empowering and long-term-committed mentoring (‘walking beside you’) paradigm.

It means being closely connected to the life of the university but not meddling in it, filling gaps collaboratively, connecting the disconnected, doing what needs to be done without taking over, enriching, enabling, and avoiding the turf wars and ego games.

Because Oasis is adaptive, continually responsive to the expressed and unexpressed needs of the university, it might be thought of as an ever-changing, process-centred community responding contextually and existentially to presenting situations. That’s a mouthful!

So there is no neat answer! Just an evolving, fluid narrative.

I think ‘God’ is comfortable with that!

Whether universities are, remains mainly to be seen!

 

* (The exception might be Muslim Friday Prayer, because the Muslim ‘holy day’ is a Friday, a working day. And the provision of Muslim prayer rooms is a priority because of the logistics of prayer five times a day.)

Comments on Agile, Scrum and Lean

From my mentor son in London…
Some thoughts…
Your part about the short turnaround times in Agile actually alludes to concepts in Lean. In Agile the short cycles are based on the idea that planning the scope of a job upfront is destined to fail because that is the time you know the least about what you’re doing. There is a key concept in this approach called “failing fast”. That is to say we need to have methods of finding out when our assumptions are false, and to iterate or abandon. Ideas are cheap in this world, because they are only considered to be the starting points for new directions, rather than “THE IDEA” as a spec that can be implemented and assumed to succeed. As such, there is a general feeling that ideas should be shared rather than protected.
I’m “reading” (audiobook) a book by the founder of Pixar at the moment called Creativity Inc. Some of it would be of great interest to you. One of them is that they have what they call “the Brain Trust”. Within a film production, the director has complete control, but there are often (every quarter or so) screenings of progress to “the Brain Trust” (essentially the elders within the company) where they provide candid (he prefers this to “honest”) feedback to the director. The key part of this is that the Brain Trust can’t tell the director what to do. Their job is to identify problems and suggest solutions, but the true solution is up to the director.
The role of the Product Owner is to be the champion of the customer. In Agile parlance, the “customer” is whoever is going to be using the product. In your case the product is Oasis.
My understanding is that The Scrum Master is essentially a powerless facilitator whose role is to protect the self-organised team, clear blockages and convey information to the development team. They can’t tell anyone what to do.
“command and control” – there is quite a lot of talk of “ask for forgiveness, not permission”, and “bias to action” in the company cultures in the tech sector. That is to say, if the workers are smart people aligned to a broader vision, they should be empowered to make decisions without explicit permission.
Retrospectives – there is a part of Scrum that I think you would really find valuable. At the end of each iteration the team holds a special session where they talk about how things went. Some teams use this as a time to thank their colleagues for help. The focus is improving the process – what could we have done better; which parts of our processes are useful and which parts are wasteful. In this way, every team ends up running their own flavour of Agile as they sculpt the process to match their needs. This is one part of the process that we don’t do, but I would very much like to.
I really enjoy this stuff, and will be excited to see how you get on implementing it within your team. I think the key for you will be getting buy-in from all involved, and introducing the ideas gradually.

Agile, Lean and the Scrum

I started my career as a teacher in the late 1960’s. It didn’t take long to work out that the way I had been taught didn’t work for a whole lot of my students. The way I had been taught assumed that teaching was about passing on bodies of knowledge, called ‘subjects’ to students.  Anything else was called ‘extra-curricular’ and was of secondary importance. So teaching my ‘subject’ was what I set out to do. But later, I retrained myself in classroom management and in my field of expertise to place students themselves at the centre of my endeavour as a teacher. What led me to depression in middle life was probably the unrealistic expectation that what seemed obvious to me was not obvious to nearly everyone else! Mass education was, and generally still is, institutionalised pragmatically around delivering knowledge and skills to keep the consumerist economy expanding. My interest was essentially ‘extra-curricular’.

But I soon found out that I was out of my depth as the young teacher of science. A student watching a Jacques Cousteau documentary on TV at home could know more about marine science in one viewing than their science teacher! I had a lad in my year 9 ‘bottom stream’ maths class who had built himself a TV! We tested his non-verbal intelligence and it went off the scale! And later, I recall my 12 year old daughter getting into disciplinary trouble because she dared question her teacher’s understanding of tsunamis – she knew more than her teacher because of her (unknown to the teacher) personal interest and reading. The role of the teacher as the font of all knowledge was being questioned by a 12 year-old!

The old ‘Mug and Jug’ theory (I’m the jug and you’re the mug!’) needed to give way to a different understanding of the role of the teacher and of educational practice in general. And increasingly, teachers were being faced with student resistance to ‘being told’ – interpreted as a threat to teacher authority and to the ‘image’ of the school.

The same dynamics were also being played out in the church. Authoritarianism and ‘telling’ was being met with silent resistance as younger people, in particular, began leaving the church in droves – to the bewilderment of church authorities. (Funny how that expression ‘church authorities’ rolls so easily on to the page…) The more recent disclosures of corruption and abuse among ‘authorities’, both church and state, has underlined the human deadend of institutionalised authoritarianism. The  exercise of power to dominate and to have one’s own way is crippling. And it is too glib and reductionist to diagnose this as a leadership problem, though it is that and more.

The cost of change from such institutionalism seems too great, but on the other hand, it is inevitable. Consider the energy debate – conventional or sustainable energy? We know it would make a lot of sense if houses became self-sufficient with solar panels and storage batteries – no personal need of the power industry and its electricity grid. But so much has been invested in coal-fired power stations and the grid. Likewise, so much has been invested in the petrol engine. It is the threat to the established way of doing things that stiffens the resolve of the ‘we’ve always done it this way’ gatekeepers to not only resist the inevitable, but put more energy into entrenching it. But ultimately, no matter how much effort is put in, deep down we know it’s not sustainable.

So what alternative ways of organisational thinking are emerging among the younger generation as they engage with their worlds – ’emerging’ because I think we are between ages – the Newtonian, Industrial Age of ‘either/or’, hierarchy and control, characterising most of our institutions, and an Internet, Quantum Age of ‘both/and’, collaboration, ‘open-source’ transparency, and risky uncertainty. Negotiating between ‘ages’ in ‘both/and’ ways is one of the big challenges of our time, including in my field as a chaplain, so bogged in the Industrial, if not the Medeival Ages.

One of my sons is Head of Tech in an art printing company of abut 65 employees in London. He is responsible for the web presence of the company and its digital connections. Before that he was creating touchscreen software for art museums like the Tate and MOMA, so that visitors could order prints of artworks on-line from digital kiosks in the galleries. As Head of Tech he has a small ‘creative team’ of three or four and is directly responsible to the Managing Director of the company.

How do I explain how my son arrived at this point? He didn’t fit into school – ‘why do I need to do this?’ (subjects) – was educationally saved by an empathetic art teacher, discovered the computer and basically taught himself, was identified in his first year at Art School as a possible candidate for a year’s internship in multi-media, emerged in his early 20’s to set up his own company with a friend who was a graphic artist to create websites for companies, won a trip to Europe, the prize of a Fringe Festival poster competition, and hasn’t looked back since. No university qualifications! You wouldn’t know he was the same person as the disenchanted school kid in danger of graffiti and computer game addiction!

So with an aversion to authoritarianism, silo-ed hierarchy and inflexibility, how is he coping in a relatively large company? We had a conversation during the Christmas break, continuing my education about what is happening behind the scenes of the Internet world.

‘Agile’ is a kind of manifesto for a process for software development. There is a focus on learning through exploration. Risks are encouraged but contained within short time frames. It’s a ‘learn as go’ approach. Work is prioritised every fortnight, so time between development and feedback is kept as short as possible and the intent is on creating value for the customer in small increments (iterations) each fortnight.

The emphasis on short turn-around times (‘iterations’) of the ‘Agile’ model arose because of the experience of software developers spending long and intensive development time in creating a product based on their ‘idea’, only to find, once it was produced, that someone else had beaten them to it or the market didn’t want it or had already moved on. So there was massive failure.

The second emphasis reverses the direction of traditional lines of authority. The team of development is completely in charge of development. Put crassly, the Managing Director doesn’t tell the Head of Tech what to do, and the Head of Tech doesn’t tell his creative team what to do. Lines of ‘authority’, if they even think that way, proceed in the other direction.

This arises because how can the Managing Director know what is in the head of a bright young software developer, what he or she could contribute to the company from their own imagination? The developer is employed on the basis of creativity and imagination, trusted to do creative intellectual work and with the skills and commitment to translate these into benefits for the company. They are creating something new. The Managing Director has to clear any Industrial car-assembly-line image of organisation from his mind, though for every employee there is still plenty of menial hard slog. This insight, that places great freedom on each individual in a team, subverts any authoritarianism that might come down the chain of a hierarchy. It creates conditions for a nurturing leadership style. (see my blog of June 24, 2013 – ‘A Nokia Conversation’)

It also changes how time is understood. When my son was first taken on by a former company, he was given the key to the door and told he could come and go at any time of the night or day! This gave him the flexibility to do other work in his spare time. Some companies actually insist that you have to either take time on your own projects (e.g. a day a week away from the company’s projects) as part of your employment contract or you have to be out of the office for periods of time – to think, connect and create! Creating space as part of a company’s culture parallels the Oasis understanding of hospitality as making space.

In the ‘Agile’ organisation, individual freedom to imagine and create is balanced by commitment to a culture of collaborative teamwork. The image is of a rugby scrum, each member of the creative team locked together and pushing the company in the one direction.

‘Scrum’ implements the ‘Agile’ model. Typically the ‘Scrum Master’ (Head of Tech) gathers the Creative Team at the beginning of the day and each member of the team responds to three questions:
what did I do yesterday?
what am I doing today?
what support do I need?
In addition, the company has an intranet. So throughout any day anyone can post what they are doing or pose questions and anyone can respond. In that way the Scrum moves forward together and the process is transparent to everyone.

Typically the Scrum Master is concerned about process. He or she is a coach and a sheepdog for the team, defending the team from the product owner, while giving intelligence to the product owner.

The Product Owner is concerned about the product. He or she defines what is to be built and in what order. This defines the direction the Scrum heads.

The Creative Team begins by breaking up the overall task into smaller increments and then selecting something to work on. The timeline (‘sprint’) for work on each product increment is limited to two to four weeks.

It goes without saying that the stakeholders of the company must buy in to this risky, ‘learn-as-you-go’ organisational model. Buying into and attending to ‘Vision’ and paying pro-active attention to company culture becomes essential in this open, team approach.

‘Lean’ organisation is a variant of the ‘Agile’ approach. It draws from Toyota’s manufacturing processes. The focus is on learning from hypotheses. ‘How do I find out I am right about…?’ So there is emphasis on research to see if an hypothesis is possible. (You may have noticed an increase in the number of customer surveys and ‘focus groups’ these days, for example. Their prevalence emerges from the ‘lean’ approach.)

Lean organisations expect failure most of the time. That’s how they learn. ‘Humility’ is a category in the lean organisation – a quality one might expect from Japanese culture.

The other contribution of the ‘Lean’ model, that relates to the shortest possible feedback cycle of the creative ‘Agile’ process, is to aim to produce the minimum viable product in order to see if the idea works. In this way, large risk is minimised.

This book is really influential in the tech world – this is the author doing a talk so you can get a sense of it in one hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEvKo90qBns

There is a great, really short book on it, which I have only just realised is available in full on this page: http://www.agilelearninglabs.com/resources/scrum-introduction/

 

Oasis

So why am I interested in Agile’, Scrum and Lean organisation?

I think because:

* intuitively we have already been organising ourselves in a similar way in Oasis

* the Oasis Team, consisting of volunteers, will not thrive in an authoritarian or punitive system; it must build on the strengths of each member within commitment to the vision of Oasis

* an incremental model suits the limited time commitment of volunteers

* the role of the Coordinating Chaplain may easily be identified as the Scrum Manager and his line manager, the Product Owner

The Oasis Team: A Cohesive Team, A Learning Community, Individual Autonomy

Organisational Principles:

  1. Encourage the autonomy of each member of the team, having committed themselves to the vision of Oasis and its agreed processes.
  2. Recognise that a ‘command and control’, permission-asking leadership/management model is inappropriate.
  3. meet regularly at a weekly team lunch*as a primary focus for reporting, reflection and facilitation, responding to the following questions:
    • (1)  What have I been doing last week
    • (2)  What am I planning to do next week
    • (3) What needs do I have/ possible blockages/ support I would appreciate, to achieve what I am planning for next week.

* video conferencing or periodically locating the lunch to different locations could be investigated to include members of the team in remote locations.

 

The Coordinating Chaplain or nominated Scrum Master ensures participation, reflection and learning, to keep discussion on track within the above three focus questions, and to ask clarifying supportive questions that relate to emerging trends.

 

  1. The focus for open accessible communication within the team might be via a whiteboard – room bookings, connections/projects and ideas. This information might be mirrored on the web for remote access, and information from remote sites be added to the whiteboard and the web.

 

  1. The Coordinating Chaplain meets each individual team member, on or off campus, every 2 -3 weeks to facilitate more in-depth reflection, achievement of personal goals and individual learning goals, and to offer support.

 

  1. Decisions and processes be understood as provisional and subject to critical re-evaluation; any changes be by consensus decision-making among the team and reflected on the Oasis website.

Conversation

One of my good friends and colleagues, Andrew Wilson, at Imperial College in London, has recently written a couple of blog entries I have found helpful to think about side by side.

His most recent post is an article he wrote for  ‘Kalyana Mitra’ – the newsletter of The Buddhist Chaplaincy Support Group – entitled, ‘Caring for others through Spiritual Friendship’.

In it he lays out four strands within Chaplaincy at Imperial:

In the Chaplaincy Multi-Faith Centre at Imperial we have four key areas to our work. The first is the multi-faith approach – using the Centre as a place where students of different faiths can practice their religion.
The second area is pastoral care. Sometimes this relates to a person’s religious life, but often it does not. The third area is interfaith – promoting better understanding and co-operation between people from different religious groups. The fourth area is offering opportunities to reflect on meanings and values arising from studies or work. For example, supporting medical ethics teaching, facilitating staff and students to share together their motivations and inspiration as civil engineers, or reflecting with animal care technicians about the stresses of their work in bio-medical research. In reality these four key areas all overlap!

He also delineates two kinds of chaplaincy at Imperial – that which is primarily focused on the nurture of particular religious groups and that which has a university-wide ambit that embraces all four of the key areas of work mentioned above. This latter chaplaincy may be funded by the University, whereas the former is dependent on voluntary participation by members of external religious communities – and included within the program of the Chaplaincy Centre.

At Oasis, we would probably say that the first kind of ‘chaplaincy’ might fall within the province of Student Clubs and Societies. Just like the Soccer Club might appoint an external coach, a religious club might appoint an external ‘coach’.

The second kind – wider ‘chaplaincy to the University’ – would be the province of the Oasis Team, supported by Oasis staff appointed by the University, with facilities provided by the University to support this wider mission of ‘inspiring hospitality and wellbeing’, a mission derived from the mission of the University and accepted by it. And, like at Imperial, Flinders religious clubs and societies may (or may not choose to) use Oasis facilities.

The second post is an article for the student newspaper, designed to communicate to students the nature and purpose of the Chaplaincy at Imperial. In it he identifies ‘conversation’ as its universal characteristic and suggests that while such conversations are open, the more obvious themes might be expected to focus on religious needs, inter-religious understanding, values and ethics within a context of mutual relationship.

By privileging Nouwen’s concept of hospitality, Oasis has created an ethical framework for ‘conversation’; and by privileging interfaith, Oasis has prioritised supporting relationships of respect and understanding between people of difference. At Oasis, the literature of ‘Interfaith Dialogue’ informs how ‘conversation’ may best occur (eg the widely accepted ‘Dialogue Decalogue’).

Commitment to the ethics of hospitality and principles of dialogue are essential to the effective functioning of an Oasis open for meaningful ‘conversation’.

The question arises as to how these ethics and principles are normalised, at least as an ethos within Oasis, when some religious clubs and societies, who access the facilties, may have other conflicting agendas?

I suspect there is no easy answer. Wherever we look internationally, there is no easy answer. The European Union, which has achieved unprecedented peace in Western Europe for the last 69 years, may provide clues, but it is struggling to hold. The Middle-East is a basket case, as is much of Africa. The United Nations does its best, but is often powerless. The question I started with, when I first stepped on to the Flinders campus seventeen years ago, remains – ‘how are we going to live together in this globalised world?’.

It will require ‘conversation’!

Personalised Space

 Hub Library Plan

Last year the University decided to create a new centre for student life on the main campus. Our present facilities would be demolished and we would be housed within the new centre.

Oasis has long been ready for it. We have done the best we could with the inherited 1960s facilities since inaugurating Oasis as a new vision of spiritual care for the university in 2007.

According to the last floor plan, Oasis is a self-contained space, tucked away in the far corner of an open-space Library student work area.

Couldn’t we take the doors off and integrate Oasis with the library space?  Wouldn’t that be more in keeping with the kind of vision the planners have in mind – student flow around the centre according to need? Wouldn’t that be a tangible symbol of the collaborative intention of Oasis?

And if Oasis were integrated with the rest of the open space, what would make an open Oasis space distinctive within a Library open space? – a Library space that has a number of facilities essentially in common – such as lounge areas, meeting rooms and a student kitchen, all of which are essential ingredients within an Oasis having a vision of inspiring hospitality and wellbeing? If lounge, meeting and cooking facilities are part of modern libraries then what is distinctive about lounge,meeting and cooking facilities in an Oasis precinct within such a library? And do we need them in both?

The beginning of an answer from Oasis’ point of view, I think, is in what might be called ‘personalised space’.

In the UK, following the ‘London Bombings’, many universities responded by building Muslim prayer rooms. A report “Faiths in Higher Education” showed that overwhelmingly, universities felt that providing facilities was a generous and sufficient response to the growing number of Muslims on campus. They did not sense a need to develop strategies for the development of appropriate cultures within those facilities by personalising them with trained staff. Millions of pounds were spent on ‘plant’, virtually nothing on ‘people’.

The experience of London University, home to a terrorist cell that developed within it, despite repeated forewarning by the university chaplain, was that radicalisation on the campus was eventually ameliorated by the introduction of a respected member of the Muslim community into the chaplaincy team, to consistently and quietly, through a kind of ‘soft-diplomacy’, consistent with Koranic teaching, affect the culture of the group. This experience suggests that without the provision of appropriate people, the provision of facilities may actually become part of the problem, rather than the solution.

‘Personalised space’ is about creating a culture within a space through the informal but skilful presence of a trained team of people who can create, model and influence the culture within that space. For Oasis, that culture is inclusive, hospitable, safe and appreciative of religious and cultural difference.

That is the key strategy of Oasis in contributing to a culture of peace and social cohesion within the University, influencing the wider local, national and international community. It is a strategy that encourages the best, and discourages the worst, of religion.

In the Library space, the spaces that are provided to students are open and laissez-faire. In the Oasis precinct, the very welcoming presence of the Oasis Administrative Officer supported by a team of volunteers establishes a culture of care, safety and acceptance that is not necessarily part of the Library’s strategic concern. Whether it could or should be is another question.

MoTiv in Adelaide, July 17 – 19, 2014

MoTiv in Adelaide

For more than 20 years MoTiv, a consultancy working at Delft Technical University in the Netherlands, has been contributing successfully as professionals in the public sphere.

As their name suggests, the heart of their enterprise is the fostering of conditions conducive to motivation, the imagination and the creative process.

Yet they defy neat categorisation. They are trainers and coaches – in the university and in the business world. They are film producers – creating documentaries as resources for developing understanding in the places where they are engaged. They are theologians – exploring the expression of spirituality in the secular workplace. And they are chaplains – offering a listening hospitality, empowering professional people seeking to explore the wider values and meanings of their work.

An article giving some of the critical history of the Delft Technical University’s chaplains’ thirty year transformation into MoTiv – technology and spirituality may be found here:
https://travellingchaplain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/the-steps-of-motiv.pdf

ADELAIDE SCHEDULE

Thursday July 17

2.30 to 4.00 pm

Chaplaincy Services South Australia
Board and Senior Chaplains
Seminar- Discussion: Introduction and Business Model
Naval, Military & Air Force Club, 111 Hutt Street, Adelaide (Long Tan Room).
Convenor: Craig Bossie: <hc4@picknowl.com.au> Mob: 0410604876

5.00 to 9pm

Flinders Criminal Justice Students Association, (CJSA)
“Night of the Philosophy” Student-Staff Dinner

‘The Abbey’, University Hall.
5.00 Pre-dinner drinks. CJSA Committee and MoTiv
5.30 Continue Pre-dinner drinks – CJSA Committee, MoTiv and guests
6.30 Dinner
Convenor: Flinders Criminal Justice Students Association <flinders.cjsa@gmail.com>

Friday 18 July

10:00 to 12:00 

Flinders staff and Student Leaders
Forum: Inspiraton, Motivation, Imagination – Models of Engagement,
Oasis Common Room

 From 10 to 11am: Fostering a Student Experience of Wellbeing

 MoTiv will share their ideas and experience of working with the student leadership at Delft Technical University over the last twenty years, and members of the Flinders Criminal Justice Student Association will give feedback from their experience of a “Night of the Philosophy” with MoTiv from the previous evening.

11.00 to 11.20 Tea and Coffee Break

From 11.20 to 12.10: Documentary Film – a strategy for building understanding between students and teaching staff.

 Students and staff are welcome to attend either or both of these sessions or to simply drop in for morning tea or lunch.
A light lunch will be provided at 12.30 for those who would like to continue informal discussion with MoTiv.

3.30 to 5.00pm

Public Lecture and Discussion:
‘Spirituality in the Secular Institution’
a conversation for anyone concerned with wellbeing in the workplace
Chaired by former Premier of SA and former CEO of Anglicare, Lynn Arnold
Flinders University, Victoria Square Campus, Level 1
The lecture is free but seats are limited.
Please register: oasis@flinders.edu.au

Convenor: Hanim: hanimuni12@gmail.com, 0470 577 501 

Saturday 19 July

 10 to 12

Open House, Open Conversation
An opportunity for anyone who wants to follow up conversations with MoTiv
Convenor: Geoff Boyce, mob: 0413 153 616

6.30 to 9.00 pm

Dinner
Adelaide University Chaplains
(Oasis Team , Adelaide and UniSA chaplains and support teams)
Goodwood Park Hotel,
Goodwood Road, Goodwood.
Convenor and rsvp, Geoff:  0413 153 616

The MoTiv Team  in Australia

Ton
Ton Meijknecht MA, M.Div, PhD

Ton Meijknecht (Nijmegen, 1944) studied theology and history at the Catholic University Nijmegen, Amsterdam (Kath.Theol. Hogeschool). His research was awarded a Ph.D at Leiden University. He has been working as a university chaplain at the Delft University of Technology since 1974. His subject is the development of language and the importance of expression. His latest research on professional spirituality is published in Implicit Religion (2014).

Oldenboom
Renske Oldenboom MA, M.Div

Renske Oldenboom (Koog aan de Zaan, 1957) studied theology, ethics and sociology at the Theological Faculty of the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and has been working as a university chaplain in Delft since 1996. She specializes in communication skills and talent development. Recently she obtained an advanced diploma in training & coaching at Haagse Hogeschool.  At MoTiv Renske organizes numerous courses on ‘living with a loss’. Renske is an ordained minister in the Protestantse Kerk in the Netherlands.

Sturms
Günther Sturms STB, STL, BA (Music), MA, M.Div.

Günther Sturms (Hulst, 1979) studied musicology (BA) at Utrecht University and religious studies and theology at the Catholic universities of Leuven and Nijmegen universities, Radboud University, Nijmegen and the Pontifical University of Ireland, Maynooth. He obtained an STL-degree in liturgical studies at Radboud University Nijmegen. Since the fall of 2009 he has been working as a university chaplain for the Roman Catholic diocese of Rotterdam.
Günther is also secretary of the European Conference of University Chaplains (CEUC) and executive board member of the International Association of Chaplains in Higher Education (IACHE).

Recent University Engagement

From the Imperial College Website: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/edudev/networksandevents/perspectives/motiv

In November 2013, MoTiv were invited to Imperial College, London where they made a presentation Perspectives in Education, ‘Inspiring student leadership and team work: Expanding the horizon of the curriculum and enhancing the student experience’.

 

 

 

Reflections on a discussion about Oasis and the proposed Student Hub

Last Sunday, I attended the induction of Rev Dave Williamson as chaplain to Adelaide University and UniSA. In a casual conversation I was told that a copy of my book “An Improbable Feast” was presented to the Vice Chancellor of Adelaide University as the foundational document for Dave’s chaplaincy.

While this might be flattering, the book was not written with Vice Chancellors in mind. It reads as the story of how Oasis emerged from conflict, how we discovered hospitality as the central theme that enabled us, chaplains from diverse faiths, to work together. At the time of writing, my ‘first -read’ editor, Norm Habel, suggested I write a chapter with the university in mind. I decided against it; but I knew that eventually I would need to put together another book about Oasis that might be useful for those who might want to implement the principles woven into the Oasis narrative.

So when Carolyn Davidson, Director,Strategic Project Delivery asked Oasis to describe to her what it does and how it does it, I thought I should make a start, sketching out some of the bare bones that might later be fleshed out into a sequel to ‘An Improbable Feast’.

It may be found as Oasis and the Student Hub in Resources.

I welcome comments and suggestions.