1 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture
Fordham Center on Religion and Culture
Fordham University
FAITH + REASON:
A DIALOGUE AT THE HEART OF JESUIT EDUCATION
17 June 2009
Session III—Panel Discussion
Moderator
Maureen O’Connell
Fordham University
Speaker
Michael Himes
Boston College
Respondents
Jeffrey von Arx, S.J.
Fairfield University
Stephen Freedman
Fordham University
MAUREEN O’CONNELL : Thanks very much, Michael. There is a lot there to unpack, and I want to make sure we get an opportunity to do that with you all. I will introduce our panelists who are going to respond and invite you to come up. I will do the introductions, for the sake of time, as you are coming up to the podium.
First we are going to hear from Jeffrey Von Arx, who is the President of
Fairfield. He began his academic career at Georgetown, where he taught in the History Department from 1982–1988 and was its Chair from 1991–
1997. He is an expert in the field of 19 th -century British religious thought and the author of Progress and Pessimism: Religion, Politics, and
History in Late Nineteenth Century Britain , and also the editor of
Varieties of Ultramontanism.
He has served as Dean of Fordham College at Rose Hill — welcome back — and as a graduate of Princeton, Yale, and the Weston School of Theology.
Our other respondent will be Dr. Stephen Freedman, who has been the
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Chief Academic Officer here at Fordham since 2007. He is a professor of natural science and a specialist in ecology and evolutionary biology. In 1978 Dr. Freedman joined the faculty at Loyola University in Chicago after finishing a Ph.D. at

2 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture the University of California in Irvine. In 2002 he joined the academic community at Gonzaga University as an academic vice president and professor in the Department of Biology. An active scholar, he has authored or co-authored more than twenty scholarly articles and has received numerous grants to support his research in biology, curricular development, and educational leadership.
We will hear from both of our respondents for ten minutes — and I’m going to try to hold you to your ten-minute response so that we can then hear from you all in a little bit of a discussion afterwards. First we’ll hear from President Von Arx.
JEFFREY VON ARX : Thanks very much. Whenever I hear Michael
Himes speak I have a sense of the richness and complexity of all that he has to say. Commenting on a Michael Himes talk is like commenting on a volcano. There’s so much there. What I think I will do, however, is to take off from the last part of Michael’s talk and speak a little bit from my own perspective as a university administrator about what I think some of the implications are of what Michael had to say for universities these days.
In his famous — or perhaps infamous — address, significantly entitled
“Faith and Reason and the University,” offered at Regensburg on
September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict argued, somewhat paradoxically, that the role of the Catholic university is not so much to defend the faith as it is to defend reason. As Father Himes has argued so persuasively, the
Enlightenment had effectively pushed reason out of areas pertaining to questions like the purpose and the value of human life and so on, which are viewed as relative, subjective, or perhaps just wrong, in what Pope
Benedict himself calls “the modern self-limitation of reason.”
In some ways, of course, the paradox of what the Pope has to say has to do with the fact that it is only in Western academic culture that folks don’t seem to understand how fundamental religion is to most people’s categories of understanding. So it is within this culture that a Catholic university must do the work of the inculturation of faith, about which I will have more to say in just a moment.
Benedict argues that the encounter between the biblical message and
Greek thought was providential, as witnessed by the vision of St. Paul in
Acts 16, wherein his path to Asia is blocked while Macedonia pleads for his aid. Paul’s vision, according to the Pope, may be interpreted as indicating the intrinsic necessity of a [inaudible] between biblical faith and Greek inquiry, which certainly the Pope would view as essential to the work of a
Catholic university.
The second point I’d like to make I will kind of encapsulate by calling it

3 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture
“Obama at Notre Dame.” How far do we go in engaging the post-modern secular point of view at a Catholic university? Here I want to argue for the
Catholic university as a place of mediation between secular and faith perspectives and between different faith perspectives. Some would argue that there is no reasonable conversation that Catholics can have with a secular perspective on certain matters of Catholic conviction, like abortion, and we have certainly heard that argument made significantly recently.
However, on the premise of defending reason that Pope Benedict advances in his Regensburg talk, it is indeed the role of the Catholic university to expand the scope of reason to questions like the dignity of human life and to engage in reasonable conversations so that we can convince others to see things from our point of view through a mutual appreciation of what is reasonably true.
We have to believe that it is only by extending the application of reason to the big questions of being, the purpose of human existence, to questions of human longing, and not allowing reason to be quarantined by the natural sciences, that we are more likely to move the general perception of questions like abortion toward one where we can indeed find finally, in some way or another, common ground. The university can and should act as a place of dialogue between different faith perspectives as well. For instance, the thirty-eight Islamic signatories of “An Open Letter to His
Holiness Pope Benedict XVI,” following upon the Regensburg address, argued that Muslims have come to terms with the power and the limits of human intelligence in their own way. One problem they have avoided is to make the analytical mind the ultimate arbiter of truth. They also point out in relationship to the pope’s talk that the experts on Islam that the pope cites in his lectures are exclusively Catholic scholars and conclude: “A great part of the object of interreligious dialogue is to strive to listen and to consider the actual voices of those who we are dialoguing with, and not merely those of our own persuasion.”
A final comment on the notion of inculturation at the Catholic university.
The mission of the Catholic university, the Jesuit university in particular, might best be defined as the ongoing work of inculturation, even inculturation with respect to our secular post-modern culture. This means creating the kind of integrated learning model that stresses integrity and engagement. The education we offer our students is all about intellectual freedom and its corollary liberation of the spirit.
Cultures, as St. Paul realized so well, can bind and enslave us. As a historian I have long been convinced that there is nothing more difficult for historical actors to realize than the ways in which they are constrained, and indeed sometimes enslaved, by their own cultures. Freedom from the tyranny of culture is hard won. In a Catholic way of looking at things, it involves an opening of the mind, a conversion of the heart, an authentic

4 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture encounter with the other. That’s why things like service, learning, integrated learning communities, emergent experiences, and approach to the curriculum that seeks the integration of living and learning have become so central to and so typical of our Jesuit universities.
Jesuits and others serve this mystery of inculturation through dialogue with those of other cultures and other religions and with those of no religion at all. Sometimes that dialogue has been very subtle, little more than being present to the other culture, as in the lives of the early Jesuits
Matteo Ricci and Robert de Nobili. Sometimes it needs to be more challenging. But the ministry of dialogue always assumes God’s presence in the lives and cultures of others. To quote the Thirty-fourth General
Congregation on our Mission and Culture: “God’s action is antecedent to ours. We do not plant the seed of his presence for he has already done that in the culture. God’s grace is not ours to direct. In the conceptions of the mind and the habits of the heart and the root metaphors and values of all cultures, God is preparing the conditions in his creatures for loving acknowledgement of His truth, making them ready for the transformation promised in Christ.”
In conclusion, what, if anything, does the above discussion of the Jesuit mission to culture have to say about one of the most difficult issues at
Catholic universities today, the issue of hiring for mission? If the dialogue between faith and culture is one of the most important dynamics occurring at a Catholic university today, one way of looking at this issue of hiring for mission is to ensure that this dialogue takes place in the most effective way possible. This means structuring programs, and positions above all, in such a way as to ensure competent and sufficient dialogue partners, especially those who can effectively present a religious point of view.
Even in candidate interviews, I believe, there is a way of using the importance of dialogue between faith and contemporary culture to help candidates clarify for themselves the matter of their fit at a Catholic university. When I was a dean at this institution, in the business of interviewing candidates for faculty positions, I would always raise the issue of Fordham’s Catholic and Jesuit identity. The discussion on campus about this issue, I would say involved far more than Catholic or religiously committed faculty. Indeed, the perspective of non-religious faculty was essential to the discussion. To the extent to which a prospective faculty member was interested in the discussion, he or she would feel at home in our institution I would say. If a prospective faculty member was disinterested in the discussion or unsympathetic to it, then perhaps the fit was not right. I don’t think I ever made a prospective faculty member uncomfortable by raising these issues, but I do think I helped a number of candidates make good decisions about whether or not our institution was a good fit for them and they for it. Thank you.

5 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture
STEPHEN FREEDMAN : I wanted to provide two reflections, follow my tradition and start with a story, and then give my perspective as an evolutionary biologist on Richard Dawkins’ work and the new atheism and how that could be very helpful to all of us as we think through faith and reason.
The story. I grew up in a town called St. Laurent, Quebec. Charles Taylor, who spoke yesterday, talked about his Quebec roots. I wanted to take a moment to talk about mine. I was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family.
Tradition was extremely important. A very religious person as a young man and as a young boy, deeply absorbed in the culture and in the family traditions. But I spent my entire life being educated in Christian schools.
I spent my first twelve years being educated in Protestant schools and then the rest of my education in Catholic schools.
The story I wanted to tell is a story that when I attended Hebrew school after Protestant school, between the ages of ten to thirteen, as I was preparing for my Bar Mitzvah, I remember leaving the Hebrew school at
5:30 in the evening. It was dark in Montreal during the school year. I remember walking back home and knowing after two or three blocks of my eight- or ten-block walk that there would be a really big dog, a really huge dog, about halfway down. I had been petrified of that dog as a ten- and eleven-year-old. I decided that I would use what I had learned in my
Protestant school training. I had great faith. My faith was a combination of faiths based on my years of attending Protestant schools and being really committed to those schools and my family faith tradition.
So on the way home my faith led me to sing this song, especially as I got closer to the dog and the fear grew, and I really was concerned that I would be mauled. I really felt that I would be mauled. I was young and I was short, very short. I would sing:
“Onward Christian soldiers, marching on to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before.”
You all know it, right? I would sing it louder and louder and louder and louder as I got closer to the dog. I was so pumped up and infused with enthusiasm and what I called faith that I couldn’t stop myself. When I returned home I would be around the dinner table, very often with my mother and my grandmother, and I would consider the importance of this song, and I would continue to sing it, and I would sing it very, very loud.
I had to absorb the fact that my mother especially would say, “You know this is a song that was taught to young Christian boys and girls in
Yorkshire, England in the 1800s. As a Jew we’re not really supposed to

6 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture sing those songs.” But for me the singing made me feel secure, gave me the courage, and summoned up that courage. It was for me at that time a very sincere commitment, not only to my own faith tradition but to other faith traditions.
When Michael spoke about faith as a holistic response, I saw that experience as a similar one, faith as an orientation towards emotion, intellect, affection. Singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” resonated with me and that strength that it provided in a frightening situation. It helped me to summon up that courage. And it was not an affectation. It was genuinely felt. A genuine Christian faith resonated with me, but in my
Jewish context. That experience has stayed with me through my entire life. I was preconditioned by a strong faith tradition, though not as Jesus’
God, but to think that other religious traditions were powerful and important, that this song could invoke God’s protection from danger. That faith had an emotional response but a real response.
The other dimension to it as I was reading Michael’s paper is that faith is a communal as well as an individual response. Faith is an act of allegiance.
It is incorporation into a people and a community. But as a young child I recognize that faith is not only an allegiance to one’s own people, that’s too narrow. It’s an alignment both to one’s own traditions and to other traditions, as Michael implied. It was natural to me, and still is natural, to borrow those faith traditions, to enrich one’s own faith. That faith allowed security, that sense of relating to others in times of need.
I also have been reflecting on faith because — and this may be a point of view that many of you would disagree with — but faith is not as stressed or not as central in Judaism as it is in Christianity. In my exposure to
Judaism, when one looks at the faith-reason meter, there’s a little less towards faith and a little more towards reason. The practice of faith, although important, is less significant. Very rarely does specific teaching have to be believed within a particular context. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is the case.
I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the new atheism in Jesuit higher education, and talk about that new atheism in a much more positive context than Michael did, especially as it relates to Jesuit higher education. I spent many years studying evolutionary biology. I am very proud of that fact. I also spent a good deal of time studying animal behavior, ethology.
We tend to avoid discussions about the new atheism. The old atheism to me, as Michael described it, is kind of old school, it’s less relevant to study in Jesuit higher education. But I think the new atheism can provide us with insights to explore our own faith traditions and our beliefs with much

7 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture more intensity. We should not be defensive or apologetic. We need to be more open to this dialogue.
In my reading of Richard Dawkins over the years, before he moved to the place where Michael correctly points out is not the place that is helpful in terms of our dialogue — there are other evolutionary biologists who provide us with a good deal of insight. Are we prepared to have our belief studied from the point of view of ethology? Some would find it threatening. Others would gain great insight into the process that leads to our own belief system.
The gene-centered view of evolution — natural selection, survival of the fittest; the key concepts of birth, reproduction, death, the biological brass tacks of all human experiences — when one looks at those, one sees life evolving through differential survival of the replication of entities, some more successful than others. These proportional changes in population over time are what we study. The natural selection process is important.
But I want to point out very, very quickly that in higher-order species like ourselves individuals live in communities and live in populations with varying degrees of social organization. There is a concept in biology and evolutionary biology referred to as group selection, that there are some higher-order selection processes at work that allow us to understand much more concretely the evolution of human social behavior and belief systems and traditions and customs. While Dawkins doesn’t have it right for many reasons, other biologists are struggling with these issues within a faith system that is very, very interesting.
It is easier to understand the concepts that we have discussed today if one studies evolution and the evolution of altruism, something that occurs in many life forms, especially higher-order life forms. When one considers the evolution of reciprocal altruism, one gets to the concept of love and the understanding of love in very concrete ways. To me that connects faith and reason in many ways.
I watched Michael’s YouTube presentation of his last lecture at Boston
College. His message on that day, the last lecture, was being and giving of one’s self. That’s the message: self and gift of love, Jesus’ message. He concluded and began by saying giving one’s self away is the purpose of life.
That’s what altruistic behavior is about. Altruistic behavior evolves in social organisms. In these last two minutes I want to describe the evolutionary basis of this formation that Michael talked about in his last lecture.
The truest form of social organization occurs in social carnivores. We as human beings evolved as social carnivores. Lions, hyenas, wild dogs — we

8 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture are social carnivores. When one understands the evolution of our social behavior, one needs to look to the period of time, 14,000–15,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago, when we shared our food and hunted together. We evolved many patterns of social behavior that are similar to the currently existing lions, hyenas, and wild dogs. It’s not through the study of primates that we understand the evolution of altruism or social organization. It’s through the evolutionary study of social carnivores.
There are a good deal of relevant social behaviors, including the ones in
Michael’s talk, that have their basis and their root of formation through the genetic processes that occurred in the changes that 14,000 to 15,000 years ago took human society to a highly organized, highly structured community. Dawkins’ world view shaped in this way is very narrow. But one can look at all kinds of behaviors in a much broader context.
I’ll end by saying that when one looks at aunting behavior, when older siblings help rear younger siblings, you see many of the bases of altruism that shape family lives and broader extended families. These relationships form a basis for us to understand communities in many of the ways that
Michael was describing. But if one looks at it in a much more social, highly organized way, one can see similarities that allow us to understand the basis of this behavior. I’ll stop here.
MAUREEN O’CONNELL : Thank you to our respondents. I have a note from the folks who are really in charge that says we have an extension until
4:20 for some conversation. I think we’d like to get started with that. Just two quick reminders. There will be roaming mikes coming around, so just raise your hand and a mike will come to you. Please identify yourself and your institution. For the sake of time, maybe cut to the question and a little less on the commentary. There will be opportunities for discussion in small groups. So again, please identify yourself and we’ll take it from there.
ALLAN HAZLETT , Fordham. I was intrigued by the idea that the
Dawkins and the Hitchens crowd are the low, this sort of slide down from the high point of atheism. I was wondering if I could say a few things and maybe work it into something a little more critical about that history of atheism and how it has developed over the years.
This point about there was a time when there were no educated atheists and then the idea of an educated atheist became a possibility at some point. I think there is a new possibility now that there probably wasn’t even back then, and that’s an atheist who has a tradition of atheism. There are people whose parents are atheists, who were raised as naturalists or as secularists in a secular community. My parents are biologists, two biologists. Their friends were biologists. We hung around with other biologists. This was a community. I think the olden days, 200 years ago,

9 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture where was naturalism and secularism and atheism? It was the elites. It was an elite phenomenon. It’s not like that anymore.
Let me work that into Dawkins and Hitchens. There is a worry I have about focusing on Dawkins and Hitchens, which is that, like you said, they are the low point, they are the bad examples. There are tons of other thinkers today who fall into that secular naturalistic framework. They are the ones who are going to be remembered by history, hopefully. Just like the people you mentioned about 200 years ago, they are the ones we remember. We think these are shining examples.
I’m not sure if it’s right, I guess partly because atheism is sort of spread out, now there’s a tradition of it for some people, they live it, and also because there are just other examples of it. I’m not really sure if it’s true that we live in a down time for secularism.
MICHAEL HIMES : I certainly don’t think it’s a down time for secularism. I quite agree with you there. What I meant when I was talking about Dawkins in particular, and then I just made passing reference to
Hitchens, is the thing that separates them from people like Feuerbach or
Nietzsche or Marx or Freud is that all of those great figures, mostly 19 th century figures, took religion very, very seriously. They thought it was terribly destructive, they thought it was terribly dangerous, they thought it was terribly wrong. The one thing they never did was dismiss it as simply silly. It was something that had to be attacked. It was not something that could be simply regarded as absurd. Whereas precisely what happens with
Dawkins is he’s constantly talking about how silly this is, how nonsensical it is, how childish it is, how absurd it is. Why in heaven’s name write 250 pages about something that you think is a lot of nonsense to start with?
I made reference to that wonderful little quote from Auden, where Auden says the precondition for knowing anything is to give it wholehearted attention or what might less pompously be called love. Unless one is really willing to attend to something, and therefore to posit its value, its goodness, to begin with the assumption that there is something here to be valued, something to be learned, something that may need to be rejected ultimately, but something that is of real interest — unless one begins with that, one is never going to have anything interesting or valuable, positive of negative, to say on the subject.
It seems to me that’s exactly what happens with people like Dawkins and
Hitchens, which was not true of people like Feuerbach, heaven knows, or of Nietzsche, or of Freud for that matter. That was what I was after.
OURIDA MOSTEFAI , Boston College. I was actually going to invite the speakers to respond to the invitation to comment on the notion that

10 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture perhaps faith is not as central in other religious traditions, in Judaism, in
Islam, as it is in Christianity.
MICHAEL HIMES : I’d be interested to explore that myself. That was a very interesting point. Certainly, I would suspect that that is true if one takes faith as primarily a source of knowledge. If that’s the aspect under which one is speaking of faith, then I could well understand that there are traditions that don’t insist on faith or put the weight on faith that
Christianity has usually done. But I think if one takes faith as commitment, allegiance, et cetera, I would think that, from my Jewish friends and from my reading of Jewish theology and from my much less experience with Islam, there certainly is a great insistence on fidelity in that sense, of allegiance, of pledging one’s faith, rather than necessarily taking faith as the source of doctrine. If that is what one means by faith, I think it is certainly essential in those traditions, at least to my knowledge.
JEFFREY VON ARX : I think perhaps if for “faith” in what you had to say, Stephen, we said rather “doctrine,” that’s probably a closer approximation to what most of us would feel comfortable with.
STEPHEN FREEDMAN : Again speaking for myself, the centrality of faith, the sense of one’s life history and experience correlated in a more narrow way seems to be less relevant in Judaism, although in the way you described it, Michael, in the second portion you are absolutely correct.
NICHOLAS TAMPIO . Why did you title your course “Slouching towards
Feuerbach?” I’m thinking of Gordon Michalson’s book Kant and the
Problem of God . Michalson says that Kant is halfway between Luther and
Feuerbach. Kant agonizes and Kant works as hard as he can thinking about these great religious, theological, philosophical questions. That has just been bothering me since the introduction.
MICHAEL HIMES : Two quick comments. One, I can’t claim the title.
That course was a seminar that I offered together with Michael Buckley, and it was Michael’s title. But I can say, of course, what he is playing on is the line from William Butler Yeats about the “rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem to be born.” It was a kind of play on the notion of
Feuerbach’s own understanding of his work as an atheist, his work as a critic of religion and an uncoverer of the real meaning of religion, which he himself saw as a kind of religious undertaking, that this was a liberating, freeing — in that sense one might almost describe it as sacred — undertaking. So it was a play on the notion of the Feuerbachean beast moving toward Bethlehem itself becoming kind of messianic in doing so.
That was, I think, the thing Michael was playing on. But as any of you who know Michael Buckley know, it is a perilous thing to speak for Michael
Buckley. I simply offer that as a suggestion.

11 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture
ROBERT CRIBBS.
What I haven’t heard in this topic is more in my experience, at least with my daughter’s generation, that it’s not people who don’t believe in religion, it’s people who don’t think religion is relevant.
You get into a discussion of religion and talk about self-[inaudible] with people, and they say, “That’s a very good idea but I can get that in my culture. I don’t need religion. I don’t need all the negatives of religion.”
Could anyone speak to that?
MICHAEL HIMES : I think I agree with you in this sense, right off the bat, and tell me if this is the kind of thing you are thinking of. I have often observed — you may have had the same experience — that if you want to fill a hall on a college campus announce a workshop or a lecture of a panel discussion on something like “spirituality and stamp collecting,” and you will get tons of people showing up. If you want to empty that same hall, if you want to make sure that there will be no crowd in the hall at all, you announce that the topic is “exotic sexual techniques of the Kama Sutra and the church.” The word “church” empties halls. “Spirituality” fills them.
There is a sense in which, in my experience, certainly of the undergrad students that I deal with at Boston College, that there is a tremendous concern for what they would describe as spirituality. They are utterly at best uninterested and at worst deeply suspicious, and even hostile, to the church as an institution. Considering the way that sometimes the
Christian community acts, I can understand that. However, I think that there is also a necessary role for the community, as I was suggesting — the kind of guardian of tradition, in the sense of keeping people aware of the fact that the tradition is bigger than we make it, it can’t be narrowed down as sharply as we sometimes would like. I think all of that is a very valuable and important role in the community. But the coercive role of the community, I can understand their fear.
ROBERT CRIBBS . I don’t disagree with that. I was subject years ago to many years of Jesuit education and Catholic education. I’m saying for my daughter, who went to a secular university, and all the connections I had with that, I don’t think their experience of spiritual versus religious is quite as strong. I just think they don’t think of religion as valid.
MICHAEL HIMES : That could well be.
STEPHEN FREEDMAN : One more comment about Richard Dawkins for the biologists in the room. Richard Dawkins’ thesis advisor was Niko
Tinbergen, who studied shore birds and cliff-dwelling birds. It’s not surprising to us who know of Tinbergen’s work why Dawkins would have a more narrow, more individualistic view of the world, because cliff-dwelling birds show very few forms of social behavior. They are much more

12 The Fordham Center On Religion and Culture www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture competitive and much more interactive. So many of us who study
Dawkins from a different perspective see him as a narrow person, given his study of cliff-dwelling birds.
It’s the biologists who have studied more highly evolved social carnivores who have a broader-based understanding of the complexity of human social systems. So it’s a good thing when you look at biologists to see their pedigree and what animals they have studied and who their major professors are. It gives you great insight into their atheistic perspectives.
MICHAEL HIMES : That’s very helpful. Normally, when I’ve gone to faculty meetings, I’ve thought of them as gatherings of carnivores. I now realize they are cliff-dwelling birds.
MAUREEN O’CONNELL : Any other questions? [No response] Please join me in thanking Drs. Freedman, von Arx, and Himes. [Applause] We do have one announcement.
PETER STEINFELS : Actually two announcements, one a repeat. First of all, the breakout sessions will begin at 4:30 and go to 5:30. So we are switching the time a bit. In some cases you may find yourself in a room where the facilitator has been called away or isn’t there. Please just take charge yourself. There is a packet in the room on the teacher’s desk that contains in it slight instructions for the breakout session and some suggested questions. Don’t hesitate if others press toward other questions to devote the discussion to those instead. I just wanted to repeat once again that there will be the evening prayer service at 6:00 p.m. in the
University Church and all are welcome. Thank you.