Early in 1997 Fusion, a new inititative to reach out to students on the college and university campuses of Britain was officially launched.  Initially known as the Eleventh Hour Movement, Fusion was launched by a like-minded coalition of charismatic/restorationist church groups, including Gerald Coates' Pioneer, Terry Virgo's New Frontiers, Roger Forster's Icthus, YWAM (Youth With A Mission) and Phil Wall of the national youth section of the Salvation Army.
          I had heard rumours of the planned new churches' initiative much earlier in 1996.  I had also become aware of the growing concern of those connected with UCCF (Universities & Colleges Christian Fellowship) over the proposed new initiative.  UCCF's main concern was for the potential damage and confusion such a group, working independently and representing a 'very different' kind of evangelical Christianity, would almost certainly cause among the students and thereby to the Gospel work. Their concern was: what message does it give to unbelieving students faced (as they undoubtedly will be) with two separate stalls at a freshers fair - one reflecting one brand of evangelical Christianity and the second reflecting another? 
          Or is this the very crux of the problem?  That far from being simply, 'more hands to the plough' (ie. on the campuses), as Fusion spokesman Roger Ellis urged, when I interviewed him in 1996, is it not much more simply the outworking of a very different theology and spiritual understanding?  Is Fusion not rather the very visible first-fruit of an evangelical off-shoot that has been growing for two decades? 
          Indeed, the launch of Fusion not only causes potentially massive damage on the college campuses, it surely poses important questions about the myth of modern evangelical unity.  Fusion spokesman Roger Ellis, in the Autumn of 1996, informed me that the initiative was being launched with the "very positive" backing of the Evangelical Alliance (EA) - to which, of course, the UCCF is not affiliated despite efforts from the EA over the years.  In November of that year the Evangelicals Now(EN) newspaper published my story breaking the news about the initiative for the first time.  Realising immediately the significance of the initiative EN made it a front page story.  Numerous other Christian publications quickly followed suit. 
          A flurry of correspondence was published relating to the story over the next few weeks.  The EA were quick to point out that, as an organisation, they were not formally backing the initiative, though admitted that two of its board had leant their support to it.  What the EA singularly failed to point out at the time was that the two board members in question were, in fact, Cliver Calver (EA's then Director) and Joel Edwards (now Director, then Calver's no 2). Fairly senior support for an organisation not apparently backing the new student's initiative.
          UCCF is widely respected for its significant achievements on the 500+ campuses where it is represented and for its work in numerous professional fellowships that have been borne out of its campus activities.  Clearly then, if one is avowedly evangelical and  looking to work on the campuses in Britain, it would be fair to assume that one would be most concerned to, at least, consult with the UCCF?  Presumably when the Holy Spirit is at work He is working working for true Christian harmony, not confusion?  Yet, strangely, Fusion has never conducted any meaningful consultations with UCCF.
          In the Ellis interview, back in the autumn of '96, I was informed, "We do not want to cause unneccesary tension, we are not in competition with anyone.  We believe there is room for other things among students and we want to work together with other Christian groups."  He added, "We want to raise a movement of students who have a calling to change society, a generation of 'mover and shakers'.  Asked whether UCCF might not consider this their agenda also, Ellis replied, "We have respect for UCCF and what they've done.  We are not wanting to re-invent the wheel, but it is hard to see where they are focusing."
          Ellis pointed out that there are already other groups working among the students.  This is entirely true.  But the groups to which he refers, including Campus Crusade/Agape, Christians In Sport, Navigators and one or two other small groups, who all have small (often targeted) ministries in comparision with UCCF's major ministry, all work with UCCF.  In effect, the UCCF is de facto the evangelical umbrella group on British universities and campuses.  This, as we shall see, Fusion seems determined not to accept.
          Ellis told me that the initiative had already carried out a massive consultancy exercise involving 70 national ministries - strangely, UCCF, the biggest by a long chalk, were not among them.  Ellis further maintained that on-going consultancy meetings with UCCF were currently taking place.  When I put this to Bob Horn, UCCF's General Secretary,  he expressed complete surprise.  He said, "Certainly Roger has met one or two colleagues and myself at least once informally or at other meetings.  But by no stretch of the imagination were these consultancy meetings, they were all markedly short."  He went on, " In fact, it was only this week (ie. July 1996) that we received any details whatsoever about the initiative - and that was only after a direct request to Roger from me."
          Asked by me what the distinctives of the students initiative would be Ellis listed the following: cell-group working, mission, evangelism, training leaders and concern for post-student lives (ie. their potential to be post-graduate 'movers and 'shakers' in the community).  He then added one other - the "different flavour of churchmanship".  Ellis clarified this as meaning an emphasis on 'gifts' and other 'charismatic dynamics' of the members of the group.  Leaving aside 'cell group working' UCCF later confirmed that such an agenda indeed matched their own.  Mission and evangelism have always been at the centre of  their work and a whole array of post-student professional fellowships bear strong testimony to their conversion successes including: Christian Medical Fellowship, Christian Dental Fellowship and the Christian Engineers Association among numerous others. 
          But, perhaps Ellis provided real insight into their reasons for launching another evangelical initiative when he said, "We want to reach students who aren't being engaged by what is happening in society."  He went on, "Hopefully, we (ie Fusion and UCCF) can syncretise together without us being disempowered and without them being subversive."  Very strange language for 'fellow evangelicals'.  So it appears, as far as Fusion is concerned, UCCF's approach is deficient in that it is apparently failing to effect students who are impacting the 'real' world - notwithstanding the professional groups mentioned.  Asked what students might make of two Christian stalls at the same freshers fair Ellis commented (failing entirely to see the irony), "Perhaps we can share the same stall or have them next to each other."
          During the interview Ellis was at particular pains to make the point out (though it was not in answer to a question by me) that the new initiative should not be seen purely as a charismatic alternative to UCCF.  Clearly, out of Ellis' stated differences only Cell group working (a method) and 'churchmanship' truly differ.  What we cleary have then in Fusion is simply a charismatic/restorationist alternative to UCCF which works in 'Cell group' working.  As we shall see it is indeed the nature of the 'churchmanship', as Ellis put it, that is in practice the signal difference - and, of course, the style that attaches to that difference.

In February 1997 Fusion held its launch conference in London.  About 300 students and student workers attended to hear the vision and strategy of its founders outlined.  At the conference it was again stressed that Fusions' emphasis on Cell-group working would be the most significant factor differentiating it from UCCF's way of working.  Where CU's are usually a mixture of of small groups and larger meetings Fusion announced its intention to operate through small grass-roots meetings of students, with the content of the meeting being based on a 4W's pattern: 'welcome, worship, word and witness'.
          Reporting on the Fusion launch in April's issue of Evangelicals Now Paul Chamberlain stated, 'Fusion will operate with a 'unity in diversity' approach, where individuals will be encouraged to express their tradition with freedom.  This contrasts with the philosophy of UCCF of 'gospel unity' where students lay aside some of their distinctives for the sake of coming together to reach out to those who do not yet know Christ.' Here, in a nutshell, is the stark difference between Evangelicalism and the neo-Evangelicalism.  The former always exalts content (the message and its meaning) over style.  The latter eschews meaningful content and the centrality of personal sacrifice in preference to bending to the 'felt-needs' and personal experience - creating unity based, not on the Gospel, but on whatever one feels. 
          Fusion's Position Paper provides plenty of food for thought.  I do not think it does the paper and those who produced it any injustice to suggest it makes difficult reading because of its poor authorship, laced, as it is, with a number of seemingly contradictory statements.  What should surprise us less, perhaps, is the aggressive underlying tone which leaves the reader in no doubt that those behind Fusion have an agenda which they intend to pursue no matter what.
          The Paper itself acknowledges that Fusion was borne out of a 'growing sense that now is the time for something new among students' and that it is 'a fundamental aim...to work in partnership and synchronise with initiatives already in existence within Universities.'  This last is underlined with the words, 'our aim is to complement work already under way on the campus not to compete with it.'  As we have already seen, a laudable aim, but in the light of the complete absence of any meaningful consultations with UCCF, only to be taken with a pinch of salt. 
          The Paper itself anticipates this glaringly embarassing omission of working links with UCCF in its concluding 'Questions and Answers about Fusion' section.  In yet another strangely worded response, to the self-styled proposition: 'UCCF are the evangelical umbrella organisation for Christians on campus.  Why can't you work with them to achieve your visions?'  The lengthy reply includes some illuminating comments. This includes: 'We suggested they (UCCF) may consider asking us to lay down our initiative.  They confirmed they would like us to do just that.  However, an independent observer proposed that some form of partnership should develop.'  Clearly there is no meeting of minds between UCCF and Fusion leaders.  And who is the mysterious independent observer - Roger Ellis' mum perhaps? The same answer also includes: 'We believe, and many others would accept, that UCCF are not a total umbrella for work with the campuses.  There are other campus organisations already operating in addition to UCCF like Agape,Christians In Sport and Navigators, not to mention the Chaplaincies & Ethnic Societies.'  The latter is true.  But as has already pointed out, those that class themselves as evangelical do, in fact, work in conjunction with UCCF.  And is Fusion really suggesting all the chaplaincies and ethnic groups are evangelical? 
          What the Fusion Paper simply fails to take on board is what UCCF have consistently pointed out - it has always worked eclectically within the evangelical groups on campus.  Though it has never sought to be an umbrella organisation ecumenically  it has, in fact, been just that on behalf of the whole evangelical community working  campus - whether the Fusion organisers accept it or not.  No doubt the vague doctrinal positions taken by neo-evangelicalism in our day, will lead Fusion to having no problem working with anybody - except perhaps Bible-believing Christians like the UCCF leadership?
          The same answer, to which we have just referred, also includes a key reference to what lies at the bottom of the bullish tone revealed throughout the document.  It states, 'The "Gospel Unity" philosophy of UCCF, which necessiates the laying down of some beliefs and practices means that the only speakers encouraged are those who maintain the 'middle ground'.  It continues: 'Our unity (ie. Fusion's) is worked out on the basis of allowing people to express who they are in God...'  What this undoubtedly reflects is not only what is commonly referred to as the 'diversity of belief' with modern evangelicalism but the fact that evangelicalism itself has somewhat schizophrenic in its very nature in our day.  What do they mean by speakers for the 'middle ground' except those who hold to the classic evangelical path of remaining Biblical in their teaching?  After all, the groups behind Fusion are those which have largely departed from Bible-believing Christianity, by accepting extra-Biblical revelation.  Indeed, UCCF ave made it clear to those who now back Fusion that certain speakers on campus would not be acceptable to them.  Why?  Because of unorthodox, unbiblical teaching.
          Fusion, in reality, is the result of a vastly different theological understanding.  Its understanding, indeed, is the apparent reverse of UCCF's.  While UCCF holds to the classical evangelical path of diversity within 'gospel unity', Fusion reverses the pattern  to hold a much more ecumenical and social vision pattern - having a wide and vague non-doctrinal 'gospel' which more lends itself to accommodating a much wider breadth of belief.  Thus it becomes much more 'seeker-friendly' and culturally relevant at the expense of Biblical truth.
          It should not surprise us either that the very next self-posed question on Fusion's Position Paper asks, 'Is Fusion a Charismatic version of UCCF?'  Fusion's answer is categorically, 'No.'  But, the reality is quite simply that its entire agenda and terminology adopts marketing methods and techniques, which is wholly charismatic in ethos and style.  What this means in practice is that the clear preaching of gospel truth is watered down into an acceptable easy-believism styled for cultural relevance.  Fusion, like the churches from which it springs, is classically Arminian in tone, content and style.  It makes social and cultural acceptability (in this case student campus culture) at any cost a key component of evangelism.  While the document strenuously denies that Fusion is not just a charismatic alternative, that is most definitively exactly what it is.
          Evidences of contradictions in the paper come thick and fast.  References to 'not competing' with existing evangelical work and not wanting 'to impose' themselves should be set against strong expressions such as 'We will form cells', 'Fusion intends to establish a Student Advisiory Group', and perhaps charitably, 'We can then work a policy of how we can make room for UCCF's investment into the CU'.  It makes clear that Fusion's main distinctive is in 'working in Cell groups' - groups of students backed and trained by Fusion personnel.  Fusion intends that such groups are influential in University CU's in a variety of ways.  But, once again, other statements in the paper, suggest that Cell groups should, in fact, be rather more than merely influential.  The underlying emphasis of Fusion and its purpose is revealed in key phrases like: 'There will of course be implications with the shape of the Christian Union by adopting a Cell model as it will not simply work looked as as an 'add-on'.'  What on earth can suc a phrase mean except that the Fusion Cell must seek influentially to dominate the CU itself?  We already have an indication of what that means in practice, as we shall see shortly.
          Fusion's Position Paper refers to training their Associates in an 'understanding of market place theology'.  This kind of jargon, is a hallmark of the churches from which it comes.  The Paper is studded with it.  Fusion's strategy of 'marketing' rather than preaching the Gospel is revealed in terms such as: 'some who do not flow with us', 'value-based discipleship (is there any other?), they will not 'franchise Fusion materials out', people are 'networked' and Fusion is open to stratgeic liaison 'as time goes on and not to put the fullstop into the ownership of Fusion.' (sic)
          The most telling phrase theologically, which helps us most to understand the heart of Fusion comes in its 'Basic Presuppositions' section.  Here we are informed, 'These cells are to be experiential, not just about academic learning, but about experiencing Jesus.'  Herein is the clearest indication of the kind of power encounters mentality central to the churches behind Fusion.  Fusion intends to ensure that formative Christian students are 'Torontoed' or 'Pensacola'd' with their version of direct experience of God - no wonder the level heads at UCCF are concerned about this initiative.  The trouble is that it is not just UCCF personnel but many, many other evangelicals who rate these experiences of God as having little to do with true Christian experience. 
          For the leaders in Fusion the understanding of the mind and learning is purely head knowledge and nothing more.  It is not something that the Holy Spirit can take and use to transform lives through the vital understanding of the Christian mind - already quickened by the Holy Spirit.  And therein lies the central problem with all experiential (as in power encounter) Christianity.  It does not believe that obeying Christ is enough.  It has to climb its ladder up to God.  This, of course, is Gnostic mysticism, and has plagued the Church since its earliest days.  No wonder Fusion sees its ministry as distinctive from UCCF.

Unfortunately, we do not have to look far for our worst fears to be realised.  In the early 90's UCCF had no staff worker attached to the Christian Union at Hull University.  During this period the executive of Hull Christian Union (CU) gradually became dominated by the outside influence of a very pro-active Pete Gilbert (based in Sheffield), a member of the Pioneer group of churches, and Phil Wall of the Salvation Army national youth team.  (Both Gilbert and Wall were involved in the founding of  Fusion). 
          This Pioneer-backed domination did not take long to reveal the type of campus evangelism it would commit the CU to on the Hull Campus.  In 1995, in the face of opposition from appalled Christians, it decided to hold a campus debate putting up a prize of £10,000 to the winner (in the event only £4,000 was actually put up). The debate was to argue whether Christ was or was not resurrected from the dead.  The move outraged other local Christians who believed it was wrong to gamble with the truth of the resurrection - with unbelievers - in this way.  Even the CU Executive's advisory board members baulked at this move - for their trouble, the dissenting voices on the board were summarily removed from it.
          The 'mission' duly went ahead - and was a disaster.  In fact, the CU brought James Montgomery Boice, a well-known respected conservative US evangelical to debate the case 'for' the resurrection.  (Perhaps they did not trust their own leaders to be theologically competent enough?).  Boice played his part well.  Being well-versed in the Scriptures he astutely rubbished the case 'against' in typically boisterous American style.  So emphatically, in fact, that he demolished the credibility of the liberal theology of the University's Head of Theology, debating the case 'against' (one wonders if he is in the right job).  This did not go down at all well with the judges.  The judges, appointed by the CU members themselves, were no less than the heads of the various Hull University Departments.  They were not only friends of the University's own speaker, but a non-Christian panel to boot.  Apparently affronted by the demolishen job of a first class, but outspoken American theologian, the judges decided that the  CU ad lost the debate.  The CU duly handed over the £4,000 to a very grateful group of  unbelievers.  (In fact, the winner ultimately gave the money to charity).
          Other mini-missions on campus certainly had little of a Word-orientated Gospel flavour to them.  They included an invitation to a comedian/razor blade swallower (apparently 'razor-blade-swallowing-for-Christ' could catch on) and debates with Amnesty International (not, of course, a Christian organisation) among others.  When decent evangelical speakers were included in the itinerary (Roy Clements, brought all the way from Cambridge, was one) it was mostly for ad hoc panel questions and not to give an address.
          The result of all of this 'engaging students with the real world'?  By the Autumn of 1996 the Hull CU membership had reduced to half the size it was 20 years earlier - while University membership itself had doubled over the same period.  The 1996 Hull CU Executive was made up solely of first year students.  Those experienced second and third year students had dropped out of the CU from lack of interest.  Students it would seem are more discerning than we might believe.  But, above all else, the major missing factor over the period of Pioneer-backed domination was - the singular absence of conversions.
          By the Autumn of 1996 local evangelicals had grown increasingly alarmed at the activities and the direction taken by the Hull CU.  At that time I interviewed the Rev Melvyn Tinker, a well-known evangelical Anglican and Minister of St Johns', Newlands, the church local to the Hull University campus.  Rev Tinker told me he and his colleagues, being fully aware of the importance of the Gospel for students, had failed in making numerous attempts to work with the Hull CU.  All attempts had been rebuffed.  This had recently culminated in the latest and clearest so far (he having invited members for a meal) - the new executive, he was told, did not even want to meet with them. 
          The Rev Tinker said, "First and formost we would love to work with the CU in developing a Biblical agenda, but the reality is they seem determined to follow their own agenda, the results of which are there for all to see.'  He added, 'In the circumstances we, sadly, feel we have no other option than to begin an alternative work aimed at bringing students and future leaders the Gospel and proper Bible teaching which they simply are not getting.'  The Hull Fellowship of Evangelical Students is now under way - and is working with the UCCF.  Is this the 'working with existing initiatives' so emphasised in Fusion's Position Paper? 

In the aftermath of the Evangelicals Now article through to the formal launch the Christian press published numerous articles and letters many evangelicals had their say about the Fusion student's initiative.  UCCF's own role has been to take a 'wait and see' approach.  UCCF's leadership concerns about Fusion are as strong as ever.  While many published views gave support to Fusion, the overall sense of the majority was that it is 'ill-conceived'.  Not least, because of what it says about the state of Evangelicalism generally.  Many of the correspondents on the subject new, only too well, the part UCCF had played in their own conversion experience.  Equally, all those that had seen the spawning of numerous professional - post-graduate - fellowships can only wonder at the impact their membership will have had on the country's spirituality.  Most, rightly, were concerned about the effect on students themselves.
          For years the 'neo-evangelicalism' both inside established denominations and in the new churches has been ploughing its furrows and drawing on a theology that is not Biblically-based Evangelical Christianity.  Its results have been seen in a variety of counterfeit revival attempts calling everyone to 'experience' power encounters with the Holy Spirit.  Unfortunately, they have never quite grasped the core doctrinal truth that we live by faith, not by sight.  If we needed direct power encounter experiences to validate our belief, in any way or form, we would not be living by faith! 
          Such spurious Christian belief and practice has previously been carried into the world's territory in a number of important ways.  One has been the 'Full Gospel Businessmen's Dinners'.  The 'Full' Gospel being of course the one with signs and wonders/phenomena/power encounters attached.  What we have in Fusion is a further attempt to bring this Gospel plus theology into the 'market place'.  This time to capture the minds of the leaders of tomorrow.  It is far from being just an issue of style as some belief.  Style, in any event, is never neutral.  What we do and how we do it is usually a direct outworking of what we believe.  This is why Jesus and the Apostles gave doctrinal teaching and sound theology the central place when the goods news was preached.  We are, and we do, what we believe.  The problem is, with experientially-based Christianity, it is anti-intellectual in tone and it changes the order or believe from mind-emotions-will to emotions-will-mind.  In this way the renewal of the mind, the way theScriptures tell us we must be converted, is considered far less important.
          In truth obeying God and His Word, the Scriptural imperative, above that of experiencing a direct power power encounter is not only at the heart of the UCCF/Fusion splinter, it lies essentially at the heart of modern Evangelicalism.  The Evangelical Alliance has been trying to paper over this divide for years.  So-called 'open' evangelicals have believed different approaches can be embraced.  The result has been an increasing acceptance within evangelicalism of the 'neo-evangelicals'.  They are those who have departed from Bible-believing belief and practice.
          Fusion and UCCF not only are separate groups, they are completely separate philosophies based on entirely different theologies.  The fact that Evangelicalism generally refuses to acknowledge that the many extra-Biblical revelationary groups it has accepted into its bosom over the last 100 years has compromised it and 'down-graded' its whole Biblical foundation is still largely unseen.  Fusion is merely a natural outworking for a group that simply cannot function with another group that is expected to be its partner.  The reality is Fusion could never work with the current leadership of UCCF- and it knows it!  That is why it is ploughing ahead.  It has no reason to talk to the UCCF, because theologically and practically it has nothing to say or share with it.
          When will Evangelicals realise the depth of the problems facing it.  Yet, we still have Evangelical leaders claiming that the number of evangelicals and their influence in society is growing - as a single unity.  Which Evangelicalism?  The Evangelicals that believe it when the Scriptures tell us we are heading towards the greatest apostasy in the church's history (2 Thessalonians 3)?  Or the Neo-Evangelicals who believe we are becoming one of the most potent political force that the world will not be able to ignore (complete with signs & wonders/prophecy etc)?
          Fusion and the UCCF are reflective of different theologies because they are, at root, the outworking of two very different gospels.  Anything that historically has added to or detrated from the Gospel has become cult-like in its beliefs and practices.  Super-spiritual 'superior' gnostic (hidden/secret revelationary knowledge) belief has always motivated Christians to move away from Bible belief and Bible testing.  The churches behind Fusion have been doing this for years and Evangelicalism generally has decided not to 'rock the boat'.  We are now reaping the reward. 
          Fusion, the need for some 'evangelicals' to do their own thing away from other evangelicals on the same campuses and among the same student bodies around the country, signals yet another highly visible divide in modern Evangelicalism.  Indeed, in what sense can those who have moved away from the Evangelical hallmark of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) be classed as Evangelicals?  My plea here would be for Evangelicals to realise the full implications of vastly different 'Evangelical' theologies because, before our eyes, they are working themselves out in the eyes of the world.
          Or, perhaps, God does give sharply different and apparently competing visions to different groups of Christians working for the same Gospel?  Strange then that in His word he should call us to be of 'one heart and mind' (Acts 4.32) in a spirit of unity (Romans 15:5) based on His revealed truth.  But, of course, that was before the greater need for marketing the Gospel, like any other commodity, as some church groups have discovered, was full appreciated by the neo-evangelicals in the twentieth century.