Originally posted by Cheesy*:
All power to your elbow if you managed to stay 8 years in a CU, Lep.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I managed less than a term.C
quote:There you go.
Dear Howard,
It seems to me that you are labouring under some significant misconceptions. I have responded to the three main ones below.
1. UCCF and CUs
You seem to see UCCF as an authoritative body separate to CUs. UCCF is the 'CU Movement', which comprises students, staff and supporters. Our aim is for student leaders in particular to recognise that we are all in this together; all working towards the same ends; all dependent on one another. Staff do not work independently of the students and CUs are encouraged to see themselves as linked to each other. For example, the ‘Life Gospels’ were jointly funded by students and supporters from across the CU movement. UCCF is not some outside agency that is merely called in for advice and support, but it is a genuine fellowship across the UK CUs. You and some of your student friends may well have some personal issues about the choice of speaker for the Swansea mission. But if you let that drive your thinking you are going to be way off mark in getting the tone and texture of your article right.
Therefore, if you wish to satirise UCCF, bear in mind that you are attacking the wholehearted efforts of individual students who are doing their best to reach their peers with the good news of the Gospel.
2.Effective missions and the Zeitgeist
The only effective missions occur when students are doing good regular evangelism. It may be that you saw a mission where there wasn't much evangelism outside the mission itself. I have personally heard many eyewitness reports of record numbers turning up at mission events and greater numbers of students becoming Christians than at any time in recent years. Our London Team leader writes of the recent mission season: ‘…many more Christian students have been really fired up with a vision for evangelism and hosted more effective mission events in the spring than we have ever seen in a single term. There have been at least 4 effective new CUs set up off the back of a couple of keen students doing pioneer evangelism. They are creative, they are doing things in contextualised ways and they love the Lord with all their hearts.’
Your observation that Christian students are more in-touch and socially adept seems to be a direct contradiction to your complaint that CU missions aren't. Generally it is the in-touch, socially adept students who are most aware of the apathy and lack of ideology around them.
You are right to notice that the "it’s lovely for you" mindset is strongly out there in universities. But wrong to imply that no work is being done on this. Record numbers of CUs held missions this year and the majority of CUs worked hard to devise individual strategies relevant to their patch. Recent UCCF publications like Transition, The Blurb and Meltdown are in recognition of the shifting cultural landscape.
We also have many able staff and student officers who regularly collaborate to provide cutting edge training to equip students, not merely to identify the Zeitgeist, but to respond creatively and effectively.
Even with a poor venue, the Swansea CU managed to attract good numbers of outsiders to their lunch bar events. Clearly, they got something of the contemporary atmosphere right to get so many people coming back day after day and signing up for follow up courses.
The most travelled of the UCCF staff tell me that your impression of some of the outward detail of missions appearing the same might easily mask the fact that the strategy is extremely flexible. This provides opportunities for CUs to use resources in culturally appropriate ways - Swansea is not Cambridge, is not Birmingham, is not Newcastle, is not Cornwall FE colleges, is not Exeter or Glasgow. Yet each of these places has seen significant and strategic use of carefully designed and produced resources. The problem with extrapolating from limited experience is that the world is seen through a false lens, which serves neither critique nor appreciation in a generalised way.
3. Opposition Vs Apathy
Apathy is always going to be a major obstacle in a postmodern, relativistic society. However, the flip side of apathetic relativism is a growing intolerance to truth claims. You and your friends were sniggering at the missioners comment about the CU being the most hated organisation. But there cannot be many societies who challenge the secular myth of relativism as consistently as a CU running a series of lunch bar discussions and debates. I could name 6 CUs off the top of my head that are being threatened with expulsion from the SU for not allowing atheists to be voting members of their respective CUs. UCCF students and staff are more than aware that the majority on campus are too apathetic about the claims of Christianity. But any who have known the national CU scene well for the past 10 years will confirm that their has never been so much vocal opposition as in the past few years.
It is such a shame that you seem unable to offer support to the many hundreds of Christians in our college and university CUs who are threatened with expulsion for the first time in living memory. The tone and timing of your comments on this could not be more ironic.
In summary, I would say that if you wanted a serious discussion about the Zeitgeist of postmodern campuses then you will have to go a long way to find people more clued into the nuances of all this than amongst UCCF staff and students.
quote:Talks were given by the missioners and staff workers, most of the organisation and other leading was done by the CU.
Cheesy wrote this:
I am also interested in what you saw of the leadership during the mission - was it led primarily by the UCCF missioners, the CU exec or the CU punters?
quote:Not quite - there's a Q&A session at the end. That counts for a lot, I think.
My view was that CU missions had most in common with old style tent revivalist meetings - which worked in a university climate where students went along to hear someone saying something outrageous, but that the prevailling student culture has changed.
quote:Work harder? Actually, I don't know. The student demographic has changed back to how it was about 30 years ago (at least in the older universities), I think, inasmuch as the majhority of students who can come to university are the ones who can afford it anyway. Working class kids, never incredibly easy to find, are rarer than ever.
Students need to work harder and play harder, so perhaps considering a religious or political commitment is lower down on the scale of importance.
quote:They were people who were interested. Honestly. Punters off the campus who got given a flyer.
But maybe I am wrong about this. Who were all these people who turned up (were they friends of CU-ers)?
quote:I quoted this even though I'm not replying to it, but to a general point. Wood, your point seems to be in the article "people don't mind being told but these methods don't get them to respond". Is that right?
Originally posted by Boopy:
CU people only seemed to socialise with each other, too; except when they were forming friendships as fodder for evangelism. Those I encountered didn't seem to relate to the idea of having non-CU friends just because they were your friends.
quote:I see what you're saying, Lep. except it's UCCF who supply the missioners. It's UCCF who give the ideas. The "lunch with talks" approach, for example, has been packing them in across the country, and while I appreciate that UCCF workers only mean to help and resource CUs, it's often the case in practice that CUs will gratefully defer to their (sometimes only slightly) more experienced staff workers, and do whatever they say, whether that's the intention or not.
Everyone's Favourite Irish Pixie of Diminutive Stature writes:
I think your UCCF contact may have a point - that these methods are not handed down from on high, and it is up to individual CUs how they go about things.
quote:Well this relationship is a wider issue. Suffice to say, my experience was never that CUs were handed ideas on a plate and took them on unquestioningly. Yep the lunch bars thing is being used widely, because the perception is that its a good way to get people through the doors who have no other Christian contact, but a myriad of different styles is being used elsewhere too. And having been a missioner in the past, it does tend to be far more that the CU tell you what they want, rather than the other way round. Just my experience.
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, more importantly, I find it a little arrogant that UCCF should rebrand itself (with an hilariously rude acronym, incidentally. Someone I know and love suggested that they might next try something like Federation of Universities and Colleges Christian Unions, but I suspect that even UCCF might balk at that) as "the Christian Union Movement", almost as if to say: "you're part of us. We are you, you are us. You just didn't know it."
I'm sure that wasn't the intention, but I really am getting that vibe, you know?
quote:CU's predated the existence of UCCF (most of whose earliest local groups called themselves `Evangelical Unions' to distinguish themselves from SCM-affiliated Christian Unions; though this has ceased being an issue a very long time ago!)
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Wood, now I'm confused. Are you saying that there are individual CUs that are not affiliated to UCCF?
quote:As I've noted, no its not entirely unjustified (and, for most people, a helpful clarification). But the chief conspiracy theory I've heard was that the explicit adoption of this tagline was a response to competition from Fusion - which seems to be precisely what you too are saying!
Originally posted by Leprechaun
Would you be offended if I said that I think you may be hatching a conspiracy theory on the tagline? UCCF has always explained itself as being the CU movement, when people want to know what the letters mean. Its only recently made it on to the logo recently with the plethora of Christian student movements that are proliferating currently. As, you rightly say, nearly all CUs are affiliated, its not entirely unjustified is it?
quote:That's not exactly what I said is it? There are a number of growing church based and para-church student ministries in the evangelical world - Agape have just begun a ministry where I live, Navigators, Fusion, and the many churches in student centres that now run their own student work. I am guessing (and I am guessing on this one) that it was this that led to the addition of the tagline - whereas I daresay when eg Wood was at university the situation was a little different.
Originally posted by Elephenor:
But the chief conspiracy theory I've heard was that the explicit adoption of this tagline was a response to competition from Fusion - which seems to be precisely what you too are saying!
quote:Sorry, there should certainly have been an "etc" in my post - my bad. I wasn't trying to insinuate a single-organisation vendetta. (However Navigators - and Agape, though I know less about their campus ministry - have been around for generations.)
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
That's not exactly what I said is it?
quote:I tried to stick to relatively uncontroversial facts, and leave it ambiguous who initiated the split. My impression is it was rather more complicated than your one sentence summary too!
The Loughborough situation is slightly more complex than you have described it
quote:Indeed. All I was saying was that I believe it was more than a "falling out" between CU and staff worker.
Originally posted by Elephenor:
I tried to stick to relatively uncontroversial facts, and leave it ambiguous who initiated the split. My impression is it was rather more complicated than your one sentence summary too!
quote:Nah, I wouldn't be offended. I'm not, of course, and while there are CUs which are not affiliated to UCCF, it's not entirely a vain claim - as I said in the article.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Would you be offended if I said that I think you may be hatching a conspiracy theory on the tagline? UCCF has always explained itself as being the CU movement, when people want to know what the letters mean. Its only recently made it on to the logo recently with the plethora of Christian student movements that are proliferating currently. As, you rightly say, nearly all CUs are affiliated, its not entirely unjustified is it?
quote:Well, I have to admit that there's a world of difference between UCCF in general and my university's CU in particular. In Cambridge the Fusion people have had to take a lot of flak from CICCU, much of it unjustified I feel.
And certainly I don't know anyone in UCCF who would deny that it has lots to learn from other student movements - so Howard's last paragraph won't come as a massive shock to anyone.
quote:Time for me to go off to my (evangelical) church now.
From Rev. Cunningham's interview:
the liberal secularists who were the student radicals of the '60s now represent the establishment. These 'poachers turned gamekeepers' guard both the media and political processes with instincts that are not merely indifferent to the Christian worldview, but actively hostile. In all areas of social policy and broader cultural life we are witnessing a radical secular revolution. Postmodern society for all its vaunted openness to spirituality has become intolerant of orthodox belief, not least in the area of sexual ethics. Similarly Christian students are put under siege by their peers and mentors who demand their conformity to secular lifestyle and belief; so it is increasingly hard for Christian students to find the contact points, categories and confidence to speak meaningfully into this new society. Until quite recently it was common to hear someone say: 'That's great for you, I wish I had your faith'. Today, we are just as likely to hear, 'How can you be so intolerant as to believe that?'.
quote:I disagree oh holy reverend whoever you are. The siege mentality is a convenient device created by evangelicals to reinforce and theologise their natural tendancy to continually create subcultures. If you are hearing 'how can you be so intolerant as to believe that?' it is because you are engaging your mouth without engaging your brain or your hands. Christian students do not speak meaningfully into [student] society because people like you teach them that the only useful contribution they can give is to attempt to project a [largely mythical] 'Christian' set of doctrines, politics, music, and art as if the whole package is cut and dried, take it or leave it. I'm sorry, there simply is no 'christian' view of the roof of the student union building, the colour of the coffee mugs or the amounts of money that should be allocated to different student sports clubs. Christian students need to learn to take responsibility and act for change in the student body - not from a preconceived notion of correctness but from a recognisation that they need to behave as responsible adults even if nobody else is going to.
From Rev. Cunningham's interview:
the liberal secularists who were the student radicals of the '60s now represent the establishment. These 'poachers turned gamekeepers' guard both the media and political processes with instincts that are not merely indifferent to the Christian worldview, but actively hostile. In all areas of social policy and broader cultural life we are witnessing a radical secular revolution. Postmodern society for all its vaunted openness to spirituality has become intolerant of orthodox belief, not least in the area of sexual ethics. Similarly Christian students are put under siege by their peers and mentors who demand their conformity to secular lifestyle and belief; so it is increasingly hard for Christian students to find the contact points, categories and confidence to speak meaningfully into this new society. Until quite recently it was common to hear someone say: 'That's great for you, I wish I had your faith'. Today, we are just as likely to hear, 'How can you be so intolerant as to believe that?'.
quote:I don't think it's convenient. Do you think that Christians like being under siege? Do you think it's really a tool of control?
Posted by Cheesy:
The siege mentality is a convenient device created by evangelicals to reinforce and theologise their natural tendancy to continually create subcultures.
quote:Difficult one to prove from the start. What about the hard-working square kids? What about the Young Conservatives of the 60s? What about the swots?
From Rev. Cunningham's interview:
the liberal secularists who were the student radicals of the '60s now represent the establishment.
quote:Maybe they would, if they gave a monkey's.
These 'poachers turned gamekeepers' guard both the media and political processes with instincts that are not merely indifferent to the Christian worldview, but actively hostile.
quote:I'd argue that it's probably intolerant to (RC's definition of) orthodox belief only in the field of sexual ethics, but that's splitting hairs, really.
Postmodern society for all its vaunted openness to spirituality has become intolerant of orthodox belief, not least in the area of sexual ethics.
quote:I think the big problem with RC's assessment of the way things are going is that he's missed the generation gap here. We're actually two generations down the line now. The students of the 60s (baby boomers) were replaced by Gneration X were replaced by Millennials. All three have different viewpoints.
Similarly Christian students are put under siege by their peers and mentors who demand their conformity to secular lifestyle and belief;
quote:See, I think RC is ten years behind the times on this one. What he's saying was true when I was a student.
Until quite recently it was common to hear someone say: 'That's great for you, I wish I had your faith'. Today, we are just as likely to hear, 'How can you be so intolerant as to believe that?'.
quote:Interesting.
Originally posted by Wood:
But now, I get the impression from my contacts with (mainly non-Christian) students across the UK that the response you get to a conservative evangelical viewpoint is more likely these days to be: "Well, if it makes you happy, cool. I'm off to the bar."
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Not happily. Generally speaking, while some agreed with the theological questions being asked, no one I met thought that it was the right way to go about dealing with the issue. And senior people felt a little irritated that the progress that has been made at their level in building a happier relationship with Fusion, where the differences could be articulated, but without vitriol, was being undermined at grass roots.
Originally posted by Wood:
No, I don't think it is cricket.
How was the article about Fusion received within UCCF circles? Does anyone know?
quote:That's just the nature of what it is to be a movement isn't it? In fact, I think, if anything this situation backs up "Mr contact's" statement. UCCF is not a power structure imposed from above on CUs but an organic movement. That means CUs don't always (in fact, IME less than half the time) do as their staff workers advise. That's because it is a movement , not a government - plebs relationship.
Back to the question of the "Christian Union Movement": it occurred to me that often UCCF seems to want to have its cake and eat it.
Namely, they state openly (eg in UCCF guy's statement, above) what amounts to: "we are Chrstian Unions; they are us," and yet, when it's pointed out that tactics used by CUs can be harmful and that attitudes held by CUs aren't necessarily helpful, UCCF members have in my experience disowned these tactics: "we're just the staff workers. We just offer advice. They don't have to take it."
quote:The point being, I think, that your article was actually quite critical of the CU in question. Part of the point was, I think, that some of the things you criticised the CU for doing, and in your mind they were a result of being linked with UCCF, were actually just well meaning (if in your view misguided) attempts to share the Gospel, designed by the CU, not UCCF. Mission hoodies are a prime example. And I'm not being aggressive Wood, but for someone that many of these students know and trust, to be so cynical about their best efforts to love their friends in a public forum probably is a bit discouraging, isn't it?
I think, also, there's the issue that among UCCF people (again, see my contact), there's the assumption that criticism of UCCF's methods necessarily implies criticism of CUs and, worst case, Christianity in general. I actually thought it quite disingenuous that my contact seemed to say that in criticising UCCF, I was "failing to show solidarity" with CU students.
quote:I'm sorry Wood, but have you been aware at all of the increasing number of CUs being expelled from their students Unions? I can think of at least 7 (one of which I have been directly involved with in the last few years) in this academic year alone. And it is JUST the Christian Union, no other Christian society, and in many cases IME the SU are joined in an unholy alliance with the chaplaincy who also can't wait to get rid of the pesky evangelicals.
And that brings me on to the issue of "persecution". I handled this a little in my full article, but I do really feel that there's a culture of paranoia in UCCF. Apart from the issue that it's a bit insulting to those people who in other countries actually are facing real persecution, this defensiveness is in my opinion an obstacle to the Gospel.
quote:Well, as a student several years ago (I'm in your age group) the attitude of students then was pretty much "if it makes you happy" too. So, I don't think it's especially new, and it's not surprising that people who at university had that view 15 years ago hold similar views now.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If all goes well I'll be getting confirmed rather soon, and I have to say that the strongest response I've encountered from friends and family has been fond amusement. The "if it makes you happy" has been by far the most common reaction.
Maybe the student response is just a reflection of current attitudes to Christianity in society in general. I'm in my mid-thirties so it may not be age-related either.
quote:Lep,
I'm sorry Wood, but have you been aware at all of the increasing number of CUs being expelled from their students Unions? I can think of at least 7 (one of which I have been directly involved with in the last few years) in this academic year alone. And it is JUST the Christian Union, no other Christian society, and in many cases IME the SU are joined in an unholy alliance with the chaplaincy who also can't wait to get rid of the pesky evangelicals.
I have been involved in CUs deeply now for 8 years, and this is definitely considerably more of an issue than it was when I began my involvement.
And I think, if you went to any UCCF conference, you would see more concern there for persecuted Christians throughout the world than in most other evangelical Christian fora you could care to mention.
I managed less than a term.quote:In one of the CUs I have helped this year, the SU representative pointed out (at the "we are expelling you" meeting) that the CU was the largest, most active society on their campus. This is certainly the case in many of the new universities, in one of which, near me the CU was one of only 7 societies (in a university of 25000 students) who ran ANY events in Freshers week. Again, as I said on the DICCU thread, the situations for CUs are many and varied - your CU may well have sponged of the SU, in many places this is not the case, but the SU still wants rid of them.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
1) If the CUs got off their backsides and got involved in the SUs instead of just sponging off them there might be less of a problem.
quote:THe CUs are perfectly capable of pointing out the irrationality of the measures, but they still get expelled. Why? Because people want them out. Did you read the thread here about UCL where the vote went against the motion to expel the CU, but the SU did it anyway? In what way is this not victimisation? I have been involved in giving rudimentary legal advice to CUs, and know that they have made a sensible legal case. The fact is, this is often just ignored.
2) The arguments for expulsion are based on nonsense as any rational person could see. The fact that CUs get all hot under the collar and are unable to defend themselves shows a complete ignorance of the SU constitution (see point 1 above).
quote:Maybe at your university. In one campus I worked alongside it meant that they couldn't meet in ANY university building, and no presence at Freshers Fayre, and no advertising allowed about where they were meeting. Which actually had quite an effect on the CU.
3. Most of the time being expelled from the SU has no practical consequence in any case.
quote:Which thoroughly explains your complete lack of knowledge on the issue.
All power to your elbow if you managed to stay 8 years in a CU, Lep. I managed less than a term.
quote:I suspected as much. Good to know, though.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Not happily. Generally speaking, while some agreed with the theological questions being asked, no one I met thought that it was the right way to go about dealing with the issue. And senior people felt a little irritated that the progress that has been made at their level in building a happier relationship with Fusion, where the differences could be articulated, but without vitriol, was being undermined at grass roots.
Originally posted by Wood:
No, I don't think it is cricket.
How was the article about Fusion received within UCCF circles? Does anyone know?
quote:Funny, 'cos I ran it by several members of the CU in question. They didn't seem to think so.
your article was actually quite critical of the CU in question.
quote:Um, where did I criticise the hoodies? I think I implied that they weren't particularly fashionable, but that was it.
Mission hoodies are a prime example.
quote:Could you stop apologising about being aggressive? I know you're not being aggressive, mate. If you have a point to make, you make it.
And I'm not being aggressive, Wood, but
quote:See comment above.
for someone that many of these students know and trust, to be so cynical about their best efforts to love their friends in a public forum probably is a bit discouraging, isn't it?
quote:Um, yes, I am. And I think I dealt with this point in my article when I said:
I'm sorry Wood, but have you been aware at all of the increasing number of CUs being expelled from their students Unions? I can think of at least 7 (one of which I have been directly involved with in the last few years) in this academic year alone.
quote:One has to ask why these CUs got suspended, when, if they got involved in student politics, they could be running the place.
From what I wrote myself:
Swansea’s Union is something of an rarity in the British university scene. Often, SUs and CUs exist in open hostility to each other. UCCF pointed out to me that there are about a half-dozen CUs this year alone who have been (or are in real danger of being) expelled from
their SUs, including University College London, Warwick and Hull. But if you look at the proportion of students who take part in student
politics, the number is minimal. For example, in Swansea’s sabbatical elections this year, the winner got in with 650 votes. Out of a constituency of nearly 10,000, only about 1,000 students voted. The result is that those who actually take part are in the same minority as
the CU – the minority of people who actually give a flying one.
and also:
Ironically, in a climate where no one turns up for student politics, the potential power CUs could wield is vast. UCCF is the largest and most active student-based lobby group in the country, after the National Union of Students itself. And yet, paradoxically, UCCF doesn’t register on most people’s radar. Most students just don’t care. And while Student Unions may have people hostile to CUs in their executives, many are unaware of UCCF’s existence. University College London, for example, had voted not to expel their CU in a meeting; they only rescinded the decision and expelled them anyway when it was pointed out to them that the CU was affiliated with an external organisation (UCCF) which held standards in violation of the SU constitution.
But UCCF’s culture seems to promote the belief in many of its members that CUs constitute a beleaguered, persecuted minority. Some even seem to believe that there is some sort of liberal conspiracy out to get Christians. Although the idea of getting a bunch of liberals to agree on anything long enough to form a conspiracy is frankly absurd, somehow I think the idea that UCCF may be an irrelevance is somehow worse. If they persecute your organisation, it means they care about you. But if they just shrug and say, “If it makes you happy,” that’s worse than death. Ironically, the recent crackdown by the minority groups that run SUs has given UCCF’s work meaning and direction.
quote:Whoa, whoa, whoa. If, and I mean IF the chaplaincies were involved in this conspiracy, why did they do this?
and in many cases IME the SU are joined in an unholy alliance with the chaplaincy who also can't wait to get rid of the pesky evangelicals.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), which is frankly not easy, I always get the impression that reasons for chaplaincy-CU conflict are far more complex than that. quote:I'm not saying that UCCF doesn't care about persecuted Christians in other countries (although it caring "more" is arguable). I'm saying that having difficulties with the minority-run SU is not the same as having the law on your tail, getting arrested, being tortured or being shot.
And I think, if you went to any UCCF conference, you would see more concern there for persecuted Christians throughout the world than in most other evangelical Christian fora you could care to mention.
quote:There was the famous Varsity cover story where someone took one of the speaker's comments on homosexuality totally out of context - I believe the headline was "Predator - Pray?" or something. There were also numerous letters bemoaning the approach of mission week, described as the time when the red hoodies descend on Cambridge...
Originally posted by Carys:
It's interesting to read how the mission played out elsewhere. There was a lot more opposition and debate here in reaction to Promise (don't ask me why but CICCU used the Gospels but rebranded them -- but then again Life was their mission two years ago) than in Swansea. There was a lot of debate about it in Varsity and TCS and I overheard some conversations about it.
quote:Because I have worked with once thriving CUs that ended up meeting off campus, not running any evangelistic events; beleagured small groups of Christians, who genuinely wanted to share their faith, and just didn't know how or what they could do as they were not allowed even toorganise a gathering anywhere in their university.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Why do you have such a persecution complex?
C
quote:I lasted a year, mostly due to the fact that after about two months of going I realised I hadn't seen a woman speak, went to the president and was fobbed off with the "it would provide a barrier to some people" "argument" and saw that the thing is impossible to change from a huge, horrible, neo-conservative reason for existence to most of its members. When I say reason for existence, I mean the "this is my first priority" kind of mentality. DizzySheep is right, but no one's really up for being radical, are they? It's amazing how liberal conservatives are about some things, though.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
All power to your elbow if you managed to stay 8 years in a CU, Lep.
C
quote:Oh, poor poor them.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...beleagured small groups of Christians, who genuinely wanted to share their faith, and just didn't know how or what they could do as they were not allowed even to organise a gathering anywhere in their university.
quote:Now Woodsy, you know you have told me off for being too aggressive before. I was just making it clear that I was not attempting to start a fight on this occasion.
Originally posted by Wood:
Could you stop apologising about being aggressive? I know you're not being aggressive, mate. If you have a point to make, you make it.
quote:I don't think "Mr contact" was trying to stop scrutiny was he? Just to point out that, actually for many of these students who are young, not confident in their faith, and doing their best, you have chosen to expose them to criticism in a public forum, just for doing their best. And let's not forget that they did get people talking about Jesus, considering his claims and discussing Christianity. In many places this is, in itself, a major achievement. But the tone of your article was to suggest that the whole thing, while well meaning, was a bit of a wasted misadventure.
Again - criticism of method does not imply criticism of person, faith or of Christianity in general. And it's because I'm in solidarity with the students that I feel it needs to be addressed. How are you ever going to fix anything if it isn't scrutinised?
quote:The Fellowship is made up of its consitutent parts. It has a small core staff team in relation to the many CU members that there are. In what way is it not CUs? Without CUs and their affiliation and support and general participation there would be no UCCF. Ok, so the Leicester office isn't a CU, but surely that doesn't stop them being the same movement.
I want to take issue with your idea of a "movement". I take your point, but again there's the assumption that UCCF=CUs. It doesn't. UCCF is an organisation that (in its best manifestations) supports and links CUs or (in its worst) tells CUs what to do. But it is not CUs.
quote:Yep, they have been slow on the uptake - largely because (IMO rightly) they have been focussed on their purpose, rather than their organisation. Its now becoming apparent that it is not enough to be like that, if you are a religious group you have to campaign for your right to exist. But that, in itself, IMO is evidence that SU politics are moving against rather CUs rather than being passive to them.
One has to ask why these CUs got suspended, when, if they got involved in student politics, they could be running the place.
quote:Yes. Obviously its CUs who are arrogant, thoughtless, and unconcerned for the difficulties that other Christians face
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
Oh, poor poor them.
They could try using their imaginations, making friends with non-Christians, getting involved in other university groups...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
.quote:I don't see how your response relates to the quote...
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Yes. Obviously its CUs who are arrogant, thoughtless, and unconcerned for the difficulties that other Christians face
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
Oh, poor poor them.
They could try using their imaginations, making friends with non-Christians, getting involved in other university groups...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I thought Tabby Cat was merely saying that Christians often don't get involved in university life.
quote:OK. While I agree that the lack of encouragement to get involved in university groups and politics is a problem, I don't think the tone of this comment is particularly helpful.
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
quote:Oh, poor poor them.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...beleagured small groups of Christians, who genuinely wanted to share their faith, and just didn't know how or what they could do as they were not allowed even to organise a gathering anywhere in their university.
They could try using their imaginations, making friends with non-Christians, getting involved in other university groups...
. quote:Liberal about what sort of things? What do you mean exactly?
Originally posted by Ophthalmos
I lasted a year, mostly due to the fact that after about two months of going I realised I hadn't seen a woman speak, went to the president and was fobbed off with the "it would provide a barrier to some people" "argument" and saw that the thing is impossible to change from a huge, horrible, neo-conservative reason for existence to most of its members. When I say reason for existence, I mean the "this is my first priority" kind of mentality. DizzySheep is right, but no one's really up for being radical, are they? It's amazing how liberal conservatives are about some things, though.
quote:"Woodsy"?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Now Woodsy, you know you have told me off for being too aggressive before. I was just making it clear that I was not attempting to start a fight on this occasion.
Originally posted by Wood:
Could you stop apologising about being aggressive? I know you're not being aggressive, mate. If you have a point to make, you make it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:But I've made it quite clear that they are doing their best, and that they're good people. My real focus in the article is with people not in the CU. And as I said - I OKed it with themm, and showed them the article. They were all right with it.
I don't think "Mr contact" was trying to stop scrutiny was he? Just to point out that, actually for many of these students who are young, not confident in their faith, and doing their best, you have chosen to expose them to criticism in a public forum, just for doing their best.
quote:No. The point of my article was to say that it didn't seem to have any effect.
But the tone of your article was to suggest that the whole thing, while well meaning, was a bit of a wasted misadventure.
quote:It has a huge staff team. well, it does compared to other Christian student organisations I know of.
The Fellowship is made up of its consitutent parts. It has a small core staff team in relation to the many CU members that there are. In what way is it not CUs?
quote:See, the "CU Movement" and CUs are not the same thing either. Even if UCCF speaks for the CU Movement, it's not Christian Unions. Therefore, criticism of UCCF's methods - and in my article, the criticism was only of UCCF's evangelistic methods - does not and never shall imply criticism of CUs.
Ok, so the Leicester office isn't a CU, but surely that doesn't stop them being the same movement.
quote:But surely not to be aware of the needs of the organisation hampers one's primary focus?
quote:Yep, they have been slow on the uptake - largely because (IMO rightly) they have been focussed on their purpose, rather than their organisation.
One has to ask why these CUs got suspended, when, if they got involved in student politics, they could be running the place.
quote:But it's been like that for ages. In the last twenty years, there have been several periods where CUs have been kicked out in clusters. Swansea CU itself got disaffiliated and banned in 1992 (I think it was. It's in that ballpark). It got through that, and now enjoys a fairly good relationship with the SU.
It's now becoming apparent that it is not enough to be like that, if you are a religious group you have to campaign for your right to exist. But that, in itself, IMO is evidence that SU politics are moving against rather CUs rather than being passive to them.
quote:I'm sorry: my initial post was a knee-jerk reaction too, and I admit, not helpful.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
My response to Tabby Cat was knee jerk and not particularly helpful. Sorry.
I was pointing out that we are not talking, even ofetn, about rabid evangelists here. One girl I know is in an off campus hall of 800. She knows no other Christians in her hall.
She turned up at our church weeping at the end of freshers week as she hadn't been able to find any Christians, and the chaplaincy is 3 miles away from her house, and (in this case) not evangelical or even sympathetic to evangelicals. The CU is allowed to meet on the main campus, which was at night and meant travelling across the city by herself. (in this case, it must be said, they were pretty rubbish and not very helpful to her.)
Well, put up a poster to find other Christians I said. Not allowed.
Start a little hall group. Not allowed.
Prayer meeting. Not allowed.
People from church come in and help you talk to people in the bar, do some surveys or something. Not allowed.
As such, being from a sheltered background, she basically hasn't the confidence to get involved in any uni societies without a Christian friend. So she isn't.
Its not all CICCU with their million pound missions or whatever. We are, on occasion talking about people feeling disenfranchised from university life because of their SUs. And that's not getting shot or tortured. But for her it certainly felt like persecution.
quote:I'm really sympathetic to the girl who couldn't find any Christian friends to join societies with. I'm not so sympathetic to these groups who are unable or unwilling to try and find other ways of communicating with people, and instead complain about being persecuted.
...beleagured small groups of Christians, who genuinely wanted to share their faith, and just didn't know how or what they could do as they were not allowed even to organise a gathering anywhere in their university.
quote:I hope that is true, I really do. I hope it will pass, but I must be honest, as our society becomes more and more post-Christian, and as the flashpoint for these struggles is more than likely to be sexuality, where CUs are unlikely to get much support from the Christian establishment, I fear it may not be so. I really hope I am wrong.
Originally posted by Wood:
But it's been like that for ages. In the last twenty years, there have been several periods where CUs have been kicked out in clusters. Swansea CU itself got disaffiliated and banned in 1992 (I think it was. It's in that ballpark). It got through that, and now enjoys a fairly good relationship with the SU.
These things pass.
quote:I agree Dizzysheep, I reckon Christains should be more Gopd centred and less money-centred. In Acts it says the early church members shared their belongings amongst themselves, how much do we do that today? I reckon going back to the early days of the church would help the Church in general immsensely with regards evangelism.
Originally posted by DizzySheep:
I don't know if others will agree with me, but it seems to me that the essential problem with missions like the UCCF one (and I've been to many similar ones) is that they are failing to engage with relevant issues in secular society. It's not enough just to tell people about Jesus if this isn't backed up by practical action.
As an example of this, I went to a fairtrade meeting the other day at which volunteers from various organisations across the town met up to discuss ways of promoting fairtrade locally. When someone suggested we should perhaps approach the Churches, their suggestion was met with amazement, as most of the people in the group weren't even aware that the Church was involved.
I think it's sad, basically, that for most people today Christianity is just a thing some people do on Sundays. Telling scary stories about Hell isn't going to change that because if people don't believe in any of it in the first place, they'll just regard that as another 'story' (sad, but true).
What we need to do is demonstrate a new radical way of living which is counter to what people are used to and which is God-centred not Me/money-centred. (Isn't this what the early apostles did, actually?)
Of course, telling people about Jesus should be at the centre of any mission, but unless we back our words up with our actions then basically it's just regarded as so much talk. (I'm sure some of the CU folks are doing this, by the way, and this isn't meant to criticise anyone in particular, it's just an observation).
quote:In the case of Cambridge, no society has ever been affiliated to CUSU. Societies are registered with the Societies Syndicate, a university committee with majority student membership, which predates the existence of CUSU. (Prior to that they were the direct responsibility of the Senior Proctor.)
Originally posted by The Venomous Bead:
(I know CICCU are part of UCCF but I don't think they've ever been affiliated with CUSU (I could be wrong).)
quote:My impression is, as Leprechaun says, not well or happily (but influential among some young hot-heads in CUs). On my reading at least, it was an attack on UCCF leadership themselves (for not being hard-line enough!) thinly disguised as an attack on the other organisation.
Originally posed by Wood:
How was the article about Fusion received within UCCF circles? Does anyone know?
quote:I think you mean, you have to campaign for your right to exist, if you are a religious group who believes having standard democratic elections and/or open membership would compromise your principles. [wink] (UCL is the only example I've heard of a blanket threat to religious societies.)
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Yep, they have been slow on the uptake - largely because (IMO rightly) they have been focussed on their purpose, rather than their organisation. Its now becoming apparent that it is not enough to be like that, if you are a religious group you have to campaign for your right to exist.
quote:The 'monotonous obsession with homsexuals' is actually more synomynous with Liberal church thinking and modern politics, UCCF is merely reacting to that. Maybe the SU disagrees with what UCCF thinks about that issue and others, but surely UCCF can't keep quiet about what it would see as an ttack on the Bible's guidlines for how we should live?
Originally posted by Elephenor:
I think UCCF has made some effort since Warwick to rally opposition/resistance (those with a lot of time on their hands could go here and listen to the talk "CUs Under Fire: Handling pressure from SUs and groups from other religions" at UCCF's 2002 conference of CU leaders); but I wonder if some of this might not have partly backfired? The aggressive tactics advocated (and monotonous obsession with homosexuals) in the talk I link to would quickly put the back up of most SU hacks!
quote:This could be another thread, but I do think it is inherent in being a religious group that membership involves some adherence to a religious belief system, rather than just normal societal modes of choosing leaders. In one of the debates with SUs I have been involved in a theology professor of the university faculty pointed out that nearly every religious group ever has had room for observers, a standard of some sort for members, and a different standard for leaders, and basically said the upstart SU shouldn't be flying in the face of thousands of years of human culture. Which was amusing.
Originally posted by Elephenor:
I think you mean, you have to campaign for your right to exist, if you are a religious group who believes having standard democratic elections and/or open membership would compromise your principles. [wink] (UCL is the only example I've heard of a blanket threat to religious societies.)
quote:Depends on the nature of the society. One organisation I produce copy for has no requirement for belief - but then, it's not an evangelistic organisation and makes no pretence at being one.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could be another thread, but I do think it is inherent in being a religious group that membership involves some adherence to a religious belief system
quote:Good for him.
In one of the debates with SUs I have been involved in a theology professor of the university faculty pointed out that nearly every religious group ever has had room for observers, a standard of some sort for members, and a different standard for leaders, and basically said the upstart SU shouldn't be flying in the face of thousands of years of human culture. Which was amusing.
quote:I remember reading this article some time ago, but I don't remember specifics. Does anyone know where one can find a copy?
I agree with Eleph on the article incidentally - it was as much an attack on UCCF as on Fusion.
quote:Yeah. I think so.
And UCCF I think (and I'm guessing here, no inside knowledge on this one) may be trying not to promote a confrontational approach to these issues - hence the non-repeat of the "under fire" seminar at Forum this year. Rather they seem to have tried to have a more major presence at the NUS national council, and hosted a seminar by Ram Gidoomal on the issue of tolerance and truth. Which I think is an excellent idea, but needs to be filtered down a bit more.
quote:Yes, you can find it at
I remember reading this article some time ago, but I don't remember specifics. Does anyone know where one can find a copy?
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:This is a possible derailment of this thread, and a comment I perhaps should, in retrospect, have suppressed. But it would be one anyone listening to that specific talk (the speakers, I should emphasise, were from the EA and the Christian Lawyers Fellowship, not themselves UCCF staff) would have difficulty suppressing.
Originally posted by philo25:
The 'monotonous obsession with homsexuals' is actually more synomynous with Liberal church thinking and modern politics, UCCF is merely reacting to that. Maybe the SU disagrees with what UCCF thinks about that issue and others, but surely UCCF can't keep quiet about what it would see as an ttack on the Bible's guidlines for how we should live?
quote:Whether it is possible to have a religion without `insiders' and `outsiders' is probably another thread. I personally have no objection to churches having membership requirements (eg. baptism, circumcision, subscription to a confession, &c) or arcane selection methods for leaders ("strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!").
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could be another thread, but I do think it is inherent in being a religious group that membership involves some adherence to a religious belief system, rather than just normal societal modes of choosing leaders.
quote:Sounds good to me. Very glad to hear it, and I hope it works!
And UCCF I think (and I'm guessing here, no inside knowledge on this one) may be trying not to promote a confrontational approach to these issues - hence the non-repeat of the "under fire" seminar at Forum this year. Rather they seem to have tried to have a more major presence at the NUS national council, and hosted a seminar by Ram Gidoomal on the issue of tolerance and truth.
quote:Ah. The system I'm familiar with is block vote - all are elected, or all all rejected (causing a crisis!). If you think you know a reason why an individual candidate is unsuitable, you are supposed to contact the Exec before the AGM.
Originally posted by Wood:
The CU are invited to vote in the AGM as to whether each of them is suitable.
quote:Here.
I remember reading this article some time ago, but I don't remember specifics. Does anyone know where one can find a copy?
quote:
As such, being from a sheltered background, she basically hasn't the confidence to get involved in any uni societies without a Christian friend. So she isn't.
quote:Clearly I'm missing something here. Why did she need christian friends to go to societies with?
I'm really sympathetic to the girl who couldn't find any Christian friends to join societies with.
quote:Whereas I think this is not a good way of doing it (although it is better than a block vote). The fact it is used by a church for the election of a minister almost makes me more sure that it is not right for a CU. CUs, IME, are very clear in saying that they are not Churches, but using a system used by a Church to call its minister could be seen to be blurring the boundary.
Originally posted by Wood:
The way election is done in Swansea CU - and I know that this isn't the same everywhere - is that it is made known that the new committee will be elected, and that nominations will be accepted.
When nominations are taken, the committee go off oand pray about and talk about it. They then go and ask the people they decided on - in confidence - and, if refused, ask their second choice.
When they have willing candidates, they announce them to the CU. The CU are invited to vote in the AGM as to whether each of them is suitable.
If any candidate is not suitable and is not voted in, then the process starts again.
While in practice, tyhe vast majority of people are voted in, it has been known for the CU to vote against a candidate.
This, incidentally, is the model used in my own Baptist church for the election of a new minister.
I think it's a good way of doing things. It retains - in theory, anyway - the aspects of democracy, while avoiding the competition and factionalism that a democratic "vote-for-me-not-him" race would create, which in my view (and probably in the view of whoever wrote the SCU constitution) has no place in a Christian organisation.
quote:I can see how it might happen that a CU committee might choose people Just Like Them, but you ahve to bear in mind the available pool of talent, the amount that people in a large CU can actually know anyone eligible that well (and if ten people nominate the same person without prompting, one might assume that there's some obvious reason why they should be considered) and the nature of the CU.
Originally posted by Carys:
I felt that the CU at my previous university (which used the same system as Swansea) was a self-perpetuating oligarchy because I did not believe that anyone seen as being 'dodgy' would be considered making change nigh-on impossible. Maybe I am overly cynical.
quote:No, I'm not saying that they're not Christians, personally. I'm just saying it offends me greatly that they (or at least Evans) refuse to acknowledge that Fusion members/members of a more charismatic church are their brothers and sisters.
I'm really worried about the way that some people are treating Rupert Evans/St Andrew the Great, Cambridge/UCCF/Fusion almost as if they weren't Christians! I think the assumption should be more of an "innocent until proven guilty" in this case; these are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
quote:Try quoting that at Rupert Evans next time you see him!
Paul tells us that we must "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." (Romans 14v19; my emphasis).
quote:As Christians - and I'm pretty sure that everyone involved in this discussion so far is Christian - we base our lives and our faith on scripture. Rather than take specific proof texts, we're trying to draw on the same Biblical principles - faith, evangelism, the best way to run a Christian organisation - and their outworking.
Originally posted by LXM:
Firstly, it saddens me a bit to see that not one reference has been made to the Bible in these passages. Personally that is one of the most persuasive and encouraging things in a discussion; pondering God's word revealed and thinking about the issues prayerfully. I might have missed a quote though...hopefully.
quote:If you want to avoid people making judgements, it's best to nail your colours to the mast.
My point could well be made by your reactions to that: some of you may have just decided that I'm "obviously pro-UCCF".
quote:Mate, this is tolerant. You should see some of the discussions where it gets nasty.
I think it can be quite dangerous to form judgments and thoughts on people without knowing them very much, which is why on a message board like this, we've got to try and be a bit more tolerant of each other.
quote:I don't think anyone has actually done that. Christians are a family. A big, screwed-up dysfunctional family. Big, screwed-up dysfunctional families argue.
I'm really worried about the way that some people are treating Rupert Evans/St Andrew the Great, Cambridge/UCCF/Fusion almost as if they weren't Christians! I think the assumption should be more of an "innocent until proven guilty" in this case; these are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
quote:But then, this is the question some people here are discussing: are people doing this?
Romans 13-15 as above tells us that we mustn't make non-salvation issues into salvation issues between us and other Christians.
quote:But what if these things are harmful? What if you believe these things are harmful? What if they actually harm the body of Christ? Do you just stand back and say, "well, that's just a different way of doing it"? Where does one draw the line?
The godly and loving attitude isn't directly to point out the faults and major problems; it's to take into account other people's different way of approaching things.
quote:A thing which is a small detail to you might be a major detail to someone else.
One of the things I get most frustrated with is when I do something out of love and thankfulness to God, and they misconstrue it by one of the small details.
quote:Which was why I wrote my article the way I did, praising individual students and UCCF workers, while offering thoughts about the university Zeitgeist. Trust me, there are critiques of UCCF out there which are nowhere near as mild.
Paul tells us that we must "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." (Romans 14v19; my emphasis). The details of how you conduct mission are NOT salvation issues; so first we must show support for the furthering of God's kingdom on this earth, along with praise to God for efforts, then second we should think of ways to constructively approach helpfully.
quote:Sarky - she's just a quiet Christian girl who is intimidated by the "come to our society and get really drunk, no come to ours and get really really drunk" culture that pervades her university. Some people find that type of thing intimidating when they will have no one else who will "stand" with them, even though I imagine it wouldn't be an issue for you
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Why did she need christian friends to go to societies with?
) if you have any suggestions about more effective ways you think they could be doing it? quote:The example Paul takes in Romans is quite analagous. It seems that a main concern is that Roman Jewish Christians are having trouble accepting the Roman Gentile Christians' ability to eat meat (quite possibly pork). The Bible and Jesus' teaching never says "you mustn't eat meat or you'll never get to heaven"; but as long as "he who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord, and gives thanks to God" (Rm 14v6), then a great deal of respect goes to them.
Originally posted by Wood:
But what if these things are harmful? What if you believe these things are harmful? What if they actually harm the body of Christ? Do you just stand back and say, "well, that's just a different way of doing it"? Where does one draw the line?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I suppose that I'd like to see it more. It's not like I'm not looking. Although I had a very encouraging email from a UCCF staffworker of my acquaintance which suggested to me that, yeah, these issues have been taken on board and that the organisation is working on it, in a way that led me to actually believe that it is.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Wood, thanks for that last post. Helpful. Really. And I am taking on board some of the things you are raising, and I think, tbh UCCF as a whole is certainly considering these issues, even if you can't see it.
quote:You know, Lep, I was waiting for someone to bring that one up. Should have know it was going to be you.
I wonder, as it was notably absent from your article(
quote:So, in order to reach the Millennial generation, we have to give them a Gospel that essentially leaves out all the hard bits!?
...insofar as it is possible at this early stage to define a 'mission strategy' or 'apologetic' for Millennials, it would seem to be in appealing to to the personal benefits which might accrue to an individual's well-being and sense of purpose, from putting their faith in Christ. Rather than presenting Christian virtues and values in moralistic or legal terms, it may be necessary to frame them as means of self-actualisation and lifelong security. Furthermore, without compromising the clear demands of of Christi for humility and preferment of others, Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
(Hilborn and Bird 2002, p147)
quote:"No I'm not."
Back to dear ol' Leprechaun:
Also, I have to say, while you say you'll support your local CU but not the national movement...well <pssst - by supporting your local CU, you are supporting the national movement. They are affiliated>
quote:So as long as it's not OBVIOUS that you have to humble yourself to be a Christian, that should be fine.
Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Well, couple of things. One is, that as you say UCCF does think before it speaks as a whole - so before it uveils new policies it tends to spend a long time in discussion. Pro and con.
It's not like I'm not looking. Although I had a very encouraging email from a UCCF staffworker of my acquaintance which suggested to me that, yeah, these issues have been taken on board and that the organisation is working on it, in a way that led me to actually believe that it is.
But I haven't been able to see it. Maybe it should be more obvious, you know?
quote:Colours nailed to the mast. Thanks. Helps to understand where you're coming from.
Originally posted by LXM:
My position is that I'm very happy to be part of and support UCCF's work, as an imperfect organisation. I am also glad and keen to support the work of Fusion in my University too, since I have seen it's done many wonderful things. It stands to reason that I'm not too happy about the rifts, and would like to see better relations between the two (and other) groups.
quote:While the principle we draw from this passage is useful for deciding why we shouldn't read the Daily Mail or watch Hollywood action movies, I realy don't think that this analogy holds for missiology.
The example Paul takes in Romans is quite analagous. It seems that a main concern is that Roman Jewish Christians are having trouble accepting the Roman Gentile Christians' ability to eat meat (quite possibly pork). The Bible and Jesus' teaching never says "you mustn't eat meat or you'll never get to heaven"; but as long as "he who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord, and gives thanks to God" (Rm 14v6), then a great deal of respect goes to them.
quote:Rereading in the light of morning, I think I should clarify: I, as a christian bystander, think these restrictions and practices are unnecessary and not worth suffering marytrdom for. But I would acknowledge they are, rightly or wrongly, an important part of the UCCF CU Movement's identity, and think Student Unions should make reasonable efforts to accommodate them, as they would other religious eccentricities.
Originally posted by me:
I don't think these restrictions are necessary.
quote:I think it's giving `Evangelicals Now!', as a monthly publication read chiefly in FIEC circles and their ilk, a bit too much importance to describe them as a national newspaper. They're not exactly the Daily Mail.
Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
It probably comes from a misguided and twisted form of Godly concern, but what he did in going to a national newspaper was just NOT a Christian thing to do.
quote:Oh, yes, getting back on topic...
Originally posted by Wood:
My original article was about methodology, not theology, inasmuch as now that we've had the commands of God to reach people - how do we do it?
quote:and the second from the UCCF representative's statement (though here it follows an explicit mention of success in terms of converts too):
Later on in the week, I ask Scottish Guy if the week met his expectations. "I was expecting to see some opposition," he says. "I was also expecting to see the CU grow. And they have. They ve learnt a lot. "
quote:Is there something in this?
Our London Team leader writes of the recent mission season: ‘…many more Christian students have been really fired up with a vision for evangelism and hosted more effective mission events in the spring than we have ever seen in a single term. There have been at least 4 effective new CUs set up off the back of a couple of keen students doing pioneer evangelism. They are creative, they are doing things in contextualised ways and they love the Lord with all their hearts.’
quote:Okay, the thread may be talking about the way we treat the gospel of Christ, but the point I was making was that we have to watch our behaviour. Anyway, it's in danger of becoming unconstructive, so I suggest this "tangent" be continued outside this thread if at all
Originally posted by Wood:
It's not about standards of Christian behaviour that we're talking - it's about how we treat the Gospel of Christ.
.quote:Well, quite. And it's not as if they're a liberal organisation as far as evangelism goes. As I said, depressing.
Originally posted by Everybody's Favourite Irish Stereotype:
Dontcha just love the EA? I especially loved this bit:
quote:So as long as it's not OBVIOUS that you have to humble yourself to be a Christian, that should be fine.
Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
quote:Maybe I was wrong - maybe this caginess about having a party line doesn't mean you necessarily know where you are with them after all.
Well, couple of things. One is, that as you say UCCF does think before it speaks as a whole - so before it unveils new policies it tends to spend a long time in discussion. Pro and con.
quote:Which is a fair point.
One CU leaders conference I attended, the last thing anyone said was "all your events, all your graphics, all your flyers don't mean anything if you don't sit down with people you know and love and introduce them to the most important person in your life." Or something like that.
quote:Yes, I think I agree.
Now, I'm not claiming this is rocket science, or that its enough, or that it will change the world, BUT, the investing in people, and introducing him to Jesus as he is given to us in the Bible, is a slight (and helpful IMO) change in emphasis from "come and hear our apologetic" approach.
quote:I think that this is definitely the case - and I have observed it - but still, the outside perception (which DizzySheep sort of observed on page 1 of this thread) from people who are not in the CU is that they pop up out of nowhere during mission week. Why is that?
Similarly, there has been a conscious steer away from encouraging CUs seeing missions as "the one week" or a Gospel project as "the one year" - and a general recognition that these things take more love and time.
quote:Well, I hope so.
And I think, for all your criticism of the Rev Cunningham, he does have the reputation of being an innovative evangelist, and may well help things move forward more.
quote:You know, I rather think that there is. But there are other ways to bind people together, aren't there?
Posted by Elephenor:
Another point about missions, while I'm on the topic. I've suspected for some time that, perhaps half-consciously, traditional missions are valued as being particularly good for CUs and CU members, encouraging them in personal evangelism and uniting them against a hostile world (it can take quite a lot of courage to invite a friend to a mission talk; once you've done that, you've thrown in your lot with the CU for good or ill!), even if they have no effect on the heaten hordes. Two quotes seem to partly illustrate this attitude: [quotes]
Is there something in this?
quote:That's a very good point; it also seems to assume a bit more on the non-Christian attendees part. A good way I've seen this done is by having the set of "The Bible talks", which aim to mostly talk about the gospel as presented in the Bible (both OT and NT). The fact that it's a talk makes it more friendly to those who'd get intimidated or uncomfortable around small groups (e.g. Christianity Explored). It's also fairly short, and takes away the apologetic difficulty of people coming along just to pose very hard questions or to be difficult.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Now, I'm not claiming this is rocket science, or that its enough, or that it will change the world, BUT, the investing in people, and introducing him to Jesus as he is given to us in the Bible, is a slight (and helpful IMO) change in emphasis from "come and hear our apologetic" approach.
quote:No, it's not online.
Originally posted by Elephenor:
Thanks for the quote from the EA report, Wood. (I presume your review isn't online? I couldn't find it on thirdway or johnheronproject websites.) It sure is a toughie, isn't it?
quote:Of course the majority of students will take the leaflet, notice it's CU and put it in the nearest bin (or just drop it on the ground, litter bugs
Originally posted by rimasu:
An aside about the "talk with lunch thing". At my university, when the CU do a mission they stick lots of people on the concorse trying to handout leaflets. Fair enough. Except the line used to catch peoples attention is "Do you want a free lunch?" - no reference of talks, of Christianity. (To be fair most of the information was on the leaflets that people where being given).
). The ones likely to turn up for free food are going to be the ones who hear "free food!", take the leaflet and ask "what's the catch?" ... if at that point the answer given is "no catch" then that's dishonest unless there's no compulsion to stay after food to hear the talk.quote:Which is more or less precisely how it went in Swansea.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Of course the majority of students will take the leaflet, notice it's CU and put it in the nearest bin (or just drop it on the ground, litter bugs
Originally posted by rimasu:
An aside about the "talk with lunch thing". At my university, when the CU do a mission they stick lots of people on the concorse trying to handout leaflets. Fair enough. Except the line used to catch peoples attention is "Do you want a free lunch?" - no reference of talks, of Christianity. (To be fair most of the information was on the leaflets that people where being given).
I quite like the idea of a free lunch, followed by an announcement "we're about to have a short presentation explaining who we are, and why we've just fed you for free. It's going to talk about Jesus. You're free to leave if you don't want to listen".
quote:You can't put up a poster unless you are a student union registered society. Which she isn't, and her CU aren't because they are not allowed because of the reasons discussed above. So they can't give her permission to put the poster up. And the uni won't let her start a meeting in halls to advertise because it would be Christian etc.
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
And could the chaplaincy/local churches not be another way of her finding out about fellow Christians in her hall of residence?
quote:I think, and I've been thinking about this a bit lately, that a method of doing Christianity that really clearly integrates faith and life is a really key part of reaching postmoderns (see also that other thread) I wonder if that's how we could encourage better evangelism to students.
Originally posted by Wood:
And then there's the observation of Fran, the non-Christian student I talked to in one of the meetings: "maybe people would have more time for their message if they got involved, rather than standing around and saying how great Jesus is."
quote:...and act it out, of course.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think, and I've been thinking about this a bit lately, that a method of doing Christianity that really clearly integrates faith and life is a really key part of reaching postmoderns (see also that other thread) I wonder if that's how we could encourage better evangelism to students.
So, we don't just need to teach doctrine, but teach HOW it actually affects the way we do life every day.
quote:Again: yep.
And even on issues about which Christians disagree, like what politics we should have, we should be able to articulate clearly HOW our Christian worldview means we have come to those conclusions.
quote:I can see that. Although handing out flyers used to terrify me.
IME, there are 2 reasons why CUs tend to throw their weight behind event based evangelism, rather than ongoing lifestyle Christian living, that expects to see people come to faith.
1) They personally don't know or feel confident about expressing their faith clearly. On this one, IME UCCF do a lot of good work in helping people learn ways to communicate (even if you don't particularly like the ways they teach). Its much easier to put up a few posters and hand out flyers, and make a few "once in a blue moon" invitations than it is to talk about your faith every day.
quote:Again, I'm with you. However, it really has to be done better - and the pointers in recent publications like The Blurb aren't enough.
2) is that people are not learning to integrate faith and life. They just can't see or demonstrate how being a Christian makes more than a difference to what films you watch or your view of masturbation, but actually to the way you approach work, study, people, coffee shops, supermarkets, housemates, politics etc.
quote:Again, I'm totally with you on this one.
I think this is what I mean by showing people Christianity "works" as a method of evangelism. Not (contra EA) making it easy for them to become Christians, but showing how all the hard stuff plays out day by day. Pomos (ISTM)while dissing reality as a concept, crave some sort of reality in life. We need to prove that we have encountered it and be able to articulate that. Faith needs to look, not just sound real.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Yep. Baseline of knowledge is shockingly low, and getting lower, if my experience of the last ten years is anything to go on.
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
I'm not sure where I stand on the Engel Scale (!) but one thing that has put me off the CU is the way it seems to be assumed that non-Christians don't know anything about the Bible or Christianity in general. Is it really true that most university students don't?!
quote:Thing is, this puts you in a tiny minority, and frankly, this thing UCCF have got right - you can't actually assume that anyone under the age of 25 knows anything at all about Scripture.
I've always found it a bit patronising to see a (usually reasonably well-known) Bible verse, its reference, and then 'The Bible' underneath. Yes, I can work out that it's from the Bible, thanks. And I'm afraid I'm quite put off when a talk starts, 'Right, I realise most of you won't have heard anything about Christianity before...' No, actually I have, but I haven't been quite convinced - I'm there to try and learn more about it, and I'm happy for the talk to give me the basics, of course - I just don't like the assumption that I'm completely ignorant about it.
quote:I think it's a little unfair to assume that's the attitude. There is an attitude out there which suggests that if you only hear the Gospel and understand it properly, you'll be saved, but this isn't UCCF's attitude, and most people grow out of it.
I suppose it's unreasonable to think that the view is 'well, if they already knew anything about it, they'd be Christians already'?
quote:This, on the other hand, is the failure, in my view of evangelistic events. Most of these talks present stuff which the average CU member could impart in reasonable conversation, in my experience.
Once I was invited by my some of my friends to a CU talk which was instead of one of their weekly meetings and so I was really pleased - I thought I might get to hear something more in-depth than usual. I hoped to learn more about the sort of teaching CU members get. But I had completely got the wrong idea - it was, of course, a bring-your-unbeliever-friends talk which just happened to be on a Wednesday night. They didn't mean to mislead me (I hope!) but I was quite disappointed to hear the same old talk again.
quote:No stats, but the majority of non-Christian students I've talked to don't know much about any flavour of Christianity, let alone UCCF's rum-and-raisin special.
I might be in a minority amongst non-Christian students, I suppose. Does anyone have any statistics about how much most students know about Christianity?
quote:Either that, or 'if you've heard it once and you've not become a Christian, why on earth have you come back?' If it's that, it reflects a kind of assumption that you'll either hear it and accept the Gospel first time around or you'll hear it once and never, ever accept it.
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
I suppose it's unreasonable to think that the view is 'well, if they already knew anything about it, they'd be Christians already'?
quote:Sadly, this is what some CUs do. There's a two-tiered approach to teaching - the gospel talk for the uninitiated, and 'proper teaching' for Christians. I personally don't think there's much wrong with non-Christians coming along to hear 'proper teaching' - OK, they won't understand some of it, but surely we're meant to be accessible and not cliquey?
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
They didn't mean to mislead me (I hope!) but I was quite disappointed to hear the same old talk again.
quote:OK, I'm willing to take your word for it. Of course, this leads to the danger that when the CU says 'To be a Christian you must believe this, and other people who say they are Christians are in fact not,' they believe them - never mind different flavours of Christianity, this is the only one! But let's not start on that...
Wood said:
No stats, but the majority of non-Christian students I've talked to don't know much about any flavour of Christianity, let alone UCCF's rum-and-raisin special.
quote:Right. That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for putting it in a much better way!
mr_ricarno said:
Sadly, this is what some CUs do. There's a two-tiered approach to teaching - the gospel talk for the uninitiated, and 'proper teaching' for Christians. I personally don't think there's much wrong with non-Christians coming along to hear 'proper teaching' - OK, they won't understand some of it, but surely we're meant to be accessible and not cliquey?
quote:You see, this is more or less what I was referring to earlier - LXM is obviously competent and sensible enough to have a conversation about what how what s/he is living as a Christian in the context of everyday life. Not "oh my goodness a gospel opportunity, must explain the cross" but "here's what living as Christian means every day to me". Most Christian students I know aren't.
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
LXM: No, that isn't trite at all. I'm really grateful when my Christian friends talk to me like that.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
)
quote:That sounds pretty good, although personally I'd rather be invited along to a 'normal' service!
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Tabby cat - at my church we run "guest services" where basically we have the same talk we would have anyway, and the same service format, but with an explanation of what everything is, and why it is done, and a bit of the talk usually that says "if you aren't a Christian, or not sure, this is what this might have to do with you." How does that sound? Good/awful? And what do you make of being expected to sing at Christian meetings? I am genuinely interested.
quote:Absolutely!
(You see this is why the ship is great isn't it, because where else would I get to ask these questions without having to get to know the person really well first?
quote:I just want to clear a little point up (sorry it has taken so long, I have been away working). I missed an important stage in my logic. As Wood said, the AGM rejected the motion to expel all the religious societies but later another committee (which I do not think was the Executive Committee, but I might be wrong) expelled them for the reasons outlined above.
A long time ago Wood said:
Re. The UCL Controversy. As I understand it, the SU tried to pass a motion banning religious societies from using SU money to perform religious activities, on threat of expulsion (meaning that the CU would have been kicked out immediately). The vote was held, and a block vote of religious societies meant that the resolution was overturned. While the resolution was directed at university societies in general, I don't think anyone was fooling themselves that it wasn't directed at the CU.
After the vote was overturned, the UCL discovered links on the UCLCU website to a rather extreme apologetics site (which was linked before anyone read it properly - oops) and to UCCF. The fact that UCLCU was affiliated to UCCF was made clear to the UCLSU exec, who hadn't noticed before, apparently
UCCF's site includes a number of resources which break UCLSU's rules on discrimination; therefore, by being affiliated to the outside society, the CU was breaking the SU rules anyway, and could be expelled without anyone having to change any rules.
Someone in the SU at UCL was out to get the CU - I think that's clear from the fact that they tried to change the rules to kick them out. There's no point in painting this any other way.
This doesn't mean that the SU was representative of the opinion of the mass of UCL students, however. It just happened that the minority who control the SU wanted the CU out (on the grounds that they thought it a bad, harmful thing).
If the CU had been more invovled at an earlier stage, it probably wouldn't have got to that point.
quote:Now, I am not implying that the CU would want to force through a motion. But the facility is there if you can raise quorum. If you don't like the decision of a union committee you are at liberty to call an EGM. According to the standing orders section 9, it can either be called by the Executive, Council, or on receipt of a written request from 2% of the student members of the SU. You then need 3% to be quorum. 2% is 360 students - which is probably bigger than the CU.
A. Decisions made at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting shall override those made at Union Council or any other Union Committee subject to the standing orders for General Meetings.
B. A General Meeting may consider any matter, except an establishment matter, that is raised correctly according to the Standing Orders for General Meetings. The quorum for General Meetings shall be as laid out in the Standing Orders for General Meetings. Notice and procedure for General Meetings shall be in accordance with the Standing Orders for General Meetings.
quote:Lep, I am honestly not trying to be nasty but this is exactly the type of discussion that turned me off CU. There is no 'christian' perspective on 'the war in afganistan'. There are only perspectives that we have each developed for a number of reasons, including our faith. The only answer is 'well, I think x for y reasons'.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
You see, this is more or less what I was referring to earlier - LXM is obviously competent and sensible enough to have a conversation about what how what s/he is living as a Christian in the context of everyday life. Not "oh my goodness a gospel opportunity, must explain the cross" but "here's what living as Christian means every day to me". Most Christian students I know aren't.
I remember once running an evangelistic training session for some students at a relatively serious academic institution. I got them to do a little exercise "How would you bring a Christian perspective to bear on a conversation about X". they couldn't do it. At all. And it asn't anything bonkers like polar bears or something, it was "the war in Afghanistan" or "the Ian Huntley case" or something like that.
I was astounded.
quote:Well, I think that's certainly debatable.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
]Lep, I am honestly not trying to be nasty but this is exactly the type of discussion that turned me off CU. There is no 'christian' perspective on 'the war in afganistan'. There are only perspectives that we have each developed for a number of reasons, including our faith. The only answer is 'well, I think x for y reasons'.
C
quote:Well, we should be secure that God is sovereign over the kingdoms of the world, and will achieve what he has planned. We should be pleased that a regime that oppressed Christians is gone and pray for the door to open further. We should be concerned for our Christian brothers and sisters in that country (of which there are a very few)
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Ok educate me. Tell me how evangelical christianity helps me deal with a political issue like war in afganistan.
C
quote:Make it more like "how being an evangelically-minded Christian might color your opinions and actions re: the war in Afganistan"... and I might be able to think of something.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Ok educate me. Tell me how evangelical christianity helps me deal with a political issue like war in afganistan.
C
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:And we'll have different perspectives about whether Jesus' lordship means we should support action to rid the world of oppressive tyrants, or be merciful forgiving and try and offer restitution.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Ok educate me. Tell me how evangelical christianity helps me deal with a political issue like war in afganistan.
C
So I shouldn't just consider "What do you believe" to be the only question that allows me to reveal I am a Christian. Any question about nearly anything should do that.
quote:I think Lep's hit it right there. It's a change in attitude that marks out an (evangelical) Christian. A differing perspective on the world, that is borne out of the love we have for our Christian brothers and sisters (however hackneyed that may sound, it's true), and the love we have for all of God's created people. I'd go one step farther and say that we must love people like Saddam Hussein for the fact that they're people created by God. When he was captured I prayed fervently for him, that he'd become a Christian through the loving treatment and witness of his captors (and I know others prayed too). Love the sinner, hate the sin. But I'm digressing somewhat.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It never even entered their head that all the "jesus is brilliant stuff" should actually change the way they thought about the world. Which was what I was trying to get them to think about.
A genuine encounter with grace should change EVERYTHING. And its that, I fear, that I have not been very good at teaching or modelling.
quote:That country being Iraq. I can't find definitive sources but I was under the impression, and a Usenet search will provide some supporting evidence, that there are around a million Christians in Iraq, mostly of the Chaldean or Armenian kind, and other than that I know very little.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
We should be concerned for our Christian brothers and sisters in that country (of which there are a very few)
quote:Although the case in question is this case was Afghanistan, it being a couple of years ago now. Where, under the Taliban, there really were very few.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:That country being Iraq.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
We should be concerned for our Christian brothers and sisters in that country (of which there are a very few)
quote:
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Recent article in the Magazine by Howard Ingham. Thought provoking. I am at uni as an undergraduate this year - fully a generation older than my fellow students - and the most common phrase I hear is: "It's all good".
It's all good?! There must be an absence of scarcity! The government must have finally worked out how much to give students, that is, an amount under a living wage - but enough to survive on such that things are not so tight that they have to protest! (Or has the student population changed to be predominantly people for whom money is not an issue?)
There is not enough. Not enough scarcity. Not enough injustice. Students are happy and adequately provided for. They aren't hungry to change structural factors - because structural factors suit them. [I have also noticed a change in the nature of study and assessment. Qualitatively - the workload from continuous assessment as well as tests is higher. Student habits seem different - going to the Ref or the Tav is no longer the de jure standard... about 50% go to the library in between classes!]
There was a lot of apathy 20 yrs ago... there is more now! 20 yrs ago I was an unwilling activist (lol, some have activism thrust upon them) and a friend and I cranked out activisty broadsheets from our own resources to raise consciousness regarding various issues. Now I'm back... there is -nothing-. I want to start an alternative faculty handbook and a collective to try to get better prices for textbooks than the rip off ones charged by the uni bookshop... I don't know whether anyone else will be interested! They don't care! They want to get in, get the highest marks they can with the least effort and get out into the workforce. My classmates bought the $100+ a pop textbooks without even raising an eyebrow! Just handed over the cash. I don't see any poverty, and job prospects are high (but the first time around, youth unemployment was 25%). My most likely partner in crime in trying to get anything started is another guy of about 40!
Is the attitude the CUs are encountering a reflection of the greater social and economic comfort among the student population? Too many polite middle class people in our universities?![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
There was full on hostility to Christian groups 20 yrs ago. (lol, yes, Coot, proud persecutor back in the day). But that loathsome... tolerance! Now that's something I've only seen in the last 10 yrs. From people who grew up with institutions (haha!) which were dominated by a postmodern outlook. They are open to things. The problem is not that the message is incredible... the problem is that all messages have the same amount of worthiness.
Of course Christians don't think they do. So if the Christian message is the best why aren't the unwashed hordes of students (^H^Hetc^H label wearing, well-groomed students) discerning it as such? (Is the audience closed to the idea that something can be better than all other options?) We know it's the best. We shouldn't have to sell it - it should sell itself. I despise subtle suggestions of Christianity as a commodity that needs market research or a club that needs a recruitment drive.
It's all good!
(No it effing well isn't!)
quote:Have a few thoughts on this, but I'll let someone else have a go first.
Howard Ingham:
The old tactics – the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell – these things don't have any effect any more. Virtually no one under the age of about 22 gives a monkey's about these things. Old-style missions don't wash any more. A fundamentally new way of relating to the young adults of now needs to be found by UCCF if they want to see people join them. No amount of surface-level image manipulation is going to change that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I have been racking my brains for three months now and the depressing thing is, I have to honestly say that I don't know. Some time ago, I reviewed God and the Generations for Third Way, which was a report produced by ACUTE, the doctrinal thinktank of the Evangelical Alliance.
In its discussion of the Millennial generation, the report said:
quote:So, in order to reach the Millennial generation, we have to give them a Gospel that essentially leaves out all the hard bits!?
...insofar as it is possible at this early stage to define a 'mission strategy' or 'apologetic' for Millennials, it would seem to be in appealing to to the personal benefits which might accrue to an individual's well-being and sense of purpose, from putting their faith in Christ. Rather than presenting Christian virtues and values in moralistic or legal terms, it may be necessary to frame them as means of self-actualisation and lifelong security. Furthermore, without compromising the clear demands of of Christi for humility and preferment of others, Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
(Hilborn and Bird 2002, p147)
And this from the EA! They spent piles of money researching it, and this is what they got?
No wonder I'm depressed and confused.
quote:as some Muslim student organisations do (& have every right to do)
Originally posted by Wood:
Had UCCF had a policy of encouraging CUs to get involved in Student Politics
quote:You know, the possibility that CUs could have a stunning power block in universities chills me, especially here, where (my perception) 'CU' is synonymous with 'Jensenite'.
Originally posted by Wood:
Had UCCF had a policy of encouraging CUs to get involved in Student Politics, they could have had a stunning power block in our universities (remember, UCCF is the second largest British student organisation after the NUS itself). Instead, extremists they didn't bother to vote against are giving them a hard time.
quote:To be honest, I'm kind of neutral on the point. Some people find the idea terrifying. I don't, really.
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
quote:You know, the possibility that CUs could have a stunning power block in universities chills me, especially here, where (my perception) 'CU' is synonymous with 'Jensenite'.
Originally posted by Wood:
Had UCCF had a policy of encouraging CUs to get involved in Student Politics, they could have had a stunning power block in our universities (remember, UCCF is the second largest British student organisation after the NUS itself). Instead, extremists they didn't bother to vote against are giving them a hard time.
quote:I share Wood's dismay at the above excerpt from the EA's report. Not least because, the EA criticises Christians who they perceive as liberal as conforming to the world and watering down the message of Christianity to make it palatable to its hearers - and I see no difference in the tack the EA is suggesting to that which the people they criticise allegedly take.
EA:
...insofar as it is possible at this early stage to define a 'mission strategy' or 'apologetic' for Millennials, it would seem to be in appealing to to the personal benefits which might accrue to an individual's well-being and sense of purpose, from putting their faith in Christ. Rather than presenting Christian virtues and values in moralistic or legal terms, it may be necessary to frame them as means of self-actualisation and lifelong security. Furthermore, without compromising the clear demands of of Christi for humility and preferment of others, Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
(Hilborn and Bird 2002, p147)
quote:My God, I can't tell you how angry this one sentence makes me*! That is pure and unadulterated 'changing the message to make it palatable to the hearers'. And they have the gall to level this accusation at liberals! But actually no, they don't want to change the message, they want to frame it in liberal terms - hide the moralism and legalism! Absolutely breathtaking and shameful.
EA:
Rather than presenting Christian virtues and values in moralistic or legal terms, it may be necessary to frame them as means of self-actualisation and lifelong security.
quote:If Wood is a trustworthy commentator - and I think he is - what can you do if you drop 'the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell'? And indeed, what can the more conservative traditions do?
Wood:
The old tactics – the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell – these things don't have any effect any more. Virtually no one under the age of about 22 gives a monkey's about these things. Old-style missions don't wash any more. A fundamentally new way of relating to the young adults of now needs to be found by UCCF if they want to see people join them. No amount of surface-level image manipulation is going to change that.
? Can it indeed be dropped?! Not, I think, very readily by the conservative traditions - unless they want to sell out wholesale on a major theme of the way they approach faith. The liberal traditions are not so threatened by the millenial response, because their approach is fundamentally different: 'Does it give life?'; 'To be in relationship with God is the fullness of life' (You don't have to look to the contemporary stuff for this theme: Irenaeus 'The Glory of God is a human being fully alive'); Humans as the reflection of God's glory; and a rejection of what they disparagingly call 'Worm Theology'. quote:Why, thank you.
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Now, back to this
quote:If Wood is a trustworthy commentator - and I think he is -
Wood:
The old tactics – the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell – these things don't have any effect any more. Virtually no one under the age of about 22 gives a monkey's about these things. Old-style missions don't wash any more. A fundamentally new way of relating to the young adults of now needs to be found by UCCF if they want to see people join them. No amount of surface-level image manipulation is going to change that.
quote:I think the one thing I will say is that this particular method of evangelism is quite distinct from giving the goods on the cross. My problem is not with the Cross, but on the fact that the horrific nature of Jesus' death and the equally horrific nature of the evangelical hell is presented as if it were somehow enough to convince on its own merits.
what can you do if you drop 'the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell'? And indeed, what can the more conservative traditions do?
quote:Well, me too. But trying to shock doesn't work any more.
Now it works for me... the contemplation of my unworthiness, and the lengths that the immortal infinite God went to, to offer me another path.
quote:Therein lies the problem.
Or does this particular message have to be dropped
quote:I think they still have their problems. There's always been a weakness in the liberal traditions in their inability to get organised and get off their collective backside and do stuff. In the next few years, I see this being exacerbated.
The liberal traditions are not so threatened by the millenial response, because their approach is fundamentally different: 'Does it give life?'; 'To be in relationship with God is the fullness of life' (You don't have to look to the contemporary stuff for this theme: Irenaeus 'The Glory of God is a human being fully alive'); Humans as the reflection of God's glory; and a rejection of what they disparagingly call 'Worm Theology'.
quote:More or less the size of it, I think.
I think it's a fair thing to say that people are exhorted to recognise that they fall short of the Glory of God and are unworthy on their own merits even to stand in his Presence; with the result that when we stand in his Presence (and we all will) if we can't say: 'I'm with him (points to Jesus)' we're screwed. [That's not necessarily my position, but I think it's a view commonly held by the people in the conservative traditions].
quote:You think?
Actually, I think the only way to continue with any integrity is to take the hits (which is what the traditional parts of the Church have done, hang on to their tradition and not move with the desires of secular society), and resign yourselves to having a generation missing from the pews until they... grow up.
quote:SCM is tiny by comparison, and with a few exceptions (Warwick Christian Focus springs to mind) chaplaincy groups are similarly tiny. In Swansea, the Chaplaincy group is outnumbered by the CU by a factor of about ten to one.
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Wood, is there much evidence of liberal Christianity on campus? Presumably there are chaplains/denominational societies/SCM groups?
And what about charismatic evangelicals? You focus on the very conservative UCCF position. I would have thought that charismatics e.g. in Fusion cells or simply in CU's would have a lot of influence as well?
quote:Wood, this is a little unfair. In terms of denominational background both the staff make-up and the CU membership is very mixed. In terms of churchmanship there may well be a much smaller range, but interdenominational is still a very fair claim for the fellowship to make.
Originally posted by Wood:
The term "conservative evangelical", while seemingly rather specialised, actually covers quite a large range of groups (which is why UCCF can just about get away with calling itself "inter-denominational"). It covers a range from charismatics, through to FIEC people, right through to your ultra-conservative EMW types.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Fair enough, but what I meant was that UCCF is only interdenominational within the spectrum of protestant evangelicalism. It's sort of a limited interdenominatialism, really.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Wood, this is a little unfair. In terms of denominational background both the staff make-up and the CU membership is very mixed. In terms of churchmanship there may well be a much smaller range, but interdenominational is still a very fair claim for the fellowship to make.
Originally posted by Wood:
The term "conservative evangelical", while seemingly rather specialised, actually covers quite a large range of groups (which is why UCCF can just about get away with calling itself "inter-denominational"). It covers a range from charismatics, through to FIEC people, right through to your ultra-conservative EMW types.
quote:Thanks for the info. As I said, the last concrete thing I heard about a Fusion CU was about five or six years ago, so this explains it for me.
Both UCCF and Fusion now have a policy of strongly discouraging affiliation of CUs to Fusion, or adopting the trademarked cell structure within CUs. There may be a couple in the country that still have nominal affiliation with one and is actually really linked with the other. But not many.
quote:No. Really? Gosh.
I actually know quite a lot about UCCF,
quote:It's not "very" conservative. But it is conservative. You only have to look at the website to see that.
and I don't think it is a "very conservative" organisation within evangelicalism. That's always been part of the urban myth. I was surprised and (not always happily, conisdering my own views)taken aback by the breadth of opinion on a wide range of issues. Certainly, in terms of evangelism it is by no means conservative in a radical or reactionary way (more's the pity in my view) and would support a wide range of evangelistic methods.
quote:...and hence not encourage people to get involved in student politics?
It is however true to say that the staff would, to a man or woman, encourage proclamation (whether at events, or 1-1) as the central part of evangelism.
quote:They're not, you know. Not in many places. Not really.
Originally posted by evangelical_backslider:
One thing I've heard from several Christians (non-evangelicals) without the CU here in Oxford is they're upset and, in some cases, angry that something calling itself a 'Christian' Union in reality only accepts an extremely narrow definition of 'Christian'. Is this just us, or is a wider phenomenon. Similarly, UCCF may or may not be representative of many CUs, but it certainly doesn't reflect the views of all those who'd define themselves as Christian. Perhaps evangelism would be more effective if people saw a broader group of Christians working together?
Again, I have little experience outside of my university, so I'm willing to hear that things are different elsewhere.
quote:Do you know, I never heard any policy on this? There was certainly no DIS-couragement from it. I think there was a general - get involved in what will give you the best opportunities mentality. I mean, I suppose the reason it doesn't get mentioned much is that staff and relay are involved mostly with people who are CU leaders, who hence have little time for student politics. Which, I realise is an issue in itself.
...and hence not encourage people to get involved in student politics?
Again, not a swipe - just a call for clarification.
quote:I guess that was sort of what I was thinking of, inasmuch as it's seen as only worth getting involved in for the purpose of having opportunities to "share the Gospel", rather than it being a witness in and of itself.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Do you know, I never heard any policy on this? There was certainly no DIS-couragement from it. I think there was a general - get involved in what will give you the best opportunities mentality.
quote:It is. They often don't have much time for anything else, actually. Many's the student
I mean, I suppose the reason it doesn't get mentioned much is that staff and relay are involved mostly with people who are CU leaders, who hence have little time for student politics. Which, I realise is an issue in itself.
quote:No, I won't ask...
IME Fusion are better at encouraging this, but that is because it is all church based, and so all the "admin"/"leadership" stuff is done by church leaders, and so keen students aren't caught up running a CU. There's advantages to this model (i used to be quite envious of it) but I think you lose out in other ways.
quote:I think it depends on where we're standing, really. It has just occurred to me that we're both looking at the same thing here and using the same words to mean different things. So I'm using the "C" word to mean "more conservative than me"; you don't see Cus as "conservative" because they're "not as conservative" as you. Make some sort of sense?
In terms of "conservative" - within the broad spectrum of Christianity, yes. Within evangelicalism, IME not particularly, certainly, I don't think, becoming moreso. Much to the chagrin of genuinely conservative evangelical groups. So for example, I only ever met one YECer who worked for the organisation, and a couple of cessationists. Views would have varied quite widely on issues of headship/egalitarianism. Admittedly not on sexuality. So, not sure really.
quote:Well, sort of. For some people, the best witness they can be might just be getting involved in student politics. I would hope any CU member would see that as an opportunity for personal evangelism but I hope any CU staff worker would see the value of it beyond that.
Originally posted by Wood:
I guess that was sort of what I was thinking of, inasmuch as it's seen as only worth getting involved in for the purpose of having opportunities to "share the Gospel", rather than it being a witness in and of itself.
quote:Well a number. I think CUs have a more legitimate student witness because they are student led (and I know you don't really think they are, but IME they really are!) But more than that, you will find, (again IME) in the mission field and in church ministry LOADS of people who never thought of such things until they were in CU leadership. I remember a curate who was no great fan of his local CU saying as much to me - about himself, and generally why he was supportive of student leadership.
Oh, go on then, you reeled me in. What ways?
Anyway, rant about to begin....quote:Sure. I suppose though UCCF has the reputation for being this madly conservative force in evangelicalism as a whole, and IME its not really. I'm certainly no YECcie or cessationist, but it wasn't as conservative as me - but then, as you say, it's all relative.
I think it depends on where we're standing, really. It has just occurred to me that we're both looking at the same thing here and using the same words to mean different things. So I'm using the "C" word to mean "more conservative than me"; you don't see Cus as "conservative" because they're "not as conservative" as you. Make some sort of sense?
quote:Loads. Absolutely loads. CICCU have had in the past, not sure about OICCU and DICCU. But they are hardly test cases - nearly every other CU I know of has had at some stage (even other big "regional" CUs like Lancaster - which I think has a female president at the moment, and Leeds). Nearly all the small CUs I knew had nearly all the time because (sigh) the men were generally so wet, unethusiastic, and generally godless.
I remember Lampeter having a female president about nine years ago, but I'm not sure how many other CUs have had female presidents. Do you know any, Lep?
quote:To partially back Lep up on this, I think I've met two female CU presidents; out of the number I've met, that's a low proportion, but probably no worse than the proportion of female Baptist ministers (yes, I know they exist!).
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Loads. Absolutely loads. CICCU have had in the past, not sure about OICCU and DICCU. But they are hardly test cases - nearly every other CU I know of has had at some stage (even other big "regional" CUs like Lancaster - which I think has a female president at the moment, and Leeds).
Originally posted by Wood:
I remember Lampeter having a female president about nine years ago, but I'm not sure how many other CUs have had female presidents. Do you know any, Lep?
quote:As I said, I don't really think that the "big three" count as test cases. I think that's one of UCCF's biggest problems really - the vast majority of its work goes on apart from the big red brick and collegiate CUs - they generally need less help to run effectively. What goes on there is rarely, if ever, reflective of the fellowship as a whole. (More's the pity often, IMOSHO)
Originally posted by Elephenor:
Also, yes, CICCU have had one female President. One. In over 125 years...
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well, sort of. For some people, the best witness they can be might just be getting involved in student politics. I would hope any CU member would see that as an opportunity for personal evangelism but I hope any CU staff worker would see the value of it beyond that.
quote:Actually, I think they are student-led, although UCCF workers resource them and give advice (which in my own experience is usually taken). I just don't think UCCF and CUs are one and the same.
I think CUs have a more legitimate student witness because they are student led (and I know you don't really think they are, but IME they really are!)
quote:So are you saying that this doesn't happen in Fusion? Or that it's only limited to leaderships?
But more than that, you will find, (again IME) in the mission field and in church ministry LOADS of people who never thought of such things until they were in CU leadership.
quote:...but only a little.
I think the DB is an accurate and good statement of evangelical belief, but leaves room for disagreement.
quote:With you there.
And ISTM it is healthy, within that framework for students to be on committees with people who disagree with them about 6 day creation, spiritual gifts etc.
quote:I think I remember hearing that NFI and Pioneer were involved with Fusion - was I hearing things?
My problem with the Fusion model was that (again ISTM, hedge hedge hedge) that a church leader on high handed down a "line" on a difficult issue, that was then followed throughout. So you'd meet students who had never even met a Christian who wasn't charismatic before, or who couldn't see why some Christians thought doctrine was really important, or whatever.
quote:Ooooooh yes.
I realise that there are many here who think that baseline should make the net wider, but that is a separate issue!
quote:I once lived in a house with a CU secretary, who had no idea how to manage her time and who, if tomorrow was the deadline for both a letter to a Christian speaker on behalf of the CU and a piece of assessed coursework, would pick the CU stuff every time. She just about managed a third in the end.
Like I said, there are pros and cons of both models, the downside of the CU model being that it can eat up your life. Although, IME, there is no need for this to be the case if students would only learn to time plan.
quote:Thing is, I've not described UCCF as "ultra-conservative". Conservative, yes, but extremely?
I suppose though UCCF has the reputation for being this madly conservative force in evangelicalism as a whole, and IME its not really. I'm certainly no YECcie or cessationist, but it wasn't as conservative as me - but then, as you say, it's all relative.
quote:I'm going to hazard that this is actually a recent development - within the last ten years, I would say, and [smug voice] that it probably proves I'm right about the apathy and stuff.
quote:Loads. Absolutely loads. CICCU have had in the past, not sure about OICCU and DICCU. But they are hardly test cases - nearly every other CU I know of has had at some stage (even other big "regional" CUs like Lancaster - which I think has a female president at the moment, and Leeds). Nearly all the small CUs I knew had nearly all the time because (sigh) the men were generally so wet, unethusiastic, and generally godless.
I remember Lampeter having a female president about nine years ago, but I'm not sure how many other CUs have had female presidents. Do you know any, Lep?
quote:Does Ulster still say "NO"?
I should say as well, that all the Northern Irish CUs including Queen's and Jordanstown have had too, and they would have been seen as bastions of conservatism for quite some time.
quote:No, not at all. Partly because Fusion hasn't been around long enough to tell. Rather that experience has borne out the wisdom that running a CU is an almost unique way for intelligent able people to experience Christian ministry and all the struggles involving theology, people, money, admin, music, and evangelism that go with it. A church run student work, while having many advantages (I used to be a church student worker)IME just doesn't give people that experience.
Originally posted by Wood:
So are you saying that this doesn't happen in Fusion? Or that it's only limited to leaderships?
quote:Pioneer yes. NFI, mixed. Institutionally they seem to be pretty much against any para-church thing, but on the ground, some of them were involved. Although I also met a number that much preferred the UCCF way of doing things.
I think I remember hearing that NFI and Pioneer were involved with Fusion - was I hearing things?
quote:To most things. It just comes out easier. Practice you see.
Does Ulster still say "NO"?
quote:Point noted. FWIW, my own account was second hand and imperfectly recollected from the student's account, so I'm happy to be corrected.
Originally posted by Passmore and Alabaster:
A point of clarification, for the sake of accuracy. The CU talk on creation, that Wood mentioned, was actually on the reliability of the Bible (nothing was said about creation in the talk). The question about creation was, according to my memory, unclear. It was pitched around the question of whether the language in Genesis 1-2 is wholly symbolic. But like I said it was unclear to me at the time what the questioner was getting at/coming from. As for the relay workers comment, I think he was trying to say that we must take what they Bible says on creation seriously and not try to explain away Genesis because we are intimidated by the claims of philosophic naturalism. I don't think that he was being dogmatic on creationism. But like I said I thought that the question was vague. For the record I was the speaker.
quote:Well, hey. It was nearly two years ago now. I expect she's probably forgotten the meeting herself.
Originally posted by Passmore and Alabaster:
Thanks for the welcome.
I'm surprised that what he said had that effect. I thought that I had made much more of a hash answering her question. Besides which I can't recall his comment being that strong. But am I trying to recall an evening some twenty months ago...
