Ship of Fools: Opinions on UCCF (aka the ones behind the Christian Unions)

Thread: Opinions on UCCF (aka the ones behind the Christian Unions) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026014

Posted by A Sojourner (# 17776) on :

What's everyone's views on UCCF? Are they a force for good or bad on campus... and what about CSM, they do not seem to have much of the presence here in Scotland. Are they more of an English grouping, and what is the main difference between the two groupings on the campus level (not the thelogical level)...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

UCCF are, in my experience: underhand, intentionally divisive, doctrinaire, anti-liberal, anti-catholic, anti-gay, and prone to pronouncing on the eternal fate of others. Their CU's have a long track record of sexism and consequent conflict with Student Unions. They have an unpleasant tendency to present themselves as the only Christian organisation on campus, and refuse to work with chaplaincy teams or with other Christian student societies. They are a leading contributor to the impression of Christians as close-minded, judgmental bigots.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

SCM is a much smaller group. Edinburgh and Glasgow seem to be some of our biggest groups so it surprises me that you say that they don't have much presence in Scotland! Many groups are SCM-affilated rather than actual SCM groups and you can also be an individual member - so there's presence outside the official groups. UCCF in contrast have groups on pretty much every university campus.

My issues with UCCF is that often (especially on smaller, newer campuses) the Christian Union is the only Christian and sometimes the only religious society on campus at all. Because it's called 'Christian Union', Christians with very different theology to UCCF attend thinking that it's for all Christians...and get very turned off Christianity in the process. Christian Unions are not for all Christians and I take issue that their name suggests otherwise (like the Christian Institute).

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

But they ARE the only Christians on site - well the only Real Christians anyway. Methsoc were certainly regarded as an aberration. And as for the churches in the town only 2 were approved as valid for CU members to attend. (Though those connected to A were often wary of those attending B and vice versa anyway).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

When I was at uni the UCCF affiliated society was formally the Evangelical Christian Union. They frequently dropped the Evangelical when it was convenient for them.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I am fairly sure that the faults mentioned above are not so much arising from UCCF official policy but more the result of the Christian Unions lacking leadership from seasoned Christians. In my experience the worst excesses of judgmentalism and exclusivity come from the nineteen year olds who sit on committees, organise meetings and put themselves forward as though they were ordained church leaders.

If I was being kind, I would say that these young men and women are out of their depth so fall back on Biblical literalism and legalism to give themselves a sense of certainty and solidity because really they haven't got a clue what they should be doing.

But yes, there is also that annoying "we are right and all other views are unsound" ethos that permeates much of evangelicalism, UCCF included.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Oh and UCCF was originally part of SCM, but split off some point in the 1910s.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I have noticed that whenever the UCCF grownups meet with senior members of the university, they explain that unfortunate excesses (groups of CU members praying outside gay students' rooms, for instance), narrow mindedness (telling a Chinese student that her family was going to hell, and that unless she converted them she was too) and poor biblical interpretation (the college chapel is the Great Whore of the Book of Revelation*) are due to the youth and inexperience of the group leaders. However since so much is so tightly controlled from UCCF Central (what passage of Scripture every CU in the country is studying at the weekly meeting, and what questions should be asked about it) it looks very much as if the excesses etc are part of the package.

*ok, that one I made up. The other examples really happened.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh and UCCF was originally part of SCM, but split off some point in the 1910s.

If memory serves it was because SCM wasn't intolerant enough for them.

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am fairly sure that the faults mentioned above are not so much arising from UCCF official policy but more the result of the Christian Unions lacking leadership from seasoned Christians.

I think my issues with the OICCU actually stemmed more from the macrocosm than the microcosm, actually; at the grassroots its leaders were agreeable people, genuinely compassionate and caring. (apart from one who had a creepy obsession with a certain aspect of sexuality which is probably beyond the remits of the ship because of confidentiality.) A lot of them were quite sensible and politically minded. It really depended on what college you were in.

I think part of the problem was that we had a very big conservative evangelical church which was known for having "a secret /support group/ for Lesbian and Gay people which is so secret I cannot tell you of its existence, let alone who is involved with it" and that didn't allow female preachers. This church tended to have a lot of influence.

OUSU is an equally weird body, mind; because lots of decisions are taken at a JCR level, OUSU tends to get a reputation as being rather extreme-left and unrepresentative on things like minority groups.

I am interested to know of the experiences of open-/left-of-centre-evangelicals on this, though. Some did okay within the OICCU, and due to its decentralized nature, such things did tend to vary phenomenally according to cohort and college. (ken? You work in a university, right?)

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am fairly sure that the faults mentioned above are not so much arising from UCCF official policy but more the result of the Christian Unions lacking leadership from seasoned Christians. In my experience the worst excesses of judgmentalism and exclusivity come from the nineteen year olds who sit on committees, organise meetings and put themselves forward as though they were ordained church leaders.

If I was being kind, I would say that these young men and women are out of their depth so fall back on Biblical literalism and legalism to give themselves a sense of certainty and solidity because really they haven't got a clue what they should be doing.

But yes, there is also that annoying "we are right and all other views are unsound" ethos that permeates much of evangelicalism, UCCF included.

And yet other student Christian groups (not to mention other societies)seem to manage with young inexperienced leadership without becoming over literal....

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am fairly sure that the faults mentioned above are not so much arising from UCCF official policy but more the result of the Christian Unions lacking leadership from seasoned Christians.
I think my issues with the OICCU actually stemmed more from the macrocosm than the microcosm, actually; at the grassroots its leaders were agreeable people, genuinely compassionate and caring. (apart from one who had a creepy obsession with a certain aspect of sexuality which is probably beyond the remits of the ship because of confidentiality.) A lot of them were quite sensible and politically minded. It really depended on what college you were in.

I think part of the problem was that we had a very big conservative evangelical church which was known for having "a secret /support group/ for Lesbian and Gay people which is so secret I cannot tell you of its existence, let alone who is involved with it" and that didn't allow female preachers. This church tended to have a lot of influence.

OUSU is an equally weird body, mind; because lots of decisions are taken at a JCR level, OUSU tends to get a reputation as being rather extreme-left and unrepresentative on things like minority groups.

I am interested to know of the experiences of open-/left-of-centre-evangelicals on this, though. Some did okay within the OICCU, and due to its decentralized nature, such things did tend to vary phenomenally according to cohort and college. (ken? You work in a university, right?)

Sorry - what are OICCU, OUSU and JCR? *attends a former polytechnic*

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am fairly sure that the faults mentioned above are not so much arising from UCCF official policy but more the result of the Christian Unions lacking leadership from seasoned Christians.
I think my issues with the OICCU actually stemmed more from the macrocosm than the microcosm, actually; at the grassroots its leaders were agreeable people, genuinely compassionate and caring. (apart from one who had a creepy obsession with a certain aspect of sexuality which is probably beyond the remits of the ship because of confidentiality.) A lot of them were quite sensible and politically minded. It really depended on what college you were in.

I think part of the problem was that we had a very big conservative evangelical church which was known for having "a secret /support group/ for Lesbian and Gay people which is so secret I cannot tell you of its existence, let alone who is involved with it" and that didn't allow female preachers. This church tended to have a lot of influence.

OUSU is an equally weird body, mind; because lots of decisions are taken at a JCR level, OUSU tends to get a reputation as being rather extreme-left and unrepresentative on things like minority groups.

I am interested to know of the experiences of open-/left-of-centre-evangelicals on this, though. Some did okay within the OICCU, and due to its decentralized nature, such things did tend to vary phenomenally according to cohort and college. (ken? You work in a university, right?)
Sorry - what are OICCU, OUSU and JCR? *attends a former polytechnic*

Oop.

Oxford is very decentralized, made up of lots of little colleges. OUSU is the university-wide student union.

JCR is the student union for each individual college,which tends to take most of the non-political functions of a Student Union (like pretty much all of welfare other than a little training from OUSU and the University, all party-related things, , everything related to local sport and other local clubs, everything to do with recreational facilities, and representation to do with everything within college, including rent, catering and some tuition. It also carried out political work. OUSU, by contrast, is almost entirely political.

OICCU is the University-wide CU, under which sit college CUs.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
*ok, that one I made up. The other examples really happened.

Well, of course. The Whore of Babylon is Fisher House. The College Chapels are the Beast with Seven Heads.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

I think all Christian organisations should be banned from tertiary education campuses. Students should attend a local church of their choosing, and mix with all types and ages represented there. It might help them to grow up. I'm convinced this studenty-type Christianity puts off others and feeds into the later colonisation of some churches as hang-outs for young professional couples with kids.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am fairly sure that the faults mentioned above are not so much arising from UCCF official policy but more the result of the Christian Unions lacking leadership from seasoned Christians.

(***)

quote:
But yes, there is also that annoying "we are right and all other views are unsound" ethos that permeates much of evangelicalism, UCCF included.

I feel that there's a feedback between the two. The faults may not be the official policy of UCCF, but UCCF policy does nothing to discourage them. If you're telling students to be zealous and obnoxious for Jesus you haven't really got much ground to stand one when they start being even more obnoxious for Jesus (In Christian Love) than you strictly intended.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Open / left of centre evangelical checking in, who's just marked 10 years at uni since he got his A level results

CUs vary. I had some bad experiences with mine, in my first couple of years, which caused me to question my faith until I went home over the summer, back to my conservative evangelical church which showed me that immaturity isn't a hallmark of evangelicalism, it's a hallmark of immature people. Then I went back to uni, hung around for a bit and saw the leaders change for some more that were much more mature and open, who still stuck to their doctrinal basis but who were open to other Christians being godly people. Then I did a PhD and the leaders changed back again ... and then they changed back once more. Friends at other unis had different stories to tell: some CUs were more hardline, some were more sensible.

Yes, UCCF is a bit controlling: they do some good work in resourcing CUs, but I wish they'd stick to that and let individual CUs run themselves, with help from local churches. I think a lot of the issues are with presidents who aren't confident enough to tell the staff worker where to stick it sometimes.

Yes, there are other Christian societies. My experience of those is that there is every bit (yes, literally) as much bigotry in those as there is in the CU, it's just directed in a different direction. To pick on SCM, the only difference between them and UCCF is that if the running of the church was left to SCM, Christianity would die out in 2 seconds flat. On the whole, CUs are great; they're filled with people who really love God and want to serve him and spread his love; for that, I can forgive them a lot of their foibles.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

I only ever experienced one Christian Union event during my time at university, which I attended at the invitation of an agnostic friend who had herself been invited. Lovely meal, and nice, smiley people, but when I heard there'd be a speaker, I knew what was coming. My friend didn't. Between the main course and the dessert, a rugby player from the Midlands stood up, and the agnostic acquaintances every member had invited were, to make a long story short, advised to repent or burn in hellfire. I found this hilarious, but my friend was disappointed. She'd thought the person who'd invited her sincerely wanted to be her friend.

[ 17. August 2013, 23:36: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
I think all Christian organisations should be banned from tertiary education campuses.

No thanks, I'm not into Stalinism.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Christian groups on campus aren't only CU or SCM (we didn't have the latter where I was)

There are (perhaps less so now??) various denominationally focused groups - MethSoc, AngSoc, CathSoc etc or some combination.

the MethSoc I attended had a widespread of free church backgrounds and a breadth of theology too from conservative to liberal.

All of the on campus groups encourage local church attendance so that people are not just in a student bubble.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Avila, not in my daughter's experience. She's now graduated, but when she started at university there was no MethSoc or CathSoc, only the CU and Islamic societies. The other societies had folded and there wasn't much in the way of chaplaincy support.

The only churches recommended were the two CU approved Vineyard / independent churches in a city with a fairly evangelical flavour for the CofE. And that was to everyone: RC, Methodist, CofE.

From what she says, that has moved on in the last 5 years, and there is now a broader chaplaincy support, which is supporting other groups, not just the CU and other churches are suggested.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

When I was at university many years ago, the CU was the biggest club on campus, and the SCM could have met in a telephone booth.

One of the reasons for this was that the SCM had become so theologically vacuous, that many students who would have belonged to it in an earlier student generation, joined the CU instead because it was still meaningfully Christian, even though they disagreed with aspects of its beliefs and practices.

If the SCM were to be described with the same self-indulgent and bigoted generalizations used of CUs in earlier posts, perhaps the following would be the result:-

“The SCM consists of a wishy-washy liberal mixture of old-fashioned Enlightenment rationalism and post-modern relativism and syncretism, gratefully seized upon by insecure adolescents not quite up to jettisoning the faith completely, but petrified of losing social acceptance by alienating their secular peers, and desperate to assert their new-found adult status by spurning any semblance of the historic, orthodox, credal Christianity in which they were brought up”.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think it's both/and, rather than either/or, Kaplan. I think your caricatured summary does apply to the SCM. At the same time I think that the caricatured summary of the CUs and UCCF also apply.

Both are valid.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've read books published by the SCM. They seemed OK to me.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
However since so much is so tightly controlled from UCCF Central (what passage of Scripture every CU in the country is studying at the weekly meeting, and what questions should be asked about it)

This is rubbish. That is all.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Avila, I think only bigger universities can support MethSoc, CathSoc etc. These can be affilated to SCM anyway - I know Aberystwyth's MethSoc is.

Re SCM and theology, SCM doesn't have any kind of doctrinal basis, let alone a woolly one - individual members belong to a range of churches. Lots of Methodists, but also Catholics, Anglicans, evangelicals, Quakers. SCM is primarily concerned with social action, not theology. Speaking personally, I felt very excluded from CU because I didn't attend the 'right' church and felt like the CU was missing the point in terms of mission - you have to demonstrate the Gospel to people, not just shout it at them. Now, SCM definitely has its failings (and nearly died out a few years ago) but it's aware of its failings (or at least some of them). IME, UCCF is totally unaware of its failings, or considers their failings to be positive things.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
However since so much is so tightly controlled from UCCF Central (what passage of Scripture every CU in the country is studying at the weekly meeting, and what questions should be asked about it)
This is rubbish. That is all.

My uni's CU doesn't even have Bible studies in the main meeting, it's just a worship song followed by a dull lecture on how the World hates Good Little Evangelicals, followed by another worship song, ending with a reminder to bully your uni mates into converting.

The Bible studies elsewhere in the week are definitely controlled by UCCF head office though.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
However since so much is so tightly controlled from UCCF Central (what passage of Scripture every CU in the country is studying at the weekly meeting, and what questions should be asked about it)
This is rubbish. That is all.
My uni's CU doesn't even have Bible studies in the main meeting, it's just a worship song followed by a dull lecture on how the World hates Good Little Evangelicals, followed by another worship song, ending with a reminder to bully your uni mates into converting.

The Bible studies elsewhere in the week are definitely controlled by UCCF head office though.

Interesting. And what sanction do the "head office" use to enforce this spiritual fascism? Last time I checked it isn't actually possible to control what people say in a small group universally.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

The resources are Bible study sheets and one for the study leaders with the 'correct answers' on. There's no exploring the Bible for oneself.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

And really you don't need to be able to impose penalties from the centre when you deploy pressure to conform and the threat of disfellowshipping and/or denunciation for any who repeatedly voice disagreement.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re SCM and theology, SCM doesn't have any kind of doctrinal basis, let alone a woolly one - individual members belong to a range of churches. Lots of Methodists, but also Catholics, Anglicans, evangelicals, Quakers. SCM is primarily concerned with social action, not theology.

I'm going to take issue with this.

My uni's SCM group may have officially 'focused on social action' but you know what? The CU were the ones who were actually out on the streets feeding the homeless, rather than sitting on a common room talking shop. Yes, there's a tendency that re-emerges every couple of years among CUs to become a narrowly focused campus mission society and ditch everything else, and that tendency needs to be resisted because IME, that's invariably when the CU is smallest and least effective. Thankfully, there are usually people around to resist it to a smaller or larger extent.

quote:
Speaking personally, I felt very excluded from CU because I didn't attend the 'right' church and felt like the CU was missing the point in terms of mission

You should try being the token evangelical at an SCM meeting: officially excluding anyone is unnecessary when sniffy condescension will do the trick just as effectively. I'd say I've been involved in both organisations to a similar extent (my own uni, visits to friends' unis and a national conference or two) and they are almost exactly equivalent in being arsy to people they don't like.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Speaking personally, I felt very excluded from CU because I didn't attend the 'right' church and felt like the CU was missing the point in terms of mission
You should try being the token evangelical at an SCM meeting: officially excluding anyone is unnecessary when sniffy condescension will do the trick just as effectively.

Can be true IME of "Sea of Faith" meetings as well.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
I think my issues with the OICCU actually stemmed more from the macrocosm than the microcosm, actually; at the grassroots its leaders were agreeable people, genuinely compassionate and caring. [...]

OUSU is an equally weird body, mind; because lots of decisions are taken at a JCR level, OUSU tends to get a reputation as being rather extreme-left and unrepresentative on things like minority groups.

That sounds rather like CICCU and CUSU. The college CU leaders were, in the main, friendly, open to debate, and aware that they represented one tradition among many. CICCU grand central seemed rather more keen on defending the party line at all costs.

Likewise, college JCRs were for people who wanted to improve students' lives; CUSU was a stepping-stone for a position as a policy analyst with the Labour party.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Annoyingly you've cunningly chosen a time where we can't see how proscribed the topics are.

After much exaustive research
Oiccu are studying Acts at college, central meetings no clear theme.

Ciccu current central theme is "United in.." readings not sure.

Nottingham are unclear (talks are out of date)
Loughborough&Lincoln unclear
Bristol is doing either Mark or Luke at it's central meeting (prob one last one this).
Bath not sure but did John last term
Exeter not sure (possibly Acts?)

UCCF have some form of national Luke course (Uncover) but seem to have the interesting bits locked away (some of which makes sense).

SCM has some accessible (although these include previous year themes, which suggest they exist). The one example I looked at was vaguely similar to my vague memory of one UCCF small group notes. But with only one question (and that seemed pretty closed) but it almost certainly wasn't representative.

NB the same name is used for many of the central talks 'Equip'. Though that might be imitation as much as proscription.
And there are a number of recognisable names across all of them).

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I was in a CU bible study group when I was a student, and really liked it although I was no evangelical. I didn't become a formal member because I didn't agree with the doctrinal statement you had to sign, but noone minded that as far as joining the bible study was concerned. We had a Catholic and a very liberal universalist in the group as well, and we could all say what we wanted. The more conservative ones were all very nice.

The SCM didn't appeal to me as it was very concerned with social activism. I would have been happy to help homeless people but they were more about campaigning on big issues, and I have always been one for the aspects of Christianity which are about trying to change yourself rather than the aspects about changing the world, since I have never felt well qualified to tell the world how to improve.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re SCM and theology, SCM doesn't have any kind of doctrinal basis, let alone a woolly one - individual members belong to a range of churches. Lots of Methodists, but also Catholics, Anglicans, evangelicals, Quakers. SCM is primarily concerned with social action, not theology.
I'm going to take issue with this.

My uni's SCM group may have officially 'focused on social action' but you know what? The CU were the ones who were actually out on the streets feeding the homeless, rather than sitting on a common room talking shop. Yes, there's a tendency that re-emerges every couple of years among CUs to become a narrowly focused campus mission society and ditch everything else, and that tendency needs to be resisted because IME, that's invariably when the CU is smallest and least effective. Thankfully, there are usually people around to resist it to a smaller or larger extent.

quote:
Speaking personally, I felt very excluded from CU because I didn't attend the 'right' church and felt like the CU was missing the point in terms of mission
You should try being the token evangelical at an SCM meeting: officially excluding anyone is unnecessary when sniffy condescension will do the trick just as effectively. I'd say I've been involved in both organisations to a similar extent (my own uni, visits to friends' unis and a national conference or two) and they are almost exactly equivalent in being arsy to people they don't like.

Oh, CUs in general (not the one at my uni) are absolutely better than SCM groups at addressing local social activism. Don't think that I'm unaware of SCM's failings! The problem I see is that a CU group will feed the local homeless but not try to do anything about homelessness at a national level, whereas an SCM group will campaign tirelessly against homelessness at a national level but not help at any soup kitchens or the like. It's very frustrating when we need both. It's like the social action v evangelism thing - we need both!

The CU at my uni is very 'closed' and standoffish, and doesn't even have any socials, let alone any local social action projects (and the the SU won't let them hand out water or flip-flops after club nights) - but I don't think that's particularly usual amongst CUs. My uni doesn't have an SCM group (I am an individual member) but a group run by the chaplaincy which is going to affilate.

Re evangelicals in SCM - I do know some, but I think because SCM is so LGBT-friendly, a lot of people have had very painful experiences in evangelical churches due to issues around sexuality and gender identity (myself included). Not that this excuses rudeness of course, but liberal evangelicals need to be more outspoken within UCCF and elsewhere.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

FWIW I was a chaplain in a university for 5 years and also a local church minister (of the charis-evo variety for those who like people in boxes).
I concur with much that has been said here...the CU (UCCF) was definitely non-representative of the Christians in the university, a point which I discussed frequently and amicably with the CU and the UCCF representative.

Many of the members of the CU regularly attended the church where I was the pastor and got involved with the various ministries and mission of the church. We felt blessed by them and I hope they were blessed by their time with us.

Interestingly I was not allowed to give any of the talks at the CU because I would not sign their statement of faith as I felt it was too exclusive (as most statements of faith are IMHO).
Apparently all speakers at CU meetings have to affirm the UCCF SoF.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

My uni attending offspring tried CU - and left in horror.

One has not returned - fortunately at uni in a cathedral city so goes there, usually for Matins and the occasional mid-week evensong.

The other goes to one of two anglican churches near the uni. But has been back to CU to challenge the bigotry and so has been targeted by some CU members for being 'unchristian' - which included them spreading rumours they are gay among other tactics. Reasoning was tried and failed but some underhand work on the rugby field against one of the chief mudslingers was pretty effective. But they are still faced with going back next term to a uni where the CU may be many things, but Christian isn't one of them.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And really you don't need to be able to impose penalties from the centre when you deploy pressure to conform and the threat of disfellowshipping and/or denunciation for any who repeatedly voice disagreement.

This is verging on libellous. I challenge you to find one example anywhere of a CU being threatened with disaffiliation for not using the correct Bible study sheets.

I did a quick google like Jay-Emm trying to find termcards. Apparently it is no longer de rigeur for CUs to publish their term programme in advance, but even in the city in which I am a minister I have been asked to speak at 3 different CUs on three different books of the Bible this last year. No one from "head office" even sent me any notes to work from. [Roll Eyes]

No one forces anyone to go to a CU or a CU to affiliate to UCCF. If you don't like it, university's the ideal time to plough ahead and start your own group, and stop whinging. CUs fairly regularly disaffiliate and even more regularly new groups start or existing university groups affiliate.

Posted by wheelie racer (# 13854) on :

Wondering how much people know about Fusion and what experiences of them you've had? They were setting up as a bit of a rival to UCCF when I was a student about 15 years ago and targeting the more open evo / charismatic student population

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And really you don't need to be able to impose penalties from the centre when you deploy pressure to conform and the threat of disfellowshipping and/or denunciation for any who repeatedly voice disagreement.
This is verging on libellous. I challenge you to find one example anywhere of a CU being threatened with disaffiliation for not using the correct Bible study sheets.

I did a quick google like Jay-Emm trying to find termcards. Apparently it is no longer de rigeur for CUs to publish their term programme in advance, but even in the city in which I am a minister I have been asked to speak at 3 different CUs on three different books of the Bible this last year. No one from "head office" even sent me any notes to work from.

No one forces anyone to go to a CU or a CU to affiliate to UCCF. If you don't like it, university's the ideal time to plough ahead and start your own group, and stop whinging. CUs fairly regularly disaffiliate and even more regularly new groups start or existing university groups affiliate.

I know of CU members and student leadership members who have been disfellowshipped/shunned/fired for asking questions and trying to stop the CU from being quite so bigoted as usual. The social implications are used to keep people in check.

Also your experience re speaking at CU meetings is not like my own experiences, but CUs do vary

I just don't see how UCCF haven't been reprimanded by the NUS already for some of the actions of CUs which are incredibly offensive and harmful to student bodies as a whole, eg Bristol CU excluding women from speaking unless their husbands are present.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wheelie racer:
Wondering how much people know about Fusion and what experiences of them you've had? They were setting up as a bit of a rival to UCCF when I was a student about 15 years ago and targeting the more open evo / charismatic student population

I haven't heard of them, but IME most CUs have a lot of charismatic students (not so much open evo) already. At my uni, CU membership is mostly charismatic but the leadership attend a strict Calvinist place. Most universities tend to have a CU and an Islamic Society and that's it in terms of religious societies. Obviously there are chaplaincies too, but they have varying rates of success.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

What about Navigators, or Navs? Honestly, all these acronyms for quite appalling-sounding single-age, irrelevant student groups would put anyone off exploring the claims of Christianity. What are the authorities doing allowing all these groups to canvass impressionable youngsters? All so different from the mid 70s when I was a student. Mind you, back then, there were plenty of things to get stuck into eg anti-apartheid, the sit-in at the Scottish Daily Express building, Jim Sillars' Scottish Kabour Party.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
What about Navigators, or Navs? Honestly, all these acronyms for quite appalling-sounding single-age, irrelevant student groups would put anyone off exploring the claims of Christianity. What are the authorities doing allowing all these groups to canvass impressionable youngsters? All so different from the mid 70s when I was a student. Mind you, back then, there were plenty of things to get stuck into eg anti-apartheid, the sit-in at the Scottish Daily Express building, Jim Sillars' Scottish Kabour Party.

For all that I disagree with UCCF, I don't think they're irrelevant - and how are they single-age? Mature students are very welcome to join CUs, SCM or other student groups. And I'm not sure why initialisms (they're not acronyms, acronyms make a word, eg radar) would put people off? All sorts of groups get their names turned into initialisms, like the NUS, and it doesn't put people off. In any case, the groups on campuses are set up by students, it's not people from outside coming in to canvass 'impressionable youngsters' (who are mostly 18 or over and so are adults).

UCCF and SCM were both around in the 70s so not sure why you've not come across them before? I've never heard of Navigators, sorry.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Reading up on Navigators, I'm not sure how they would work in a campus context. There's nothing wrong with Christian groups on campus and they can be an invaluable source of support, both in terms of prayer and of fellowship, especially if students are attending churches where there aren't many people their own age (this happens a lot in sacramental and traditional denominations, eg high-church Anglican, Methodist etc). Yes, students should absolutely get support from their own churches but it's hard to be part of a church when you're not there for the whole year, and Christian groups and the chaplaincy have really helped me and others. Clearly, given the membership numbers of CUs alone, many students agree with me, and are not put off at all.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

I just don't see how UCCF haven't been reprimanded by the NUS already for some of the actions of CUs which are incredibly offensive and harmful to student bodies as a whole, eg Bristol CU excluding women from speaking unless their husbands are present.

The UCCF groups aren't affiliated to NUS because they don't comply. In my day they rented space directly from the university for meetings.

The presence of MethSoc* etc in the union gave a Christian presence inside not just a voice outside.

*Almost all student union clubs and societies were called ....Soc - some kind of student tradition I guess...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

I just don't see how UCCF haven't been reprimanded by the NUS already for some of the actions of CUs which are incredibly offensive and harmful to student bodies as a whole, eg Bristol CU excluding women from speaking unless their husbands are present.
The UCCF groups aren't affiliated to NUS because they don't comply. In my day they rented space directly from the university for meetings.

The presence of MethSoc* etc in the union gave a Christian presence inside not just a voice outside.

*Almost all student union clubs and societies were called ....Soc - some kind of student tradition I guess...

I wish my university had a MethSoc/AngSoc/CathSoc! Unfortunately it seems like only the biggest/oldest universities have them. Lots of universities, especially newer, smaller universities only have a CU in terms of Christian groups. When I was at Chichester the CU was the only religious group full-stop, not even an Islamic Society.

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
I think all Christian organisations should be banned from tertiary education campuses. Students should attend a local church of their choosing, and mix with all types and ages represented there. It might help them to grow up. I'm convinced this studenty-type Christianity puts off others and feeds into the later colonisation of some churches as hang-outs for young professional couples with kids.

Firstly you assume all universities have campuses!

It's a lovely idea, but in Oxford it wouldn't work, where city centre churches have money but lack inhabitants, and thus take on a very extremist take of one sort or another, be it anglo-Catholic or evangelical. Mary Mag's has been toned down in the past generation, and if college chapels were somehow forcibly closed, I imagine their congregants would end up at SMV.

In fact, banning religious activity on college property would probably have the reverse effect - apart from making people very angry, it would drive people to extremist churches where they would get stuck in a social bubble with other extremists - and also largely other students, too, as most churches in Oxford tend to have student-specific services, so no luck on integration there and moderation.

This shadows how the university and city rarely interact there. There are two men who purposely and habitually go to St Clement's, where they are the only students, and two ladies who went to Grandpont, IIRC because they felt uncomfortable in a large congregation, but they are the exception rather than the rule istm.

In other words - we subsidize moderate religion because it would be drowned out by extremism in a no-holds-barred, free-market world.

quote:
Avila, not in my daughter's experience. She's now graduated, but when she started at university there was no MethSoc or CathSoc, only the CU and Islamic societies. The other societies had folded and there wasn't much in the way of chaplaincy support.

St Columba's used to have a student group. Nowadays it seems to be growing a niche as an LGBT-friendly church. But on the whole there are very few URC student groups. The John Wesley Society seems moderately healthy but populated mostly by post-grads again.

The Roman Catholic chaplaincy is very big - and if you say "chaplaincy" here without qualification it means the RC one - but a lot of the country-dwellers, classicists and Conservative/libertarian people totally ignore it and go only to the oratory.

Tangent - is liberal religion more common in post-grads and extremism in undergrads then?

quote:
My uni's SCM group may have officially 'focused on social action' but you know what? The CU were the ones who were actually out on the streets feeding the homeless, rather than sitting on a common room talking shop. Yes, there's a tendency that re-emerges every couple of years among CUs to become a narrowly focused campus mission society and ditch everything else, and that tendency needs to be resisted because IME, that's invariably when the CU is smallest and least effective. Thankfully, there are usually people around to resist it to a smaller or larger extent.

Hmm, I can see a glimmer of this in a few of the CU organizers I know. Thankfully, SPC CU has taken it to the core. But I still think the OICCU has a long way to go on this. And it's going to take forever and a day to fix, too; maybe a generation, even.

quote:
When I was at university many years ago, the CU was the biggest club on campus, and the SCM could have met in a telephone booth.

One of the reasons for this was that the SCM had become so theologically vacuous, that many students who would have belonged to it in an earlier student generation, joined the CU instead because it was still meaningfully Christian, even though they disagreed with aspects of its beliefs and practices.

If the SCM were to be described with the same self-indulgent and bigoted generalizations used of CUs in earlier posts, perhaps the following would be the result:-

“The SCM consists of a wishy-washy liberal mixture of old-fashioned Enlightenment rationalism and post-modern relativism and syncretism, gratefully seized upon by insecure adolescents not quite up to jettisoning the faith completely, but petrified of losing social acceptance by alienating their secular peers, and desperate to assert their new-found adult status by spurning any semblance of the historic, orthodox, credal Christianity in which they were brought up”.

quote:
The SCM didn't appeal to me as it was very concerned with social activism. I would have been happy to help homeless people but they were more about campaigning on big issues, and I have always been one for the aspects of Christianity which are about trying to change yourself rather than the aspects about changing the world, since I have never felt well qualified to tell the world how to improve.

So I found the third option - contemporary Anglocatholicism and London Citizens? At least in Oxford, for all its faults, I wasn't reduced to that dichotomy.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Jim Sillars' Scottish Kabour Party.

Shouldn't that be the Scottish Caber Party?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And really you don't need to be able to impose penalties from the centre when you deploy pressure to conform and the threat of disfellowshipping and/or denunciation for any who repeatedly voice disagreement.
This is verging on libellous. I challenge you to find one example anywhere of a CU being threatened with disaffiliation for not using the correct Bible study sheets.

I did a quick google like Jay-Emm trying to find termcards. Apparently it is no longer de rigeur for CUs to publish their term programme in advance, but even in the city in which I am a minister I have been asked to speak at 3 different CUs on three different books of the Bible this last year. No one from "head office" even sent me any notes to work from.

No one forces anyone to go to a CU or a CU to affiliate to UCCF. If you don't like it, university's the ideal time to plough ahead and start your own group, and stop whinging. CUs fairly regularly disaffiliate and even more regularly new groups start or existing university groups affiliate.
I know of CU members and student leadership members who have been disfellowshipped/shunned/fired for asking questions and trying to stop the CU from being quite so bigoted as usual. The social implications are used to keep people in check.

That's not what Lep's talking about, is it though? He's saying that no CU has been chucked out of UCCF for not using these nonexistent mandatory bible study notes - which are just as nonexistent as he's said.

One thing to Lep though: CUs may be free to disaffiliate, but IME if they do (eg. Sheffield, Loughborough (which dates me!)) UCCF don't respect that decision, but start a new UCCF-branded organisation.

quote:
I just don't see how UCCF haven't been reprimanded by the NUS already for some of the actions of CUs which are incredibly offensive and harmful to student bodies as a whole, eg Bristol CU excluding women from speaking unless their husbands are present.

Women were allowed to speak at CU if accompanied by their husbands? That's relatively good: at a lot of CUs they're not allowed to speak at all, or else it's supposedly decided by the exec every year but basically defaulted to a no. This is rubbish (and again, I campaigned against this when I was involved in such things) but it's hardly exceptional bigotry unknown among Christian circles: a Cathsoc or an Isoc is not going to be any better on this front.

As for NUS:
1) They are a political joke, and are no more representative of students as a whole than are the Christians.
2) SUs have a long and dishonourable history of using all means available to them to chuck CUs off campus. Whether they succeed seems to depend mostly on how long a leash the SU is given by the university hierarchy.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Help ma Boab, I'm lost. Is this supposed to be Christianity? There's no hope. SUs chucking off CUs and vice versa, women can't speak petty infighting amongst groups. Get rid of them all. Christ's Body is the Church, not some poncy little organisation run by a bunch of spotty nineteen year olds. But I dont know my acronyms from my italicisms
, maybe best that I get down to my local gospel hall, I'm clearly not clever enough to be amongst the Bright Young Things of SOF, CU, CM, UCCF or FTWALOS.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
That's not what Lep's talking about, is it though? He's saying that no CU has been chucked out of UCCF for not using these nonexistent mandatory bible study notes

He and no-one else - maybe it was poorly phrased but I was talking about the social dynamics within individual CUs, explicitly making the point that UCCF doesn't need to enforce anything.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Help ma Boab, I'm lost. Is this supposed to be Christianity? There's no hope. SUs chucking off CUs and vice versa, women can't speak petty infighting amongst groups. Get rid of them all. Christ's Body is the Church, not some poncy little organisation run by a bunch of spotty nineteen year olds. But I dont know my acronyms from my italicisms
, maybe best that I get down to my local gospel hall, I'm clearly not clever enough to be amongst the Bright Young Things of SOF, CU, CM, UCCF or FTWALOS.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

One thing to Lep though: CUs may be free to disaffiliate, but IME if they do (eg. Sheffield, Loughborough (which dates me!)) UCCF don't respect that decision, but start a new UCCF-branded organisation.

In each of those cases the new group was started by some students who then chose to affiliate with UCCF. It's not practically possible for UCCF to start campus groups.

Personally, I am all for the proliferation of different faith groups on campus - the more diverse viewpoints the better for universities IMO. I'm surprised how many people here think that non-mainstream views should be silenced.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:

Tangent - is liberal religion more common in post-grads and extremism in undergrads then?

Probably. Or, at least there's more likely to be less diversity among the postgrads. Postgrads and academics are, by and large, the sort of people who, if they go to church, are likely to URC or liberal Anglican. They are similarly likely be members of the Labour, Liberal Democratic, or Green parties. Whereas a certain sort of undergraduate is bound to go off to a future in the City, the Conservative Party, and (if churchgoing) and one of the two Brompton flagships (according to taste).

That's obviously a grotesque caricature: not all postgrads are wet liberals, and certainly not all undergrads are raging conservatives; not all liberal Anglicans are politically leftish (David Cameron isn't, for instance) and not all Evangelicals or traditionalist Roman Catholics are politically conservative. But there are social groups at least some universities that match what I've described: Conservative Association, Christ Church Hunt (or Trinity Foot Beagles), and the Oxford Oratory (or the Tridentine Mass at Fisher House) on one hand; College chapel, feminist discussion group, and Labour society on the other. There's enough truth in the stereotype I'm making that anyone familiar with University life will recognize it. Of the two groups, the more liberal/left-leaning one is more likely to contain postgrads and academic staff.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Those students won't go off to one of the Brompton churches, they will already be there. HTB is the CU church of Imperial College. Princes Gardens where many of the halls of residence are situated almost backs on to the back of HTB, which is quiet during the long vacation and gears up for a new autumn intake in September.

Also in the area the Victorians laid aside for education with the museums and Imperial College are the Royal College of Music, Royal College of Art and Royal College of Organists (although that last one didn't have anything to do with the other students).

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Help ma Boab, I'm lost. Is this supposed to be Christianity? There's no hope. SUs chucking off CUs and vice versa, women can't speak petty infighting amongst groups. Get rid of them all. Christ's Body is the Church, not some poncy little organisation run by a bunch of spotty nineteen year olds. But I dont know my acronyms from my italicisms
, maybe best that I get down to my local gospel hall, I'm clearly not clever enough to be amongst the Bright Young Things of SOF, CU, CM, UCCF or FTWALOS.

Don't worry about the abbreviation stuff - we all have problems with those, except when we are on our own little planet when we are so used to our own ones that we forget that others won't have a clue - just ask and nag for meanings.

The student Union are not anything Christian and can make their own minds up about the Christian union groups - they can be very anti CUs linked to the national University Colleges Christian Fellowship group because of equality issues that student unions are very keen on. The Cu's wouldn't generally want to be associated with the SU for the pro gay, lesbian etc agenda.

(As for the Catholic Societies and women speakers I know of female Catholic chaplains and not heard of any bar on speakers - it is the sacramental that would be the issue and that will be at the local church rather than the student group)

AS for Christians not be very Christian to each other - yep, pretty normal as flawed human beings, and we get worse the more we think we are right which then assumes others are wrong...

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I'm going to stick my head above the parapet and say that my University CU was flippin' *awesome*. Possibly we were a bit leftfield because we were more charismatic than many UCCF member groups, and I certainly remember one disagreement with our UCCF worker on a point of biblical interpretation. But there was no question of throwing us out over it, at any rate. FWIW, we twice had a female president. We also invited the Catholic chaplain as a guest speaker.

Anyway the reason my CU rocked was simple - the people genuinely loved and cared for each other. We saw quite a few conversions (at least 5 or 6, which is huge for a British University the size of the one I went to) and the main reason is that these people were initially attracted to a group of slightly off the wall people who were just awesome friends to each other.

Now this doesn't mean we were perfect. We definitely did some stuff that some of us probably find a bit embarassing now. The reason is kinda simple - we were nineteen and at that age the world tends to look a lot more black and white than it does when you're older. But I'm not sure we were anymore embarassing than the Young Conservatives were in their politics, for example. That's why I think it's important for a CU to have good relationships with the leaders of local churches who have seen a bit more of the world and can tone down some of the excesses of youthful certainty. From memory, our members mostly attended the local (open evo) CofE, and a couple of free charismatic churches. We also had a few charismatic Catholic members.

(Incidentally, when the SU sanctioned a student society for its sexist/homophobic policies, everyone assumed they meant the CU. They didn't - it was the Islamic Society.)

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

I was a regular attender of both CU and SCM, 25 years ago. My CU's lowest point was when a Catholic stood for election to the exec and a virulent grassroots campaign was started against him. Its highest point was when he won anyway, by a comfortable majority. I then left uni so have no idea what his tenure was like.

I got so much more out of my three concurrent years with the SCM, precisely because of its tiny size and struggle with wishy washy liberalism. In its brokenness it was so much more open to God than the glittering theological perfection of CU.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Would love to belong - nobody is saying that CUs and other organisations should replace the church, that's not their aim. Indeed, UCCF is very firm on the issue that CU is NOT church and that members should attend local churches. But that doesn't stop CUs, SCM, CathSoc etc from being useful organisations for students to belong to. Not sure why you're condemning them when several former and current students here have said how useful they find student Christian organisations? Who are you to decide that their experiences aren't worth anything? Anyway, aren't you a nonbeliever? Without wanting to be rude, how can a nonbeliever know what's bad for Christians and what's not? It's like an evangelical telling the Atheist and Humanist society how it should run.

Re initialisms v acronyms, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't clever enough for the SoF, sorry if you felt picked on.

[ 19. August 2013, 11:05: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I'm going to stick my head above the parapet and say that my University CU was flippin' *awesome*. Possibly we were a bit leftfield because we were more charismatic than many UCCF member groups, and I certainly remember one disagreement with our UCCF worker on a point of biblical interpretation. But there was no question of throwing us out over it, at any rate. FWIW, we twice had a female president. We also invited the Catholic chaplain as a guest speaker.

Anyway the reason my CU rocked was simple - the people genuinely loved and cared for each other. We saw quite a few conversions (at least 5 or 6, which is huge for a British University the size of the one I went to) and the main reason is that these people were initially attracted to a group of slightly off the wall people who were just awesome friends to each other.

Now this doesn't mean we were perfect. We definitely did some stuff that some of us probably find a bit embarassing now. The reason is kinda simple - we were nineteen and at that age the world tends to look a lot more black and white than it does when you're older. But I'm not sure we were anymore embarassing than the Young Conservatives were in their politics, for example. That's why I think it's important for a CU to have good relationships with the leaders of local churches who have seen a bit more of the world and can tone down some of the excesses of youthful certainty. From memory, our members mostly attended the local (open evo) CofE, and a couple of free charismatic churches. We also had a few charismatic Catholic members.

(Incidentally, when the SU sanctioned a student society for its sexist/homophobic policies, everyone assumed they meant the CU. They didn't - it was the Islamic Society.)

Glad you had such a good time - what uni did you go to? And the churches that members attend makes such a big difference to the overall flavour. IME more charismatic CUs tend to be more open. The CU at my uni is very influenced by a very strict conservative evangelical Calvinist place - like a strict Baptist church but independent.

Also, there can definitely be issues with the Islamic Society - I'm trying to set up a chaplaincy group for LGBTQ students from faith groups and I anticipate trouble from the Islamic Society as much as the CU.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

From my own (Oxford) experience, I would say that there is a tendency for the postgrads to be more liberal in their religion than the undergrads (especially in Oxford where the two main undergrad churches - St Aldates and St Ebbes - are so far down the candle that they induce whatever the opposite of the AC's nosebleed is).

Having said that, as a post-grad, who didn't read the Guardian I generally found more in common with the undergrads anyway, despite the fact that I was by that stage 26 and had been in the armed forces since my undergrad days.

Having said that, I do know that Pusey House is particularly long on postgrads at the moment...

I found the atmosphere at Oxford generally much more religion friendly, and always put this down to the fact that it is so fragmented around the various chapels and chaplaincies, vs my earlier campus university where the CU had the upper hand. There it was very much evangelical Christianity or find your own church elsewhere in the city. UCCF just didn't reflect (when I was an undergraduate) my sacramental understanding, or theology - I also had an instinct to keep away from self selecting groups like that on the same basis that as a non-smoker I didn't specify a non-smoking hall; feeling it slightly ridiculous to artificially limit my potential social circle on the basis of whether or not they smoked, or had an approach to Christianity which in any case wasn't mine!

The inflence of the CU at the Oxford Univesity level is so diluted as to be negligible, which to be quite honest I always saw as a definite plus.

In Oxford it was totally normal to go to church on a Sunday - and to know many young people that did, without having/needing the umbrella support of the CU. Now there's a tangent alert - Oxford as more religious than other universities? No idea why that should be but my own experience would suggest it may be true...

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

I dont know much about Oxford and its CU (maybe that should be its JCR CUs or its OUSU' s CU or its UCCFOUCU), I find the leadership of my local FTWALOS very open and liberal.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
From my own (Oxford) experience, I would say that there is a tendency for the postgrads to be more liberal in their religion than the undergrads (especially in Oxford where the two main undergrad churches - St Aldates and St Ebbes - are so far down the candle that they induce whatever the opposite of the AC's nosebleed is).

Having said that, as a post-grad, who didn't read the Guardian I generally found more in common with the undergrads anyway, despite the fact that I was by that stage 26 and had been in the armed forces since my undergrad days.

Having said that, I do know that Pusey House is particularly long on postgrads at the moment...

I found the atmosphere at Oxford generally much more religion friendly, and always put this down to the fact that it is so fragmented around the various chapels and chaplaincies, vs my earlier campus university where the CU had the upper hand. There it was very much evangelical Christianity or find your own church elsewhere in the city. UCCF just didn't reflect (when I was an undergraduate) my sacramental understanding, or theology - I also had an instinct to keep away from self selecting groups like that on the same basis that as a non-smoker I didn't specify a non-smoking hall; feeling it slightly ridiculous to artificially limit my potential social circle on the basis of whether or not they smoked, or had an approach to Christianity which in any case wasn't mine!

The inflence of the CU at the Oxford Univesity level is so diluted as to be negligible, which to be quite honest I always saw as a definite plus.

In Oxford it was totally normal to go to church on a Sunday - and to know many young people that did, without having/needing the umbrella support of the CU. Now there's a tangent alert - Oxford as more religious than other universities? No idea why that should be but my own experience would suggest it may be true...

I certainly think some universities are more religious than others - Oxford having such a strong chapel tradition and also having theological training colleges probably has an influence. I know historically Cambridge has been much more Nonconformist - don't know if that's still the case.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Well, of course. The Whore of Babylon is Fisher House.

Must have moved then. In my day you could find her just round the corner in the back bar of the Red Cow...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Having just read this thread, there's so many things to catch up on. I hope people don't mind if I make general comments based on what's been posted without actually quoting people.

I'm one of those people who in my late teens served on the ECU executive committee at my university. I also ran small Bible study groups (both in the year before serving on Exec, and for a couple of years afterwards as a postgrad). Yes, we were immature and didn't get everything right; but we were also supported (not directed) by two great UCCF staff workers and an advisory committee (two members of uni staff, two local pastors) who stopped us doing anything two outrageously silly.

Our ECU was clearly titled the "Evangelical Christian Union" and used that wording on all literature (term cards outlining meetings, membership cards, the big banner on the stall at Freshers Fair etc). We made no bones about being a society representing evangelical Christianity, but got on very well with other Christian groups on campus and not-explicitely evangelical churches. I know that other ECUs were not as good at that aspect - but, sometimes they were faced with quite open hostility from the other groups too.

Our small group study material, and the topics covered in main meetings, were not vetted by our UCCF staff workers. Unless there was a problem, I don't think they were even aware of what that material was. As a budding small group leader, I went on a training course organised by the staff workers - where we were given guidance on how to prepare our own study material. I don't think any two groups in the ECU were even studying the same thing at any one time either, I certainly never discussed what we would be studying with anyone other than the other guy leading our group, not even the small group coordinator on Exec.

In regard to women speaking at main meetings and/or other leadership roles we had a fine line to walk. Quite a large proportion of ECU members came from backgrounds where women in leadership was a definite no-no. Also, a large proportion of our membership not only had no problem with women in leadership but actively wanted more women in leadership. We consistently ended up in the position where we caused least offense - and that meant that we had very few women speakers. We had quite a lot of women leading small study groups, and holding all roles in Exec with the exception of President (we did have a vice President who was usually a woman).

All ECU members were encouraged to attend a local church, and to be as fully involved there as possible. We did issue a list of churches in the literature ECU sent to new students. It was not a list of recommended churches, much less a "if you go somewhere else you'll be led into heresy and damnation", but simply a list of churches that CU members went to with a very brief description and (usually) a name of a CU member who went there who was willing to take new students along. We had a Christian Magazine that for Freshers Fair produced a similar list, including those churches from other traditions. I was editor of that magazine for several years and apart from those churches where the URC, Meth, Baptist chaplaincy groups were based it was damned hard to get anyone to add to write something about their church - often we couldn't even get any of the non-evangelical CofE in with anything more than a church name and location (I wasn't going to get the bus around town to visit all of them to get service times from their notice boards!).

The Doctrinal Basis was something that everyone leading the ECU had to signify their agreement to (Exec, study group leaders, speakers). Membership only required a signature on a one line statement of belief, and the only thing that members 'got' that others didn't was a chance to vote on new Exec members once a year (and, most of the time, there was only ever one candidate for each post anyway since the membership was so small, and that person was usually the one someone in the outgoing Exec had pushed into standing because no one in their right mind actually volunteers to be an ECU Secretary or Treasurer! I'm a mad scientist, so I did both those jobs!).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Well, of course. The Whore of Babylon is Fisher House.
Must have moved then. In my day you could find her just round the corner in the back bar of the Red Cow...

Yeah, I went out with her a few times. Lovely.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Now there's a tangent alert - Oxford as more religious than other universities? No idea why that should be but my own experience would suggest it may be true...

Class? (see the other thread). Oxford has a high proportion of students from the public schools who will have been exposed to regular religion in their school chapels. Of course that will have inoculated many against it, but on balance it probably means that churchgoing is a more natural part of life for more people, unlike those from comprehensive schools and working or lower-middle class backgrounds who predominantly end up in other universities.

I know many public-school students go elsewhere, but only Oxbridge (and to an extent Durham) replicate the 'school chapel' ethos.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Probably something in that - I drifted away even from school chapel after the age of 15 or so and only got back into it (and indeed was confirmed) at the age of 21-22 when I was made to go to chapel again every week at Dartmouth. By the time I got to Oxford it was second nature.

Back on thread, I suppose UCCF and others are filling a gap, it's just quite often a gap that will only suit if what you want is bright and breezy evangelicalism (I generalise massively) IYSWIM. I would posit that it probably puts off as many as it attracts. If/where it's the only show in town (ie on smaller, isolated university campuses) that's potentially a sizeable problem. In the larger towns and cities much the less so.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

For what it's worth, I know of at least one CU that promoted and Aff. Cath. church with a female incumbent (alongside so much more markedly evangelical places), so they're not all narrow-mined about churchmanship.

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:

Tangent - is liberal religion more common in post-grads and extremism in undergrads then?

Probably. Or, at least there's more likely to be less diversity among the postgrads. Postgrads and academics are, by and large, the sort of people who, if they go to church, are likely to URC or liberal Anglican. They are similarly likely be members of the Labour, Liberal Democratic, or Green parties. Whereas a certain sort of undergraduate is bound to go off to a future in the City, the Conservative Party, and (if churchgoing) and one of the two Brompton flagships (according to taste).

That's obviously a grotesque caricature: not all postgrads are wet liberals, and certainly not all undergrads are raging conservatives; not all liberal Anglicans are politically leftish (David Cameron isn't, for instance) and not all Evangelicals or traditionalist Roman Catholics are politically conservative. But there are social groups at least some universities that match what I've described: Conservative Association, Christ Church Hunt (or Trinity Foot Beagles), and the Oxford Oratory (or the Tridentine Mass at Fisher House) on one hand; College chapel, feminist discussion group, and Labour society on the other. There's enough truth in the stereotype I'm making that anyone familiar with University life will recognize it. Of the two groups, the more liberal/left-leaning one is more likely to contain postgrads and academic staff.

Not all of the Labour party are wet liberals either! (Arguably the Labour party has less of a tendency for "glib phrases" and a greater value for testimony and practical results than the Lib Dems/Greens?) We had our fair share of leftist evangelicals too; I'd hardly call many of them "liberals" though, and I doubt they'd call themselves that either.

And as for liberal anglicans not being leftist, remnants of ken's Anglicanism-as-a-sort-of-Shinto persist in the independent schools and percolate into college chapels. It's dying but by no means dead yet.

Not all beaglers are conservative either; of our Masters of the Hunt in my time, one was a wet-tory-prayer-book-anglican-who-voted-labour - although he lurks on this chatroom, so I imagine he'll have more to say on the political gamut of beagling if he's reading this - one was one was a fairly by-the-book middle-class-liberal; the tho In my experience the beaglers I knew tended to be as tongue-in-cheek about our Conservatives as the man on the street.

Come to think of it, our college chapel had an oddly large number of beaglers, considering we're not a traditionally beagling college.

quote:
Anyway the reason my CU rocked was simple - the people genuinely loved and cared for each other.

Ours did too, especially in the grassroots. That doesn't mean it didn't have an insidious power structure. If I give the impression to the contrary, I certainly don't mean to.

quote:
I found the atmosphere at Oxford generally much more religion friendly, and always put this down to the fact that it is so fragmented around the various chapels and chaplaincies

And so the Christian faith is presented as disunited - no meaningful ecumenism. Also the black spot I mentioned earlier - liberal nonconformism.

quote:
The inflence of the CU at the Oxford Univesity level is so diluted as to be negligible, which to be quite honest I always saw as a definite plus.

That's rather college-dependant - at Wadham, RPC and SPC it's the main Christian organization. At Catz it may well be the only one. By contrast at Keble, Hertford and Trinity the college was very prominent in the Christian community.

quote:
I also had an instinct to keep away from self selecting groups like that on the same basis that as a non-smoker I didn't specify a non-smoking hall

Surely any religious group there is self-selecting?

quote:
Oxford has a high proportion of students from the public schools who will have been exposed to regular religion in their school chapels. Of course that will have inoculated many against it, but on balance it probably means that churchgoing is a more natural part of life for more people, unlike those from comprehensive schools and working or lower-middle class backgrounds who predominantly end up in other universities.

I have yet to meet anyone with anything good to say about (Anglican) public school chapel; most people whose religion endured it seem to look back on it negatively. It also seems to have resulted in a lot of people being confirmed who didn't believe anything, just because it was something you had to do going to that school.

Chapel, or whatever it is called there, and other Religious Instruction at Ampleforth seem to be more fondly remembered, for some reason.

quote:
Help ma Boab, I'm lost. Is this supposed to be Christianity? There's no hope. SUs chucking off CUs and vice versa, women can't speak petty infighting amongst groups. Get rid of them all. Christ's Body is the Church, not some poncy little organisation run by a bunch of spotty nineteen year olds. But I dont know my acronyms from my italicisms
, maybe best that I get down to my local gospel hall, I'm clearly not clever enough to be amongst the Bright Young Things of SOF, CU, CM, UCCF or FTWALOS.

Hmm, this is an awkward one - what is Christianity anyhow? Istm that in UCCF the answer is "The doctrinal basis, and unless you hold to it, you are not with us," And herein lies the problem - how do you dwell with those who refuse to dwell with you? How do you do "Ubi Caritas et Amor" when the love is refused? How do you break bread with those who do not wish to eat at the same table any way and would not dare to invite you to theirs without the express purpose of telling you to think like them? The problem with the UCCF is that there doctrine has trumped care; indeed the chief form of love seems to be doctrine in everything; doctrine in welcoming international students in a strange new land for the first time, doctrine in helping drunk people home from nightclubs...

You see, the ethos of contemporary liberalism is "you cannot get something for nothing" and "nobody is truly altruistic; nobody gives without expecting in return; love exists but on paper." And it is surely the business of the church to challenge that ethos, not to reinforce it.

quote:
As for NUS:
1) They are a political joke, and are no more representative of students as a whole than are the Christians.
2) SUs have a long and dishonourable history of using all means available to them to chuck CUs off campus. Whether they succeed seems to depend mostly on how long a leash the SU is given by the university hierarchy.

1. Maybe; but then I cannot possibly speak for FE students, or students of ex-polies, who may tend to hold those views more greatly than we do. But OUSU was largely un-representative, yep; typically those who didn't make the OULC cut. OUSU Charities and Community reps have been decent sorts though; a lot of them come up through London Citizens, the Jellicoe Community even.

As for WomCam, I knew a fair few of their organizers, and they were decidedly agreeable and welcoming if a bit doctrinaire and switched off if you said anything that challenged their paradigm - a bit like the CU types, I guess. They seem to have toned down a little over the past couple of years, to the joy of some and the chagrin of others. They published a decidedly incomprehensible zine with angsty poetry and other things,

2. There is a decided limit to what the OUSU can do as the only property they control is their own offices. Most meetings happen in individual colleges. The most powerful they could do is place them under advertizing ban, which means no mention in OUSU publications (freshers' guide, website society directory, alternative prospectus etc) and no Freshers' Fair stand. They will never do this, though.

The worst sort of "banning" in Oxford is the University witholding the right to use their name - the Oxford University Conservative Association has had to rename itself the "Oxford Conservative Association" on and off in my memory. Again, the University will never do this short of financial irregularity or debauchery and licentiousness, although they do insist on having a "senior member" on the committee.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I think scuffleball has highlighted something important about UCCF - what about when other groups want to do things with them, but UCCF refuse? I'm not even talking about interfaith stuff (although I really think UCCF should do more interfaith stuff) or social action, but just working with other Christian groups on campus and the chaplaincy. When CUs refuse to work with perfectly sound and mainstream chaplaincies....what can the rest of us do?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Scuffleball, absolutely take your point about self-selection, I suppose what I meant was the tendency of CUs at certain universities, eg my first one,to take over your life. I didn't want that, so I steered clear.

I think the influence or otherwise of the CU does Depend heavily on college, with wider groupings like the chaplaincy/oratory/Pusey House waxing and waning over time. This does look divided, but given the attendees are exercising choice, and all seem to be more or less sanctioned versions of Christianity, I'm not sure what the answer is.

Just on the beagling tangent, I've spent a happy half hour trying to work out who you have in mind with your examples..... Anyway, no names no pack drill.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think scuffleball has highlighted something important about UCCF - what about when other groups want to do things with them, but UCCF refuse? I'm not even talking about interfaith stuff (although I really think UCCF should do more interfaith stuff) or social action, but just working with other Christian groups on campus and the chaplaincy. When CUs refuse to work with perfectly sound and mainstream chaplaincies....what can the rest of us do?

Protecting the integrity of doctrine of the mission. TBH I've got a little more sympathy for this as I've watched the trainwrecks that some of my friends' faiths have become post-uni ... but only a little. There's also the institutional memory of what happened to the SCM, which drifted a very long way from its starting point. Another thing is that CUs can actually work with other groups if they like; whether they do or not seems to be a combination of the temperament of the staff worker, the temperament of the exec and the length of the leash between them.

You might find this history of CICCU interesting: a surprising amount of influence is ascribed to Basil Atkinson, who studied or worked at the university for around 50 years and became a trusted adviser to the CU within that time. He had some pretty unecumenical views apparently, and was able to push the CU quite a long way in that direction during his time.

[ 19. August 2013, 21:59: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

Protecting the integrity of doctrine of the mission. TBH I've got a little more sympathy for this as I've watched the trainwrecks that some of my friends' faiths have become post-uni ... but only a little. There's also the institutional memory of what happened to the SCM, which drifted a very long way from its starting point.

I'm not sure which point of view you are expressing sympathy for here?

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Just on the beagling tangent, I've spent a happy half hour trying to work out who you have in mind with your examples..... Anyway, no names no pack drill.

Which means I've probably rather misinterpreted the political views of the people in question then! What era were you around, mind? Unless... you're... wait... and now I'm trying to guess who /you/ are now too, but I think the "behind the dreaming spires" just about clinches it?

Here's a hint - neither were born in the UK, and thus you can probably already work out the college. But really I don't want to break a rule by outing someone on the ship in real life without their consent.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think scuffleball has highlighted something important about UCCF - what about when other groups want to do things with them, but UCCF refuse? I'm not even talking about interfaith stuff (although I really think UCCF should do more interfaith stuff) or social action, but just working with other Christian groups on campus and the chaplaincy. When CUs refuse to work with perfectly sound and mainstream chaplaincies....what can the rest of us do?
Protecting the integrity of doctrine of the mission. TBH I've got a little more sympathy for this as I've watched the trainwrecks that some of my friends' faiths have become post-uni ... but only a little. There's also the institutional memory of what happened to the SCM, which drifted a very long way from its starting point. Another thing is that CUs can actually work with other groups if they like; whether they do or not seems to be a combination of the temperament of the staff worker, the temperament of the exec and the length of the leash between them.

You might find this history of CICCU interesting: a surprising amount of influence is ascribed to Basil Atkinson, who studied or worked at the university for around 50 years and became a trusted adviser to the CU within that time. He had some pretty unecumenical views apparently, and was able to push the CU quite a long way in that direction during his time.

But then, working with other groups/the chaplaincy would benefit a lot of CUs in terms of mission. So what's the point in 'integrity of doctrine' if you're going to die off anyway? The CU at my uni is, as has been said, very conservative evangelical and cessationist. The obsession with doctrinal purity has resulted in a very unwelcoming atmosphere and as a result, the group haemorrhages members. It can't be the only one like this, although it's probably rarer than love-bombing charismatic CUs. In cases like the one at my uni, how could non-cooperation with other groups possibly benefit the CU?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

Protecting the integrity of doctrine of the mission. TBH I've got a little more sympathy for this as I've watched the trainwrecks that some of my friends' faiths have become post-uni ... but only a little. There's also the institutional memory of what happened to the SCM, which drifted a very long way from its starting point.
I'm not sure which point of view you are expressing sympathy for here?

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Just on the beagling tangent, I've spent a happy half hour trying to work out who you have in mind with your examples..... Anyway, no names no pack drill.
But really I don't want to break a rule by outing someone on the ship in real life without their consent.

Don't worry, completely agree, wasn't asking you to!

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

One piece of jargon that hasn't been explained yet is JCR. It stands for Junior Common Room, and in a collegiate university such as Oxford or Cambridge, is the location for (and by extension of meaning, the organisation that arranges) general social activites (rather than specific-interest activities) for the undergraduate members of a college.

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
... SOF, CU, CM, UCCF or FTWALOS.

I can think of a number of phrases that could be expanded from the last initialism, but not one that fits in context. Any chance of an explanation?
Angus

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No idea what FTWALOS means but at the risk of being mildly pedantic, at Cambridge it's Junior Combination Room rather than Common Room. But it's essentially the same thing.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No idea what FTWALOS means but at the risk of being mildly pedantic, at Cambridge it's Junior Combination Room rather than Common Room. But it's essentially the same thing.

Thanks Albertus, I'll file that away in Absolutely Useless Knowledge (AUK).

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No idea what FTWALOS means but at the risk of being mildly pedantic, at Cambridge it's Junior Combination Room rather than Common Room. But it's essentially the same thing.
Thanks Albertus, I'll file that away in Absolutely Useless Knowledge (AUK).

AUK is Audax UK, the long distance cyclists' association [Razz]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No idea what FTWALOS means but at the risk of being mildly pedantic, at Cambridge it's Junior Combination Room rather than Common Room. But it's essentially the same thing.
Thanks Albertus, I'll file that away in Absolutely Useless Knowledge (AUK).

My pleasure. You can also add that Cambridge has courts rather than quads and supervisions rather than (academic) tutorials.
I'm guessing, by the way, that WALOS means With A Lot of Students. But FT? Fundamentalist Tabernacle? Frilly Tatshop, moving up the candle there?

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No idea what FTWALOS means but at the risk of being mildly pedantic, at Cambridge it's Junior Combination Room rather than Common Room. But it's essentially the same thing.
Thanks Albertus, I'll file that away in Absolutely Useless Knowledge (AUK).
My pleasure. You can also add that Cambridge has courts rather than quads and supervisions rather than (academic) tutorials.
I'm guessing, by the way, that WALOS means With A Lot of Students. But FT? Fundamentalist Tabernacle? Frilly Tatshop, moving up the candle there?

FTWALOS? It can mean what you want it to mean. I was using it as Further Tutoring Wanted As Lots Obviously Supposed.

On the other hand, some might use it to mean: F##k This, What A Load of S###e.

Acronyms, sorry italicisms, are so very flexible. They can mean whatever the user/reader wants them to mean. They just don't enlighten very much, except those in the know. Which is why, I suspect, that our Bright Young Things on here just love to use them.

IWAASM

[ 20. August 2013, 17:24: Message edited by: would love to belong ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No idea what FTWALOS means but at the risk of being mildly pedantic, at Cambridge it's Junior Combination Room rather than Common Room. But it's essentially the same thing.
Thanks Albertus, I'll file that away in Absolutely Useless Knowledge (AUK).
My pleasure. You can also add that Cambridge has courts rather than quads and supervisions rather than (academic) tutorials.
I'm guessing, by the way, that WALOS means With A Lot of Students. But FT? Fundamentalist Tabernacle? Frilly Tatshop, moving up the candle there?
FTWALOS? It can mean what you want it to mean. I was using it as Further Tutoring Wanted As Lots Obviously Supposed.

On the other hand, some might use it to mean: F##k This, What A Load of S###e.

Acronyms, sorry italicisms, are so very flexible. They can mean whatever the user/reader wants them to mean. They just don't enlighten very much, except those in the know. Which is why, I suspect, that our Bright Young Things on here just love to use them.

IWAASM

No, initialisms (not italicisms - that would surely mean writing in italics?) are just used to abbreviate long names - like the Student Christian Movement, the University & Colleges Christian Federation, Ship of Fools etc. There are people on here of your age who use them and other initialisms so I'm not sure why you think it's just me and other younger board members trying to impose the use of abbreviations on everyone? Most of the board members on here are aged 40 or over, I would guess. I mean, do you never talk about the BBC or the RSPCA? They're initialisms.

Anyway, this is off-topic. If there's an abbreviation you're not sure about, ask the person who used it - I didn't know the Oxford terms after all. It's not people trying to exclude you, people are just using the terms they're used to.

[ 20. August 2013, 23:08: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Fascinating. Thanks for catching me up with the last half century. This morning, and before reading this thread this evening, I decided I really ought to be praying for the IFES (the international body of UCCF's as it were). Having read the anecdotal evidence above, I shall now add UCCF to my prayer list as well.

In my own experience OICCU was a vital staging post on the Christian journey. I arrived at college, newly converted in a tin tabernacle, with a conviction that the Bible was completely literal, that churches had utterly failed to spread the Good News, and that there were only 4 Christians in Italy, etc. etc. Providentially the OICCU representative (and only member at the time in my college) had a room adjacent to mine, and my first experience of Church, after the tin tabernacle, was fellowship with him and others over Bible Study, for which there was no party line - and indeed no question to answer except 'what does this passage from Mark mean to you?' It was much later that the college Chaplain, a High Church liberal, managed to to convince me he didn't have horns, and coaxed me along to the college chapel.

I have, hopefully, mellowed since then. Except over the issue of Evangelism: I still believe that churches have failed to spread the Good News. I'm pleasantly surprised that my own Church of England diocese has suddenly decided that Evangelism is a good thing, though I fear this discovery may be 50 years too late - in preserving the Church of England.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No idea what FTWALOS means but at the risk of being mildly pedantic, at Cambridge it's Junior Combination Room rather than Common Room. But it's essentially the same thing.
Thanks Albertus, I'll file that away in Absolutely Useless Knowledge (AUK).
My pleasure. You can also add that Cambridge has courts rather than quads and supervisions rather than (academic) tutorials.
I'm guessing, by the way, that WALOS means With A Lot of Students. But FT? Fundamentalist Tabernacle? Frilly Tatshop, moving up the candle there?
FTWALOS? It can mean what you want it to mean. I was using it as Further Tutoring Wanted As Lots Obviously Supposed.

On the other hand, some might use it to mean: F##k This, What A Load of S###e.

Acronyms, sorry italicisms, are so very flexible. They can mean whatever the user/reader wants them to mean. They just don't enlighten very much, except those in the know. Which is why, I suspect, that our Bright Young Things on here just love to use them.

IWAASM
No, initialisms (not italicisms - that would surely mean writing in italics?) are just used to abbreviate long names - like the Student Christian Movement, the University & Colleges Christian Federation, Ship of Fools etc. There are people on here of your age who use them and other initialisms so I'm not sure why you think it's just me and other younger board members trying to impose the use of abbreviations on everyone? Most of the board members on here are aged 40 or over, I would guess. I mean, do you never talk about the BBC or the RSPCA? They're initialisms.

Anyway, this is off-topic. If there's an abbreviation you're not sure about, ask the person who used it - I didn't know the Oxford terms after all. It's not people trying to exclude you, people are just using the terms they're used to.

quote:

Jade, you better explain that BBC one to me.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

The BBC as in the British Broadcasting Corporation? [Confused]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Bloody Boring Content?

Or, is that just The Archers? (ducks for cover)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Of course it's not. It's You and Yours and Quote Unquote as well.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
University & Colleges Christian Federation

*Fellowship

You know, like FellowShip of Fools [Devil]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
University & Colleges Christian Federation
*Fellowship

You know, like FellowShip of Fools

Duly noted! I knew it was University & Colleges Christian something and just guessed the F [Big Grin]

Speaking of fellowship though, how emphasised is this in other people's experiences of CUs? In the CU at my uni, they don't even have socials for freshers, there are no social or fellowship activities at all. How normal is this?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
University & Colleges Christian Federation
*Fellowship

You know, like FellowShip of Fools

Duly noted! I knew it was University & Colleges Christian something and just guessed the F [Big Grin]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Speaking of fellowship though, how emphasised is this in other people's experiences of CUs? In the CU at my uni, they don't even have socials for freshers, there are no social or fellowship activities at all. How normal is this?

Fellowship is usually emphasised in terms of coming together to worship and study God and Christ. Rather than just "social activities".

At my uni, there weren't many social events organised centrally. The Hall Groups always had some social events organised for their hall at the start of the year; usually an "open room" where one of the leaders used their room and there was tea, coffee, juice, cake etc and people mingled and chatted as they wanted. Halls, and often Union buildings, rarely have spaces suitable for people to have a social that isn't a bar. Other rooms are usually either too big (though good for main meetings, with speakers and worship band etc) or hidden away in a back corridor where poor Freshers are never going to find them.

Of course, main meetings were followed by those wanting to hang around having a talk and chat, and in the first few weeks at least it wouldn't be unusual for someone to bring allow some biscuits or cake. And, people pretty soon found out who was likely to go to the Hall bar or local pub for an orange juice and joined in. May CU members ended up sharing houses, with associated fellowship. And, there was always the house party.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Speaking of fellowship though, how emphasised is this in other people's experiences of CUs? In the CU at my uni, they don't even have socials for freshers, there are no social or fellowship activities at all. How normal is this?
Fellowship is usually emphasised in terms of coming together to worship and study God and Christ. Rather than just "social activities".

At my uni, there weren't many social events organised centrally. The Hall Groups always had some social events organised for their hall at the start of the year; usually an "open room" where one of the leaders used their room and there was tea, coffee, juice, cake etc and people mingled and chatted as they wanted. Halls, and often Union buildings, rarely have spaces suitable for people to have a social that isn't a bar. Other rooms are usually either too big (though good for main meetings, with speakers and worship band etc) or hidden away in a back corridor where poor Freshers are never going to find them.

Of course, main meetings were followed by those wanting to hang around having a talk and chat, and in the first few weeks at least it wouldn't be unusual for someone to bring allow some biscuits or cake. And, people pretty soon found out who was likely to go to the Hall bar or local pub for an orange juice and joined in. May CU members ended up sharing houses, with associated fellowship. And, there was always the house party.

But...how are people going to be encouraged to join the CU, or feel welcome? And at my uni, the CU doesn't have Hall groups.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, we never encouraged anyone to join the ECU. Just come along to as many, or as few, meetings as they wanted. We wanted people to be committed to Christ, and live out that committment in their lives as students. Many found ECU membership to be something that allowed them to express that commitment in more concrete terms, others didn't feel that step to be necessary, many found a commitment to a local church to be of benefit too. Some even came regularly to ECU meetings while making their commitment to Christ through membership of one of the chaplaincy groups (who depended on formal members to secure funds from the Students Union and access to SU facilities - the ECU never sought SU funds and used non-SU facilities most of the time).

Feeling welcome was almost always through individuals and small groups, and over an extended period of time. It has to be, doesn't it? Having a social event to welcome people doesn't really cut it. It just provides space for people to get lost in the corners, and for older students to think "we've had the party welcoming people, we don't need to do any more" (though most wouldn't). Welcome has to be part of every event, throughout the year, and that has to be mainly through individuals getting to know new people and helping them get to know others.

Besides, the theory was that we'd have a constant stream of new people as our witness on the campus drew people to Christ (and, not by poaching from the Chaplaincies). It never quite happened that way, but you couldn't put all your welcome eggs in the first meeting of the year basket.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I see your point about the small groups, and think that is probably where the CU at my uni goes wrong. There are no small groups to build relationships with people, it's just an hour of being talked at. I attended meetings when I first started uni and if my two friends from the chaplaincy weren't there (one was a postgrad student and one is on the CoE Youth Council so was often away on church business), nobody would speak to me. Literally nobody, right from the start. I've never been in such a cold, spiritually-dead (and I'm no charismatic and don't usually think in those terms) environment in my Christian life.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I see your point about the small groups, and think that is probably where the CU at my uni goes wrong. There are no small groups to build relationships with people, it's just an hour of being talked at. I attended meetings when I first started uni and if my two friends from the chaplaincy weren't there (one was a postgrad student and one is on the CoE Youth Council so was often away on church business), nobody would speak to me. Literally nobody, right from the start. I've never been in such a cold, spiritually-dead (and I'm no charismatic and don't usually think in those terms) environment in my Christian life.

Jade that is really sad, and totally indefensible behaviour from any group of Christians. I am really sorry.
[Frown]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I entirely agree with Lep. The life blood, IMO, of a CU is the small groups. Especially in the first year. That's where the friendships that provide the fellowship and support from peers comes from. CU members do also need fellowship & support from others, which is where local churches play an essential role - providing they are churches for all, and don't end up with services that only cater for students (and, maybe a few recent graduates). The main meetings form a part of the whole CU thing; but despite the name they shouldn't be the primary activity of the CU ... if there needs be a choice between small groups and main meetings, I'd drop the main meeting in a flash (not, I hope, that such a decision ever needs to be made). The absence of small groups is a situation that the CU leadership, with support from UCCF staff workers and others, should be addressing urgently.

Being ignored in a main meeting is even worse. But, without the small group network it becomes all to easy to happen. You'll find the same in churches; people don't meet up during the week, so Sunday becomes a time to catch up with people they know and it's easy (especially in a larger church) for people to be missed out. Have that small group network in place and then, IMO, the chances of someone not feeling the need to spend a long time with people they saw a day or two earlier and keeping an eye open on anyone being left out are better. No guarantees, of course.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

There are Bible studies weekly, but they come with set answers so not really real studies? And they get dropped every couple of weeks so the CU can do mission stuff like Text A Treat. Basically all the content of CU meetings and everything else they do revolves around mission events with no building up of the CU members.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It may reflect size of CU (though, for a while ours was smaller with ~30 people), possibly how much time students have available, but that's very different from my experience.

Hall groups were Bible Study groups, but the format was 10 mins or so chat before settling into maybe an hour discussing the text (chosen by the group leaders, who prepared some background notes to help get discussion moving if needed), a time of prayer (maybe sing a song or two, depending on the abilities of the group to sing unaccompanied or if someone could pluck a few chords on a guitar). Then, the kettle would go on, the biscuits come out (toast seemed to work well too) and people would talk abuot whatever until the leader who was giving up their room would say "sorry, I've a lecture at 9.30 and would like more than 2h sleep first". Prepared questions might make things easier for busy students, preparing a Bible study takes longer than actually leading it (a bit like preparing a sermon really). A set of "correct answers" seems antithical to a discussion group though, very strange - it's somethign I wouldn't expect to work fro pre-teen Sunday School let alone intelligent university students learning to question everything (and, usually, in the questioning building a far firmer knowledge than merely being told facts).

Main meetings were mostly aimed at teaching, supporting existing members, worship. Yes, a couple of times a term they'd be specifically aimed at being more accessible to non-Christians (they were termed "evangelistic") and people encouraged to invite friends to those evenings specifically. We also organised door-to-door evangelism and street preaching on the steps of the Student Union. And, of course, the big mission week every couple of years. The aims of the ECU were very much 1) to enable spiritual growth of Christian students, 2) to support individual students to witness to their faith and 3) be a corporate witness to Christ on the campus. If a CU only aims at 3) then it's going to collapse - it needs the tripod of all three to be healthy.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Speaking of fellowship though, how emphasised is this in other people's experiences of CUs? In the CU at my uni, they don't even have socials for freshers, there are no social or fellowship activities at all. How normal is this?

Er yes, Jade, they do. As well as holding small group meetings.

Suggest you look at their website.

Or, doesn't this fit with your anti UCCF thesis? I rather smell another agenda here to portray Northampton - church life and university - as somewhere and something it isn't. I lived/worked there is church/non church contexts for 10 + years and still have many friends and contacts there. It's clearly your POV of the town and university but it just doesn't ring true.

[ 22. August 2013, 07:28: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Speaking personally, I felt very excluded from CU because I didn't attend the 'right' church and felt like the CU was missing the point in terms of mission
You should try being the token evangelical at an SCM meeting: officially excluding anyone is unnecessary when sniffy condescension will do the trick just as effectively.
Can be true IME of "Sea of Faith" meetings as well.

The people I meet at Sea of Faith conferences often turn out to be old SCM members from 50-60 years back (but then there's F****, who was president of the other option, the Evangelical Union, in my day). I have been told that the NZ Sea of Faith is somewhat different from the UK one. I'm not clear about the details: could it be that a show of hands at conference indicates that about 70% are involved/active in churches.
Neither do I know what other organisations are active in our universities, but a younger graduate (40+) is one of a handful trying to revitalise the local SCM. She urges us older ones to come along but we tend to be otherwise engaged, not deliberately, but wishing her well inn her efforts.

GG

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Speaking of fellowship though, how emphasised is this in other people's experiences of CUs? In the CU at my uni, they don't even have socials for freshers, there are no social or fellowship activities at all. How normal is this?
Er yes, Jade, they do. As well as holding small group meetings.

Suggest you look at their website.

Or, doesn't this fit with your anti UCCF thesis? I rather smell another agenda here to portray Northampton - church life and university - as somewhere and something it isn't. I lived/worked there is church/non church contexts for 10 + years and still have many friends and contacts there. It's clearly your POV of the town and university but it just doesn't ring true.

I'm not anti-UCCF - I disagree with them but I don't want to destroy them! Even UCCF promoting socials and small groups doesn't mean that my uni's CU automatically has them, because they don't. I attended CU meetings for most of my first year at uni and my best friend at uni was Vice President, I know what happened. I've been to other CUs (Chichester, Kent, Brighton, the CU at my FE college) that behave very differently, and enjoyed my experiences of them.

Sorry, but why are you accusing me of lying? [Confused]

When I started uni I was looking forward to being in the CU, but having LITERALLY NOBODY SPEAK TO ME during meetings will kind of put you off. Other things happened with the group leadership. I go to my own church in Northampton but have no issue with the other churches there, bar a couple of extreme examples. Northampton uni has a multi-faith chaplaincy so there are people from most denominations there and I got on with them fine. Sorry but why does an example of a CU acting badly mean I'm lying? Other people here have brought up examples of other CUs behaving badly. It happens. There are good CUs and bad CUs, and might I add, good SCM groups and bad SCM groups (I am only an individual SCM member btw, there is no group at Northampton).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm assuming ExclamationMark Googled the Northampton CU site, and found the events page where it quite clearly has a "pub social" for Freshers Week this year. Though, it could easily be the first time they've ever done that and your experience of "no social events" is accurate.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The description of the CU doesn't fit with what I know of it. It also wasn't my experience when I lived in Northants and worked a couple of miles away from the University.

As they didn't make you welcome - well, they should certainly be ashamed of that. Did you take it up with them directly - I would?

It's true IME that CU's seem to run in cycles and Northampton may now be in con evo, anti women one now. Yep Duke Street may be the preferred location but not long ago it was Mount Pleasant, St Giles and/or Broadmead. It's hardly likely to recommend churches whose take on issues of morality and sexuality conflict with its own statement of faith.

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

It does seem that they have small groups, too, from their website.

That said, I accept your experiences. I recall having the same at my CU (UCL) back in the day. Noone talked to me then.

But looking back, I'm fairly clear that wasn't a CU issue: that was an issue with new, shy students. I was probably visibly shy, as were they, but they already had friends, and its easier to talk to friends than a shy newbie, particularly when there are many other newbies to talk to! I guess the CU would like to have done things differently, but we all suffer lapses.

I know this, because when I got to know them, I realised that they had been shy. The problem is, CU often know how to put on quite a cool shiny image, but they're still ultimately a bunch of shy students.

After a couple of years, I went to the more liberal Catholic Society. And they didn't talk to me either! Because they were shy. But by this point I wasn't shy, so I went up and talked to them instead [Big Grin]

Or, the people at your CU might be deliberately unfriendly. But IME, despite my paranoid brain, its very rare that people deliberately do not want to be friendly. It can just be a scary thing to go up to new people!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Speaking of fellowship though, how emphasised is this in other people's experiences of CUs? In the CU at my uni, they don't even have socials for freshers, there are no social or fellowship activities at all. How normal is this?
Er yes, Jade, they do. As well as holding small group meetings.

Suggest you look at their website.

Or, doesn't this fit with your anti UCCF thesis? I rather smell another agenda here to portray Northampton - church life and university - as somewhere and something it isn't. I lived/worked there is church/non church contexts for 10 + years and still have many friends and contacts there. It's clearly your POV of the town and university but it just doesn't ring true.
I'm not anti-UCCF - I disagree with them but I don't want to destroy them! Even UCCF promoting socials and small groups doesn't mean that my uni's CU automatically has them, because they don't. I attended CU meetings for most of my first year at uni and my best friend at uni was Vice President, I know what happened. I've been to other CUs (Chichester, Kent, Brighton, the CU at my FE college) that behave very differently, and enjoyed my experiences of them.

Sorry, but why are you accusing me of lying? When I started uni I was looking forward to being in the CU, but having LITERALLY NOBODY SPEAK TO ME during meetings will kind of put you off. Other things happened with the group leadership. I go to my own church in Northampton but have no issue with the other churches there, bar a couple of extreme examples. Northampton uni has a multi-faith chaplaincy so there are people from most denominations there and I got on with them fine. Sorry but why does an example of a CU acting badly mean I'm lying? Other people here have brought up examples of other CUs behaving badly. It happens. There are good CUs and bad CUs, and might I add, good SCM groups and bad SCM groups (I am only an individual SCM member btw, there is no group at Northampton).

Sorry Jade - I didn't mean to accuse you of lying. I suppose I was trying to make a point - and have done so badly by highlighting the fact that we see the local situation in very different ways.

I can't and won't deny that the CU has hurt you. They shouldn't have done it and unless someone takes them to task then they won't change if that's what the people or the ethos is like.

Apologies if I have piled anything on top of all that by my response.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
It does seem that they have small groups, too, from their website.

The presence of small groups has been acknowledged ... just that rather than being discussion groups they have set answers. To be honest, I've no idea how the dynamic of such a group works. One leader asks the questions, the other gives the answer and the people in the room listen to this dialogue [Confused]

But my experience of small groups is entirely where there may not even be a question asked by the leaders, with everyone chipping in as they want to (the task of the leader then becomes one of stopping the person with the big mouth dominating, and encouraging the quiet people to have their say).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
]The presence of small groups has been acknowledged ... just that rather than being discussion groups they have set answers. To be honest, I've no idea how the dynamic of such a group works.

Short answer, from my memory of such things: the leader asks the question. A few tentative answers are given. If none of them are correct, the leader subtly asks a leading question. If this fails to elicit the correct answer, the leader asks a blatant leading question, or says, this is what I think. (In many groups, stage two is omitted; these are students.)

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

Oh yes. Dafyd's description was also my experience!

Still found them helpful though: its useful to get perspectives, even if one keeps ones own counsel as to what you actually think. It also means I'll never be nervous about praying in groups again..

And IME most groups will try to do fellowship things, bbqs in summer, we had icecream in Leicester Sq :-), good days. Although I didn't agree with the small group leaders, I didn't feel that conflicted me from fellowshipping with them.

[ 22. August 2013, 11:10: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

This is way out of me experience, but I won't let that stop me commenting and being shot down. I was at Glasgow University in the mid 70s and never ventured near the CU (if there was such a thing back then there) or indeed any other Christian organisation except the RCC chaplaincy. By way of explanation I was brought up as a nominal Protestant (Presbyterian) and back then west central Scotland was divided on sectarian lines and I literally did not know any RCs until university when I fell in with a bunch of RCs who were fun people and a delight to hang out with. I attended mass on seversl occasions at Turnbull Hall, as it was then called (dont know what it is now). I went not because I was interested in the faith but because by new pals seemed to enjoy their (to me) exotic religious practices.
I think Jade is right, a lot of these evangelical groupings are distinctly unfriendly to outsiders (I never met with anything but open and joyful friendliness at the university catholic chaplaincy, and no attempt was made to convert me).

quote:

[ 22. August 2013, 11:35: Message edited by: would love to belong ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
I think Jade is right, a lot of these evangelical groupings are distinctly unfriendly to outsiders

I suspect it's an "occupational hazard". With an evangelistic aim, there is a danger of seeing people you don't know as potential new converts (which, sadly, often includes converts from a different version of Christian faith). The initial conversation can then very quickly move through the "name, course, home town" to "do you accept the total depravity of the human soul?". Which can be very unfriendly*, and incredibly counter productive in terms of evangelism (IMO).

* except to people who fall well within that section of evangelicalism and immediately respond "Thank God! Someone else who cares about the total depravity of the human soul".

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
I think Jade is right, a lot of these evangelical groupings are distinctly unfriendly to outsiders
I suspect it's an "occupational hazard". With an evangelistic aim, there is a danger of seeing people you don't know as potential new converts (which, sadly, often includes converts from a different version of Christian faith). The initial conversation can then very quickly move through the "name, course, home town" to "do you accept the total depravity of the human soul?". Which can be very unfriendly*, and incredibly counter productive in terms of evangelism (IMO).

* except to people who fall well within that section of evangelicalism and immediately respond "Thank God! Someone else who cares about the total depravity of the human soul".

The ECU when I was at uni skipped the "name, course, home town" when speaking to folk on the (adjacent) Pagan Society stall at freshers' Fair to quickly check that "you do know you're going to hell, don't you?"

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The person given the task of arranging stalls at Freshers Fair usually had a good laugh. "Hmmmm, who can we put the CU next to this year to make them really uncomfortable?". Right next to the loudest, loud speaker was always popular. Next to the LGBT society was usually ruled out, because the LGBT people started screaming about persecution. The Islamic Soc and Atheists always seemed popular. The imaginative, or just bit more aware, realised that right next to the Joint Chaplaincy stall (under that same loud speaker, of course) was likely to cause the most consternation among the conservative members of ECU.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The roleplaying society is always a good bet, with some nice, prominent D&D books. I always found it funny to imagine the reaction of those evangelicals who freak out over D&D if they ever encounter Unknown Armies or Call of Cthulu.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

This sounds like a Circus game ...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The description of the CU doesn't fit with what I know of it. It also wasn't my experience when I lived in Northants and worked a couple of miles away from the University.

As they didn't make you welcome - well, they should certainly be ashamed of that. Did you take it up with them directly - I would?

It's true IME that CU's seem to run in cycles and Northampton may now be in con evo, anti women one now. Yep Duke Street may be the preferred location but not long ago it was Mount Pleasant, St Giles and/or Broadmead. It's hardly likely to recommend churches whose take on issues of morality and sexuality conflict with its own statement of faith.

I don't think the CU is actually anti-women - they've still got women on the leadership team. And Duke Street is not the preferred church at the moment, it's Reynard Way (it was Kingdom Life before that) with a few people at Vineyard (I like the Vineyard pastor very much as it happens). St Giles doesn't get a look in due to the distance between it and Park Campus (and in fairness was in interregnum for most of last academic year). I was never under the impression that the CU would agree with me on everything - I knew it was going to be evangelical - but I did still want to make new Christian friends even if I disagreed with them. Actually none of the issues I disagreed with people on were sexuality/morality-related, it was the strongly cessationist atmosphere (I'm not charismatic but also not cessationist....I like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) and that the only thing ever discussed was mission, with no building up of each other.

I haven't seen the schedule for the 13/14 academic year, there was definitely no pub social last year. If that's on the schedule then that's a great thing.

I did take the lack of welcome up with leadership (my VP friend couldn't help due to issues with the rest of the leadership team) but was pretty much told 'that's not what we're here for'. The leadership team has changed since then though, so things may well improve. It should do, since the CU at Northampton haemorrhages members.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
This is way out of me experience, but I won't let that stop me commenting and being shot down. I was at Glasgow University in the mid 70s and never ventured near the CU (if there was such a thing back then there) or indeed any other Christian organisation except the RCC chaplaincy. By way of explanation I was brought up as a nominal Protestant (Presbyterian) and back then west central Scotland was divided on sectarian lines and I literally did not know any RCs until university when I fell in with a bunch of RCs who were fun people and a delight to hang out with. I attended mass on seversl occasions at Turnbull Hall, as it was then called (dont know what it is now). I went not because I was interested in the faith but because by new pals seemed to enjoy their (to me) exotic religious practices.
I think Jade is right, a lot of these evangelical groupings are distinctly unfriendly to outsiders (I never met with anything but open and joyful friendliness at the university catholic chaplaincy, and no attempt was made to convert me).
quote:

Actually most CUs I've come across (when I've been at interviews or open days at various universities, or visiting with friends) have been incredibly friendly. Maybe a charismatic v conservative thing? But then, of course, sometimes that big extrovert friendliness can be off-putting in itself! Certainly, a CU not being friendly was very surprising to me, it wasn't my first encounter with Christian Unions.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0