Ship of Fools: Headship argument - is it gaining support?

Thread: Headship argument - is it gaining support? 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=028671

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

After the infamous women bishops' debate, Susie Leafe, a member of the house of laity said she voted against because she didn't believe women should have authority over men in the church, because the church is like a family, and Paul said the man is the head of a family. In an interview on BBC4 that evening, she asserted that in her church, headship was preached and subscribed to, and her church was growing. She also complained that while the FinFs have flying bishops, or even diocesans who agree with them, there are no anti-women bishops who hold the line on headship grounds.

Leaving aside the honkingly-large non sequitur of the church really not being the same as a family, I am wondering about her assertion that more people are coming round to the headship argument, believing that a woman can't be in charge in family or church.

Her church may be growing, but does that really mean all the people who go agree with this specific point? Perhaps they're there for the rest of the preaching and the music. I know there was a petition of 2000-odd women saying so, but is it really a growing sector of the church population?

I find it interesting because I spent two years singing in the choir of a certain well-known FinF church in Brighton, and indeed was married there. Anyone who saw me in the choir - a woman in her early 20's, cheerfully involved in the church's life - may well have assumed I agreed with the church's position. But I didn't. In fact, I'm now ordained.

So what are shipmates' experience? Are there more headship-devotees every time you look? Or are there still the same ones, just getting noisier?

[ 22. November 2012, 13:37: Message edited by: Panda ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Only anecdotally I'm afraid. Not in my own church, no, but then I wouldn't expect to hear it there as we are not an evangelical church, and I think this particular view remains the province of a certain strain of evangelicalism, doesn't it?

Though I do think there is plenty of reason to say that church is a form of family, so the analogy is not wrong - simply that the headship discussion means something else. However, this one's not about what I think.

I've heard it crop up a couple of times from people who go to a couple of the neighbouring evangelical parishes, which did surprise me as they are definitely at the open end of things. I assume they were speaking from personal conviction rather than anything taught there, as I know the clergy.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Susie Leafe, a member of the house of laity said she voted against because she didn't believe women should have authority over men in the church, because the church is like a family, and Paul said the man is the head of a family.

The church is like a family? Let me see ... always arguing, frequently abusive, and some members won't sit down to eat with others.

Yep. Good analogy.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I understand this issue is a factor in the Sydney misogyny.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

I would say that in certain circles "male headship" has become a shibboleth, and attitudes in its favour have hardened over the last 20 years, perhaps. Some of the products of one or two theological colleges are coming out thoroughly indoctrinated in its favour. Some of the churches which ascribe to this are growing.

On the other hand, the Bishop of Liverpool, an evangelical, in the Synod debate specifically described his change of understanding about "headship".

In addition, a friend who was at the New Wine summer conference at Newark heard John Cole, the head of the New Wine organization, coming out strongly in favour of female Bishops. For those who don't know, New Wine is a largely Anglican, charismatic-evangelical network. It appears to be much more extensive than the churches related to 'Reform', who are one of the main conservative evangelical Anglican organizations.

So, growth does not mean that even the proportion of evangelical Anglicans who hold to "headship" is growing.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

Assuming for a moment that it is true, my guess is that individual parishes which teach this may be growing because people with this point of view on an individual basis are feeling less and less comfortable elsewhere, and so they perhaps flock to the few places where their point of view is not merely tolerated but encouraged.

At least I hope that is the case.

I wonder if, the NUMBER of such parishes is growing, shrinking, or not changing more than the average.

Even in my Orthodox Parish, where clearly roles for men and women are very different, amd women are not permitted to be clergy, the stated reason is never, in my experience, one of "headship". It may be the issue under the surface, but it is certainly not what is talked about when the issue comes up.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

IME, con-evo congregations are pretty transient - people are attracted to them in quite large numbers but don't stay there. Part of this is probably due to the fact that many evangelicals who attend Anglican churches are happy attending other evangelical churches. Also, liberal congregations aren't any more appealing to the general public, they just meet secular society's standards for basic decency. Those who don't believe in male headship don't have to go to church to be around others who believe the same way, but those who do believe in male headship do.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Erm... Not quite.

In my Evo shack there is a lot of talk about "the church family" honkingly-large non sequitur though it may be. But we don't so so far as the headship thing.

We're talking Con Evos here, so as they put the authority of the Bible above all, excuse me while I proof text.

Anyway, I blame Calvin.

quote:
John Calvin's commentary on Colossians:
He commands wives to be subject. This is clear, but what follows is of doubtful signification -- as it is fit in the Lord. For some connect it thus -- "Be subject in the Lord, as it is fit." I, however, view it rather differently, -- As it is fit in the Lord, that is, according to the appointment of the Lord, so that he confirms the subjection of wives by the authority of God.

Calvin's take on Col 3:18* is that a wife is subject to her husband - though the does admit that the meaning of the verse is not clear, of doubtful significance, and that there is another way of understanding the verse.

Wives should be subject because God says so.
or
Wives should be subject in things that are fitting, other things don't apply.
Both meaning are possible.

In short, the headship idea is imposing one meaning only to a Bible verse whose meaning is uncertain, then imposing that meaning, about personal relationships, onto church structures. It's wrong in at least two ways.

* Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.

But is it on the increase?

Actually, this raises the interesting question in my mind of whether it's likely that such a theological gloss could see an upturn in popularity and particularly visibility, as a result of the attitudes it implies being socially unacceptable in general. In short, could it be that male chauvinists are starting to find that they're only taken seriously if they redefine their attitudes as a belief in male headship?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.
But is it on the increase?

Actually, this raises the interesting question in my mind of whether it's likely that such a theological gloss could see an upturn in popularity and particularly visibility, as a result of the attitudes it implies being socially unacceptable in general. In short, could it be that male chauvinists are starting to find that they're only taken seriously if they redefine their attitudes as a belief in male headship?

I wouldn't want to cast nasturtiums.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Her church may be growing, but does that really mean all the people who go agree with this specific point? Perhaps they're there for the rest of the preaching and the music. I know there was a petition of 2000-odd women saying so, but is it really a growing sector of the church population?

I find it interesting because I spent two years singing in the choir of a certain well-known FinF church in Brighton, and indeed was married there. Anyone who saw me in the choir - a woman in her early 20's, cheerfully involved in the church's life - may well have assumed I agreed with the church's position. But I didn't. In fact, I'm now ordained.

I don't want to derail the thread, but the interesting question to me is why a 'headship' church should attract people with its 'preaching and music' whereas those churches with a more respectable theology don't manage to attract people with the same means.

In other words, why should it be necessary to attend a 'headship' church if you just want a good choir and a cheerful environment?

What you say suggests that even if the wider church disapproves of the 'headship' stuff, it can't really kick up too much of a fuss because those are the churches that nurture or generate future generations of (mainstream) ordained clergy....

It must be a double-edged sword.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I've never heard of this in any church except the Mormons, certainly never in Anglican or Episcopal ones (including those who have been anti-women's ordination).

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I may be way off-mark here, but I can't see how a 'headship' argument could be adduced in arguments about bishops / priests / ministers anyway. It's Christ who's the head of the Church. The bishop most emphatically isn't. S/he's not even a servant. S/he's the servants' servant.

Does the whole thing gain its spurious legitimacy from the monstrously wrong "bishop = CEO" thinking that we've seen so much of in the media recently?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I may be way off-mark here, but I can't see how a 'headship' argument could be adduced in arguments about bishops / priests / ministers anyway. It's Christ who's the head of the Church. The bishop most emphatically isn't. S/he's not even a servant. S/he's the servants' servant.

Does the whole thing gain its spurious legitimacy from the monstrously wrong "bishop = CEO" thinking that we've seen so much of in the media recently?

I think the argument goes (after Paul) man head of woman --> woman shouldn't have authority --> woman can't teach men --> woman can't be pastor/priest --> woman cant be bishop.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Just a theological gloss for "male chauvinism" if you ask me.
But is it on the increase?

Actually, this raises the interesting question in my mind of whether it's likely that such a theological gloss could see an upturn in popularity and particularly visibility, as a result of the attitudes it implies being socially unacceptable in general. In short, could it be that male chauvinists are starting to find that they're only taken seriously if they redefine their attitudes as a belief in male headship?
I wouldn't want to cast nasturtiums.

Come on, you already have! I think there's an interesting hypothesis in there, but maybe it's more blog fodder.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Alright, don't want to cast even more obvious ones [Biased]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

This is one of the lesser known Dead Horse subjects and has been started on the wrong board. I'm leaving this note here for the Purg hosts as this one is sometimes forgotten.

Louise
Dead Horses Host

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Aha !

Saddle-up...

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I think there's a fair amount of support for "headship" in both families and conservative churches in the U.S. I doubt that it's growing, though; there's at least equal -- well, not "opposition to" so much as "ignoring of" this issue outside conservative churches.

An acquaintance of mine attends a church which preaches "headship." This same church, a couple of years ago, found itself in local headlines when a woman charged one of the church members with rape.

At the time of the crime she was 16 and babysitter to the man's family. He assaulted her while taking her home after sitting. She became pregnant.

Once the pregnancy became apparent, the pastor of the church made the victim stand up before the entire congregation, confess her "sin," and apologize to the congregation for her fall from grace. The man was never named or brought to any sort of account at this time.

The pastor then moved the victim out of state, where she gave birth and relinquished the baby for adoption.

It was nearly 7 years later that she charged her assailant with rape. By that time, the pastor had moved on. The assailant was tried and convicted.

If that victim's treatment -- forced confession, birth, and relinquishment -- is typical of headship, it's hard to see it growing.

And what about all the mothers who are "heads of households?"

[ 22. November 2012, 17:58: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
If that victim's treatment -- forced confession, birth, and relinquishment -- is typical of headship, it's hard to see it growing.

It isn't, at least not in the UK, and I say that as someone who intensely dislikes the whole concept. IME the reality of headship amongst UK conservative evangelicals is much milder than the rhetoric. For example both my mother-in-law and sister-in-law would subscribe fairly vocally to wifely submission, but in practice their marriages don't look all that different to mine on a day to day basis. The main difference seems to be that women are somewhat more likely to stay at home fulltime and couples seem somewhat more bound to traditional gender roles.

Anyway, having said that I intensely dislike the whole idea of submissive women, I'm going to try playing devil's advocate and suggesting why it might appeal. I think a certain percentage of women genuinely aren't that fussed about work and feel strongly drawn to motherhood. Secular society accords those women and their interests little or no status, but evangelicalism does. It allows them to define themselves primarily as wives and mothers and defines that as a high status, divinely-sanctioned role. Even I can to some degree see the appeal of that when the alternative is a heavy emphasis on what you work at and how much you earn.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Porridge

This sounds more like a cult than a church! Where were this girl's parents? How did the pastor have the right to move the girl out of the state? Who paid for this?

In the UK I can't see how a pastor could wield such power, headship or not. On the other hand, I'm sure that some churches would be tempted to cover up a rape. It's a horrible thought, but recent revelations show that nothing is impossible.

I always assumed that 'headship' was meant to be a (radically patriarchal) pro-family teaching, which is why some woman find it appealing. But if it condones rape, then it surely undermines family life!

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Panda:

quote:
Her church may be growing, but does that really mean all the people who go agree with this specific point? Perhaps they're there for the rest of the preaching and the music. I know there was a petition of 2000-odd women saying so, but is it really a growing sector of the church population?

Everybody in the Church of England thinks that their particular liturgical and theological cup of tea is the way to go. I've met BCP Matins fans who have told me in all seriousness that this is the way to attract teenagers! Given that Con-Evo preaching boxes seem to do reasonably well it obviously attracts some people and is tolerated by others. But unless someone comes up with some hard stats, I'd say this was a classic case of data not being the plural of anecdote.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I've met BCP Matins fans who have told me in all seriousness that this is the way to attract teenagers!

I am a mass man myself but the last time that I officiated at BP Choral matins, the congo was approx 100, 30 of whom were teenagers!!!!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

Does the whole thing gain its spurious legitimacy from the monstrously wrong "bishop = CEO" thinking that we've seen so much of in the media recently?

You've hit the nail on the head there, Adeodatus. Someone posting on Facebook recently made the point about Constantine (in the context of establishment) and it occurred to me that without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority. It takes a long time to get that out of our systems.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority.

There was something on the radio this morning about men who wear purple shirts being more likely to drive fast cars...

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
I've met BCP Matins fans who have told me in all seriousness that this is the way to attract teenagers!

Teenagers are no more a homogenous mass than any other age group. Don't assume they all like praise bands and jumping about shouting 'Alleluia!'

At our last church (MOTR with choir and organ) we had some students attending during term-times, as we were quite close to the university. The vicar once asked them if they'd like any special services besides what was already on offer. They asked for full choral BCP Evensong.

Students who were keen on guitars and choruses went to the Evo church down the road.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Given that Con-Evo preaching boxes seem to do reasonably well it obviously attracts some people and is tolerated by others. But unless someone comes up with some hard stats, I'd say this was a classic case of data not being the plural of anecdote.

There are lots of stats about churchgoing habits in England and the UK.

Peter Brierley is a well-respected researcher on the subject of CofE growth and decline. He (and others I've come across) seem to be saying that churchgoing is declining overall, but evangelicalism is taking up a larger proportion of churchgoers in the CofE and elsewhere.

http://www.economist.com/node/21549943

I can't find the source just now, but in terms of youth, it seems that evangelical congregations do better than others at holding on to their young people.

Here are some more figures from Brierley:
http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/1109?pg=all

If larger churches are evangelical, and young people are more attracted to large churches, then inevitably, they're more likely to be in evangelical churches.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:Originally posted by Gildas:
I've met BCP Matins fans who have told me in all seriousness that this is the way to attract teenagers!

So??? What is your problem? Just because you don't like BCP Matins (have you ever been to one) doesn't mean everyone else has to share your opinion.

I have teenage children who, from the age of 7, chose BCP Matins over the dreaded "family" service, which they regarded even at that young age as being patronising "religion lite" (obviously not then expressed in those terms but that was the gist of their comments). Now they are in late teens but still choose either a BCP Matins or Evensong over most of the eucharistic liturgies on offer near their university.

In a nutshell what they say they like is a properly organised liturgy, prayer that doesn't sound like either a shopping list or disaster news headlines, decent hymns rather than "crappy choruses by sad middle-aged tone deaf saddoes", and no 5 minute hiatus in the middle so the vicar can go about glad-handing like a political candidate.

Or, to quote a friend when the ASB first appeared "I'm a teenager, I keep being told this is for people like me, but I want the BCP - and you're denying me my heritage without asking".

As for the headship argument:

If they go for the permanent "flying" see option, how about we have the Bishop of Stepford?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

My kids don't like hymns and liturgy, don't like charismatic chorus singing (Mrs KLB took them out of desperation once; wild horses couldn't drag me) and don't like family services either.

Fully paid up members of the awkward squad at an average age of 6.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Porridge

This sounds more like a cult than a church! Where were this girl's parents? How did the pastor have the right to move the girl out of the state? Who paid for this?

Her mother consented to her being moved out-of-state (which also put her out-of-reach of the police when/if they initially investigated the rape report [the pastor reported the allegation, he didn't apparently report he had moved the victim out-of-state]). The rapist also had to confess publicly, to being unfaithful to his wife (though not to who the other party was).

I'm not sure from the news reports whether she had a father around at the time. It is also clear that neither the pastor nor the mother believed or believe her; the former has a web page up defending his actions.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Seriously fucked up. Reinforces my earlier hypothesis.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I would suggest reading Rachel Held Evans' new book "A Year of Biblical Womanhood"

The Chapter for June, on "Submission" deals with this topic in depth, and ands up reinforcing "submission to each other" because of the love each has for the other

Try Ephesians 5:21 and Matthew 20:25-28

As usual, other bits of the Bible may lead in other directions, but this one involves the operative principle of Love.

As you might expect, the evangelical hierarchy is aghast that a mere woman has written a book like this, but, hey, a bit of subversion is always a Good Thing for hierarchies, especially self-anointed ones.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority. It takes a long time to get that out of our systems.

Have you discovered a magic what-if-o-scope? Or talking out of the whatsit? We do not know what would have happened without Constantine. We CANNOT know what would have happened without Constantine.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Seems like headship is alive and well at the Christian Union at Bristol uni:

Bristol University's Christian Union bans women from speaking at meetings

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Since when is a Christian Union "meeting" a worship occasion where a woman shouldn't speak?

And do you think if a woman defined what she was saying as prophecy and covered her head while saying it that she would get a bye?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seems like headship is alive and well at the Christian Union at Bristol uni:

Bristol University's Christian Union bans women from speaking at meetings

And women still turn up?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

From the article -

"Bristol University's student union officers for activities and welfare and equality met with the society on Monday. Alessandra Berti, vice president of welfare and equality, released a statement saying the university's students' union (UBU) is investigating the issue alongside the Christian Union.

"In particular we will be making certain that our Equality Policy is properly adhered to in all cases.

"The University of Bristol Students’ Union takes allegations of discrimination very seriously. UBU has an equality policy which explains that we prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex and sexual orientation in line with The Equality Act 2010 and as one of our key values of equality and diversity."

If anything is done about this I prophesy cries of 'persecution' from the headship nutters.

(It's OK folks I had my head covered while I said that)

[Tear]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Boogie

But was your husband with you? I think we can be liberal about this in the modern age - was he at least within email contact? And did he have a firm grip on your female scattiness?

Also, if you don't have a husband, I'm very much afraid that you need to get one by tomorrow if you want to carry on this conversation.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My kids don't like hymns and liturgy, don't like charismatic chorus singing (Mrs KLB took them out of desperation once; wild horses couldn't drag me) and don't like family services either.

Fully paid up members of the awkward squad at an average age of 6.

There's only one option - tell them they're not allowed to go!

Meanwhile, this short video illustrates perfectly how Boogie should behave in future.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
without Constantine we wouldn't have bishops in purple shirts living in palaces and assuming temporal authority. It takes a long time to get that out of our systems.
Have you discovered a magic what-if-o-scope? Or talking out of the whatsit? We do not know what would have happened without Constantine. We CANNOT know what would have happened without Constantine.

Fair point. But it still doesn't mean that Constantine or prince bishops are good things.

Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seems like headship is alive and well at the Christian Union at Bristol uni:

Bristol University's Christian Union bans women from speaking at meetings
And women still turn up?

They have to, otherwise where would they find a Nice Christian Husband?
This being an organisation of which I was once a member (twenty-mumble years ago). [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Commetary from Slacktivist on the Patriarchal Christian Boys' Club ruling mentioned above.

Discussing Acts 18, the story of Priscilla and Aquila:

quote:
Paul must have been furious. Priscilla broke his rule requiring her to sit “in silence with full submission.” She violated his rule by teaching a man, wielding authority over and correcting a male preacher.

But if Paul found any of that upsetting, he never said a word about it. He lived at Priscilla’s house for quite a while in Corinth, then took her with him as a teaching comrade on his trip to Ephesus. He greets her in his epistle to the Romans as a “co-worker in Christ Jesus,” not as a submissive silent partner. And because she really was his co-worker, Paul passes along greetings from Priscilla at the end of 1 Corinthians, where we also learn there’s a church that meets in her house. Paul also cheerfully sends greetings to her again in … wait for it … 2 Timothy.

The illustration from "Priscilla: Queen of the Desert" is apposite and amusing in this context.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seems like headship is alive and well at the Christian Union at Bristol uni:

Bristol University's Christian Union bans women from speaking at meetings
And women still turn up?
They have to, otherwise where would they find a Nice Christian Husband?
This being an organisation of which I was once a member (twenty-mumble years ago).

According to this, they

quote:
had introduced the rule as a compromise after a previous policy banned women speakers altogether.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seems like headship is alive and well at the Christian Union at Bristol uni:

Bristol University's Christian Union bans women from speaking at meetings
And women still turn up?
They have to, otherwise where would they find a Nice Christian Husband?
This being an organisation of which I was once a member (twenty-mumble years ago).

Do you mean the only way a woman can find a Christian husband today is by going to headship meetings?

I'm happy with women clergy myself, but if this situation is anywhere close to reality then it's an indictment of the 20th century drift towards liberal theologies. Virtuous they may be, but why are they so off-putting to young men?

Maybe it's time to move from feminist theology to masculinist theology, because we're now in the weird situation where churches, which are already patriarchal institutions, have to double up on the machismo in order to appeal to young males. Surely that's the opposite of what was supposed to happen!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

This is almost certainly thread-creep and needs a new thread, probably elsewhere, but what on earth would a "masculinist theology" look like?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That seems to presuppose that young males are attracted by machismo. Is that correct? I have no idea.

I wonder though if some churches actually construct the category of such young males, so that they can say that they are appealing to a target audience?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That seems to presuppose that young males are attracted by machismo. Is that correct? I have no idea.

My post was a response to the claim that young women have to attend these headship meetings or else they won't find Christian men to marry. The implication was that young male Christians go to 'macho' headship churches, but won't attend the reasonable churches led by friendly lady vicars.... A tongue in cheek comment, but was it meant to highlight a hidden reality?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That seems to presuppose that young males are attracted by machismo. Is that correct? I have no idea.
My post was a response to the claim that young women have to attend these headship meetings or else they won't find Christian men to marry. The implication was that young male Christians go to 'macho' headship churches, but won't attend the reasonable churches led by friendly lady vicars.... A tongue in cheek comment, but was it meant to highlight a hidden reality?

In my experience the blokes don't go to any particular types of churches in any numbers.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Karl

Very true. But perhaps this makes it all the more intriguing when those who do congregate in one theological corner. I mean, why should Bristol CU (or any other CU) be dominated by this sort of young male Christian? Is this what you get when you extract the old ladies, the friendly female vicars, the happy-clappy girls, the middle aged liberal theologians, etc.?

(I don't mean to stereotype, but clearly, it would be hard not to stereotype the kind of young man who belongs to Bristol CU so one might as well stereotype everyone else to balance things up!)

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

According to this, they
quote:
had introduced the rule as a compromise after a previous policy banned women speakers altogether.
[/QUOTE]

This is almost certainly wrong. My understanding was that they had no policy at all, and largely invited male speakers because most of the people who agree with the UCCF DB and are church leaders are male. Someone caused a fuss because they thought the CU should have a definite no woman speaker rule, just to make it clear, and this whole kerfuffle was a hapless attempt by some students to steer a middle line. In essence, you could interpret it as an attempt to be inclusive. [Biased]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Karl

Very true. But perhaps this makes it all the more intriguing when those who do congregate in one theological corner. I mean, why should Bristol CU (or any other CU) be dominated by this sort of young male Christian? Is this what you get when you extract the old ladies, the friendly female vicars, the happy-clappy girls, the middle aged liberal theologians, etc.?

(I don't mean to stereotype, but clearly, it would be hard not to stereotype the kind of young man who belongs to Bristol CU so one might as well stereotype everyone else to balance things up!)

My experience of university CUs, even the ones with strong male headship theologies, is that they are, well, a good place to find company of the opposite sex for the blokes who are there, let's put it that way.

Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That seems to presuppose that young males are attracted by machismo. Is that correct? I have no idea.
My post was a response to the claim that young women have to attend these headship meetings or else they won't find Christian men to marry. The implication was that young male Christians go to 'macho' headship churches, but won't attend the reasonable churches led by friendly lady vicars.... A tongue in cheek comment, but was it meant to highlight a hidden reality?

My prevous post was a poor attempt at a joke. However, like all jokes it contained a grain of truth.
When I was at Bristol, if you were an Evangelical Christian it was expected that you belonged to the CU, and often met the majority of your friends there. Church was the primary place of worship, but often secondary for christian fellowship (i.e. friendship). Teaching came from both church and CU.
Of eight women in the flats I shared in the final year of university, two were not Bristol University students and four of the remaining 6 married men who they met at CU. Three of these are now divorced.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience of university CUs, even the ones with strong male headship theologies, is that they are, well, a good place to find company of the opposite sex for the blokes who are there, let's put it that way.

I see what you're getting at. But surely things don't work this way now. In the past, young men might have gone to church and youth groups to look for women, but now, it's far easier to find 'nice' girls outside the church; and at uni, girls are everywhere these days. For a not very religious male, the weirdness of a CU church service surely counteracts the appeal of the women there - especially when you can meet plenty of good looking girls in the bar!

However, we're probably not going to agree on this one!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to this, they
quote:
had introduced the rule as a compromise after a previous policy banned women speakers altogether.

This is almost certainly wrong. My understanding was that they had no policy at all [/QUOTE]
So why do they say "a previous policy banned women speakers altogether."?

I am on the ministry team of the university church- we used to have little contact with the CU except for picking up some of the damage when disillusioned members came to us.

Now, the CU uses chaplaincy premises and is very much part of chaplaincy life.

I'll check it out with the chaplain when i see him soon.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

So why do they say "a previous policy banned women speakers altogether."?

Strange isn't it? It's almost as if you can't believe everything you read in the papers. [Razz]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I suspect the previous policy was unwritten. The limited speaking was an attempt at a compromise but an exec member still resigned. They have since said all women.

CUs are probably important in understanding the growth of headship. Students (from a range of Christian backgrounds) go up to university and if they are interested in pursuing their faith, they are likely to come across the CU and attend. Now, women speaking is seen as a secondary issue (i.e. one on which true Christians can disagree) so often it doesn't happen so as not to upset anyone (because no-one can object that it happens to be a man every week).* Conservative churches are often welll represented at CUs and so headship is kind of assumed. It's Bibilical isn't it? In my case, I really struggled at uni with wanting to be serious about my faith and being presented as evangelicalism being the only proper way to be serious. The ship was a lifeline back then, but not everyone has that. Headship churches, like CUs, are often far more intentional about evangelism and that's what is attractive, more than the theology. It's hard to fight headship when it is just basically assumed and attacking it is unbiblical.

*summary of a statement from a CICCU president

Carys

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

A slight tangent, but are there universities where the UCCF affiliated CU is the only visible Christian presence on campus? When I was at uni the chaplaincy team and associated CathSoc and Christian Fellowship were extremely active, and the eCU set alarm bells ringing for most MOTR, Catholic and liberal Christians.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Is there an SCM at Bristol? (According to the web, there is). Didn't have one at college, only CU, which was not to my taste. (And my mum warned me about it, though I think after I told her I was not impressed.) All girls establishment, so sexism not an issue.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

CUs are probably important in understanding the growth of headship. Students (from a range of Christian backgrounds) go up to university and if they are interested in pursuing their faith, they are likely to come across the CU and attend. Now, women speaking is seen as a secondary issue (i.e. one on which true Christians can disagree) so often it doesn't happen so as not to upset anyone (because no-one can object that it happens to be a man every week).* Conservative churches are often welll represented at CUs and so headship is kind of assumed. It's Bibilical isn't it? In my case, I really struggled at uni with wanting to be serious about my faith and being presented as evangelicalism being the only proper way to be serious. The ship was a lifeline back then, but not everyone has that. Headship churches, like CUs, are often far more intentional about evangelism and that's what is attractive, more than the theology. It's hard to fight headship when it is just basically assumed and attacking it is unbiblical.

But not all 'conservative' churches, if by that you mean evangelical ones, are anti women preachers. The Baptists aren't. Many of the Pentecostals aren't now, either. So it must be a certain kind of conservatism that's in the ascendancy here.

Secondly, you imply that being serious about your faith at univeristy now means joining CU. So what's happened to the denominational student societies? Have they mostly died a death? When I was an undergrad in the early 90s, I was involved in MurcSoc, which was a joint Methodist and URC society. It was quite lively. I didn't bother with CU that much. When I pursued my studies later at a uni in another town, I had some dealings with the Methodist chaplain, but there only seemed to be one other Methodist student involved. No idea about CU. I've also studied at two other places without getting involved with the student Christian scene (I felt too old and too busy by then). At my most recent place, though, there are definitely denominational options for students, as well as CU.

Has a split developed whereby evangelicals now feel obliged to join CU, while the denominational societies have become resolutely liberal, meaning an evangelical Methodist or Anglican would feel less at home in MethSoc or AngSoc than in CU? If so, the more open evangelical churches should be a bit worried about this, because it means that some students are likely to be influenced by extreme doctrines that aren't shared by their own denominations.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
A slight tangent, but are there universities where the UCCF affiliated CU is the only visible Christian presence on campus? When I was at uni the chaplaincy team and associated CathSoc and Christian Fellowship were extremely active, and the eCU set alarm bells ringing for most MOTR, Catholic and liberal Christians.

My university (Northampton)! The Anglican chaplain and a few of us students have just started our own group though. IME a lot of smaller, newer universities don't have enough students for a CathSoc, SCM etc and UCCF-affilated CUs are the only visible Christian presence on campus. When I was at Chichester that was the case, although the large number of Theology students attending gave the meetings a more intellectually curious slant.

UCCF are actually now really clamping down on CUs being used for fellowship/socialising and are saying that CU should be only for mission on campus - so at the CU at my uni, there's no freshers' meal, socials or any socialising after the meeting. It's not forbidden, but it's not encouraged (of course a group of us ignore it and go to the pub together afterwards).

We do have an active chaplaincy team on campus but it's explicitly a multi-faith chaplaincy and so is seen as religious rather than Christian (but our full-time chaplain is a CoE vicar and most of the chaplaincy team are Christians).

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

CUs are probably important in understanding the growth of headship. Students (from a range of Christian backgrounds) go up to university and if they are interested in pursuing their faith, they are likely to come across the CU and attend. Now, women speaking is seen as a secondary issue (i.e. one on which true Christians can disagree) so often it doesn't happen so as not to upset anyone (because no-one can object that it happens to be a man every week).* Conservative churches are often welll represented at CUs and so headship is kind of assumed. It's Bibilical isn't it? In my case, I really struggled at uni with wanting to be serious about my faith and being presented as evangelicalism being the only proper way to be serious. The ship was a lifeline back then, but not everyone has that. Headship churches, like CUs, are often far more intentional about evangelism and that's what is attractive, more than the theology. It's hard to fight headship when it is just basically assumed and attacking it is unbiblical.

But not all 'conservative' churches, if by that you mean evangelical ones, are anti women preachers. The Baptists aren't. Many of the Pentecostals aren't now, either. So it must be a certain kind of conservatism that's in the ascendancy here.

Secondly, you imply that being serious about your faith at univeristy now means joining CU. So what's happened to the denominational student societies? Have they mostly died a death? When I was an undergrad in the early 90s, I was involved in MurcSoc, which was a joint Methodist and URC society. It was quite lively. I didn't bother with CU that much. When I pursued my studies later at a uni in another town, I had some dealings with the Methodist chaplain, but there only seemed to be one other Methodist student involved. No idea about CU. I've also studied at two other places without getting involved with the student Christian scene (I felt too old and too busy by then). At my most recent place, though, there are definitely denominational options for students, as well as CU.

Has a split developed whereby evangelicals now feel obliged to join CU, while the denominational societies have become resolutely liberal, meaning an evangelical Methodist or Anglican would feel less at home in MethSoc or AngSoc than in CU? If so, the more open evangelical churches should be a bit worried about this, because it means that some students are likely to be influenced by extreme doctrines that aren't shared by their own denominations.

IME only the biggest universities have student bodies that can support denominational Christian societies - otherwise, the CU is by far the most visible presence on campus for most UK universities. Denominational churches in general don't seem to be very attractive for students - at my own CU, nobody attends a Baptist church. With the exception of a small band of rebel Anglicans, people either attend the local Vineyard church (but mostly because they meet on campus) or this place. Reynard Way is the 'in' church. I think there is a view that non-denominational churches are somehow more Biblical.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:

... Leaving aside the honkingly-large non sequitur of the church really not being the same as a family ...

Well it's not wise to leave aside the notion of the church as a family because it is just that, but a very dysfunctional family. Very.

*

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

My uni wasn't large, but it was in the North West which might explain the viability of CathSoc. We had paid Anglican, Methodist and Roman Catholic chaplains, and there were Jews, Muslims, Brethren, Orthodox, Buddhists and others involved in the chaplaincy committees. It may have just been my perspective but the eCU only came up when (like Bristol) they were breaking the union's policies on gender discrimination, or they were holding events on campus telling all non-believers that they were nihilists, or they were politely informing the Pagans at the next table at Freshers' Fair that they were going to hell.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IME only the biggest universities have student bodies that can support denominational Christian societies - otherwise, the CU is by far the most visible presence on campus for most UK universities. Denominational churches in general don't seem to be very attractive for students - at my own CU, nobody attends a Baptist church. With the exception of a small band of rebel Anglicans, people either attend the local Vineyard church (but mostly because they meet on campus) or this place. Reynard Way is the 'in' church. I think there is a view that non-denominational churches are somehow more Biblical.

Or maybe the non-denominational churches have simply become more adept at dealing with students. Being fairly new, they have fewer traditions to hold them back.

Is it now the case that most Christian freshers arrive from a non-denominational background, or do Baptist, Anglican and Methodist students routinely desert their denominations for CU-affiliated churches when they go to university? Why should students raised as sober Methodists or Anglicans suddenly worry about whether these denominations are sufficiently 'Biblical'?

The future will be interesting.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Some CU do some fairly cult-like recruitment techniques - being super friendly to freshers then switching to manipulative and trying to control what members are involved in - I know from a friend who was involved that they explicitly warned members away from the chaplaincy team. They also put on a front of being, as you say, non-denominational and, for those who aren't well versed in these things, that sound a lot like ecumenical. When I was at FE college I got involved with the CU there and it was a while before I realised the person leading it was a bit on the extreme side. Though being inattentive as I am I did spend a happy half hour arguing that a literal reading of the last supper supports a traditional view of the real presence in the eucharist. Really I should have known what was going on when the words "portable baptistry" came up in conversation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

When I was an undergrad, a student's home church would sometimes make contact with the appropriate denominational society or chaplain as a way of ensuring a smooth transition for the student. Perhaps this no longer happens.

Maybe the historical churches are now mostly just resigned to the fact that they're likely to lose students either to the non-denominational churches or to nominalism or non-belief. They might judge that the former is better than the latter, so it's best not to make too much fuss. Maybe the future for chaplains is in working with students that aren't Christians at all, leaving the Christians to be catered for by the CU.

Getting back to the topic, it looks as though the 'headship argument' is only likely to become more prevalent if the mainstream churches are unwilling or unable to compete with the CUs in catering for the needs of Christian students.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

UCCF are actually now really clamping down on CUs being used for fellowship/socialising and are saying that CU should be only for mission on campus - so at the CU at my uni, there's no freshers' meal, socials or any socialising after the meeting. It's not forbidden, but it's not encouraged (of course a group of us ignore it and go to the pub together afterwards).

Some would say that sharing meals is a central part of 'mission', though!

quote:

We do have an active chaplaincy team on campus but it's explicitly a multi-faith chaplaincy and so is seen as religious rather than Christian (but our full-time chaplain is a CoE vicar and most of the chaplaincy team are Christians).

I assumed that a 'multi-faith chaplaincy' meant that if you wanted to find a rabbi, an imam or a Catholic priest to speak to, you could easily find one. Does it really mean that a CofE vicar, a Baptist and a Quaker have to be able to respond to the spiritual needs that students of every faith might have? If I were a Muslim student I wouldn't necessarily be very keen on that. If most of the chaplaincy team are Christians, then it's 'multi-faith' in name only, it seems to me.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

UCCF are actually now really clamping down on CUs being used for fellowship/socialising and are saying that CU should be only for mission on campus - so at the CU at my uni, there's no freshers' meal, socials or any socialising after the meeting. It's not forbidden, but it's not encouraged (of course a group of us ignore it and go to the pub together afterwards).

Some would say that sharing meals is a central part of 'mission', though!

quote:

We do have an active chaplaincy team on campus but it's explicitly a multi-faith chaplaincy and so is seen as religious rather than Christian (but our full-time chaplain is a CoE vicar and most of the chaplaincy team are Christians).
I assumed that a 'multi-faith chaplaincy' meant that if you wanted to find a rabbi, an imam or a Catholic priest to speak to, you could easily find one. Does it really mean that a CofE vicar, a Baptist and a Quaker have to be able to respond to the spiritual needs that students of every faith might have? If I were a Muslim student I wouldn't necessarily be very keen on that. If most of the chaplaincy team are Christians, then it's 'multi-faith' in name only, it seems to me.

Sorry for any confusion but the Baptist/Quaker/CoE chaplains are just the ones I named off the top of my head, we do have a Catholic priest (I would class that as Christian though?), a Muslim chaplain (I think imam is a specific title so not sure what his title is), a Ba'hai chaplain and even a Chinese pastor. We don't have a rabbi because the UK Jewish student population is tiny and since we get mostly students local to the area, they don't come here, but there are links to the nearest synagogues. We have a very active Islamic Society, actually.

Regarding meals being seen as mission, I would agree but UCCF doesn't. They have a very narrow definition of 'mission' which boils down to distributing copies of the Gospels and doing giving out cakes if students text their questions about God. There's no effort at what I would call natural evangelism or even any discipleship.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Some CU do some fairly cult-like recruitment techniques - being super friendly to freshers then switching to manipulative and trying to control what members are involved in - I know from a friend who was involved that they explicitly warned members away from the chaplaincy team. They also put on a front of being, as you say, non-denominational and, for those who aren't well versed in these things, that sound a lot like ecumenical. When I was at FE college I got involved with the CU there and it was a while before I realised the person leading it was a bit on the extreme side. Though being inattentive as I am I did spend a happy half hour arguing that a literal reading of the last supper supports a traditional view of the real presence in the eucharist. Really I should have known what was going on when the words "portable baptistry" came up in conversation.

Sounds about right, especially confusing non-denominational with ecumenical. The CU at my uni has a very narrow list of approved churches too, which concerningly includes the Jesus Army which has definite cult-like tendencies. CUs in general are pretty controlling of members' behaviour. Going to the pub after meetings is a big deal for us because the girlfriend of the leader disapproved of Christians drinking alcohol.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Is there an SCM at Bristol? (According to the web, there is).

No - it died out a long time back, along with Anq/Methsoc and the like.

It has been reborn several times under different names. I did a session with them last year about atonement theories and there were only ten students - compared with the hundreds that belong to the CU.

The decline in Christian groups on campus is less to do with the evangelical ascendancy (in any case, CUs have always been bigger - larger than the Federation of Conservative students - the 2nd largest student society, even back in my day at Leeds in the 1970s) and more owing to the fact that most students coming up to uni these days have absolutely no religious affiliation whatsoever - despite our being Russell Group and, therefore, with a lot of ex-public school people maybe chapel inoculates).

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Regarding meals being seen as mission, I would agree but UCCF doesn't.

You might be interested in this article from the UCCF website of theological resources. Meals as mission

Have you ever actually been to a UCCF run event? None of what you are saying sounds familiar to me.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Regarding meals being seen as mission, I would agree but UCCF doesn't.
You might be interested in this article from the UCCF website of theological resources. Meals as mission

Have you ever actually been to a UCCF run event? None of what you are saying sounds familiar to me.

Um, yes? I go every week. And if what I'm saying isn't true then how come it's backed up by others in this thread? I'm only talking about my own experiences. My CU has a UCCF worker in it, and there are no socials beyond a weekend away once a year - not just no meals, but no socialising at all.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

CUs are probably important in understanding the growth of headship. Students (from a range of Christian backgrounds) go up to university and if they are interested in pursuing their faith, they are likely to come across the CU and attend. Now, women speaking is seen as a secondary issue (i.e. one on which true Christians can disagree) so often it doesn't happen so as not to upset anyone (because no-one can object that it happens to be a man every week).* Conservative churches are often welll represented at CUs and so headship is kind of assumed. It's Bibilical isn't it? In my case, I really struggled at uni with wanting to be serious about my faith and being presented as evangelicalism being the only proper way to be serious. The ship was a lifeline back then, but not everyone has that. Headship churches, like CUs, are often far more intentional about evangelism and that's what is attractive, more than the theology. It's hard to fight headship when it is just basically assumed and attacking it is unbiblical.

But not all 'conservative' churches, if by that you mean evangelical ones, are anti women preachers. The Baptists aren't. Many of the Pentecostals aren't now, either. So it must be a certain kind of conservatism that's in the ascendancy here.

I was using 'conservative' to mean 'opposed to women preachers' there, or at least conservative evanglical which tends to be anti-women preachers.

quote:

Secondly, you imply that being serious about your faith at univeristy now means joining CU. So what's happened to the denominational student societies? Have they mostly died a death? When I was an undergrad in the early 90s, I was involved in MurcSoc, which was a joint Methodist and URC society. It was quite lively. I didn't bother with CU that much. When I pursued my studies later at a uni in another town, I had some dealings with the Methodist chaplain, but there only seemed to be one other Methodist student involved. No idea about CU. I've also studied at two other places without getting involved with the student Christian scene (I felt too old and too busy by then). At my most recent place, though, there are definitely denominational options for students, as well as CU.

Has a split developed whereby evangelicals now feel obliged to join CU, while the denominational societies have become resolutely liberal, meaning an evangelical Methodist or Anglican would feel less at home in MethSoc or AngSoc than in CU? If so, the more open evangelical churches should be a bit worried about this, because it means that some students are likely to be influenced by extreme doctrines that aren't shared by their own denominations.

I was an undergraduate at Aberystwyth in the late 90s whilst my mother was there in the late 60s. The religious scene had become decidedly evangelical in the mean time. In her day Holy Trinity was the main student church and was MOTR to high, while St Michael's (a separate parish) was very high. By the time I went, they (and Santes Fair and St Anne's Penparcau) were in a rectorial benefice with a charismatic evangelical rector and a indeed vicar at Trinitiy, although Trinity retained more liturgical trappings. I was unusal as a student in choosing Trinity and even there the underlying assumption seem to be that they did liturgy to keep the churchgoers happy and there was a move towards more modern hymns, at least amongst the people involved in the homegroups, although one of the wardens was still quite high. The Church Student Society (AngSoc) of which my mum had been secretary had vanished. CU was large (c. 100) and Welsh CU smaller (c15). In my final year, I did get involved with both MethSoc and CathSoc, but MethSoc that year at least had an evangelical slant, not strongly but slightly. So yes, evangelical was pretty much the only way to be serious about one's faith. I did go over to Llanbadarn occassionally (after Istarted bellringing) and that was pretty establishment with not much in the way of homegroups. So yes, engaging with faith was pretty much evangelical, unless you found the small CathSoc and whilst Fr John was wonderful, I'm not an RC.

So yes, there is somewhere where there is very little other option, even in terms of churches -- although some of the Welsh non-confromist chapels were pretty liberal, but in my first year my Welsh wasn't good enough and after that they wouldn't have been sacramental enough for me. At Trinity at least there was a weekly Eucharist.

As a post-grad in Cambridge there were a lot more options, but the CU was still pretty dominant and people often got caught up into it without really realising it was evangelical and so didn't look for other options (and sometimes were warned off them).

Carys

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Moved from closed thread in Purgatory

quote:
Percy B Shipmate # 17238 Posted 08 December, 2012 22:01
The Church Times reports that the Christian Union of a significant British University requires husbands of women who are to speak or teach at their meetings to be present when the wife speaks.

How interesting

I take it they quote scriptural authority for this.

At first I felt sure this is unusual in Christian churches / congregations I then began to wonder. I don't move in evangelical circles so I simply don't know.

What about single women? Does a responsible man need to be present for them?

I have to say I do find it extraordinary that students in a modern university hold this view.

Any thoughts? I would be interested to read a reasoned argument in favour of this position which was not simply scripture says no.

quote:
Kelly Alves # 2522 Posted 08 December, 2012 22:51
Every time I hear stuff like this I think, "Iran, 1979" How much are we going to allow?

quote:
cliffdweller Shipmate # 13338 Posted 08 December, 2012 23:20 I'm certainly not going to support it, but will affirm that it happens in some places. My husband and I actually team-taught a course at a Bible college in East Africa-- the dean asked (somewhat sheepishly) if hubby would mind being in the room when I taught. The college officially supported women in ministry-- about 1/3 of our students were female. But he felt that female pastors were unusual enough in their neck of the woods so as to raise some questions, and wanted the students to know that what I was teaching was kosher.

In that context, I went with it-- we were there to serve, after all, and cross cultural ministry always requires compromise. But closer to home I wouldn't stand for it.

Posted by Noodlehead (# 9600) on :

I was a member of the University CU in question.

The policy certainly was no female speakers for many years. Indeed, until 2010, there was a policy of no female presidents, but the Student's Union intervened and said that they couldn't enforce such a discriminatory policy and remain part of the Union. So the constitution got changed and the status quo remains.

I'm not going to hold my breath for female speakers even though they've backed down on the issue. Until there is one actually standing up at a CU meeting, I will not believe that the CU won't just carry on with their unofficial policy.

Personally, the thing that annoys me most about the whole thing, is that it has been said over and over again that they won't force female speakers on the uber-conservative crowd for the sake of 'unity'. Why is everyone else being forced to swallow discrimination for the sake of unity? Why is it easier to ask that of people, than it is to ask the conservatives to suck it up?

[ 09. December 2012, 10:55: Message edited by: Noodlehead ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The idea is that the fundamentalists are 'weaker brethren' whose faith must not be endangered, and that women teaching and preaching is 'meat sacrificed to idols.' [Mad]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to this, they
quote:
had introduced the rule as a compromise after a previous policy banned women speakers altogether.
This is almost certainly wrong. My understanding was that they had no policy at all

So why do they say "a previous policy banned women speakers altogether."?

I am on the ministry team of the university church- we used to have little contact with the CU except for picking up some of the damage when disillusioned members came to us.

Now, the CU uses chaplaincy premises and is very much part of chaplaincy life.

I'll check it out with the chaplain when i see him soon. [/QUOTE]
Talks with him this morning after the Eucharist.

Yes, I was wrong. There was no previous, written policy, just custom and practice.

It would also appear that the CU made their decision to appease a tiny minority - perhaps only four members - out of a 'not causing weaker brethren to stumble' type of argument.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The idea is that the fundamentalists are 'weaker brethren' whose faith must not be endangered, and that women teaching and preaching is 'meat sacrificed to idols.'

And extra points for the unexpected appearance of that old favourite, the 'women as meat' metaphor.

Haven't we come a long way.

anne

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The idea is that the fundamentalists are 'weaker brethren' whose faith must not be endangered, and that women teaching and preaching is 'meat sacrificed to idols.'
And extra points for the unexpected appearance of that old favourite, the 'women as meat' metaphor.

Haven't we come a long way.

anne

I think this is more common that realised - it's just that Bristol's been busted whilst others haven't.

In one of her books, Michelle Guiness describes an incident where her son suggested that her as a speaker after the one who'd been arranged cancelled at the last minute. The leadership refused the offer and cancelled the meeting instead. Women weren't allowed to lead meetings.

Ironic that the first time some young people discover Christian sexism is at Univ. And that people still think that it's better that the gospel isn't preached at all if the only person available is a woman.

Tubbs

[ 09. December 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Noodlehead (# 9600) on :

BUCU statement

My favourite part is that 'the fundamental equality of women and men' is a 'core biblical truth' now the matter has had national press traction.

The thing is, if the conservative types were to replace the word 'woman' with 'black person', they'd be horrified at how offensive their arguments sound...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The idea is that the fundamentalists are 'weaker brethren' whose faith must not be endangered, and that women teaching and preaching is 'meat sacrificed to idols.'
And extra points for the unexpected appearance of that old favourite, the 'women as meat' metaphor.

Haven't we come a long way.

anne
I think this is more common that realised - it's just that Bristol's been busted whilst others haven't.

In one of her books, Michelle Guiness describes an incident where her son suggested that her as a speaker after the one who'd been arranged cancelled at the last minute. The leadership refused the offer and cancelled the meeting instead. Women weren't allowed to lead meetings.

Ironic that the first time some young people discover Christian sexism is at Univ. And that people still think that it's better that the gospel isn't preached at all if the only person available is a woman.

Tubbs

I also remember Michelle Guiness talking about being challenged about the way she dressed by the Christian Union.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The recent comments on the thread reflect what a theologian said to me recently about the people coming foward to train for the ministry: as churches have declined, those young adults who remain are more and more likely to be quite strongly evangelical.

I suppose some may find it worth trying to battle with the CU leadership, but is there any point? The CU isn't like the CofE - it doesn't have to try (or pretend to try) to cater for different religious perspectives. Yes it's a parachurch organisation - but it's parachurch at the more evangelical end. So long as an increasing majority of Christian students come from firmly evangelical backgrounds, the complaints of a more liberal Christian minority are going to fall on deaf ears. You have to set up your own, more select (i.e. smaller) group for Christian students who can't identify with CU teachings.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noodlehead:
... until 2010, there was a policy of no female presidents

In 1977, I (male) was the first "Lady Vice-President" of London MethSoc, the President that year being female. Only the job-titles were in our constitution, no chromosomal requirements. [Big Grin]

That was thirty five years ago.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Regarding meals being seen as mission, I would agree but UCCF doesn't.
You might be interested in this article from the UCCF website of theological resources. Meals as mission

Have you ever actually been to a UCCF run event? None of what you are saying sounds familiar to me.
Um, yes? I go every week. And if what I'm saying isn't true then how come it's backed up by others in this thread? I'm only talking about my own experiences. My CU has a UCCF worker in it, and there are no socials beyond a weekend away once a year - not just no meals, but no socialising at all.

1) UCCF don't run CUs.

2) They have published an article at total odds to what your CU are doing. You don't think perchance, your CU is just an oddity? Despite all the mud being flung at CUs on this thread no one else has suggested they are anti socialising

The fact is, CUs, unlike any other of societies mentioned here (bar Cathsocs, which for some reason seem to get a free pass) have largely managed to hold together people from complementarian and egalitarian churches. That means someone has to compromise. In the vast majority of CUs, and at most UCCF events, that's the complementarian, in some CUs most people who attend go to complementarian churches and it all swings the other way. It's usually short term bar a few exceptional cases because of other sociological factors.

Quite frankly, if there's that much demand for a Christian society that's less inclusive and wants to regard complentarians as unreconstructed sexists that's fine. University's all about disagreeing with people. Go and set one up. The chaplains will, undoubtedly, be delighted.

And as for Bristol, they have definitely had a woman speak before, but CUs turn over so fast there's probably no one still about who remembers.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The idea is that the fundamentalists are 'weaker brethren' whose faith must not be endangered, and that women teaching and preaching is 'meat sacrificed to idols.'
And extra points for the unexpected appearance of that old favourite, the 'women as meat' metaphor.

Haven't we come a long way.

anne
I think this is more common that realised - it's just that Bristol's been busted whilst others haven't.

In one of her books, Michelle Guiness describes an incident where her son suggested that her as a speaker after the one who'd been arranged cancelled at the last minute. The leadership refused the offer and cancelled the meeting instead. Women weren't allowed to lead meetings.

Ironic that the first time some young people discover Christian sexism is at Univ. And that people still think that it's better that the gospel isn't preached at all if the only person available is a woman.

Tubbs
I also remember Michelle Guiness talking about being challenged about the way she dressed by the Christian Union.

You read that book too! Her reply was suitably robust IIRC.

Leprechaun, my best mate was at Bristol many moons ago and she remembers it as being extremely Conservative - and yes, with the big C - evangelical. And as the leadership tend to be self recommending, there will be less change than you think. They may have had the occasional woman speaker over the years, but it was the exception rather than the rule. She also remembers them as being very exclusive - any Christian who attended the wrong sort of church or one of the other Christian societies wasn't considered to be really a Christian. I've heard similar stories from other UCCF affiliated CUs elsewhere as well.

Tubbs

[ 09. December 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Did Leprechaun really just try to claim that a bar on women teaching made a society MORE inclusive?

The claim that CUs hold together disparate Christian groups is pretty ridiculous - they are evangelical only, for starters, and pretty conservative at that. It's like the CPGB claiming to be broad front because it has Marxist AND Leninist members.

[ 09. December 2012, 17:08: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Noodlehead (# 9600) on :

I was at Bristol CU not very many moons ago (last few years) and I still have friends 'on the inside'. It is uber-conservative, and the way the executive are elected each year (the outgoing executive nominates the incoming executive - any vote is relatively redundant as there is only ever one approved candidate for each post) means that things never change.

It is also clearly run by UCCF. UCCF provide the training, the written materials, a staff worker, a relay worker and the doctrinal basis that everyone who wants to be involved or to speak at a meeting must sign. It's here. The mere fact that the doctrinal basis exists proves that the CU isn't interested in being inclusive and that UCCF isn't interested in promoting inclusivity - I'm pretty sure that there are many Christians, indeed whole denominations, who couldn't sign that statement.

A little BUCU anecdote to illustrate:

In the year after I left the CU, a friend who was on the exec tried to organise a joint event with the Methodist Society and the Catholic Society. Objections were raised because the CU didn't want 'unity for the sake of unity'. The event never happened.

[ 09. December 2012, 18:02: Message edited by: Noodlehead ]

Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :

I was in the CU at Kingston Polytechnic (now a University) in the early 70's.

My future husband was also part of the group.

Just after we got engaged, the group was thinking about having elders and my name had come up. It was then pointed out that as I was engaged I couldn't be an elder when my fiance wasn't. He was much younger in the faith than I was and wouldn't have been considered.

At the time I never gave it a thought. Not actually from the religious context but from the fact that I was painfully shy and didn't like speaking in meetings anyway.

As life has gone on we have had different ministries with the church. He was organist and choirmaster while I was churchwarden. Now he sings in the choir and I was recently licensed as a Reader. So I'm an elder after all.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

I was in the college CU at Girton, Cambridge in the mid 1980s. We always had two CU leaders, one male and one female, and both male and female Bible study leaders.
Come to think of it, that may not have been general policy in the university. I don't recall any female speakers at CICCU events (went to these in my first year but not after that). I remember the college CU leaders getting their knuckles rapped in my final year because only a tiny proportion of our CU (under 10% I think) had signed the doctrinal statement and wouldn't be seen dead at the central CICCU meetings. We were rather more open to other religious groups than some of the CUs; at least half those who went to some CU meetings also went to chaplaincy events, and two students from the Catholic Society came regularly to CU Bible studies. Probably as a result of this our membership was high. I had to produce a summer prayer diary at the end of my second year and realised that 1 in 6 students at the college had a reasonable amount of involvement with the CU!

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noodlehead:
I was at Bristol CU not very many moons ago (last few years) and I still have friends 'on the inside'. It is uber-conservative, and the way the executive are elected each year (the outgoing executive nominates the incoming executive - any vote is relatively redundant as there is only ever one approved candidate for each post) means that things never change.

It is also clearly run by UCCF. UCCF provide the training, the written materials, a staff worker, a relay worker and the doctrinal basis that everyone who wants to be involved or to speak at a meeting must sign. It's here. The mere fact that the doctrinal basis exists proves that the CU isn't interested in being inclusive and that UCCF isn't interested in promoting inclusivity - I'm pretty sure that there are many Christians, indeed whole denominations, who couldn't sign that statement.

A little BUCU anecdote to illustrate:

In the year after I left the CU, a friend who was on the exec tried to organise a joint event with the Methodist Society and the Catholic Society. Objections were raised because the CU didn't want 'unity for the sake of unity'. The event never happened.

I realised after I posted that many moons ago roughly translates to over 20 years ... They also remember that although there were Hall Fellowship leaders, the CU leadership kept a close eye on them. In theory, all the Hall Fell leaders should be considered for nomination to the Exec. In practice, only the "sound" ones ever got nominated. And they would also attempt to replace / undermine those they didn't think were suitable - even if the members of the Hall liked them

UCCF used to be part of Spring Harvest's Word Alive Weeks. IIRC, one of the reasons they stopped / had their own separate weeks was because they didn't like women on the platform.

Tubbs

Posted by Not (# 2166) on :

Another Bristol CU survivor - probably overlapping with Mrs Whibley and Tubbs' friend (do pm me!) - this all sounds depressingly familiar. It was all the things described when I was there: very conservative, with a particular paranoia about charismaticism. The list of approved churches actually had physical existence as a 'church guide' which made it very clear which were 'sound'. The exec were appointed by the previous exec and the hall and faculty fellowship group leaders by the exec as well so control was very tight. I started to get disillusioned after a Catholic hall fellowship leader (a controversial innovation who'd slipped through the net on the dodgy grounds of her transparently deep, mature and loving faith) was interrogated by the CU exec at length over whether she could really sign up to every jot and tittle of the doctrinal basis. She resigned in disgust.

I also went to the church where the student work was led by, among others, Susie Leafe (of the OP). It took several years after leaving there and CU to recover from the sheer screwed up mess my theology and faith were left in.

Ironically, for all the talk about evangelism, what actually happened is that CU members spent their life in meetings (main CU meeting, hall or flat fellowship meeting, prayer meetings, leaders meetings...) and only occasionally emerged from the ghetto to do some startlingly inept evangelism.

And yes, sorry gone off topic, male President, female Vice President, no female speakers at main meetings and endless quibbling about what constituted women 'teaching' (bad) and what was legitimate (praying and bible studies, providing no original thought was involved).

Oh dear. Flashbacks. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Elaine:

quote:
As life has gone on we have had different ministries with the church. He was organist and choirmaster while I was churchwarden. Now he sings in the choir and I was recently licensed as a Reader. So I'm an elder after all.

Well, there you go - the Holy Spirit was trying to tell your CU Exec something and they didn't listen... [Devil]

I was a member of the CU at my university for a year. The following year I actually read the Doctrinal Statement properly and decided that I couldn't in conscience accept the doctrinal rulings of a bunch of students with no theological training whatsoever... and joined the Methodist-Anglican Society instead.

Our CU was NOT affiliated with the Student's Union, precisely because they refused to have women speakers at their meetings. All the other Christian societies on campus were affiliated with the SU and only required you to pay membership fees before joining.

This was quite a long time ago, when dinosaurs still roamed the earth and there were other Christian societies to join, even at a fairly small university. It's depressing to see the same arguments being rehashed again.

And what are Bristol SU thinking? Are they worried about a lawsuit if they de-affiliate the CU?

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

UCCF used to be part of Spring Harvest's Word Alive Weeks. IIRC, one of the reasons they stopped / had their own separate weeks was because they didn't like women on the platform.

Tubbs

You do not RC. It was a penal subsititution disagreement, and the UCCF/Keswick event that replaced Word Alive has women speakers.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

UCCF used to be part of Spring Harvest's Word Alive Weeks. IIRC, one of the reasons they stopped / had their own separate weeks was because they didn't like women on the platform.

Tubbs
You do not RC. It was a penal subsititution disagreement, and the UCCF/Keswick event that replaced Word Alive has women speakers.

Ah yes, the refusal to declare Steve Chalke a hertick. [Biased]

Apologies for the faulty memory.

Define "has women speakers". [Big Grin]

Tubbs

[ 10. December 2012, 12:10: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Not:
Another Bristol CU survivor - probably overlapping with Mrs Whibley and Tubbs' friend (do pm me!) - this all sounds depressingly familiar. It was all the things described when I was there: very conservative, with a particular paranoia about charismaticism. The list of approved churches actually had physical existence as a 'church guide' which made it very clear which were 'sound'. The exec were appointed by the previous exec and the hall and faculty fellowship group leaders by the exec as well so control was very tight. I started to get disillusioned after a Catholic hall fellowship leader (a controversial innovation who'd slipped through the net on the dodgy grounds of her transparently deep, mature and loving faith) was interrogated by the CU exec at length over whether she could really sign up to every jot and tittle of the doctrinal basis. She resigned in disgust.

I also went to the church where the student work was led by, among others, Susie Leafe (of the OP). It took several years after leaving there and CU to recover from the sheer screwed up mess my theology and faith were left in.

Ironically, for all the talk about evangelism, what actually happened is that CU members spent their life in meetings (main CU meeting, hall or flat fellowship meeting, prayer meetings, leaders meetings...) and only occasionally emerged from the ghetto to do some startlingly inept evangelism.

And yes, sorry gone off topic, male President, female Vice President, no female speakers at main meetings and endless quibbling about what constituted women 'teaching' (bad) and what was legitimate (praying and bible studies, providing no original thought was involved).

Oh dear. Flashbacks.

You’re having flashbacks?! [Eek!]

I never went, but many an evening was spent unravelling the damage to my best mate’s faith over a pint of wine or two.

We eventually came to the conclusion that many of the CU / Exec were well meaning, but totally inept with an extremely narrow view of God. (Ahem. There were usually a few more swear words by the time we got to this point).

Some of what happened can be put down to youthful excess – and a desire to cling onto certainties through a major life change. Unfortunately, UCCF policy and reps, the self perpetuating way the Exec were appointed and the completely circular argument that, “those who don’t think as we do aren’t really Christians” didn’t help any.

Their behaviour and attitudes did a lot of damage – and has led to some people I know actively discouraging people off to University from joining the CU until they’ve researched it a bit and finding a good, local church instead.

Tubbs

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :

I never became a member of my university's CU as I went to one meeting and it seemed terrifyingly cult-like... door-people guarding the huge meetings, endless worship choruses until your mind melted, and perfectly nice students coming out with strange guilt complexes and split-personalities... I DID have a friend who joined...
... and then regularly used to come and hide at my digs on CU nights because they would send persistent friends to 'collect' her for the meeting.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My sister went to a big meeting at her place (Roehampton) and found herself in a hall with a lot of enthusiastic hand wavers who she did not feel moved to emulate. She then found that the visiting speaker, and others were aiming their attention at her. And then realised that the ushers were blocking the doors out. She did not feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure this was the CU, but there's something in common with what I hear from other accounts.

Including that crossposted with above!

[ 10. December 2012, 13:20: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
You do not RC. It was a penal subsititution disagreement, and the UCCF/Keswick event that replaced Word Alive has women speakers.

Baroness Cox does not count as "women".

Week 1: she's the one woman out of 7 speakers
Week 2: she's the one woman out of 8 speakers

Worship leaders are all men. The trustees are all men, the steering committee are all men (bar one?)

Half the world, and all that... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
You do not RC. It was a penal subsititution disagreement, and the UCCF/Keswick event that replaced Word Alive has women speakers.
Baroness Cox does not count as "women".

Week 1: she's the one woman out of 7 speakers
Week 2: she's the one woman out of 8 speakers

Worship leaders are all men. The trustees are all men, the steering committee are all men (bar one?)

Half the world, and all that...

It does if you count her twice as she has two speaking slots. [Biased]

Having looked at the speaker and worship leaders compared to Spring Harvest's, then I'd say that Spring Harvest's was the more diverse and representative of the wider church.

And then there's Word Alive's statement of faith comparted to Spring Harvest's. [Eek!]

Tubbs

[ 10. December 2012, 15:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

Having looked at the speaker and worship leaders compared to Spring Harvest's, then I'd say that Spring Harvest's was the more diverse and representative of the wider church.

Who's denying that? I was just saying that the original bust up was nothing to do with this issue.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some of what happened can be put down to youthful excess – and a desire to cling onto certainties through a major life change.

Should we be surprised if a load of 18/21 year olds are dogmatic, immature and stupid? That's the territory. Growing up is difficult enough without making the press. Wouldn't it be fairer to give them more space in which to make the mistakes of youth?

What's much more worrying is a person who remains dogmatic, whether about this issue or any other - into their thirties or beyond.

Is there really that much difference between these youngsters and being dogmatic about the dictatorship of the proletariat? At least CU members are less likely than other students to riot, get drunk or become pregnant.

If we can look back at who we were at that age without cringing, there's either something wrong with our memories or something seriously wrong with us.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some of what happened can be put down to youthful excess – and a desire to cling onto certainties through a major life change.
Should we be surprised if a load of 18/21 year olds are dogmatic, immature and stupid? That's the territory. Growing up is difficult enough without making the press. Wouldn't it be fairer to give them more space in which to make the mistakes of youth?

What's much more worrying is a person who remains dogmatic, whether about this issue or any other - into their thirties or beyond.

Is there really that much difference between these youngsters and being dogmatic about the dictatorship of the proletariat? At least CU members are less likely than other students to riot, get drunk or become pregnant.

If we can look back at who we were at that age without cringing, there's either something wrong with our memories or something seriously wrong with us.

You're suggesting there's something wrong with rioting, getting drunk and becoming pregnant [Biased]

I'd much rather do all of those things than be affilated with UCCF - albeit not all at once.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is there really that much difference between these youngsters and being dogmatic about the dictatorship of the proletariat? At least CU members are less likely than other students to riot, get drunk or become pregnant.

Two observations:

Firstly, there is a difference between wanting to inspire the working classes to seize the means of production, and telling people they're going to Hell because of the choices they make. It might be a marginal difference, but it is there.

Secondly, I can't be the only one to have a quiver-full of stories of CU members getting each other up the duff...

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some of what happened can be put down to youthful excess – and a desire to cling onto certainties through a major life change.
Should we be surprised if a load of 18/21 year olds are dogmatic, immature and stupid? That's the territory. Growing up is difficult enough without making the press. Wouldn't it be fairer to give them more space in which to make the mistakes of youth?

What's much more worrying is a person who remains dogmatic, whether about this issue or any other - into their thirties or beyond.

Is there really that much difference between these youngsters and being dogmatic about the dictatorship of the proletariat? At least CU members are less likely than other students to riot, get drunk or become pregnant.

If we can look back at who we were at that age without cringing, there's either something wrong with our memories or something seriously wrong with us.

No, it goes with the territory. But it's worrying when CU's are part of a wider structure, feeding into local churches, the University and UCCF support workers who are older and (hopefully) wiser ... OTH, the home group at a large local church I went too that was full of people who hadn't gone to Univ wasn't much better in terms of tolerance, maturity etc. (Let alone the other stuff [Eek!]

)

Some of us are Christians despite rather than because ...

Tubbs

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

The "they're only young" defence always gets trotted out in discussions of UCCF but it didn't wash with me even when I was in that save group. Is it a case of people living down to expectations? Certainly it feels like a cop out, an excuse not to do anything about it. The culture encourages dogmatism not thought which is worrying at university level.

Carys

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

This all feels like a bit of a 'let's discuss our experiences of CU/UCCF' tangent so I will make an All Saints thread for that. Back to the headship issue.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0