homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Unimportance of Being Earnest - a Right to Reply (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Unimportance of Being Earnest - a Right to Reply
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026

 - Posted      Profile for Elephenor   Email Elephenor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Venomous Bead:
(I know CICCU are part of UCCF but I don't think they've ever been affiliated with CUSU (I could be wrong).)

In the case of Cambridge, no society has ever been affiliated to CUSU. Societies are registered with the Societies Syndicate, a university committee with majority student membership, which predates the existence of CUSU. (Prior to that they were the direct responsibility of the Senior Proctor.)

So far as I know CICCU have been recognised by the Syndicate for as long as the latter has been in existence (with a blip of a few months in 2000). They are not, however, eligible for grants because their membership is not open in principle to all members of the university.

quote:
Originally posed by Wood:
How was the article about Fusion received within UCCF circles? Does anyone know?

My impression is, as Leprechaun says, not well or happily (but influential among some young hot-heads in CUs). On my reading at least, it was an attack on UCCF leadership themselves (for not being hard-line enough!) thinly disguised as an attack on the other organisation.

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Yep, they have been slow on the uptake - largely because (IMO rightly) they have been focussed on their purpose, rather than their organisation. Its now becoming apparent that it is not enough to be like that, if you are a religious group you have to campaign for your right to exist.

I think you mean, you have to campaign for your right to exist, if you are a religious group who believes having standard democratic elections and/or open membership would compromise your principles. [wink] (UCL is the only example I've heard of a blanket threat to religious societies.)

I think UCCF has made some effort since Warwick to rally opposition/resistance (those with a lot of time on their hands could go here and listen to the talk "CUs Under Fire: Handling pressure from SUs and groups from other religions" at UCCF's 2002 conference of CU leaders); but I wonder if some of this might not have partly backfired? The aggressive tactics advocated (and monotonous obsession with homosexuals) in the talk I link to would quickly put the back up of most SU hacks!

--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)

Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
philo25
Shipmate
# 5725

 - Posted      Profile for philo25   Email philo25   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elephenor:
I think UCCF has made some effort since Warwick to rally opposition/resistance (those with a lot of time on their hands could go here and listen to the talk "CUs Under Fire: Handling pressure from SUs and groups from other religions" at UCCF's 2002 conference of CU leaders); but I wonder if some of this might not have partly backfired? The aggressive tactics advocated (and monotonous obsession with homosexuals) in the talk I link to would quickly put the back up of most SU hacks!

The 'monotonous obsession with homsexuals' is actually more synomynous with Liberal church thinking and modern politics, UCCF is merely reacting to that. Maybe the SU disagrees with what UCCF thinks about that issue and others, but surely UCCF can't keep quiet about what it would see as an ttack on the Bible's guidlines for how we should live?

--------------------
Genesis 29:20
So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

Posts: 246 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elephenor:
I think you mean, you have to campaign for your right to exist, if you are a religious group who believes having standard democratic elections and/or open membership would compromise your principles. [wink] (UCL is the only example I've heard of a blanket threat to religious societies.)


This could be another thread, but I do think it is inherent in being a religious group that membership involves some adherence to a religious belief system, rather than just normal societal modes of choosing leaders. In one of the debates with SUs I have been involved in a theology professor of the university faculty pointed out that nearly every religious group ever has had room for observers, a standard of some sort for members, and a different standard for leaders, and basically said the upstart SU shouldn't be flying in the face of thousands of years of human culture. Which was amusing.

I agree with Eleph on the article incidentally - it was as much an attack on UCCF as on Fusion.

And UCCF I think (and I'm guessing here, no inside knowledge on this one) may be trying not to promote a confrontational approach to these issues - hence the non-repeat of the "under fire" seminar at Forum this year. Rather they seem to have tried to have a more major presence at the NUS national council, and hosted a seminar by Ram Gidoomal on the issue of tolerance and truth. Which I think is an excellent idea, but needs to be filtered down a bit more.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The way election is done in Swansea CU - and I know that this isn't the same everywhere - is that it is made known that the new committee will be elected, and that nominations will be accepted.

When nominations are taken, the committee go off oand pray about and talk about it. They then go and ask the people they decided on - in confidence - and, if refused, ask their second choice.

When they have willing candidates, they announce them to the CU. The CU are invited to vote in the AGM as to whether each of them is suitable.

If any candidate is not suitable and is not voted in, then the process starts again.

While in practice, tyhe vast majority of people are voted in, it has been known for the CU to vote against a candidate.

This, incidentally, is the model used in my own Baptist church for the election of a new minister.

I think it's a good way of doing things. It retains - in theory, anyway - the aspects of democracy, while avoiding the competition and factionalism that a democratic "vote-for-me-not-him" race would create, which in my view (and probably in the view of whoever wrote the SCU constitution) has no place in a Christian organisation.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could be another thread, but I do think it is inherent in being a religious group that membership involves some adherence to a religious belief system

Depends on the nature of the society. One organisation I produce copy for has no requirement for belief - but then, it's not an evangelistic organisation and makes no pretence at being one.

quote:
In one of the debates with SUs I have been involved in a theology professor of the university faculty pointed out that nearly every religious group ever has had room for observers, a standard of some sort for members, and a different standard for leaders, and basically said the upstart SU shouldn't be flying in the face of thousands of years of human culture. Which was amusing.
Good for him.

quote:
I agree with Eleph on the article incidentally - it was as much an attack on UCCF as on Fusion.
I remember reading this article some time ago, but I don't remember specifics. Does anyone know where one can find a copy?

quote:
And UCCF I think (and I'm guessing here, no inside knowledge on this one) may be trying not to promote a confrontational approach to these issues - hence the non-repeat of the "under fire" seminar at Forum this year. Rather they seem to have tried to have a more major presence at the NUS national council, and hosted a seminar by Ram Gidoomal on the issue of tolerance and truth. Which I think is an excellent idea, but needs to be filtered down a bit more.
Yeah. I think so.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064

 - Posted      Profile for The Expatriate Theolinguist   Email The Expatriate Theolinguist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I remember reading this article some time ago, but I don't remember specifics. Does anyone know where one can find a copy?
Yes, you can find it at
http://www.e-n.org.uk/Fusion.htm

Interestingly, a post-grad at Cambridge wrote a response to the article which she posted on her website:

http://www.pilgrim.demon.co.uk/angela/fusion.html

I've studied both these articles extensively. The EN one makes my blood boil wqhenever I read it, because the author clearly has a chip on his shoulder and doesn't seem concerned with constructive criticism, rather he wants to destroy a group who are doing really good work among students. [Mad]

Apparently Rupert Evans (the author of the article) is coming back to Cambridge as a student worker at one of the churches... this will make the situation very interesting.

--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.

Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.

Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026

 - Posted      Profile for Elephenor   Email Elephenor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
The 'monotonous obsession with homsexuals' is actually more synomynous with Liberal church thinking and modern politics, UCCF is merely reacting to that. Maybe the SU disagrees with what UCCF thinks about that issue and others, but surely UCCF can't keep quiet about what it would see as an ttack on the Bible's guidlines for how we should live?

This is a possible derailment of this thread, and a comment I perhaps should, in retrospect, have suppressed. But it would be one anyone listening to that specific talk (the speakers, I should emphasise, were from the EA and the Christian Lawyers Fellowship, not themselves UCCF staff) would have difficulty suppressing.

Whereas, in general, my impression is that most CUs, while certainly not comfortable places for (even celibate) homosexuals, are not actually particularly obsessed by the subject. It's pretty far down their list of priorities. (Indeed, a certain former CICCU President - alluded to earlier in this thread - was, during his term of office, on record in a student newspaper as saying that CICCU had no line on the question!!!)

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could be another thread, but I do think it is inherent in being a religious group that membership involves some adherence to a religious belief system, rather than just normal societal modes of choosing leaders.

Whether it is possible to have a religion without `insiders' and `outsiders' is probably another thread. I personally have no objection to churches having membership requirements (eg. baptism, circumcision, subscription to a confession, &c) or arcane selection methods for leaders ("strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!").

But CU's are not churches, or independent religious bodies. They are, supposedly, university clubs. There is, indeed, no problem with private members clubs having odd membership restrictions or governance procedures either (consider golf-clubs!) - freedom of association, and all that - but those affiliated to a student union are normally required to fulfil certain additional criteria (eg. being chiefly composed of students).

Centrally administered funds for distribution to such societies derive, ultimately, from a kind of poll tax on students; there is a responsibility to administer them equitably, so most SUs make the reasonable requirement that all affiliated societies should be open in principal to all students at that university; and, partly to prevent abuse of funds by unscrupulous individuals, require at least a veneer of democratic accountability to society members.

CU's are often the principal exception to these (the other ones I can think of are graduate-only or single-sex societies; but these are now rare); many SU's, understanding CU's strength of feeling on the question, make special arrangements for them to have a form of membership that does not entitle them to these funds, but does not exclude them from other benefits. Less flexible SU's (or those influenced by personal vendettas; or those who feel they have an equal obligation to be equitable in their allocation of non-financial benefits, such as room-bookings) do not.

(The other requirement which I realise has stung a few CU's are those SU's which require adherence to a union-wide Equality Policy; but that's an issue perhaps best left to one side.)

This does not seem to be an issue for any other religious group on campus. I've never heard of a MethSoc, AngSoc, CathSoc, OrthSoc, IslamicSoc, BuddhistSoc, HinduSoc, BahaiSoc, PaganSoc, or other, which had similar restrictions. I've known anglican friends on the committees of MethSocs and CathSocs, and catholics on the committee of an OrthSoc. Indeed, come to think of it, I've a non-Lutheran friend on the committee of a (Confessional, ie. Missouri Synod - which I think counts as rigidly conservative even by UCCF standards) Lutheran Society.

And, yes, horror of horrors, I've known non-christians who were a great help on the committee of christian societies.

I don't think these restrictions are necessary. The idea that wicked Liberals / Muslims / Homosexuals (delete as applicable) will suddenly hijack your society. Firstly, office bearers are bound to respect and act in accordance with the society's constitution (including its aims). Secondly, I have been involved in a (non-religious) university society where there was a credible perception of a takeover bid from outside (a very unusual occurrence). This was rapidly resolved with no difficulty whatsoever by the university authorities.

quote:
And UCCF I think (and I'm guessing here, no inside knowledge on this one) may be trying not to promote a confrontational approach to these issues - hence the non-repeat of the "under fire" seminar at Forum this year. Rather they seem to have tried to have a more major presence at the NUS national council, and hosted a seminar by Ram Gidoomal on the issue of tolerance and truth.
Sounds good to me. Very glad to hear it, and I hope it works!

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The CU are invited to vote in the AGM as to whether each of them is suitable.

Ah. The system I'm familiar with is block vote - all are elected, or all all rejected (causing a crisis!). If you think you know a reason why an individual candidate is unsuitable, you are supposed to contact the Exec before the AGM.

The other sticking point (from a SU point of view) is that not all members are eligible for election (DB-subscription is not - usually - a requirement for membership).

quote:
I remember reading this article some time ago, but I don't remember specifics. Does anyone know where one can find a copy?
Here.

--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)

Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012

 - Posted      Profile for Sarkycow   Email Sarkycow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
As such, being from a sheltered background, she basically hasn't the confidence to get involved in any uni societies without a Christian friend. So she isn't.
quote:
I'm really sympathetic to the girl who couldn't find any Christian friends to join societies with.
Clearly I'm missing something here. Why did she need christian friends to go to societies with?

I agree it's a lot easier to go to societies for the first time, if you have a friend with you. Or if you can spot other newbies, and sit with them, etc. But why should she need specifically christian ones? [Confused]

--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”

Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The way election is done in Swansea CU - and I know that this isn't the same everywhere - is that it is made known that the new committee will be elected, and that nominations will be accepted.

When nominations are taken, the committee go off oand pray about and talk about it. They then go and ask the people they decided on - in confidence - and, if refused, ask their second choice.

When they have willing candidates, they announce them to the CU. The CU are invited to vote in the AGM as to whether each of them is suitable.

If any candidate is not suitable and is not voted in, then the process starts again.

While in practice, tyhe vast majority of people are voted in, it has been known for the CU to vote against a candidate.

This, incidentally, is the model used in my own Baptist church for the election of a new minister.

I think it's a good way of doing things. It retains - in theory, anyway - the aspects of democracy, while avoiding the competition and factionalism that a democratic "vote-for-me-not-him" race would create, which in my view (and probably in the view of whoever wrote the SCU constitution) has no place in a Christian organisation.

Whereas I think this is not a good way of doing it (although it is better than a block vote). The fact it is used by a church for the election of a minister almost makes me more sure that it is not right for a CU. CUs, IME, are very clear in saying that they are not Churches, but using a system used by a Church to call its minister could be seen to be blurring the boundary.

I'm president of a Christian society which has straight STV elections for our committee posts. Currently we avoid the personality contest approach because with only 20-30 members contested elections are rare (I've known one in the past 3 years). It is perhaps worth noting that the number of votes per candidate are not announced only who was elected.

I felt that the CU at my previous university (which used the same system as Swansea) was a self-perpetuating oligarchy because I did not believe that anyone seen as being 'dodgy' would be considered making change nigh-on impossible. Maybe I am overly cynical.

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I felt that the CU at my previous university (which used the same system as Swansea) was a self-perpetuating oligarchy because I did not believe that anyone seen as being 'dodgy' would be considered making change nigh-on impossible. Maybe I am overly cynical.

I can see how it might happen that a CU committee might choose people Just Like Them, but you ahve to bear in mind the available pool of talent, the amount that people in a large CU can actually know anyone eligible that well (and if ten people nominate the same person without prompting, one might assume that there's some obvious reason why they should be considered) and the nature of the CU.

Swansea has had good committees and bad committees over the ten years I've been here, but you do find that they don't automatically follow on from each other - it can actually work. Not every year, but enough years to make it viable.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
LXM
Apprentice
# 6968

 - Posted      Profile for LXM   Author's homepage   Email LXM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for this discussion; I'm really intruiged and glad there is a communication about things going on in Christian movements.

However, there are a couple of things I've really noticed, having read through (most of) the posts on this subject.

Firstly, it saddens me a bit to see that not one reference has been made to the Bible in these passages. Personally that is one of the most persuasive and encouraging things in a discussion; pondering God's word revealed and thinking about the issues prayerfully. I might have missed a quote though...hopefully.

Having said that, I'm going to try and point out the second of my points with a reference: it's a bit too large to write all here, but basically Romans 13v8 to 5v13 has an important point we could bear in mind when having this discussion: we've been studying it at the church in Cambridge where in fact Rupert Evans is going to work as a student worker next year.

My point could well be made by your reactions to that: some of you may have just decided that I'm "obviously pro-UCCF". I think it can be quite dangerous to form judgments and thoughts on people without knowing them very much, which is why on a message board like this, we've got to try and be a bit more tolerant of each other.

I'm really worried about the way that some people are treating Rupert Evans/St Andrew the Great, Cambridge/UCCF/Fusion almost as if they weren't Christians! I think the assumption should be more of an "innocent until proven guilty" in this case; these are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Romans 13-15 as above tells us that we mustn't make non-salvation issues into salvation issues between us and other Christians. The godly and loving attitude isn't directly to point out the faults and major problems; it's to take into account other people's different way of approaching things. One of the things I get most frustrated with is when I do something out of love and thankfulness to God, and they misconstrue it by one of the small details.

Paul tells us that we must "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." (Romans 14v19; my emphasis). The details of how you conduct mission are NOT salvation issues; so first we must show support for the furthering of God's kingdom on this earth, along with praise to God for efforts, then second we should think of ways to constructively approach helpfully. Something my Dad said many years ago (he's a non-Christian): "it's much harder to find encouraging and helpful things to say about someone or some people than it is to be destructive and critical". Before you write your next post criticising Fusion/UCCF/that conservative evangelical church/the charismatics, have you thanked God for the wonderful work it's done?

I'm very aware that I might appear "holier-than-thou", simply because amongst other things no-one has quoted the Bible. I don't mean to be, and must of course apologise for any hurt feelings, as they are unintended.

-L

"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Galations 5v6

--------------------
Love pie.
See the website for more about me.

Posts: 8 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
LXM
Apprentice
# 6968

 - Posted      Profile for LXM   Author's homepage   Email LXM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yikes, I've just realised how incredibly long that post was. It's quite hard to tell when you're typing...er, but not much I can do, since I'm bad at editing. Just remember my poor Physics experimental supervisor who had to read through a 38 page, 14,000 word monster when the (at the time unknown to me) word limit was 3,000.

-L

--------------------
Love pie.
See the website for more about me.

Posts: 8 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064

 - Posted      Profile for The Expatriate Theolinguist   Email The Expatriate Theolinguist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I'm really worried about the way that some people are treating Rupert Evans/St Andrew the Great, Cambridge/UCCF/Fusion almost as if they weren't Christians! I think the assumption should be more of an "innocent until proven guilty" in this case; these are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
No, I'm not saying that they're not Christians, personally. I'm just saying it offends me greatly that they (or at least Evans) refuse to acknowledge that Fusion members/members of a more charismatic church are their brothers and sisters.

Try telling what you've just posted to Rupert Evans and you're most likely to get a response along the lines of 'They're heretics who aren't preaching the true Gospel'. That offends me, the fact that someone could be that arrogant and un-Christian. It probably comes from a misguided and twisted form of Godly concern, but what he did in going to a national newspaper was just NOT a Christian thing to do. If you have criticisms of your brothers and sisters, you don't sell that to a paper. It sounds an awful lot like backstabbing to me.

quote:
Paul tells us that we must "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." (Romans 14v19; my emphasis).
Try quoting that at Rupert Evans next time you see him!

I have an exam now, bye bye...

--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.

Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.

Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
LXM
Apprentice
# 6968

 - Posted      Profile for LXM   Author's homepage   Email LXM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Personally, yep, I do hope to be quoting that to Rupert when I next see him, or at least after I have got to know him again; it would be awful of me to shake his hand as soon as he walks in the door and then immediately judge and condemn him on the only thing I've seen him write.

Imagine now if God did that for us. Imagine if he simply took the worst thing we'd done in our lives and used that to judge us instead of Christ's death.

And yes, the same applies to him, to me, and to everyone else.

-L

"Love...keeps no record of wrongs" 1 Corinthians 13v5

--------------------
Love pie.
See the website for more about me.

Posts: 8 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LXM:
Firstly, it saddens me a bit to see that not one reference has been made to the Bible in these passages. Personally that is one of the most persuasive and encouraging things in a discussion; pondering God's word revealed and thinking about the issues prayerfully. I might have missed a quote though...hopefully.

As Christians - and I'm pretty sure that everyone involved in this discussion so far is Christian - we base our lives and our faith on scripture. Rather than take specific proof texts, we're trying to draw on the same Biblical principles - faith, evangelism, the best way to run a Christian organisation - and their outworking.

Take, for example, Cheesy, Leprechaun and me. We've each got different viewpoints. And yet, if you were to show us the relevant passages in, say Galatians, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Matt 28 and so on, we're likely to agree on those. They're all fairly clear. But the issue is not what the Bible says, or even what our interpretation of it is - the issue is what we do with that interpretation, which God tends to leave open to us, and which, throughout history, Christians have approached in different way appropriate to our culture. Because you can't fit every single possible way of running a church there has been throughout history into the Bible (and frankly, I think God expects us to be big enough to work it out for ourselves).

My original article was about methodology, not theology, inasmuch as now that we've had the commands of God to reach people - how do we do it?
quote:
My point could well be made by your reactions to that: some of you may have just decided that I'm "obviously pro-UCCF".
If you want to avoid people making judgements, it's best to nail your colours to the mast.

So, um, are you?

quote:
I think it can be quite dangerous to form judgments and thoughts on people without knowing them very much, which is why on a message board like this, we've got to try and be a bit more tolerant of each other.
Mate, this is tolerant. You should see some of the discussions where it gets nasty.

quote:
I'm really worried about the way that some people are treating Rupert Evans/St Andrew the Great, Cambridge/UCCF/Fusion almost as if they weren't Christians! I think the assumption should be more of an "innocent until proven guilty" in this case; these are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
I don't think anyone has actually done that. Christians are a family. A big, screwed-up dysfunctional family. Big, screwed-up dysfunctional families argue.

quote:
Romans 13-15 as above tells us that we mustn't make non-salvation issues into salvation issues between us and other Christians.
But then, this is the question some people here are discussing: are people doing this?

One might sensibly infer from Rupert Evans' article that he is.

Me, I'm not commenting any more on the article, on the grounds that my working-class upbringing makes it surpassingly difficult to take anything written by someone called "Rupert" seriously. [Big Grin]

quote:
The godly and loving attitude isn't directly to point out the faults and major problems; it's to take into account other people's different way of approaching things.
But what if these things are harmful? What if you believe these things are harmful? What if they actually harm the body of Christ? Do you just stand back and say, "well, that's just a different way of doing it"? Where does one draw the line?

quote:
One of the things I get most frustrated with is when I do something out of love and thankfulness to God, and they misconstrue it by one of the small details.
A thing which is a small detail to you might be a major detail to someone else.

This is an important rule of communication, which everyone has to learn sometime: the important part of any communication is not what you said, but what they think you said.

quote:
Paul tells us that we must "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." (Romans 14v19; my emphasis). The details of how you conduct mission are NOT salvation issues; so first we must show support for the furthering of God's kingdom on this earth, along with praise to God for efforts, then second we should think of ways to constructively approach helpfully.
Which was why I wrote my article the way I did, praising individual students and UCCF workers, while offering thoughts about the university Zeitgeist. Trust me, there are critiques of UCCF out there which are nowhere near as mild.

I'm not out to get anyone: I'm just calling it how I see it. I ran the article by people who were there to make sure that toes would not be stepped on. Even so, I get disingenuous accusations chucked back at me. Am I "satirising" UCCF? Am I playing into the hands of the "liberal conspiracy"?

Well?

Look.

The simple fact is, the way that people do mission is not a "salvation issue" - but surely, when you get a couple hundred non-Christians through the door and none of them are even slightly moved by a REALLY LOUD message that tells them they're all damned to eternal suffering, there is something very wrong with the world we're living in.

Mission is not a salvation issue for the people doing it - but what about for the people it's trying to reach?

[ 25. May 2004, 08:27: Message edited by: Wood ]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Why did she need christian friends to go to societies with?


Sarky - she's just a quiet Christian girl who is intimidated by the "come to our society and get really drunk, no come to ours and get really really drunk" culture that pervades her university. Some people find that type of thing intimidating when they will have no one else who will "stand" with them, even though I imagine it wouldn't be an issue for you [Biased]

Wood, thanks for that last post. Helpful. Really. And I am taking on board some of the things you are raising, and I think, tbh UCCF as a whole is certainly considering these issues, even if you can't see it.

I wonder, as it was notably absent from your article( [Biased] ) if you have any suggestions about more effective ways you think they could be doing it?

Also, I have to say, while you say you'll support your local CU but not the national movement...well <pssst - by supporting your local CU, you are supporting the national movement. They are affiliated>

[ 25. May 2004, 08:22: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
LXM
Apprentice
# 6968

 - Posted      Profile for LXM   Author's homepage   Email LXM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for your reply, Wood; it really made me think.

My position is that I'm very happy to be part of and support UCCF's work, as an imperfect organisation. I am also glad and keen to support the work of Fusion in my University too, since I have seen it's done many wonderful things. It stands to reason that I'm not too happy about the rifts, and would like to see better relations between the two (and other) groups.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But what if these things are harmful? What if you believe these things are harmful? What if they actually harm the body of Christ? Do you just stand back and say, "well, that's just a different way of doing it"? Where does one draw the line?

The example Paul takes in Romans is quite analagous. It seems that a main concern is that Roman Jewish Christians are having trouble accepting the Roman Gentile Christians' ability to eat meat (quite possibly pork). The Bible and Jesus' teaching never says "you mustn't eat meat or you'll never get to heaven"; but as long as "he who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord, and gives thanks to God" (Rm 14v6), then a great deal of respect goes to them.

Now I don't think Paul is advocating completely standing back. But a relationship being built between the two parties is of much more importance than the issue that divides them...for the time being. I could very well imagine that after a while of simply trying to avoid eating meat in front of the Jews, the Gentile might say "hey mate, I can see that me eating meat might have caused some difficulty for you; I'm sorry if it has"...and then try and work through, perhaps telling the Jew why he thought that we are freed from the Law's commands. But the Jew might not be freed as a matter of conscience, and so might be abstaining as an act of faith.

I hope the parallels are clear and unconvoluted; I really don't mean to sound critical to any person in particular. I don't mean to attack; I much rather mean that the Bible questions the way we approach things. And yes, I find it hard to live the Romans 14 way too.

NB I have read more than just Romans! [Smile]

-L

[ 25. May 2004, 08:40: Message edited by: LXM ]

--------------------
Love pie.
See the website for more about me.

Posts: 8 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Wood, thanks for that last post. Helpful. Really. And I am taking on board some of the things you are raising, and I think, tbh UCCF as a whole is certainly considering these issues, even if you can't see it.

I suppose that I'd like to see it more. It's not like I'm not looking. Although I had a very encouraging email from a UCCF staffworker of my acquaintance which suggested to me that, yeah, these issues have been taken on board and that the organisation is working on it, in a way that led me to actually believe that it is.

But I haven't been able to see it. Maybe it should be more obvious, you know?

quote:
I wonder, as it was notably absent from your article( [Biased] ) if you have any suggestions about more effective ways you think they could be doing it?
You know, Lep, I was waiting for someone to bring that one up. Should have know it was going to be you. [Smile]

Every time I showed that article to people in its earlier forms, it was the one thing that was brought up, again and again: "what do you suggest, Wood?"

I have been racking my brains for three months now and the depressing thing is, I have to honestly say that I don't know. Some time ago, I reviewed God and the Generations for Third Way, which was a report produced by ACUTE, the doctrinal thinktank of the Evangelical Alliance.

In its discussion of the Millennial generation, the report said:

quote:
...insofar as it is possible at this early stage to define a 'mission strategy' or 'apologetic' for Millennials, it would seem to be in appealing to to the personal benefits which might accrue to an individual's well-being and sense of purpose, from putting their faith in Christ. Rather than presenting Christian virtues and values in moralistic or legal terms, it may be necessary to frame them as means of self-actualisation and lifelong security. Furthermore, without compromising the clear demands of of Christi for humility and preferment of others, Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
(Hilborn and Bird 2002, p147)

So, in order to reach the Millennial generation, we have to give them a Gospel that essentially leaves out all the hard bits!?

And this from the EA! They spent piles of money researching it, and this is what they got?

No wonder I'm depressed and confused.

quote:
Back to dear ol' Leprechaun:
Also, I have to say, while you say you'll support your local CU but not the national movement...well <pssst - by supporting your local CU, you are supporting the national movement. They are affiliated>

"No I'm not."

"Yes, you are."

"No, I'm NOT!"

"Yes, you are SO!"

"Am not!"

"Are too!"

"Am not!"

"Are too!"

"Am not!"

"Are too!"

Right. Now I've predicted the course of that argument, let's leave that one, k? [Big Grin]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dontcha just love the EA? I especially loved this bit:
quote:
Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
So as long as it's not OBVIOUS that you have to humble yourself to be a Christian, that should be fine. [Killing me]

quote:
It's not like I'm not looking. Although I had a very encouraging email from a UCCF staffworker of my acquaintance which suggested to me that, yeah, these issues have been taken on board and that the organisation is working on it, in a way that led me to actually believe that it is.

But I haven't been able to see it. Maybe it should be more obvious, you know?

Well, couple of things. One is, that as you say UCCF does think before it speaks as a whole - so before it uveils new policies it tends to spend a long time in discussion. Pro and con.
The other is that I think there has been a see change in the way a lot of stuff has been done. So, eg, there is now much more emphasis on training people up to look at the person of Jesus informally with a non-Christian friend, or to be able to use bits of the Gospels to introduce Jesus into every day life than there was in "Gospel projects" when I was at uni.
One CU leaders conference I attended, the last thing anyone said was "all your events, all your graphics, all your flyers don't mean anything if you don't sit down with people you know and love and introduce them to the most important person in your life." Or something like that.

Now, I'm not claiming this is rocket science, or that its enough, or that it will change the world, BUT, the investing in people, and introducing him to Jesus as he is given to us in the Bible, is a slight (and helpful IMO) change in emphasis from "come and hear our apologetic" approach.
Similarly, there has been a conscious steer away from encouraging CUs seeing missions as "the one week" or a Gospel project as "the one year" - and a general recognition that these things take more love and time.
Now, not revolutionary, and I think there is more to come, and much more that needs to be done, but the moves are there.

And I think, for all your criticism of the Rev Cunningham, he does have the reputation of being an innovative evangelist, and may well help things move forward more.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LXM:
My position is that I'm very happy to be part of and support UCCF's work, as an imperfect organisation. I am also glad and keen to support the work of Fusion in my University too, since I have seen it's done many wonderful things. It stands to reason that I'm not too happy about the rifts, and would like to see better relations between the two (and other) groups.

Colours nailed to the mast. Thanks. Helps to understand where you're coming from.

Must be a difficult position to be in.

quote:
The example Paul takes in Romans is quite analagous. It seems that a main concern is that Roman Jewish Christians are having trouble accepting the Roman Gentile Christians' ability to eat meat (quite possibly pork). The Bible and Jesus' teaching never says "you mustn't eat meat or you'll never get to heaven"; but as long as "he who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord, and gives thanks to God" (Rm 14v6), then a great deal of respect goes to them.
While the principle we draw from this passage is useful for deciding why we shouldn't read the Daily Mail or watch Hollywood action movies, I realy don't think that this analogy holds for missiology.

In fact, I rather suspect Paul was of the "shoot first, ask questions later" type (eg. Galatians 5, several instance in Acts), who would have taken these questions very seriously indeed.

It's not about standards of Christian behaviour that we're talking - it's about how we treat the Gospel of Christ.

[ 25. May 2004, 09:17: Message edited by: Wood ]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026

 - Posted      Profile for Elephenor   Email Elephenor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by me:
I don't think these restrictions are necessary.

Rereading in the light of morning, I think I should clarify: I, as a christian bystander, think these restrictions and practices are unnecessary and not worth suffering marytrdom for. But I would acknowledge they are, rightly or wrongly, an important part of the UCCF CU Movement's identity, and think Student Unions should make reasonable efforts to accommodate them, as they would other religious eccentricities.

quote:
Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
It probably comes from a misguided and twisted form of Godly concern, but what he did in going to a national newspaper was just NOT a Christian thing to do.

I think it's giving `Evangelicals Now!', as a monthly publication read chiefly in FIEC circles and their ilk, a bit too much importance to describe them as a national newspaper. They're not exactly the Daily Mail. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
My original article was about methodology, not theology, inasmuch as now that we've had the commands of God to reach people - how do we do it?

Oh, yes, getting back on topic...

When I've expressed concern in the past about the efficiency of spending about £10000 (n.b. that's very much at the top of the spectrum) on a week-long mission that doesn't produce a single convert, I've invariably been told - correct insofar as it goes - that we've no certain way of judging what effect the mission may have had on attendees. Perhaps God has used it to plant seeds that time will nurture &c &c.

But I think this misses the fact that this style of mission was originally adopted because it was, once upon a time, and unless contemporary accounts were hopelessly exaggerated, successful (there have always been some comparatively unproductive missions, but not year after year like today) - producing dozens and dozens of converts at altar-calls, some of whom even lasted to the end of term. If it is no longer successful in those terms, that is strong prima facie evidence that it might no longer be the most appropriate approach in the modern UK university environment.

There's a pop-missiology aid called the Engel Scale (figure 3 here). I don't take it particularly seriously, but I think it helps illustrate the issue. A traditional universities mission is aimed at people at stages -1 and -2 on this scale, which was fine when a large number of university students had a basic background understanding of christianity; but today almost all students are at (or well below!) -7 on the scale.

What would I suggest as alternatives? Not sure. It's a cliche, but more relational, long-contact forms of evangelism seem more successful at the present time (and can carry people from about -4 to +3 on the scale). I think the increasing use of alpha-like courses (including `Christianity Explored') is a good thing. In some CU's this is now a year-round activity; in others it's still only a follow-up from the mission week.

For reaching those more distant from christianity, we probably need to experiment with innovative methods of pre-evangelism. One idea I'd like to try would be running (or sponsoring) non-proselytising `christianity as culture' lectures, which, if sufficient trust were established, could be useful to many humanities students. Some of those attending might be sufficiently hooked by the attractiveness of the christian story - we don't need to sell ourselves short, christianity is attractive - to provide fodder for more directly evangelistic projects.

Another point about missions, while I'm on the topic. I've suspected for some time that, perhaps half-consciously, traditional missions are valued as being particularly good for CUs and CU members, encouraging them in personal evangelism and uniting them against a hostile world (it can take quite a lot of courage to invite a friend to a mission talk; once you've done that, you've thrown in your lot with the CU for good or ill!), even if they have no effect on the heaten hordes. Two quotes seem to partly illustrate this attitude: the first from Wood's article:

quote:
Later on in the week, I ask Scottish Guy if the week met his expectations. "I was expecting to see some opposition," he says. "I was also expecting to see the CU grow. And they have. They ve learnt a lot. "
and the second from the UCCF representative's statement (though here it follows an explicit mention of success in terms of converts too):

quote:
Our London Team leader writes of the recent mission season: ‘…many more Christian students have been really fired up with a vision for evangelism and hosted more effective mission events in the spring than we have ever seen in a single term. There have been at least 4 effective new CUs set up off the back of a couple of keen students doing pioneer evangelism. They are creative, they are doing things in contextualised ways and they love the Lord with all their hearts.’
Is there something in this?

--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)

Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026

 - Posted      Profile for Elephenor   Email Elephenor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the quote from the EA report, Wood. (I presume your review isn't online? I couldn't find it on thirdway or johnheronproject websites.) It sure is a toughie, isn't it?

--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)

Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
LXM
Apprentice
# 6968

 - Posted      Profile for LXM   Author's homepage   Email LXM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It's not about standards of Christian behaviour that we're talking - it's about how we treat the Gospel of Christ.

Okay, the thread may be talking about the way we treat the gospel of Christ, but the point I was making was that we have to watch our behaviour. Anyway, it's in danger of becoming unconstructive, so I suggest this "tangent" be continued outside this thread if at all [Smile] .

I'd like to raise the point that University (and again, I have to speak from experience at my University) missions "fail to see a single convert". Now the mission that was held recently had huge numbers of people attending, huge numbers of people going to the post-mission followup "Promise Explored" courses, and actually saw two of my friends in College actually become Christians! And I don't think it's entirely fair to presume that they would have become Christians anyway...

...and besides that, I reckon the mission does a whole lot for encouraging the Christians to witness (BOTH in proclamation AND in "being a friend" type of witness), unifying Christians in College/University (it was amazing in my College) and generally making known that Christians care so much about their beliefs that they want...feel compelled...to share them.

But yes, you're right, it needs revising, thinking about and prayer. And it's not perfect.

--------------------
Love pie.
See the website for more about me.

Posts: 8 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everybody's Favourite Irish Stereotype:
Dontcha just love the EA? I especially loved this bit:
quote:
Millennials may well respond best to a presentation of the Gospel which does not obviously reject ambition, drive and success as inimical to authentic discipleship.
So as long as it's not OBVIOUS that you have to humble yourself to be a Christian, that should be fine. [Killing me]
Well, quite. And it's not as if they're a liberal organisation as far as evangelism goes. As I said, depressing.

quote:
Well, couple of things. One is, that as you say UCCF does think before it speaks as a whole - so before it unveils new policies it tends to spend a long time in discussion. Pro and con.
Maybe I was wrong - maybe this caginess about having a party line doesn't mean you necessarily know where you are with them after all.

Still, it'd be nice to have a sort of progress report, you know? People are able to accept when something's not fully formed.

quote:
One CU leaders conference I attended, the last thing anyone said was "all your events, all your graphics, all your flyers don't mean anything if you don't sit down with people you know and love and introduce them to the most important person in your life." Or something like that.
Which is a fair point.

quote:
Now, I'm not claiming this is rocket science, or that its enough, or that it will change the world, BUT, the investing in people, and introducing him to Jesus as he is given to us in the Bible, is a slight (and helpful IMO) change in emphasis from "come and hear our apologetic" approach.
Yes, I think I agree.

I found Elephenor's observations about the Engel Scale actually quite helpful here. I think you're both getting at the same thing.

quote:
Similarly, there has been a conscious steer away from encouraging CUs seeing missions as "the one week" or a Gospel project as "the one year" - and a general recognition that these things take more love and time.
I think that this is definitely the case - and I have observed it - but still, the outside perception (which DizzySheep sort of observed on page 1 of this thread) from people who are not in the CU is that they pop up out of nowhere during mission week. Why is that?

And then there's the observation of Fran, the non-Christian student I talked to in one of the meetings: "maybe people would have more time for their message if they got involved, rather than standing around and saying how great Jesus is."

I think that Christians should be encouraged to get involved in student politics more. Not only does it preserve their right to exist, but it's a Good Witness (or pre-witness, if you will).

quote:
And I think, for all your criticism of the Rev Cunningham, he does have the reputation of being an innovative evangelist, and may well help things move forward more.
Well, I hope so.

My contact with the guy (I've communicated with him) hasn't been particularly happy, I think. That's probably coloured my view of him.

quote:
Posted by Elephenor:
Another point about missions, while I'm on the topic. I've suspected for some time that, perhaps half-consciously, traditional missions are valued as being particularly good for CUs and CU members, encouraging them in personal evangelism and uniting them against a hostile world (it can take quite a lot of courage to invite a friend to a mission talk; once you've done that, you've thrown in your lot with the CU for good or ill!), even if they have no effect on the heaten hordes. Two quotes seem to partly illustrate this attitude: [quotes]

Is there something in this?

You know, I rather think that there is. But there are other ways to bind people together, aren't there?

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rimasu
Shipmate
# 4482

 - Posted      Profile for rimasu   Author's homepage   Email rimasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An aside about the "talk with lunch thing". At my university, when the CU do a mission they stick lots of people on the concorse trying to handout leaflets. Fair enough. Except the line used to catch peoples attention is "Do you want a free lunch?" - no reference of talks, of Christianity. (To be fair most of the information was on the leaflets that people where being given).

I spent an hour watching this process and came to the conclusion that they where being disingenuous.
I have a dear friend who was so offended by the CU's arse-about-face of way of inviting people to talks that it did serious damage to her opinion of CU.

I'm not sure on the numbers game, but if you measure success by numbers attending, then giving them a total other reason to be there (like food)
is always going to make things look good.

I have no problem with giving people food, if they will listen to you. I do have a problem with focusing the marketing on the food.


Rich

--------------------
I may, however, just be plain wrong.

Posts: 206 | From: Southampton: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
LXM
Apprentice
# 6968

 - Posted      Profile for LXM   Author's homepage   Email LXM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Now, I'm not claiming this is rocket science, or that its enough, or that it will change the world, BUT, the investing in people, and introducing him to Jesus as he is given to us in the Bible, is a slight (and helpful IMO) change in emphasis from "come and hear our apologetic" approach.

That's a very good point; it also seems to assume a bit more on the non-Christian attendees part. A good way I've seen this done is by having the set of "The Bible talks", which aim to mostly talk about the gospel as presented in the Bible (both OT and NT). The fact that it's a talk makes it more friendly to those who'd get intimidated or uncomfortable around small groups (e.g. Christianity Explored). It's also fairly short, and takes away the apologetic difficulty of people coming along just to pose very hard questions or to be difficult.

Great stuff.

-L

--------------------
Love pie.
See the website for more about me.

Posts: 8 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elephenor:
Thanks for the quote from the EA report, Wood. (I presume your review isn't online? I couldn't find it on thirdway or johnheronproject websites.) It sure is a toughie, isn't it?

No, it's not online.

I basically said, if I remember right, that it was worth getting because of the data, even if if its conclusions were depressing and arguably wrong.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rimasu:
An aside about the "talk with lunch thing". At my university, when the CU do a mission they stick lots of people on the concorse trying to handout leaflets. Fair enough. Except the line used to catch peoples attention is "Do you want a free lunch?" - no reference of talks, of Christianity. (To be fair most of the information was on the leaflets that people where being given).

Of course the majority of students will take the leaflet, notice it's CU and put it in the nearest bin (or just drop it on the ground, litter bugs [Roll Eyes] ). The ones likely to turn up for free food are going to be the ones who hear "free food!", take the leaflet and ask "what's the catch?" ... if at that point the answer given is "no catch" then that's dishonest unless there's no compulsion to stay after food to hear the talk.

I quite like the idea of a free lunch, followed by an announcement "we're about to have a short presentation explaining who we are, and why we've just fed you for free. It's going to talk about Jesus. You're free to leave if you don't want to listen".

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by rimasu:
An aside about the "talk with lunch thing". At my university, when the CU do a mission they stick lots of people on the concorse trying to handout leaflets. Fair enough. Except the line used to catch peoples attention is "Do you want a free lunch?" - no reference of talks, of Christianity. (To be fair most of the information was on the leaflets that people where being given).

Of course the majority of students will take the leaflet, notice it's CU and put it in the nearest bin (or just drop it on the ground, litter bugs [Roll Eyes] ). The ones likely to turn up for free food are going to be the ones who hear "free food!", take the leaflet and ask "what's the catch?" ... if at that point the answer given is "no catch" then that's dishonest unless there's no compulsion to stay after food to hear the talk.

I quite like the idea of a free lunch, followed by an announcement "we're about to have a short presentation explaining who we are, and why we've just fed you for free. It's going to talk about Jesus. You're free to leave if you don't want to listen".

Which is more or less precisely how it went in Swansea.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098

 - Posted      Profile for The Black Labrador   Email The Black Labrador   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought Evans' article was appalling - looks like his gospel unity = 100% conservative evangelical agenda. Charismatics have supported CU meetings for years and accepted things they didn't agree with for the sake of unity. Why can't conservative evangelicals reciprocate?

I don't know much about Fusion (set up after I left university) but their council of reference includes some well known evangelicals - suggesting that the likes of Joel Edwards and Sandy Millar are pursuing some kind of non-evangelical agenda is absolutely laughable.

Leprechaun, what do you mean it's "not allowed" for an individual student to put up a poster perhaps suggesting an informal meeting for christians in the hall (not a cu) - who will stop her? And could the chaplaincy/local churches not be another way of her finding out about fellow Christians in her hall of residence?

Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
And could the chaplaincy/local churches not be another way of her finding out about fellow Christians in her hall of residence?

You can't put up a poster unless you are a student union registered society. Which she isn't, and her CU aren't because they are not allowed because of the reasons discussed above. So they can't give her permission to put the poster up. And the uni won't let her start a meeting in halls to advertise because it would be Christian etc.
They have their own notice board, but with it being a new university/split campus its not much use for her finding out about people in her halls as its stuck outside the chaplaincy which is 3 or 4 miles away.
We as a local church have tried to help, but it is needle in a haystack territory.
I mean I suppose part of the problem is, as I said, a personality thing - she's just a quiet probably not innovative enough Christian girl. She probably, if she was hard nosed and forceful enough have done something to help herself, but she isn't. Its these type of people that have the most to lose, and who CUs often most help (sometimes in the way Eleph describes during missions) - they are not all campaigning crusaders.

As for Evans article - having done student work on the ground I think some of the substantive points he makes about Fusion methodology/message are fair. But I thoroughly disagree with the pejorative way he makes them, and the whole tactic of using his own contacts in the Christian world to both directly and obliquely criticise the 2 main mission agencies to British students.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lep, why won't the university allow a meeting in Hall? Is it some "no more than x people in a room at once" regulation? Because students have parties and groups in their rooms that exceed that regularly. Or is it just the advertising that they don't allow?

The CU I presume actually exists, and meets outwith university buildings (I'd be surprised if there wasn't a local church that would let them use their building). So all that is needed is for the information about when/where they meet and who to contact to be available in all local churches. Then this girl could at least contact them, and if they know of other Christian students in the Hall they could get in contact.

Not being able to use uni buildings or advertise is not the end of the world. There are ways around it, maybe a bit less effective but with some effort, organisation and good will from other groups and churches it should work.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098

 - Posted      Profile for The Black Labrador   Email The Black Labrador   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So what happens if you do put up a poster? It just gets taken down, in all probability a few days later - after those who have seen it have had an opportunity to respond. She doesn't have to organise a formal meeting - just a couple of people in her room or in a local pub.

Or what's to stop her emailing local churches or the chaplaincy to see if they could put her in contact with people in her hall of residence?

Although the girl may be shy, it is difficult to see how someone over 18 can be excused from taking all responsibility in such a situation.

Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:


And then there's the observation of Fran, the non-Christian student I talked to in one of the meetings: "maybe people would have more time for their message if they got involved, rather than standing around and saying how great Jesus is."


I think, and I've been thinking about this a bit lately, that a method of doing Christianity that really clearly integrates faith and life is a really key part of reaching postmoderns (see also that other thread) I wonder if that's how we could encourage better evangelism to students.
So, we don't just need to teach doctrine, but teach HOW it actually effects the way we do life every day.
And even on issues about which Christians disagree, like what politics we should have, we should be able to articulate clearly HOW our Christian worldview means we have come to those conclusions.
IME, there are 2 reasons why CUs tend to throw their weight behind event based evangelism, rather than ongoing lifestyle Christian living, that expects to see people come to faith.

1) They personally don't know or feel confident about expressing their faith clearly. On this one, IME UCCF do a lot of good work in helping people learn ways to communicate (even if you don't particularly like the ways they teach). Its much easier to put up a few posters and hand out flyers, and make a few "once in a blue moon" invitations than it is to talk about your faith every day.

2) is that people are not learning to integrate faith and life. They just can't see or demonstrate how being a Christian makes more than a difference to what films you watch or your view of masturbation, but actually to the way you approach work, study, people, coffee shops, supermarkets, housemates, politics etc. In this area, UCCF have some work to do, which I think they are attempting to address with books like "Meltdown". And it is one of R.C.'s big things too.

I think this is what I mean by showing people Christianity "works" as a method of evangelism. Not (contra EA) making it easy for them to become Christians, but showing how all the hard stuff plays out day by day. Pomos (ISTM)while dissing reality as a concept, crave some sort of reality in life. We need to prove that we have encountered it and be able to articulate that. Faith needs to look, not just sound real.

[ 25. May 2004, 11:55: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think, and I've been thinking about this a bit lately, that a method of doing Christianity that really clearly integrates faith and life is a really key part of reaching postmoderns (see also that other thread) I wonder if that's how we could encourage better evangelism to students.
So, we don't just need to teach doctrine, but teach HOW it actually affects the way we do life every day.

...and act it out, of course.

Nail on head.

quote:
And even on issues about which Christians disagree, like what politics we should have, we should be able to articulate clearly HOW our Christian worldview means we have come to those conclusions.
Again: yep.

quote:
IME, there are 2 reasons why CUs tend to throw their weight behind event based evangelism, rather than ongoing lifestyle Christian living, that expects to see people come to faith.

1) They personally don't know or feel confident about expressing their faith clearly. On this one, IME UCCF do a lot of good work in helping people learn ways to communicate (even if you don't particularly like the ways they teach). Its much easier to put up a few posters and hand out flyers, and make a few "once in a blue moon" invitations than it is to talk about your faith every day.

I can see that. Although handing out flyers used to terrify me.

quote:
2) is that people are not learning to integrate faith and life. They just can't see or demonstrate how being a Christian makes more than a difference to what films you watch or your view of masturbation, but actually to the way you approach work, study, people, coffee shops, supermarkets, housemates, politics etc.
Again, I'm with you. However, it really has to be done better - and the pointers in recent publications like The Blurb aren't enough.

quote:
I think this is what I mean by showing people Christianity "works" as a method of evangelism. Not (contra EA) making it easy for them to become Christians, but showing how all the hard stuff plays out day by day. Pomos (ISTM)while dissing reality as a concept, crave some sort of reality in life. We need to prove that we have encountered it and be able to articulate that. Faith needs to look, not just sound real.
Again, I'm totally with you on this one.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The EA article was certainly leaning towards a Christianity-and-water approach, but I think there was something in it if you strip that bit away.

Maybe the point isn't doing away with humility but rather that an evangelistic focus based around corporate salvation and working for the Kingdom of God would be a more attractive way into Christianity for those with drive, ambition etc (which are not necessarily bad things) than a focus based around personal holiness and individual salvation.

So I tentatively suggest that something like a call to be involved in a good works project might be more effective as a mission? Just a thought.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tabby Cat
Shipmate
# 4561

 - Posted      Profile for Tabby Cat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not a Christian, actually [Hot and Hormonal]
(First time I've admitted that here, I think!)

Right, now I've got that out of the way. I'm not sure where I stand on the Engel Scale (!) but one thing that has put me off the CU is the way it seems to be assumed that non-Christians don't know anything about the Bible or Christianity in general. Is it really true that most university students don't?!

I've always found it a bit patronising to see a (usually reasonably well-known) Bible verse, its reference, and then 'The Bible' underneath. Yes, I can work out that it's from the Bible, thanks. And I'm afraid I'm quite put off when a talk starts, 'Right, I realise most of you won't have heard anything about Christianity before...' No, actually I have, but I haven't been quite convinced - I'm there to try and learn more about it, and I'm happy for the talk to give me the basics, of course - I just don't like the assumption that I'm completely ignorant about it. I suppose it's unreasonable to think that the view is 'well, if they already knew anything about it, they'd be Christians already'?

Once I was invited by my some of my friends to a CU talk which was instead of one of their weekly meetings and so I was really pleased - I thought I might get to hear something more in-depth than usual. I hoped to learn more about the sort of teaching CU members get. But I had completely got the wrong idea - it was, of course, a bring-your-unbeliever-friends talk which just happened to be on a Wednesday night. They didn't mean to mislead me (I hope!) but I was quite disappointed to hear the same old talk again.

I might be in a minority amongst non-Christian students, I suppose. Does anyone have any statistics about how much most students know about Christianity? I'm certainly not saying I know everything about it - I'm not even saying I've not learnt anything from the talks I've been to. But the assumption that I don't know anything is what I don't like. (Oh dear, that sounds a bit petty. I don't mind it exactly - it just puts me off wanting to hear more, and that's what we're talking about, isn't it?)

Posts: 1063 | From: Paddling at the edge of the sea | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
GeordieDownSouth
Shipmate
# 4100

 - Posted      Profile for GeordieDownSouth   Email GeordieDownSouth   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tabby Cat, its a hard one to call. I ran a "just looking" group at uni and put my foot in it when I assumed that everyone there knew there were four gospels written by different people.

It was hard enough pitching it right in a group of four, getting it right on a larger scale must be even harder.

[ 25. May 2004, 14:36: Message edited by: GeordieDownSouth ]

--------------------
----------------------

No longer down south.

Posts: 689 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
I'm not sure where I stand on the Engel Scale (!) but one thing that has put me off the CU is the way it seems to be assumed that non-Christians don't know anything about the Bible or Christianity in general. Is it really true that most university students don't?!

Yep. Baseline of knowledge is shockingly low, and getting lower, if my experience of the last ten years is anything to go on.

quote:
I've always found it a bit patronising to see a (usually reasonably well-known) Bible verse, its reference, and then 'The Bible' underneath. Yes, I can work out that it's from the Bible, thanks. And I'm afraid I'm quite put off when a talk starts, 'Right, I realise most of you won't have heard anything about Christianity before...' No, actually I have, but I haven't been quite convinced - I'm there to try and learn more about it, and I'm happy for the talk to give me the basics, of course - I just don't like the assumption that I'm completely ignorant about it.
Thing is, this puts you in a tiny minority, and frankly, this thing UCCF have got right - you can't actually assume that anyone under the age of 25 knows anything at all about Scripture.

quote:
I suppose it's unreasonable to think that the view is 'well, if they already knew anything about it, they'd be Christians already'?
I think it's a little unfair to assume that's the attitude. There is an attitude out there which suggests that if you only hear the Gospel and understand it properly, you'll be saved, but this isn't UCCF's attitude, and most people grow out of it.

quote:
Once I was invited by my some of my friends to a CU talk which was instead of one of their weekly meetings and so I was really pleased - I thought I might get to hear something more in-depth than usual. I hoped to learn more about the sort of teaching CU members get. But I had completely got the wrong idea - it was, of course, a bring-your-unbeliever-friends talk which just happened to be on a Wednesday night. They didn't mean to mislead me (I hope!) but I was quite disappointed to hear the same old talk again.
This, on the other hand, is the failure, in my view of evangelistic events. Most of these talks present stuff which the average CU member could impart in reasonable conversation, in my experience.

And, of course, it only presents the one view of Christianity.

quote:
I might be in a minority amongst non-Christian students, I suppose. Does anyone have any statistics about how much most students know about Christianity?
No stats, but the majority of non-Christian students I've talked to don't know much about any flavour of Christianity, let alone UCCF's rum-and-raisin special.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064

 - Posted      Profile for The Expatriate Theolinguist   Email The Expatriate Theolinguist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
I suppose it's unreasonable to think that the view is 'well, if they already knew anything about it, they'd be Christians already'?

Either that, or 'if you've heard it once and you've not become a Christian, why on earth have you come back?' If it's that, it reflects a kind of assumption that you'll either hear it and accept the Gospel first time around or you'll hear it once and never, ever accept it.

quote:
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:
They didn't mean to mislead me (I hope!) but I was quite disappointed to hear the same old talk again.

Sadly, this is what some CUs do. There's a two-tiered approach to teaching - the gospel talk for the uninitiated, and 'proper teaching' for Christians. I personally don't think there's much wrong with non-Christians coming along to hear 'proper teaching' - OK, they won't understand some of it, but surely we're meant to be accessible and not cliquey?

So as to nail my particular colours to the proverbial, I'm involved with Fusion here in Cambridge (as you may have gathered). Being a cell leader myself, I can say with a bit of experience that the cell model works really well for the whole 'preaching the Gospel without doing the Bible-bashing act' thing. In this model, non-Christians are usually seen as people rather than merely potential converts, which is the danger of specifically 'evangelistic' meetings.

Hey ho, another exam bites the dust. Only four to go...

--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.

Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.

Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
LXM
Apprentice
# 6968

 - Posted      Profile for LXM   Author's homepage   Email LXM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's an interesting approach to evangelism that I heard from a good friend of mine. He said that it seems that a big problem is that we (Christians) treat non-Christians so very differently to Christians; we sometimes might appear guarded, or that it's awkward. We might look a bit ashamed or hesitant...the classic is the answer to the question:

Non-C: What did you get up to last night?
C: Er...I was at "Focus"...sort of at Church. But it wasn't like normal church, it was a Bible Study which we kind of do on Tuesday evenings.
N-C: Oh. Was it good?
C: Well, yeah.

Okay, that's a bit extreme on the hesitant side, but it's the sort of conversation I've had and seen a lot of (er, I was the C).

This would (understandably) put lots of non-Christians off, because it seems like we're leading two lives. This is enhanced in mission week, when we suddenly get all keen and they've wondered what's suddenly changed.

Instead, this friend suggested (I think he said he heard it somewhere; I'm sure it's not that new) that instead we treat non-Christians just like Christians. So...

Non-C: What did you get up to last night?
C: Bible Study at Church, then chilled with some mates afterwards.
N-C: Oh. Was it good?
C: Yeah, it was great! We did a passage that was showing us about how to relate to authorities on the earth. It's quite cool, that Christians aren't meant to be rebels to authority but recognise that authority in the earth is established by God. (etc.)

I've actually had virtually exactly that conversation, and was impressed by the non-Christian's response. Even if you don't get anything more than a half-hearted "oh, interesting" kind of reply, they're still aware that you're interested in stuff and interested in sharing...but won't push way too hard. It makes it easier to invite people along if they've already heard some good stuff from you, and if it looks like you enjoy it rather than are ashamed by it.

Okay, I know it's a bit trite, but it really does work much better than seeming ashamed...Romans 1v16. Oh, and the authority passage is Romans 13. I am NOT obsessed with Romans. I've just been working through it a lot.

-L

--------------------
Love pie.
See the website for more about me.

Posts: 8 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tabby Cat
Shipmate
# 4561

 - Posted      Profile for Tabby Cat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right. Thanks for the replies. Okay, I'm reasonably convinced - I'll try and be a bit more tolerant and not assume I'm being patronised!

quote:
Wood said:
No stats, but the majority of non-Christian students I've talked to don't know much about any flavour of Christianity, let alone UCCF's rum-and-raisin special.

OK, I'm willing to take your word for it. Of course, this leads to the danger that when the CU says 'To be a Christian you must believe this, and other people who say they are Christians are in fact not,' they believe them - never mind different flavours of Christianity, this is the only one! But let's not start on that...

quote:
mr_ricarno said:
Sadly, this is what some CUs do. There's a two-tiered approach to teaching - the gospel talk for the uninitiated, and 'proper teaching' for Christians. I personally don't think there's much wrong with non-Christians coming along to hear 'proper teaching' - OK, they won't understand some of it, but surely we're meant to be accessible and not cliquey?

Right. That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for putting it in a much better way!

LXM: No, that isn't trite at all. I'm really grateful when my Christian friends talk to me like that.

Posts: 1063 | From: Paddling at the edge of the sea | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tabby Cat:


LXM: No, that isn't trite at all. I'm really grateful when my Christian friends talk to me like that.

You see, this is more or less what I was referring to earlier - LXM is obviously competent and sensible enough to have a conversation about what how what s/he is living as a Christian in the context of everyday life. Not "oh my goodness a gospel opportunity, must explain the cross" but "here's what living as Christian means every day to me". Most Christian students I know aren't.
I remember once running an evangelistic training session for some students at a relatively serious academic institution. I got them to do a little exercise "How would you bring a Christian perspective to bear on a conversation about X". they couldn't do it. At all. And it asn't anything bonkers like polar bears or something, it was "the war in Afghanistan" or "the Ian Huntley case" or something like that.
I was astounded.

Tabby cat - at my church we run "guest services" where basically we have the same talk we would have anyway, and the same service format, but with an explanation of what everything is, and why it is done, and a bit of the talk usually that says "if you aren't a Christian, or not sure, this is what this might have to do with you." How does that sound? Good/awful? And what do you make of being expected to sing at Christian meetings? I am genuinely interested.

(You see this is why the ship is great isn't it, because where else would I get to ask these questions without having to get to know the person really well first? [Axe murder] )

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tabby Cat
Shipmate
# 4561

 - Posted      Profile for Tabby Cat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Tabby cat - at my church we run "guest services" where basically we have the same talk we would have anyway, and the same service format, but with an explanation of what everything is, and why it is done, and a bit of the talk usually that says "if you aren't a Christian, or not sure, this is what this might have to do with you." How does that sound? Good/awful? And what do you make of being expected to sing at Christian meetings? I am genuinely interested.

That sounds pretty good, although personally I'd rather be invited along to a 'normal' service!

Really though, that does sound good.

I'm not sure what you mean about being expected to sing at Christian meetings. Do you mean in church, or somewhere else? I've never felt that I had to sing in church, although I usually do join in. I like singing.

quote:
(You see this is why the ship is great isn't it, because where else would I get to ask these questions without having to get to know the person really well first? [Axe murder] )
Absolutely!
Posts: 1063 | From: Paddling at the edge of the sea | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
A long time ago Wood said:
Re. The UCL Controversy. As I understand it, the SU tried to pass a motion banning religious societies from using SU money to perform religious activities, on threat of expulsion (meaning that the CU would have been kicked out immediately). The vote was held, and a block vote of religious societies meant that the resolution was overturned. While the resolution was directed at university societies in general, I don't think anyone was fooling themselves that it wasn't directed at the CU.

After the vote was overturned, the UCL discovered links on the UCLCU website to a rather extreme apologetics site (which was linked before anyone read it properly - oops) and to UCCF. The fact that UCLCU was affiliated to UCCF was made clear to the UCLSU exec, who hadn't noticed before, apparently [Roll Eyes] .

UCCF's site includes a number of resources which break UCLSU's rules on discrimination; therefore, by being affiliated to the outside society, the CU was breaking the SU rules anyway, and could be expelled without anyone having to change any rules.

Someone in the SU at UCL was out to get the CU - I think that's clear from the fact that they tried to change the rules to kick them out. There's no point in painting this any other way.

This doesn't mean that the SU was representative of the opinion of the mass of UCL students, however. It just happened that the minority who control the SU wanted the CU out (on the grounds that they thought it a bad, harmful thing).

If the CU had been more invovled at an earlier stage, it probably wouldn't have got to that point.

I just want to clear a little point up (sorry it has taken so long, I have been away working). I missed an important stage in my logic. As Wood said, the AGM rejected the motion to expel all the religious societies but later another committee (which I do not think was the Executive Committee, but I might be wrong) expelled them for the reasons outlined above.

Now, No. 1, I think this is a sneaky way to behave. Wood and Lep are probably correct that there is someone trying to remove the influence of the christians.

Student apathy used to mean that many of the most politically active of the elected members were of the Socialist Workers' party (or other similar communist organisation). The two things may or may not be related.

No. 2, this is the constitution of the UCL Students' Union. It is very similar to other SU constitutions I have read. Now, the reason that it does not really matter which union committee slung out the CU is paragraph IX headed 'Government - general meetings'

quote:
A. Decisions made at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting shall override those made at Union Council or any other Union Committee subject to the standing orders for General Meetings.
B. A General Meeting may consider any matter, except an establishment matter, that is raised correctly according to the Standing Orders for General Meetings. The quorum for General Meetings shall be as laid out in the Standing Orders for General Meetings. Notice and procedure for General Meetings shall be in accordance with the Standing Orders for General Meetings.

Now, I am not implying that the CU would want to force through a motion. But the facility is there if you can raise quorum. If you don't like the decision of a union committee you are at liberty to call an EGM. According to the standing orders section 9, it can either be called by the Executive, Council, or on receipt of a written request from 2% of the student members of the SU. You then need 3% to be quorum. 2% is 360 students - which is probably bigger than the CU.

It is as well to know have a copy of the constitution before attending any SU meeting.

Ok you can wake up now.

C

[ 21. June 2004, 12:49: Message edited by: Wood ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For information, the thread on UCL CU expulsion is still in Purgatory. That would be a better place to discuss that specific issue.

Alan
Purgatory host

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
You see, this is more or less what I was referring to earlier - LXM is obviously competent and sensible enough to have a conversation about what how what s/he is living as a Christian in the context of everyday life. Not "oh my goodness a gospel opportunity, must explain the cross" but "here's what living as Christian means every day to me". Most Christian students I know aren't.
I remember once running an evangelistic training session for some students at a relatively serious academic institution. I got them to do a little exercise "How would you bring a Christian perspective to bear on a conversation about X". they couldn't do it. At all. And it asn't anything bonkers like polar bears or something, it was "the war in Afghanistan" or "the Ian Huntley case" or something like that.
I was astounded.

Lep, I am honestly not trying to be nasty but this is exactly the type of discussion that turned me off CU. There is no 'christian' perspective on 'the war in afganistan'. There are only perspectives that we have each developed for a number of reasons, including our faith. The only answer is 'well, I think x for y reasons'.

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
]Lep, I am honestly not trying to be nasty but this is exactly the type of discussion that turned me off CU. There is no 'christian' perspective on 'the war in afganistan'. There are only perspectives that we have each developed for a number of reasons, including our faith. The only answer is 'well, I think x for y reasons'.

C

Well, I think that's certainly debatable.
All I was suggesting that Christian students be able to make their "Y reasons" something to do with the Gospel. Which most couldn't. It never even entered their head that all the "jesus is brilliant stuff" should actually change the way they thought about the world. Which was what I was trying to get them to think about.

A genuine encounter with grace should change EVERYTHING. And its that, I fear, that I have not been very good at teaching or modelling.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok educate me. Tell me how evangelical christianity helps me deal with a political issue like war in afganistan.

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Ok educate me. Tell me how evangelical christianity helps me deal with a political issue like war in afganistan.

C

Well, we should be secure that God is sovereign over the kingdoms of the world, and will achieve what he has planned. We should be pleased that a regime that oppressed Christians is gone and pray for the door to open further. We should be concerned for our Christian brothers and sisters in that country (of which there are a very few)

And we'll have different perspectives about whether Jesus' lordship means we should support action to rid the world of oppressive tyrants, or be merciful forgiving and try and offer restitution.
Being a Christian should effect the way we think about these things.
Please be clear, I am not saying there is a right GLE answer to any of those questions. But that believing the Gospel should mean that my attitude to them is markedly different in any number of ways.
So I shouldn't just consider "What do you believe" to be the only question that allows me to reveal I am a Christian. Any question about nearly anything should do that.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools