Posted                       

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

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

---

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.
So I shouldn't just consider "What do you believe" to be the only question that allows me to reveal I am a Christian. Any question about nearly anything should do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It never even entered their head that all the "jesus is brilliant stuff" should actually change the way they thought about the world. Which was what I was trying to get them to think about.

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
We should be concerned for our Christian brothers and sisters in that country (of which there are a very few)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
We should be concerned for our Christian brothers and sisters in that country (of which there are a very few)

---

That country being Iraq.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Recent article in the Magazine by Howard Ingham. Thought provoking. I am at uni as an undergraduate this year - fully a generation older than my fellow students - and the most common phrase I hear is: "It's all good".

It's all good?! There must be an absence of scarcity! The government must have finally worked out how much to give students, that is, an amount under a living wage - but enough to survive on such that things are not so tight that they have to protest! (Or has the student population changed to be predominantly people for whom money is not an issue? )

There is not enough. Not enough scarcity. Not enough injustice. Students are happy and adequately provided for. They aren't hungry to change structural factors - because structural factors suit them. [I have also noticed a change in the nature of study and assessment. Qualitatively - the workload from continuous assessment as well as tests is higher. Student habits seem different - going to the Ref or the Tav is no longer the de jure standard... about 50% go to the library in between classes! ]

There was a lot of apathy 20 yrs ago... there is more now! 20 yrs ago I was an unwilling activist (lol, some have activism thrust upon them) and a friend and I cranked out activisty broadsheets from our own resources to raise consciousness regarding various issues. Now I'm back... there is -nothing-. I want to start an alternative faculty handbook and a collective to try to get better prices for textbooks than the rip off ones charged by the uni bookshop... I don't know whether anyone else will be interested! They don't care! They want to get in, get the highest marks they can with the least effort and get out into the workforce. My classmates bought the $100+ a pop textbooks without even raising an eyebrow! Just handed over the cash. I don't see any poverty, and job prospects are high (but the first time around, youth unemployment was 25%). My most likely partner in crime in trying to get anything started is another guy of about 40!

Is the attitude the CUs are encountering a reflection of the greater social and economic comfort among the student population? Too many polite middle class people in our universities?

There was full on hostility to Christian groups 20 yrs ago. (lol, yes, Coot, proud persecutor back in the day). But that loathsome... tolerance! Now that's something I've only seen in the last 10 yrs. From people who grew up with institutions (haha!) which were dominated by a postmodern outlook. They are open to things. The problem is not that the message is incredible... the problem is that all messages have the same amount of worthiness.

Of course Christians don't think they do. So if the Christian message is the best why aren't the unwashed hordes of students (^H^Hetc^H label wearing, well-groomed students) discerning it as such? (Is the audience closed to the idea that something can be better than all other options?) We know it's the best. We shouldn't have to sell it - it should sell itself. I despise subtle suggestions of Christianity as a commodity that needs market research or a club that needs a recruitment drive.

It's all good!

(No it effing well isn't!)

quote:

---

Howard Ingham:
The old tactics – the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell – these things don't have any effect any more. Virtually no one under the age of about 22 gives a monkey's about these things. Old-style missions don't wash any more. A fundamentally new way of relating to the young adults of now needs to be found by UCCF if they want to see people join them. No amount of surface-level image manipulation is going to change that.

---

Have a few thoughts on this, but I'll let someone else have a go first.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

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

quote:

---

...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.

---

That excerpt is the sort of thing that disgusts me about Christians taking a market research oriented approach. I guess I should feel some comfort that an association as august as the EA is prepared to prostitute itself to find a marketting handle to reach the 'millenials' (so that's wot they're called). Here I thought it was just desperate corporate-minded episcopal prostitutes in the dying Diocese of Perth that did that sort of thing.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Had UCCF had a policy of encouraging CUs to get involved in Student Politics

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Had UCCF had a policy of encouraging CUs to get involved in Student Politics, they could have had a stunning power block in our universities (remember, UCCF is the second largest British student organisation after the NUS itself). Instead, extremists they didn't bother to vote against are giving them a hard time.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Had UCCF had a policy of encouraging CUs to get involved in Student Politics, they could have had a stunning power block in our universities (remember, UCCF is the second largest British student organisation after the NUS itself). Instead, extremists they didn't bother to vote against are giving them a hard time.

---

You know, the possibility that CUs could have a stunning power block in universities chills me, especially here, where (my perception) 'CU' is synonymous with 'Jensenite'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

EA:
Rather than presenting Christian virtues and values in moralistic or legal terms, it may be necessary to frame them as means of self-actualisation and lifelong security.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Wood:
The old tactics – the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell – these things don't have any effect any more. Virtually no one under the age of about 22 gives a monkey's about these things. Old-style missions don't wash any more. A fundamentally new way of relating to the young adults of now needs to be found by UCCF if they want to see people join them. No amount of surface-level image manipulation is going to change that.

---

If Wood is a trustworthy commentator - and I think he is - what can you do if you drop 'the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell'? And indeed, what can the more conservative traditions do?

Now it works for me... the contemplation of my unworthiness, and the lengths that the immortal infinite God went to, to offer me another path. But, if Wood is correct, this has no impact (as a trend) on the Millenials. Can they be made to appreciate it? Or does this particular message have to be dropped ? Can it indeed be dropped?! Not, I think, very readily by the conservative traditions - unless they want to sell out wholesale on a major theme of the way they approach faith. The liberal traditions are not so threatened by the millenial response, because their approach is fundamentally different: 'Does it give life?'; 'To be in relationship with God is the fullness of life' (You don't have to look to the contemporary stuff for this theme: Irenaeus 'The Glory of God is a human being fully alive'); Humans as the reflection of God's glory; and a rejection of what they disparagingly call 'Worm Theology'.

I'm not saying these themes are absent from the conservative traditions (except the emphasis is on 'humankind has been evil since its youth' rather than 'God created it and it was good'), but I think it's a fair thing to say that people are exhorted to recognise that they fall short of the Glory of God and are unworthy on their own merits even to stand in his Presence; with the result that when we stand in his Presence (and we all will) if we can't say: 'I'm with him (points to Jesus)' we're screwed. [That's not necessarily my position, but I think it's a view commonly held by the people in the conservative traditions].

I dunno. Can the conservative traditions package the gospel in a way that is appealing to the Millenials (my God, my gorge rises at even having to type that phrase) - because that's obviously what they're looking to do.

Actually, I think the only way to continue with any integrity is to take the hits (which is what the traditional parts of the Church have done, hang on to their tradition and not move with the desires of secular society), and resign yourselves to having a generation missing from the pews until they... grow up.

Not really answering questions just yet, but making explicit what I think are the issues.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Now, back to this

quote:

---

Wood:
The old tactics – the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell – these things don't have any effect any more. Virtually no one under the age of about 22 gives a monkey's about these things. Old-style missions don't wash any more. A fundamentally new way of relating to the young adults of now needs to be found by UCCF if they want to see people join them. No amount of surface-level image manipulation is going to change that.

---

If Wood is a trustworthy commentator - and I think he is -

---

quote:

---

what can you do if you drop 'the shock of suffering, graphically explained, the horrors of the crucifixion, the fear of hell'? And indeed, what can the more conservative traditions do?

---

quote:

---

Now it works for me... the contemplation of my unworthiness, and the lengths that the immortal infinite God went to, to offer me another path.

---

quote:

---

Or does this particular message have to be dropped ? Can it indeed be dropped?! Not, I think, very readily by the conservative traditions - unless they want to sell out wholesale on a major theme of the way they approach faith.

---

quote:

---

The liberal traditions are not so threatened by the millenial response, because their approach is fundamentally different: 'Does it give life?'; 'To be in relationship with God is the fullness of life' (You don't have to look to the contemporary stuff for this theme: Irenaeus 'The Glory of God is a human being fully alive'); Humans as the reflection of God's glory; and a rejection of what they disparagingly call 'Worm Theology'.

---

quote:

---

I think it's a fair thing to say that people are exhorted to recognise that they fall short of the Glory of God and are unworthy on their own merits even to stand in his Presence; with the result that when we stand in his Presence (and we all will) if we can't say: 'I'm with him (points to Jesus)' we're screwed. [That's not necessarily my position, but I think it's a view commonly held by the people in the conservative traditions].

---

quote:

---

Actually, I think the only way to continue with any integrity is to take the hits (which is what the traditional parts of the Church have done, hang on to their tradition and not move with the desires of secular society), and resign yourselves to having a generation missing from the pews until they... grow up.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Wood, is there much evidence of liberal Christianity on campus? Presumably there are chaplains/denominational societies/SCM groups?

And what about charismatic evangelicals? You focus on the very conservative UCCF position. I would have thought that charismatics e.g. in Fusion cells or simply in CU's would have a lot of influence as well?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:


The term "conservative evangelical", while seemingly rather specialised, actually covers quite a large range of groups (which is why UCCF can just about get away with calling itself "inter-denominational"). It covers a range from charismatics, through to FIEC people, right through to your ultra-conservative EMW types.

---

Wood, this is a little unfair. In terms of denominational background both the staff make-up and the CU membership is very mixed. In terms of churchmanship there may well be a much smaller range, but interdenominational is still a very fair claim for the fellowship to make.

Both UCCF and Fusion now have a policy of strongly discouraging affiliation of CUs to Fusion, or adopting the trademarked cell structure within CUs. There may be a couple in the country that still have nominal affiliation with one and is actually really linked with the other. But not many.

I actually know quite a lot about UCCF, and I don't think it is a "very conservative" organisation within evangelicalism. That's always been part of the urban myth. I was surprised and (not always happily, conisdering my own views)taken aback by the breadth of opinion on a wide range of issues. Certainly, in terms of evangelism it is by no means conservative in a radical or reactionary way (more's the pity in my view) and would support a wide range of evangelistic methods.
It is however true to say that the staff would, to a man or woman, encourage proclamation (whether at events, or 1-1) as the central part of evangelism. Fusion IME do not emphasise this (although after the cafuffle in EN Roger Ellis asserted very strongly that Fusion do see proclamation at the heart of their method and it is central to what they do, although that was certianly not my experience) Which all means I think that we ALL still have a lot of work to do on the things Wood has brought to our attention!

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
The term "conservative evangelical", while seemingly rather specialised, actually covers quite a large range of groups (which is why UCCF can just about get away with calling itself "inter-denominational"). It covers a range from charismatics, through to FIEC people, right through to your ultra-conservative EMW types.

---

Wood, this is a little unfair. In terms of denominational background both the staff make-up and the CU membership is very mixed. In terms of churchmanship there may well be a much smaller range, but interdenominational is still a very fair claim for the fellowship to make.

---

quote:

---

Both UCCF and Fusion now have a policy of strongly discouraging affiliation of CUs to Fusion, or adopting the trademarked cell structure within CUs. There may be a couple in the country that still have nominal affiliation with one and is actually really linked with the other. But not many.

---

quote:

---

I actually know quite a lot about UCCF,

---

No. Really? Gosh.

quote:

---

and I don't think it is a "very conservative" organisation within evangelicalism. That's always been part of the urban myth. I was surprised and (not always happily, conisdering my own views)taken aback by the breadth of opinion on a wide range of issues. Certainly, in terms of evangelism it is by no means conservative in a radical or reactionary way (more's the pity in my view) and would support a wide range of evangelistic methods.

---

quote:

---

It is however true to say that the staff would, to a man or woman, encourage proclamation (whether at events, or 1-1) as the central part of evangelism.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelical_backslider:
One thing I've heard from several Christians (non-evangelicals) without the CU here in Oxford is they're upset and, in some cases, angry that something calling itself a 'Christian' Union in reality only accepts an extremely narrow definition of 'Christian'. Is this just us, or is a wider phenomenon. Similarly, UCCF may or may not be representative of many CUs, but it certainly doesn't reflect the views of all those who'd define themselves as Christian. Perhaps evangelism would be more effective if people saw a broader group of Christians working together?
Again, I have little experience outside of my university, so I'm willing to hear that things are different elsewhere.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

...and hence not encourage people to get involved in student politics?

Again, not a swipe - just a call for clarification.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Do you know, I never heard any policy on this? There was certainly no DIS-couragement from it. I think there was a general - get involved in what will give you the best opportunities mentality.

---

quote:

---

I mean, I suppose the reason it doesn't get mentioned much is that staff and relay are involved mostly with people who are CU leaders, who hence have little time for student politics. Which, I realise is an issue in itself.

---

quote:

---

IME Fusion are better at encouraging this, but that is because it is all church based, and so all the "admin"/"leadership" stuff is done by church leaders, and so keen students aren't caught up running a CU. There's advantages to this model (i used to be quite envious of it) but I think you lose out in other ways.

---

quote:

---

In terms of "conservative" - within the broad spectrum of Christianity, yes. Within evangelicalism, IME not particularly, certainly, I don't think, becoming moreso. Much to the chagrin of genuinely conservative evangelical groups. So for example, I only ever met one YECer who worked for the organisation, and a couple of cessationists. Views would have varied quite widely on issues of headship/egalitarianism. Admittedly not on sexuality. So, not sure really.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I guess that was sort of what I was thinking of, inasmuch as it's seen as only worth getting involved in for the purpose of having opportunities to "share the Gospel", rather than it being a witness in and of itself.

---

quote:

---

Oh, go on then, you reeled me in. What ways?

---

Well a number. I think CUs have a more legitimate student witness because they are student led (and I know you don't really think they are, but IME they really are!) But more than that, you will find, (again IME) in the mission field and in church ministry LOADS of people who never thought of such things until they were in CU leadership. I remember a curate who was no great fan of his local CU saying as much to me - about himself, and generally why he was supportive of student leadership.
And I also think they learn. I think the DB is an accurate and good statement of evangelical belief, but leaves room for disagreement. And ISTM it is healthy, within that framework for students to be on committees with people who disagree with them about 6 day creation, spiritual gifts etc. My problem with the Fusion model was that (again ISTM, hedge hedge hedge) that a church leader on high handed down a "line" on a difficult issue, that was then followed throughout. So you'd meet students who had never even met a Christian who wasn't charismatic before, or who couldn't see why some Christians thought doctrine was really important, or whatever.
I realise that there are many here who think that baseline should make the net wider, but that is a separate issue!
Like I said, there are pros and cons of both models, the downside of the CU model being that it can eat up your life. Although, IME, there is no need for this to be the case if students would only learn to time plan. Anyway, rant about to begin....

quote:

---

I think it depends on where we're standing, really. It has just occurred to me that we're both looking at the same thing here and using the same words to mean different things. So I'm using the "C" word to mean "more conservative than me"; you don't see Cus as "conservative" because they're "not as conservative" as you. Make some sort of sense?

---

quote:

---

I remember Lampeter having a female president about nine years ago, but I'm not sure how many other CUs have had female presidents. Do you know any, Lep?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I remember Lampeter having a female president about nine years ago, but I'm not sure how many other CUs have had female presidents. Do you know any, Lep?

---

Loads. Absolutely loads. CICCU have had in the past, not sure about OICCU and DICCU. But they are hardly test cases - nearly every other CU I know of has had at some stage (even other big "regional" CUs like Lancaster - which I think has a female president at the moment, and Leeds).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elephenor:


Also, yes, CICCU have had one female President. One. In over 125 years...

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well, sort of. For some people, the best witness they can be might just be getting involved in student politics. I would hope any CU member would see that as an opportunity for personal evangelism but I hope any CU staff worker would see the value of it beyond that.

---

quote:

---

I think CUs have a more legitimate student witness because they are student led (and I know you don't really think they are, but IME they really are!)

---

quote:

---

But more than that, you will find, (again IME) in the mission field and in church ministry LOADS of people who never thought of such things until they were in CU leadership.

---

quote:

---

I think the DB is an accurate and good statement of evangelical belief, but leaves room for disagreement.

---

...but only a little.

quote:

---

And ISTM it is healthy, within that framework for students to be on committees with people who disagree with them about 6 day creation, spiritual gifts etc.

---

quote:

---

My problem with the Fusion model was that (again ISTM, hedge hedge hedge) that a church leader on high handed down a "line" on a difficult issue, that was then followed throughout. So you'd meet students who had never even met a Christian who wasn't charismatic before, or who couldn't see why some Christians thought doctrine was really important, or whatever.

---

quote:

---

I realise that there are many here who think that baseline should make the net wider, but that is a separate issue!

---

quote:

---

Like I said, there are pros and cons of both models, the downside of the CU model being that it can eat up your life. Although, IME, there is no need for this to be the case if students would only learn to time plan.

---

quote:

---

I suppose though UCCF has the reputation for being this madly conservative force in evangelicalism as a whole, and IME its not really. I'm certainly no YECcie or cessationist, but it wasn't as conservative as me - but then, as you say, it's all relative.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I remember Lampeter having a female president about nine years ago, but I'm not sure how many other CUs have had female presidents. Do you know any, Lep?

---

Loads. Absolutely loads. CICCU have had in the past, not sure about OICCU and DICCU. But they are hardly test cases - nearly every other CU I know of has had at some stage (even other big "regional" CUs like Lancaster - which I think has a female president at the moment, and Leeds). Nearly all the small CUs I knew had nearly all the time because (sigh) the men were generally so wet, unethusiastic, and generally godless.

---

I'm going to hazard that this is actually a recent development - within the last ten years, I would say, and [smug voice] that it probably proves I'm right about the apathy and stuff.

quote:

---

I should say as well, that all the Northern Irish CUs including Queen's and Jordanstown have had too, and they would have been seen as bastions of conservatism for quite some time.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:


So are you saying that this doesn't happen in Fusion? Or that it's only limited to leaderships?

---

quote:

---

I think I remember hearing that NFI and Pioneer were involved with Fusion - was I hearing things?

---

quote:

---

Does Ulster still say "NO"?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Passmore and Alabaster:
A point of clarification, for the sake of accuracy. The CU talk on creation, that Wood mentioned, was actually on the reliability of the Bible (nothing was said about creation in the talk). The question about creation was, according to my memory, unclear. It was pitched around the question of whether the language in Genesis 1-2 is wholly symbolic. But like I said it was unclear to me at the time what the questioner was getting at/coming from. As for the relay workers comment, I think he was trying to say that we must take what they Bible says on creation seriously and not try to explain away Genesis because we are intimidated by the claims of philosophic naturalism. I don't think that he was being dogmatic on creationism. But like I said I thought that the question was vague. For the record I was the speaker.

---

Point noted. FWIW, my own account was second hand and imperfectly recollected from the student's account, so I'm happy to be corrected.

Still, what the guy said pretty much drove the lass from the CU - that bit I didn't get wrong.

Anyway, now I know who you are, it's my job as a moderator to welcome you to the site. Blah blah blah Ten Commandments blah blah blah Purgatory guidelines blah blah blah happy posting.

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

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Passmore and Alabaster:
Thanks for the welcome.

I'm surprised that what he said had that effect. I thought that I had made much more of a hash answering her question. Besides which I can't recall his comment being that strong. But am I trying to recall an evening some twenty months ago...

---