Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

---

[/QUOTE]

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

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

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Karl

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

---

According to this, they

quote:

---

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

---

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

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

---

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

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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

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

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panda:

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


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

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

How interesting

I take it they quote scriptural authority for this.

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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

---

According to this, they

quote:

---

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

---

---

This is almost certainly wrong. My understanding was that they had no policy at all

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

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

---

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

Haven't we come a long way.

anne

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

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

---

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

Haven't we come a long way.

anne

---

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

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

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


Tubbs

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

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

That was thirty five years ago.

--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


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

---

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

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

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

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

---

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

Haven't we come a long way.

anne

---

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

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

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


Tubbs

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

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

A little BUCU anecdote to illustrate:

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

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

Tubbs

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

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

Tubbs

---

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

---

Ah yes, the refusal to declare Steve Chalke a hertick. Apologies for the faulty memory.

Define "has women speakers".

Tubbs

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

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

Oh dear. Flashbacks.

---

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

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

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

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

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Baroness Cox does not count as "women".

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

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

Half the world, and all that...

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

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

---

Baroness Cox does not count as "women".

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

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

Half the world, and all that...

---

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

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

And then there's Word Alive's statement of faith comparted to Spring Harvest's.

Tubbs

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

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am