Bristol University's Christian Union Bans Women From Teaching At Meetings

IMHO what needs to happen now is that the chaplaincy team needs to address the issue by hosting a discussion on the subject of women in religious leadership. Bristol has a large multifaith chaplaincy team with no doubt quite a range of experiences and viewpoints. So I'd open it up as a discussion, if I were there, and invite the CU to take part so that they can have the opportunity to contextualise their own beliefs, and try and understand how things might be understood differently by other believers. They might not come, but...it's always worth trying, and it'd still be v. valuable anyway.

Thing is, while it's no surprise that a lot of Christians are misogynistic fucknuggets, I would be inclined to think that the University's remedy would be to encourage the less-misogynistic Christians to form a breakaway union of their own.
It's a kind of public/private/free speech issue as much as a feminist one, because if the University kicks these tossers into next week and pulls their funding, then the decision will be used as a precedent to sabotage any kind of women-only group or association.

Because these silly little sods and their imaginary friend and their superstitious shit should be percieved as a private members club that is not actually denying women-in-general or christian women anything they can't get elsewhere.

'In Christ, there is no longer...male and female...' so anyone can speak in church, with anything on their head, right?

The Quakers have it right. God is inherent in everyone, so we must treat each other as if everyone is holy. We mustn't harm another person, and we mustn't assume superiority over anyone. There ought to be Quaker meetings alongside these so-called Christian groups.

The first Roman canon of Christian Scripture was compiled in 190CE, way, way before Trent. Athanasius' Easter letter of 367CE (NB after Nicaea) was pretty authoritative in terms of defining the canon too.

Anyway, I am unashamed of my love for St Paul. As a Gentile Christian, it'd be incredibly rude of me not to love him. 'In Christ, there is no longer...male and female...' as he says.

People definitely argue about the canon and do draw up lists well before Trent; I'm not sure it was 'organic', since it was certainly formalized.

I can see the links between people (men) declaring they have authority to decide which bits go into the Bible and people in this CU decide women don't get to teach, since it's all a bit circular, but I tend to assume (maybe wrongly?) that this sort of CU is probably less about revisiting old theological controversies and more about finding a way to justify 'traditional gender roles' which they're assuming are therefore scriptural. I could be being unfair.

It just seems that a fair few Christian groups seem to imagine the Bible must promote the kind of gender roles the 21st century celebrates as 'traditional' (ie., 1950s-that-never-were) and don't really bother to check it out properly.

AIUI the canon of the Bible evolved fairly organically by consensus between different Xtian communities, and was largely in place by the end of the 2nd century in the Western church. The first church council to formally declare a canon was the Council of Trent in 1546. Nicea was about the Creed and squashing Arianism.

The husband bit is presumably modelled on the husband and wife teams who led churches in NT times.

Ooh, that is interesting mummytime.

It's the husband bit I find odd. For a university CU, I really don't get that bit?

Does anyone know Bristol university or CU, I'm almost wondering if they've been misrepresented. I live in hope.

St Pauls wasn't as bad as you make out, and unless he had a split personality didn't mean for women to keep quiet (in the same book he exerts women to keep quiet, he also says that "when they speak they should have their heads covered" TM Mummytime translation).

However the UCCF is and has been for a long time full of women leaders. So I do find this shocking (after all I still remember going to a meeting about Men and Women in the Church, which really shocked a lot of ideas such as on feminism and homosexuality - far more pro than mainstream CUs).

I think the CU probably don't base which books they use on the Council of Nicea, I'd guess they use the Protestant decisions made later, but as you say, it's probably not that relevant here.

But St Paul who wrote stuff like the letters to the Corinthians lived in the first century and the council of Nicea happened in the fourth, so I don't follow the connection?

nSt Paul and the council of Nicene has a lot to answer for. It was at the council of Nicene that the contents of the bible was decided upon - in its more of less current form (this depends on your denomination -the catholic bible is a couple of books longer, but that's neither here nor there for this purpose). At that time teachings such as this suited the cultural atmosphere and what the male leaders of the church wanted to achieve. Nowhere does Jesus echo this teaching. It is, therefore, St Pauls's interpretation based on his own prejudices and beliefs - i.e. it is human and therefore flawed and so can and should be re-visited in light of the times. Being able to do this has always been central to Christianity as it is recognised that any writing down of the 'word of God' is seen through human, flawed, eyes and should constantly be re-visited. The fact that there are Christians out there that don't do this and cleave to the teachings of someone other than Jesus is really frustrating! (i never thought the conversations around the dinner table as a youngster on theology would actually be helpful! DF was a seminary drop out, DM a scientist - both devout catholics and so theology was discussed - a lot)

Ugh.

But then double ugh at someone needing to use the word retard nigglenaggle

I've got to say, St Paul's potential to annoy me pales into insignificance against the various priests who've insisted on lecturing me about how to interpret him. They don't have the excuse of having lived 2000 years ago.

Actually, make that one of the most exceptionally annoying people of all time.

I think it might vary from place to place. My mum remembers the CU at her place being pretty fundamentalist in the 70s.

I do actually like St Paul and I think it is a shame he is so out of vogue at the minute. But you have to read his letters in the context of him having been a Pharisee and importing all of that into the early church, the fact he was pretty out of his mind most of the time from the power of the Spirit, and, yes, thinking that the world was about to end in the next year or two. On top of the fact that he was one of the most exceptionally annoying people in the early church and was chippy about having his authority constantly questioned.

So, er, if you can get past all of that, I think he is pretty awesome actually. I think his letters are the most incredible picture of someone in the grip of the Spirit I know.

Phyllis is right about Christian Unions; it's sad, I used to be very involved with mine when I were a nipper, as well as with the chapel and its wonderful female chaplain. Lots of university CUs have become more conservative since then.

I never thought about that one phyllis - the world ending bit. I like that.

Paul was a fanatical Pharisee before he got knocked off his horse, and became a narrow-minded authoritarian Christian afterwards. He was such a PITA that he and Peter fell out and after a few years he ran out of people who would work with him.
Sadly, he wrote a lot that Christian misogynists love and use.
But the banning of women bishops has fed into this idiocy, numerous males will be doing the happy willy dance at women being put in their place

And Mary Magdalen, the Apostle to the Apostles, who was the first person to tell others that the Resurrection had happened, the women in the NT who were running churches, the women at the Last Supper etc etc ...

To be fair to St Paul, he did think that the world was about to end. He wasn't in the business of establishing a church that was going to last for millennia.

It's shite on many levels.

I don't advocate biblical literalism, but for them as do (who I sincerely doubt read MN feminism, but still ...), what about the bit with Mary in the upper room at Pentecost? Or the example of the Maries who didn't doubt Christ while Peter and Thomas did? Or Jesus insisting a woman like Mary should be listened to and telling other people off for not accepting her interpretation of what she should do?

St Paul was always a misogynistic whatsit.

Ugh. They're probably acting out I Corinthians 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Jesus would never have said this, I'm sure.

Time for one more visit here

Probably think it will make their penises drop off.

What do these people think is actually going to happen if women are 'allowed to speak'...?

Do they think the sky is going to fall on their heads?