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

[ecclesvet]

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/04/bristol-university-christian-union-ban-women-speaking-meetings_n_2236586.html

Bizarre.

I am speechless. Utterly speechless. Totally twisted version of Christianity. Are they not aware that some of the first evangalisers were women?

Pffft. What to say to this really? How did these people ever persuade women to marry them???

It's disgusting but I am not particularly surprised as university Christian Unions, especially the UCCF affiliated ones (which I think Bristol is) are notorious for con-evo ridiculousness. The one at my own university wasn't quite this bad but they did all kinds of idiotic nonsense.

It's important to note that university Christian Unions usually by no means represent the majority of Christian students in an institution. They almost always have doctrinal statements that are designed to exclude Orthodox, RCs, High Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and Methodists from their leadership. They are anything but concerned with Christian unity, but they monopolise the term 'Christian' on campuses.

m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/04/bristol-university-christian-union-women

apparently - this is a move forward and women haven't been able to speak at any function for 7 years!!! and the guy who left did so because he didn't want women to speak at all!! So the big question is - why are we only hearing about it now? They give christianity a bad name.

m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/04/bristol-university-christian-union-women

that one should work (hopefully)

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?

Probably think it will make their penises drop off.

Time for one more visit here

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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.

Ugh.

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

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)

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?

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).

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.

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.