Hull uni bans Christian Union

[Russ]

Hull University is threatening to ban a Christian Union because the CU doesn't admit non-believers to run it.

I mean, duhh!!!

http://www.christian.org.uk/pressrel...ch_30_2004.htm

Originally Posted by Russ D

Hull University is threatening to ban a Christian Union because the CU doesn't admit non-believers to run it.

I mean, duhh!!!

http://www.christian.org.uk/pressrel...ch_30_2004.htm

Sigh ....

I could go on at great length about this, especially as we faced the same issues when I was at University. Our solution was simple, we just refused to be affiliated to the Students' Union in the first place. It really wasn't a hardship, the funding for clubs and societies was so small it would only have paid for one or two guest speakers a year anyway.

There was no human rights Act back in the early 1990s of course, so it would have been more difficult to argue that we were being discriminated against by being denied the right to ensure the people running the CU were actually Christians. But to be honest, I think they would be better off without the Union anyway. Why on earth would a Christian society wish to be ultimately responsible to the non-Christian exec committee of the Students' Union anyway?

What I think is much sadder is the footnote - two CUs at the university, one affilliated to the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship and one not. I think the Christians at Hull should spend more time focusing on their own unity and a little less time picking fights with the Students Union.

[Russ]

Why on earth would a non-believer want to run a Christian Union anyway?

[Theodoric]

Interesting. I've got to say that it sounds like typical student union overreaction and shooting themselves in the foot. However, one point: the article says, "The union would not dare tell the Muslim society that it must be run by non-Muslims." Have they any evidence for this? Could it simply be that the Muslim society constitution doesn't have a clause in it about the religious beliefs of members, in which case the attack by the Christian Union (the subject, after all, is written constitutions) is unjustified.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Theodoric

Interesting. I've got to say that it sounds like typical student union overreaction and shooting themselves in the foot. However, one point: the article says, "The union would not dare tell the Muslim society that it must be run by non-Muslims." Have they any evidence for this? Could it simply be that the Muslim society constitution doesn't have a clause in it about the religious beliefs of members, in which case the attack, which is about written constitutions, is unjustified.

The basis of Christianity is belief. Faith.

So why would/should someone who does not believe be permitted to run it? If I was part of such a Union I would have little faith (pardon the pun) in the hierachy if they were not also Christians.

Would a Man United fan be permitted to run an Arsenal supporter's club?

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by Russ D

The basis of Christianity is belief. Faith.

So why would/should someone who does not believe be permitted to run it? If I was part of such a Union I would have little faith (pardon the pun) in the hierachy if they were not also Christians.

Would a Man United fan be permitted to run an Arsenal supporter's club?

Ah, but I'm not arguing about that, I'm simply saying that the unsubstantiated response by the Christian Union ("they wouldn't dare attack Muslims") is, in its way, just as bad as the students union attack on the Christians.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Why on earth would a non-believer want to run a Christian Union anyway?

It depends on your definition of 'non-believer'. The UCCF has a written statement of faith which those running CUs affilliated to it are required to sign. This ensures that the CU has a consistent belief despite the fact that, being made up of students who arrive, study, graduate and leave, its membership is constantly changing and will have changed completely every three or four years.

There are plenty of churchgoing people who would very much like to run a CU, seeing as it is the singlemost recognised representative of Christianity on a university campus, but who would find it difficult to sign up to even half of the statement of faith (UCCF calls it the 'Doctrinal Basis'). We had just such a situation at Lampeter with people who had difficulty with basic articles of faith like the virgin birth and the physical resurrection. I don't propose to start a discussion in this thread about how much you have to believe in order to be a Christian, but in order to run a Christian Union whose statement of faith includes those things, you have to be a Christian who believes those things.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by towny

It depends on your definition of 'non-believer'. The UCCF has a written statement of faith which those running CUs affilliated to it are required to sign. This ensures that the CU has a consistent belief despite the fact that, being made up of students who arrive, study, graduate and leave, its membership is constantly changing and will have changed completely every three or four years.

There are plenty of churchgoing people who would very much like to run a CU, seeing as it is the singlemost recognised representative of Christianity on a university campus, but who would find it difficult to sign up to even half of the statement of faith (UCCF calls it the 'Doctrinal Basis'). We had just such a situation at Lampeter with people who had difficulty with basic articles of faith like the virgin birth and the physical resurrection. I don't propose to start a discussion in this thread about how much you have to believe in order to be a Christian, but in order to run a Christian Union whose statement of faith includes those things, you have to be a Christian who believes those things.

Your last line is my contention. As long as those in the Union sign a statement professing their Christianity then I can see no problem. If someone was not willing to do so, I'd say their reasoning would need to be studied.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Your last line is my contention. As long as those in the Union sign a statement professing their Christianity then I can see no problem. If someone was not willing to do so, I'd say their reasoning would need to be studied.

There are plenty of people who are absolutely emphatic about their religion, even though they don't believe 50% of what their religion requires. To them, they are a Christian, here is a Christian Union, why shouldn't they be its president?

I don't think there's any chance that an atheist would want to be president of the CU (the members of the CU would still have to elect them), but there is a good chance that a 'liberal Christian' would. You might want to study their reasoning for this - and good luck to you if you do, I tried for three years and never understood how someone can accept the Bible to such an extent and yet disregard parts of it at random. We had an alternative Christian society at Lampeter called the 'Student Christian Movement', which is characterised by having no common statement of belief at all. They were affiliated to the Students Union because they had no interest in preserving a permanent set of beliefs.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Why on earth would a non-believer want to run a Christian Union anyway?

It would seem to be all a bit silly. When I was at Durham there was a similar situation in which the CU was not ratified by the SU. It wasn't on the grounds of non-christians being allowed in but more the fact that the main body of the CU were such fundemental christians who refused to abide by SU rules on such things as preching (AKA hassling people in bars ) and pushing pamphlets under the doors of peoples rooms in halls.

I personally think that the CU at Hull shouldn't be forced to admit non-christians (ncs) as leaders, and really, how many ncs would want to? It'd be nice if they welcomed ncs for informed debate though Anyway, if you want to end discrimination, why not stamp out some of these 'secret' societies that some Universities seem to have first?

[Simon Rochelle]

I read about this in a newspaper article today, and i must say, i found it pretty amusing. However, it does highlight the point of political correctness being forced on people and groups of people who are perfectly within there right to request that a group based on a belief system be allowed to have only members who beleive in that system. Yet there are others who try to force them to conform to there standards, which i dont feel is right at all.

[Xaccers]

Surely christians should welcome in non believers so that they can be evangelised to?
If the Jewish and Muslim groups allow non-believers in, I was actually suprised to see that the christians were the ones being restrictive

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Surely christians should welcome in non believers so that they can be evangelised to?
If the Jewish and Muslim groups allow non-believers in, I was actually suprised to see that the christians were the ones being restrictive

They aren't stopping non-believers from joining, they're objecting to non-believers running it, on the committee etc. In such a position, you'd need to be seen as a figure of authority and leadership, not something I think possible if the place was taken by a non-believer.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Surely christians should welcome in non believers so that they can be evangelised to?
If the Jewish and Muslim groups allow non-believers in, I was actually suprised to see that the christians were the ones being restrictive

As Russ said, anyone's free to come along - but it'd be odd if the President of the Christian Union had trouble believing in the Resurrection ... oh hang on, that's the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the running then.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

They aren't stopping non-believers from joining, they're objecting to non-believers running it, on the committee etc. In such a position, you'd need to be seen as a figure of authority and leadership, not something I think possible if the place was taken by a non-believer.

The SU rules state that you can not have an exclusive group.
From what I have read, the christian group is not letting people of non christian faith join (not just preventing them running it) which is why they have come a cropper with the SU.
Now, surely the most worthy person should be leader?
If they are non christian and likely to derail the group, then how would they get voted in to lead?