What is in Kelvin's Head?

Bristol University Christian Union – more

05/12/2012

Well, after my earlier post on Bristol University Christian Union, here’s some more.

They’ve published a new statement which says this:

BUCU statement on women speakers
Bristol University Christian Union (BUCU) deplores the recent exaggerations and misrepresentations in some parts of the media of its position on women’s ministry in the church.

It is well known that Christian churches differ on this question. BUCU is not a church, but a student society, so it has never had a formal policy on women’s ministry.

In recent months, the Executive Committee have been exploring ways in which BUCU can best accommodate members with divergent and strongly held convictions, while expressing our unity as Christian believers. In line with our basic position throughout that process, which has not been widely publicised, the Executive Committee now wish to make clear that we will extend speaker invitations to both women and men, to all BUCU events, without exception.

BUCU is utterly committed to reflecting the core biblical truth of the fundamental equality of women and men.

BUCU Executive Committee
5 December 2012

So, first off, kudos to them for considering this quickly and issuing this statement. It goes part way to repairing the damage done to the reputation of the faith caused by further reports. Odd that they say they’ve not had a policy on women speakers whilst also moaning that such a policy has been misrepresented. However, it must at least be partially welcomed.

Question now falls to UCCF (the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship) which doesn’t really come out of today that well. Do they really condone groups who exclude women speakers or don’t they? They seemed to suggest earlier that it was a secondary issue which didn’t really matter. Are they prepared to say that such exclusion is against the gospel they believe in or not?

Does UCCF believe in “the core biblical truth of the fundamental equality of women and men?”

Are they planning on including it in their doctrinal basis?

Would be good to know.

Bristol University, Christian Union, UCCF, women

7 responses to “Remember the Anglican Covenant?”

chris

24/02/2012

A timely post, with diocesan synod coming up. May well print out. (There is virtually no signal for online devices to be used usefully in the Highland Gathering Halls in Oban. Who knew?)

Reply
Thinking Anglicans

24/02/2012

Anglican Covenant: reports and reactions…

The Church Times reports this week on the progress of voting in English dioceses on the Anglican Covenant: Covenant tastes defeat in diocesan voting. ALMOST a quarter of C of E dioceses have now voted against the Anglican Covenant. It……

Reply
Susan Sheppard Hedges

25/02/2012

“. . .if there is any truth in that thesis, its days are numbered. . .”
As we say in my home state, ‘your lips to God’s ears.’

Reply
Jonathan Clatworthy

25/02/2012

Excellent post Kelvin.
If the Covenant does get rejected in England, we’ll certainly need a period of time asking ourselves what really went wrong and how we could do things better. And Scotland will be well placed to set the ball rolling.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  25/02/2012
  
  Thanks Jonathan – and thanks for your article on alternatives to the Covenant which we are looking at next week at our Diocesan Synod next week to balance the stuff from the Anglican Communion Office.
  
  Reply
Paul Bagshaw

25/02/2012

“Some have worried that we might be the first province to declare ourselves out of sorts with the Anglican Covenant.”

They need not worry. The Philippines have already voted against it.

It also seems probable that New Zealand will vote against.

The Irish voted for it but with the caveat that it would not supplant the existing governing documents – though it’s not clear whether they would be able to sustain this.

Source: http://noanglicancovenant.org/background.html#cofe

Reply
Alan T Perry

25/02/2012

Thanks for this, Kelvin!

What really amazes me is that the Covenant has done so well with virtually no attempt to put forward an argument (with reference to the actual text) as to why it is an unalloyed Good Thing. Proponents claim it will save the Communion without explaining just how it will do that. Those voting for it are voting for a black box.

Reply