What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Bristol University Christian Union – more

    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.

    , , ,

5 responses to “St Strumpet?”

  1. Mary Brown Avatar
    Mary Brown

    How about the wife of Jesus, airbrushed out of the story by later misogynist Christians? See Starbird, M “The Woman with the Alabaster Jar” and other books by her. She is an ex-Catholic who set out to refute the Holy Blood, Holy Grail story and ended by being convinced that Jesus and Mary were a married pair (and an archetype of the male/female balance principle). There’s a wonderful window in Kilmore Church, Mull. Check it out – whoever created it intended it to represent J and M as husband and wife, and M is clearly pregnant. Of course, there is no unchallengeable evidence that Jesus was married, but what I would like to ask the sceptics is why, given that He was the word made flesh and dwelt among us, is it unacceptable for Him to have been a sexual being? Why have later Christians considered sexuality, even in a loving relationship, to be something disgusting? Because they have, we are now stuck with the nasty views of the NotW brigade that sex is either an acceptable leisure activity or something gross. As Margaret Starbird points out, if we restored Mary as Jesus’ beloved consort we would be creating a much more wholesome myth!

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      It is a little like the arguments that might be made of the relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple though, isn’t it? All very attractive and neat if you come from a particular point of view but not really backed up with enough evidence apart from modern presumption, presupposition and desire.

      Reply
  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    I think the arguments on Jesus being married are very far from being liberationary. Rather, they’re the natural end-point of the Evangelical mindset that homophobically (and unbiblically) divides the world into Normal Heterosexual Married types and the demonised Other. “It is better to marry than burn” might have some mysognistic readings conducive to the fundamentalist world-view, but it hardly most naturally supports the idolatarisation of particular heterosexual relationships.

    If I had a pound for every time a nominal Sola Scriptura type had told me that St.Paul had to have been married (presumably because Our Lord’s asceticism and disinterest in heterosexual marriage is bad enough) then I would be a very rich man indeed 😉

    Interesting post Kelvin! Had no idea that St.Mary M even had red hair Perhaps she could be reclaimed as the Patron Saint of Gingers and Other Persecuted Minorities? 🙂

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Oh, her hair was red, Ryan. Flaming Red I believe.

      Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    How reginal! 😉

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Jet Lag

    Only just coming to terms with the time change from being away o­n holiday. It does not usually affect me so, especially as it is not that great between here and Greece. However I've been waking at 0530 the last couple of mornings.Got unexpectedly distracted yesterday by a monk. o­ne of my old college friends…

  • I'm Back

    Just to note that I am back from 2 weeks holiday in Crete. The blog posts below were posted in advance. Normal service is now resumed. Crete was hot and good. Monasteries and moussaka.

  • Job for August

    I’m planning on something new in August – a politics blog. I’ve spoken about it before, but now is the time. This one has really become one for the congregation and is all about my position in ministry. My local campaigning is a separate issue altogether and deserves its own distinctive website.

  • Talking of books…

    … I need to make my mind up who to go and see at the Book Festival in Edinburgh which starts soon.