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

[God ~blogs admin ~]

A university's Christian society has banned women from speaking at events and teaching at meetings, unless they are accompanied by their husband, it has been revealed.

The Bristol University Christian Union (BUCU) had originally decided women would be allowed to teach at meetings after their international secretary resigned in protest, the group changed its policy.

The Huffington Post UK has seen the email sent out by president Matt Oliver to all BUCU members which said: "It is ok for women to teach in any CU setting... However we understand that this is a difficult issue for some and so decided that women would not teach on their own at our weekly CU meetings, as the main speaker on our Bristol CU weekend away, or as our main speaker for mission weeks.

"But a husband and wife can teach together in these."

Oliver then warns the society members to "guard the way we all talk about it in the coming weeks, making sure we’re not gossiping".

Rebecca Reid, a member of the university's feminist society wrote on the group's said: "I'm Catholic and I think that's obscene." Student Lucy King added: "So it's ok for women to teach, as long as they're not the most important speaker?!? This is really unbelievable."

Oliver's email announced the departure of the international secretary James Howlett, who, according to Oliver, felt he "cannot support the decision on women teaching".

"After a lot of time exploring this issue, seeking God’s wisdom on it and discussing it together as a committee, we made a decision about women teaching in a CU setting," Oliver continues. "We all hold individual convictions on secondary issues such a women speakers, which are often reflected in the churches we choose to attend.

"It is good and right that we hold strong beliefs on the Bible's teaching about secondary issues but they are not what we centre around as a CU and therefore are not always reflected in the CU's practice."

Shannon Keis and Laura Ho, co-presidents of Bristol University's feminist society described the decision as "hugely discriminatory, deeply offensive and sexist to women".

"They are suggesting that women have more worth as speakers if speaking with their husband while assuming that all women are interested in marriage, or men for that matter," they said in a statement. "We would hope for women to have equal opportunities to speak at all occasions, whether alone or not. Religious groups should not be immune from question or criticism with regards to gender equality."

The Christian Union's announcement follows the controversial vote by the majority of Church of England worshippers not to allow women bishops, despite many church leaders voting in favour of the move.

The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said the Church of England has a "lot of explaining" to do after re... while his success Justin Welby described the decision as "grim".

Oliver told The Huffington Post UK the society had now released a statement saying: "Bristol University Christian Union has no formal position on the role of men and women in the church. We respect those of our members who hold strong Biblical convictions in this area and seek to find the most practical way of expressing this inclusivity."

Bristol University's student union officers for activities and welfare and equality met with the society on Monday. The SU has been contacted for comment but has yet to respond.

Thoughts?

Source ~~~here

[Eystein,]

I just want to add that they can do, believe and practice as they want, but it is everyone else right to criticize them for it. I can't believe that western men can still hold on to such gender biased ideals. Bad enough we got Muslim hordes pushing the same bull shit too. It provokes me a lot.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Is it really as bad as you think. The problem with your viewpoint, and why you don't realise it is just one viewpoint, rather than "the right one" and thus a plinth from which you can legitimately criticise, is that it is based on the valuing of power. IE the notion that men have something women do not in this scenerio, and that thing, power (IE the authority to teach) is important. However, one thing the Bible teaches repeatedly is that power, like money, is just as much a comodity of this world, and not something to be saught and horded etc. And maybe, if the world saught and horded power less, the world would be better. So no, I don't think the rest of the world has the authority to criticise. You have the right to disagree, but I don't think its fair to assume your right, when actually, there is an exceptionally reasonable alternative here. Personally, I don't agree with them, and I would rather they change their minds, but I do not criticise them for their convictions.

[Eystein,]

However, one thing the Bible teaches repeatedly is that power, like money, is just as much a comodity of this world, and not something to be saught and horded etc.

That all well and good, but what on Earth does it got to do with gender?

And what so wrong about criticizing? It's just loudly voicing a disagreement. Of course I would listen to their reasons, but I would still criticize them if I still felt what they are doing/believing is wrong or unfair.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That all well and good, but what on Earth does it got to do with gender?

The point is that you are arguing that power is a commodity, and as a commodity it should be distributed evenly between the genders. But the Bible states that power should not be treated as a commodity, and thus the principle of equal sharing does not apply.

And what so wrong about criticizing? It's just loudly voicing a disagreement. Of course I would listen to their reasons, but I would still criticize them if I still felt what they are doing/believing is wrong or unfair.

 

My problem is with criticism using the inference of moral high ground. In fact, it doesn't exist. It is ironic that an ideology like liberalism where the notion of equality is so safeguarded is then so very vitriolic in its treatment of those who have a differing conception of equality to them. Disagree, but criticism is more difficult, since you have yet to prove they're doing something all that wrong.

[Maxwell Waters]

I don't understand how you can be a Nerdfighter and believe that it's okay to think that Katherine and the Yeti are somehow less entitled to do things -- ANY thing -- than John and Hank.

I want you to send Hank and John an email right now explaining that you feel it'd be okay for an organization to forbid their wives from speaking. I want you to explain to them how you feel you can't prove there's something wrong about that.

Even more importantly, I want you to tell John what you think his Bible teaches about his wife, and see how he responds to that. Take his Scriptures and interpret them, and see what he has to say.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I don't understand how you can be a Nerdfighter and believe that it's okay to think that Katherine and the Yeti are somehow less entitled to do things -- ANY thing -- than John and Hank.

Because unlike you, apparently, I don't believe in thought crime. I don't believe its wrong to think something, I think it's wrong to do certain things.

I want you to send Hank and John an email right now explaining that you feel it'd be okay for an organization to forbid their wives from speaking. I want you to explain to them how you feel you can't prove there's something wrong about that.

 

Because I believe that there are some organisations with different views out there, and like it or not, we have to respect the rights of individuals to hold views and have freedom of assembly. As I've already stated, I happen to disagree with the Bristol CU in this instance, but I can understand why they take the position they do.

Even more importantly, I want you to tell John what you think his Bible teaches about his wife, and see how he responds to that. Take his Scriptures and interpret them, and see what he has to say.

This may surprise you, but I don't take orders from you. If you want to know where I think these people made their scriptural mistakes, read the first page where I made a detailed response. 

[Eystein,]

The point is that you are arguing that power is a commodity, and as a commodity it should be distributed evenly between the genders. But the Bible states that power should not be treated as a commodity, and thus the principle of equal sharing does not apply.

It doesn't have to be evenly distributed, it should pass to whomever is qualified. When someone brings gender into the picture it is tantamount to proclaim one as either inherently inept or inferior with respects to the task. Which is wrong, it is simply not true, at least not on an individual level. Now we know that this is not BUCU's position, but those who hold it deserves to be publicly criticized. But of course they must also be allowed to practice as they please.

It is ironic that an ideology like liberalism where the notion of equality is so safeguarded is then so very vitriolic in its treatment of those who have a differing conception of equality to them.

Yes that is a problem among certain liberals, that they want to forbid, forbid, forbid, but to openly criticize something has nothing to do with making things illegal, and very seldom does that actually happen. It's more about voicing concerns and highlighting issues about someone else's conviction. Not primarily to change their minds, which is very hard, but more for provoking an open discussion about it, which hopefully might deter others from joining those groups. It's also a way to reach out to youth who have been cast out, or struggles within very closed diverging communities in our society.

Yes, liberals are cross and disrespectful, but we have to compensate for our inability make things illegal somehow. We have to try to make ideals which are threatening to our ideals as unpopular as possible. That in itself can of course cause injustice, bullying and discrimination. And we deserve to be confronted with that.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It doesn't have to be evenly distributed, it should pass to whomever is qualified.

And some people's conceptions of qualification are different than others, and based on what they believe are biblical precepts.

[Eystein,]

Yeah I know, it's called sexism. I couldn't care less what its biblical term is. Actually that was a lie, indulge me (again please, because I don't get it).

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Contrary to modern belief, these people argue that the Bible does stipulate a certian ammount of gender roles, and that therefore, that's a form of qualification in itself.

[Abreo]

Now I know this article was wrong or whatever and it was prematurely posted but for the sake of argument: 

if they're making these assumptions about gender based off of a book and not based off of empirical evidence why is that not sexism? Sexism is based on prejudice, this is a prejudice they have divorced from the real world. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

if they're making these assumptions about gender based off of a book and not based off of empirical evidence why is that not sexism? Sexism is based on prejudice, this is a prejudice they have divorced from the real world.

 

The problem with the word "sexism" is that it is like "discrimination" in so far as it is morally neutral. The people who support the removal of women from positions of teaching authority would point out that it is supported by the Bible and thus the ruler and creator of the universe. So therefore, if it is sexist, it's apparently an acceptable sexism.