Harriet Jean Evans takes a look at the social commentary of the past, and explains why she believes it just doesn't matter.
Our anonymous blogger reflects on her attempts to have a student Christmas... and how she came to the conclusion that home-made is always best.
Gillian Love urges you to vote 'No' to the motion to replace Women's Committee with a 'Gender Equality Committee'.
I generally like to believe that the Christian Union is a brain-washing organisation, whose sole aim is to build up a power-base so they can bend the rest of us to their will. Up until now this has been a Ballardian fantasy, dreamt up in an effort to add yet another group of people to my long list of neurotic pet hates - the CU is currently below New Labour, and just above 'Pop-Culture.' However, light has been shed on their cult-like practices which has sent them rocketing up the list, overtaking such hates as Scientology, Nazism and the Liberal Democrats.
Facetiousness aside, past members of the Christian Union have informed me that they were invited to attend "Accountability Meetings" with students from the upper echelons of the organisation when their behaviour was deemed to transgress the party line. The CU would invite members to these meetings and offer consolation and concern as a kind of cathartic medicine against the disease of hedonism and all its symptoms of loud music, liquor and libidinous desire. After speaking with past members of the Union who were asked to attend these meetings, there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rules as to what defines unacceptable behaviour. These meetings seem to come about if certain party-line CU members express subjective concerns over another Union member's conduct. The next step is to send out an informal text message to members on red alert, inviting them for a quick coffee, where they can discuss how they have strayed from the path of righteousness. While CU members may enjoy the moralist flavour of these caffeinated congregations, I, for one, am left with a somewhat bitter aftertaste.
Surely these meetings were clear evidence to support my previously considered outlandish theories that the CU was a tyrannical, militant organisation? My eager hands were ready to typographically decry a non-secular scandal occurring within the darker corners of the organisation. Surely the CU's manipulation of its members was hypocrisy? I cackled gleefully: I had found the stagnant stench beneath their enticing waft of midnight toasties and teacakes. However, minutes after my research began, I discovered something quite disconcerting on their official website.
These Accountability Meetings can be directly assimilated with what they call their "Doctrinal Basis." My shock turned to amusement, my amusement turned to horror as I read more of their credo. One of their more archaic beliefs was: "Since the fall, the whole of humankind is sinful and guilty, so that everyone is subject to God's wrath and condemnation." Apart from being a bad PR move, this theological stance harks back to the merciless God of the Old Testament. And also, didn't Jesus' death cleanse the sins of the world in the Gospels of the New Testament? Many Christians and religious groups firmly believe in atonement - I find it inconceivable that a Union of faith like the CU can represent all of its members effectively by ignoring the complexities of the Lapsarianism debate. This kind of thinking is something you'd find in the dystopian world of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Another contradiction clouds the water even further:
"Sinful human beings are redeemed from the guilt, penalty and power of sin only through the sacrificial death once and for all time of their representative and substitute, Jesus Christ, the only mediator between them and God."
No doubt members of the CU, and other Christians, would attempt to reconcile these two stated ideas in some abstract way, but my critique still smarts.
Before getting carried away, I checked and double-checked that I wasn't on some kind of Puritan history website. Worryingly, I was still staring open-mouthed at the CU's website, with the ugly Doctrinal Basis text couched comfortably within its friendly comic sans exterior. With this kind of dominant thinking, no wonder they are orchestrating Accountability Meetings for their social dissenters. I sat back and wondered how on earth a youth-based Christian group could ever imagine such a callous view of humanity. The CU seems to be sprinting backwards in the wrong direction when the Church of England appears to be moving with the times. My advice to the CU's marketing department would be to embrace a pluralist view of Christianity rather than trying to form its own church from scratch.
As much as I would love to smear all Christian sects, it would be irrational and unfair to devote more time to this enjoyable task. No, I do not object to individuals practicing faith in their own homes and prayer groups. What I do object to is the morally corrupt idea of Accountability Meetings. The Christian Union have created a diktat on how to behave, and have created mechanisms of power against their own members, who depart from this custom. Their "Doctrinal Basis" is a grim read, and a bad advertisement for students who are interested in expressing religious solidarity. As a strong atheist I can only persuade individuals against following a theistic path, but should they choose to do so I would defend their individual expression of faith with every sinew of my being.
Any theologian can adequtely demonstrate how the premise that 'all humans after the Fall are guilty and subject to God's wrath' can exist alongside 'sinful human beings are redeemed by the death of Christ.'
I am reeling from your absolute arrogance. I recommend reading John Milton's Paradise Lost, or the relevant parts of the Bible. In the former, you'll find a wonderful poet explaining exactly how mankind fell and was redeemed by Christ, in a manner without the sneering pomposity of your own writing.
You even point out yourself: "didn't Jesus' death cleanse the sins of the world in the Gospels of the New Testament?" Yep, and if you did your own research, you'd find how the two statements are compatible.
Interesting and very worrying. Pretty much confirms what I'd suspected while I was at York a few years ago.
One of the more sinister things I heard about (from someone in the CU) was the 'Evangelism Meetings', in which they discussed any heathen friends who might be ripe for conversion and how to bring them to the fold.
The use of the umbrella term 'Christian' is also very damaging. When I first arrived on campus, I thought it was simply a non-denominational group where Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Quakers etc. could meet and have discussions. In reality, it is simply a clique that espouses a warped version of Protestantism, which as you say, seems to have more in common with literal Old Testament death and damnation thinking, than it does with Christian notions of redemption, atonement and reconciliation.
Compare the CU to other religious groups on campus: Cassoc (of which I was a member), Islamic Soc, Jewish Soc, the Quakers: You would see the occasional poster advertising meetings and events, but nothing in your face. They weren't 'on-the-mission' as the CU seem to be.
Ironically the CU are one of the most un-Christian groups I've ever come across.
Point three of the Doctrinal Basis: "The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour."
So if they take a literal-Bible interpretation of Christianity, am I to understand that members have been ejected for wearing mixed-fibre clothing, saying "Oh my God!" or "for God's sake!", lying, doing work on a Sunday (those pesky essay deadlines), disobeying their parents or shaving, as per the book of Leviticus (chapter 19)?
And that several of the postholders of the CU can read both Ancient Greek and Hebrew, in order to interpret the Bible "as originally given"?
Gillian, don't know if it's been edited since you wrote your comment, but Adam wrote: . One of their more archaic beliefs [the CU's} was: "Since the fall...etc etc rhubarb rhubarb". Don't think he holds those views but he's pointing out his issues with them.
And Greg, never read or try to translate the gospels in greek. Don't know about any of the others, but trying to find the right meaning for some of the more generic Greek verbs is an absolute headache.
The CU adequately demonstrates why YUSU's stringent society guidelines can actually be a good thing. Sure, some gold (or orange, as the case may be) will slip through the woodwork, but crackpot organisations like UYCU are caught out for the discriminatory, bigoted organisations that they are...
Michael, but he is trying to argue in that paragraph that it is a 'contradiction' to believe that "Since the fall, the whole of humankind is sinful and guilty, so that everyone is subject to God's wrath and condemnation" AND that "Sinful human beings are redeemed from the guilt..."etc. When in fact it isn't. As thousands of years of theological thought and writing will tell you. But Adam Alcock smarms: "No doubt members of the CU, and other Christians, would attempt to reconcile these two stated ideas in some abstract way, but my critique still smarts." READ SOME THEOLOGY ALCOCK.
I'm not religious or part of the CU, but Adam, you can't adopt such a sanctimonious, sneering tone and get your facts wrong.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2rpz7eg&s=5
I found this and thought of this article. The likeness to Alcock is... well I'll let you decide.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report