|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion The Third DegreeTaking a standMany readers will have seen extensive press coverage, both secular and Christian, of the dispute between the Exeter CU and the University’s Students Guild, of which the CU has been a member for over 50 years. What began as an objection from a single student to the name ‘Christian Union’, claiming that the CU did not reflect his personal Christian beliefs, rapidly escalated. The Guild argued that, by requiring all office holders and speakers to sign their assent to a Doctrinal Basis, the CU was exclusive. The Guild wanted CU leadership to be open to people of any faith or none. They maintained that a leader could uphold an organisation’s belief without having to make a personal confession of belief. This clearly showed a lack of understanding of how the CU functions. It would be impossible for a CU leader to lead effectively without a living faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The fact that attendance at CU meetings was already open to everyone, regardless of faith or background, was deemed inadequate. Unless the CU was willing to comply with the Guild’s requirements, it would be disaffiliated. After a highly flawed university-wide referendum and a series of unanswered questions put to the Guild about the unfairness of the whole operation, the CU decided to take action in the High Court. This seemed to be the only way of bringing about a satisfactory, long-term solution to the dispute. Tolerance?Was the CU right to take such drastic action in taking the matter to court? Could the whole thing not have been resolved amicably, with a bit of give and take on both sides — perhaps a degree of tolerance? The case has been filed, but not yet heard. An internal arbitration procedure with pseudo-legal status was implemented by the Guild and University authorities, headed up by a QC. His conclusion was that students of all faiths or none should be eligible to lead the CU. The desire of the Christian Union to be led by committed Christians was considered — dare one say — ‘intolerable’! Central questionThere lies the central question at issue: ‘Just what is tolerance?’ Tolerance today seems to have been redefined. No longer does it mean my willingness to accept another’s right to hold an opinion contrary to mine, but to do so with mutual respect. No. In a misguided or even mischievous application of Equal Opportunities legislation, tolerance today means the elimination of difference altogether. I can no longer express a view that is likely to cause offence to another — we must all appear to agree. But this is not tolerance; it is, at best, an attempt to stifle debate in the name of equality. At worst, it sows the seeds of totalitarianism. Our very freedom to proclaim the gospel is at stake; nothing more, nothing less. By presenting a legal challenge to the actions of the Guild, the Exeter CU has drawn a line in the sand in defence of that freedom. Unless there is a radical shift in the Guild’s position, the High Court Action will go ahead. We await the outcome with prayerful interest. UCCF and NUS guidelinesBut it’s not all confrontation. Away from the headlines, another, perhaps more significant, discussion has been taking place, with an altogether more positive outcome. Faced with a number of Christian Union / Students’ Union disputes, the National Union of Students’ own leadership entered into dialogue with representatives of UCCF. The aim was to draw up guidelines for CUs and SUs to follow in order to avoid future conflict. It is pleasing to report that such guidelines have now been agreed by both parties. Among a number of other very helpful directives, are two key safeguards: * ‘…the leadership (executive committee) of a faith-based society may be restricted to those who can affirm and promote its religious objects as specified in the constitution. The right to change the objects and the right to vote for leaders may be likewise restricted.’ * ‘Any allegation of discrimination or harassment made against the society must be properly substantiated and not based merely on the expression of unpopular or controversial opinions.’ Clearly the NUS leadership thinks differently from the QC in Exeter. It is our hope that by securing such an agreement at national level, we will be able to protect the freedom of Christian students to continue to live and speak for Jesus on campus, without fear of censorship or pressure to conform to a secular agenda. We are enormously grateful to the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship for legal advice freely given and for the overwhelming support and encouragement shown by both our loyal and long-standing supporters and the wider Christian community. We are conscious of a huge increase in prayer support and are grateful, too, to those who have either sent financial gifts or expressed a willingness to do so should the need arise to finance court action. A degree of uncertainty still surrounds this last question. Please go on standing with the CUs generally, and Exeter CU in particular, as they stand for the right to proclaim Christ. Pray that they will ‘…do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against [their] good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander’ (I Peter 3.15-16). Alan Hewerdine,
|
|
