A report in the Times Higher Education Supplement tells about the advice given to its members by Council of Church Colleges and Universities (CCCU).
See Academia checks on faith in The Times:
Advice from the Council of Church Colleges and Universities tells universities to mention their Christian ethos in employment contracts so that staff who “openly flout” their ideals can be said to be in breach of contract.
It is thought that the rules are most likely to affect senior staff, chaplains and teachers of theology.
“If an employee acts in a way that is detrimental to the employer, by openly flouting the ethos . . . it may be possible to conclude that there has been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence,” the advice adds…
And also Universities told how to use Christianity to sack staff on Ekklesia:
…But Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said that the advice was deeply disturbing.
“This report obliquely suggests ways of ensuring that some positions are not held by those whose lifestyle is at odds with some Christian doctrine, presumably in terms of sexual orientation, attitudes to abortion and maybe even to marriage”, the Times reports…
Whoops! Our mistake. We ought to have specified that staff should be as antipathetic to marriage, and as much in favour of killing the unborn, as possible.
Excellent. A blast of the Trumpet for righteous tutors and for the recovery of our Christian institutions. We need Christian staff in our Universities and Colleges who are prepared to stand up for Biblical Principles in this degenerate world, and not condone those who live in sin or approve the wholesale murder of children. There are too many unmarried cohabiting staff in these institutions flaunting Church teaching on no sexual relations before marriage and failing to acknowledge what the Bible teaches about male headship. Hopefully institutions with Godless foundations like the University College of London will now wither on the… Read more »
This latest example of sectarianism hasn’t a cat in hell’s chance of being taken up, especially with the Wycliffe fiasco in the background.
Yes, Will, and you can be the first to stick that letter on your great-great-great aunt Hester.
John
PS: Maybe those institutions will teach the correct use of adverbs as well.
“not condone those who live in sin”
Good heavens no! We must browbeat and oppress those we believe to be sinners, God, after all, or according to NP it’s Paul, having given us the right to sit in judgement on everybody else. No mercy, no quarter. I’m wondering how much Jesus pays you for keeping the Judgement Seat warm till He gets back. You’ll be judged the way you judge, Will Prynne.
“stick that letter on your great-great-great aunt Hester.”
LOL: good one, John Bassett!
I’m tempted to say that “Will Prynne” is a parody—but then by that standard, Christopher Shell and NP would be, too. ;-/
Lord have mercy!
Why should the taxes I pay go to financing institutions which wish to discriminate against people like me? If ‘Christian’ Universities wish to adhere to those ‘biblical’and such like ‘values’ which only a tiny minority now hold to they shouldn’t be receiving any state funding at all.
I don’t have a problem with wanting people who model healthy lifestyles that are worth emulating. I do have a problem of modeling and teaching hate theology – misrepresentations, exaggerations, selective comprehension, false accusations, overgeneralizations, violence justification, deceit, corruption, vilification. I think some of the early “righteous” postings on this very thread prove the point. What was the word Jesus used for such souls? Hyprocrites! Mathew 23:25-28 ““Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean… Read more »
May I ask this question, especially of those who are in favor of this move: is academic freedom compatible with Christianity in general? Just wondering.
Ren: If by academic freedom you mean the promotion of moral nihilism, then the answer is no. This certainly seems to be the way the majority of posters above define academic freedom, as if Christians were supposed to follow the majority of the population in making a mockery of Christianity and Bible teaching. Really, for supposed Christians to classify the defence of marriage and the life of children as ‘hate theology’ just beggars belief! A better definition of academic freedom has been provided by Christian institutions in centuries past: the freedom to learn and debate academic issues in a manner… Read more »
Ren Academic freedom should be intrinsic to Christianity. Christianity was about making God and the holy texts available to the masses, who are no longer dependent on “holy” priests. Jesus legitimised sharing the holy texts to all humanity, from the unclean leper, to the serial-relationship Samaritan woman, to the tax-collector, to the priests in the synagogue. He did not have entry requirements to his sermons, and he fed all who came to learn with him. Matthew 25:31-45 is an example of Jesus thinking, whatever we do not do for the least of us, we do not do for God and… Read more »
In Cheryl’s defense, what she means by “hate theology” is precisely a kind of theology that encourages people to hate people that the dominant ideological construct (mainly what I would characterize as a rightist, conservative one) find either utterly unworthy of divine salvation or unable to attain it except through someone else other than God. Such a theology has biblical proof-texts to back the ideology (not the other way around). While one cannot deny that no education is value-free, as I believe, it is difficult to tolerate, even in a context of academic freedom, such an ideology. Which is far… Read more »
You are mistaken Ren to assume that Biblical norms are merely ‘rightist, conservative’ ideological constructs. On this logic, it would certainly be fairer to say that libertine, leftist ideological constructs are dominant in our academies today, and as we see above, its adherents are engaged in a process of demonising those who challenge their assumptions. It is absolute nonsense to claim, as Cheryl seems to, that Jesus had no problem with libertinism, and ‘did not preach lifestyle as a pre-requisite to holiness’. What did Jesus say to the adulterous woman: ‘Go Sin No More’! Jesus encourages us to love the… Read more »
I’m sure those sorts of Christians can have academies for themselves that follow the Wycliffe strategy, but as for Christian institutions of the past, the official ones used to exclude anyone outside the Church of England. From them society fought for the right to plurality and this is what we have got. The major educational institutions have no place to limit to or issue any religious ideology to anyone – their concern is academic freedom and academic standards.
“making a mockery of Christianity and Bible teaching” The only mockery I see of Christianity is carried out by people who consider it an insult to be called a Christian, and who mock the kind fo “Fishtianity” that you seem to be espousing, with it’s judgementalism, paranoia, martyr complex, and self-delusion. “supposed Christians” There’s the judgementalism I spoke of. “the defence of marriage” From what, the gays who hate marriage so much they are fighting for the right to get married, or the heteros who love it so much over half of them end the marriages they enter? “life of… Read more »
Will Who did Jesus start his public ministry with (i.e. after first gathering and grooming his first disciples)? A Samaritan woman who was living with her fifth man out of wedlock. Did Jesus rebuke the “pure” Pharisee or the woman who washed his feet with her hair and tears? The Pharisee, quite tersely. The passage Luke 7:37-50: “… When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet… Read more »
A friend of mine pointed out this interesting item of trivia: the UK centre of the US Council for Christian Colleges and Universities is based at Wycliffe Hall (see http://www.bestsemester.com). Wycliffe is also, unlike any other Anglican training institution, an affiliate member of the CCCU.
WP “the denigration of marriage… unequivocally sinful activities”
Good to know that both Jesus and Paul are sinful…..
“Jesus encourages us to love the sinner and loathe the sin: this has nothing to do with Cheryl’s ‘hate theology’, but rather with promoting righteousness.” On its face a bland statement, but, you see Will Prynne, that phrase so often means “Hate the sin, hate the sinner even more” that no-one really listens when people like you use it. You do not love me. Your behaviour and the things you say prove it. I will not tell you what those things are. I have no intention this morning of telling someone how to hate me more covertly. But you do… Read more »
In response to Sarah:
this story relates to the Council of Church Colleges and Universities, a UK organization of Anglican colleges etc.. They abbreviate themselves to CCCU but unfortunately so does the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, a North American federation. Wycliffe is a member of the latter CCCU.
Matthew 7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Need we say more?
“Good to know that both Jesus and Paul are sinful”
I’ve been assured that both Jesus and Paul were quite positive on marriage, actually, and thought very highly of it. I can’t see the evidence, to me Paul thought it a sop to those who couldn’t keep it in their pants. What do I know, though, I’m only an EHBL who never reads the Bible, and certainly doesn’t believe it.
“Matthew 7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Need we say more?”
We all fall into this, but some seem to think it a virtue. One of the things more you will need to say shortly is how Paul does not, in fact, tell us to judge each other. NP will soon be along to make that assertion.
David This torah article is interesting http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter2.html It includes “From some traits, such as pride and anger, a person should keep as far away as possible. However, it is not always good to go too far; if a person suppresses his desires to such a degree that he does not eat meat or drink wine or marry, or live in a suitable house or wear suitable clothes, he is called a sinner.” One of the problems with both Jesus and Paul being publically celibate it that it fostered the puritan mentality that the feminine is to be shunned as “dirty”.… Read more »
Ford – 1 Cor 5:12 is not my assertion….it is a verse in the bible
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+cor+5%3A12
You will see the context Paul is writing into at Corinth…..sometimes, when a church is being corrupted by false teaching, it is essential that judgments are made about what is right and wrong (eg Lambeth 1.10)
You would not argue that we should allow any or all teaching….because we dare not judge if it is true, biblical, holy – would you?
NP, I see nothing in the passage that justifies declaring someone you don’t even know in the US faithless, nor claiming they neither read nor respect Scripture, nor claiming they are seeking the approval of the world. If you do, please indicate it to me. You may thing it reasonable to take one verse of Scripture out of context. I do not. The entire chapter deals with the Church addressing issues of doctrinal incorrectness. It nowhere tells us that we do that by claiming those we disagree with are faithless, or that they are plotting against us, or that we… Read more »
Be sure to relate any further comments to the original matter of church colleges in the UK and how they ensure their church ethos is maintained.
By the way, I have now read the full document which provoked the original THES article, and I think that article and the others have somewhat overstated the case being made in the original report.
The question “You would not argue that we should allow any or all teaching….” Actually, that is one of the issues, figures associated with college halls have advocated the closure of “difficult” sites e.g. TA. One of my core positions is that any and all teaching should be possible and that like minded souls allowed to gather. That can create problems, for example with a sect that advocates the maiming of women or hunting of ethnic minorities or unsuitables. That is a core tension between the right to free speech and religious freedom versus the needs to protect members of… Read more »
If Church Colleges are to maintain their ethos, then tutors have to hold themselves to high standards of behaviour, consistent with the Word of God. I am baffled that this should be a point of controversy. Jesus tells us in the Bible that there is nothing worse than leading young people into sin: his teaching continually separates godly from ungodly behaviour. NP makes the point more succinctly than I have: the Bible most certainly calls on Christians to distinguish between that which is holy and that which is not. Ford is certainly wrong to claim that NP is quoting out… Read more »
“The context of 1 Cor 5.12 is provided by both chapters 1 Cor 5 and 1 Cor 6, where St Paul explains the need for the Church to condemn and expel bad influence in its midst, and then goes on to explain the need to condemn and avoid sexual immorality.” The context of 1 Cor 5 is 1 Cor 4 which talks of Christians as mere keepers of God’s secrets/treasures, from 1 Cor 4:3 which equals/negates the Corinthian’s own “christian“ judging with that of others (“or any human court”) all’ oudè emautòn anakrínå; “for I will not (even) judge myself”,… Read more »
Hi Will I took seriously your claim ” Cheryl: forgive me if I do not know how seriously to take your comments. You tell us you ‘refer to Jesus’ and then quote Mt 9.38-41 which includes verses which do not exist in the Bible.’ In this thead I have referred to: Mathew 23:25-28 Matthew 15:-11-20 Matthew 18:21-35 Luke 11:52 Luke 7:37-50 So your point about referring to Matthew 9:38-41 is based on what posting on what thread? I have low-level dyslexia and am used to having nit-pickers take advantage of that. Point to the thread where I quoted the non-existent… Read more »
1 Cor 4:17 to 1 Cor 5:12 were written, probably by Marcion and the Smyrna circle, in the following century to refute 1 Cor 4:1 – 16 and to accomodate and promote the dernier cri of the day: congregational discipline; the judging by sinners of their (percieved) enemies.
Just as today.
Goran, even if your theory were right, we can see St Paul judging the teaching of St Peter to be wrong and calling him to repentance…..in Acts Now, what we do not see is Paul and Peter teaching contradictory things forever but still claiming to be united….which is what the AC fudgemakes ask us to do in the AC and what TEC HOB wants us to do because the alternative is being a tiny liberal denomination in the world……. St Paul did not say to ST Peter, you teach what you believe to be the truth and I will respect… Read more »
“Remember Luke 17 2-3: ‘It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he be thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones…'” Or, similarly and more pointedly: Matthew 18:6 (New International Version) ‘But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.’ Which is why we should not be advocating the concept of “original sin” in our… Read more »
” In short, teachers should help students to think for themselves.
I know, I know… that is far too radical a concept!”
That’s exactly what is happening in the schools around me.
“”original sin”……. — which ascribes sin to the innocent “
No, original sin explains why it is there is suffering, pain, and death in the world. You inherently believe it, and you prove it everytime you say “Nobody’s perfect”. That is what ‘original sin’ means. This idea that it somehow is an unjust blaming of the innocent for sin is just reactionary. It comes from an understanding of sin as crime, which was convenient when the Church was the Enforcer of Imperial Morality.
NP wrote: “Göran, even if your theory were right, we can see St Paul judging the teaching of St Peter to be wrong and calling him to repentance… in Acts Now, what we do not see is Paul and Peter teaching contradictory things forever but still claiming to be united…. which is what the AC fudge makers ask us to do in the AC and what TEC HOB wants us to do because the alternative is being a tiny liberal denomination in the world… St Paul did not say to ST Peter, you teach what you believe to be the… Read more »
Absolutes in the Bible are not as absolute as we moderns take them. Obvious exceptions to “none are without sin” are Christ Jesus and Enoch, whom God took. In addition, Christ Jesus excludes the little children from “none are without sin” in Matthew 19:14: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. It is, to my mind, one of the great sins of the Church of Rome that it adopted a doctrine directly contrary to this passage and Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16 and ascribed sin… Read more »
Hi Carl It’s interesting to see this thread pop up again. Thanks. One comment is about the “original sin”. The mystics tell us that there are sometimes debates between God and angels. Particularly about this planet and its occupants. There is apparently one scene where God put forward the suggestion of creating humanity, a gaggle of angels started to debate why it was a bad idea. One of them (probably the Sheckina) came and told them that God had gone and done it anyway and went off to help God. The whole Jewish, Moses Exodus thing fits into the same… Read more »
I have a friend who was choirmaster in a CofE benefice. The Evangelical Rector asked him if was cohabiting, to which replied “yes” and was promptly sacked.
Is this legal?