UCCF again – some recent developments
Back in 2015, in the early days of the blog, I wrote a piece https://survivingchurch.org/2015/09/19/christian-unions-at-university-an-account/ which used a firsthand account of what a student reported about her experiences of membership of a Christin union at university. The writer of the letter, Kirsty, had googled the words ‘damage caused by Christian union involvement.’ Google had thrown up an article of mine written on Surviving Church about CUs. Apparently, this was, at that time, the only discussion on the topic easily available. From what Kirsty had to report there was a clear need to discuss the topic even if the internet generally had little to offer on the issue. Kirsty wrote of the ‘emotional and psychological residue’ that she was still trying to process fifteen years after her time at university. She also spoke of ‘mixed feelings of sadness, pain and guilt around my involvement with this strand of Christianity.’ Alongside Kirsty’s description, which she graciously allowed me to reproduce in full, was my reply. I confessed to her that the wider church beyond Christian unions and the conservative Christianity taught there often showed little understanding of the problems faced by those who, for whatever reason, fell out of sympathy with Christian union teaching. I mentioned a particular issue with some conservative ideas about sin. These could easily undermine self-esteem and the ability to love oneself.
Looking back on my online conversation with Kirsty, I realise that what she was describing in 2015 is an issue that has never gone away. Students at university are encountering the presentation of a religious message which, while it seems to liberate some, throws others into a form of depressive bondage. From my liberal-catholic background, I share the belief that Jesus came to bring Good News, but I have never linked this gospel with a need to fight off constant feelings of gloom and despair. One writer described the depressive state associated with some presentations of the Good News as an ‘evangelical anorexia nervosa’. My own theological perspective has given me access to a journey of finding constant newness and adventure. Over 2000 years, different cultures and races have thrown up an enormous range of Christian ideas in their attempt to make sense of Jesus Christ and his teaching. For me there has never been a single unchanging version of the Good News. The Christian faith and the good news contained in it comes in many guises and expressions. We only need to have the barest appreciation of human language to know that every religious thought or belief is subtly varied according to the language and culture in which it is articulated.
The Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) has, over many decades, had a dominant role in the sharing of the Christian faith to students across Britain. The expression of the faith that is articulated by this organisation is, as we have seen in the October 23 blog and the online conversation with Kirsty in 2015, a strongly conservative message. UCCF is ‘successful’ in one notable way, in making its brand of Christianity far more prominent than any other. No other organisation comes close to recruiting and supporting the dozens of young people who promote and organise the work of Christians unions in almost every centre of higher education in Britain. The work has been going on over decades and, speaking generally, UCCF is responsible for much of the conservative evangelical culture found in many Church of England parishes. UCCF does all this work independently and it is not under the control of any external denominational structure. It has thus created its own distinctive way of doing things and it has done this without attracting attention to itself. Nevertheless, new episodes have disturbed the calm at UCCF over the past few months. The first episode which we looked at in October was the suspension of two of the senior directors, Richard Cunningham and Tim Rudge, in December 2022. The suspensions resulted in a report being made by a KC and this was received by the Trustees in June 2023. The event was marked by a number of apologies to the workers who had raised complaints, apparently about employment conditions. Both directors were subsequently permitted to return to their posts. We commented in the October blog on the way that whole episode had been marked by secrecy. While we suspect that the problems at the organisation were to do with the non-observance of aspects of employment law, no explanation for the suspensions and reinstatements have ever been given. There were, however, clear signs of unhappiness at the national headquarters of the organisation. Over a fairly short period, half the trustees have resigned, including the chairman, Chris Wilmott.
Since October, three new events have emerged which add to the drama that surrounds this currently beleaguered organisation. In February this year, a former worker and team leader, Nay Dawson, published an account of her part in creating the ‘unhealthy’ culture which ‘damaged’ employees. Her words seem to have been inspired by the issue at the heart of the organisation – the conditions of employment for junior UCCF workers. These have required the young employees to work under terms which appeared to be neither legal nor ethical. The UCCF employment conditions expected all the young people who were salaried to work for a fixed period, three or five years. They were then expected to resign to make way for a new group of recent students. Employment law makes it clear that anyone who completes a probationary period in a job satisfactorily cannot simply be pushed aside to suit the needs of the organisation. Nay realised that some of those under her who were being required to resign, were experiencing considerable distress at the inevitability of their departure. She began to see that, in her role as team leader, she had been required to be part of this cruel enforcing process. Her article which articulated her own pain and sense of regret was widely read and it created quite a stir on X/Twitter. The article was exposing the secretive world of UCCF to open criticism which it would clearly wish to avoid.
If I had personally wanted to move on after my October 23 blog, the twitterverse, or whatever it is called today, made sure I was fully aware of everything going on in the past few months at UCCF. Because my article was attached to many of the X discussions, my inbox was full of UCCF online chatter which was following this drama. Almost all of it was critical of those in charge at UCCF. Two further events followed Nay’s article. This was publicised in Premier News. Premier also reprinted a confidential internal UCCF document from 2009. This set out the issues about UK employment law and how these could be made to fit with the actual practice at UCCF of requiring employees to move on after three or five years. The message of the document had a hard edge to it and no concession was given to employees who might wish to extend their period of employment with UCCF. Clearly the resignation of half the trustees was probably linked to the internal differences which Nay’s article was articulating, but nothing seems to have changed and certainly nothing has been made public. Meanwhile one of the reinstated directors, Richard Cunningham, has resigned from his post and we are left to speculate the real reasons for his departure.
Nay’s article in the Premier magazine has been followed up by another letter from one Katie Norouzi. This appeared on the 11th March and supported all that Nay had said about the effect of her experiences of employment with UCCF as a staff worker. Katie was called to an interview/appraisal with a senior member of staff which she felt was set up, even designed as a means to deliberately undermine and humiliate her. The encounter seemed designed to crush her in such a way that Katie would feel compelled to resign. In Katie’s words, she asked herself ‘did I have fundamental weaknesses that meant that I couldn’t do the job? Was I failing to serve Jesus well in the role he had given me?’
Katie’s story, which tells of the way that an organisation puts its own interests ahead of the people it was supposed to serve, reminds us of the CofE and its repeated failures in safeguarding. UCCF has been able, for many decades, to avoid giving an account of itself to outsiders and also to those who work for it. That may be about to change. The events that have taken place since the suspension of the directors in December 2023 have created a situation which necessitates it bringing new blood into the organisation. Those coming as a new Director or as trustees will each need to be briefed on what has taken place over the past 15 months. They are unlikely to agree to serve in an organisation that has skirted illegality and maybe even colluded with financial misconduct. Some hints of financial impropriety in the organisation have also leaked out. No new official would want to be part of an organisation that may soon face scrutiny from the Charity Commission. Change is in the air at UCCF. Their achievements over the past hundred years are remarkable and important. Even if I have little sympathy for the theological vision that undergirds their efforts, it does not stop me having respect for the work that has been accomplished. Perhaps a new start the top will create a new healthy spiritual and open environment for UCCF. The respect of outside Christian bodies is important and that will not be obtained unless UCCF makes a clear ethical response to the crises that the organisation has faced over the past months.
If you’ve been to university and not been adversely affected by the CU, you may be completely unaware of some of the bad stuff going on behind the scenes with UCCF. My first CU was a bit pants and I didn’t last too long there. My main source of Christian input was church.
It’s easy not to know anything about what’s been going on and I believe it’s important to emphasise the value of this and other social media in bringing such matters to our attention.
There are still many who believe in silence and certainly not discussing in public what goes on in Christian leadership practices but I’m now convinced that these shortcomings should be brought out into the open, debated and acted upon. Otherwise the malpractice just carries on for ever.
Some of the early “Christian” teaching, foundational in my life, did lasting damage and has taken years to recover from. This is one reason I’m passionate about supporting people who expose it. I still regard myself as fully Christian, for the avoidance of doubt.
I thought fixed term job contracts were perfectly legal? Certainly the C of E used to use them, and possibly still does.
The situation has changed in recent years. The end of the contract is a dismissal, and there needs to be an objective reason for it: for example, the completion of a project or the expiry of external funding. The mere convenience of the employer is not enough. In particular, employees can now usually claim redundancy at the end of a fixed term contract if the work in general is continuing. Another new aspect is that 4 years of employment on one or more fixed term contracts now constitutes permanent employment for legal purposes, and so expiration of contract becomes prima facie an unfair dismissal. NB: I Am Not A Lawyer.
It is possibly these points that were under discussion in 2009.
Thanks.
The C of E used to often give fixed term contracts to team vicars and chaplains; if this practice has been halted it will be a good thing. But what about curates, who are expected to move on after two or three years?
The short answer is Common Tenure. For some reason, the Church of England has its own private employment law which differs from that of almost all other employers. It allows for fixed term appointments.
Under employment law, fixed term contracts can’t last longer than 6 months https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts
When did that law come into force?
I understand that contracts were never given but the workers only found out that they were going to be ‘let go’ long after they had started working. The distress shown by the ones given notice against their will suggests that there had not been any explanation of what was expected and no employment documents. Most of the employees accepted the situation bur some (the highly committed ones?) felt the shock of a cruel termination.
That is indeed cruel, and outrageously dishonest.
And illegal. The employer must provide a written statement of particulars, including the length of the contract, on the first day of employment. Employment Rights (Employment Particulars and Paid Annual Leave) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
Very harsh and unethical.
To read these harrowing accounts, of those used and then sacrificed by UCCF, begs the question of “Why?”
You have a perfectly good, functioning, experienced and efficient member of staff, and you waste them, and replace them with a newbie. Why would you do that?
Forgive me for being off topic. Happy Easter to everyone. And I think there’s a consultation on abuse going on? Does anyone have a link?
Good to hear from you EA! We’ve missed your more regular contributions.
There’s this: https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safeguarding-news-releases/survey-initial-response-jay-report
There are a few problems with it. It looks like there’s nothing to stop people submitting multiple responses; and you have to choose only one from a very long list of possible identifiers. For instance, I can’t describe myself as both a priest and a survivor – I have to choose one or the other. And as the Bp of Newcastle has pointed out, if she selects ‘diocesan bishop’ and answers the other questions truthfully, she’s no longer anonymous.
It’s a typically incompetent and amateur effort by the C of E.
Thanks Janet. A Google search failed to produce the goods. Also typical!
This is interesting. My experience of abuse didn’t happen in a C of E church. Have any other denominations or church groups done anything like this?
Reading about UCCF is difficult. Not because I experienced abuse in the organisation – I wasn’t part of it other than as a member of my CU at university, so it formed part of the context of that experience. I found my church through a CU freshers’ event and quite a few students in the CU went to that church, so we were linked.
I guess this is somewhat tangential, but I don’t look back on my CU years very fondly. They were marked by loneliness and disappointment, and I don’t think it was very helpful to me in living my life. for all that it had a missional agenda – rightly or wrongly – I found it very inward looking and cliquey. Other than people telling me about John Piper and Reformed theology, I don’t remember much.
Oh, there was the church weekend away where the invited speaker used the life of Peter to tell us how rubbish we were all. Yes, he used those words, “You’re rubbish”. Nice man otherwise.
I’m sorry your experience of a CU was negative. They vary enormously, of course: not only from place to place but also from time to time, depending who the leaders and members are. When I was a uni chaplain, there was one year when CU members helped distribute condoms for Safe Sex Week!
For any speaker to tell students they are ‘rubbish’ is appalling. He can have had no idea how vulnerable many young people are. Besides, it was rotten theology – every one of his audience was made in the image of God, and infinitely valuable.
Thanks, Janet. You are entirely right about CUs varying.
I was probably overegging the negative side a bit; for a moment I considered adding that there were many good people and that the leadership were pretty good. In fact one of the UCCF workers – I forget her role – I remember with admiration and appreciation. However, that period of my life is very difficult for me to think about and I didn’t feel I was writing an in-depth analysis of something, just showing a tiny glint of my inner-life. So, I let it stand as it was.
Exactly. It was a difficult experience for you and that’s how it was. I’m sorry it was so tough.
Universities have transient populations and things can change very quickly. People forget how turbulent a time the late teens and early twenties can be, and how intense are young people’s feelings and troubles.
Also, I think the ultra-conservative faction of evangelicals have grown stronger. As a former con-eva, I regret that.
Thanks.
Yes, I found my teens and twenties very difficult. I suspect that most of my issues with the CU are more that it probably wasn’t the best environment for me, perhaps. I needed nurturing and the CU wasn’t really designed for that.
You aren’t alone in that respect Simon; my own teens, twenties and thirties weren’t very easy either. With hindsight and experience I was mildly autistic and ADHD, which made life very difficult to cope with at times. ‘Growing up’ into someone better able to cope was a long and difficult process – there is no such thing as ‘instant’ healing; it’s a life long process. But at least, God blesses us and walks with us.
Chaplaincies can be places where students (and staff) are nurtured. However, there is often mutual suspicion between chaplains and CUs which can make it difficult for CU members to approach chaplains.
The CU requirement for everyone to sign up to their very specific statement of faith, and most chaplains’ reluctance or inability to do that, prove a barrier.
Yes! I remember being suspicious of chaplains and anyone who wasn’t “sound”. Hopefully, I’ve grown more aware of different ways to be a Christian. My current church has just left – amicably – the Vineyard movement, of which we weren’t very representative anyway. Strangely, the feeling of leaving has felt like a relief to me. Honestly, even though I’ve never been heavily involved in the movement and have had very positive experiences of it, I just feel a weight lifting from being attached to this massive, monolithic (in my mind) group.
I have been reflecting and wonder if of my gripes with the CU are very personal, though. I just feel that the Evangelical world I walked in was very limiting intellectually, emotionally and socially, and no matter how benign or pleasant people were, I can’t help feeling it confined me. Of course, I was collaborating with that.
Again, hoping to encourage you, Simon, you aren’t alone in those experiences. ‘Soundness’ seems to be a major issue with a good many people – reflecting, I suspect, their own inbred insecurity and fear of anything which doesn’t toe the official party ‘line’.
If, like me at that age, you’re not the most secure of people, it can be very difficult. There are so many voices, all claiming to be the ‘right’ way of believing; they may be so for some individual people, but not as a blanket over everyone. And, if you want to be believing ‘rightly’ it gets very, very hard to know which one to follow. The Lord promised his spirit would lead us into all truth (or as much of it as we can accept at any one time. The whole shebunkin wil need all eternity to come to know) And we have to go on trust.
If its any help, I believe very much in the indwelling gifts of the Holy Spirit, and found that the less I had to do with the organised movement and its structures, the more open to the spirit I actually became!
Hang on in there, and stick with it – its worth it. God bless
That was my experience too. Martyn Percy and Charles Foster edited a book called ‘Faith Lost and Found’, on people who’ve moved from one expression of faith to another. Several contributors (including me) moved from being conservative evangelical and/or charismatic to a more liberal or sacramental faith. One two moved in the opposite direction.
It’s an interesting and illuminating read.
Simon R., one of the churches where I smelled the trouble years before anybody, which I have occasionally touched on in Stephen’s columns, was a Vineyard church AND a C of E church simultaneously (I believe it is no longer Vineyard, but when I dropped by it is just as chaotic as ever).
A Vineyard (only) church has now appeared in my current neighbourhood and is bandying around the slogan “Boundaries”. Please may I pick your brains – does this mark them as one of the new Vineyard mainstream or are they outliers like yours?
Controlling attitudes by spiritual bosses cause chaos in communities and lives.
Michael M: I’m replying to your question about the Vineyard slogans. I’m not aware of this. I’ve always had a tendency to avoid mass movements because I always want something small and local where I can build relationships. So, even with my involvement in Vineyard, I was in two smaller churches and avoided big meetings.
I find your comment about smelling trouble in Vineyard interesting. On a personal level, I can speak positively of my experience, however, I have met people who have seen a very different side which has left them hurt.
Simon at 11.32, yes I had some positive vibes * from there as well at the time. It didn’t cohere and some details belied others – there is not good enough that you weather and not good enough that you stop weathering.
{ * irony unintended since “vibrant” = in a sense shaky }
Do CUs give us the message that false top down ecumenism is a good and a bad thing at the very same time?
I know what you mean, Janet – although I personally have no problems with declaring my faith in Jesus as my Lord, my Saviour and my God (which was the simple wording of my old CU document) I get uneasy when the statement extends to much more specific doctrinal matters, or more recently sexual orientations.
I don’t think we had a chaplain. Suspicions certainly do about – some may be genuine, but a good deal of it stems from evangelical distrust of ‘the world’ and paranoia. It isn’t just CU’s that do that, I’m afraid. It seems pretty much rife across the church world.
I have the luxury of not having to read output from the C of E. it’s almost as if it’s designed to be deliberately annoying.
😃. Yes, better keep our wry sense of humour!
I have to say my personal experiencne of CECU (which in those days was the college of education system’s sister organisation) was much more positive; in fact the group which led me to finding faith were also the first, and longest lasting group of real friends that I had. OK, we made mistakes – for a year the CU was, effectively, my church, but it was a valuable learning time for me.
My wife’s recollections, on the other hand, weren’t as good – but then any organisation will be like the legendary curate’s egg. I wouldn’t like to base my opinion of other groups, such as Scripture Union, solely on my experiences of them, either. The same could be said for Soul Survivor or any other Christian organisation.
At my secondary school CU I was told I had to be a “new [surname]” (I didn’t need to turn over a new leaf) and no-one cared that due to previous life difficulty I needed to connect with the “old [surname]” more. The consequences have been devastating. And how many times has this been replicated – depersonalised “christians”.
Simon Richiardi: one of my portfolio of movements (not student confined) said something similar about us when I was in it. Also my present neighbourhood is spiritually paralysed by Piper victims.
Dr M Lloyd-Jones said almost 100 years ago that evangelical churches don’t present the Gospel. Anyone ought to hesitate before pretending to endorse him.
Are you talking about this idea (in some circles) that we have ‘a new name’ in heaven? Well, all I can say is that the one on my birth certificate is good enough for me, and for God at present.
Various people try to make us fit into their ideas of how we should behave, dress or think as Christians, and in all honesty, it doesn’t work. As a famous Jewish rabbi said, God won’t ask him why he wasn’t more like Moses, Elijah or Isaiah – he will ask him why he wasn’t more like his true self. Christ sets us free to do just that – though doing that can take a bit of finding what our true are are like. But at least we have his friendship and guidance in the finding.
God bless
No, being born again (we sometimes used abbreviated surnames when conversing) (the same surname), and as a believer already. However, I fondly try to remember a few songs from those days and an inspiring lunchtime visit we had from the actor Timmy Bateson, and books by the honest Michael Harper (while I already saw through Stott’s books).
The school christian union was unsupervised following the departure of its former supervising teacher with Ministry of Education links, when the idea of sex before marriage was being promoted by his “civics” department (because he groomed a boy). Now look at the anguish of billions of girls, boys, women and men.
Spiritual abuse will not be overcome congregation by congregation because all of christendom has been locked into one big system of it for a long time. I’m just realising I am an eyewitness for the benefit of the sense of critique of my present companions (if any). The only remedy, the prayer of Daniel 9: 3-21.
Oh, Michael, I’m sorry.
Thanks for explaining the surnames comment, which I’d misunderstood.
As for the other issues, Lord, forgive us the mess we have made of your vision. I said to Janet earlier in this thread that I have to keep focussed on Jesus and our Father if I am going to cope with the life situations which I have; somehow we need to keep the two in balance. The alternative is a recipe for despair.
Michael Harper, along with Tom Smail, was very much my primary source of guidance and input, via his books and Renewal magazine. He was a very perceptive man. One of them spoke about using the Daniel passage as a model prayer for interceding for our society – identify with the nations’ sin, acknowledge it before God and plead with him to repair the damage. I use the basis of it a lot.
I can honestly say I have no experience of Vineyard churches, so cannot comment on them in any way at all. That’s simply enough explained, I wouldn’t get on with the more radical charismatic churches, being more reflective and quieter by nature.
Do you remember when Gerald Coates divided Christians into ‘settlers’ and ‘pioneers’? I don’t like divisive categories of that sort – they usually cloak elitism and a sense of false superiority!
I’ve figured out what are good and what are bad charismatic. Jessie Penn-Lewis did good balanced work before my time but most editions of her books were tampered with, so I’m told.
Most of the churches including the pretend charismatics “hold” indistinct Holy Spirit teachings, and not distinct ones (the latter relate to Ascension).
Curious about Coates because I knew him (slightly), before he was famous – of course his subsequent brand name would be self-defined virtue signalling therefore.
I’m grateful to have found this an inspiring thread swopping viewpoints with several of you participants!