If you’re bored of my continual blathering about the Spring Harvest / Word Alive story feel free to click ‘next’ or ‘close’ or ‘no’ and be done with it. I probably wouldn’t have posted again on the subject had I not thought of a cartoon about it. [See ‘Word Alive is no more‘ and ‘More on the Spring Harvest / Word Alive kerfuffle‘ for my posts so far on the topic.]
I don’t normally link to forum posts, but this seems to be the only place that this information has been posted. Bishop Pete Broadbent on Ship of Fools:
I can tell you that:
1. Steve Chalke has never been proposed by the Spring Harvest Leadership Team as a speaker at Word Alive
2. Spring Harvest are not in partnership with Fusion.
3. UCCF have never allowed women speakers to speak on their own on the main stage at the Student Celebration, despite SH requiring it as policy
4. We never said we were putting “personality ahead of partnership”
5. We did not end the partnership over Steve Chalke, though it suits UCCF’s myth-making to pretend that we did
I have no idea why UCCF have released this press release. It looks very much like a piece of machismo propaganda to puff their new event.
Point 3 inspired the following brief scribble:
If you think I’m being unfair go and have a look at the endorsements page of the ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’ book and tell me how many of the 45 or so endorsers are women. (‘Tremper’ and ‘Lindsay’ are both men’s names on this occasion. I’ve checked.)
On a (sort of) related note, I was intrigued by Graham’s post in my comments that Wesley Owen staff were forbidden from selling Steve Chalke’s books at Word Alive:
We were passing the Wesley Owen stand when some one asked if they could buy one of Steve’s books. The assistant told the enquirer that they were not allowed to put Steve’s books out at Word Alive.
It seems to me there might have been some money to be made by someone selling Steve Chalke books in brown paper wrapping to passers by, but I digress. I tend to think that attempting to silence the opposition’s point of view through censorship might not be a great strategy in the long run. Let both sides of the debate make their points and allow people to make their own minds up.