More thoughtless thought

Another gem of a 4thought can be viewed here: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3118646

The Rev James Gracie, a minister in Edinburgh, began by telling us that women should not be allowed to have primary roles in the church, including being preachers. His most sound and well thoughtout reasoning is as follows:

"Because the Bible tells us very clearly the roles that men and women are to have"

I always cringe when I hear statements like this. Two of my least favourite statements are: "Because the Bible tells us" and "The Bible tells us very clearly". As I consider myself a Christian, this fact may be surprising to some.

But the reason I object to such statements as the former is because the assumption is usually that something being in the Bible automatically renders it true - due to Biblical inerrancy and the like. And the reason I object to the latter is because the Bible does not tell us things very clearly - we glean things through our reading and interpretation of the Bible.

Least of all does the Bible tell us very clearly the role of men and women. I was hoping for a half-decent argument with this, but all this supposed minister managed to come up with was the oft-quoted 1 Corinthians 14:34-5

"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says."

Once again this verse is quoted entirely out of context - both textual and historical. The textual context is actually in maintaining order in the church. Note in particular Paul uses the article here - the churches, not just churches in general. There was a specific problem with disorder and chaos in the Corinthian churches. I'd consider it 99.9% likely that Paul did not intend that women should remain silent in all churches throughout time, but that specific women in the Corinthian church ought not to just shout out randomly.

Progressing further with the historical context - let us also note that Paul was writing in the 1st century CE. Society was still incredibly patriarchal - women were meant to be subordinate and submissive and this was just the way things were. But something being a social norm in the time of the Biblical authors does not make it right! And it most certainly does not make it the will of God!

Yet again someone who has supposedly studied theology has taken the Bible, assumed his literal, and actually rather ignorant (literally, of social and textual context) interpretation is the correct one.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of attitude that has hurt and damaged women and the church for generations. I have had the privilege of knowing both female and male clergy and leaders in the church. And not only do I think that women have just as much to contribute as men - I actually think they have certain qualities which many men lack.

But perhaps the most important reason for accepting women in the church is that, quite simply, all are loved and accepted by God. God calls women and men to various roles - he calls some women and some men to teach, preach, practise law, practise medicine, serve in shops, clean, build...

It's 2010 - isn't it about time we ended this stupid view that men should dominate, and that some things are just for men?

Let us finish with the words of the Apostle himself, words which are often ignored when other words of his are used instead to hurt and destroy women in the church, but which have a great deal of value and upon which he placed no less significance:

"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28

Love conquers all?

I was having an interesting discussion recently with a clergyman who talked about his experience with couples coming to get married.

He was saying that, whilst many had been living together and he was therefore often advised not to marry them, he was in disagreement and felt they ought to be married. For in his experience it is couples of this generation who have had time to gain a greater understanding of what marriage is all about, and, whereas 30 years ago it was common to get married as a 'license for sex' or to prevent ill repute because the lady in question was pregnant, nowadays couples tended to approach for marriage because they are ready to make a final, binding commitment: and are indeed aware of how strong a commitment it is to make.

This raises two rather interesting points. The first is that those who claim that the world has 'gone to pot' and that, when they were younger, people had better values about such things, ought to consider a different perspective. Was it better for people to get married for such shallow reasons? And was sex before marriage really virtually non-existent? Or was it that people were simply more secretive for fear of being outcast?

The other interesting point stems from the comment made by the clergyman with whom I was conversing, who said something along the lines of "in my eyes surely it's better that we have two people in a serious, committed relationship...and that is what's important here".

Many conservative Christians, of course, would disagree, and claim that this attitude displays a total irreverence to scripture. But is Scripture the only source of authority about God? Can we not reason out the nature of God (to some extent)? Can our experience of God not count for anything?

For those who are willing to give place to other sources of authority, alongside (not in place of) the Bible, tend to note with more significance the fact that God is love - indeed, the embodiment of love. And they would therefore be likely to see that two people who genuinely love each other is one of the strongest symbols of all, and one of the most powerful indicators that maybe our society isn't a total pit of immorality and unscrupulousness after all.

So, that is the question. Was it better when couples were cast out by their own families and communities for having expressed their love for one another before being married? Or is it better to love and embrace people regardless? And did marriage mean more when there were less divorces (was this purely because people were more committed? or simply out of fear of the attitudes they would have received?) and people got married so that they could have sex? Or is it better that, by and large, a far higher proportion of those who get married, whilst they may have lived together and slept together, are by no means unaware of the gravity of the commitment which they are intending to make?

Overall: does love conquer all?

Not worthy of funding

A report endorsed by Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York and co-written by the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, has accused the government of an unjustified prejudice against Christianity when considering funding applications.

I'm glad that, finally, someone has spoken out.

The prejudice here is not just a financial issue - it represents a far deeper issue. The issue that Christianity, being a majority, is left to struggle on its own with no defence, whilst the government bends over backwards to support and defend 'minorities', is an issue which has been present for decades.

It is the issue of a lack of equality among faiths. A century ago Christianity would have been considered more important than other faiths. This, of course, is wrong.

However, what the powers that be seem infinitely incapable of comprehending is that the way to gain equality isn't by making the former majority subordinate. All one achieves then is shifting the balance - so that the majority becomes the least important, whilst, conversely, the minority becomes the priority when giving support and protection.

Prejudice of all kinds is wrong. But it does not become resolved when the former advocates of such prejudice become the victims. Christianity has the right to be treated equally with other religions: not with favour, nor with disregard. Similarly, all races should be treated equally: the horrors of apartheid were not resolved by treating white citizens as inferior but by treating all citizens as equal. Genders ought to be equal; feminists cannot resolve decades of female subordination by turning the tables and making men subordinate, but by ensuring society accepts total equality. And the LGBT community must not aim to make such people take priority over heterosexual people, but instead to aim for the equal rights of people of all sexual orientations.

However, the government prefer instead to pussyfoot around with political correctness. It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people with superb educations end up in the cabinet, and yet end up behaving like buffoons.

Maybe one day they'll get it.

Fickle Society: Make up your mind!

I can't help but feel slightly irate at just how fickle society can be. It's taken me long enough to realise this, I know, but allow me to explain why.

I have just read with great frustration and irritation an article published on Cranmer's blog about a right wing author being banned from chairing a debate at the London School of Economics & Political Science entitled: ‘Islam or Liberalism: Which is the Way Forward?’. Supposedly, as a result of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, there is no debate to be had.

I suspect that students and staff fear that mere rational discussion of the issue would be deemed as "offensive" and "prejudiced against Muslims".

What complete and utter crap.

For decades, Christianity has long been the subject of endless mockery, criticism and scorn. I am aware that Christianity is not without flaws, as a result of what I believe is human error, and am not saying that people have no right to criticise. What I am saying is that Christianity is no less a faith or religion than Islam, or Sikhism, or Hinduism, or the Jedi Knight faith. Quite the opposite: it remains, contrary to popular belief, the world's most popular faith. Of course that probably means that it has every right to be subjected to criticism: it is not a minority and therefore does not need to be protected. In other words, society would rather see billions offended than millions, or even a few thousand...not exactly utilitarianism at its best, is it?

Anyway, stop rambling man...get to the point. Which is how fickle society is. In light of the recent attacks on Gaza, the topic of Islam, unless being heralded and praised, is frankly taboo. PLEASE NOTE I am not defending Israel...far from it, the violence is sickening and unjustifiable. But what I am saying is, suddenly when Muslims are the victims of attacks, we are obliged at all times to defend their faith.

Now cast your mind back seven and a quarter years. We are in September of 2001 and have just witnessed Islamic terrorists crash planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocents. Security is heightened massively, people are distraught, and the world is on tenterhooks, scared to travel on aeroplanes. And what was the attitude towards Muslims then? Was the world defending Islam? I think not. If my memory serves me correctly people could not criticise the faith quickly enough.

Similar instances occurred once again in July 2005.

NOTE here again that I am not justifying hatred of or prejudice against Muslims. What I am doing is criticising the fact that society changes its mind faster than you can say "terrorism". What resides in society is one humongous bandwagon upon which people, Muslim or Sikh, Hindu or Christian, black or white, man or woman, cannot wait to jump.

That is why I at least am proud to say that I know what I think. That is not to say I am closed-minded or unopen to change. Far from it: bring it on. But if anything will persuade me to change my opinions, it will be rational minded discourse, not irrational emotional reflex reactions to current events.

Make Me a Christian

This morning in Church the vicar preaching made regular reference to the recent Channel 4 reality show "Make me a Christian". If he will forgive me I will make reference to a few of his own comments about the show and collaborate them with my own ideas.

His immediate response, with which I agree entirely, was to the title: "Make me a Christian". Immediately the antennae of the sceptic will be aroused by this phrase, one which implies that becoming a Christian, or indeed a believer in any faith, involves coercion and passivity rather than making an active, conscious decision entirely of one's own accord. 1-0 to the secularist sceptic.

Next the producers cleverly chose four religious leaders who behaved more like Victorian schoolmasters. So the view of Christianity as being about coercion is thus edified; the Christian life according to the image created by the programme involves a constant monitoring of one's activities (with, yet again, a particular emphasis on sex: does no-one care about lying, hatred or violence any more?). 2-0 to the secularist sceptic.

The show then proceeded to show the Christian attitude towards anyone who questions the faith. In a meeting a particularly vocal sceptic of the faith raised questions about the authenticity of the Bible; a fair, if not age-old, issue. And how did the Christian minister in charge of the meeting respond? By effectively telling him to put his hand down, be quiet and do as he was told. What a fantastic testimony to the Christian faith, because after all, all Christians avoid and refuse to answer questions or engage in healthy debate, don't we? We are all ignorant, arrogant and bigoted. (Note the sarcasm). And, guess what, it's 3-0 to the secularist sceptic.

So it's not looking good so far. The image of the Christian life and faith is one of ignorance, arrogance, harsh rules, non-flexibility, bullying, judgement and a judgemental attitude, and coercion.

I may as well give up now...

But HOLD ON A MINUTE...there is a glimmer of hope. This glimmer came in a clip that lasted literally about 2 minutes, but that 2 minutes reflected for me what the entire series should have been like, and summarised for me what Christianity truly is. It was a moment when the otherwise bullying vicar questioned one of the female contestants about her life. And as he began to refer to the words Jesus spoke over 2000 years ago, there was a poignant moment in which the viewers could clearly see the change as the girl gradually become more and more tearful, and the messages and the issues addressed really hit home, and hit personal troubles, experiences and issues in this girl's life.

And THAT is what Christianity, indeed any faith, is about. It's not about rule-making or enforcing, or passing judgement, or coercion. It's about taking a person who is vulnerable (and, let's face it, we're all vulnerable at times), and showing them that the issues in their life can be addressed in a way that surpasses all Earthly methods.

For these methods call upon a force than which nothing greater exists: almighty God.