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

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.

Dictating the Political Opinions of the Clergy

It may not be as 'hot' a topic as the head 'forced to resign' over the banning of assemblies for Muslims, but I have chosen instead to focus on the Church of England's decision to ban its clergy from joining the BNP.

I myself am someone who is highly amused by the BNP, for a number of reasons; to me they are an odd little political group, with a certain naivete about how to soar in politics, a blatant bigotry, and a group of people for whom taking an issue to the extreme is not uncommon.

And yet, scarily, this bizarre group is growing. The Conservative Party has a basic philosophy, adapted for modern times, that is, or perhaps should be, fundamental to all of the decisions it makes. The same is true of Labour and the Lib Dems. Their policies lie in the perceptions of human nature and the rights of human beings, whether these be equality or basic freedom. Their philosophies can be applied to all sorts of issues, whether they be about abortion, gay marriage, discrimination laws or road laws.

The BNP's philosophy, on the other hand, would appear to be something along the lines of: anyone who is not British is bad news. They may dress this up by claiming that they are only doing what is fair and logical for the defence of native Britons...but anyone can see that the underlying belief is in the supremacy of ethnic Britons in Britain. This would then translate, presumably to these other areas by giving native Brits a greater freedom to act as they please than those who are not. Where does this end? Do we return to the situation which Martin Luther King and other greats fought to overcome, to the point of death?

Anyway, enough rambling. Suffice to say, I have expressed my views (albeit in a nutshell) on the BNP.

I therefore, I hope it is clear, take no issue with people being opposed to the BNP.

However...I do wonder if banning clergy from joining it is a step too far. The claim is that there is no place in Christianity for 'extreme right wing' political parties. Whilst I might (and do) agree that there is no place for the policies of the BNP in the heart of someone who claims to love and serve Jesus Christ, and by default to therefore love their neighbour, I am pondering on the road in which we are now heading.

Which political parties are to be banned next? What about those conservative Christians who feel that socialist policy is not compatible with Christian faith, and vice versa? Will clergy eventually only be permitted to support one political party? And will that party change depending on the policies released by that party?

To me, the decision is not so much a bad step...as an unnecessary one. There is currently only one CofE vicar who is a member of the BNP, and he is not a practicising clergyman. Furthermore, if, in the unlikely event that some buffoon slipped through the net into the clergy who was a member of the party, surely s/he would be removed anyway? Why start placing sanctions on who people can or cannot believe in politically?

Before closing I should just like to reiterate that I do not in any way support the BNP or its policies!