Just a quick word to say that these “God Spot” notes are to be shared with Christians. My hope is that they encourage, challenge and, with the humble possibility, inspire. More than that, I hope that they encourage thought and discussion. I don’t expect that those who are not Christians to understand or respond to these notes, but they are most welcome to read them. These notes are an extension of my desire to practice my writing, so please do feel free to add constructive criticism, but please also be kind. I don’t get to do a lot of creative or structured writing in my line of work.
I readily confess that one of the reasons that I studied Maths was my inability to read anything like a textbook. I love fiction (most notably fantasy and sci-fi), but my disability, or more probable laziness, extends to Christian literature and Newspapers. In an attempt to cure this, I am forcing myself to spend more time doing both. I have been reading Christian books alongside some of the sixth form boys in my school with the hope that the amount and complexity that they are willing to read will be about the same as mine. I have re-installed the BBC ticker on my laptop, with the latest news headlines scrolling across the top. More recently I subscribed to “The Week”, a relatively light magazine which rounds up the week’s news conveniently. I am aware ironically how failure to improve my reading of both of these areas will hamper my progress in my own writing skills.
Two articles caught my attention last week - both on the theme of religion and the fairer sex.
The first was the surprising move proposed by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, that might allow parishes to opt out of coming under the authority of future women bishops (there are none as yet). The surprise was not the fact that the move was voted down, but a sad sign of the times that one of the most senior figures within the Anglican church, fully supported by Rowan Williams, would propose such a move, showing more work by these leaders to try to hold together a church so obviously divided. With a bit more digging into events, I found that 216 voted for the amendment, 191 against, and 9 abstaining – failing because it apparently needs majority in the three houses: laity, clergy and bishops.
I wonder whether those clergy that voted for the amendment imagined that women would not become bishops when women were first ordained in 1994. Did they honestly think that it would be sensible to allow parishes to pick and choose their authorities? Perhaps, my interpretation of the liberal Christian’s view of picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe, would translate to a fluid structure within the church of England. More likely, I think that Abraham Lincoln’s oft quoted line, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, which has unsurprisingly is almost a direct quote from Jesus (Matthew 12:25, Luke 11:17, Mark 3:24) will see that the church itself will finally split.
I realise that whilst I have talked about my obvious feelings about the proposal, I have yet to talk about my own views on women in ministry. As an evangelical, I bow to the authority of the scriptures. Not being a biblical scholar by any means, I believe the key text to be 1 Timothy 2:12-13 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve” [ESV]. The following reference to Adam and Eve makes it not just a contextual issue, but a creation one. I have to confess that this is one of the only areas of the bible that I continue to struggle with regardless of wise and respected advice. Having studied the context of the previous verse, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness”, whilst often used to accuse Paul of being a misogynist, I understand to be a very pro-feminist statement (Jewish women at the time were not allowed to study the scriptures at all). The aforementioned passage is one that cannot be so easily argued from our current social standpoint of sexual equality, and if it is a creation issue, then what are the consequences for how Christians should react to women in authority in their secular work places? Certainly, I respect and have learnt much from many strong women (not to mention that I hope the future Mrs Cheung will be one), and have even specifically chosen to work under the authority of some. I believe there is a role of women in the structure of church work which is currently being vastly overlooked in many churches. I believe in sexual equality and not androgyny. This perhaps, is a discussion to have at another time since it moves me away from the main thrust of this piece.
“As a national church, it should strive to share the values of the people it serves”, wrote the Guardian. Here lies the crux of the problem. The church is tied to the state, and unfortunately not just by name. As a man cannot have two masters, neither can a church – the choice of serving the people or serving God should be obvious, but realistically not. With the Anglican church holding so much power and influence, it is unsurprising that the media are attacking this matter than should not be something that the secular world should be expected to comprehend. How does the world understand the authority of the bible and the centrality it has to the evangelical faith? It is unsurprising that there will be splits within the church and that the general population looks on with complete bewilderment (viewing the church at best archaic, at worst misogynistic in their view). Personally, I think that it is the church’s issue, to be deal with without influence by a world which cannot understand – but more on this later.
The second article concerned the worldwide outrage at the proposed stoning of a woman in Iran convicted of adultery. In 2005, Mrs Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was convicted of having an “illicit relationship” with two men. All three were flogged. Her case was reopened when she was charged with the murder of her husband alongside one of her alleged lovers. She was cleared of murder, but convicted of adultery, and sentenced to death by stoning. Iran seems to have since backed down on this issue.
Stoning was introduced after the Islamic Revolution of 1983, and hundreds are believed to have been killed in the 80s and 90s.
It obviously jars with all our sensibilities that particularly a woman might be treated this way. It seems to our western eyes that the Islamic states treat women with an almost medieval attitude. Apparently, the Koran states that adulterous wives should be “confined to their houses until death overtakes them”. I need to add that many Muslims are also at the forefront of the campaigns against violence against women. Torah law, taken from the Old Testament allows for stoning of a betrothed young woman who has lost her virginity in her father’s house. Notably, if adultery is being committed then both man and woman should die (Deuteronomy 22:13-29). Within Christianity, this is superseded by the example set by Jesus where he intervenes in such a case saying, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” – John 8:1-11 [ESV].
So what is my point in drawing attention to these two stories? Both can be argued to have religious motivations. Both jar with secular sensibilities about sexual equality. Both are also issues that concern the state. In the first case, being a member of the Anglican church, and being a Christian, I would argue that this is a church matter, and that those who do not understand the issues have no say, and no right to intervene. The second is a matter of life and death for the women being prosecuted, and so is of concern to all of us. Surely however, I could just as easily argue that the first case is an issue of a large and widely influential organisation within the United Kingdom making policies that are illegal i.e. surely against equal opportunity laws? My own upbringing wants to rebel against what the bible might teach, but then would I not be as guilty as any liberal Christian in choosing my own faith and not submitting to the authority of the bible? The opposite position is to go against British law in what might seem a very small and trivial issue. Certainly the common evangelical position is the bible teaches us that, whilst we are to respect and obey the authorities God has put in place over us, we have a greater duty to obey God’s law where there is conflict. I find it unusual that despite having had such a strong Christian upbringing, my sensibilities would still push me to take a secular position. If I am to bow to authority of the bible, which I am so ready to teach, then for the first time, I am to ignore those sensibilities. I am forced to realise that my sensibilities have been moulded by my surrounding culture, as were those who were brought up in times where slavery or bigotry of various types were the norm.
My two conclusions are these. Firstly, I have to work harder to resolve my issues with the matter of women in authority. Secondly and more importantly, despite British culture and laws stemming from Christian roots, it is a secular culture and cannot be resolved with Christian values or a Christian lifestyle; as close as they might fit, there will be moments where we will have to work hard to stick to the latter.
