FGM/CEFM - Time to make a stand

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
Child, and Early, Forced Marriage (CEFM)

Last time I wrote on this I received an email asking whether it was, 'Right and fitting for a man of the cloth to be talking about such things?'

Now I can understand that there are some sensitivities regarding this issue but the final shot in their mail hit me like a brick wrapped in a page of the Bible: 'Especially when it has nothing directly to do with the place you are and our own country!'

Nothing to do with our own country?
Estimates suggest that some 170,000 women and girls living in England and Wales have undergone FGM.

Take a look at the numbers and stop and think for a moment of the number of women who are affected by this act and then tell me that we can ignore it because the UK isn't on it! The numbers alone (and of course the girls taken 'back home' to experience first hand FGM) make this something that needs to acted against - and it's an education not boots on the ground situation so it's totally clean.

The second issue, CEFM, is equally awful and wrong and when we consider the reality of it - that every two seconds a girl under the age of 18 will find herself married (that's 4 whilst you've read this sentence)!

Now we are not thinking of young women how have fallen in love and run away to Gretna Green, there's nothing much to do with the idea of 'love. In fact mutual consent doesn't come into it at all for this is, generally, about women:

• who are sold because the family can't afford to feed all the children and so the, low or non-earning, girls are given (or sold) into marriage. 

• who, being worth less than their male counterparts are treated as objects and regarded with a lower status and CEFM only confirms and fuels this wrong attitude. 

• who are subjected to something that is contrary to the Universal declaration of Human Rights in that:

 To quote the Universal Declaration of Human Right (1948):

'Marriage should be ‘entered only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses’. 

If it isn't it's wrong

Please stop and think about these two issues - real issues of equality and concern - that affect this nation of ours and many who reside in it - and far too many worldwide (one is one too many!).

pax

Sophia and the 'Pink Church' - the opening shots!

A friend has asked me about 'Sophia' as they are struggling with friends who are seeking to redress the  'male dominated theology and language' of Church and society.

I often find myself rather frustrated when certain friends talk of the male domination that is Church especially when they descend into talk or 'rights, positive discrimination and redressing the errors of the past!' One of the biggest issues I encounter is the increasingly 'Pink Church' - that place which, as one clerical colleague put it, 'Seeks to undo all the misogyny of the past two thousand years!' (something for another day)

We need to be affirming all people and to be a truly inclusive entity and yet, as the tide turns, this is not the reality and I think we might be in danger of entering into something that might be somewhat terminal.

But back to the 'Sophia' issue:

Whilst at college I had many conversations with a feminist who asked why she should be expected to be celebrating God as man. Her position (in a nutshell) was: 'I am woman, what does Jesus 'the man' have to do with me and what does he know of my experience?'

She was heavily taken up by three main themes:
i. God as 'She'  (but if pressed would retreat to 'He, She or It')

ii. Sophia as a remedy to the 'God is male 'heresy

iii. A female Apostle by the name of Junia (whose name had been diminished by other apostles to oppress women).

It is the Sophia issue that is the focus of today's perambulations - it's an opening shot in the discussion and will be followed by some Bible references and related material later (for I think we often fail to establish concepts and points of agreement before we rush into what is often mere prooftexting):

I know 'Sophia' is Greek for wisdom but rather than being an actual person have seen this to be an anthropomorphic construct. War is male, beauty and wisdom are female - trains, cars and planes are 'she' - you know what I mean I'm sure!

Thinking of the female names we have with such roots: Grace, Chastity, Patience, etc. I find many confuse this, giving it the attribute of personhood and this is what I have found with Sophia. For it appears than many are so keen to have something upon which they can hang their argument and pin their hopes that their theology, and thinking, is rather slipshod and shoddy (now that's an invitation to a fight I'm sure). What makes challenging the views dangerous is the fact that any challenge is often met with the ad hominem that is 'sexist' or 'misogynist' rather than a robust and tight response.

I am of the opinion that the Sophia route is not only fraught with danger but leads those who embrace it into a place where the Wisdom literature is corrupted, bringing into being a new deity and denying the sex of Jesus, the Christ, the incarnate man. It is not a remedy for those who who claim that a male Trinity is offensive, divisive and even cruel for those who struggle with fathers or males but a denial of something important.

I have been challenged by many who bring cases of women who were damaged by men as evidence that we need to rethink God as a women to make the God character acceptable to them. The problem is that this is a wrong position to be taking for the issue is not how to compensate or impart some divine CBT (where coping mechanism and accommodation are sought) but to seek healing and wholeness in person and Church too! One (feminist) lecturer of mine once followed an extremely misandrist comment with the coup de grâce*, 'After all, all men are potential rapists!' Me, being me, and always up for a conversation added, 'And of course, conversely, all women are potential whores!'

Now although I thought that levelled the scores, the head of department cautioned me for 'sexist language' and discounted the lecturers comments with, 'Well that's who she is!' Now tell me that that wasn't a prime example of sexual inequality :-) !!!!

And back on track.

As we look at this area, of which I know absolutely nothing, I'd love people to point me to the bits they know and observations from their own experience and theology. My premise it that God embodies both male and female and that changing the gender to accomodate issues with the male changes neither sex (for gender is not 'sex' - sex is biological, gender is sociological and not transferable, unless you have an agenda!). we need to seek unity, equality and inclusivity and this demands healing, wholeness and orthodox thinking - all else is error.

Looking forward to this (gulp)

* perhaps that should have been  coup de main :-)

Church - Reasons to be fearful (Part one)

It seems to me that 'the Church' is an entity that swings from media frenzy to

In case you have missed it, the Church of England's 'General Synod' will apparently be voting on women bishops today.

There are three voting groups: bishops, clergy and laity and, apparently it is a done deal in the first two! Only the house of the laity (the 'ordinary' members) are uncertain when it comes to the vote and it is them who will carry the day for one of the two camps.

A quick sound bite very early this morning (or was it extremely late last night?) from a woman who will be voting today went like this:

"It is all about equality and the church has been poorer because it has not embraced the same degree of equality that has seen this nation governed by a woman. "

Another voice put forward the idea that,

"The church is bending over backwards to try and please everyone and the cry (from those who want women bishops) is for the church to draw a line and make the 'right' decision regardless of the response of those who oppose it!"

Interestingly, this is the same cry from those who wish to change the church's attitude to sexual issues too and this (for me) is the source of more concern than the actual issue/s themselves. Make the changes that give me what I want and those who oppose are mysogynists, homophobes (and any other ad hominem I can think of ) and by virtue of that should be forced out!

Since when has the message of the Gospel been: Capitulate or Clear Off?

Now I have to be honest and say that having read quite widely and discussed the issue with those for, against and confused I don't really see what the problem is and am neither convinced by many of the arguments for nor drawn in by those who oppose.

I struggle with those who would deny the right for people to believe, as the church has for many centuries, and relate to certain theological understanding of ministry and therefore, by this denial, remove any potential for a coexistence by offering 'alternative oversight'.

I struggle with those who seem to forget that Church is about Bible, not current social conventions or practice.

I struggle with those who would seek to restrict, or deny, anyone the right to practice and engage in any 'calling' from God on personal preference and wrong attitude.

I am sorry but anyone who wants us to 'do' women bishops because it is 'good PR' is stupid in the extreme. Those who want us to be 'popular' should realise that this isn't really what is on offer. There are two real potential outcomes:

1. Some in the world, seeing a decision they dislike will vilify the Church, just as they did before, and will continue to do by means of the next issue, and the many more behind - because they will only oppose it until it no longer exists as a force to oppose their own selfish aims and lifestyles!

2. A response that parallels the views and standards of the world in terms of 'equality' will not advance the reputation, ministry or evangelistic opportunities. In fact it will result in there being one less issue to engage over and oppose. In the end what will be left is a passive ignoring of a passive and impotent body.

So how do I want the vote to go today?

With an eye to Biblical authority and and ear to the voice of God and in step with His heartbeat; lovingly seeking to find a way by which all can coexist with justice, humility and love at the fore.

With a view to maintaining the Church of England as a Bible-believing, Spirit-filled, orthodox Christian church and with regard to the attitudes, traditions and needs of the worldwide communion too.

This is not a 'being right' issue - it is a being righteous issue.

Pax

Women, know your limits

I used to enjoy these clips from the Harry Enfield show and often they would lead to us discussing issues relating to women's equality and their role today. Mind you, it does seem to me that many of the women today have truly forgotten that they are women and are striving, and in some cases become, merely blokes in dresses!

I get so tired of hearing people tell me how Christianity has denied women a place and subjugated them for two thousand years. Obviously many of those who bleat on about discrimination and misogynistic tendencies don't realise that it wasn't that long ago that women, along with slaves and children, had no legal status. they were merely property to be assigned over to another bloke. When Christianity turned up on the scene, one of the things it did was to remove the 'non persona' status from women  (and slaves), not in the way that so many, unknowing, people tell me was part of Jesus' communistic tendencies, but because people were regarded as people.

I got engaged in a short dialogue regarding a piece on R4 today. I actually missed the piece because I was doing a cremation but I understand it was regarding women's lib' and women's rights. I was silly enough to point out that a body I was a member of some time back did a senior management survey and found that women on the top floor liked to keep two layers between them and any other woman who might be considered to be a 'threat'. Men on the other hand were more generous and supported up and coming types on the basis that, if they rose up the ladder, they would have a friend and ally and if the passed them in the career chain, would have a friend in a higher place.

Apparently there are a number of films out at the moment showing how women are taking the places of violent crime that were once the province of nasty chappies that the East-End gangland films love to portray. When away on a CofE course some six years back I was shocked to hear that women should be ordained into pastoral roles because they are 'naturally caring and sensitive'. The blokes should be given the jobs where there was paperwork, drain clearing and 'insensitive blokey stuff'.

I, of course, complained and we went down the, "All men are potential rapists," argument from some of the slower witted among us. "Ah yes, I replied (joyfully) but then let's be fair and admit that all women are potential prostitutes!" Strangely this did not go down well and I was apparently being sexist! Seems equality has to thrive by engaging in inequality and ad hominemns.

Well it appears to be the case that as the women become more like blokes (rather than merely enjoy the opportunities that were once the province of the males) they are seeing their life expectancy decrease, they're getting more illnesses and seeing even more negatives besides. I meet so many women who, "Don't do maternal!" and see this as one of the greatest shames of our Western culture - we have mad woman in our image :( .

How I wish women could enjoy being women and take opportunities without having to become blokes in skirts. They don't need to be harder, tougher, crueller or anything else - just being women is surely enough? Take the opportunities but celebrate the difference (please).