A Conversation about the Conversation

 a time to be silent and a time to speak, 

Ecclesiastes 3:7b

But knowing which is which is the tricky bit. Anyone reading threads may have noticed that I don't feel like now is the time to be silent. A huge part of me is saying; walk away let them have the last word, its not worth it. The conversation is so predictable in its tone and direction it's been had a thousand times is this really going anywhere?

The other part of me however for whatever reason is not going to let go of this one. Partly because while I began with some critiques and questions about the original post I now feel like I'm defending its main point. 

During the discussion women collectively or individually have been labeled as boring, lacking in humor, aggressive, arrogant and of course feminist. Feminist I do not consider an insult so go ahead. I will dispute that women in general are boring or lacking in humor but I possibly am but I never read anywhere that that was a sin or that the point of threads was to make people laugh. 

While the phrase 'you sexist, patriarchal, misogynistic, fart stop mansplaining things to me' has gone through my head many times, I have not written it and have repented of thinking it because these are all human beings I am interacting with and because I am determined in my commitment to non-violence in thought word and dead (it's gonna be a long journey).

But its so difficult to move the conversation about gender forwards. 90% of the time we are discussing each others motivations, experiences and emotional responses rather than answering each others points.

At the end of the day is there any point me discussing this with a complimentarian? If we fundamentally disagree with each others reading of scripture can the dialogue move forward? Are either of us actually even replying to each other or are we writing for the audience in our head still deciding on their theology? How do we get away from the trap of throwing passive aggressive insults at each other, concentrating on each others emotions rather than answering each others points? How do we get good at this discussion? 

Am I really going to trall through 'why men don't listen and women can't read maps' so I can say yes I did read it and here's what I think. Would it be a productive use of time? 

What ground rules do we need for productive conversation? Would love to hear others thoughts and experiences.

Taxes

There have been many terrible terrible thing's that have been said of late about social security and those in receipt of it. And there are many people doing a valiant attempt to refute them in the rhetorical war exploding around us. However there is a phrase that I keep hearing that is not being challenged which is 'Taxpayers money'.

Is it just me or does this phrase not make sense. If I pay taxes then the money that I pay to the treasury is by definition no longer mine but belongs to the nation. Now I have a democratic duty to hold the government to account for how they administer our collective resources, but it is not my money it belongs to all of us as a collective.

The problem with referring to it as taxpayers money implies that as a taxpayer I somehow have greater right to decided how it is spent than those who currently are not paying tax, and by inference the more tax you pay the more decision making power you have. There is something inherently undemocratic in that. 

I am also fed up of being told what upsets me as a tax payer. There are things about social security that upset me, but not the ones the government tell me are upsetting me. It upsets me that there is such a thing as working tax credits and that people can work a 30 -40 hour week and still not earn enough to survive. I fundamentally think the purpose of social security should not be to subsidies the private sector; they should jolly well pay decent wages. 

It upsets me the amount of housing benefit people need to claim. Which is the result, not of too many children or people scrounging of the state, or living in Kensington. It is the result of unscrupulous capitalists, decades of daft housing policy and an obsession with private ownership. It upsets me that the tax system isn't such that it curbs the behavior of such empire builders.

But what upsets me more than any of this is that while friends and love ones are being squeezed to live on what is not possible to live on, while the price of everything is going up and life is getting tougher for almost everyone I know. I take a walk round central London and see wealth oozing out of the city. When I pass 6 Starbucks on a street and get sent links via amazon. When I see an add for a bank that the country bailed out with amounts of money I can't even conceive of, offering me an app to help me budget better. Then I get really really mad. That is what Tax payers are upset about (well this one at least).

Sexual Politics of Esther: Harem

'He’s the king, of course he has a sleepless night. He’s got a lot of responsibility, hundreds of women that he’s married.'

I'm not entirely sure why the thousands of women should give him sleepless night's he has clearly no concern for them. Similarly his responsibilities didn't prevent him from having a six month party.

Harems are a sickening manifestation of women as property. Xerxes may well have worried about any number of people making political moves or assassination attempts, but somehow I can't imagine he ever worried about rebellion from the women he had locked away - they were far too powerless.

Anyway that's not the point of this post. 

For a brief moment I'm going to agree with MD. He made a very good point that we must not be too quick to judge Xerxes. As we are all capable of and do act in similarly indulgent and oppressive ways. The only difference is the level of power he exerts. 

I have always had a problem with the phrase 'power corrupts' - it lets people off too easily and there are demonstrable people through history with significant power who used it for good. But people with great power if they choose to, inflict more harm on a greater number of people. 

MD also made the excellent point that there are many people with harems today only they keep them on their hard drive. You can find my rants about porn here. People, we need to stop seeing porn as primarily an issue of personal purity and start seeing it as a justice issue and an issue of sexist, degrading, dehumanising abuse.

But there's another kind of harem that occurs in churches. You know the classic male leader, female church members running around doing everything. In his book 'The Resignation of Eve' Jim Henderson imagines what it would be like if all the women in church went on strike one weekend. It's a question worth contemplating.

And in many complementarian churches the language used about women in the congregation implies a level of ownership, certainly their behavior is constantly policed. Joining together repeatedly the word's women and children, calling women Ladies, constantly talking about single women as not yet married. All of these repeated little words and phrases adding together to create a situation where a large group of women jump when the male leader says to. 

We are all capable of and guilty of treating others as property. Using people for our own ends, without acknowledging their equality and common humanity. We develop instead transactional relationships that are often fairly one sided. We all do it on a daily basis even if its just not bothering to smile back at the cashier last time you got your groceries. People can become functions to serve us. Christs example is that we become a servant of all and if we were all trying to pursue this, harem would become impossible.

Politics of Esther: Mental Health

I have a dear friend with whom I like to discus the "mental health" of the old testament prophets. Where they around today I'm sure many of them would have received a diagnosis and been put on medication. (Please hear me right I am not saying there is not a time and a place for these things)

As it was they were written of by most of their contemporaries. When you read their stories however you have to ask - who were the mentally unhealthy? I mean if you look round the world and see vast amounts of injustice and oppression and don't get horribly miserable can you really claim to be mentally healthy.

With all this precedent in our holy scripture, with God so clearly using people who think differently how come the church gets it so wrong on mental health all the time? 

My experience is that Christians while quiet happy to go to a secular doctor and get prescribed antibiotics often break into cold sweats at suggestions of seeking medical advice and support in relation to mental well-being. Only Christian counselors will do all of a sudden. And because we are Christian's with a direct line to heaven we are also convinced that we are better able to diagnosis a fellow believers problems and suggest appropriate remedies than most trained professionals.

In all our discussions about the prophets my friend and I never got on to Haman. MD did:

"When his idol is fed he is so happy, when his idol is threatened he is so violent, someone in our culture would be diagnosed bipolar - sometimes they're idolatrous"

This is not OK on so many levels. Equating being bipolar with violence feeds an inaccurate and damaging prejudice. Equating being bipolar with idolatry essentially blames individuals for their own suffering.

Let's rather speak up about the violence and prejudice those with mental health concerns face, show Christ like compassion and empathy in our speaking and praying and lets give space to learn from them how to change our practice.

Useful resource: http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/churches

Two Books on Women

 

I recently read 'How to be a Woman' by Caitlin Moran followed fairly immediately by 'A year of Biblical Womanhood' by Rachel Held Evans. I'm glad I read them this way round! It struck me that there were some interesting differences and notable contrasts that I wanted to share with the world.

I think I might start backwards. Both authors conclude that there is not and shouldn't be a prescribed way to be a woman. For Evans book this felt like the natural conclusion to her discussion. I felt the narrative learnt from the experience of other women from a diversity of cultural experiences and approached such learning with a humble heart. Yet it stayed authentically itself and gave me as the reader permission to do so as well.

Moran's book however irritated me most of the way through. It was essentially an autobiography but despite it's beginning and conclusion about the diversity of female experience I couldn't help but feel I was being told that this was or should have been my experience as well. Especially the stuff around adolescents. 

Both books reference other women who have fought similar battles before and have begun to forge a way and in who's path we follow as well as contemporaries. Evan's does so with great respect and gratitude to those 'Women of Valour' both past and present. One of her final resolutions is to identify and praise women of valor. 

Moran by contrasts dismisses most of her contemporaries, including Object and even Greer as having become irrelevant.  The only woman who comes of relatively well is Lady Gaga.  While Evans writing humbly acknowledge's the work of those who have gone before. Moran writes 'When Simone de Beauvoir wrote one is note born a woman one becomes a woman - she didn't know the half of it.' Hmm.

Moran repeatedly says that woman have done very little (even nothing) over the last 100,000 years, while men she claims have made great achievements in science, art politics and repeatedly in her long lists she includes empire. I find it very problematic to list empire in with a list of great advancements without any deconstruction or critique of the very idea of empire. Evan's by contrast retells the stories of many great women's achievement both biblical and extra biblical. She also on occasion broadens her critique not just to hierarchy between genders but the idea of hierarchy at all in any context.

Both repeatedly use the word 'Lady'. I have written about my dislike of the word here. Evans however only ever used it in contexts where, had she been talking about men she may well have said gentlemen. Generally when she was talking about people and only once directed to the readers. Moran however got right up my noise by continually giving instructions to her readers preceded by calling them to attention with 'Ladies!'. 

Both authors while not writing a book about violence against women and the global situation do reference it. Evans to put her own struggles and difficulties in perspective. Moran to explain that the problem with modern feminism is that it is focused on these things while ignoring things like glossy magazines and pants being too small.

Both authors once mention the Vietnam war, both use it for illustrative purposes. In the case of both books I have forgotten what was being described! Evan's I remember said that some group of people discussed something - "Like veterans talk about 'Nam" I can't remember feeling it was inappropriate or offensive. I cannot remember the details of what Moran was talking about either save that it was about running away "faster than a Vietnamese boy covered in Nepalm". I wasn't expecting that sentence it kind of sprang at me from no where and made me feel positively sick.

Both authors discussed having children. Evan's wrote an honest and reflective account of her worries and fears about having children. She also explored issues around women's relationship with parenting and the difficulty of living in a world which defines women in relation to children and explored the duff theology in parenting as a woman's highest calling. Moran on the other hand wrote 'Childbirth gives women a gigantic set of balls'. To be fair on Moran this is not all she said and she did also point out that there are a variety of life experiences that can change and shape us. But it's almost that that makes these bizar one lines so problematic there is an inconsistency in her writing.

Both authors mention their vagina's. Evans in a discussion about teenage experience of church teaching on sex.  Famously there was big discussions about how that would affect christian bookshops and whether they were willing to stock the book or not. As far as I am aware there where no such discussions as to the inclusion of the c word which I can't even bring myself to write, but that's apparently what Moran calls her vagina.

Both books made me laugh out loud. Moran's book also made me shout and swear. Evan's book also made me cry. Moran's book left me with an overwhelming sense of frustration. Evan's book left me peaceful and wiser. 

Sexual Politics of Esther: Rape

Sigh.

I am depressed that it appears that sections of the church don't understand what consent is. Especially as the notion of free will and free choice is central to our understanding of who God is. This is the main reason it has taken me 3 weeks to write this post.

There is a lot of sexual violence in the old testament. And as was said the bible does talk about it plainly. But we do not see plainly, we see through a glass darkly and our perception is coloured by our underlying assumptions and our circumstance. So yes there are incidences in the bible where rapists use physical force like in the rape of Dinah. We see these as sexual violence because they fit with our narrative of rape not because that is the bibles narrative of rape.

So the word rape is not used to describe Esther's encounter with Xerxes and indeed all the other women who where 'brought' and 'put' in the harem. I don't think I am reading loads into the text if I conclude that they didn't do this voluntarily. They didn't 'come' to the palace. 

It may not have been called rape by the person who penned the book of Esther but it is clearly not consensual which therefore makes it rape. 

Is maybe the problem people have with Esther is the book does not define her as a victim? She doesn't get rescued, she's not pitiful and pathetic so she doesn't fit our perception of how someone who has been raped behaves.

So we are left with a problem in order to cast this as consensual we have to either construct a loving relationship between Esther and Xerxes as many have done, or cast Esther as 'totally up for it'. 

There is so much sexual violence in Esther, from Vashti to the eunuchs to the harem to Esther. It is very clear to those who will see it. Esther is not the only place where sexual violence is reported by the bible but not read by many Christians. David did not commit adultery with Bathsheba he raped her. But Esther should be able to operate as a piece of consciousness raising literature.

It is true it talks very little Esther's motivations or feelings. There is much about her we do not know. But why should that matter. In its almost pantomime like way the book holds the kierarchy of the world up to display and gives a very clear account of what happened and clearly in this patriarchal world there is a lot of sexual violence.

Whether Esther was a godly woman at this point to me is irrelevant. Even asking this question is problematic. Especially when we were told in sermon 1 that there aren't good people and bad people there's people and Jesus. 

Esther was raped because she did not have the freedom to consent. Saying this is not the case and then explaining why she was not 100% godly implies (whether meant or not) that its not real rape unless the women is a picture of femininity. It is essentially the same as saying - but look her facebook has loads of pictures of her in short skirts and she once had sex with some guy  I know. 

If we're honest Esther just doesn't fit our princess narratives she explodes them and we have to deal with that. Esther was raped and Sleeping Beauty and snow white where sexually assaulted.

Words, Spades and Logic

I jumped into a conversation on twitter today, I wasn't invited so probably not very welcome either, but that's the beauty of twitter. Anyway the conversation went round in some very familiar circles. It began with the assertion that not allowing women in leadership was sexist.

So here are a collection of my thoughts about some of the lack of logic and correct use of words in the arguments for complementarianism.

Sexism is discrimination based on sex according to Wikipedia. How is not allowing women into all church offices NOT sexism? It clearly is. 

Equal but different makes no sense. Equal means the same - ask any maths teacher. You can logically argue that women and men are equal in x,y and z but not a,b and c and that it is therefore equitable (which means fair) to treat them differently, but not equal.

To be fair none of us believe men and women are the same. I don't think any of us believe any two people are the same. What we are actually disagreeing about is in what way's, if any, beyond the anatomical women and men are different. 

"Wives should follow their husbands unless they are leading them into sin"

This is either illogical or has a very narrow view of sin. Lets imagine Wife A and Husband B have a decision to make. They pray. A thinks they should do C, B thinks they should do D. They cannot agree. God is asking them to do C. In what context exactly would it not be sinful for A to do D? Surely any time you follow someone other than God that is a sin. Which reduces the contexts where a wife should follow their husband to very few circumstances that would be so inconsequential as to not be worth building a doctrine on.

Husband's providing covering, oversite, are the priests of the houshold etc. For all of these ideas please explain to me how they are compatible with the protestant understanding of the priesthood of all believers? How is Jesus brining the same salvation to men and women if women need men for some sort of spiritual protection?

The women in leadership debate is a phrase I am not a fan of 1.) because it often disconnects it from a discussion about marriage and they cannot be separate issues and 2.) because actually this is about whether women can be full disciples of Christ. 

The way to win these arguments is not what I have set out here, but to appeal to the witness of scripture and the spirit. But this has all been knocking about in my head so I thought I'd get it out there.

Let's start calling a spade a spade, sexism is sex based discrimination, sex based discrimination is sexist. Complimentarianism is idolatrous and illogical. Churches that do not permit equality of opportunity to men and women are sexist.  

I will remain civil and try to avoid personal attacks but we have to stop all this pretending to be polite about it. We must speak the truth in love and it is neither truthful nor loving not to challenge sexism and call it out for what it is.  

"Conservative christians" aren't the only ones with something to say...

I am unapologetically christian (and if you're into labels evangelical at that) and I am unapologetically feminist and socialist. This is not easy at the same time as being remarkably easy. I always say I am a feminist and a socialist not despite being a christian but because I am a christian - but that's a blog for another time.

Here I just want to try and explain why groups and spaces that only ever (or in the overwhelming majority of cases) refer to faith communities in terms of the 'religious right', are doing themselves and their causes no favours. I am in no way suggesting they stop exposing stupid things said by such groups but that they equally ensure they give the same platform  to faith communities with different perspectives. Here are the dangers I perceive with the current set-up:

1.) Firstly it gives an inaccurate portrayal of Britain's faith communities thereby spreading mis-understanding and miss trust and weakening community cohesion. What you say may be an accurate representation of a certain subset which is already very vocal - so why give them the microphone again? I know many many churches where it would be a brave person who admits that they vote Tory. Many christians are pretty left of centre. I can't speak for other faith communities but I'm sure the same is true - they are not all right of centre, but those voices that are not, are almost completely absent from those environments where I hear the 'religious right' condemned with huge regularity.

2.) Secondly it makes a group of people rather than an ideology the route problem. We need to confront and challenge the belief system if we are ever to change the world. And almost without fail when the 'religious right' or 'conservative christians' and blamed for a belief system I can think of several people with no faith who hold the same views.

3.) There is often a bad use of logic. I have very often heard people disregard an argument because its 'what christians believe'. Just because someone you don't like thinks one thing doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true!

4.) It plays straight into the hands of the 'this is a christian country' rhetoric. All those people out there who do not hold a genuine believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he came that we may be reconciled to God, to each other and to the earth, but who self define as christian for political motives are able to continue to wield political power. This is especially dangerous in our current climate. Because if you only present faith groups as right wing, you continue to feed that false perception, that this is a large group who have the hotline to God and face no criticism from within their community making them seem like a much larger group than they actually are and allowing those who do not genuinely have an active faith to align themselves with them.

5.) You alienate people like me, people who would like to be your allies. And I am very definitely not alone.

6.) You convince people the only option is to be religious + right or secular and left driving some away from faith and many away from the left. I know many christians who read right wing papers because they don't feel welcome elsewhere - if they did their politics might be very different.

We really need to change the understanding of faith and political views. I can't talk for other faith communities but certainly among the faith communities I'm part of 'conservative' christians are by far in the minority.  Most of us are desperately trying to see the world change in progressive ways, trying to be Christ-like, trying to see a just, equitable, sustainable world.

So next time you write or say something about 'conservative christians' or the 'religious right' could you just put in a sentence or two about what 'progressive christians' or the 'religious left' think. I would be very grateful.  Thanks.

Unsistered

Anyone who has tried to occupy the space of being both Christian and feminist knows how uncomfortable and painful it can be. Being in spaces where you want to belong, where you should feel solidarity and instead feeling in limbo, unable to bring your full identity into those spaces. 


Hearing the word "christian" or the word "feminist" spat out with venom and almost always connected to words such as "right wing" or "radical" (quite why christians should be using the word radical as a swear word is beyond me!) is isolating. I am sure it is not only christian feminists who have these experiences. I am sure many feminists are made to feel excluded in places where they should be welcomed.


I have listened and re-listend to this a talk entitled “Theapalooza: The Rhetorical Turn in the Third Wave of Biblical Feminism” Presented by Dr. Alena Amato Ruggerio (http://www.eewc.com/audio/) because I think it contains much powerful wisdom about how we can use rhetoric to bring great understanding and freedom to ourselves and the church as a whole. In this talk she says 

"It is a feminist act to create new symbols to correspond to feminist references." 

She then explores how as christian feminists we could first identify our common experiences or references and give them symbols (that is words). She describes doing this with her students in a secular context and they developed a word which I love: "femafision" which they defined as the experience of patriarchy pitting women against each other.


So I decided that I wanted to name what I believe is a common experience for christian feminists that is the experience of being disallowed through attitudes and prejudice to exist as both christian and feminist and I want to name this as being "unsistered".


I am unsistered when my church family feel the need to dissociate themselves from the women's movement when discussing women's equality. I am unsistered when preachers use phrases such as 'unlike radical feminism...' I am unsistered when people don't ask me about work because they are nervous of my politics; I am unsistered when there is a refusal to confront patriarchy and male privilege. I am unsistered when feminist medium only ever uses the word "christian" with the phrase "right wing" or "religious fundamentalists", I am unsistered when there is language that presumes the non-existence of God, I am unsistered when people of faith are assumed to be oppressed and unenlightened. 


Please don't unsister me.

Ladies (yuk, cringe)

I can't believe I forgot this one on my post about words I don't like maybe because I get told I'm ridiculous every time I gently question its usage. I got an email today informing me that an event I was enquiring about was for ladies only. I cringed. 


So I'm really sorry if this offends anyone (actually I know it will so I want you to know that I do this because I believe it brings greater liberation to women - and transformation is painful) but I have to spell some things out because I am offended by the word Ladies and so are many other's and if the church wants to be an inclusive and welcoming place it needs to drop this language. 


I have no empirical data for this but I feel that there is sometimes an extra over-usage of this word in Christian literature/ events that are about women's equal ability to lead in church. I wonder if its one of the manifestations of our insecurities? We have to continually refer to ourselves as ladies just to make sure everyone's clear that we're still all floral and feminine as we step up into the full humanity Christ offers us. 


I'm assuming this use of the word Ladies is in ignorance of it's history and the passionate advocacy of that great Christian Feminists like Josephine Butler who fought to expose double standards in morality. 


So a brief summary of why we shouldn't use it:


1.) It's used to police women's behaviours
If your a woman can you remember being told to be ladylike when you where little? Or told not to do something because it wasn't ladylike? I think I've proved my point.


2.) It's used to remind women they are the property of men. 


3.) It is something other people assign to you and can strip from you. It is not about your own sense of personhood. This point was most powerfully driven home to me when I was at a women's group and heard a woman respond with much pain at being called a lady. She had clearly been told by others that she had not met the mark and was not a lady.


4.) I guess linked to the above but it's classist. 


5.) It is and has been used to divide women against each other


6.) Much like princess, ladies don't do anything.


7.) It holds us to a demanding moral code not the freedom of grace


8.) God never calls us lady


Someone sent me the link it's fab (http://www.vfa.us/Feminist%20Language.htm) but my two favourite quotes:


"Girls do what their mothers tell them. Ladies do what society tells them. Women make up their own minds" (Karen Kijewski, 1989).


And most importantly for the church:


"There is a difference between women and ladies. The modern parasites made ladies, but God Almighty made women" (Mother Jones, 1912)


Please do not refer to me as a lady.