It was a couple of decades ago Madonna screamed Papa don’t’ preach. Now, it is the turn of the Church of England: Women don’t preach!
But, the church is not as crude as Madonna was. It is subtle. But, it is a sledge hammer delivery, by the Bristol University Christian Union (BUCU). In the process, the doublespeak of George Orwell’s 1984 gets institutionalized.
First, let me give you the speak and then I will get to doublespeak! An email (these days there is always an email behind controversies!) from the president of BUCU, Matt Oliver, “sets out when women are allowed to teach” [1]. BUCU decided that “women would not teach on their own at our CU: Equip meetings [its principal weekly meeting], as the main speaker on our Bristol CU weekend away or as our main speaker for mission weeks.” OK, I do not understand the details. But what I do understand – within BUCU, women have been put in their place, as dictated to by religion – does not make me feel too religious.
This is not yet a sledgehammer, but just wait. Women can voice their opinions at the latter two events (Bristol CU weekend away or at mission weeks) if they are part of a double-act, a husband-wife double act. I pity religious women who are single. Of course, don’t even ask me about women who have a same-sex living in partner! So sinful!
Now, the connection to the Church of England, the sledgehammer. This decision of the BUCU comes in the immediate aftermath of the General Synod of the Church of England voting against women becoming bishops. Women can be priests but not bishops (I don’t know the details of this hierarchy of exploiters!). That is, women cannot be bishops, can be priests but not teach in BUCU. Are you confused? Don’t fret, just join the club!
Actually we have strength on our side. “The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said the Church of England has a ‘lot of explaining’ to do after rejecting the legislation, while his successor Justin Welby described the decision as ‘grim’. [2]” If you wanted an example of understatement, you got it! Yet, they are on our side.
Now, let me give you a run down on where it all must have started. Ostensibly authored by Apostle Paul – yes, the same Road to Damascus guy! – 1 Corinthian (First Epistle to the Corinthians) says (1 Corinthian 14:34, 14:35), “[W]omen should remain silent in the churches. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church [3].” But, even less than a strict reading does not allow a woman to consult her husband on the dais. Then, how did the BUCU allow a double-act? Beats me.
Do you understand the term “inclusivity”? Perhaps you do, but in all probability not what BUCU has in its mind. You see, some of its members did not like the coming changes which were leading to women speakers. They resisted, protested (one even resigned). Now, BUCU, in the interest of “inclusivity” [4] had to accommodate these protesters and achieve balance. They jettisoned an expanded humanist outlook, demanding people to listen to women, to achieve this spurious, religiously motivated, brainwashed balance. I would rather be unbalanced.
The Tab (student newspaper of the University of Bristol) article [3] has invited many comments, probably exclusively from the student body and faculty, and at least a few of them make for interesting reading. I will try to be fair here by establishing that in choosing the comments to critic I have been partial to the ones who drifted on to the side of BUCU!
One comment goes: Women shouldn’t have the opportunity to speak at meeting due to their inferior relationship with God. Eve was the first sinner and so all women are born with original sin. Therefore they should not try and tarnish the men with this sin and should not be able to teach at meetings.
I am not making up the above!
Another comment admits that it is not recently that the Christian Union (CU) has banned women speakers. This has been the status quo for the past seven years. Therefore, the freedom to speak, albeit along with her husband and only in two lower tier meetings, is a new-found one for women. This is progressive, this commenter asserts. The non-existent freedom to speak at the higher levels is obfuscated by the supposed freedom (with one’s husband looking over the shoulder!) is progress! This is doublespeak!
Then, there are the usual, “He does it!” arguments. Before you criticize Christians, “…make sure that other religious societies have female speakers.” One commenter endorses what BUCU did as “fair”. He (or she) adds, “People don’t argue that Islam women have less rights.” This, I suppose, is to mean, therefore, Christians should not also argue. The next sentence makes it clear, “You join the religion, you obey the rules.” This commenter made one mistake, a major one at that. Initially, you do not join any religion. You are forced into it, by birth. What (s)he might have meant is, “You have decided to stick to this religion; keep your mouth shut!” This harks back to the Vietnam War time arguments, “Love it or leave it!” hurled against the war protesters.
If you are born in a nation or into a religion, you have no right to criticize it! Wow, how enlightened! This is religious / patriotic enlightenment! Now, one must understand how religion, besides being one, weaves itself into any number of parochial narratives.
As a counter to Madonna, the Christian Union executive committee is screaming Women don’t preach! I have my iPod ear plugs on and it is better I listened to Madonna now!
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. Bristol University Christian Union bars women from teaching, Steven Morris, The Guardian, December 4, 2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/04/bristol-university-christian-union-women)
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/04/bristol-university-christian-union-ban-women-speaking-meetings_n_2236586.html
3. Christian Union Decides Women Should be Seen, Not Heard, Cat Evans, The Tab [student newspaper], December 3, 2012 (http://bristol.tab.co.uk/2012/12/03/christian-union-gags-female-speakers/)
4. Epigram, Jessica Wingrad, Epigram [student newspaper], December 4, 2012 (http://www.epigram.org.uk/2012/12/bristols-christian-union-bans-women-from-speaking-at-meetings/)
But, the church is not as crude as Madonna was. It is subtle. But, it is a sledge hammer delivery, by the Bristol University Christian Union (BUCU). In the process, the doublespeak of George Orwell’s 1984 gets institutionalized.
First, let me give you the speak and then I will get to doublespeak! An email (these days there is always an email behind controversies!) from the president of BUCU, Matt Oliver, “sets out when women are allowed to teach” [1]. BUCU decided that “women would not teach on their own at our CU: Equip meetings [its principal weekly meeting], as the main speaker on our Bristol CU weekend away or as our main speaker for mission weeks.” OK, I do not understand the details. But what I do understand – within BUCU, women have been put in their place, as dictated to by religion – does not make me feel too religious.
This is not yet a sledgehammer, but just wait. Women can voice their opinions at the latter two events (Bristol CU weekend away or at mission weeks) if they are part of a double-act, a husband-wife double act. I pity religious women who are single. Of course, don’t even ask me about women who have a same-sex living in partner! So sinful!
Now, the connection to the Church of England, the sledgehammer. This decision of the BUCU comes in the immediate aftermath of the General Synod of the Church of England voting against women becoming bishops. Women can be priests but not bishops (I don’t know the details of this hierarchy of exploiters!). That is, women cannot be bishops, can be priests but not teach in BUCU. Are you confused? Don’t fret, just join the club!
Actually we have strength on our side. “The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said the Church of England has a ‘lot of explaining’ to do after rejecting the legislation, while his successor Justin Welby described the decision as ‘grim’. [2]” If you wanted an example of understatement, you got it! Yet, they are on our side.
Now, let me give you a run down on where it all must have started. Ostensibly authored by Apostle Paul – yes, the same Road to Damascus guy! – 1 Corinthian (First Epistle to the Corinthians) says (1 Corinthian 14:34, 14:35), “[W]omen should remain silent in the churches. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church [3].” But, even less than a strict reading does not allow a woman to consult her husband on the dais. Then, how did the BUCU allow a double-act? Beats me.
Do you understand the term “inclusivity”? Perhaps you do, but in all probability not what BUCU has in its mind. You see, some of its members did not like the coming changes which were leading to women speakers. They resisted, protested (one even resigned). Now, BUCU, in the interest of “inclusivity” [4] had to accommodate these protesters and achieve balance. They jettisoned an expanded humanist outlook, demanding people to listen to women, to achieve this spurious, religiously motivated, brainwashed balance. I would rather be unbalanced.
The Tab (student newspaper of the University of Bristol) article [3] has invited many comments, probably exclusively from the student body and faculty, and at least a few of them make for interesting reading. I will try to be fair here by establishing that in choosing the comments to critic I have been partial to the ones who drifted on to the side of BUCU!
One comment goes: Women shouldn’t have the opportunity to speak at meeting due to their inferior relationship with God. Eve was the first sinner and so all women are born with original sin. Therefore they should not try and tarnish the men with this sin and should not be able to teach at meetings.
I am not making up the above!
Another comment admits that it is not recently that the Christian Union (CU) has banned women speakers. This has been the status quo for the past seven years. Therefore, the freedom to speak, albeit along with her husband and only in two lower tier meetings, is a new-found one for women. This is progressive, this commenter asserts. The non-existent freedom to speak at the higher levels is obfuscated by the supposed freedom (with one’s husband looking over the shoulder!) is progress! This is doublespeak!
Then, there are the usual, “He does it!” arguments. Before you criticize Christians, “…make sure that other religious societies have female speakers.” One commenter endorses what BUCU did as “fair”. He (or she) adds, “People don’t argue that Islam women have less rights.” This, I suppose, is to mean, therefore, Christians should not also argue. The next sentence makes it clear, “You join the religion, you obey the rules.” This commenter made one mistake, a major one at that. Initially, you do not join any religion. You are forced into it, by birth. What (s)he might have meant is, “You have decided to stick to this religion; keep your mouth shut!” This harks back to the Vietnam War time arguments, “Love it or leave it!” hurled against the war protesters.
If you are born in a nation or into a religion, you have no right to criticize it! Wow, how enlightened! This is religious / patriotic enlightenment! Now, one must understand how religion, besides being one, weaves itself into any number of parochial narratives.
As a counter to Madonna, the Christian Union executive committee is screaming Women don’t preach! I have my iPod ear plugs on and it is better I listened to Madonna now!
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. Bristol University Christian Union bars women from teaching, Steven Morris, The Guardian, December 4, 2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/04/bristol-university-christian-union-women)
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/04/bristol-university-christian-union-ban-women-speaking-meetings_n_2236586.html
3. Christian Union Decides Women Should be Seen, Not Heard, Cat Evans, The Tab [student newspaper], December 3, 2012 (http://bristol.tab.co.uk/2012/12/03/christian-union-gags-female-speakers/)
4. Epigram, Jessica Wingrad, Epigram [student newspaper], December 4, 2012 (http://www.epigram.org.uk/2012/12/bristols-christian-union-bans-women-from-speaking-at-meetings/)
4 comments:
I had a bumper sticker on my truck that said, "If you're waiting for a sign that women should be priests, this is it". I had mixed feelings about this sentiment but decided to post it anyway.
Why would women *want* to be priests I wondered? Then I decided that they should be able to make that choice on their own. It was not up to me. Nor should it be up to the powers that be.
Once I realized that christianity is really paulism I felt better about ignoring much of what passes in the press for religious controversy.
Women can't preach or women preach cant. They might as well be piests then.
Thanks anon. What you said is much more than Paul would have had the guts to say. Yes, why in this world or in the afterworld :) would women want to be priests? Beats me. But, if they do, then being Roman Catholic / Catholic / Islam are not the religions for them. I think this is true of Hinduism also but I have seen some rural temples "manned" by women. Buddhism allows women monks. So, where exactly are women going to be priests?
It is also the fact that all points of arguments in these matters boomerang on the religious side. I enjoy being the boomerang!
RE
Wasn't Christianity always patriarchal. Even their God is masculine. I remember putting up a set of questions and discussions on the display board of a Catholic seminary in 1980 or so centred on the question whether god is masculine. I was severely chastened for that by the priests. Women are necessarily inferior in Christianity, they are the source of all evil!
Unfortunately Matheikal, women are also half the source of men! And, that too is evil!
RE
Glad you are back.
Post a Comment