Why the Church of England is Failing Women

The place and position of women within the Church of England, both within the clerical hierarchy and their accepted status within the wider congregation has been a controversial subject since the Reformation. Indeed, the Reformation in England was essentially institutional change to accommodate the needs of a man; women were incidental to its form and function, and it was never intended to accommodate women. The role of women in this patriarchal religious world has been to gauge orthodoxy, whilst defining their proper roles has been the focus of numerous church councils, theologians, and religious authorities. (Ruth Adam : "Reclaiming the power of women in the early church.") The early church focussed on the biological functions of women - capitalising on pre-existing pagan fertility worship which celebrated the fertility of the land and people, and the union of the divine masculine and feminine. Mary as the Mother of God was central to Catholic worship and women's subservient roles as procreators and carers were reinforced, a model acceptable to traditional pagan societies. Yet there is plenty of evidence women played a key evangelical role in the early church, albeit informally. (Smith : Women & their Roles in Early Christianity")

Small wonder that association of power and maleness led many women who aspired to play an unorthodox role to jettison their femininity, believing the patriarchally enforced myth that femaleness personified weakness. So powerful has this association been over the passage of time that this process is still played out in the West today with a powerful element of gender in eating disorders, and anorexia in particular. Certainly for female sufferers, arresting female development is exerting control over one's body and for many teenagers, whilst this might have little to do with their personal views on their femininity it feels the only part of their lives they have any control over. By losing weight, a girl loses her femininity. She androgenises herself. It is a deep and fundamental rejection of what is female and feminine, embracing the asexual and often masculine, whether intentional or not. Female hormones are no longer produced as body fat is depleted and curves vanish. Menstruation stops and the figure remains or returns to looking boyish. There is considerable evidence of women deliberating doing this in history. Female "anchorites" in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period used self starvation as a means of gaining a foothold in a male-dominated world, their views and opinions were given a level of credence otherwise denied to women at the time. 

The fundamental difficulty with women in the C of E is that their role, position and function has always been a male problem. Right from the scribing of the Book of Genesis, women were considered secondary to men, Eve's sin a female problem for men to bear - and indeed for mankind. Femaleness does not sit well within a fundamentally male institution. But how does one solve a problem like Maria? 

As Rev'd. Martine Oborne wrote in 2022, sexism is alive and kicking in the CofE: -  

"In 2014, with great fanfare, women were finally allowed to be bishops as well as priests. But, in almost complete silence, provisions were then made so that parishes who didn’t accept female vicars and bishops could avoid their ministry. And this situation remains."  

Source : WATCH (Women and the Church)

Women now account for almost of third of all clergy, but research initiated by the College of Bishops identified more barriers to the ordination of younger women than their male counterparts. However as in wider society women are more acceptable when their role and purpose (fertility and reproduction) is obvious. Victoria Smith's book "Hags" eloquently expands on the challenges faced by women beyond their reproductive years, challenges mirrored within the church where ageism seems to only apply to women, their role in senior leadership is still woefully out of date. 

Women and their participation in the CofE is still viewed as a problem to be solved, something to be managed. But perhaps it's time to reverse-engineer from the obvious solution - women have so much to offer the church, how can we solve the issue of male domination? This may seem obtuse, precisely because the church is fundamentally patriarchal. But does it need to be? Jesus would arguably have had an even more challenging time on earth as a woman, it certainly served God's purpose to take a human male form since the church was founded at a time when women had no voice. 

Why Christianity must not lose faith in its past.

I admit I struggled conceiving of a suitable title for this article. A faith which began over two millennia ago is likely going to be firmly rooted in the (very ancient) past, and having thus far stood the test of time surely it's pretty future proof? Yet in recent years the Church of England has demonstrated an alarming trend towards denial of the fundamental founding principles of our faith, with a kind of apologetic embarrassment leaving us with a "Christianity-lite" offer. Whilst wonderfully convenient and less controversial, this is becoming further and further removed from where we ought to be. A collection of books compiled over a period of five thousand years by a people in transition as the foundation of faith would not seem to offer an obvious modern handbook for the future. Except ironically it can and it should. 

What is holding Christianity back- and specifically the Church of England, is its insistence that creating a modern veneer for today’s worshippers can offer a new, relevant representation of the faith fit for today. I personally feel this is selling out; an enduring ethos and way of life should not need a shiny new wrapper to ensure its survival. It’s not how Jesus operated and it misses the fundamental point of our faith; that superficial acceptance of the world we live in is not the way forward. Standing up against the tide, however difficult, is the only option when following Jesus. 

Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple

Benvenuto Tisi da Garofalo (c.1481–1559)

I might not be a Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty certain Jesus was a revolutionary- from overturning the moneylender’s tables in the Temple to riding a donkey through the side gate into Jerusalem in contrast to the Roman Governor arriving in pomp through the main entrance to the city. These are not the acts of someone hoping to go along with the status quo to achieve acceptance, they are confrontational acts designed to precipitate strong feelings. Jesus did not choose the easy path, he chose what he believed to be the correct one- and yet today convenience and acceptance triumphs daily in the CofE. The mental gymnastics required to avoid "offending" any person or group whilst simultaneously remaining relevant is astonishing. Ironically this is precisely what Jesus objected to; it is fundamentally UNChristian to avoid challenging something immoral, unethical or which causes persecution. Worse still, they have confused seeking justice and speaking out with persecution, in collusion with a "woke" agenda seeking to subvert society.

TRANSferring responsibilities

I've had many discussions with my teenage children about society's current obsession with gender ideology. They are as baffled about it as most adults. For their entire lives they have felt marginalised and excluded due to restrictive prescription diets, debilitating gastrointestinal symptoms and associated anxiety. So, you'd be forgiven for assuming that they were passionate about recognition for all. Except that is exactly what they do indeed want, but in a less individual way. They are well-placed to understand the difference between acceptance and belonging, versus the current "ME, ME, ME!" craving for individual recognition. Real acceptance has nothing to do with labels, with foisting your beliefs, sexuality or preferences on others. It comes from doing away with labels and focussing on what really matters - personality and belonging.

The Noughties saw the rise of the individual to stratospheric levels. Born of the 1980s, the Century of the Self was not, as Adam Curtis suggested, the twentieth century, but merely a product of it. Its parents were affluence and independence, but the coming of age of self-centred existence was without doubt the year 2000. Millenials who became parents had an entirely different focus from generations before, most had more time and money to lavish on their offspring, subscribed to the philosophy of indulgent pandering to their every whim with the justification that disposable income was to be disposed of. The long term ramifications of this went unnoticed at the time. 

Child Protection - or Protected by Children?

As the UK continues to roll out it's impressive Covid vaccination programme, you could perhaps be forgiven for thinking you could drop your guard, focus on the future and leave the strings of control in the hands of those elected to take care of us.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Such is the progress on reducing deaths and cases of Covid that we are in danger of falling into the "Zero Covid" trap, a false goal with enormous costs for society, notably for the young. On social media, this impossible, undesirable goal is promoted by Independent Sage; a hard core, left wing extremist group of scientists who have an impressively big voice right now. Given that their very existence is questionable as Covid ceases to become the threat it once was this it is perhaps understandable. Indeed they are now having to crowdfund to continue their "work", so it's understandable they need to shout loudest. But I believe they have become victim to the very fear they have created & promoted, and this fear risks causing untold damage to society, and the younger generation in particular. Some, like Deepti Gurdasani have persistently clamoured for children as young as five to be masked. She has constructed detailed infographics detailing measures schools should implement to contain the threat children posed - in any other time she would be investigated by social services as the fringe radical she is, her brand of fabricated illness and the demonising of children is extremely disturbing. As a lecturer in machine learning, it beggar's belief that people have given her air time, responded and permitted her to escalate fear, but it fits with the current narrative and has been permitted to continue unchecked.

The deliberate control of the population by inducing disproportionate levels of fear has been written about by Laura Dodsworth, in a highly readable book "State of Fear". It's a concern Lord Jonathan Sumption, former Lord Chief Justice, has voiced many times- that we are sleepwalking into authoritarian control based on false legitimacy from the premise that government decisions are for our benefit. Driven by the fear and panic deliberately created by government we have acquiesced to a level of control over our lives previously considered the remit of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. Even SpI-B, the behavioural advisory subgroup which reports to SAGE have admitted the excessive use of fear to control the population was regrettable and "totalitarian", yet still it continues. 

Now once again the Zero Covid brigade are focussing on the "threat" posed by children, or more precisely the escalating number of positive tests for the Indian variant in school children in the official report from Government this weekend . But there are numerous problems with viewing the positive tests reported in Bolton and other areas (where the Indian Variant is a concern) as "cases" and even as threats, and plenty of well qualified scientists are pointing this out far better than I could. My issue is CONTEXT - or complete lack thereof, and the implication of this obsession over "cases" in children.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Context

First, as an anonymous molecular biologist working in the Moderna labs points out, all 300 000+ variants of Covid known to us respond to our vaccine arsenal. ALL of them. The WHO backs this up, as do many recent scientific reports. Even the PHE data on the Astra Zeneca vaccine demonstrates that a single dose offers more protection against the Indian B.1.617.2 variant of Covid than any flu jab does for flu. The variant has been known in England since March 23rd 2021 and as Meaghan Call points out England's case numbers for B.1.617.2 have been persistently flat, with only a few minor outbreaks. Context matters.

COVID-19; a reality check.

The weekend before lockdown, we were all isolating at home, suffocated with the panic our media were propagating and utterly paralysed by fear that one or more of us would be dead by the end of the week.

Photo by Tonik on Unsplash

My birthday (also Mother's Day) was a day to remember, for all the wrong reasons. Our youngest son had been unwell with a bad cold, slight temperature and really stingy, painful eyes. Nothing major - like a mild flu. He has reduced immunity so it was all very normal and the sneezing was not a feature of COVID-19. Then his 18 year old brother got sick - and this was different. A temperature of 41C which wouldn't budge on paracetamol, mild cough and shortness of breath. By day 3 - Mother's Day - he was coughing up blood spatters and with his eccentric droll sense of humour he was drafting his final words.

Except it wasn't funny at all.

We had to call 111 that night, it took FOUR HOURS to get an initial response, which turned out to be from an advisory team only. We'd picked the wrong option on the initial call. (This was infuriating, since we picked the "concerned about COVID" option, which we very clearly were!!) Another THREE hours later we got a call. Yes it sounded like COVID, despite the fact that with ASD, ADHD, OCD and anxiety he never left the house. (Even more odd the only other person in the family who was ill was his younger brother - yet we've all heard that children can't pass this on to adults.) They offered no advice, except to call back if we were concerned and they would call an ambulance. By this point we had figured you either needed an ambulance or you didn't, and we would be calling 999 not 111 if we did, since no one could wait that many hours for emergency care!

I didn't sleep for three nights, I barely ate. I have honestly never been so terrified, utterly convinced I was going to lose a child. Three days later he asked for pizza, and we knew he was over the worst!

In retrospect, our panic was not in line with the level of threat before our eyes. Our anxiety fed that of our son's and he also believed he could die. And as the country waited with bated breath our government seemed unable to plan for the epidemic coming our way and we gradually lost all perspective. We lost our comprehension of relative risk, convinced we are all going to die without extreme measures and government control.

I'm not scared now. But I am very, VERY angry, and I think you should be too.

History is irrelevant without context.

My children are fed up with one of my favourite historiographical quotes, so apologies if you've heard this one before....

"A fact is like a sack. it won't stand up until you put something inside it." Pirandello.

Perspective is so fundamental to history, I would go even further.
Facts are irrelevant without context.

Today the Bristol Black Lives Matter protest saw a minority tear down the statue of Edward Colston, (a racist and a murderer by today's standards) and drag it to the river.

But Colston was a Bristol-born English merchant, philanthropist, slave trader, and Member of Parliament. He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. His name is commemorated in several Bristol landmarks, streets, three schools and the Colston bun.

He was also a slave trader who made his fortune from the trade of human beings as commodities, and on reaching St Peter at the pearly gates, I've no doubt his deeds would have been considered carefully. In context.

An emergent disease or a matter of convenience?

Note:- This was written in 2018, but has bizarrely republished today. Worth a read - but in context!

Supporting, treating and establishing good practice for an emergent disease is never easy. It takes individuals and teams taking a leap of faith in trying new strategies, putting their heads above the parapet and bidding for funds for research to support new theories. This last is a gargantuan task - as I've stated previously on this Blog, less that 1% of all research funding goes on gastrointestinal conditions. Absolutely NONE goes on paediatric gastrointestinal conditions. Although eosinophilic disorders do indeed affect adults (my father has EoE) adult treatments are less controversial.

In the UK, few medications are licensed for under 12s. Tertiary level consultants can, however prescribe them - and many do, it's surprisingly common. But prescribing medication for an emergent disease in under 12s is VERY challenging, and should always be carefully monitored.

My Recipe Blog Stats bear out the fact that many come across the Recipe Resource looking for information on EGID - Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease. I therefore felt in particular I need to write something to give the little information those in the EGID community have to my readers.