Saturday, 14 November 2009
Feminist Blether Report
Lovely Liz has a shiny new podcast with her friend Gordon, and myself and Hilary are on it to make an exciting feminist special! So go have a look at the blether report!
Monday, 19 October 2009
'Non-christians'
We talk a lot in church about 'non-christians'. I used to just accept this phrase, and used it a lot when describing my friends who didn't go to church, were members of other religions, believed different things etc. Its only recently that I've realised how horrifying I actually find this term. I don't think anyone would actually voluntarily describe themselves as a 'non-christian' (except maybe if this was a new development and they used to be a christian). People may describe themselves as muslims, jews, atheists, pagans, non-religious, socialists, anarachists, disinterested in religion/politics or any other number of things, but people very rarely describe themselves as something that they are not, at least in my experience.
I can no longer conceive of describing one of my friends, who has opinions about spirituality, life, politics and everything else under the sun as merely 'a non-christian'. I think it shows a disctinct lack of respect for all that people are and believe to describe them in this way. I would love for more of my friends who don't know Jesus (ha! thats such an evangelical thing to say) to become christians, because I think christianity has such a huge amount of truth and beauty, my life (and my eternity) would be so much less without it. But when I engage with people I care about around issues of faith and spirituality, I want to know what they believe as well as sharing with them what I believe. I want to know how they express their spirituality as well as talking about/showing how I do. When we describe people as 'non-christians' and describe them by their LACK of belief, then we do not leave the door open for this kind of interaction. This is a sad loss for all of us.
I can no longer conceive of describing one of my friends, who has opinions about spirituality, life, politics and everything else under the sun as merely 'a non-christian'. I think it shows a disctinct lack of respect for all that people are and believe to describe them in this way. I would love for more of my friends who don't know Jesus (ha! thats such an evangelical thing to say) to become christians, because I think christianity has such a huge amount of truth and beauty, my life (and my eternity) would be so much less without it. But when I engage with people I care about around issues of faith and spirituality, I want to know what they believe as well as sharing with them what I believe. I want to know how they express their spirituality as well as talking about/showing how I do. When we describe people as 'non-christians' and describe them by their LACK of belief, then we do not leave the door open for this kind of interaction. This is a sad loss for all of us.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Esther and Vashti
The biblical character Esther gets a fair bit of attention, there is even a musical of her life. For those unfamiliar with the story, the 17th book of the bible is called Esther (of only 2 named after women, along with Ruth) and is famously the only book of the bible that doesn't mention. Esther is a Jewish woman living in Persia in the period that the Jews spent in exile. When King Xerxes needed a new wife he took all the beautiful women in the country and brought them to his palace where they spent a year being made beautiful (I know I have no idea what they can possibly have been doing in this time either!). Esther was chosen as the new Queen, but didn't tell anyone she was Jewish. When her uncle discovered that the kings official Haman had plans to have all the Jews killed, he went to Esther for help. Esther risked her life by going to see the King uninvited (this was punishable by death) where she invited the King and Haman to a banquet. During the banquet Esther told the King she was a Jew and that Haman wanted her people killed. Haman was hanged, and Esther's uncle Mordecai was honoured. The Jews then defeated in battle those who hated them, killing 500 men (and possibly unstated numbers of women and children). The Jewish festival of Purim celebrates Esther and Mordecai saving the Jewish people from genocide.
There is a lot to learn from this story. For starters we learn a bit about the place of women in Persian society at this point. There is no reason to suggest that the women in question had any choice about being taken to the palace, and it certainly appears from this story than only the most beautiful would be chosen. Esther also shows her courage in using her office to save her people from harm.
While Esther's bravery has made her famous the bravier of the Xerxes previous queen is heard much less. Vashti only features very early on in the story. Xerxes was having a banquet (which lasted 180 days!). On the 7th day after 'drinking much wine', he commanded Queen Vashti to come down and show her beauty to the important man. She refused. On top of her disobedience this was seen as dangerous as, 'All the wives of the important men of Persia and Media will hear about the Queen's actions. THen they will no longer honour their husband.' She was no longer allowed to enter the King's presence because of this (not entirely sure if this means she sent out of the palace, exiled or even executed).
Because of my total ignorance on the broader Persian culture at this point in history I can only comment on my own current perspective (but I would love it if someone else could shed a bit of light). I can only imagine how humiliated this must have been for Vashti, to be summoned down by her drunk husband to be put on display as a beautiful object for the men he was entertaining to look at. I am amazed by how much bravery it must have taken for her to refuse to go down, in the light of all she was risking. Clearly the men of the court understood how big an effect this could have on their lives, she had refused to do what her husband commanded, and they saw that this could have a direct effect on their wives behaviour.
I know that Vashti wouldn't have called herself a feminist (since the word didn't exist) but she deserves to be celebrated as the brave revolutionary she was, instead of sidelined at the start of the story. There is something to be learned from the stories of both of these brave women, from Vashti who gave up all her privilege to take a stand, to Esther who was able to use the power (however limited) that she was given to help those who were powerless.
There is a lot to learn from this story. For starters we learn a bit about the place of women in Persian society at this point. There is no reason to suggest that the women in question had any choice about being taken to the palace, and it certainly appears from this story than only the most beautiful would be chosen. Esther also shows her courage in using her office to save her people from harm.
While Esther's bravery has made her famous the bravier of the Xerxes previous queen is heard much less. Vashti only features very early on in the story. Xerxes was having a banquet (which lasted 180 days!). On the 7th day after 'drinking much wine', he commanded Queen Vashti to come down and show her beauty to the important man. She refused. On top of her disobedience this was seen as dangerous as, 'All the wives of the important men of Persia and Media will hear about the Queen's actions. THen they will no longer honour their husband.' She was no longer allowed to enter the King's presence because of this (not entirely sure if this means she sent out of the palace, exiled or even executed).
Because of my total ignorance on the broader Persian culture at this point in history I can only comment on my own current perspective (but I would love it if someone else could shed a bit of light). I can only imagine how humiliated this must have been for Vashti, to be summoned down by her drunk husband to be put on display as a beautiful object for the men he was entertaining to look at. I am amazed by how much bravery it must have taken for her to refuse to go down, in the light of all she was risking. Clearly the men of the court understood how big an effect this could have on their lives, she had refused to do what her husband commanded, and they saw that this could have a direct effect on their wives behaviour.
I know that Vashti wouldn't have called herself a feminist (since the word didn't exist) but she deserves to be celebrated as the brave revolutionary she was, instead of sidelined at the start of the story. There is something to be learned from the stories of both of these brave women, from Vashti who gave up all her privilege to take a stand, to Esther who was able to use the power (however limited) that she was given to help those who were powerless.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Bad blogger!
I very much doubt anyone reads here any more due to the distinct lack of posts, I'm clearly a terrible blogger and I'm all out of inspiration! Any thoughts on what I should blog about?
At the moment, I'm being very inspired by:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Galations 5v1
What do you think it means to be really free?
At the moment, I'm being very inspired by:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Galations 5v1
What do you think it means to be really free?
Friday, 23 January 2009
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Message from Scottish Women's Aid
2009 marks the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of Simone de Beauvoir’s ground-breaking book ‘The Second Sex’ in which she asked the question ‘what is a woman?’. To celebrate International Women’s Day 2009 and the anniversary of the book’s publication, Scottish Women’s Aid is asking what it means to be a woman in 2009. We plan to create an interactive ‘virtual exhibition’ operated through our web-site, gathering answers from women as well as public figures.
Beauvoir drew on biology, history, philosophy and anthropology to conclude that during her own time, and previous to it, woman was ‘Other’ to the normal male human being, the second sex, discriminated against, objectified, less valued. ‘Woman’ she also decided is neither a fixed entity nor intrinsic to the female human being but created by society and is an identity that shifts with time and culture. In other words, in the words of the book’s most famous line ‘one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman’.
The book inspired and motivated a generation to agitate for change. Indeed much has changed since Beauvoir wrote: anti-discrimination legislation has been passed, there are more career and education opportunities for woman etc. But much still needs to change: the pay gap still exists and women continue to experience violence in the form of domestic abuse, rape and trafficking in large numbers.
We would be enormously pleased if you and your group were to support this by answering the question ‘what is a woman in 2009’, providing a short quote, poem or doodle and if possible a photograph to go along with this. You can email us your contributions or join our facebook page “Scottish women’s aid”
I have attached an info rmation sheet on The Second Sex for your info rmation.
Ellie Hutchinson
Administration Information Worker
Scottish Women’s Aid
2nd Floor 132 Rose Street
Edinburgh
EH2 3JD
0131 226 6606
www.scottishwomensaid.org.uk
Scottish Women's Aid Charity No SC001099 is recognised as a charitable organisation by the Inland Revenue in Scotland .
The information in this email (and any attachments) is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the named addressee you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on the contents of this email and should destroy it immediately.
Please note that we cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. While every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachments.
The views of the author may not necessarily reflect those of Scottish Women's Aid.
Beauvoir drew on biology, history, philosophy and anthropology to conclude that during her own time, and previous to it, woman was ‘Other’ to the normal male human being, the second sex, discriminated against, objectified, less valued. ‘Woman’ she also decided is neither a fixed entity nor intrinsic to the female human being but created by society and is an identity that shifts with time and culture. In other words, in the words of the book’s most famous line ‘one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman’.
The book inspired and motivated a generation to agitate for change. Indeed much has changed since Beauvoir wrote: anti-discrimination legislation has been passed, there are more career and education opportunities for woman etc. But much still needs to change: the pay gap still exists and women continue to experience violence in the form of domestic abuse, rape and trafficking in large numbers.
We would be enormously pleased if you and your group were to support this by answering the question ‘what is a woman in 2009’, providing a short quote, poem or doodle and if possible a photograph to go along with this. You can email us your contributions or join our facebook page “Scottish women’s aid”
I have attached an info rmation sheet on The Second Sex for your info rmation.
Ellie Hutchinson
Administration Information Worker
Scottish Women’s Aid
2nd Floor 132 Rose Street
Edinburgh
EH2 3JD
0131 226 6606
www.scottishwomensaid.org.uk
Scottish Women's Aid Charity No SC001099 is recognised as a charitable organisation by the Inland Revenue in Scotland .
The information in this email (and any attachments) is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the named addressee you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on the contents of this email and should destroy it immediately.
Please note that we cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. While every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachments.
The views of the author may not necessarily reflect those of Scottish Women's Aid.
Saturday, 1 November 2008
The Kingdom of God
Its funny, there are a number (they tell me its seven) passages in the bible that negatively mention homosexuality, but only one of them ever makes me cry. I can so easily ignore Leviticus, and for some reason 'that passage' in Romans doesn't really affect me but this does:
'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: neither the sexually immoral nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.' 1 Corinthians 6v9
The Kingdom of God is an illusive concept, and I don't think we ever really get a total grasp of what it means. Jesus (as He so ofen did), mostly speaks about it in riddles. We know that it belongs to the poor in Spirit (Matthew 5v3), its like a man who sowed good seed (Matthew 13v24), like a mustard seed of faith and like yeast which spreads (Matthew 13v31), its like treasure hidden in a field (Matthew 13v44), like a net that catches fish (Mattthew 13v47), we know that it doesn't live by the same hierarchies as most of us live by (Matthew 18v3). Its like a King who frees us from our debts only to watch us show no grace to those around us (Matthew19v21-35). We know that it belongs to children and those like them (Matthew 19v14). We need to give up all our earthly possessions to find it (Matthew 19v21-24). Its like a landowner that pays everyone the same regardless of how much work they do (Matthew 20v1-16), where the first are last and the last are first. Its like a King who prepares a banquet and invites the lowest of society to come (Matthew 22v1-14). Its a Kingdom where we are called to make the best of what we have (Matthew 25v14-30). Its about righteousness, peace and joy (Romans 14v17).
And as I read the gospels, I become surer and surer that this illusive kingdom, this kingdom which has nothing to do with the false boundaries of nations that we create, is something that I want to be a part of it. I want to be a part of the radical, righteous, just way of doing things, that goes against absolutely everything we know. I want to recieve the grace that Jesus gave when he died, and be a part of showing that grace to the world in his resurrection. I want to learn more about what all this means, and I am so, so, so sure that this crazy, confused set of stories is what I want to live by.
So yes, it absolutely does break my heart when Paul suggest that I might not be able to be a part of all this. And I know that some people think that homosexual then didn't including loving monogomas relationships, and I know that its hard to see how much of what was written to another culture applies to our culture today. But can I take the risk? God, and this new system based on grace are the things I love most in the world.
And so I'm still left somewhere in the middle of two ideologies not really sure where I can go and hold myself together in one piece. Heres praying for answers, ideally soon.
'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: neither the sexually immoral nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.' 1 Corinthians 6v9
The Kingdom of God is an illusive concept, and I don't think we ever really get a total grasp of what it means. Jesus (as He so ofen did), mostly speaks about it in riddles. We know that it belongs to the poor in Spirit (Matthew 5v3), its like a man who sowed good seed (Matthew 13v24), like a mustard seed of faith and like yeast which spreads (Matthew 13v31), its like treasure hidden in a field (Matthew 13v44), like a net that catches fish (Mattthew 13v47), we know that it doesn't live by the same hierarchies as most of us live by (Matthew 18v3). Its like a King who frees us from our debts only to watch us show no grace to those around us (Matthew19v21-35). We know that it belongs to children and those like them (Matthew 19v14). We need to give up all our earthly possessions to find it (Matthew 19v21-24). Its like a landowner that pays everyone the same regardless of how much work they do (Matthew 20v1-16), where the first are last and the last are first. Its like a King who prepares a banquet and invites the lowest of society to come (Matthew 22v1-14). Its a Kingdom where we are called to make the best of what we have (Matthew 25v14-30). Its about righteousness, peace and joy (Romans 14v17).
And as I read the gospels, I become surer and surer that this illusive kingdom, this kingdom which has nothing to do with the false boundaries of nations that we create, is something that I want to be a part of it. I want to be a part of the radical, righteous, just way of doing things, that goes against absolutely everything we know. I want to recieve the grace that Jesus gave when he died, and be a part of showing that grace to the world in his resurrection. I want to learn more about what all this means, and I am so, so, so sure that this crazy, confused set of stories is what I want to live by.
So yes, it absolutely does break my heart when Paul suggest that I might not be able to be a part of all this. And I know that some people think that homosexual then didn't including loving monogomas relationships, and I know that its hard to see how much of what was written to another culture applies to our culture today. But can I take the risk? God, and this new system based on grace are the things I love most in the world.
And so I'm still left somewhere in the middle of two ideologies not really sure where I can go and hold myself together in one piece. Heres praying for answers, ideally soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)