Sexist and Homophobic, but thats enough about the Church

Published On July 18, 2012 » 1642 Views» Random

In years past, the church (pick any relevent denomination) has promoted itself of being the moral leaders of their flocks.  And I think they did this job well, regardless of your belief in God or any other higher being, I do think the ability to bring a community together and provide fellowship and support is something really valuable that we are losing in the modern world.   But the current stances on Women in positions of authority and marriage of same-sex couples is just wrong for our time and they really need to take a good look around them and perhaps review their “mission statement” to determine what is truly important.

Personally I am a great believer in equal rights, IE I have no problem working with and for a women any more than I do a bloke.  I am lucky enough to have had both men and women as line managers and they were all different.  Some were bad, some were good, some were brilliant (if you’re an ex line manager of mine reading this, I’m sure you fall into the latter category 😉 ) but that competence didn’t correlate to the sex of the manager involved.  I think the Church needs to recognise the skills women can bring and take away any restrictions that it currently has in place.  Lets face it, it’s not even a glass ceiling, it’s a great big concrete one.

(I do recognise that I’m talking about the entire religious community as one Church, but it should be recognised that some are better than others in recognising the skills of women, but in the main it really is still a mens club.  )

And yes, many might not like the idea of same-sex marriage but by the same token, those same-sex couples do like the idea of it and if they are wanting to show that level of commitment to each other, then who are heterosexual couples to question that, especially given the current levels of divorce.  I liked the way one person put it in the media – If you don’t want to be married to someone of the same-sex, then don’t do it.  No-one is forcing anyone to get married to someone of the same-sex. 

I think the Church should take a long hard look at itself and ask fundamental questions about why it is declining in membership and attendance.  These two issues alone just highlight just how much they need to “get with the times”.  In terms of communities, I think that a place of worship is an important element because of the way it brings people together, but it really needs to give itself a bit of a shake and make itself relevent for today, otherwise the metaphorical baby will be thrown out with the bath water as organised religion is largely rejected by the masses.

But thats only my view, what do you think, has the church got the right stance?

 

Share this post
Tags

4 Responses to Sexist and Homophobic, but thats enough about the Church

  1. Ben says:

    Wow Barry this makes me angry!

    Look, the Church does not exist to serve people in “modern times”. The Church exists to serve God.

    God sits outside of time, looks down on us and will ultimately judge us for what we do. You may not believe that, of course, but that is nevertheless what the Church believes. So no, the Church should not change to accommodate people’s changing ideas as we move through time. The Church should conform to God’s ideals and remain strong despite opposition from people, who are sinful after all.

    Who cares what you think, what politicians think or what the public think. The Church cares what God thinks. God does not oppress women; far from it. God chose a woman to give birth to Jesus; God as man. The bible makes it clear that yes, man came first and woman second, but that all men after that came from woman. So men and women are equally important. But on the issue of homosexuality the bible is abundantly clear that God holds it as wrong. So as His representative on earth, the Church HAS TO OPPOSE IT. It cannot do anything else.

    And lastly, the Church is not a popularity competition. If the numbers are reducing then so be it. But that isn’t actually the case when the whole world is taken into account: numbers are up significantly year on year around the world. But in any case it wouldn’t matter so long as those attending want to live their lives for God, have faith in Him, hold that Jesus died for their sins, are sealed by the Holy Spirit and look forward to the day when they will rise in glory to spend the rest of eternity with God. This isn’t going to be possible if they reject everything God says to us in the bible just to increase Sunday attendance figures.

    Be careful when you step out and insult God’s earthly institution. As you judge so you will be judged.

  2. Richard Bard says:

    Makes a change from politics Barry! As far as I’m concerned the church can do what it likes on this matter. It can let women in at whatever level it wishes. It can have same sex marriages or not, as it wishes. Different parts of the church will go their own way. I also think that all clubs, societies & groups should be able to do what they like in respect of letting men or women take up various positions. Men & women should be equal but they are not the same.

    I accept that Ben is against you on this but he has to accept that there is a very large number within the church that are with you. I don’t believe in God & I’m amazed so many people do in these enlightened times but that’s the way it is, I could be wrong, it won’t be the first time.

    Finally Ben’s comment “Look, the Church does not exist to serve people in “modern times”. ” really surprised me.

  3. Mark Tanner says:

    It’s about time that Men in dresses who force the idea of ‘invisible friends in the sky’ on people were consigned to the memory of humankind’s archaic past.
    These harmful and contradictory fairy stories that many children grow up believing are a form of abuse, even when the clergy are not actually involved in physical abuse themselves.

    We need to embrace reason and make religion history.

  4. Joe K says:

    Within his own frame of reference, Ben is making complete sense, and his comments are a useful antidote to those of Barry, who doesn’t seem to realise that to ‘get with the times’ is exactly what the church would regard as throwing the baby ‘out with the bath water’.

    And the ‘modern times’ line is understandable to me, anyway. Ben is contrasting how a 2,000+ year old document tells the faithful to serve people with how some now argue that the document has become out-dated. I don’t have to believe in any deity (and I don’t) to know that those who do believe, do so without question, and it’s really not a question of picking and choosing which bits are still relevant. The religious will argue that it was the revisions of the ‘original’ material in the first place that started the rot, anyway.

    But that, ‘If you don’t want to be married to someone of the same-sex, then don’t do it’, is shaky logic (and possibly cribbed from Alan Partridge). So everything people do is fine as long as nobody else has to do it? Like littering? Parking on DYLs? What about watching pirated videos? Why shouldn’t the film industry ‘get with the times’ and stop dictating what people should do in the privacy of their own homes? What mandate do they have?

    I do like the idea that ‘God’ chose to allow his Son to be born to woman, though, as I’m sure man did, too, at the time. It’s not like there wasn’t alternative but for the historical Jesus to be birthed by a woman because ‘God’ doesn’t exist, and Jesus was as mortal as anyone else. And if there is so much resistance to woman being ordained as priests because Jesus’ desciples were all men, and least the priesthood isn’t restricted to Jews only. Though I suspect that liberalisation is where the rot really started…

Leave a Reply