Transcript for:
Christian Attitudes to Gender and Sexuality

you're well welcome to the AQA a-level religious footage video I'm Ben Wardle and today we are continuing our paper two Christianity revision so we are going through the consolidation questions for Christianity gender and sexuality are very very interesting topic and all that you need to do is have the consolidation booklet in front of you you might like to pause the video here and actually answer as many questions as you can based on the knowledge you've already got and and then as I say we are going to go through the 62 questions and we're going to be covering everything you need to know for an a star if this comes up at the 10 marker a 15 marker or even of course a 25 marker so yeah make sure you've got the booklet in front of you and let's get started shall we with question one which is a very important question what role did Saint Augustine believe that Eve played in the fall now when it comes to understand in the Christian attitudes to gender and certainly you know the more sexist attitudes to gender it is so important we go back to Genesis because it really is in Genesis and in the understanding that Saint Augustine and Saint Paul have of Genesis that we see those sexist attitudes developing this really does help us to make sense of those as I say very sexist attitudes towards women that we do see in a lot of Christian writing and a lot of Christian thinking so what role did Saint Augustine believe that Eve played in the fall well in a nutshell she was to blame it was her fault and because she represents all women it is women's fault that the world is filled with sin and disharmony and destruction so yes he's putting all the blame on Eve and by default on women so what does he say well he thought that Eve was responsible for Adam Finn and remember the original Finn which have profound implications that everybody with the fact that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of knowledge despite being commanded not to by God and of course eating from the tree led to what we know as the full that fall from grace which brought about that separation between Heaven and Earth now this is based on Augustine's region of Genesis Chapter 3 Verse 6 which says when the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye and also desirable for gaining wisdom she took some and ate it she also gave them to her husband who was with her and he ate it so as you can see the blame is being placed on Eve it is her fault it is the woman's fault she then encouraged her husband to sin as well she is to blame she is the cause of all of the sin all of the suffering in the world now it's not only Saint Augustine who picked up on this Saint Paul did so as well in his letter to Timothy he writes Adam was not the one deceived man is not to blame it was the woman who was deceived and of course the connotations here of that were deceived or that women are foolish that they can't be trusted they therefore shouldn't be leaders because they will mislead you they will mislead men and of course that leads to some of Saint Paul's very sexy statitudes such as that women should not speak in church they must learn in silence and submission and so what you know what is going on here well Eve had been made as we're told in the Bible in Genesis as the helper for Adam yes she was made from his rib instead however you know she doesn't end up helping him according to the narrative she actually does the opposite she leads to his full it is you know Eve who as we are reading here actually encourages Adam to thin she is to blame she is not helpful at all she's actually a hindrance and so Eve is the first one to be deceived by Satan who of course has taken on snake form in this story she's than the one who encourages Adam to thin as well she is therefore seen as responsible or she has presented as responsible for causing Adam the man to sin and of course the connotation here the implication here is that women are weak because they're susceptible to being deceived they are dangerous they can't be trusted because they'll Lead You astray and therefore as a result they're not suitable leaders so very important as I say when we're thinking about attitudes towards women in Christianity that we are linking it back to what we read in Genesis and how the blame is placed on Eve now Adam and Eve if we know Athena's representative of humanity as the first man and woman and Augustine believes that their actions have real profound implications for all humankind that because of what they did in the uh Garden of Eden there are implications for everybody and the main one of course is that we're all born with original Finn which we inherit from Adam and Eve that is passed on from generation to generation through sexual reproduction so for example because of the Fall there is pain during childbirth and that you know men have to work and and that there will be painful toil as a result of working and as we know Paul writes to Romans just as Finn entered the world through one man and death through thin and in this way death came to all people because all sinned so the implication of their actions of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of knowledge is that everybody then is sinful they are born sinful well and of course then they need salvation through Jesus and the fact that Jesus is the man is something that we'll touch on later on you know the idea that can a male favior fave women well certainly in terms of how sin entered the world in the first place the blame is very much being placed on Eve isn't it and that is something that Saint Augustine really emphasizes you know this idea that women can't be trusted that they're weak because they've been deceived by Satan that they're dangerous and therefore they might not be suitable As Leaders okay question two then how did titillion who was a key Church bigger between 155 and 244 feet he describe women and he very much builds upon this idea that it with Eve who um was tempted by Satan and then um got her husband to sin because he described women as the devil's doorway and as I say this builds upon what we have just heard about the fall because it is Eve who is the first one to be deceived by Satan who is tempt did to eat from the tree and then encourages Adam to do the same it is therefore through Eve that sin hath entered the world though Eve women are described as the devil's doorway now we can also of course link this to the continued sexual objectification of women that association between sex and shame you know and you know that tendency for women to be blamed when they are raped for example we can see that often can't we even today and so you know this is obviously a very sexist attitude but it helps us to develop insight into church thinking indeed to this day you know certainly in the Catholic church for example where women are not allowed to be leaders because Cotillion described women as the devil's doorway because it was through Eve that Finn actually entered the world because although you know it is then described as Adam being the one that it was through manfinn and the world that's only because a woman caused it yeah so actually the woman is the one who is blamed it is Eve who is blamed and therefore described as the devil's doorway what about Luther then so we're going forwards now to uh Luther how did he describe women well he said that women should remain at home sit still don't move keep house and bear and bring up children so that very you know traditional idea of women as the Homemaker and the child Bearer and then of course you've got the man who is the bread winner so he believed that a woman's role should be restricted to the home they should not be taking on those leadership roles out in society their roles should be restricted to being a homemaker a child Bearer and you know a dinner provider in the evening so yeah we therefore have that very traditional view about women in their role from Luther of course key in terms of thinking about the Protestant Reformation okay question number four quite a wordy question what is the implication of Saint Paul writing that women should remain silent in the churches they are not allowed to speak but must be in submission as the law says it is disgraceful he writes for a woman to speak in the church now of course you don't need to quote all of that in the exam just be picking out your key sound bites you know for example women should remain silent in the churches they are not allowed to speak it is disgraceful for a woman to speak so you know make sure you're just picking out your key sound bites to use in your essay but what is the key message here what is the implication here well poorly think women are not allowed that should they excuse the typo to speak in a church of course that then rules them out of teaching or preaching you think it is disgraceful you know it is shocking it is awful for a woman to speak he can't comprehend that a woman could actually speak within a church he is mortified by the suggestion he says that actually women must be in submission in which of course is defined as the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person and again that gives us a real insight into what Paul believed about the role of women again relating to his understanding of the role of woman the role of Eve in bringing sin into the world in the Garden of Eden so you know this is really insightful in terms of the role of women within the church literally during a church service but then also in the church structure the church hierarchy when it comes for example to the Catholic church because the Catholic Church as they say still believes that women cannot take on leadership roles within the church question five then we're gonna refer to another one of Paul's letter as you can see he's not the biggest fan of women and women's rights he says what is the no not not him saying this but I'm saying what is the implication of Saint Paul writing that and this is what he says a woman should learn in quietness and full submission so that word submission used Again by Paul I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man she must be quiet so as I say again this idea of submission that they must not be in charge so women should learn in quietness and full submission women should not ask questions they shouldn't give their own perspective they shouldn't teach others Etc he's saying you know women cannot teach your sound bite there is very clear I do not permit a woman to teach he also says I do not permit a woman to receive authority over a man again is that because Adam with letter Stray by Eve you could ask he's saying women are not allowed to take on leadership roles they are not permitted to have any authority over a man now of course we've got to start considering why did Paul hold these views yeah is it right to say well because Paul wrote two thousand years ago that I do not permit a woman to teach that women today in the 21st century should not be teaching you know we've got to start to think about that patriarchal context in which Paul lived in which he was writing in which he was preaching himself so we do need to start to think about that first century context which was undoubtedly a very patriarchal time in history and we do need to think does that mean that when we do take Paul's letter in the New Testament you know when we do take them can we simply um apply them today or actually do we need to consider them in a broader context do we need to be a bit more mindful of the context in which they were written and then actually ask what if they're relevant today you know in a world where attitudes towards women have progressed where you know gender equality is now important actually do we not need to be mindful of the contacts in which Paul wrote rather than just saying well because Paul says that in the Bible that's how it should be today when there has been so much social change and progression for example so just something to start thinking about you know in terms of your feminist theologians who do call for this rethink of how we make sense of scripture and the ways in which it is applied and understood in the modern world question stick then what reason does Paul give for this view that he's expressed so he has expressed this view that women must be silent and they must learn in full submission and they cannot teach what is the reason for that well it is consistent with what Augustine has said in terms of his understanding of Genesis because here is what Paul said Adam was formed first then Eve and Adam was not the one deceived it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner but women will be saved through childbearing he said if they continue in faith love and holy with propriety so really important that he is agreeing with Augustine he is affirming that idea that it was not Adam who was to blame it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner and so that is why women can't be in charge because they'll Lead You astray they'll lead you down the wrong path and so here saying that a woman's role should be to have children that a woman will actually be saved will earn their salvation through childbearing which is then of course consistent with what Luther says about the role of women as well so you know what is his reason well it's all women's fault that Finn is in the world they are to blame and so cannot be trusted and so they must be in submission now this is really interesting because we then see a similar idea in aquinas's writing Saint Thomas Aquinas of course the key doctor of the Catholic church he argues that the male is the normative or generic facts of the human species he believed that only the male is made in magoday in the image of God and representative of the fullness of human potential whereas women are by Nature defective and he thought that meant physically morally and indeed mentally so I hope you're starting to feel that these male theologians of the past had a very negative view on women and that view was very impactful on the church's attitudes women and you could say continues to influence the church's attitude to women but yeah we've got here from Paul this agreement with Augustine that it was the woman who was deceived and became the thinner and so women cannot be trusted they cannot be leaders they instead need to learn from men so yeah certainly a sexist attitude but I suppose this helps us to make sense of that wide affecting them that we do still fee in religion because as I say it goes all the way back to that understanding of Genesis of the events in Genesis being the fault of Eve rather than poor Adam who with just myth ledge by the woman so he is not to blame of course not it is all her fault uh so question seven why does John chapter 4 verse 27 so obviously we're now in New Testament territory state that they were amazed that he and of course he's talking about Jesus was talking with a woman so he tells us that they were shocked they were amazed they were stunned that Jesus would have been talking with a woman and I've asked what does this tell us about first century Greco-Roman society and Jesus's own attitude towards women well we're told here that the disciples were amazed that Jesus was talking with a woman and I think that gives us a real insight doesn't it and a real indication um of the patriarchal nature of first century Society so the fact they were shocked Jesus was talking to a woman tells us a lot about attitudes at the time what beliefs were at the time in terms of women and again thinking of what Aquinas has said about women being defective and being lesser than men that you know could give us more insight couldn't it into why people then were shocked because they couldn't believe that Jesus was talking to a woman it's really interesting actually when we think about Jesus and we're going to talk about his attitudes towards gender a lot and we're going to be looking at feminist theologians who think that actually Jesus is quite an androgynous figure that he embodies both masculine and feminine and attributes then but what is really significant about him is that he is shown in the gospels to affirm and liberate women and we are going to talk about liberation theology and feminist theology later on in this video but it's really important that despite these patriarchal attitudes of the time that Jesus actually is never patriarchal or sexist himself he actually instead affirms and attempts to liberate women you know he is talking to women he is showing women respect he appears to marry Magdalene after his resurrection she is the first witness to the most important event in Christian history you know we see Jesus as actually quite a revolutionary figure in terms of his affirmation and attempts to liberate we could say women so there are other examples Beyond this one um that are in the gospels where Jesus is showing a unique for the time of course respect for women for example he stops the stoning of the adult woman and as I've mentioned first appears to a woman to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection which is Dean of the most important and foundational event in Christianity there are no examples in contrast of him actively discriminating against women although of course we have to realize he did not appoint women as his core disciples so it's really interesting and I think this line is the brilliant line to use because we can feed you that of this revolutionary figure that people are amazed not because he's walking on water not because he's turning water into wine but because he's talking to a woman yeah then what is the message there and actually what does that tell us about Christianity because whilst we've got people like Augustine and Paul saying how awful women are Jesus is there talking to a woman and he is appearing to a woman after his resurrection it's a really important when we focus on the person of Jesus Christ to be thinking about the fact that actually the gospel show him affirming and live liberating women what about question eight though why uh women cannot become leaders in the Catholic church so why can women not become leaders so a priest a bishop a cardinal or even Pope in the Catholic church navashi to refer to Apostolic succession and this is because Jesus was male and we're going to talk about whether the fact he was the man is really significant later on but Jesus was male and he only appointed 12 men as his disciples and that is seen as very important he appointed those disciples and he told those men to go and make disciples of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the father Son and Holy Spirit and John Paul II a former Pope picks upon this because he writes in malaria's dignitatum in calling only men as his Apostles Christ acted in a completely free and Sovereign manner so you know John Paul the second here saying he wasn't Tied by his patriarchal context he wasn't forced to do that he made that decision and John Paul II said that in doing so he exercised the same Freedom with which in all his behavior he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women so what John Paul II is saying here is that Jesus made that decision freely and intentionally that the same Jesus who emphasized the dignity and the calling of women also decided women should not be Apostles and he is saying that is significant that Jesus was not conditioned by his context he is saying Jesus was not forced to do this but Jesus intentionally did this that Jesus was respectful to women that he did emphasize the Dignity of women but he also consciously decided they were not to be Apostles and so the Catholic Church believes women should not be taking on leadership roles the gothic church believes that men and women are spiritually equal but socially different that they have equality before God but that does not mean they should do the same health and through a woman's role pet John Paul II believed was to look after the home look after the children it was not to be a leader in the church and so the Catholic Church teaches that when a man participates in the priesthood after they've taken the sacrament of holy orders they represent the person of Christ and they believe that's significant that Christ that Jesus Christ was male but when God became incarnate he intentionally became a man and so men today are the ones who can represent him obviously Jesus has ascended back to Heaven Christians anticipate his return but in the meantime it is men who can act as he's representative that they can represent the person of Christ that is not a woman's role now as I say the church is very keen to stress that does not mean that women are lesser than men it's just that they have different roles to men now remember Jesus appointed Peter as The Rock on which he would build his church and so that Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession the idea that the current leaders take their Authority from the first apostles because they are the successes to them remember the current pope is the bishop of Rome and Peter was the first Bishop of Rome Pope Francis is the 266th apostolic succession then requires that priests are male in order to inherit the authority initially given to the apostles who were all male and are they say it's that idea that it is men through the priesthood who then represent the person of Christ so the idea that it was Jesus who appointed men and it is their man who can represent him today based on Apostolic succession you have to be a man in order to inherit that Authority originally given to the male Apostles now of course the criticism is going to be but that was in a very different context that within a patriarchal contact in the First Century A.D you know different attitudes today actually there maleness should not mean women cannot take on that role today but you know that debate continues of course question nine then when did the Church of England first ordain a woman as the priest and what was her name now this is really important as the question because of course the church bingman does allow women to be leaders women can now be priests and indeed Bishops in the Church of England um so who was the first woman well it was Angela berners Wilson and she was ordained in March 1994. she was one of 32 women ordained on that day and very interestingly by 2025 it is thought there will be as many women priests as male priests in the Church of England of course there will still be if things don't change Zero female priests in the Catholic church but in the Church of England it is thought that very soon there will actually be a 50 50 split so certainly you know much more Progressive in the church Finland that women are now accepted into the priesthood good that they are seen as leaders and even though Paul writes that women should not be speaking in church so clearly the Church of England takes a different understanding of what Paul had written in those letters and believes that that doesn't mean women today cannot speak in the church question 10 then when did the Church of England consecrate its first female bishop and what was her name well it was the right Reverend Libby Lane she was the first woman to be appointed of a bishop by the church of England after its General Synod voted in July 2014 to allow women to become Bishops and she was then announced as the bishop of Stockport in Northwest England in December 2014. so a really significant Milestone there obviously a priest having more Authority in the hierarchy than a no a bishop thuring having more Authority in the hierarchy than a priest so emphasizing that again the Church of England's belief that women can take on leadership roles so of course in an ao2 evaluation I say you would want to be making a you know making a point of that distinction wouldn't you that you've got the Catholic Church which says no to women as Leaders whereas the Church of England much more Progressive allowing women to take on those leadership roles and we're going to be unpacking and exploring why that distinction exists why the Church of England is prepared to and as we know the Catholic church because of their beliefs about Apostolic succession excuse me refuses to do so question 11 then what special provision was made to prevent a split in the church because of course it's really important to note that when the Church of England allowed women to take on these leadership roles there was a backlash that there was unhappiness and so special provision had to be made and in order to prevent a split in the Church of England over the issue of the ordination of women special provision had to be made for those who could not accept oversight by a female bishop or the ministry of a female priest and they had to make what we call special provision for those who were not comfortable being led by a woman and so the special provision is that Christian communities can state that they will only have a male priest to serve in their church so they can actually say we don't want a female priest we are not comfortable with that and so they can say they can express if they do not want a female priest that they only want a male priest and under this system of what we call alternative oversight flying Bishops that they are called they fly in have been appointed to exercise pastoral care for the churches that object to women's ordination so these blind Bishops they literally fly into those particular churches within a parish who do not want female leaders and so they come in to provide alternative oversight so for example if that area has a female Bishop the congregation of that church don't like women leaders a male flying Bishop can fly in from another area to provide the alternative oversight for that particular Church they administer confirmation and ordain priests to serve in those churches and it's obviously going to be male priests because that church don't like women in charge now interestingly there has been an increase in the number of men seeking ordination under this system um however some priests have been unable to remain in the Catholic the Church of England excuse me the some priests even with the special provision being made believe that the Church of England is not for them anymore because they're unhappy with women taking on these leadership roles and so they have gone and received ordination in the Catholic church and that is really significant um because you know it shows you that some people feel so strongly about this issue that they are prepared to leave the church because they don't want to be in a church where women are allowed to lead so you know it shows doesn't it the strength of feeling here that many people do have about this issue of gender um what about question 12 then two other churches alongside the church bingland which allow women to become leaders and our examples are the Methodist Church and also the Salvation Army question 13 then what is the ordinary and why did the Catholic church that it oh so in 2011 the ordinate was set up to allow Anglican priests who were married to become Catholic priests and allow congregations and by that I mean a whole congregation in a church to become fully Catholic but retain elements of Anglican practice so you know this is very much linked to that idea of alternative oversight and flying Bishops the idea that particular churches particular congregations feel so unhappy with the church allowing women that they could actually um become Catholic so instead of remaining within the Church of England their congregation that church could become a Catholic church but retain some of those familiar elements of Anglican practice so they wanted to keep some of those Anglican practices but they were not happy with the Anglican belief that women could become priests and so they actually joined the Catholic Church who as we know have stuck to their belief their family belief that women cannot be leaders that men and women are spiritually equal but that does not mean that women can become leaders in the church okay so what about question 14 what are two reasons Christians may actually support the ordination of women what if underpinning this belief this new belief that women can actually take on these leadership roles within the church and remember we need to know these but for our ao2 essays in particular a great quote is from Saint Paul in his letter to the Galatians so even though so many of his letters have been used of course to condemn women and to say women cannot be leaders he also writes there is neither male or female because you are all one in Christ so the idea that in Christ gender becomes irrelevant everybody is equal We Are All One in Christ so that is the great counter argument actually you can use because you might have used one letter from Paul saying women must be silent and be in full submission but then you can say but actually you're also writes there is neither male or female so that is you know brilliant evaluation a brilliant contrast to be using in your essay you could also talk about that Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers the idea that all believers in Christ share in his briefly status eliminating any special classes now remember this is so significant because the Catholic church but the is only man who can represent Christ but actually the priesthood of all believers is the idea that everybody shares in Christ's Priestly status and so your gender is irrelevant your gender doesn't matter everybody can actually have a relationship with God that we don't need a priest to mediate for us and that priest doesn't need to be a man we're going to be talking about Rutha later but just for now she said that Jesus should be seen as androgynous figure so as embodying both masculine and feminine aspects she believed that his maleness is not significant and so you don't need to be a man in order to represent Christ in the world today that actually he was androgynous he embodied um as the same masculine and feminine characteristics for the fact that he was physically male is not actually significant and so you don't need to be a man to represent him example during the Eucharist in uh church services and then finally Jesus only appointed man we could say because of the social context he was operating in because he was in that first century patriarchal society you could say that in today's world where attitudes to gender equality have significantly progressed there is no reason women cannot take on those leadership roles within the church that actually if Jesus was alive today he would have appointed women as Apostles he only didn't do that because at that time those women would not have been listened to and he had to think about spreading the message to his audience and he knew that his audience at the time would not have been receptive to women Apostles um however of course John Paul II argues that actually no Jesus freely chose to only appoint men and so that remains relevant and that remains very significant today but certainly you know from that feminist Theologian point of view you can argue that in the first century it was a very different context it was a patriarchal society and so it made sense for Jesus to only appoint and but actually today he wouldn't have done the thing because of those changing social attitudes that we do see in the world today okay what about question 15 though two reasons Christians May oppose the ordination of women so really thinking about our ao215 markets here well thank Paul again he wrote I do not permit a woman to teach or to a theme authority over a man she must be quiet so obviously you know a priest needs to be speaking and teaching if Saint Paul is saying women can't teach or resume Authority it makes the job a little bit difficult doesn't it he also says that women should remain silent in the churches you know unless you know the female priest is going to do a mind performance and he's going to hold up signs it's going to be very difficult isn't it to remain silent as the priest in a church when you've got a sermon to deliver and he said they are not allowed to speak but must be in submission as the law said it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church and as I've mentioned it's going to be hard to preach if you can't speak so that would be a really strong argument based on scripture to oppose the ordination of women again Jesus was male and he only appointed man of his disciples and so only men can take on the sacred role can represent him today this is of course especially relevant for presiding over the Eucharist when you take on his role at the Last Supper where you know you have the bread and the wine which you say are going to be given up um for the sake of humanity and of course as we know the Catholic Church emphasizes Apostolic succession as requiring the priest to be male you cannot inherit that Authority from the apostles if you are not male because Jesus only appointed men only men can inherit that Authority and therefore lead the church and again that key point from Aquinas that the male is the normative or generic facts of the human species and it is only the male who represents the fullness of human potential whereas women by Nature are defective physically morally and mentally and so they cannot take on that leadership role okay what about our next question then what is the difference between a complementarian and an egalitarian and I've asked you to refer to gender and social roles so this is a key distinction they are great words to be using in your essay a complementarian is someone who believes that men and women are spiritually equal but socially different and of course this is your Catholic Church for you the men and women have the same dignity but different social duties for example men are to be the Breadwinners and leaders so to go out into the world and earn the money and Lead whereas women are to be Homemakers so they're to carry the child to look after the home to put food on the table but that is emphasizing that they are spiritually equal but socially different so that although they become one flesh in marriage they take on these unique roles and as Genesis says male and female he created them so it's the idea that those two genders are distinct and that you take on a different role depending on your gender whether you're the man or the woman in the relationship whereas Unitarian view is the idea that men and women are both spiritually and socially equal and so they are capable of taking on the same job so they're not just spiritually equal but they're socially equal as well and so by default the idea is women can be priests and women can lead in the church because men and women can take on the same jobs but yeah that is your key distinction The complementarian View that men and women are spiritually equal but socially different and egalitarian view that they are both spiritually and socially equal question 17 then what is biblical criticism why is it important for understanding pulse writing about women in the New Testament so I promised we would be talking about biblical criticism and how feminist theologians make sense of Paul's very sexist writing biblical criticism then is the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible so it's about studying textual compositional and historical questions surrounding the Old and New Testaments of the Bible it uses the same tools as used in other literature so the tools that you use in an English Lit lesson to study Othello or Macbeth for example thinking about your AO free context in your ao2 language features you know that kind of thing get your highlighters out get your Post-it notes out all of that in order to come to a fuller understanding of the Bible it uses a range of different approaches now it includes looking at the language in which a text was written including differences in the early copies of the text so you know those different early translations of the text that they translated a word differently for example the word submission is that the original word that we've used does the original word that was used correlate with the word submission and the meaning of the word submission today they will consider the literary genre including whether the text was meant to be a historical account whether it was meant to be poetry whether it was a letter to a specific church or person and then they'll consider why was that letter written to that specific church or person what was the social context what were the circumstances and it always includes an attempt to understand the cultural views from which a text Frank and of course in terms of Saint Paul's letters It's thinking about the patriarchal context in first century Greco-Roman society and to really consider how that would have influenced what he wrote so for example considering whether the subordination of wives to husbands found in Ephesians reflects the cultural blinkers of the first century writer rather than God's purpose in marriage so it's that question of whether you can just take that text and apply it to a very different context which is what many people are doing when they're taking what Paul wrote in the first century and trying to just directly apply it to the 21st century you know this idea of biblical criticism is that you are configuring the context you are considering the culture in which that text was originally written which helps you to understand why it was written and then it allows you to think how should we apply it today should we just take it should we extract calculate it from the first century to the 21st century or do we need to be more mindful do we need to take more things into account and then that is going to influence what we choose to then Implement today and how we make sense of that text today and however the practice of biblical criticism which is used by feminist theologians for example have been criticized and this is really important for an ao2 essay it has been criticized by Carl Bath and you remember him for his neo-orthodox approach in the sources of wisdom and Authority video because he said the Bible should pass judgment on human reason not the other way around and so the Bible should actually be challenging secular values rather than being challenged by them so we should not be criticizing the Bible we should actually be criticizing Society so he would say that biblical criticism has got things the wrong way around we shouldn't actually be criticizing the Bible based on our modern society we should do the opposite we should use the Bible as the standard by which we therefore judge society and so it shouldn't be biblical criticism it should actually be social criticism the Bible he believed is containing the absolute word of God because it contains the stories and teachings of Jesus you know and this reaffirms that Evangelical view doesn't it and so it's this idea that the Bible is the word of God and so the word of God is unchanging and unchangeable and so actually you shouldn't be trying to change it to make it more appealing or palatable to a modern audience you must actually be criticizing the audience for doing things not consistent with the Bible so that is a really important ao2 point to consider in terms of actually biblical criticism is not fully supported by all Christians that some Christians believe you should not question you should not criticize anything in the Bible because the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God it should be used to criticize rather than the other way around okay so what roles were women typically expected to play in society before the 19th century and of course they are those very traditional household roles aren't they so we've got marriage as a good wife who submits to that husband and makes them dinner as a mother of course that key role as a mother based on the example of Mary as the mother of Jesus and then as a homemaker as well so you know to be Plumping the cushions hoovering the floor doing the ironing those very traditional ideas about a woman's role question 19 when did women finally have equal voting rights to men in the UK so in 1928 women in England Wells and Scotland received the vote on the same terms as men which at the time was men over the age of 21 as a result of the representation of the people act you've got to remember you know that's 1 900 years after Paul was writing those letters after Jesus was walking around preaching talking to women walking on water so really significant to think how long it has taken for women to actually have those equal voting rights to men you know these developments in gender equality are very recent developments actually if we think about what was going on then in 1944 so in 1944 why was Florence Lee Tim oy ordained as the priest what happened then after the war and then what happened in 1971 so this is a very interesting case today so in 1944 which of course was during World War II Florence the timoi was ordained as a priest in China because there were insufficient Men available who could serve the anglicans there so he said you know what there are no men we're actually going to let a woman she was a Deaconess at the time become a priest because we have a shortage and she did the role and she did it as far as I'm aware very very well just as adequately as any of the men could have done however as soon as war ended she handed back her license and returned to her role as a Deaconess so after the war after that demand was there because there were no men to play the role to take on the role of priest she stepped up but then as soon as the war ended she handed back her license and of course you know in history we speak a lot don't we about the war as the Catalyst actually for women's rights that you know it showed that women have such an important role to play and but certainly after the war she then handed back her license you know in accordance with the belief that women could not be priests but then in 1971 when the Synod of Hong Kong and Macau accepted the ordination of women her status as the priest was then officially recognized so it was then later recognized as a result of that finnard but I think this is a brilliant case study to show that actually when there was real need they were prepared to say okay yeah we'll have a woman but then when that need was no longer there they uh had her hand back her license but we've got a great ending to the story because then in 1971 her status was officially recognized and I think that really demonstrates the radical changes of the 20th century in terms of attitudes to gender within society as a whole and also within many churches obviously the Catholic church has stayed strong in its position in its opposition but certainly in the Church of England we really have seen over the past 100 years real progress and change okay so 21 what is feminist Theology and I've noted here that there is a great link to make to the topic of Liberation theology which we talk about in the secularization topic so feminist theology has sought to analyze and challenge the Bible and Christian teaching seeing them as patriarchal seeing them is produced by a patriarchal context and seeing them as reaffirming and you know maintaining many patriarchal views and attitudes so family theology thinks to recognize the Traditions practices scriptures and Theology of Christianity from a feminist perspective and they seek equality Justice and the liberation of women from what if perceived to be the oppressive male systems of power and domination in religion so often we see in religion don't we these oppressive male systems of power and domination and for feminine theologians they want to challenge that you know they want to confront that and they want to for example engage in biblical criticism and they want to really critique the way the Christian churches have been traditionally run as you know male centered and male-led institutions now this is based upon this is derived from Liberation theology and Liberation theology is the Christian theological approach which emphasizes the liberation of the oppressed and in certain contexts it engages socio-economic analyzes with social concerns for the poor and political Liberation for oppressed people so it's the idea that Jesus had a preferential option for the poor that in his life Jesus was on the side of the poorest and the oppressed he did not turn up and fall in love with the temple authorities and you know the rulers of the time his concern was for the poorest and the most marginalized and it's the idea that Christianity should following the example set by Jesus show a preferential option for the poorest and the most marginalized and actually Christianity is all about powering and liberating the poorest and the oppressed and of course you know women have been oppressed and so it's this idea that Christianity should actually be empowering rather than oppressing women because Jesus showed a preferential option for the poorest for the marginalized and for the persecuted question 22 then building upon that what does patriarchy actually mean and what do we mean when we say Christianity has had a patriarchal Outlook so the word patriarchy it means a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and defense is reckoned it's passed on through the male line and so it is a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it and a patriarchal Outlook presents religion from a male perspective God of course is seen in terms of male power and Transcendence you know we've got those male pronouns used to describe God God is King God is Lord for example a menacing is superior to women and again I want to bring in Aquinas who argued that the male is the normative or generic fact of the human species only the male represents the fullness of human potential only a male can represent Christ whereas women are by Nature defective physically morally and mentally so really important for understanding why Christianity might be seen as having a patriot local Outlook because God is presented as male because Jesus was male because only menacing is capable of leading based on Apostolic succession because Aquinas said that the male is the normative or generic sex because Eve is to blame for sin because a woman's role is only in the home we could be here all day couldn't we but you know it's trying to understand what we mean by patriarchal Outlook and then the key question for your feminist theologians is whether that can be abandoned no not can be abandoned whether that can be reformed excuse me and change or whether the religion has to be abandoned because it is too intrinsically patriarchal and so it has to be abandoned it has to be outgrown it has to be left behind so let's get into it question 23 what does merry daily mean when she says that if God is male then male is God and this is a really important synoptic linked to paper one when we talk about religious language isn't it so she believes that the depiction of God of male will perpetuate sexism so the depiction of God as male so as father as king as Lord she believed that that perpetuates sexism and she looks at Christian history in which God has been described using male metaphors she said this cath Humanity into the female position and obviously Humanity atheneth inferior to God and then creates gender hierarchy with the male at the Top This Then consolidates gender hierarchy in the human situation she believed that the Youth of this masculine language about God exalts males within Society because if God is male then male then men are gods they have his omnipotence they have his power and importance and the idea of God being a father of course reinforces the patriarchal system where the father is the head of the family and where men are the leaders in society now a great link here if you're doing a-level English language is to disappear wolf hypothesis which is the idea that person's perception of the world is shaped by the language they speak because language thought and culture are interconnected and so if you talk about the most powerful being God as male you think male pronouns and talking about him as the king and a father for example we develop a belief that very much the subconscious level in the supreme power of males because if God is male then male is God so the superior Wars hypothesis there emphasizing that our perception of the world is shaped by the language that we use Wittgenstein for example who of course we talk about on paper one said the limits of my language are the limits of my world all I know is what I have words for so if it is God who is male then it is the males who are Gods so really paying attention here to the gender-specific language used to describe God and the implications of that and daily believes it perpetuates sexism it may contains the patriarchy so talking to Wittgenstein question 24 how might his observation that the limits of my language the limits of my world inform us about the implications of gender-specific language to describe God so as I've mentioned the superior Wars hypothesis is that a person's perception of the world is shaped by the language they speak our language thought and culture are interconnected so veganstein believes that language does not just help us to communicate but it actively constructs and shapes our world so it's not just about communicating words but it actively constructs and shapes our worlds and so when we speak about God using gender-specific language this has implications um for our beliefs about and attitudes towards gender even at a subconscious level so even at a level we don't realize is happening and so we have to ask does speaking of God as male suggest that he is human is this an accurate way of describing God and then does it suggest that he is a man and he has male genitalia for example is that actually helpful or is that actually a hindrance you know what impact does that have on our social attitudes for example you know what exaltation of men the maintenance of patriarchy but also what does that have on our beliefs about God what impact does that have on our beliefs about God and we could make a great link here to religious language and Via negativa versus via positiva the idea that actually language is not always helpful when it comes to talking about God that language can become a barrier to our understanding because it places limitations on God we can't reduce God to being human-like this anthropomorphism is actually not helpful it places those limitations on our understanding it places limitations on God and so not only does it perpetuate sexism but it then also places limitations on God and remember God is transcendent God is beyond human comprehension and understanding and so actually we shouldn't be placing these limitations on God by using this anthropomorphic male centered language question 25 then why do thinkers such as Rutha argue that believing in a male savior is problematic so of course we're not just talking about God the father and the problems of that but we're also talking about Jesus as the Son of God really emphasizing the maleness of the Savior so the maleness of the Father and Son are viewed as problematic from a feminist theology perspective Ruther asked can a male savior say women so if we're saying that Jesus was male and that his um Representatives today the priest today can only be male does that mean that there's a problem with women is Aquinas right that women are defective though can a male savior actually save women and she says the maleness of Christ is so fundamental to Christianity that women cannot see themselves as liberated through him so the emphasis on Christ's maleness has become a barrier to female salvation so it is emphasized it has been emphasized so much that Christ is male that that has then placed a limitation on who he can face because half of the population the female population is then unable to connect with him maybe or feel that they can be liberated or saved by him and so in traditional Christianity Christ masculine nature is significant and if he is having serious implications they involve implications for who can be a priest and who can be a leader but also implications for salvation who can actually be saved can a male favior save women so again is this showing us that Christianity is the very patriarchal sexist religion which has to be abandoned that it is a patriarchal religion that has to be abandoned to the patriarchal path that it cannot remain relevant today when our social attitudes towards gender and women have evolved so much this religion has become outdated and irrelevant so question 26 why has Daphne hampson then a key feminist Theologian rejected Christianity because she had said it must be rejected that it cannot remain our key belief system today that it's outdated that it's tied to a patriarchal past so she is what's known as the post-christian Theologian which means she believes we have to move on from Christianity she rejects Christianity she says it is a historical religion so it's all about God entering the world at a specific moment in the past so it is the historical religion anchored and tied to the past and that past is the patriarchal past it is therefore outdated and it must be abandoned so she said that given that Christianity is rooted in a belief that there has been a revelation in history and of course that refers to Jesus Christ Incarnation crucifixion and Resurrection Christianity necessarily Looks To The Past you know Christians every year with Christmas and Easter they're looking to the path they're looking to events that happened two thousand years ago so the direction that Christianity faith in is to the past it is not our religion of Liberation for the future it is not a religion of eschatological expectations for the future it is a religion that is always looking to the Past and she says the biblical literature is imbued with this patriarchal imagery and suppositions which are then carried into the present if you're always looking to the Past you're then going to drag what happened in the past into the present you're not letting go and so all of that patriarchal imagery is being carried into the present and so Christians are dragging all those patriarchal problems from the past into the present and she says the Christian story of the Incarnation is a myth from a patriarchal age she said in Christian history God has been described using male metaphors and this has Humanity has been fled into that female position and creates gender hierarchy this then consolidates gender hierarchy in the human situation that father-son imagery is dominance there is a lack of imagery depicting men and women of equal adults in Christianity and so Christianity cannot be separated from its patriarchal baggage she says I can understand why they use beautiful father-son imagery because the religion was developed within a very patriarchal context she can understand that but she cannot understand why people two thousand years later are clinging onto it they need to abandon it they need to move on from it because the religion cannot be separated from its patriarchal baggage it is tied to a patriarchal past it is very much a historical religion so we should study it and we can learn from it but we shouldn't continue practicing it in the same way we don't all go around wearing Tudor outfits any Intruder clothes we've moved on thank the Lord I remember my year full trip to the Tudor Hall I'm not feeling it um she says we have to abandon the religion because it is stuck in the past there's too much baggage it's too problematic it's too patriarchal leave it in the past she also goes on to say she keeps on going the Christian beliefs about Incarnation and Resurrection are actually without significant proof so this is a a great link then to the religion and science topic because she's saying in the in the age excuse me of empiricism we cannot continue believing in this Incarnation and this Resurrection because scientifically now we're living in a much more enlightened age we want empirical evidence for our beliefs so it needs to be abandoned not just because it is patriarchal but also because it is you know not empirical and so you know she is seeing that this religion she's saying that this religion is a historical religion tied to a patriarchal party it has too much baggage it is outdated it needs to be abandoned we need to move on however on the other hand in again thinking of the Rayo 2 you want your contrast Rosemary Radford Ruther instead advocated reform so she did not in the same way that we've just seen here with Hampton she did not reject and abandoned Christianity she actually wanted to reform it so she acknowledged and she agreed that there are problems but she said they can be resolved they can be you know solved there is a solution so whilst Hanson thinks that Christianity is tied to the past as we've just heard Rutha argues that he actually looks to the Future because it is centered on a message of Liberation so instead of focusing on the patriarchy she focuses on The Liberation now Ruther denounced traditional theology as patriarchal but she remains within the Catholic church today believing it is capable of being reformed now why is that let's unpack this shall we she believed the traditional doctrine of atonement with its masculine idea of power needs to be replaced with a new depiction of Jesus as a radical and liberating prophetic figure who was the head of his time and with mentioned that haven't we such as the quote from John saying they were amazed that he was speaking through a woman so she believes and this is very much a belief shared with Liberation theologians that Jesus was a revolutionary figure who had this preferential option for the poorest and he was this political Liberator that he was on the side of the oppressed he was on the side of the marginalized and she believes Ruth believes that's what we need to focus on to not on these you know sexy theologians who have now started to blame women for everything she says you need to focus on Jesus focus on what Jesus did and focus on the fact that he was this radical and liberating prophetic figure who was a liberator focused on the future rather than as I say concerned with all these patriarchal ideas in first century Society she also said that the term God should be replaced with God F which would then Express freedom from gender and she emphasized that Jesus embodied both masculine and feminine aspects and so he should be seen as androgynous so actually if you look at Jesus he was not your typical male he was not there go all right yeah here I am yeah got the six pack get me a kind of lager he wasn't you know going for the typical masculine imagery he could actually be seen as a very compassionate figure you know he was actually seen as embodying both masculine and feminine aspects and I'm not just talking about his depiction of having long hair in some literature either and so actually she says his maleness is not significant why are people focusing on that that is not the key Focus here he should actually be seen as a gender-neutral figure she points to gospel references to Jesus siding with the marginalized in society as we've mentioned and of course the marginalized in that Society would have have referred to women of course it would they were the most vulnerable they were the most oppressed weren't they in that patriarchal society we also need to note that the kingdom of God according to Ruther and indeed according to Liberation theologians is not this heavenly state but actually it is something to work towards on Earth it's the idea that Jesus was this revolutionary figure who wasn't just promising life after death but he wanted to bring about change in this lifetime in this world he wanted a world where the first would be the last and the last would be the first that you wanted to empower the poorest he wanted Justice inequality in this world that's what the kingdom of God is all about and so the kingdom of God should be set upon Earth as a spear where justice prevails for all and of course we spoke about that a lot in the self-death and afterlife topic but Ruther is saying that what Jesus demands of you is that you work for justice equality for the liberation of the oppressed and marginalized in this world so actually Christianity can be the force to defeat sexism to overcome patriarchy because that is what Jesus represents he is a liberating figure and that she believed is what you need to focus on so just a quick um check on 28 what does Rutha mean when she says Jesus could be androgynous well what she means is that Jesus embodied both masculine and feminine aspects and so actually he should not be seen as this male masculine figure who can only save men and who can only be represented by men but actually Jesus should actually be seen as this androgynous figure who embodied both masculine and feminine aspects and so can save both men and women can be represented by both men and women and actually he is someone who wants to empower both men and women he wants to liberate the marginalized the oppressed the poorest and the persecuted question 29 then brings these two key thinkers together what is the key difference between hampson and Rutha with regards to the focus of Christianity so for handsome of course it is the religion focused on the past an example tied to the patriarchal past and it needs to be abandoned hampson has given up she says we need to abandon it we need to leave it behind she believes in Moving On Letting Go whereas Rutha believed that their religion can be reformed because it is focused on a future Liberation it is an eschatological religion it is therefore always capable of reinterpreting and Reinventing itself and can therefore be reformed so your key difference is that hampson believes it needs to be abandoned because it is tied to a patriarchal past whereas Ruth there is focused on that future Liberation then it can be reformed that Jesus is that liberating figure he is androgynous and so actually it can be reformed and it should be reformed to be a force to defeat facts of them rather than be seen as perpetuating sexism and you know reinforcing patriarchy to this day but yeah your key distinction hampson's abandon it Ruth has their reform it and then they had a bit of a debate don't you know they had a head-to-head and uh in that debate Ruther accused Hampton of fundamentalism so question 30 is asking why and the reason is because Ruther asserts that Hanson should know the mythological language used in the Bible is symbolic and not to be taken literally okay question 31 then what is celibacy so we're getting on to our conversations about sexism no we're not we're getting on to our questions about sexuality now honestly guys I'm losing the plot today so let's talk about sexuality let's talk about uh celibacy celibacy is something practiced by the Catholic Church's priests by their leaders their church leaders it is abstaining from sexual relations and marriage but what did Jesus and think Paul believe about celibacy and why was this well as far as we know Jesus and Paul were both celibate Paul writes as well I wish that all men were as I am so that would suggest to us that Paul was not only celibate himself but that he wanted others to be celibate as well so we didn't believe in having sex he indeed wrote it's good for a man not to have sex with a woman so they had a very negative attitude to sex and they wanted their followers they wanted people to be celibate he also writes to the unmarried and the widows I say this it is good for them to stay on marriage as I am but if they cannot control themselves they should marry for it is better to marry than to burn with passion now this is so interesting isn't it this idea that it is better to marry than to burn with passion because of course this gives us an insight into Christian beliefs about sex before marriage and why it's wrong that you should only ever have sex within marriage but actually Paul didn't even think that was the ideal that was the Compromise for Paul Paul's ideal with celibacy it is good to stay unmarried it is good to stay celibate and why is that well Paul's religion for his early Christianity was grounded in eschatology and this is the idea that his expectation was at the end of the world was imminent and that obviously was very influential on his preaching and his teaching because if you believe that the end of the world is imminent there is absolutely no need for reproduction and so Christians should not be focused on attracting partners and jumping into bed with people but actually they should be focused on preparing themselves for the day of judgment and for the inauguration of the kingdom of God so he was very much expecting that Christ would return within his lifetime and so he obviously saw no need for sexual reproduction Because by the time your baby was born within nine months Jesus would probably have come back and the end of the world would have taken place and so he saw no need for sexual reproduction and of course we know about the negative connotations of sex in Christianity anyway and so he would have preferred people to be controlling themselves and preparing themselves for Christ's second coming in order to be pure in order to be prepared for that day of judgment and so really interesting actually you know whenever we do talk about sex and sexuality in the context of Christianity that both Jesus and Saint Paul the two main men of Christianity were celibate and you know did not Advocate and did not engage in sexual relationships what about question 33 then so what is the meaning of thank Paul's teaching now to the unmarried and the widows I say it is good for them to stay unmarried as I am so again pitching himself was the role model leading by example but if they cannot control themselves they should marry but it's better to marry than to burn with passion so we know don't we that Paul advocated celibacy he's written here that it is good for people to stay unmarried and that's because he believed they should focus on God and they should focus on preparing for the arrival of the kingdom of God however importantly he recognizes that some people will not be able to control themselves that there are people who will still want to participate in sexual acts because of their sexual desires and needs and he therefore compromises that they should marry so he says if you really need to still have sex you need to get married in order to do so because it is better to marry than to burn with passion and so in order to avoid shameful lustful thoughts feelings and acts Paul writes that those who cannot control themselves should marry because it is only within marriage where you've become one flesh that sex is seen as Sanctified it's seen as acceptable it's a really important that actually Paul is again sex full stop so when we start to talk about homosexuality we have to bring it back to the fact that actually Paul isn't interested in sex full stop he doesn't want anybody having sex irrespective of the gender of those involved he sees no need for procreation he is very much committed to focusing on God and preparing for the kingdom of God and he wants his followers to do the same it's a really important to understand his commitment to celibacy and also that helps us understand why Catholic priests today are celibate because they are focused on God they are focused on um their work within the church and so they remain celibate they abstain from sexual relations but remember the church's position today is that sex should only be for procreation within marriage because of course two thousand years later the church has realized actually Paul wasn't quite right the world wasn't about to end and so if the religion wants to continue and doesn't want to die out its followers do need to start having sex and they do need to start procreating 34 then though we're going to bring you right up to speed into the 21st century what is the meaning of Pope Benedict xvi's teaching that celibacy does not mean remaining empty in love but rather must mean allowing oneself to be overcome by a passion for God because remember celibacy is a requirement of Catholic priests and also of monks and nuns and some may see or may feel that celibacy would be lonely and lead to feelings of emptiness that you're not allowed to partner you're not allowed physical or sexual intimacy you know they might think that actually that seems quite empty and you know you'd be quite unhappy but actually Pope Benedict who was uh celebrate himself rejected this because he said the celibate person is instead overcome by a passion for God so very much like Paul's idea that you should be celibate to focus on God and prepare for the kingdom of God and he believed that this will then bring them a feeling of even greater love and fulfillment because it's from God as opposed to just being you know sexual romantic love from another person and so this is why Catholics is a part of the seven sacraments of the church have this choice between marriage and holy orders because this kind of love is just as important as the love you would experience in a marriage so the importance of celibacy being Illustrated here in the Catholic church in the writing and the thinking of the former Pope Benedict XVI question 35 then which denomination of Christian clergy must remain celibate and why is that well we've touched on this haven't we it is of course the Catholic Church and that is because they wholeheartedly commit themselves if you are a priest to serving the church and Catholics have the choice between two sacraments of service they have the choice between holy orders and marriage and of course Catholics follow the sacraments of the church on their journey to Salvation And this is where they've got a choice whether they're going to take holy orders become a priest or whether they're going to get married and become one flesh with a partner for life so a priest would remain celibate and this is from the catechism for the sake of the kingdom of heaven so they would be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven and the catechism goes on they are called to consecrate themselves so to be made holy as a priest with undivided heart to the Lord so you cannot divide your heart between your wife and God it has to be undivided unto the Affairs of the Lord and so they give themselves entirely to God and to men so they are giving themselves entirely to God and so they can't as they say focus on having a romantic relationship as well because they're fully focused on God and the catechism also says celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the church's minister is consecrated it's accepted with a joyous heart and celibacy radiantly proclaims the reign of God so it is very much seen as a badge of honor it's seen as a brilliant thing so don't worry that you can't have effects focus on the fact that you are committing yourself to the kingdom that you are giving yourself entirely to God and to men so that is the Catholic Church which requires its priest to be celibate however other denominations do allow their clergy to marry an example is the Church of England and a key link back here is actually to the Protestant Reformation so in terms of why they allow this because following the example of Martin Luther who although ordained as the priest married Protestant denominations permit an unmarried ordained pastor to marry so you can I get married is basically the point here the spouse of course May then be seen as a source of strength and support for the clergy you know they may also then play an unofficial role within the parish I always think of keeping up appearances this really old BBC one sitcom that I have always loved watching with my grandparents where you've got the character of the Vicar's wife the long-suffering Vicar's wife who is you know running the bake sales running the charity sales you know that actually it's great for the priests to have a partner because they can support them in their work and that can help strengthen the community and it also of course allows them to then be fruitful and multiply which fulfills the demand Divine a Divine command I meant to say from Genesis and of course you could say it means more people would be attracted to join the clergy you know because if they feel they can still have children they can still have a partner then that may make it more appealing to them as opposed to having to give all of that up in order to become a priest or a vicar so actually it might mean there are more people attracted to the clergy because they can still fulfill other desires and you know things in their life as well such as having a wife such as having a child question 37 then why might Genesis 1 28 the just celebrity is wrong and this is really interesting in terms of you know thinking about that Catholic position because actually although the catechism is saying how great celibacy is and although Saint Paul is saying how important celibathy is we do then have in the very first book of the Bible in Genesis a Divine command from God to procreate and so we could argue if God is commanding his people to be fruitful and multiply we could say a vowed celibacy may actually go against this in the same way of course that the use of contraception or same-sex acts are criticized as doing so by the Catholic Church themselves you know there is this idea that we are here to be fruitful and multiply and of course if you're not being um fruitful and multiplying you are then not going to be fulfilling that Divine command and so it's a really interesting um critique you could say of celibacy now of course the church would say well you are multiplying in a different way because you're actually spreading the church yeah you're making disciples of all Nations you're baptizing people in the name of the father Son and Holy Spirit aren't you so it's interesting you know to think of different interpretations of that command to be fruitful and multiply and also to consider whether that's a choice you know that choice of the Catholic Church believes between marriage and holy orders but yeah really interesting as well but one of Saint Thomas aquine of this primary precepts is reproduction and of course if you are celibate you are then not fulfilling that so that is a great link to paper one to religious ethics as well so to just start thinking about actually could you critique celibacy if you've got for example an ao2 essay on it so yeah that you would actually then not be fulfilling a Divine command and you'd not be fulfilling one of the five primary precepts and so does your service to the church then outweigh the fact that you're no longer fulfilling these Divine commands I can't say that word and um the primary precept 38 then what does Genesis chapter 2 verse 24 teach Christians about the nature and purpose of marriage so we're told that it's monogamous because you're becoming one flesh that it's lifelong you've been joined together for life um and that you have become one entity you've become one flesh in the eyes of God and of course this emphasizes the commitment loyalty and devotion at the heart of Christian marriage it is therefore not something to be taken lightly it is for life because you are going to become one flesh for life and that is of course then reflected in the marriage vows that people make where they say they'll be together for richer or poorer until death do us part a great example of this is Queen Elizabeth II the late queen of course who was of course head of the Church of England and Prince Philip they were together for 73 years so you know really emphasizing there that idea of becoming one flesh and although over 40 of marriages now do end in divorce the traditional Christian teaching is that marriage should be for life you should become one flesh and that means becoming one entity in the eyes of God question 39 then what is another purpose of marriage in Christianity and do we have evidence for that well another purpose is procreation we are told in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply as we've just discussed in the context of celibacy it's also an outlet for sexual desire and we saw that in the teaching of Saint Paul didn't we when he said it is better to marry than to burn with passion it could also be said that a purpose of marriage is to fulfill the sacraments of the Catholic church and so to achieve salvation remember you have a choice in terms of those sacraments of service between marrying and taking holy orders the Church of England's 2002 thinot affirms that marriage is created as a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman and then the catechism of the Catholic church that that the vocation to marriage so the calling to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman so it's you know intrinsic to us that we are called to get married so that emphasizes the importance of marriage doesn't it okay what about question 40 then why is the Catholic Church completely opposed to divorce so the Catholic church is completely against divorce in all circumstances it is not allowed the catechism said that marriage is indissolvable it cannot be ended in this lifetime in this world It also says that divorce is a grave offense against the natural law so of course you don't want to be going against the natural law great link to paper one there you don't want to therefore get divorced this is because the catechism says divorce injures the Covenant of Salvation so it will actually um affect your chances of being saved the Covenant of Salvation the contract of Salvation between God and Humanity it will actually injure that so if you want to go to heaven which as we know is the key purpose of life for Christians you cannot get divorced because it will actually injure the Covenant the contract that you've made with God in terms of being saved it also the catechism said introducing disorder into the family and society and remember the primary precepts require The Ordering of society and so divorcing could be seen as going against that you are undermining that key primary precept you're undermining the family which is so important in Christianity you also undermine in society Jesus himself has said what God has joined together let no one separate remember marriage is a covenant it involves God and in that marriage ceremony you are joined together by God and so no human being can then separate those people you have been joined together as one by God and uh just to build on that the church is against divorce the churches then of course against remarriage because you can't get remarried because your original marriage never ends and the catechism therefore says a remarried spouse is in a situation of public and permanent adultery because you are still married to your original partner because marriage is indissolable and of course that would lead to adultery and that would therefore go against the ten commandments so yes it's not looking good is it the Catholic church is not a fan at all of divorce hence the fact that Henry VIII created his own church when the pope refused to Grant him a divorce so I've just put here that marriage is not just a contract between two people but it's the sacrament and a covenant that involves God because through marriage you become one flesh in the eyes of God God joins you together as one flesh you have made sacred vows before each other you've made those bars before the clergy before the congregation and of course before God you are joined together by God and you become one in the eyes of God it is impossible to then end a marriage however there is a bit of a get out of jail free card if I can call it that in the form of an annulment so in annulment is where you declare a marriage to be null and void and this is saying that a valid marriage never actually took place so this is and as I say it's very much a get out of jail free card it is this idea that the ceremony may have taken place so the congregation were there you had all your flowers you're wearing your nice outfit but a valid marriage never actually happened so importantly it is not a way of allowing a divorce but saying that a valid marriage never actually took place so it is null and void now interestingly Catholic canon law recognizes three areas in which a wedding ceremony may fail to bring about a valid marriage so you'd be able to have an annulment and this is lack of capacity lack of consent and lack of form so an annulment is not a way of getting a divorce it is a way of saying that a valid marriage never actually took place and so if you've got an annulment and then married someone else that would be your first real true marriage and so you wouldn't be remarrying you'd be marrying for the first time because an annulment is saying that although the ceremony took place it was not a valid marriage because it did not meet that criteria there was a lack of capacity lack of consent and or lack of form okay 42 though why do Protestant churches actually do allow divorce so why do they allow divorce and of course we're going to refer to the Church of England as our key case study because remember Henry VIII created the Church of England after the pope at the time refused to Grant him a divorce and the church of England today does assert that marriage is intended to be a solemn public and lifelong Covenant between a man and a woman however they concede that regrettably some marriages do fail or in the case of Henry VII many marriages do fail um and so the church allows divorce because say it's that that regrettably some marriages do fail you might bring in here situation ethics and Joseph Fletcher and say you know it is then the most loving thing to do to allow a divorce for the sake of the children and the couple for example you might bring in Saint Paul's quote to clothe yourself with compassion it might sometimes be the most compassionate thing to do if it's a very unhappy situation and since 2002 divorced people have been able to marry again in the church and that is at the discretion of the local priest so it is then their decision whether they would allow you to marry again in their church if you've got divorced from a previous marriage what about 43 then what is homosexuality and what if the UK laws position on this so homosexuality means being exclusively attracted and by that we mean sexually or romantically the members of the same sex interestingly the UK has never had laws against female homosexuality now in terms of the UK laws position things really started to evolve shall we say with the wolfenden report of 1957 because this report concluded that consensual same-sex acts between adults must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is in brief and crude terms not the Law's business so basically the report recommended that homosexual acts between two consenting adults should no longer be a criminal offense it should be A Private Matter it belongs in the realm of private morality and immorality there was long as it's between consenting adults it is not the Law's business what they get up to in their bedroom now significantly this was supported by the then Archbishop of Canterbury Jeffrey Fisher because he said there is a sacred realm of privacy this is a principle of the utmost importance for the preservation of human freedom self-respect and responsibility so it is not the government's job to pass judgment on what you consent to in your bedroom as long as it's consensual between adults the state should mind its own business it is not the government's um ability shall we say is not the government's role to say what consenting adults should or should not be doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the Archbishop of Canterbury actually agreed with that believe it or not so what then happened well 10 years later in 1967 homosexuality was decriminalized for consenting males over the age of 21. that age was then lowered in line um who not in line it was just lowered to 18 excuse me in 1994 and then lowered in line with the heterosexual equivalent to 16 in 2001. now significantly section 28 with legislation that prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools by local authorities and it was enforced between 1998 and 2003 so although you'd have that decriminalization there was still legislation that you know was against what was described as the promotion of homosexuality interestingly in 2000 the military ban on homosexual soldiers was lifted until that point they'd had very much a don't ask don't tell policy and then the most recent developments really were the equality Act of 2010 under which sexual orientation was lifted as a protected characteristic under legislation but before then can you give two laws that show change in social attitudes towards LGBT rights so the decriminalization I think is the big milestone decriminalization for 21 plus consenting adults in 1967 you could say the lifting of the military ban then in 2000 and then in 2010 the equality act listing sexual orientation as a protected characteristic 45 let's go to the Old Testament shall we what does the Old Testament teach about homosexuality now it is so important we're careful when we use the term homosexuality because this term was not invented until the uh 1800s it is so important that we are you know considering what the Bible may have been describing and that we're actually considering how then these verses are replied today and we are going to talk about this as we move through so Leviticus says do not have sexual relations with a man or do not lie with a man as one does with a woman woman that is detestable we also have the story of Sodom and Gomorrah which has been traditionally interpreted as a warning against same-sex acts now this um was where they were destroyed the town was destroyed by sulfur and fire for their sins okay and that sin has traditionally been seen as same-sex act however today it is understood differently and this is important because today is understood as punishment for a lack of hospitality and for rape remember homosexuality did not exist as it is understood today the word itself was only coined in the late 19th century and so modern understandings of this story is that the towns weren't destroyed by God for the same sex acts but they were destroyed for the inhospitability no is that even a word for the lack of hostility I think a meant to say and for the fact that they were abusive acts taking place they were not consensual Acts now this interpretation is seemingly confirmed interestingly by Jesus as his understanding of the story because he said if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town truly I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town for here saying it seems to suggest in this extract that they were punished because they didn't welcome people so they were punished because they were not providing Hospitality that they were rude and that there was then rape taking place you know so really interesting that it's not necessarily about the gender of those involved but it's about the nature of the act and that's going to be significant for what we discuss as we go forwards but yeah traditionally the Old Testament seen as condemning homosexual same-sex Acts what about 46 then so explain a new testament teaching about homosexuality and I've noted here in bold that different versions of the New Testament contain significantly different translations of these poor line letters it therefore makes it difficult to understand exactly who or what Paul is condemning are sinful but we have free references to homosexual acts in Paul's letters we have Romans we have Corinthians and we have Timothy so 47 why do some biblical Scholars criticize the church's use of these verses in their condemnation of same-sex relationships so first of all we could say they are outdated a little bit like comments on gender that have been questioned um and you know we've been told to abandon the patriarchal baggage in the same way this homophobic baggage might need to be abandoned as well because Paul's letters were written at a particular time two thousand years ago and were addressing particular social circumstances and so we could say they must be understood within the context they were written in because it is thought that Paul was writing about a very particular type of homosexual act called pederasty this involved an older male and an adolescent boy and it was obviously not consensual his condemnation of these acts cannot be assumed or generalized to be condemning all homosexual acts such as those between consenting adults in the same way that condemning pedophilia does not mean condemning heterosexual acts between consenting heterosexual adults um and we could also say that translations are different Paul Fletchers have been translated hundreds of times today there are countless different translations not all translators believe Paul was talking about homosexuality or homosexual acts some translations of the Bible avoid reference to homosexuality in those verses altogether you know they say those who abuse themselves with others for example and so we have to be careful when we read translations because they may not capture the original meaning as we've said the word homosexuality was not created until uh the 1800s so how can it then be inserted into letters written in the first century and also importantly Jiva the founder of Christianity did not talk about same-sex attraction you know as we know he actually advocated celibacy for all people as did Paul and so in instead he consistently emphasizes the importance of love and you could say if actually a relationship is loving why would Christians condemn it whether it's heterosexual or homosexual and that you could say is a great link a great synoptic link to situation Epic okay what about 48 though what does the catechism of the Catholic Church teach about homosexuality well the Catholic church is very very critical the catechism said basing itself on sacred scripture which presents homosexual acts as acts of great depravity tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered so the catechism nurse saying that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered the church that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law and that's because they are not procreative remember the church believes every fact must remain open to the transmission of Life they close the sexual act to The Gift of Life they do not proceed from a genuine effective and sexual complementarity and remember complementarity means a man and a woman complementing each other becoming one flesh the church said under no circumstances can they be approved so even if it's a loving relationship even when it's consensual we cannot approve it because it is not procreative it is not open to the transmission of life and so in the same way that contraception is condemned um and any non-procreated fact fact is condemned homosexual acts must be condemned the church does go on to say that the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not like negligible no I can't say the word negative negligible there we go apologies guys I'm having a moment the church says this inclination which is objectively disordered lovely constitutes for most of them a trial so the church is saying here that same-sex attraction is a trial and a test it's a test of how well you can oppress it repress it and not act upon it they must be accepted talking about gay people here with respect compassion and sensitivity every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided how ironic um and the church goes on to say homosexual persons so the church is not saying that homosexuality is thinkable it's saying that acting upon it is yeah so homosexual persons are called to chapter T yeah celibacy by the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner Freedom at times by the support of disinterested friendship by prayer and sacramental Grace they can and should gradually and resusutely approach Christian Perfection interesting many Catholic priests are gay for this reason because homosexual persons are called to Chastity so instead of acting upon their homosexual attraction they actually become a priest and so very interesting to note that isn't it but yes it's this idea that homosexuality should never be acted upon because homosexual acts are non-procreative they are not open to the transmission of life and so they would go against the primary precepts for reproduction which is why they're described as contrary to the natural law 49 then what does the encyclical human eye Vitae published in 1967 teach Catholic about the purpose of sex so very simply the key line from this encyclical that I'd want to see you quote in an essay is every sex fact must remain open to the transmission of life so this obviously tells us that the purpose of sex is procreation which leads to strong condemnation of artificial contraception which is described as intrinsically Evil by the church and also homosexual acts which is described