Debating the existence of a "British Religious Right"

A report published on Friday by Christian think-tank Theos discusses whether or not what can accurately be described as a "Religious Right" is emerging in Britain. Focusing on the publicity given to various conservative Christian groups and individuals, and their concern about issues such as equal marriage and abortion, it compares them with the well-established and powerful US Religious Right and comes to the conclusion that while there certainly are right-wing Christian organisations and politicians in Britain, the country cannot be described as having a politically influential Religious Right.

The report details a number of reasons why this is the case, including the tendency of British Christians to support progressive economic policies and favour welfare, redistribution of wealth, and social justice; the lack of overlap with the concerns of the US Religious Right (namely gun control, taxation, Israel, evolution, the military); the number of Christians in Britain; and the apolitical stances of Christian groups and leading evangelical figureheads. It calls for a more reasonable approach from both secularists and Christians towards the issue.

"[The report's conclusion] counsels those who have made such accusations [of an emerging British Religious Right] to pay closer attention to the evidence, if they seek to prevent the kind of culture war they claim to wish to avoid; while at the same time counselling those Christians inclined towards a narrowly socially-conservative agenda and defensive narrative of ‘persecution’ to expand both their theological focus and their perspective on what persecution entails."

Since the last election, numerous journalists and bloggers have written about what they see as the growing influence of right-wing Christian individuals and organisations in British politics and society. While many of these articles have been justified and written in response to concerning developments (such as the increase in anti-choice campaigning), what we've also seen is a tone that can tend towards scaremongering and exaggeration of the extent to which these groups represent British Christians, and a lack of understanding of certain Christian beliefs (hence my repeated reminders that "evangelical" is not synonymous with "fundamentalist"). I've written about right-wing Christian organisations on occasion but am hesitant to ascribe too much influence to them, although I do have some concerns.

I think, therefore, that Theos have done a good job of laying out the agendas of some Christian groups that frequently receive publicity - Christian Concern, the Christian Institute, the Christian Legal Centre - and proving that while they may make the news and incur the wrath of left-wing and secular activists, they're not as powerful as people may think - due to lack of support from the established church and lack of significant political influence.

While the report details some really useful information and makes important reading, it would be unwise to completely dismiss the influence and agendas of right-wing groups (the report did point out that the emergence of a British Christian Right would not be impossible, only that it would look very different to its US counterpart). The established church is, on the whole, fairly moderate, but I worry that the influence of right-wing organisations could grow if they are repeatedly seen to be driving debate on issues such as persecution and "family values".

One issue uniting conservative and progressive activists at present is the concern regarding porn, lad's mags, and what has become known as the "sexualisation of childhood". There are subtle differences in the approaches taken by conservative and more feminist campaigns (morals/decency/protecting children vs patriarchy/objectification/inequality). It's concerning when the loudest voices campaigning on an issue often appear to be coming from a paternalistic viewpoint that doesn't analyse all the factors involved.

The Religious Right in Britain may have less power, support, and money than similar groups in the US, but it is still receiving plenty of publicity and positioning itself as the "true Biblical response" to issues, which should be a worry for the rest of us. As the report points out I think it is highly unlikely that too much will be imported from the US (I still find it slightly mystifying that Wayne Grudem promoted his book aligning the Bible with Republican positions on the military, guns, and the environment over here) but that doesn't mean we won't see hardline voices making themselves heard on other issues.

While some organisations are more moderate than the media would have us believe, certain others are more aggressive, and much more belligerent about the groups of people they are "against" or see as a threat to so-called Christian values. It is these groups that claim to represent the faith and can easily influence public perception of what it means to be a Christian.

I believe this presents us with some challenges for the future.

1. A challenge to journalists: right-wing groups must not dominate media narrative on Christian issues

Recent focus on issues such as equal marriage, euthanasia, and "persecution" of Christians in the workplace have meant that newspapers such as the Daily Express, Daily Mail, and Telegraph invariably go to right-wing organisations for comment. These papers would be the first to point out what they might see as the negative influence of supposedly "wacky" churches or individuals (see most coverage of the Alpha Course over the years) but when it comes to "moral" issues, they've been known to give disproportionate column inches to Stephen Green of the fundamentalist Christian Voice group, which holds views so far outside the mainstream and so extreme that it has a minimal number of supporters. I would challenge the media to recognise and value the contributions and more measured approach of moderate and progressive Christian voices. Obviously this makes for less sensational headlines, but in light of the report it would be helpful, as well as more representative of British Christianity.

2. A challenge to Christians: moderate and progressive believers need to make themselves heard

We know that they exist! Thanks to their possession of more "reasonable" viewpoints, they're less likely to cause heated debate, Twitterstorms, and controversy. But they have a great deal to offer. The report showed that British Christians tend towards a progressive stance on social justice and that there is concern for issues that the US Religious Right doesn't touch on, such as poverty alleviation, the environment, and trafficking. Christianity is all too often defined by what - and who - it is against. By growing in confidence and conviction, politically progressive Christians can change this (as long as the media plays ball as per my first point). 

3. A second challenge to Christians: be discerning about the organisations we support

When right-wing groups spearhead seemingly innocuous campaigns (see Not Ashamed) it's important that as Christians, we examine their true agenda in the light of a tendency towards extremism on certain issues and the reality of persecution for Christians worldwide. It's vital that we don't get sucked in to a persecution complex where we view various groups of people and organisations as being "out to get us", when that's just exaggeration. It's vital that we call for Christian organisations to work with integrity (see the controversy surrounding crisis pregnancy centres) and that we don't promote one political party over others as the "correct" choice for a Christian to choose on polling day. When groups and their supporters display bigoted attitudes, we again need to think about what we put out names to.

Discussion elsewhere:

Danny Webster - Is there a Religious Right emerging in Britain?

Nelson Jones - Britain's Religious Right: myth or reality?

Fear not the mythical Evil Twitter Feminist

In recent months people have been discussing the extent to which women who are new to feminism are potentially being "scared off" the movement by more seasoned feminists who are keen to tell them that they're doing it wrong and are, in fact, not feminists at all. The stereotype of the Evil Twitter Feminist has developed over the past year or so - you've probably heard of her. She's a better feminist than everyone else. She's a thought-policing bully who wants to dictate what words you use, is quick to jump to conclusions and quick to trample anyone who disagrees with her about the finer points of gender equality. She just loves declaring who is and who isn't a feminist, and she probably doesn't like you. Sounds a bit...exaggerated, right? That's because it is.

This stereotype has come about following a series of long, involved and drama-filled debates that have played out on blogs and on social media. In general, they've happened because well-known public figures who identify as feminists have said and done things that aren't so great. There have been arguments. There has been flouncing. And as a result, I've seen several people say they're feeling as if feminism's a secret society that they can't join.

All this is supposedly making women feel that they don't have a place in feminism and that if they don't say the right things and have the right knowledge, they'll never be part of some imaginary Special Feminist Club. This is really getting me down, and not for the reasons you'd think.

But as the myth of the Evil Twitter Feminist - henceforth to be known as ETFs - gets perpetuated, as articles are written saying "ETFs make me feel like I'm not part of their exclusive gang" or "ETFs are intimidating and they just seem to fight all the time", I think that people are beginning to believe it. They're beginning to see these feminist mean girls as exactly what's wrong with the movement and exactly why women don't want to get involved with gender equality activism.

I think a bit of perspective is needed here, so have put together some tips in an attempt to stop all these "ETFs don't want me in their crew" mutterings.

Try not to be put off by debate and disagreement

All philosophies and movements are the same. You'll find a range of opinions and from time to time there will be drama. People will argue. When I was a "baby feminist" and started reading feminist blogs, there was a lot of conflict surrounding the issues of porn and sex work - whether you were pro or anti. People were quitting and deleting their blogs; there was a lot of bad feeling. I thought I knew how I felt about the issue, but then I realised there was a lot I didn't know and a lot I didn't understand. I didn't try to wade into the arguments, but I didn't think "This feminism lark's not for me, thanks" either. I read the blog posts. I looked at sites that helped clear up my confusion and knowledge gaps. We are, after all, talking about the internet here - and the internet thrives on conflict. Different schools of thought within a movement are not just "infighting" or "a spat" - it's not a requirement that everyone comes to the same conclusions about every issue.

If you mess up, put things right

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people find this difficult. Particularly, it seems, high profile people. Everyone makes mistakes and often, we don't even realise what we've done. One of the main points to come out of the many feminist Twitterstorms of recent months is that a lot of people use words and phrases that are considered offensive by other groups of people. They get used because they're popular, they're slang, they're just what people say. And then someone calls you out on it and says "I'm not ok with that". When this happens, it's best to apologise, admit you messed up, and move on. Getting defensive and spending several days telling everyone that the racist/sexist/homophobic word you used was soooo not racist/sexist/homophobic and can't people just get off your case and stop trying to police your speech is not the best plan.

Be prepared to look at your heroes with a critical eye and accept that "big names" divide opinion

Let's say you're a big fan of a particular well-known woman. You think she's great and she's really influenced you. Maybe she's even helped ignite your passion for equality. Then you see some other women saying that they're not happy with something she's said or done. Actually, they think she's done something pretty bad. They think she's giving feminism a bad name. Fear not! This does not mean you are a bad feminist. You do not have to turn in your feminist card and slink off, shamed. It's possible to agree with some things a person has said, but realise that they've also said some pretty unfortunate things too. The key, again, is looking into what's going on and learning.

If you have a lot of privilege, listen to those who don't

Privilege. That old chestnut. If you're new to feminism you probably see it being discussed a lot. Where there is drama, there is usually an argument about privilege. This post has some great pointers for engaging with debates surrounding privilege - tips such as "learn to listen", "you aren't bad for having privilege", "it's ok to make mistakes" and "criticism is not hatred". Where a lot of people fall down is going on the defensive because someone has mentioned their opinion on something is coloured by privilege of some sort. It's easy for this to happen. You might think "This person appears to be hating on me for being white/middle-class/straight! I didn't CHOOSE to be this way! They obviously think I'm a bigot and I've done nothing wrong!"

Stop. Don't make it about you. Don't get huffy if they use words you aren't familiar with. Google is your friend. Part of the reason the stereotype of the ETF reacts with such anger to issues like this is because in general, feminists get a bit tired of people refusing to admit that someone might be better placed to talk about something than they are.

Remember why you're doing this

The answer is, of course, because you're passionate about gender equality and want to see it become a reality for everyone. You don't have to have the same areas of interest as all the feminists you know. You don't have to agree with them all or even get on with them all. You can align yourself with other movements and belief systems. You don't have to be out protesting every weekend and signing every petition and blogging about every outrage. Somewhere, you will find community and friendship and the things you feel most moved to act upon. And when you do, it will be awesome.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz, which sadly closed last week after four and a half years of great content and three and a half years of providing me with some wonderful opportunities.

In which I interview Courtney Kendrick

Courtney Kendrick is one of my favourite bloggers. I know this because I always look forward to her next post, even though since giving birth last year I've found it hard to keep up with reading the number of blogs I did in the past. This past year, Courtney Kendrick's blog has made compulsive reading.

Kendrick – “C. Jane” to her readers, has been blogging since 2005. I came across her in 2008, when she was keeping the blogosphere updated on her sister Stephanie Nielson, she who may just be the most famous Mormon Mommy Blogger of all. Stephanie, who blogs at NieNie Dialogues, had been involved in a plane crash that burned over 80 per cent of her body. She survived, but it took doctors three months to declare that she was “out of the woods”. Meanwhile, Kendrick was blogging on her behalf and caring for her children. When the children were reunited with their parents and Stephanie started writing again, Kendrick found herself with a much larger readership.

In recent months she has been chronicling the story of her life on the blog, a process that has involved dredging up painful memories as well as reminiscing. Among other things, she's dealt with body image issues, depression, her first marriage – to an abusive man, and her second, much happier marriage that came with its own challenge: infertility (the topic that was, initially, the main subject of her blog). She admits that it hasn't been easy.

“I have so much more resolution and peace now that I've examined it and written down and shared it. The process was painful and redemptive.”

One of the things that's most interested me about Kendrick's blog has been her complex relationship with gender equality and its outworking in her life. In 2010 she wrote a post entitled “I am not, it turns out”, explaining her rejection of feminism and why she did not believe in gender equality.

"Equality has never done any good for me," she wrote.

The post received almost 700 comments. While her more conservative readers cheered her on with exclamations of “Wonderful!” and “Thank you!”, what seemed much stronger was the backlash. Tensions ran high in the comment section, with some readers declaring they would stop visiting the blog altogether. In addition to commenting, I even waded in with a blog post on the problem of privileged women rejecting the idea of equality, inspired partly by Kendrick's sentiments, partly by the comments she received in support of anti-feminism.

Kendrick admits that anger about gender equality was something she'd struggled with throughout her life, “ever since I was a little girl”, and had reached the point where she felt like giving up the fight.

“When I wrote that post it was like a white flag, I decided I wasn't going to carry this anger around anymore. I was going to give up, resolve myself to a life where I no longer cared about equality between me and the men in my life. Giving up seemed like what the 'good girl' would do. That post, interestingly, was the beginning of my journey to feminism. Hitting publish was the zenith of my anger. ”

The comments Kendrick received in response to that post served as a “wake-up call”. Reading through them and seeing the intensity and frustration therein made her realise what “team” she really wanted to be on: Team Feminist. She started to meet with other Mormon feminists and study what scripture had to say about inequality, as well as praying about it. But it was, in the end, writing her life story that made her realise how things that had happened to her had given her a passion for equality.

“Telling my life story was like putting together a puzzle about my life. I was able to see how my body image issues connected with the abuse I received, which connected with my feelings on gender equality.”

“Feminists are my people. I am one of them,” she decided, finally “coming out” by way of a post last month. It was entitled “I am, it turns out”. She had come full circle.

“I feel 'home' when I say I am a feminist, it feels like me. It feels peaceful,” she wrote, detailing how she grew up believing that women were less than men, and that she could only achieve worth by getting married and having children. It was the journey from this mindset to working towards an egalitarian marriage of blurred roles and shared responsibility with her second husband, Chris, that saw some of the biggest changes in her feelings.

Kendrick says she is now trying to be more proactive about her passion for gender equality, but recognises the importance of self-care and choosing to step back.

“I am a sponge for those who feel hurt, belittled or betrayed. My greatest temptation in life is to pick up everyone's battles and fight them with them - sometimes for them. I learned that I have to put boundaries around my battles, and choose them wisely, considering the energy and time I have to devote.”

She adds that one of the things (in addition to her local community of Provo, Utah, and women in the LDS church) she will never give up fighting for is her children. After five years of struggling to conceive, she's now a mother of three, something she feels she is still adjusting to. What surprised her most of all about becoming a parent, she says, was the strength of the love she would feel for her children, the capacity of her heart. Everyone loves Kendrick's posts about her children precisely because this is so evident through her writing.

Dealing with comments as a high-profile blogger can be tiring. Dealing with comments as a high-profile blogger who identifies as somewhat progressive yet remains a member of a decidedly conservative faith seems exhausting. In 2011 I wrote a guest post for Kendrick's blog, on being a Christian feminist. Considering my post did not once mention the abortion debate, it was interesting how the comments soon ran into the hundreds, a pitched battle between pro-life and pro-choice. Other readers were keen to tell me how, as a young woman, as someone who was not (at that point) a mother, I had no idea what I was talking about when I said equality was a good thing. When Kendrick wrote about her decision to vote for Obama last November, you'd have been forgiven for thinking she'd confessed to some terrible crime, or perhaps devil-worship.

The way Kendrick's blog often serves as a forum for incredibly polarised views was never more evident than last month, when feminist activism found its way into LDS church meetings, and a storm ensued. A group of Mormon feminists formed a collective called “All Enlisted” and declared December 16^th “Wear Pants to Church Day” - a day for women to show solidarity, raise awareness of gender equality issues within LDS culture and increase the visibility of feminism in their communities. This provoked an astonishing amount of backlash from conservative church members and the members of All Enlisted found themselves on the receiving end of vitriolic attacks from men and women alike. One of the organisers received death threats.

Kendrick was one of the more well-known bloggers who came out in support of Wear Pants to Church Day, writing about it at length over several blog posts. Predictably, many of her readers weren't happy. Some comments were worded carefully and talked (in that way peculiar to the conservative religious blogger) of “disappointment”, some less so, calling her “pathetic”. So how does she feel the day changed things for LDS women?

“I went to lunch with some friends the other day and one guy said to me, 'Well, wearing pants to church achieved nothing'.”

“I said, 'What? Are you kidding me? It was the biggest moment in LDS feminist history! It was huge!' I had to realize that in my world, with my feminist friends, it achieved a lot. We are still talking about it, texting about it, emailing. It continues to inspire ideas and suggestions. And the extreme opposition, the heated comments, the death threats, I count as proof that there is work to do.”

Kendrick wrote about discussing the implications of Wear Pants to Church Day with her family, with mixed reactions. Her posts certainly have the potential to cause family conflict, so last year she took to emailing her relatives about the topics she was covering on the blog. She needed to explain her changing feelings on gender, church culture, and the family in the way she feels she communicates best.

“I gave up after a few months because I was too insecure and I often felt I was making things worse.”

Along with criticism of her feminist views, Kendrick receives a lot of pushback from commenters who take issue with the way she writes about her experiences. They have never, ever felt unequal to men, thank you very much, therefore her opinions on gender equality must be down to personal problems rather than LDS culture. In what's effectively a form of silencing, they accuse her of giving the church a bad name and being dishonest about the experiences of the LDS woman.

This almost certainly has a great deal to do with LDS blogging culture, typified by the oft-discussed stereotype of the Mormon mommy blogger, a blissfully happy mother-of-many who creates craft projects and hosts beautiful dinner parties, dresses in hip-yet-modest attire and lives an immaculately-styled life. Although she wants to make it clear that she only speaks for herself on this topic (there are, she says, “a bounty of Mormon Mommy Bloggers who would disagree”), she has a lot of feelings about it.

“When I portray myself as a traditional, creative, put-together, practically perfect woman I receive a healthy amount of feedback from readers of my faith thanking me for being a worthy representative of my church. It's like my people are accepting me into a place of respect and putting me up as a role model for their daughters or non-LDS friends.

“When I admit to challenging feelings, frustration, non traditional Mormon thoughts, or hint at ambiguity about church policy I receive a barrage of feedback to the opposite - I am a bad role model, I am damaging the reputation of my church, I am hurting the chances of our proselytizing.”

“Not all Mormon readers are this way, please know, I don't mean that at all,” she adds. “But the response is its own data.”

She admits that she doesn't always feel comfortable blogging about the more difficult aspects of life, but thinks it's time things changed.

“Mormon mommy bloggers should feel safe blogging from anywhere on the spectrum of humanity, but I am not sure they do.”

I wanted to ask Kendrick about her older sister, Page. Page appears occasionally on the blog – supporting her sister through the break-up of her first marriage, encouraging her on her journey towards feminism, spending hours at the hospital by Stephanie's bedside, mothering eight children. Commenters often mention that they wish Page had a blog. Kendrick admits she's one of the most important people in her life.

“Oh, my Page. She is a wonder. I honestly think Page couldn't blog because sitting down at a computer would contain her energy for too long. Really, she is one of the most complicated, intelligent, honest, earnest, intense, devoted and caring human beings I have ever met. She's a human whirlwind.”

When I ask if Kendrick has any final thoughts for me, she tells me how much she enjoys my tweets about public transport. It's weirdly representative of her personality, of the way she uses social media – from challenging to irreverent in an instant. Some people find it annoying, but I quite like it.

Anti-rape campaign fail (again)

Just recently a lot of people, including me, have been reiterating that rape culture exists and that it is a global issue. In addition to the current high profile rape cases making the headlines, it's been pointed out that the past year hasn't seen a let-up in victim-blaming.

Last winter it was South Wales police. I had wondered if we might see less of victim-blaming rape prevention campaigns following Rape Crisis Scotland's excellent example of how to aim advice towards potential perpetrators. Alas it appears that Warwickshire Police didn't get the memo (h/t to @MediocreDave for this spot today):

Wouldn't it be nice if things were that simple? I am, at this point, tired of explaining exactly why these campaigns constitute a major failure to effectively tackle rape and sexual assault. Year after year they appear - and it's disappointing. Coventry Rape Crisis will be contacting Warwickshire Police in order to discuss this. Let's hope they take the feedback on board.

2012: a recap and some links

I seem to have spent most of December cleaning up the by-products of a succession of infant colds and stomach upsets, and stopping a now mobile Sebastian from eating power cables and houseplants, hence the lack of blogging here. It's now just under two months until I return to work and despite the way that time at home with a baby seems to drag, I really don't know where 2012 has gone.

This year, I:

- Got more and more pregnant

- Facilitated part of a session on faith and feminism at Go Feminist!

- Got really sick of being pregnant and found my prayers answered as I gave birth four days before my due date, two hours after arriving at the hospital

- Celebrated five years of marriage and ten years since I started dating Luke

- Found summer at home with a newborn really isolating and miserable. It was like Groundhog Day with nappies, and I really hoped it would get better.

- Took a two-month-old to a gathering of women leaders where he was the much-loved Token Male, and a  three-month-old camping (and survived)

- Found that things did get better and that however it has made me feel, it's been really important for me and for Sebastian that I've spent this time with him (even though I'm definitely looking forward to working again)

- Read barely any books, and listened to barely any music

- Felt hopelessly out of touch with what's happening in the news and on blogs

- Helped form a the collective that founded and launched a new UK Christian Feminist Network (email cfnet@ymail.com to be added to our mailing list!)

- Went for precisely one run, but generally walked several miles every day

- Struggled with "doing" church with a baby

- Was really grateful for the support of online friends

- Got into Pinterest

This month:

Image from Feminist Mormon Housewives. 

Mormon feminists wore trousers to church on December 16th as a way of raising awareness of gender equality issues, identifying themselves as feminists to their communities, and generating discussion. For something intended as a fairly innocuous, peaceful action it really didn't go down too well with those who don't believe in gender equality, don't believe in rocking the boat, or basically think that women have nothing to complain about and need to put up and shut up. Pantsgate 2012, as it became known, fascinated me for a good few days as I read posts and discussions about it. I wrote about it for BitchBuzz, but here are some interesting posts from actual LDS women:

- From C. Jane, who I might add has had a great blogging year and is one of my favourites: The Worst Thing Is Pants; The Worst Thing Is Pants Part II; Proving Myself.

- Young Mormon Feminists: Panstgate 2012

- Zelophehad's Daughters: four posts, here; here; here and here.

- Feminist Mormon Housewives: pretty much any post from the week or so leading up to Wear Pants to Church Day.

Since November I've been a curator for Threads, a blog for 20-something Christian voices that won Best Blog at the Christian New Media Awards in October. Last month I expanded on my feelings about the pro/anti-choice debate and where Christians can fit into it. This month I've written about new motherhood and the changes it brought to my emotional and spiritual wellbeing.

I also wrote my annual Year in Feminist Rage round-up for BitchBuzz.

Next year I really want to return to blogging more regularly. Where this will fit in around working full time and parenting a baby I have no idea, but I'd really like it to it to happen somehow. I was chatting to a friend a couple of months ago and she said she was so impressed that I "hadn't missed a beat" with blogging despite having a baby. Believe me, this is not how I feel about it and there are times when I've felt quite miserable about the lack of posts and lack of time to write about things I really want to write about. Here's to a more productive 2013.

Young motherhood, feminism, and privilege

There's a good piece in the Telegraph this week. Written by Prymface, it discusses women who have children in their teens, the inequalities they have to battle, and how all this relates to today's feminism, which can focus overwhelmingly on taking a path through life that doesn't involve young motherhood. Prymface writes:

"As a society, we spend a lot of time helping those with the most options in their lives to have access to even more choices. When we talk about inequality, we need to look at where we are placing our values and whose values we are adopting."

This is an important point and of course, where privilege comes in. We see it in the focus on getting more women into boardrooms and in the way that media coverage of young feminists - and the activism of young feminists - is often limited to the experiences and concerns of middle-class university students and graduates. This isn't to say that these things aren't important, but it can all be pretty excluding for women who have different priorities and are facing different inequalities and judgement from people.

As a young(er) feminist issues surrounding children and motherhood weren't really on my radar either. I was one of the aforementioned middle-class university students and the big issues for me were objectification, (thin) body politics, rape and sexual assault, the media and advertising. Pretty typical, and it did take a while for my horizons to broaden. It's only been in recent years, as I started to consider becoming a mother, that the battles associated with what a speaker at a conference I once attended referred to, not entirely favourably, as "the mummy track" became apparent to me.

I couldn't find an up-to-date statistic on the percentage of women in the UK who do not have, and will never have children, either by choice or circumstance. One statistic from a few years back put it at around 20%, which indicates that therefore four out of five women do. This should tell us that feminist issues related to motherhood and children are pretty important. I hate Daily Mail-style handwringing that positions joyful motherhood as the ultimate goal of all women as much as the next person, but sometimes I think the inevitable ensuing chorus of "We're not just WOMBS, you know!" misses the point that these are issues that matter to women, whether you, personally, have chosen to have children or not.

I believe that the way we focus on abortion rights can often have the same effect - an emphasis on not having children, excluding those who have chosen otherwise and meaning that the issue of forced abortion as a form of abuse, and abortion as a way out taken by women who would have preferred not to have one but felt they had no choice (feminist issues both) get overlooked. I don't want to be misunderstood on that point - I say it as someone who is pro-choice and has written about it many times, but it ignores the full spectrum of issues.

Considering motherhood and children is hardly something new or revolutionary - free childcare was one of the seven demands of the British Women's Liberation Movement (and of course the cost of childcare remains one of the most important and limiting economic issues affecting women and their working lives). But in today's discussions of giving up careers to stay at home, or the "consequences of delaying motherhood", or  endless dissection of the choices exercised by relatively privileged mothers, the issues affecting young mothers - and by association working class mothers are left untouched.

I wonder, then, what needs to happen to encourage such issues to start appearing on the radar of many feminist activists today.

Bristol Christian Union and the "ban" on women speakers

Last night's big news came courtesy of Bristol University Christian Union, which has caused uproar by stating that women may not teach at some of their events and meetings.

The issue is not that the CU previously allowed women speakers at main meetings and has now put a stop to it - what's happened is that they have clarified their position that women cannot teach in certain situations, but have conceded that they may do so at other times, outside main meetings and weekends away. A move towards an egalitarian position had led to resignations from complementarians. An email to members stated:

"...we understand that this is a difficult issue for some and so decided that women would not teach on their own at our weekly Equip meetings, as the main speaker on our Bristol CU weekend away or as our main speaker for mission weeks, but a husband and wife can teach together in these. This means that women are able to teach."

Single women are therefore excluded altogether from teaching in main meetings, in a move that appears to legitimise the theologically suspect position that women can only exercise authority if they're under the "covering" of a man, often used to mean husbands and therefore prevent unmarried women from doing much at all.

The reaction has been as predictable as you'd expect in the wake of the debate on women bishops. It's no secret, however, that individual Christian Unions have always held the view that women cannot teach men - but this is the first time it has been reported in the mainstream media. This is not an issue exclusive to Bristol University, but one that has caused a lot of hurt to many people over many decades. When I was a student, my CU did not permit women to teach in main meetings, nor did it ever have a woman president. The same is true at several other universities.

Something I think is always a major issue here is immaturity, spiritual and otherwise. These societies are generally run by young people aged between 18 and 21. That's not to say I'm being superior about it - I was certainly no different when I was a student - but I think there is often a lack of awareness and overly zealous attitude that can cause problems in all student movements, not just religious ones. One thing I would hope is that the committee at Bristol are seeking support and wisdom from others rather than just trying to work this out among themselves, as emotions are no doubt running high.

What worries me about all this is that decisions are being made - not just at Bristol - that lead to confusion and disillusionment among young people, who in turn might feel as if there is no place for them or their gifts and possibly, that there is no place for them in the church.

Despite the presence of other Christian socieites, Christian Unions tend to do a pretty good job of positioning themselves as the Christian group on campus. Their activities, for better or worse, become representative of what Christianity is, and they become a main focal point for many young Christians trying to live out their faith at university. Over the years there have been numerous disputes involving Christian Unions and conflicts of opinion on gender, on spiritual gifts, on other aspects of doctrine. Often there has been an attitude that places them above other Christian groups in terms of who the "real" Christians are. All of this does a lot of damage to what Christian groups at universities aim to do and has the potential to make plenty of student Christians feel very unwelcome. You don't have to dig much to find the stories of Christians who felt very hurt and excluded by CUs during their time at university.

I've seen comments from some people that the decision at Bristol CU was made in the spirit of unity, a measure to prevent division. This is an explanation we see repeatedly in response to issues of gender in the church and is, in my opinion, really problematic. Jenny Baker summed up the problem with this stance in a Sophia Network blog post last year:

"My concern is that the ‘centre-ground’ for shared worship and mission will end up being complementarian by default, not a place that genuinely accepts the beliefs and practices of all sides of the conversation.

Let me explain. If you are a complementarian man or woman in an egalitarian space, then you might feel uncomfortable when you hear a woman preach or see her lead, but your practice – the way you are obedient to what you believe God is calling you to – does not need to change.

If you are an egalitarian man in a complementarian space, then again you may feel uncomfortable that women aren’t allowed to lead or preach, but your practice does not need to change. You can lead, preach, teach and innovate to your heart’s content. You’ll be listened to and welcomed round the table, wherever that table might be.

But if you are an egalitarian woman in a complementarian space, then your practice is restricted."

The so-called middle ground that's supposed to prevent disunity always ends up excluding women in an attempt to keep those who want to restrict their ministry happy. And funnily enough, this doesn't exactly instill in women a sense of unity and grace. It makes some of them feel as if they can't do what they feel called to do, what they are gifted to do. One committee member at Bristol CU has resigned because he felt women should not be allowed to teach in any capacity. That doesn't exactly say "unity" to me. As I've written about in the past, restrictive policies and teachings on women in ministry are having a genuinely damaging effect on young Christian women and the way their feel about their faith. Many who cannot reconcile these teachings with their gifts and passions end up leaving the church. Is there any wonder, when they just want serve in the way they're best equipped to do and end up getting called "Jezebels", with the importance of male headship at all times being underlined?

On the subject of grace, there have already been comments to the effect that more people displaying a gracious attitude is what this situation needs. It's predictable that yet again, as with numerous debates on women in the church, "grace" is being used as a silencing tactic. I agree that's what's unhelpful at this point is further speculation about the situation when Bristol CU have yet to make any clarification on what's happening. Neither is a general pile-on in the direction of UCCF useful. It may be the case that many CUs hold a restrictive position on women's roles (thanks to the "middle ground" principle detailed above), but they operate as individual groups united by a doctrinal basis that does not include a position on gender equality, even though it's well known that UCCF has historically tended towards a more conservative position on women.

Last night's news has served to highlight to a more general audience a major area of disquiet within student Christian movements, although it's worth pointing out that it has nothing to do with the Church of England or women bishops. As with the issue of women bishops I'm not sure the best course of action is to demand that a secular body gets involved in sorting it all out. I hope Bristol CU will move to correct any inaccurate reporting, rather than declining to comment on the situation at all, and I hope that it will prompt more reconsideration on the way CUs in general restrict women's ministry.

Further reading:

Danny Webster - Bristol CU and finding grace in hard places