White painted brick wall with a black barred gate on the right hand side, with light streaming through. Text over the top: About doctrinal statements that I just can’t event with (and those that I can) Light in Grey Places

About doctrinal statements that I just can’t even with (and those that I can)

Sometimes it seems a statement of faith
Is a state of unfaith,
A badly built gate
To shut down debate.

Christine Woolgar

Maybe you’ve had that sinking feeling too. Someone you respected and wanted to work with signs up to a ‘statement of faith’ that feels like anything but.

For me, it happened most recently when a pastor I knew put his name, along with thousands of other signatories, in an open letter to the UK government. Amongst a great many other things, that letter said marriage protects from abuse. I came away wanting never to work with any of its signatories.

Oh, and it made me want to weep too.

Continue reading About doctrinal statements that I just can’t even with (and those that I can)

Is sex without consent still sex?

Your answer will depend on what you think sex actually is. And you’d be surprised how many different definitions are out there.

Trying to pin down the difference between “sex” and a mere “sexual act” is not easy. Like Emily Nagoski, I think it’s too narrow to think sex is solely about penetrative intercourse. But as for what then “counts” as sex — actually I don’t know.

Leaving aside the physical angle, we face a more fundamental question when it comes to consent. Is consent an inherent part of the act of sex? Does sex have to have consent before you can call it sex?

Continue reading Is sex without consent still sex?
Close up of the hands of two people (one male, one female) sitting opposite each other at a desk. The woman holds a mug, the man holds an open Bible as if flicking through it. Text over the top: Gregoire, Grudem and grounds for divorce: why didn't Jesus mention abuse?

Gregoire, Grudem and grounds for divorce: why didn’t Jesus mention abuse?

For people who suffer marital abuse, divorce is a significant and important way for them to escape harm (or at least reduce it) and rebuild their lives.

Despite this, the church has long held that divorce is moral only when a spouse has committed adultery or desertion. Remarriage after divorce has also been widely prohibited.[1] These teachings have been largely based on the gospel passages where Jesus discusses divorce, as well as one of Paul’s letters.

Views have certainly diversified amongst Christians, but even today, I read statements like ‘the marriage bond cannot be dissolved.’ Or that while divorce is ‘sometimes necessary due to abuse, it is neither required nor encouraged.’ (Which seems a bit contradictory.) Or, ‘in pastoral counseling, restoration of marriage must always be first [sic] goal.’

My personal view would largely align with Sheila Gregoire (emphasis mine):

I’m having to delete a lot of comments on the blog today from people saying that divorce is never a biblical option. I find that sad. I know God hates divorce–but He hates people being wounded and abused and betrayed, too. And Jesus gave us some reasons for divorce. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am very pro-marriage and anti-divorce, but more importantly I’m pro-truth and pro-healing.

In that post, which she wrote in 2015, Sheila observed that the Bible appears to be silent about whether abuse is a reason for divorce—because it’s not explicitly mentioned in Jesus’s teachings or 1 Corinthians 7:12–15. However, she argued that we can still deduce that spousal abuse is a legitimate reason, given what the rest of the Bible reveals about God. 

Fast-forward to March 2020, Sheila wrote another post commenting on conservative theological heavyweight Wayne Grudem. In late 2019, Grudem made a public u-turn, saying that the 1 Corinthians 7 verses were applicable to more than just adultery and desertion. 

Grudem now believes that the biblical text supports the idea that abuse, even in its non-physical forms, is legitimate grounds for divorce. He bases his argument on an analysis of how other ancient Greek sources used the phrase ‘in such cases’. He found that the phrase ‘referred to more kinds of situations than the original example that was being discussed.’

Then we get to today and why I’m writing this post. 

Continue reading Gregoire, Grudem and grounds for divorce: why didn’t Jesus mention abuse?
Picture of someone's hands holding a copy of Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs. Text over the top: Why Love & Respect's CHAIRS acronym isn't about genuine respect

Why Love & Respect’s CHAIRS acronym isn’t about genuine respect

So, I have a theory about this whole idea that women want love, but men want respect. 

In short: the people who promote this notion use the word ‘respect’ to mean something different to what I think it means. 

If you’re new to this whole ‘love vs respect’ controversy, it’s easy to find in Christian circles, thanks to a popular marriage book by Emerson Eggerichs. The title? Love and Respect

Continue reading Why Love & Respect’s CHAIRS acronym isn’t about genuine respect

Does the Bible speak against marital rape? Yes… I think it’s hidden in Jesus’s teachings on divorce.

Content note: this post discusses purity culture, divorce and marital rape.

The UK only formally recognised marital rape as a criminal offence in 2003. That is, within my adult lifetime. 

It took that long partly because of something the Chief Justice said centuries earlier. It was published in 1736: 

“But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.”

Sir Matthew Hale

In 1991, the House of Lords deemed this statement as “based on a fiction.”

Their ruling was part of a landmark case where a husband appealed his guilty verdict of attempted rape. The couple had already separated when he came to where she was living, physically assaulted her and attempted to rape her. He said it was not possible in law for him to rape his wife. The lords disagreed and upheld the guilty verdict.

Continue reading Does the Bible speak against marital rape? Yes… I think it’s hidden in Jesus’s teachings on divorce.

Everything wrong with the Nashville Statement: Article 01: the meaning of marriage

You remember the Nashville Statement, right? No? OK… 

Imagine Martin Luther in 1517 when he nailed his 95 theses to the castle church door in Wittenberg, inviting a public debate on the church’s flagrant injustices. 

The Nashville Statement was nothing like that. 

Though it was published in a year ending with the number 17. 

Fourteen articles, from conservative evangelical Christian leaders (some of which were prominent Trump supporters), the Nashville Statement was an overtly sexist, homophobic and transphobic exercise in ideological line-drawing, dressed in theological language. 

CONTENT WARNING: This post reproduces some of its sexist, homophobic and transphobic language and arguments. 

Continue reading Everything wrong with the Nashville Statement: Article 01: the meaning of marriage
Picture of Hebrew to English dictionary open on the word sakab meaning to lie down, rest, or sleep with. Text over the top: What was the Hebrew word when David had sex with Bathsheba and does it imply anything about her consent?

What was the Hebrew word when David committed adultery and does it imply anything about Bathsheba’s consent?

TL;DR two different Hebrew phrases are used and no, neither one implies that Bathsheba consented. 

CONTENT WARNING this post discusses accounts of rape in the Bible. 

Continue reading What was the Hebrew word when David committed adultery and does it imply anything about Bathsheba’s consent?
Woman bearing a rucksack standing on crest of a hill overlooking a misty sea with hills in the distance, over the top are the words: Wait, what if Rizpah's one-woman protest against King David shaped the laws of Deuteronomy?

Wait, what if Rizpah’s protest against King David shaped the laws of Deuteronomy?

I was recently listening to a compelling sermon by Austin Channing Brown, that was all about Rizpah. If that name doesn’t ring a bell, she’s a woman in the Old Testament who undertook a months-long one-woman silent protest. Her actions eventually persuaded King David to bring an end to something which he had commanded. (If you want to hear the sermon, it’s on episode 2 of the Evolving Faith Podcast.)

Brown’s sermon focussed on speaking truth to power and she applied Rizpah’s story to racial justice today. But as I sat and thought through Rizpah’s actions, I realised they may have been much more far-reaching, even in her own time, than just changing David’s actions.

And while I’m yet to visit the library and validate my suspicions here, I’m now willing to bet that Rizpah’s protest changed the law.

Twice.

Allow me to explain.

And CONTENT WARNING this gets a bit gory. Continue reading Wait, what if Rizpah’s protest against King David shaped the laws of Deuteronomy?

Wooden slats with two red felt hearts pegged onto a string in the top right corning. Text over the top: Actually, sometimes it's right to say 'love your neighbour' more often than 'love God' (and it's always right to remember context) workthegreymatter.com

Actually, sometimes it’s right to say ‘love your neighbour’ more often than ‘love God’

OK, so I know that deconstructing bad tweets on Christian Twitter is often a soul-destroying sport, but hey – this one overlapped with the subject matter of a book I’ve just started reading, so…

The tweet was this:

“The most pervasive — and pernicious — false teaching of our day is that “love your neighbor” is the greatest commandment in the law.”

It was written by a Southern Baptist pastor in the US who later doubled-down with a looooonnnng thread about the law and what Jesus meant when he talked about the two greatest commandments. (For those less familiar: these two commandments are (1) to love God and (2) to love your neighbour.)

If you’re wondering why I’ve given no direct links, that’s because a couple of weeks later he followed up with another tweet (which I didn’t see but was screencapped) about the Old Testament law and slavery. When that thread blew up he deleted his entire timeline. He then said people should be able to ask questions and acknowledged that his thread had caused hurt, but did little more.

Sigh.

I’m not interested trolling a particular person, but I do care deeply about how Christians understand the Old Testament and apply it in their everyday lives. Because that application – for good or for bad – can have far-reaching consequences.

OK, let’s talk about this.

Continue reading Actually, sometimes it’s right to say ‘love your neighbour’ more often than ‘love God’
Spotlight shining into the darkness, with the words: Cancel culture: how it works, what it does, + four useful examples to have at your fingertips (Because if it's not all bad, we need to explain why) workthegreymatter.com

Cancel culture: how it works, what it does, plus four useful examples to have at your fingertips

I’ve seen a number of stories recently about individuals and organisations standing up for what they believe is right.

Some left me with fuzzy warm feelings. Others not so much.

In their midst is much talk of “cancel culture,” though most uses have negative connotations of “intolerance”, “outrage culture” and “mob mentality.” And it makes me ask: when does cancel culture become bullying? Because withdrawing support for public figures isn’t always a bad thing.

To wrap our heads around this, I think there are a few things we need to appreciate. Continue reading Cancel culture: how it works, what it does, plus four useful examples to have at your fingertips

Monochrome picture of small wooden cross on white background with the words: I cannot believe the church's responsibility is so small, that we get to shrug and try better next time. On lament and overcoming helplessness. workthegreymatter.com

I cannot believe the church’s responsibility is so small that we get to shrug and try better next time.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen some pretty horrific things passing through my social media feed the last few weeks. And I am not OK.

I’m not going to re-share the relevant images or specifics, but I want to pause for a moment and talk about what to make these stories. Because their haunting horror isn’t easing and I need to find a way to get through my grief and sense of helplessness.

Content warning: Non-specific mentions of martyrdom, suffering and ‘thoughts and prayers’.

Continue reading I cannot believe the church’s responsibility is so small that we get to shrug and try better next time.

Vertical extract of the Hebrew text of the book of Ezekiel chapter 18, in a wider dark red background. Over the background are the words: White Christians: don't quote Ezekiel to duck out of past and present racism. workthegreymatter.com

White Christians: don’t quote Ezekiel to duck responsibility for past and present racism

So, I saw someone asking why white Christians were repenting of the sins their ancestors committed against people of colour.

And I want to write about this.

Caveats: I’m mainly going to talk to how I understand the Old Testament, because the Old Testament was being quoted and it’s something I’m familiar with as a Christian. But just because I’m taking this angle, that doesn’t mean it’s the most relevant or comprehensive angle; I just want to demonstrate how this particular argument doesn’t stack up.

In short, the argument was this: if we’re all responsible for what we do ourselves, not what other people do, then white people shouldn’t have to apologise for the racism of other white people. See, for example, the principle of individual responsibility promoted in Ezekiel 18:19-20.

However, I think this fails to appreciate the context of Ezekiel and the attitudes the book was responding to.

So let’s dive in.

Content warning, this gets political and I mention an Old Testament clobber passage. Also, I don’t have space here to get into why bad things happen and people suffer; Ezekiel clearly had a concept of divine retribution and I’m going to roll with that worldview for now, because it was also implicit in the Tweet I read. Continue reading White Christians: don’t quote Ezekiel to duck responsibility for past and present racism

Picture of a bride's right hand against the skirt of her white wedding dress, wearing a silver bracelet with a heart locket attached. Over the picture are the words: I'm happily married, but I don't wear my wedding ring. And I have all kinds of feels. workthegreymatter.com

I’m happily married, but I don’t wear my wedding ring. (And I have all kinds of feels.)

I just checked the photos from our 10th anniversary celebration last summer (that is, in 2019) and it turns out I was still wearing them then. But somewhere in the months since, I zipped my wedding and engagement rings into a pocket amongst my toiletries — and I haven’t worn them since.

As for what prompted this change in habit, I guess I just gave up waiting for my husband to wear his wedding ring.

You see, a few years ago the knuckles in his left hand flared up and it became painful for him to wear it. He’d had the issue in his right hand and after a few years that hand recovered. But with his left hand, the problem seemed to be worse and lasting longer. So, not through any lack of love for me or from me, he stopped wearing it.

And I guess I just got to the point where I thought, “Maybe he’ll never wear it again.” At which point, me wearing mine acquired an odd mixture of meanings. Continue reading I’m happily married, but I don’t wear my wedding ring. (And I have all kinds of feels.)

Picture inside a garden with paving stones and flowers and plants arranged alongside a small wooden fence, with the words on top: Currency for closure? On vulnerability and storycraft in a metoo world workthegreymatter.com

Currency for closure? On vulnerability and storycraft in a #metoo world

I want to talk about something that’s been on my mind, particularly since the #metoo hashtag started trending back in 2017.

The sharing of stories is undoubtedly one of the most important things in breaking open and exposing systemic abuse. Grooming frequently brings survivors to believe that they’re the only one it’s happened to, or that what happened was their fault. When stories are shared, that lie is shown for what it is.

And yet, telling one’s story doesn’t guarantee that a person will be heard and supported in the way that they need; nor does it guarantee that justice will happen as a result of them speaking up. Meanwhile, testifying can turn a witness into a harassment target, as happened with Christine Blasey Ford when she spoke about Brett Kavanaugh.

So we have this dilemma: sharing our stories can be powerful and important, yet it can also come with huge risk, especially when trying to shine a light on systemic abuse.

I have no doubt that survivors are aware of this risk. For many, it’s why they don’t disclose or only do so after a long delay. And yet, what does a survivor do when they witness the great outpouring of story-sharing that took place in 2017? What do they make of the high profiles of women like Christine Blasey Ford, Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann? Is it now possible to hope to be believed if a survivor does share their story?

I grant you, the odds of being believed are probably far better than they’ve ever been historically; but high profile cases, even those considered to be successes, don’t guarantee comfort or closure for any survivor in the event that they share their story. Now some survivors have already written about why they didn’t share their metoo stories, but it still troubles me that survivors might underestimate the risk and the cost of disclosure.  Continue reading Currency for closure? On vulnerability and storycraft in a #metoo world

White broken eggshells on a black background with the words: On Dobson, domestic violence, and DARVO dynamics - Busting the myth that wives 'bait' their husbands to violence. A post about James Dobson's 'Love Must Be Tough'. workthegreymatter.com

On Dobson, domestic violence and DARVO dynamics

CONTENT NOTE: This post discusses the dynamics of domestic abuse and victim-blaming.

A few years ago I was volunteering for a charity that helped women facing domestic abuse. I remember my team leader explaining how survivors sometimes defend themselves with violence – but that this creates its own problems.

She wasn’t finding fault with survivors; she was explaining how if a survivor acts aggressively towards her abuser (or attempts to), then that one incident may be held over her as leverage, regardless of how serious the woman’s actions actually were. Such decontextualisation and blaming is, of course, an abuse tactic, aiming to reverse the victim and perpetrator in the eyes of onlookers (e.g. police). It’s also an example of what the acronym ‘DARVO’ is getting at: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

I was reminded of this conversation more recently as I read about an instance of spousal domestic violence that seemed to fit this pattern. It was in James Dobson’s 1983 book Love Must Be Tough.

And I have many, many issues with how he used this example. Continue reading On Dobson, domestic violence and DARVO dynamics