Bettany Hughes, an expert in ancient history, was quoted recently in London’s Daily Telegraph as saying that Christianity “was originally a faith where the female of the species held sway. To oppose the ordination of women bishops in the Church of England is to deny the central role women played in the faith’s founding.” She added: “Who knows whether God is a girl, but mankind has turned to the female of the species for good ideas.”
It is not clear from the report whether Ms. Hughes was speaking as a Christian or as an expert in ancient history, but it doesn’t really matter, for she is wrong on both counts. In fact, though, her remarks can be connected loosely with two very old Christian heresies, Marcionism and Montanism, which seem to have undergone something of a revival among trendy religion pundits.
Bill Tighe has more theology and church history in his little finger than I have in my whole body. But I still venture to suggest that he needs to argue his case rather than refer rather vaguely to past -isms. Some of Bettany Hughes’s wilder claims have already been refuted – for example, when she said that a woman in an early Church painting was wearing the alb, symbol of priesthood, it was pointed out that all Christians baptised in that era were clothed in the alb, the sign of baptism, and that in some Oriental churches this is still the case. I think that Dr Tighe needs to give more detail and to argue his case, pro bono Ecclesiae.
It was not my purpose in that little piece to “argue a case” against WO; that has been done over and over again. My intention was, rather, to connect fantasists like Bettany Hughes with ancient fantasists whom her cast of mind so faithfully emulates. In fact, when I wrote the piece I knew nothing whatsoever about Ms. Hughes and about how well-founded the description of her as “an expert in ancient history” actually was. Subsequently, an English clergyman-friend of mine replied to me as follows:
“I fear (Dr Tighe) is quite unnecessarily charitable to Bettany Hughes. She is no successor to ancient heretics (Marcion or Montanus), but a disciple of the Dan Brown school of theology. The title of her first book ‘Helen of Troy: Goddess, Princess, Whore’, in which she tells us more about Helen than Homer ever dreamed of, gives the game away. The Conspiracy, for Hughes, is the Great Misogynist Plot of immemorial origin which has all but eradicated evidence of the crucial role of women in the development of all religions, from the moment when Zeus the Upstart stole the authority of Gaia his grandmother. Basically it has been downhill since then, with Christianity taking a leading role  in suppressing the ‘female divine’.  She even revels in the cruelty and bloodthirstiness of these female deities.Â
Hughes is an Anglican (though not unexpectedly she thinks her local Vicar is a bit of a wimp). What a sub-feminist sentimentalist like Rowan Williams (he opined that women bishops would ‘humanise’ the episcopate, you will remember!) makes of this blood and guts view of female spirituality is anybody’s guess.”
Interesting article. I was reading a Church history today and thinking just the same thing! There is no such thing as a “new” heresy. And, when ANYONE states that the Lord is doing a “new thing” I know it’s either schismatic or heretical, or both.
Of course Jesus was doing remarkable and offensive new things when He died on the cross, rose from the dead, consorted with sinners, associated with women, argued that the Sabbath was made for man, touched a leper, ripped open the Holy of Holies, said we were to love our enemies, and indicated that those who believed would do even greater works than these.
Re arguing his case, in fairness to Prof Tighe his article is almost exactly 800 words long, and I suspect that was the limit the journal gave him. No doubt he and others will continue to make the points about Ms Hughes’ bleatings.
“Of course Jesus was doing remarkable and offensive new things” – definitely. And the most new and offensive thing he did was to suffer death on the cross, for your sin and mine (and the sin of Ms Hughes and Prof. Tighe, I might add).
Wouldn’t you agree that was his mightiest work? Our sin is so black, so vile, that only the voluntary death of an innocent life could take away its guilt. How new, remarkable and (to those who don’t want to admit their need of atonement) offensive was that?!
Yes, I agree that Jesus’ life, death on the cross, and resurrection have changed the world in a way that we are still trying to understand. Each Sunday we preach a gospel that is life-changing. This gospel draws us forward in new directions. It is very stimulating and should lead to joy and peace.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I am in Canada. The seafood is great, but there is no sweet tea.
It does seem uncharitable to characterize a point of view that you disagree with as “bleatings.”
RE: “It does seem uncharitable to characterize a point of view that you disagree with as “bleatings.â€
Not certain why — it’s a perfectly good word meant to delineate how silly one thinks an idea and the rhetoric surrounding that idea is. How else, in one word, might one delineate that?
It is important because, among Christians, the tone of the conversation is as important as the intellectual content. If we are called to love our enemies, we should at least be respectful to those who are in our family
#10, why is Ms Hughes “in our family”?
I am not saying she necessarily is not, at this point, but just trying to follow your reasoning. It seems you are saying that anyone who calls themselves a Christian, regardless of their beliefs or actions, is now part of the family as myself. Why would that be so?
Also, why is referring to someone’s statement as “bleatings” being disrespectful? Especially if the statement is, objectively speaking, no more than that? Are you saying that “Christians” never be wrong?
Also, you wrote at #7, “Yes, I agree that Jesus’ life, death on the cross, and resurrection have changed the world in a way that we are still trying to understand.”
That actually is not what I wrote, so I don’t think you do agree with me!
The family of Christ is not a human construct, but a divine construct instituted by Jesus Christ. We are not called to make judgments about the inclusion of others in regard to the state of their salvific relationship to the Lord–especially those we know only through brief exchanges of ideas on the internet.
To equate a person’s ideas with bleatings is to imply that the ideas are sub-human noises, which is to denigrate a person for whom Christ gave His life.
I’m not sure what the implication of #12 is. My intended point was that the work of Christ in His life, death and resurrection is the turning point of history and that we have yet to live out the implications of this event.
[blockquote] “We are not called to make judgments about the inclusion of others in regard to the state of their salvific relationship to the Lord—especially those we know only through brief exchanges of ideas on the internet.” [/blockquote]
Then stop making judgments. You are the one who started by telling us that you know where Brittany Hughes stands with God.
[blockquote] “To equate a person’s ideas with bleatings is to imply that the ideas are sub-human noises, which is to denigrate a person for whom Christ gave His life.” [/blockquote]
Don’t you think you are being just a wee bit precious? If you find the word “bleating” offensive, then I do wonder what you are doing even reading the internet, let alone posting on it.
Also, since Christ died for everyone (no exceptions), I do not intend to make distinctions about how I address someone on that basis.
[blockquote] “I’m not sure what the implication of #12 is.” [/blockquote]
The implication is that you said (at #7) that you agreed with me in #6. I pointed out that your #7 doesn’t in fact agree with my #6; its talking about something else.
My point in #6 was that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sin. He offered his own innocent life as the only price which could satisfy God’s righteous demand that we die for our sin. Now, you may well agree with that, which I am not denying, but I am just saying that your response in #7 is something entirely different to my #6. That’s all.
An encouragement to treat an individual with charity has nothing to do with a judgement about the individual’s spiritual state.
Is the standard for Christian behavior different if it occurs in anonymity on the Internet?
Is the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ unrelated to His death?
Also, the only reason I’m posting is that I’m on vacation–so there’s more time for relaxing reading and response.
RE: “It is important because . . . ”
I didn’t ask why your assertion was “important.” I asked how in one word one might delineate how silly one thinks an idea and the rhetoric surrounding that idea is.
The obvious answer is that you’d prefer that people *not* delineate in one word how silly one thinks an idea and the rhetoric surrounding that idea is.
I can understand why, in regards to *this* position, you wouldn’t want that, given your stated positions from the past.
RE: “We are not called to make judgments about the inclusion of others in regard to the state of their salvific relationship to the Lord . . . ”
I agree — *you’re* the one whose assumed that the bleating writer is in the family of Christ.
All we can do, with regards to judgements, is to note when people who purport to believe the Gospel clearly *do not* by their own written words actually believe the Gospel. We can’t assume they’ve experienced or not experienced any kind of saving relationship with Christ or are regenerate. We can only go by their words and assess whether those words match up with the Gospel or not.
RE: “To equate a person’s ideas with bleatings is to imply that the ideas are sub-human noises . . . ”
No it doesn’t. It implies that the person’s ideas and the rhetoric she uses to justify those ideas are silly. That’s what it implies, in a single word, and you simply don’t like someone pointing out her idea’s silliness.
I’m rather thrilled the one word was used, and think it a marvelous description of her idea’s and rhetoric’s silliness.
Thank you, Sarah. I understand your position better.