Showing posts with label Gavin Ashenden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gavin Ashenden. Show all posts

Sunday, 4 March 2018

Gavin Ashenden and Sharia Law


















Gavin Ashenden and Sharia Law

According to his latest piece in the JEP, Gavin Ashenden writes that:

“Not many people know what Sharia law entails or commands in practice. Here are some of its requirements:”

“Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands, criticizing or denying any part of the Koran is punishable by death, as is criticizing Mohammed, or leaving Islam, or being found guilty of adultery if you are a woman. Homosexuality is punished by death. Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing a hijab.”

“A man can marry a girl and consummate a marriage from aged 9 and above. Girls' should be genitally cut; a man can beat his wife for insubordination; a man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman's testimony in court carries ½ the weight of a man's; meat to eat must come from animals that have had their throats cut un-stunned (halal).”

Apart from having an unhealthy obsession with sexuality and gender issues, Gavin’s other main obsession is Islam. But to state Sharia Law in such terms is like saying the Christianity believes that the world was created in seven days, and there was a great flood which wiped out all life on earth apart from Noah and those he rescued in his ark.

In other words, what he has done is to paint Sharia law by its most extreme manifestation, some of which are almost certainly cultural rather than part of Islam or Sharia, such as female circumcision.

As Asifa Quraishi-Landes notes:

“In the same way that the Ku Klux Klan's tactics are a poor representation of Christian practice (despite its claims to be a Christian organization), the Islamic State is the worst place to look to understand what Sharia says about punishment and the treatment of innocents and prisoners.”

In Bill Warner’s book, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, he notes that regarding Female genital mutilation:

“In Egypt, about 91 percent of women have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). Presently, FGM has been officially banned there since 2008]. In 2015 an Egyptian doctor was convicted of manslaughter after a 13-year-old girl died after an FGM procedure”

Now it is true that some of the punishments in Sharia are harsh, but they must be viewed as a whole, so that even if we criticise them, we can understand why they are not implemented.

As Omar Sacirbey, writing for Huffington Post, notes, “many of these punishments have been taken out of context, abrogated, or require a near-impossible level of evidence to be carried out.” And he cites as examples, these cases:

“For someone to be convicted of adultery, for example, there must be four witnesses to the act, which is rare. The Quran also prescribes amputating the hands of thieves, but (and this is often forgotten or unmentioned) not if the thief has repented.”

Sharia is an Arabic word that means a path to be followed, and it also should not be forgotten that much of what is prescribed by Sharia Law for Muslims is religious in nature, and not imposed on outsiders to the faith. For example, it encompasses the requirement to praying five times daily, and to abstain from pork and alcohol, to live a righteous life, and to show compassion to those in need.

The scholar Qasim Rashid, notes that taking any religious text out of its historical and spiritual context will not result in what he terms an “honest legal interpretation.”

In the Old Testament, for example, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 calls for stoning disobedient children.

CFR’s Steven A. Cook notes that: “"There are so many varying interpretations of what Sharia actually means that in some places, it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily”.

So for a start before we begin looking at Sharia law, it is worth looking at its variations. Toni Johnson and Mohammed Aly Sergie note that:

“The Hanbali school, Islam’s most orthodox, which spawned the Wahhabi and Salafi branches, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban. The Hanafi school, known for being the most liberal and the most focused on reason and analogy, is dominant among Sunnis in Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The Maliki school is dominant in North Africa and the Shafi’i school in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Yemen. Shia Muslims follow the Ja’fari school, most notably in Shia-dominant Iran.”

They also note that while extreme forms of punishment do technically belong to Sharia law, jurisprudence in practice often works out differently.

“Punishments for had offenses—flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution—get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. ‘In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments,’ says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries, but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.”

By not being used, laws can fall into disuse, and this can happen to laws without them ever being taken off the statute books. The custom laws against sorcery, for instance, in Jersey law, have never been repealed, but when I spoke to a senior law officer about it, he informed me that they would be treated as falling into disuse and would never be implemented. Clearly something similar can happen and has happened with Sharia law.

In fact, many cases of Sharia law which do not make the headlines come from small scale domestic issues:

“Many majority Muslim countries have a dual system in which the government is secular but Muslims can choose to bring familial and financial disputes to Sharia courts. The exact jurisdiction of these courts varies from country to country, but usually includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship.”

The reason for this is that Sharia law can judge fairly on domestic disputes, especially when marriages break down, in a way that expensive Western style adversarial conflict cannot. It also says that a woman's property, held exclusively in her name, cannot be appropriated by her husband, brother or father. This is in marked contrast to many Western systems of law where separate assets are often “considered joint assets after marriage”.

Aaron Hughes also shows how cultural factors can cause regional variations. In “Why is Islam so different in different countries?”, he comments that Islam “ is a rich and variegated religion. And this variation must be taken into account when dealing with it. Most importantly, the variation cannot be papered over with simplistic slogans or stereotypes. That women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia but are in places like Malaysia tells you something about this variation.”

Asifa Quraishi-Landes notes that:

“[Sharia] can also be interpreted as pro-choice, with certain scholars positing that although abortion is forbidden, first-trimester abortions are not punishable.”

The one area which Gavin does not even mention, which is perhaps significant in how the countries apply Sharia law, is the case of apostasy which is punishable by death . 13 countries have these laws in place on their statue books. Louis DorĂ©, writing in “The Independent” notes that:

“Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen are the relevant countries. All of these countries, except Pakistan, allow for capital punishment against apostasy, while Pakistan imposes the death penalty for blasphemy - including a disbelief in God. “

But even here, a note of caution must be sounded.










The Library of Congress guide to “Laws Criminalizing Apostasy” notes that:

“The countries surveyed that expressly make apostasy a capital offense are Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. However, only a small number of cases showing the application of these capital punishment laws were identified. Only two cases were identified that resulted in conviction for religious conversion—one in Iran in 1994 and another in Sudan in 2014. “

“The country surveys also indicate that apostasy laws are frequently used to charge persons for acts other than conversion. For example, in Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen, individuals were charged with apostasy for their writings or comments made on social media. Of the countries researched, it appears that Iran is the only one that has executed a person convicted of apostasy to date.”

Nevertheless, the instances where laws are applied often allow them only to be abrogated on apostasy if the person repents and returns to Islam. According to Abdul Rashied Omar, the majority of modern Islamic jurists continue to regard apostasy as a crime deserving the death penalty

The death penalty for apostasy relies at the core of it on an authentically verified Hadith from Prophet Muhammad who said, "Whoever changes his religion kill him."

But as Ibrahim B. Sye of the Islamic Research Foundation International points out:

“The Hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent.”

Clearly where apostasy rulings apply, they are as much a part of the cultural and historical traditions of a country (or its ruling elite) than a simplistic rendering would suggest. For example, in 2015, twenty-five Muslim men, including three teenagers, are facing the death penalty in Sudan after being charged with apostasy for following the wrong version of Islam. They belonged to the minority Hausa ethnicity, many of whom follow a different interpretation of Islam to the one sanctioned by Omar al-Bashir’s government.

The same occurrence can be seen in the swift action taken when ISIS murdered Muslims who did not follow their own severe brand of Sunni Islam. This is not just apostasy from within Islam, but apostasy from within Islam from different long standing diversions in tribal traditions.

So there is cause for concern about laws concerning the death penalty for apostasy, but we should understand the right reasons behind those concerns on the importance of freedom of belief rather than just simplistically blaming Sharia law.

References https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html
https://www.cspii.org/en/blog/sharia-law-in-europe
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islam-governing-under-sharia
https://theconversation.com/why-is-islam-so-different-in-different-countries-51804
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php
https://www.indy100.com/article/the-countries-where-apostasy-is-punishable-by-death--Z110j2Uwxb
https://islamqa.info/en/20327
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/is_killing_an_apostate_in_the_is.htm

Sunday, 7 February 2016

Everyone Matters











Jersey has 13 Parishes!

That’s what I though on reading this, printed very recently on an online biography:

“The Rev’d Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden, is at presently a part time parish priest, looking after a small parish on the Island of Jersey, part of the Channel Islands, just off the coast of Normandy France, where he took semi retirement in order to be able to write a little more.”

As far as I know Vicar of Gouray is not the same as Rector of St Martin or Grouville, and Gouray is a district church rather than a Parish Church. But perhaps that doesn't look so good on a CV!

Gavin regards the practice of homosexuality as sinful, and sees this as “always there in the Bible and in the ‘lived experience’ of Tradition “ On a blog posting which has since been removed, he said this:

“‘God spoke to me’ about the practice of homosexuality; (though His views were always there in the Bible and In the ‘lived experience’ of Tradition if I had not come at them both skewed to provide a different answer;)- so I went to my friends, and told them that while still being deeply fond of them, I was going to take a different view of the practice of homosexuality.”

He regards more liberal wing of the Anglican church as misguided and ensconced in “vapid self indulgent spirituality”. According to him, liberal Anglicanism is “defined by a decadent liberalism – a spirituality that celebrates the nice without being able to deliver it; a spirituality that surrenders to secular narcissistic hedonism its the authority to make ethical analyses”

So I want to tell you a true story about someone I know about how these attitudes feed through to pastoral care. This is recounted in “Journey Round Jersey’s Parishes”, and the individual concern recently died, so I think it can be told to a wider audience. You can find his full name in that book when he tells his story to Robin Pitman, but here, I shall refer to him just as “RF”.

You can decide for yourself where it is the more self-righteous churches who either ostracise or (almost as bad) marginalise gay people are making the better ethical analysis, or those who accept and include and welcome those people.

This happened in Jersey, and not so very long ago.

He was married, but discovered that he was gay, and his marriage deteriorated, and he left the family home. Here is what he told Robin Pitman:

RF makes no secret of the fact that he is gay, but I knew that he had been married and with children. He spoke openly and poignantly to me about this: `I was married in 1959 and in subsequent years we adopted a son and a daughter and then had a daughter of our own. Within our marriage there were problems, and one day my wife told me that she was never going to have sexual intercourse with me again. From that day our marriage deteriorated and I then left the family home.

“I recognised homosexual tendencies in myself, but during my marriage there were no one night stands or anything of that nature. I now lived alone, moving from one flat to another. Eventually I met my current partner, David, and we have been together now for seventeen years.'”

RF described his faith as follows: “It has been as solid as possible, despite some of my distressing encounters with various church authorities. It is my faith that has kept me going. I needed it and it has seen me through. It has kept me on the straight and narrow. I believe in the creed that we say each week and I pray at night. Truly I cannot not go to church on a Sunday.”

“As a young single man RF was a very active member of the congregation at St Peter. After his marriage came to an end he was a popular churchwarden at another of the Island's churches where he assisted at Communion, took Communion to the sick and read the lessons. `I went to discuss my situation with the Rector and was honest with him about myself and my sexuality. The Rector said that he would ask God what to do with me. God, according to him, answered and said that I was not suitable for any of my church duties.“

“Later I had what for me was a worse experience at another church where I was on the church committee and an active member of the congregation. A powerful lady churchwarden came up to me and said, "Are you a homosexual?" I replied in the affirmative and she answered, "You see, we have a problem."

“I rang the Vicar and sought his help. He supported me and told me that he did not want a member of his church pilloried in this way. He persuaded me to return to the committee for its next meeting. At that meeting the same lady pronounced, "I would like to say this: we all know that RF is very popular but we don't like his lifestyle." I felt that I had no alternative but to get up, put on my jacket and go home.'

“Another sad succession of events followed at yet another church where RF was quickly asked to read a lesson by the lady who drew up the rotas. He had only met the vicar each Sunday as he shook hands at the door. He then received a letter from the vicar, telling him that he should undertake no further duties at the church and that he should make an appointment to come and see him. RF took advice from friends, declined the instruction and went elsewhere. “

Someone suggested that he went to St Brelade’s Church, which is an inclusive church, and he was accepted, welcomed, and became once again part of the Church community: “I am not only tolerated but accepted wholeheartedly. I could not ask for anything better.”

Pitman concludes:

“RF has actively for many years raised funds for the Church of England Children's Society, and he is a volunteer on the General Hospital's chaplaincy team. It is a fair guess that RF has made a greater contribution to Christian living than some of those who have been too ready to turn him away from their own places of worship.”

Monday, 11 January 2016

A Loose Canon in Jersey




















“It has preferred egalitarianism to evangelism; it has chosen the struggle for gender parity to the struggle for the Gospel purity.” (Gavin Ashenden)

“It is unbelievable to me that a church has such a vital mission is s tearing itself apart over what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms' (BBC 1, The Big Question)

Canon Gavin Ashenden was on BBC Radio Jersey this morning talking about the summit in Canterbury

This summit of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion has been called by Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby to try and resolve issues dividing the church. The issue is between the more liberal wing of the church, and the more conservative wing. This is not a division on political grounds but on theological ones.

Liberals support an inclusive church, gay and transgender people, while this is anathema to the conservative wing, some of whom regard gay people as suffering from a curable affliction. Liberals also support women priests and women bishops, while conservatives do not. Liberals tend to be ecumenical, and for interfaith dialogue, conservatives tend to regard some denominations as less than true to the apostolic tradition, and a less friendly approach to other faiths.

Gavin Ashenden is a clear conservative. As I understand it, he does not really accept the validity of his fellow priests in the Island if they are female. As he has stated, the Church of England: “overthrew 2,000 years of apostolic teaching, and ordained women into the place of the Bishop and priest, the representatives of the risen Christ at the Eucharist, saying that gender was of no consequence in the narrative of salvation.”

In an open blog directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, this man also stated: “Your successor as Archbishop stood in the House of Lords to praise the couplings of the homosexuals. It didn’t matter to him that they were biologically sterile and pursued romantic and sexual values that Holy Scripture warned against."

And of course, his hostile attacks on Islam have gained him pages of column ink in the tabloids like “The Daily Mail”.

On BBC Radio, he was fulminating against the liberal wing, and also loading the argument by calling his own views “the biblical story” while accusing the liberals of giving way to “the secular story”. When you start by demonising your opponents as wrong, and not real Christians, or not following Christ’s teachings, there is really not much opportunity for dialogue, although I suspect he would enjoy the cut and thrust of debate.

In a recent statement, he has gone one step further and made comparisons between the past situation in Germany and the present:

“Some parts of the Church saw what was coming and stood against it. They became known as ‘the Confessing Church’. Other parts of the Church cooperated with the secular agenda of the new regime, hoping to buy political credit and claiming it gave them an invaluable influence.”

Hence by his argument, the conservative wing is like the confessing church, and the liberal wing of the church is more like the German church which assimilated to the Nazi regime. But then Gavin Ashenden sees Western society as fast losing its Christian values.

I’ve heard a lot of that kind of argument from people, some friends on Facebook who are not specifically Christian, but take it for granted that our current society was nurtured in a background of Christian values.

Watching “The Big Question” with Nicky Campbell on TV, I was struck by one coloured woman, who remarked that for many years the church connived with society to treat coloured people as less than human. The Calvinist church in South Africa provided a theological justification for apartheid.

And I know from my own studies in the 16th and 17th centuries that the belief in witches was promulgated by the church, even if they relied on the secular authorities to commit legalised murder of those found guilty. In earlier times, heretics were burnt if they would not recant, a view even espoused by Sir Thomas More.

In fact, tolerance for other values was more of an enlightenment value than a Christian one, which is probably why Gavin Ashenden doesn’t share it. Historically religious tolerance emerged in the aftermath of the Civil War and Commonwealth, as it gradually become apparent that it was not politically expedient to return to a monolithic Church of England in which non-attendance was punishable by fines.

In a way, Gavin Ashenden would like to turn the clock back to a more uniform church, where dissenting views would be silenced. Whether those sorts of views should have what appears to be largely unchallenged airtime is another matter.

He appears to be treated as a kind of resident expert, possibly because he is articulate, and sounds convincing and persuasive on Radio (he has a background in Sussex radio religious broadcasting). But should he have as much airtime for his own particular agenda? Or should he be challenged rather more robustly?

One thing is certain: as one speaker said on “The Big Question” – in a world in which famines, global warming, a migrant crisis, wars in the Middle East and the threat of ISIS all loom large, the Anglican Church chooses to once again get hung up on issues of sexuality.

Gavin Ashenden says: “At Canterbury the orthodox Archbishops will invite those stranded on the doomed and dying ship to be rescued and take to the boats which will ferry them to safety. Some will go, and some, fantasizing they that they will continue to float, will stay.”

In fact, it is his wing of the church, pushing the agenda to consider matters like sexuality that is more akin to wanting to play deck quoits while the Titanic is going down.

Links

http://gafcon.org/2016/01/10/httpwww-anglican-inkarticlegavin-ashenden-looks-choices-face-our-archbishops-canterbury/
http://www.virtueonline.org/welby%E2%80%99s-populist-new-year-message-fails-theological-test

Sunday, 26 July 2015

Forgiveness and Anger



















My heart always sinks when I read Gavin Ashenden in the Jersey Evening Post, making wild generalisations about the culture in which we live. 

His latest article is speaking about forgiveness, and citing the case of Eva Kor who has forgiven Oskar Groning. It is a fine think for her to forgive; she was treated brutally in Auschwitz. But he also mentions very briefly Leon Scharzbaum, who lost 30 members of his family there, and cannot forgive.

I don’t think we should in any way belittle Leon, who showed the tattoo he had been given at the camp to photographers. And certainly we should not suggest that Christianity is a cure for that attitude.

Gavin Ashenden suggests, rather patronisingly, that “It isn’t that they won’t forgive, it’s often that the hurt runs so deep that they cannot” – and he suggests that Christianity is the solution - “That’s the point where those who have found themselves accepted, washed clean, and made new in a faith that prioritises absolution find themselves in a different place.”

But does Christianity prioritise absolution? Is that is what it is about – a religious form of psychotherapy to take away existential pain? I would say that while the Church certainly helps some people, it also messes up other people’s lives. It does provide absolution for some, but for some – and you have only to reference “Catholic Guilt” – that comes at a terrible price.

Some of the Church’s teaching in the past – and hopefully not the present – did really employ – on children, the threat of burning hell-fire. In other words, it created at atmosphere of guilt and fear where misdemeanours needed the confessional before absolution. Catholic schools really did have teaching like that – I have a number of friends who have escaped, sometimes damaged, from that kind of childhood.

It is the kind of religious upbringing which I suspect would not be tolerated today, but it did happen, and within my own lifetime. People were made to feel that they would not be forgiven unless they confessed their sins, and that they would burn in hell if they failed to do so.

Evangelicals - at the other end of the spectrum - held meetings at Universities where the speaker again builds up a sense of guilt. These were emotionally charged events. That they succeeded in the short term, in providing an absolution by making students convert to Christianity, does not mean that this approach was right.

This is the kind of approach for which the words of Bonhoeffer fit well: “Wherever there is health, strength, security, simplicity, they sent luscious fruit to gnaw at or to lay their pernicious eggs in. They set themselves to drive people to inward despair, and then the game is in their hands.”

When I read that on his comments on Churches, “people flock in to find a forgiveness that dissolves the poison in their hearts”, I really wonder which churches he is talking about. Certainly the relations between Jersey and Winchester have recently revealed what seems like a lot of poison that has yet to be dissolved.

The solution for the Jersey Churches was not forgiveness and reconciliation, but a break with Winchester, with oversight being given to Dover. That was not about forgiveness, about absolution, it was about finding a pragmatic solution for two sides which could not forgive each other for what had happened.

So the Churches don’t have a monopoly on forgiveness, even if some, like Gavin Ashenden, claim some kind of monopoly over absolution, with all the dangers that can entail in terms of controlling other people’s lives.

Forgiveness is important, and in that I do agree with Gavin Ashenden. Life is too short to hate, and be eaten away with the frustration of past hate. But anger and hate can in fact also be positives. If we hate what someone has done to us, we may in turn be able to speak out, and change things, and prevent other people suffering.

Anger can be a stimulus for justice. If you want to look at an example from Christianity, Jesus entering the Temple, and overturning the tables of the money changers would be a good example of where anger can be positive in the fact of corruption.

And Aristotle, while also praising forgiveness as a virtue, also noted in his Ethics that: “Anyone who does not get angry when there is reason to be angry, or does not get angry in the right way at the right time and with the right people is foolish”

For Aristotle, being angry in the case of an injustice can mean that one is much more likely to do something about the injustice in order to make sure that it does not occur again. Emotions can be intelligent and purposeful. A person should be “angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought” (Ethics)

Paul Hughes, writing about forgiveness in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes the positive aspects of forgiveness:

“Forgiving those who wrong us often helps us move beyond strong negative emotions which, if allowed to fester, could harm us psychologically and physically. Forgiveness benefits wrongdoers, as well, by releasing them from the blame and hard feelings often directed toward them by those they wrong, or helping them transcend the guilt or remorse they suffer from having done wrong, thereby allowing them to move forward in their lives.”

But he also notes that forgiveness is not always positive, and can actually reinforce very damaging patterns of behaviour:

“Forgiveness may also go awry, deliberately or inadvertently serving more dubious ends, as when a victim of domestic violence routinely but without good reason forgives her abuser, thereby fuelling increasingly violent cycles of abuse. Moreover, perpetrators of such wrongs often feign apology and repentance, thereby fraudulently securing forgiveness from the victim. In these ways, forgiveness may become complicit in or collude with wrongdoing, converting what is generally regarded as a good or virtuous reaction to wrongdoing into its opposite.”

This ties in very much with Aristotle, noting that there is a deficiency with people who “are thought not to feel things, nor to be pained by them, and since they do not get angry, they are thought unlikely to defend themselves; and to endure being insulted.” Forgiveness can become a means of tolerating injustice rather than seeking to put it right.

Gavin Ashenden says:

“Our culture and our media reflect and amplify this treasuring of victim hood and anger, one feeding the other. Victims and victim hood has become the new ‘sacred’. Pain has become a currency that cannot be challenged or addressed, except by revenge.”

But while the media may highlight victims of sexual abuse to sell papers (e.g. the Daily Mail), that is not to say that this cannot be addressed or should not be made public.

Jimmy Saville is dead, but the stories of his victims should still be heard. The scars that the trauma caused by sexual abuse may not ever go away, but this is not just a new “sacred”.

The importance of listening to these witnesses is that we learn what has happened. No one can be revenged on Jimmy Saville, for example, but we can address the challenges of making our society much safer, and where those who are victims can call for help and not ignored. 

If we dismiss this simply as a “treasuring of victimhood”, then we belittle the crimes that have been committed. That has happened in the past; we must make sure it does not happen again.


References
Hughes, Paul M., "Forgiveness", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition),



Sunday, 5 July 2015

Gavin Ashenden and Erotic Love












“People who are terribly unhappy about sex, moving in an entirely male world, will take it out on those in their care. Anyone uncomfortable about their sexuality may be attracted to an institution where they can exercise power.” (Diarmaid MacCulloch)

Gavin Ashenden is once more sounding off, this time about marriage. He blames Hollywood on erotic love, ephemeral romance and sexual attraction.

This is of course a blatant disregard for the romantic movement which happened rather a long time before Hollywood came on the scene. Has he never heard of Byron or Shelley?

In fact, as CS Lewis demonstrated in "The Allegory of Love", the notion of romantic and erotic love has been around since the Middle Ages. The Romance of the Rose, Gavin Ashenden may be surprised to learn, is about romance and not about procreation. Romeo and Juliet, it may surprise Canon Ashenden to learn, was about sexual passion and not a desire to marry and procreate.

It was in the eleventh century that French poets first began to express the romantic species of passion, which of course the English poets of the Romantic movement were still writing about in the nineteenth century.

Reading his article, one cannot be struck by how fixated he seems to be about marriage as about having children. This is perhaps understandable, as for many men, there is a fixation on having children, and even more so, on having a male heir.

Even twenty odd years ago, I still recall being in a lift in the hospital, as we came down from visiting hours to the maternity unit, and asking another man about his child. "It's a girl", he said, but that simple statement cannot convey the tone of disappointment, of upset, in his voice. I was shocked, especially as my son had just been diagnosed with what is popularly called club foot. I seethed inside at the attitude of someone who had a healthy child, and was not grateful for that fact.

Women have been at the sharp end throughout most of human history, and have either died in childbirth, or been worn out by having so many children. This was brutally dramatised in an episode of the TV drama "The Royal", where despite medical risks that the mother faces, the Catholic priest is adamant that she is not sterilised. In the end, she suffers a medical emergency, loses a child and has to have a hysterectomy to save her life. The priest is very upset. Unfortunately, that storyline is very close to the truth.

As Mary Midgley mentions in "Women's Choices", women have been breeding machines for most of human history and freedom came not with Hollywood but with modern contraception, which enabled a woman to take charge of her own fertility, to have children, yes, but when she wanted to do so. The dismal record of back street abortions, and indeed the fact that abortions still occur testify to the fact that this is not infallible, nor is the education of young women on their choices.

As the Women's Refuge in Jersey, and similar refuges in Britain will testify, escaping a loveless and abusive marriage can be very difficult; it is not a step taken lightly. Gavin Ashenden, talking about couples divorcing and swapping because of feelings really trivialises marriage breakdown, Yes, there may be cases when this occurs, and the clergy themselves are not immune by miracles but as fallible as the rest of us, but we should also look at the many cases where a marriage can be so loveless that divorce may be a better option for the children. Before my parents split up, I have memories of shouting, arguments, slamming of doors. Afterwards, there was a degree of peace and normality again.

That doesn't mean that marriage counselling is not worth trying, but sometimes that just doesn't work. In marriages where there is physical or emotional abuse, the perpetrator is unlikely to want to engage in any kind of introspection; for them, marriage is all about control. Being happy may not be the only goal of marriage, but being in distress and misery certainly is not.

And then he attacks the notion of three women in a marriage in the USA. Now that does seem strange indeed to me, but if you look at the Old Testament, as I am sure Reverend Ashenden has done, there are heroes of the faith like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, who in fact have many wives and often concubines as well. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines!

Polygamy was part of their culture, and there is no religious impediment to it. David is judged by God because he has coveted another man's wife and arranged for the man to die in battle, but no judgement is given against him having many wives. Solomon is criticised because his wives worship idols, not for having many wives.

Gavin Ashenden talks about people in a secular world being uncomfortable with the Bible, and its message, but he pays scant justice to the ambivalence in the Bible itself over what constitutes proper gender relations and how marriage works.

Far from modernity redefining marriage, as the excellent program on “Sex and the Church” by Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch has shown, historically the concept of marriage has changed over the centuries, not least by the Church as it sought to control sexuality. It was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.

And for countless centuries love did not enter the equation. Marriage was seen as more of a business relationship, and it was commonplace and acceptable for men to have mistresses whom they did love. I’d recommend that Canon Ashenden reads “The Subjection of Women”, written by John Stuart Mill in 1869, or the 1791 book “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” by Mary Wollstonecraft.

As Jack Lopez notes:

“For hundreds of years, women had few to no legal rights once they married. Married women had no independent legal existence: they could not make contracts, maintain their own names, file lawsuits, have full ownership and control of property, and in some cases could not maintain custody of their children after their husband’s death. The husband controlled all the family earnings and all of his wife’s property in exchange for nothing firmer than the general social expectation that he would support his wife and children”

So let’s not look at past ages of marriage with rose tinted spectacles. If I am uncomfortable with the Bible, it is because it often acquiesces in power and control at the expense of love. The Song of Solomon, one of the most erotic love poems of the ancient world, was marginalised as an allegory of the Church and Christ, rather than celebrated as a hymn to passion and erotic love.

Take me by the hand, let us run together!
My lover, my king, has brought me into his chambers.
We will laugh, you and I, and count each kiss,
better than wine. (The Song of Solomon)