WILD COOT – Peter’s Pandora’s box
Peter Wickham, in his own inimitable style, has just opened the proverbial can of worms. In other words he has set the theological cat among the preaching pigeons.
I suppose that he has a point, but the Wild Coot is reluctant to enter the realms of theology having had to practise the church non-participation of women for ten years from age nine to 19. In any case arguing religion does not win friends. I endorse his point about hypocrisy.
I suppose that I am still deconstructed.
Peter is saying that we, as a people, are selective about the parts of the Bible that we want to follow, but ignore the instructions and the exhortations of others. The Old and the New Testament conflict in so many ways that leave interpretation to the individual rather than prescriptive doctrinal adherence.
While Peter’s point may be directed at the question of human rights and freedom of choice, we as a people have to look at ourselves, and the areas of hypocrisy that we practise. We are all guilty, the Wild Coot especially.
In Barbados there are more incidents of gambling than John read ’bout. We have lotto, bingo, horse racing, pools, one armed bandits, and so on; yet we, especially the churches, strenuously condemn casino gambling because “we are a Christian people and gambling is not Christian”.
We have laws on the books about soliciting, but it exists even in front of our public eyes. We have laws about drugs and money laundering, still the big boys and their cohorts are not caught.
We propose integrity legislation but we do not practise it – everybody can testify about which official “tiefing”. Look how the Old Testament advocates against shellfish but we relish lobster and shrimp cocktail.
Swine were the recipient of evil spirits but we eat proper pork like the devil. Our laws dictate one man one wife, but one man marries one woman, but keeps several under wraps.
There is no law against horning but women make a sport of it, and men too. Now that the dollar is getting scarce, it will get worse.
In case Peter needs to identify more areas of hypocrisy, just go to church and see how many women come hatless or with no covered head. You even find cornrow, wigs, upsweeps, waves and the like, but no hats.
Did not Saint Paul advocate covered heads for women in the church?
I suppose that we are liberated. You are invited to read 1 Corinthians 11: 4 to 15: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
The explanation by Sir Ronald Saunders puts the reported remarks of David Cameron in perspective. That homosexuals and lesbians may be infected with HIV but may be unwilling to come forward for treatment; that people with talent may remain in the closet for fear of being exposed; that those on the down low may want to hide from their partner. All could be encouraged with the decriminalization of buggery and soliciting.
While people in Barbados might be making the most noise about deviant behaviour, homosexuality flourishes at all levels unfettered. There seem to be no loss of talent.
For years, wherever I go, people tease me about the reputation Barbados has got since the 1950s and probably before. They would say that if you dropped a coin in St James, you would have to kick it until you reach Bridgetown before you picked it up.
Peter should not get worked up over David Cameron’s statement. Most right-thinking people would agree with him that hypocrisy thrives in Barbados. It is part of the mosaic that makes up the Barbadian society.
Search a little deeper you may even find that it is the essential chromosomes or purines of our DNA that holds us together. Rich people live next to poor; bungalows are built next to hovels; blacks and whites are thrown together and we survive. It is only 166 square miles of space. Perhaps Peter should live his life how he feels like and I am sure the female preachers will not cease promising fire and brimstone hatless in the church.
From sexton to bishop will probably quote from Genesis to Revelation to refute my argument.
Harry Russell is a banker. Email firstname.lastname@example.org