Against gender-segregation? Great...but why?

The most interesting aspect of the whole segregated-seating debate is the issue that lies behind it.

Let me say first up, I’m not for segregated seating. Neither are most people in the country, according to the media. You’re probably not, either.

But even when we agree with each other, it’s worth asking: Why? On what grounds don’t I agree with this?

Here’s the Christian’s reasoning. God has created male and female equal, and different. God has told us when and how men and women will (or should) live differently; for instance, women have the ability to get pregnant (Genesis 3 v 15-16—I don’t think this is particularly controversial!); men are called to lead their families if they’re husbands (Ephesians 5 v 23-25—this is a little more controversial…) But, apart from where God has said otherwise, there is no difference—so it seems strange and unnecessary to seat men and women separately.

I’ve reached the same conclusion as everyone on the BBC/twitter-stream—but the difference is why I hold that conclusion. Or, to put it another way, by what authority I have reached my position.

As Christians, we get to our opinions by asking: What has God told us, in his revealed word?

That’s very different from a secular way of reasoning. Take a God who has revealed himself, and his code for life, out of the picture, and you’re left with two options. The first is to ask: “What do I think? How do I feel?”

This is popular but it begs the question: What gives your thoughts the right to dictate to someone else’s? If you think something’s wrong and someone else thinks it’s right, how can you impose your view on them?

So, not wishing to be arrogant and impose our individual reasoning or feeling on someone else, most of the commentators in the media have gone for another line of reasoning. The second option is:

“This is a free, democratic, liberal, equal society. This goes against our values.”

In other words: “What does the majority think?”

This is far less at risk of becoming arrogant; but none of us actually want to live like this. For instance, what if the majority come to think that men with brown hair should be exiled? Or, somewhat less extremely, that women should sit separately from men? Would it then become right? The "voice of the people" is always changing and only ever temporary. Suddenly, the limits in taking the democratic will of a country as your word of authority become clear. What we hold as "obviously right" today could be "obviously wrong" tomorrow.

Personal authority is arrogant. Democratic authority is uncertain. Only divine revelation has authority – because God has revealed it. There are several competing claims for true divine revelation (some of which demand segregated seating, some of which don’t). As Christians, we’re confident that the resurrection of Jesus proves that his revelation of the divine is true. But here’s the point – here’s what I’d say if I were one of the Muslims the BBC ring up to defend segregated seating against an outraged anti-segregationalist:

Why? Why do you hold the position that you do?

Because their answer will either tend towards the arrogant, or towards the temporary, and never towards coherent authority.

Equally, if I were (as I am) a Christian who is asked to defend some position unpalatable to modern minds/opinion (Jesus being the only way to heaven, biblical sexual ethics, etc), I'd want to say the same thing:

Why? Why do you hold the position that you do?

The great freedom for the Christian, as well as the great challenge, is that we can (and must) take each of our thoughts captive and make them obedient to Christ (2 Corinthians 10 v 5), and start each of our answers as the prophets did: “Thus saith the LORD…”