I'm in Colorado for a family wedding, so I've been hanging out with the bride-to-be, my amazing cousin. We have a really amazing relationship, in part because we are able to be so close despite a lot of ideological and spiritual differences. She's conservative, in most senses, very committed to Christianity, and focused on marriage as an essential institution. I am, as many of you know, politically progressive, still figuring out my spiritual beliefs (does kindness count as a spiritual belief?), and have a very complex relationship to marriage.
In any case, I went to church with her last Sunday and it was a really interesting experience for me. First and foremost, I was pleasantly surprised by how her pastor--a young-ish, very charismatic guy who uses words like "off the hook" and "freak out"--talked about gender roles. He told a long, funny story about cleaning his house--demonstrating that domesticity is no longer the sphere of the womenfolk in his mind. But even more interesting to me, he talked at length about this notion of women "having" their husbands and husbands "having" their wives. Hetero-normativity aside, what resonated for me was that this preacher, and this church, had begun to talk about marriage as an equal partnership.
The language is interesting--"to have." Of course, as a feminist, it immediately makes me think about the long history of marriage as basically a property transaction from father to husband. The language turns people into objects, capable of being possessed or owned. But another part of me thinks the language is sort of beautiful. Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age (I turn 30 soon people), but there also seems to be something sort of comforting about mutually possessing one another, as if the equality of it cancels out the objectification. In this light, "having" your partner means being responsible for them, empathizing with them, taking on the world beside them. I can definitely get down with that interpretation.
And here's the other thing that really struck me--this Christian church in the middle of the Colorado mountains may be one of the only places that the men in the pews actually feel free to express emotions. I saw a lot of very visible feelings from the cowboys, dads, and skier dudes in the crowd. The ugly side of that, of course, is when this opportunity for emotion gets parlayed into Promise Keepers and other misogynistic organizations, but in this case, it seemed like these guys were really reflecting on their lives, their integrity, their roles in their families etc.
So there you have it. We hate on religion a lot here at Feministing, and in feminism in general--and for good God damn reason sometimes--but I also think it's important for us to recognize the ways in which religion might actually support egalitarianism in some ways.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Personal is Political: Courtney Goes to Church.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15809
I’m currently studying for MA in Systematic Theology and can say first hand that for as much craziness as there is in the Christian Church regarding gender and sex (heck, I’m one of two women in my program), there’s a lot of really amazing work going on by inspiring, dedicated theologians. Unfortunately, their work is seemingly only well known in the academic community, but I think it’s starting to seep on down. I’m really glad to see this article up on feministing.
Religions aren't necessarily bad. It's just the people who ruin religion for the rest of us.
The only thing I would suggest is that "having" your partner is not being responsible for them, but rather responsible to them. i.e. you do right by them, but you can't be responsible for their behaviors and actions and feelings. If you are, that's kind of fucked up.
Finally!
There is always so much religion-bashing going on at Feministing, and I'm glad that, finally, there's a recognition that it's not all awful.
I studied religious young people for my thesis and found (as I suspected) that MANY of them have very progressive views of gender roles and women in power. Unfortunately, they don't have the language to describe their views and therefore wouldn't consider themselves "feminist." If only there were constructive outreach and mutual collaboration between religious groups (especially the progressive ones -- there are a lot of them!) and feminist organizations...
Furthermore, I think there's a lot that feminism (and other social change movements) can learn from religious organizations. Communities of faith are good at organizing people, making things happen, and encouraging meaningful community. Most importantly, I think that many churches should be commended and emulated for their work in creating empowering spaces for young people. Many religious organizations understand the power of their young people and develop structures that support them. I think that a lot of us can agree that similar structures for youth empowerment that cultivate respect for young people are often lacking in many progressive organizations.
I hope this will start a trend of more positive blogging with regard to communities of faith.
I'm an athiest, but I think religion can be a great thing for alot of people. My father-in-law is a minister for a free will baptist church (I've been told that free will baptists are on the conservative side) and he is one of the coolest men I know. My parents-in-law have a very egalitarian relationship and he preaches about how the bible says basically to treat each other (in a marriage) with respect and such. He's gotten some slack from the congregation but I think he's a positive influence. He also has preached about how objectifing women as sex objects is wrong becasue it dehumanizes them. I don't agree with everything my in-laws think but I do think that some of their thoughts about marraige and gender equality that are right on.
"I'm athier"
"No, I'm athier!"
"Oh, yeah? Well, Emily is the athiest of all!"
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)
Christianity is only compatible with feminism (and liberalism for that matter) if you ignore much of its teachings. The beliefs at the foundation of it are diametrically opposed to equality between the sexes beginning with Adam and Eve in the garden. But it also depends on which creation story you read. There is more than one and they are printed back to back in Genesis. One is the rib story and the other says that Adam and Eve were created together, which suggests some sense of equality.
The problem with the Bible, and religion generally, is that any political position, good or bad, can be justified by cherry picking any passage and passing it off as God's truth.
Look at the teachings of the Church's leadership. You can say that there are feminist and pro-choice Catholics and other Christians, for example. And polling shows that there are many. In fact, even in countries that are 80% or 90% Catholic - like Spain and Poland - 75% have no problem with birth control. And I am sure there are good people in EVERY church, temple and mosque worldwide. However, when the leadership of your church says that contraception is "intrinsically evil" - which is the precise language used by the Catholic Church, by the way - what does that say about that religion? That faith is simply against X, whatever X is, and in favor of Y.
Furthermore, if you are an Evangelical Christian and believe in the Bible literally, you cannot support "green" technology or combating global warming, for example. Evangelicals are taught by their leadership to think climate change is God's will - they welcome the end of the World because that, they believe, will bring about the Rapture. Listen to religious radio and read their books some time - that will give you a good idea of what these people are REALLY about.
Once I realized that religion is irreconcilable with my personal values of equality and justice, I left the Catholic Church and no longer identify as a Christian. I refuse to be a member of a church that does not think I have the right to control my own body. The church believes that your body belong to God and not to you. That's bullshit. Not sure if I am an Atheist - frankly I really don't care whether or not God exists. I guess that makes me an Indifferent - there is no box for that on any survey that I am aware of. (lol)
Besides, with the exception of some forms of reform Judaism, the Episcopal church maybe and the United Church of Christ, most religions don't care about keeping liberals and feminists in the pews. They would prefer that we leave. They want conservative hardliners that will two the official "line" and teach their children to do the same.
A question for those who still attend a church that is not one of the aforementioned "liberal" churches: Why would you want to be a member of an organization that does not want you?
A quick word Catholics...
I have issues with Christianity. BIG ISSUES. My issues are in fact so deep that when I took the Project Implicit Religion IAT I associated Christian vocab almost exclusively with negative words. So it should come as no surprise that I was raised Catholic...
I have, for the most part, abandoned practicing my religion in any form. However, I am still very much culturally Catholic. Meaning that I reject the dogma and embrace some of the traditions. A lot of Catholics don't fall in line with what the Vatican lays out as "true" Catholicism. Yeah, I realize they don't care about "keeping me in the pew" and they haven't... but I'm still Catholic.
"Culturally Catholic"
Thank you--I love that term. I am atheist, but still know and respect Catholic traditions through and through.
A question for those who still attend a church that is not one of the aforementioned "liberal" churches: Why would you want to be a member of an organization that does not want you?
For starters, because luckily for me much of the substance of your comment is incorrect. Anytime I hear someone talking about "the Church" to apply monolithically to all Christian denominations and congregations, I know I am not going to take whatever follows very seriously. Ditto statements that track as "most religions believe X" unless I am pretty sure I am listening to an actual authority on the subject of "most religions."
There's plenty to hate on without making things up.
Notice, I did make a distinction between the liberal denominations and the Catholic and conservative Evangelical Protestant churches. Furthermore I did not make anything up - I pulled a quote directly from Catechism. I asked CONSERVATIVE Christians with progressive views (if they are on this site , I would imagine they have a few) why they still belong to their church. I also, in response to RsubC, never said churches were a force for evil.
Did any of you read my ENTIRE post?
Yes, I did. You did not write what you seem to think you wrote.
Catechism is part of Catholic teaching but is no part of the teaching of any Protestant denomination. You use the phrase "the church" without distinguishing between the Catholic church and the rest of the Christian fellowship, but context implies that you are talking about the broad fellowship, so statements about what "the church" teaches or does are necessarily going to be messy and innaccurate. And you didn't limit your question to members of conservative congregations or denominations, you asked anyone who is not a member of "some forms" of Reform Judaism, nor Episcopalian, nor "maybe" (?!?) the UCC to justify their continued religious practice. Those are not the only groups that have a claim to being progressive, inclusive traditions, and more importantly I don't think it's appropriate for you to ask (rhetorically or otherwise) other people to justify their lives to you, a stranger on the internet, when you aren't demonstrating much familiarity with or openness to anything outside your own experience.
You know how white folks need to be cautious and respectful when talking about the experiences of PoC, or how cis folks aren't generally capable of speaking authoritatively about trans issues? That would be a good rule to apply here.
Whatever.
But at the same time, Christianity is also only opposed to feminism if you ignore much of its teachings. The Bible is a really, really big book.
I think the idea of the Catholic Church as the be-all end-all of Christianity is an interesting idea, but not an accurate one. The Catholic Church - and for that matter the Greek Orthodox Church - are very centrally run, and therefore have very strict dogma. Yet the vast majority f churches are not. They are parish churches. An example I know is the Episcopal Church. Although it has a council that chooses bishops for each diocese and discusses the position of the Church as a whole, each individual parish has a great deal of autonomy. when i was younger, our diocese had a female bishop who was totally amazing. But some of the churches would not allow her in to preach. And this was in northern "no, we're not like the REST of the state" Virginia. (some of them have since seceded and joined a diocese in southern Africa.) Churches, by and large, are autonomous, not a conglomerate. This is even true in the Catholic church to a degree - see liberation theology, a position extrapolated from a papal declaration and popular in Latin America.
If churches are only a force for evil, then why have they been involved in every major freedom struggle, even ones the Bible could be construed to say they should not - except feminism. To my mind, this says as much about feminists as about churches.
"If churches are only a force for evil, then why have they been involved in every major freedom struggle, even ones the Bible could be construed to say they should not - except feminism."
I totally agree, but I also think that it has a fair amount to do with the way that we remember our feminist ancestors. We totally separate them from the work they did in relation to religion.
I think it's telling that Matilda Joslyn Gage is a much lesser-known early feminist than Susan B. Anthony and Elisabeth Cady Stanton.
Gage and Stanton were both committed to reforming the Church as a way of eliminating women's oppression. I think it's important to recognize that they thought "true religion" was inherently not oppressive but that instead the manifestation of Christianity was. Stanton wrote The Woman's Bible, in which she re-worked parts of the Bible to make it more pro-woman. Gage left the NWSA because she felt more committed to reforming the Church than to a single focus on getting the vote.
Obviously, the fact that Gage and Stanton felt compelled to reform the Church paints a picture of Churches as flawed and anti-feminist, but my reading of the history is that Gage and Stanton (and especially Gage) were really invested in trying to reform it. And I think that in order to push for reform, they must have been aware of the unavoidable presence of religion in American society and at least somewhat committed to the idea of an individual spirituality. Gage's struggle was a lonely one, and obviously, her work isn't done. But I, for one, completely agree with her and am trying to continue her fight. In my opinion, "true religion" is exactly what Courtney said -- kindness and justice. And I think there are aspects of many religious texts that speak to that. There are also, of course, many religious texts that speak in opposition to that. So if we understand the current manifestation of religion as something flawed and misinterpreted by years of patriarchy (and we certainly understand that about other institutions!), why are we so afraid of trying to work with religious leaders and groups and organizations? We need to help reform their structures, but we also need to recognize that there are many people who have religiously-based progressive ideas because the problems with modern religion are often much more about patriarchal interpretation than about the true nature of religion.
So let's work together. Like I said above, there are a lot of things we could learn from religious organizations. And I know there are a lot of things we can teach them. We just need some genuine understanding and mutual respect. Shock at the idea that some churches say egalitarian things is a pretty patronizing and demeaning response. Let's work on that. And remember Matilda Gage and Elizabeth Cady Stanton as great reformers AND religious women with a commitment to reforming society AND the Church.
Sorry, but I have to correct you:
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was NOT a religious woman. I have recently read a biography of her, and I can tell you that in the latter years of her life, she was an outspoken freethinker and said, in 1901:
"I can say that the happiest period of my life has been since I emerged from the shadows and superstitions of the old theologies."
She took pleasure in the fact that she did not bring her children up to be Christian. When she died, Helen Gardener, who spoke at her funeral, told mourners that she wanted to be remembered as a "fearless, serene agnostic".
She did not want to reform the Church. She wanted to get rid of it.
As for Gage, here is a quote from her, dated 1893, which speaks for itself:
"Possessing no proof of god's existence, the church has ever fostered unintelligent belief."
Both Stanton and Gage were at the receiving end of extreme hostility and aggression from the Church.
Not sure if I am an Atheist - frankly I really don't care whether or not God exists. I guess that makes me an Indifferent - there is no box for that on any survey that I am aware of. (lol)
Actually, there is a box for that! You could call yourself an agnostic.
I think you're an Agnostic. :)
This is a bit of an essentialist argument, don't you think? You make some pretty broad, sweeping statements about religion(s), without really recognizing the diversity of ways in which religions are practiced. What about the ways in which religion enriches the lives of others, makes it meaningful?
While I agree with you about some aspects of Catholicism (I was baptised and raised Catholic, but consider myself atheist), you seem to be discussing mainly individuals in positions of power, who have the authority to dictate how religion should be practiced. But you don't really recognize that there are a myriad of ways in which it is practiced in the daily lives of individuals. Many people are constantly negotiating their own kinds of religion and resist or reinterpret certain aspects of religious doctrine.
I'd like to push back on some of the language you use in this comment. First and foremost, an Evangelical Christian does not have to be a Biblical Literalist. Evangelicals do not equal Biblical Literalists, which in turn does not equal a Fundamentalist. I think it’s important to get the language straight rather than lumping great groups of people together.
As far as your comments about (what I read as the Roman Catholic Church) not wanting liberal Catholics and feminists in the pews, I’d really encourage you to look at the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. While not entirely realized in the R.C. Church, it’s a beautiful document that talks about men and women, ordained ministers and laity in a way in which is truly astounding.
Additionally, the theology being done by feminist theologians like Elizabeth Johnson, Catherine LaCugna, Rosemary Radford Ruther, or Phyllis Trible—just to name a few—and its impact on and acceptance in Catholic academia gives me a lot of hope that we’re (feminist theologians and thoughtful Catholics) making a bigger impact than we may notice.
A final word on why I stay. After Benedict the XVI’s election as Roman Catholic pope, I talked to some very smart sisters in a monastery here in Minnesota. I asked them how they managed to stay in a Church that wasn’t as egalitarian as we all would like it to be. They replied that the (Catholic) Church is a lot like a family—there are things that you love about it, things that you hate, and things you want to change. But, nevertheless, its your family, and you have a deep relationship with it and it’s not worth throwing away because of disagreements.
Besides, if we all left, we could never hope for change.
"does kindness count as a spiritual belief?"
A statement so simple as this and yet so profound. It transcends priests, churches, mosques, temples and scripture. It is because of progressive statements such as this that I am fond of feminism. So why can't kindness count as a spiritual belief? Does the notion of equality require the belief in the supernatural?
I once attended a beautiful Hindu wedding wherein passages of scripture were read that described the equal partnership of the deities Krishna and Radha. It was wonderful and very progressive. And yet despite all the progressive elements of the faith, it is equally balanced by a whole lot of misogyny and racism.
BTW, I'm an atheist who is of a Hindu family and I am conflicted by the progressive and repressive elements in all religions. And it seems to me that after thousands of years, the repressive elements just don't seem to go away. And at the end of the day, I'm left with this burning question. If God is proven to not exist, would racism, sexism and all forms of inequality therefore reign?
Is the social, cultural, political and economic equality of men and women a canon to be followed out of fear of punishment from a deity if disobeyed? Or is it instead a secular principle that arises out of our innate (and further nurtured) trait of empathy? And is this principle merely codified by the world's religions?
I meant "tow the official line" Sorry!
Actually, it's 'toe the line'.
Yeah, my grammar sucks!
Thank you for this. I identify as both a feminist and a Christian, and all of the religion-bashing that goes on here at feministing really bums me out sometimes. The anti-equality fundamentalist nuts are a very tiny percentage of Christians, and they don't speak for the majority of us (even though they speak very loudly!) Most people of faith believe that women and men are BOTH created in the image of God, and that we should hold equal roles in marriage, the church, and society.
Kindness is totally a spiritual belief. Loving-kindess/metta or otherwise.
As for the "having" language, I agree that it's interesting. Yeah, there are the possession overtones, but don't we English speakers also use the word "have" in lots of other contexts where it doesn't imply possession? Like, I have this friend... Or cat-lovers will recognize how stupid it can sound to say "I have a cat." That cat lets you know every day that it lets you feed it, there's no possessor/possession relationship about it. When I first read that pastor's words my first take was that it was like saying "I gotcha" or "I have your back." And I do have Shiner's back, and he has mine. That was true before we were married, too, but now everyone expects us to have each other's back and we don't get pushback from our families of origin for placing our spouse as our first priority the way we sometimes did for prioritizing someone who was "just" a boyfriend or girlfriend. Sorry, this paragraph brought to you by an English major.
And it's refreshing to see the reality that religion can be a force for good acknowledged by someone who's not living inside of it.
Honestly, I find it really annoying that this is some kind of revelation for you. Rural progressive churches! Heavens me!
For people whose experience of religion is a negative one, it's not surprising at all that this is a revelation. I honestly expected Courtney's post to end badly. I was pleasantly surprised and very happy that it did not.
I've had pretty bad experiences myself but that doesn't justify a knee-jerk rejection of all religions and religious people as backwards and repressive. Is it so difficult to read up on these things? Or, god forbid, actually talk to people about how they deal with the traditionally conservative elements of their faith?
Maybe I was just a precocious kid, but I remember having these conversations with everyone from Mormons to Muslims when I was 12. I went out of my way to talk to homeschooled conservative Christians online. Yeah, there were plenty of "I just do what the Bible tells me to" types, but a surprising number were actively involved in social justice and environmentalism. They critiqued the sexism and materialism of popular culture. They debated the importance of Christmas and how to fight against domestic violence. No, they weren't perfect and their approaches to gender politics left *a lot* to be desired, but I saw their interpretations of Christianity as ultimately a really positive and progressive force in their lives.
"Or, god forbid, actually talk to people about how they deal with the traditionally conservative elements of their faith?"
This is exactly what I have been trying to do today.
I wasn't addressing you specifically but all people who are so shocked by or resistant to the idea of progressive religious groups.
No church that uses the Bible as
its foundation will ever be more
than superficially progressive.
Read the Bible; you won't believe
what your Sunday School teachers
never told you. The prophets sold
religion by describing sins
as women who had to be laid bare
and severely punished -- a perversion
of religion and sexuality that
poisons our culture to this day.
And that's just the tip of a very
large and ugly iceberg.
As for being good organizers, had
feminists been around for two
thousand years and used
crusades, inquisitions, witch-
burnings and pogroms to gain
"converts," they'd probably have a
much easier time mobilizing
people today, too. The reality is
that women haven't even been reading
for much more than a century or
two and we haven't had the
vote in this nation for a full
hundred years -- largely thanks
to the teachings of the Bible,
which, if followed to the letter,
would put us in a state comparable
to women under the Taliban.
It would be wonderful if you could
discount the Bible when you go to
a Christian church, but you can't.
To do so is to take the easy route
to spirituality, leaving the hard
work of weaning the world off
misogynistic religions to future
generations. I refuse to do it.
is this supposed to be a comment or a poem?
"No church that uses the Bible as
its foundation will ever be more
than superficially progressive."
Exactly.
"It would be wonderful if you could
discount the Bible when you go to
a Christian church, but you can't."
And that was precisely why I asked progressives how they discount so many parts of the bible in order to maintain their faith. Bill Maher when promoting his film "Religulous" (I may be spelling that wrong) said that the only way to do it is to wall off the religion part of your brain from the rational part of your brain. Don't know if that is true, but there must be some way so many people reconcile things that seem so diametrically opposed to each other. Seriously, the basis of Christianity is a virgin birth for goodness sake! Jimmy Carter is a Southern Baptist (or at least he was - I believe he has formally left that church over this very issue, its disrespect for women), but he also a nuclear physicist by trade. So he is clearly not an stupid.
So how do people do it? That was my only question. But instead of getting a serious answer I got berated for even asking the question. (Although Comrade Kevin provided some useful insights) I guess this will be just one of the great mysteries of life...
"Seriously, the basis of Christianity is a virgin birth for goodness sake!"
Incorrect. The basis of Christianity is that God loves humanity and wants to be reconciled to humanity. This reconciliation happens through God's grace, made known to us through the life, death, and teachings of Jesus.
The virgin birth actually isn't that important (unless you're Catholic, but even then that's more due to Church history and dogma than anything biblical.) Many Christians believe that the "virgin birth" part of the story is not meant to be taken literally: you see, Caesar claimed to be "born of a virgin" to prove that he was divine and thus worthy to rule the Empire. When the authors of Matthew and Luke (two of the synoptic Gospels) used the "born of a virgin" imagery, they were utilizing language that would have been very meaningful to their first-century audience. They were basically equating Jesus to Caesar, telling ancient people that *Jesus* is the divine ruler to listen to, not Caesar.
Sorry for the random theological treatise, but I just wanted to clear that up. Moral of the story: virgin birth not meant to be taken literally, so it's not fair to use that as an argument against Christian intellectuals.
What you just wrote proves my point. In order to be both a progressive AND a Christian, you have to cherry pick what you believe and what you don't.
Even the most conservative Christians have to "cherry pick", or at least believe in all parts of the bible but at different times. You can't be consistent with a book that has so many writers and contradicts itself constantly (if you take everything literally). My in-laws are of the taking everything literally set, but they conveniently forget the contradictions, but then remember them when not in context of the contradiction. If you ask them about the contradictions they say you just don't get it. But I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
"Cherry picking" is such a stupid term that ignores the realities of how people interpret their religions. Only fundamentalists are reading the Bible word-for-word and insisting that it all must be taken at face value. There are many, many religious people who study the Bible and try to figure out who wrote what and when and why, and how it might be understood in the context of history and what is relevant today, and what sort of guidance we should take from it. For some people, this process is what religion IS.
When non-religious people insist that the only way to understand a religion is to follow what the literal fundamentalists do, you're just giving them power and legitimacy. And they do not get to have a monopoly on defining religion.
Even feminists 'cherry pick'. Do readers here adhere to everything early first-wave feminists wrote, without qualification?
Religion, like science, is constantly growing and changing, leaving behind some old beliefs and practices, and adopting new ones.
This is a fabulous point! Well-said.
Sorry, but no. Feminism is a social movement. Science changes with more knowledge. Religion is basically, claiming to know the true meaning of everyone's life, how the universe began and what will happen in the end. Granted, if you look at the definition of religion, they could be religions that never make such claims. But the big three religions do.
People are basically cherry picking the bible and then turning around and saying "This is what god said, all other generations had it wrong! This is the new and improved magical answer to life! Please come back!" They are just taking a book, created by humans, changing it for their current needs and calling it divine.
"The big three"? Assuming you mean Christianity/Islam/Judaism, if you knew the first thing about Judaism, you wouldn't be saying that Jews claim to know everything. For crying out loud, pick up the Talmud see how much agreement there is about any one topic. Gather together all the rabbinic writings about what happens after we die. Try to find any consensus among them about what the answer is. And each of these different rabbinic voices is such an important and integral part of Jewish belief!
For many religious people, religion IS a social movement, too. Your second paragraph just does exactly what I complained about in my last comment. Stop giving the fundamentalists so much power. Fundamentalists are not the supreme and guiding word on what religion is, as loud as they are.
If religion isn't for you, that's fine, many people don't need or want it in their lives. But if you're going to make sweeping proclamations about what religions believe, educate yourself first.
or, you pray and consider what God's message and purpose for humanity may be, and realize that the Bible was written by fallible people in a specific cultural context. many, if not most, Christians are not Biblical literalists. the rest of us use the reason God gave us and pray for the clarity and courage to do what God reveals to us to be right.
This. Regarding the Bible as a holy book doesn't entail believing that everything in it (which was written for very different circumstances) is universally applicable now. Liberal Christians treat the Bible as a holy work of literature that describes God's interaction with particular people at particular times in ways that remain instructive for us now. "Instructive" does not mean that all its teaching should be applied now the same way it was 2000 years ago--it means that we can learn from it.
The Scripture passage that is most often used to justify Biblical literalism, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, actually reads: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (NRSV translation.) When we refer to something as having been "inspired by" a person, we do not normally mean that the person would invariably count every word of it as always precisely correct in every situation. We mean that the person was a source of inspiration for it. Similarly, a "useful" document is not necessarily a perfect one.
Those of us who are Christians should exercise great caution in throwing out words that are part of our holy book. However, I think that in situations where lesser commands in the Bible are not compatible with greater commands (e.g. the incompatibility of anti-gay or anti-female teachings with "love your neighbour as yourself"), it is reasonable for us to stick with the greater commands. And when science and lived experience show that statements in the Bible are not literally or universally accurate, it is reasonable for us to combine our knowledge with the great Biblical commands to love God and others to figure out what we should believe.
As a sidetrack--
I would be super interested in reading an elaboration on this argument that not many Christians believe in the virgin birth. It may be because I'm a Roman Catholic, but this is pretty critical to a lot of the theology I read. I'm curious (legitimately--not in order to start an argument) about what you've been reading/studying and what faith tradition to participate in.
"It may be because I'm a Roman Catholic"
Yes.
Protestant Christianity does not emphasize the virgin birth NEARLY as much as the Catholic church, nor does it believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. Of course, some Protestants believe in the virgin birth, especially those in more conservative and literalist traditions, but it isn't like Catholic theology, where it's SO important.
I just want to clarify--
Are we talking about the Roman Catholic belief of Mary's "perpetual virginity" or the phrase that we use in the Nicene Creed:
"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ [...] Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man [...]"
If it's the former, I was aware of that. If it's the latter, I may have some follow up questions. That is, if you don't mind helping to enlighten a cradle Catholic. :)
Well, I was meaning both. =) But as to the latter - it's not that Protestants don't believe in the virgin birth (it's really up to the denomination/congregation/individual), but it's not taught as such an integral part of Christian theology, as it is in Catholicism. If that makes sense.
For example, my denomination likes to use the phrase, "No creed but Christ," meaning as long as one believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, that's really all that matters - all the specifics like how you think the world was created, whether you think the virgin birth actually happened, etc. don't really matter. Of course, this is just my experience, and other Protestant denominations are much stricter than mine - but I think it's safe to say that across the board, Catholicism stresses the theological importance of the Virgin Mary much, much more heavily than Protestantism
Again, I hope I'm making sense! I'm a religious studies minor, so I tend to ramble about this sort of thing.
Nawh. You're fine. As I said earlier--I'm working on a MA in Systematic Theology in the Roman Catholic tradition, so I get really excited by talking about it--it's really, really exciting to see that there are other theologians here on feministing!
I'm a United Methodist student (soon to be a seminarian!) and while virtually all mainline Christians acknowledge the beauty of the Nativity story and virgin birth, not all of us take it literally (and many don't consider it to be that important.)
I've read on this topic in a variety of sources (mostly textbooks for class), but there's one really good book called "Sacred Origins of Profound Things" that I would recommend, as it has an entire chapter on the "Virginity of the Virgin." Or if you don't feel like making a trek to the bookstore, here's an online article that goes into pretty good detail:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm
1. Jealous that you're soon to be a seminarian. CONGRATS--how amazing.
2. SO FREAKIN' EXCITED to look into this--I'm in Roman Catholic Systematic Theology and I get way, way excited to read things that I won't get in class.
"True" is not perfectly interchangeable with "literal." That's how many faiths develop diverse and even contradictory doctrines within the same faith.
I've only read about 200 pages into the King James Version of the New Testament Bible. It is a large part of why I am an atheist. It's frustrating to see the words feminist and christian in the same sentence. It shows how strong religion is.
I'd like to suggest not reading the King James version, if you are interested in reading the bible. My SO is an ordained minister and he has told me that King James has the most errors of any translation. Try the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
But when American Protestants (all of the ones I know) point to so-called "biblical truths", they are referencing the King James Version.
Thomas Jefferson also wrote a bible, as did Elizabeth Cady Stanton. And again they both took out the things they didn't like and re-wrote it as they saw fit. Sort of like what they did at the Council of Nicea.
If you don't like one book, you can just find another that suits you. Doesn't provider for much continuity, but it seems to make people happy.
Ok, so which one is THE original bible?
There isn't really an "original Bible". If I remember correctly, the Old Testament is basically the Jewish Tanakh and was originally written in Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic. The earliest known copies of the books of the New Testament were written in a Greek dialect, but the sources that they came from have long since been lost—even the oldest of the four canonical Gospels was written about 70 years after Jesus would have died, and in any case, some believe that the original language of those sources would have been Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek.
The books of the Bible as we know them weren't definitively listed until sometime in the fourth or fifth century. Even so, there are some books of the Bible known as the "Apocrypha" that most denominations don't acknowledge; they're in translations of the Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church and sometimes Anglicans/Episcopalians use some of those books in their liturgy, but you won't find them in most translations of the Bible.
That comment was just pure win.
Seabird.. thank you for describing some of my own feelings about religion. I take my elderly mother (with alzheimers) to her Presbyterian Church as often as I can because it has been so important to her life. Recently I was required to take two bible courses to get a degree at a Christian University (I am an older student and work fulltime, so it was my best option). These classes honestly moved me further from the church. I just could not cope with the rapes, murders and slavery of women----we would read this stuff and I could not believe that no one else was repelled by it. The same thing happens during services.. sermons that use these verses are just very hard for me to swallow. Luckily, my mother had a library of christian feminist writings (amazing stuff) and I used those resources for my papers. But sitting at church with her now, I often feel like an imposter.. although I believe if there is a god, She would approve of my doing this for my mom. And my mom is always so very grateful.. that is really what counts for me. Her faith is her rock - she was my rock, and I am glad to give back some of what she gave me in her more lucid years. But spare me the buying, selling and raping of women that is so freely described in the old testament and that our modern society completly ignores.
As other have said before me, kindness is a spiritual value and completely in keeping with not only Jesus' teachings but the teachings of a wide range of different teachers over the eons.
What I focus on as a Quaker are the actual words of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, not the after-the-fact commentary of Paul or the frequently petty God that exists within the pages of the Old Testament. One can call that cherry-picking if one wishes, but all religion is cherry-picking to some regard. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox use their own books of the Apocrypha which are additional books rejected altogether by vote of theological conferences, and as a result most Protestant denominations ignore them altogether. Jews have their own Apocrypha and I'm sure that it doesn't stop there.
Jesus was a radical, pacifist liberal who was way ahead of his time and the fact that he even accepted women to be part of his trusted cadre of followers is proof enough that he was committed to egalitarianism. The fact that some of these women happened to be prostitutes is also pretty telling. And, believe it or not, there is such a thing as Christian feminism. What has happened, unfortunately is that as liberals have de-emphasized religion/faith, the voices remaining are conservative ones and they end up defining the debate.
And in saying this, I do certainly understand why people have soured on any religious faith, particularly Evangelical Christianity. I've come full circle in many ways. Having been raised in a moderate to conservative Methodist church, then being taken in my mid teens to an Evangelical Megachurch, then rejecting that and becoming a Unitarian Universalist, then rejecting that and becoming a more Christ-centered, but nonetheless liberal Quaker
In my own Quaker meeting, one of our longest, most inspiring, most influential members is a woman who is one what I call the the second-wave feminist trailblazers. She began teaching at a conservative Southern Baptist private university in the early 1960's and made no attempt to hide her feminist leanings. For that, she has been called any and ever name under the sun, "Femi-Nazi" being one of the kindest, but nonetheless rose to the position of Dean of the School of English, a position she recently vacated after holding the office for several successful years. The school is still very conservative and still very right-wing Christian, so she certainly has her work cut out for her.
But while she may not call herself a Christian, per se, she is certain possessed of a strong faith and has served as an inspiration to me. Again, I encourage people to reclaim faith for themselves without fear that in so doing they must automatically ascribe to a very anti-feminist philosophy in the process.
Thank you for your comment. It just blows my mind sometimes that people fail to see Jesus as anything but a radical, pacifist liberal.
"I encourage people to reclaim faith for themselves without fear that in so doing they must automatically ascribe to a very anti-feminist philosophy in the process."
THIS for emphasis. I'm Muslim and I've been lectured to about how the irrationality of Islamic Feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism) from people on the left and right. I don't pay them any attention. I'm carving out my own space in my cultural and religious and tradition and THAT is a one hell of a feminist act.
"It just blows my mind sometimes that people fail to see Jesus as anything but a radical, pacifist liberal."
He was, but Jesus is not running your church. He never was. Your head pastor or bishop is running your church. Modern day Christianity bears very little resemblance to the teachings of Christ.
Right.
And that's exactly why we (feminist and progressive Christians) need to exist and stay in churches. Who else will call for reform and help enact Jesus' radical lessons?
There isn't even any evidence, other than sources from the Christian tradition, which suggests that Jesus even existed. All the 'evidence' is hearsay.
The Romans didn't have any record of him. And they were GOOD record keepers.
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Why exactly are sources in the Christian tradition automatically invalid? To the Romans, Jesus was one of many people promoting themselves as messianic figures in an outer territory of their empire. Why would he be in Roman records?
Hell, I think there's more evidence for Bigfoot's existence than Jesus'.
And there ain't much evidence for Bigfoot...
huh? What happened to "Religion is the opiate of the people," Comrade Kevin?
He's a Quaker not a Nietzschean?
'Opium of the people' is Marx, not Nietzsche...
All the worthless philosophical Jeopardy shit I have learned.... such a waste.
Dammit! My first thought was Marx, too. It's been too long since I've studied philosophy. ;___;
Thought still stands, though. Even if I misattributed.
Reason I ask Comrade Kevin this is because I thought I saw him comenting on another post, saying he had Marxist views. I just thought these comments about being a Quaker seemed a bit odd, if he is a Marxist.
I see a lot of overlap with Quakerism (and I don't know much) and Marxism.
Quakerism states we are all equal before God, and God speaks to everyone, not just a select few.
Quakers also live a simple life without ostentatious displays of wealth.
Marx believed the end state of humanity will be political, social and economic equality of all people... sounds good.
Marx, in his On the Jewish Question stated that capitalism had turned Christians into Jews by legitimizing greed and avarice.
Quakers, with their emphasis on the simple life and equality perhaps would resemble what Marx and his intellectual successors would say pre-capitalism Christianity looked like.
Well, if it wasn't for the meddling of the Pope.
So I think that our comrade could be quite comfortable as both Quaker and Marxist... more comfortable than many feminist Christians.
In Unitarian Universalism, kindness is indeed a spiritual practice. We also make the comment that sexism, racism, ablism, etc. aren't welcome in our house of worship.
It boggles my mind that so many people see Christianity as incompatible with typical liberal teachings. There are tons of very liberal Christians out there, and some of them are doing amazing things.
At the same time, the form of feminism I practice is opposed to monotheism on such a fundamental level, I don't see how to reconcile it. Feminism to me is about embracing diversity and plurality at every level of our lives. There are wonderful forms of Christianity that preach love and kindness and equality, and that's definitely a step (or several large leaps!) in the right direction... but it's not enough. Unless you're going to get rid of the whole monotheism thing completely, I simply don't see how it's possible to practice Christianity in a way that truly embraces plurality. From what I've seen, people will either going to exclude way too much (like most conservative Christians do) or subsume everything into one (what people often do when they say all of the world is God). That is never going to bring deep appreciation of plurality into our world, and feminism as I understand it requires a deep appreciation of plurality.
I think we need to stop demonizing Christianity for ridiculous reasons - like claiming that there's no such thing as liberal Christians - and focus on learning about the strengths and weaknesses of various Christian doctrines.
I just want to say, thank you for this post.
It is imperative that all people who strive to be inclusive and to promote equality not marginalize people for such a deeply personal, sacred, and cultural thing as religion. No mater the religion.
There are too, too many atheists, liberals and feminists (all labels I identify with) who will allow a great deal of open-mindedness for anything other than religion. And of all the religions, some American liberals/feminists love to bash and hate Christianity the most. Perhaps, in the U.S., it is so pervasive that we must comment negatively on it or we'd be privileging it beyond every other social element. But to generalize a religion or its members is just ludicrous and Othering.
Patriarchy, racism, and hierarchy all existed before Christianity. Religion did not create these conventions; humans wrote them into religions. We are the only ones who can write them out. If we simply assign them a false inherency, we're only paving the way for them to be further assigned to other elements for centuries to come.
Tara, you said what I was going to say, except much better. And Courtney: thank you for writing such a thoughtful, fair, and beautiful essay.
Funny that you have a go at atheists for not being 'open minded' about religion - when in fact, if there were any proof or indeed any evidence at all of the existence of a god, all the atheists I know including myself would convert on the spot.
What atheists are not prepared to support is this idea that blind faith is a virtue. Blind faith (i.e. believing things not because they are true but because you want to believe them) is the foundation of misogyny, too.
Religious faith is not necessarily synonymous with blind faith. For most Christians, evidence of the existence of God is both pervasive, and very personal. Many have stories in which His existence made evident to them divine activity in their own lives. Such faith may not be based on scientific evidence, but to say that it is "blind" is simply nonsensical, and dismissive of the experiences of many believers.
In addition, to my mind, any belief requires faith, including athiesm and agnosticism. While believers have unscientific faith in a higher power, an athiest or agnostic must rely on unscientific faith in the ability of the human mind to grasp evidence of the divine. Perhaps evidence of the existence of God (including scientific evidence) is all around us, and we're simply not evolved enough to recognize it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- particularly with regard to the existence of God.
kbz
Thanks for this post. It's hard to be a christian and a feminist: I feel like my christianity is often dismissed or treated with hostility by progressives, and that my progressive views are dismissed or treated with hostility by some christians. As others have already said in this thread, I am a feminist BECAUSE I'm a christian. Both make me try to treat others with kindness and care.
THIS THIS THIS. i'm feminist because i'm a humanist, and i'm a humanist because i'm a christian.
i get frustrated by the hostility to religion, especially christianity, i often see on feministing, and, in my view, the editors tolerate it far more than they would tolerate racism, ableism, etc. it seems that many people here and elsewhere conflate religious belief with a weakness of the intellect, when nothing could be further from the truth. it's akin to trying to use an algebraic formula to figure out why you love your significant other.
also, i'm pretty sick of the "i had a bad experience with XYZ religion as a kid so that's why i think it's stupid that anyone believes in it." not helpful. prejudice is an ugly thing.
Wait, please do not tell me you are equating bashing Christianity with racism and ableism.
As I understand it, many people on this site are from countries where Christianity is the dominant or hegemonic religion. Christians in the US or the UK ARE NOT OPPRESSED. If you have to make comparisons, it would be more apt to say that this is like people of colour criticizing whiteness, or disabled people criticizing able-bodied-ness.
The anger of a marginalized group towards a dominant group may or may not be constructive, and it may sometimes involve broad overgeneralizations, but it is a perfectly valid and understandable response to the experience of marginalization. And I think in most cases, members of a dominant group can learn a lot from the anger of people outside their group, if they care to listen rather than jump at any chance to claim reverse discrimination.
Is bashing someone more acceptable when they are not oppressed? Is oppression a prerequisite to not being "bashed" ... i.e. if you're not bashed by the obnoxious majority, you're fair game for us?
And, while Christians may not be an oppressed minority in this country -- we certainly are a minority, and subject to considerable scrutiny and ridicule, within liberal and feminist circles.
kbz
As I said, anger towards a dominant group is a valid emotion. You may not like it, and I understand it can be frustrating to face, but (assuming you are in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion, I think the situation changes quite a lot in places where it is not) you have to remember that being a Christian gives you privilege. A few liberals disapproving of your ideas is nothing akin to systemic racism, transphobia, sexism, etc.
Christians still have incredible amounts of institutional power, the vast majority of people know something about their religion (whatever they think of it), the vast majority of people view their religion as acceptable or even right, and if you are in the US, pretty much the entire country is run according to Christian belief systems. Compared to that, it's ridiculous to act like a victim because of the criticisms of some liberals who take issue with Christianity and are too worn out to express it in a better way than anger.
That sounds like justification. Because of who you are, its OK when we bash you -- its just not OK when they bash us.
Nice.
kbz
I'm not for bashing anyone. In fact, I am very much against it...I actually majored in Religious Studies at college largely so that I could better understand and appreciate Christianity, and I learned a lot from those studies. I'm just saying that we need to try to understand and empathize with people who are angry at dominant groups, rather than falling back on some 'no one should be prejudiced against anyone else so let's pretend the world is completely equal already and no one has any reason to feel anger' ideology. Is it really not nice of me to suggest we try to empathize with other people?
>> Is it really not nice of me to suggest we try to empathize with other people?
Actually, you seem to be suggesting that we only empathize with CERTAIN people -- and that Christians do not qualify.
kbz
Wow, you are just determined to play the victim here. If you can't recognize that it is legitimate for people to feel anger towards hegemonic institutions in their society, I'm not sure there's anything I can say.
You appear to be determined to preserve your right to mistreat good people simply because they are Christian ... apparently on the grounds that another Christian mistreated you first, thus giving you license to judge and mistreat all Christians for eternity. I should not be targeted simply because of my religious beliefs ... regardless of whether those beliefs agree with a majority, or a minority.
Personally, I don't get it. I don't see myself as a vicitm ... but I don't understand fighting this hard to preserve in favor of the right to "bash" individual Christians who have personally done nothing to you.
kbz
I'm not fighting for anyone's right to hate you, I'm saying that empathy is an important thing. Learning that Christians can be kind and caring people has been a very challenging part of my personal spiritual journey, as I have had very painful experiences with the religion in my past. Part of that journey was also accepting that my anger was a legitimate response to the experiences I had, similarly to how anger towards men is a legitimate response to rape and abuse. It might not be the most enlightened outlook, but our feelings are not always proper or intellectually sound. They are responses to deeply personal experiences.
I would not start complaining if I heard a person of colour saying rude things about white people, or a trans person saying rude things about cis people. I might feel upset, but I would try to see where that anger was coming from and if there was any way of learning from it. I think in general, it is the responsibility of members of dominant groups to listen to people outside their group, even if it isn't pleasant.
many christians, myself included, DO listen when others talk about how christians have done them wrong. and we try, in response, to live our lives more honorably and sensitively. in fact, that's why many of us are here. to allow misinformation and ignorance, even about a dominant group, to remain unchallenged runs contrary to the principles of this movement.
and, while having been victimized certainly can cause one to have justifiable and valid feelings of anger, feminism, as a RATIONALIST movement, should, in my view, align itself with rational principles, with the core principle being that all people are of equal value and should be judged by "the content of their character", not by the actions of others.
i actually said that the editors on this site allow more hostility (i.e., judgments on character, questioning of feminism, spreading of misinformation) to christianity and other religions in the comments of this site far more than they would permit racist or ableist (etc.) comments. and prejudice, i.e. ***pre-judgment*** of someone's character or beliefs based on their skin color, abilities, and yes, their religion, is NEVER acceptable. you may consider that naive, i consider it idealistic.
a quick run-through of the comments on this post will indicate that i am FAR from the only person who feels this way regarding discussion of religion on this board.
i never said that oppressed groups should not have space to speak.
it's akin to saying: rape is bad; most rape is committed by men; therefore, men are bad. that sort of reasoning would (rightly) be shot down as prejudicial and would be not welcome on this board.
Courtney, thanks for this lovely post.
As a Christian, liberal, and feminist, I am saddened by the amount of religion-bashing that goes on in progressive communities, and I'm really sick of the assumption that I'm somehow ignorant about what my religion "actually" teaches because I don't believe that my political and religious beliefs are diametrically opposed. I mean, my religious beliefs were the entire foundation for my political beliefs - while I'm sure I would've been a die-hard liberal anyway, I know I discovered my passions about politics sooner because of my religion and my (super-awesome, progressive) minister father.
Of course I know that the Bible contains tons of misogyny, but I don't see the Bible the way many fundies do. The parts on which I choose to focus the most are the Gospels, which are all about love, compassion, grace, and mercy - values that I certainly don't see as opposed to feminism.
My best friend of many years is conservative and I am liberal. On the other hand, my mother is a batshit crazy Christian extremist (I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Love you crazy mommy!). Another (former) longtime friend of mine has parents who literally live in a commune. Between my mom and my friend's parents, I have personally witnessed all kinds of shades of batshit crazy "religulous" insanity. However, over time I've found that there are plenty of really nice Christian moderates... just like my nice-girl-next-door, sweet, wonderful, mostly sane, down to earth, smart, funny, talented, wonderful, sweetheart, all-American Christian friend. Do we disagree on many issues? Yes, of course, but we agree more than we disagree. I think that having her for a friend has helped me to be more open minded about the Christian faith.
So, the Church you went to said nice things about equality. So what? Does it get a cookie? Should it be lauded and praised for doing something that it should be doing anyway? If a friend of yours said these things about men and women 'having' each other, would you be so impressed?
I ask these questions because every time something remotely progressive happens in a church, whether it be a nod toward gender equality or acceptance of homosexuality, feminism falls over itself to say how amazing it is. It isn't amazing, it's the bare minimum of lip service towards issues which historically, the church has been vehemently opposed to.
I have to say also, even if every church of every religion out there reformed itself so that it was a champion of equality, there would STILL be no evidence that a god exists.
"there also seems to be something sort of comforting about mutually possessing one another, as if the equality of it cancels out the objectification. In this light, "having" your partner means being responsible for them, empathizing with them, taking on the world beside them."
I totally agree. I find nothing wrong with saying I'm responsible for my husband. If he gets sick or looses his job, I am responsible for taking care of him and myself because we're a family. That is what a family does. Just as he is responsible for taking care of me if I get sick or loose my job. And if he messes up and gets in trouble I will bail him out, just as he would do that for me. It's important to know that we can be supported by another person, so we don't have be alone. Life is long, it's important to have support.
Also on the topic of religion, I was raised Muslim and although there are a lot of aspects of Islam which stink of anti-feminist sentiments it's all a matter of how you interpret those words. Because of my dad's understanding of Islam, he made sure that my sister and I were college educated, that we had monetary independence and that the man I married did not abuse me in any way, physically or emotionally.
I am not very religious myself and neither is my husband, but I think we both learned something VERY important from our upbringings, mainly that it is very important to exercise self-control and to volunteer and do good for your community. (He was raised Jewish). I bring feminism to the Mosque all the time ;). By completely dismissing religion as anti-feminist is in a sense dismissing tradition, culture and family. I think it would be much more effective if we brought feminism to those arenas and made changes that way instead of just dismissing religion or traditions as a lost cause.
As a devout Catholic who feels more than a wee bit defensive in here at times I really apreciated this post Court.