hi all. i have a group blog called christian feminism. someone here was asking for resources but the post was closed to further comments so here i am a full-fledging member of feministing now. :)
just to let you know about us we are not liberal (or conservative) theologically but actually do use the bible to support christian feminism. i know, sounds crazy but it's true and we don't mangle the book or cherry pick it either. jesus was most definitely a feminist! we're more postmodern than anything else and try to eschew those false dichotomies of conservative and liberal. most of us have been a part of the emerging church movement back in the day when it was all about postmodernism. feel free to come on over and visit and i'll have to check out this site more.
peace,
linda
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: a christian feminism blog.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16696
This is an honest question born out of curiosity: If you don't cherry-pick the Bible, how do you deal with the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy and Leviticus? The Old Testament is most definitely part of the Bible.
Most Christians believe that Jesus taught his followers to go beyond the laws of Leviticus to a more 'heart-centered' religion, so keeping kosher and so on went by the wayside.
There are also biblical scholars who believe that we're using biased translations that don't fully reflect the original meaning. For example, they suggest that the word usually translated as 'homosexuals' in Paul may refer to a specific sort of male-for-male prostitutes and doesn't really apply to committed same-sex couples.
How is that possible? God laid down the laws in the early texts. God is infallible. If Jesus says those laws shouldn't be followed because his new laws are better, doesn't that make God's original laws fallible?
I'm simplifying things here, because I could write a several page essay on this topic, but the idea isn't that God got it wrong the first time and then had to correct things.
It's more that the Mosaic Law was extremely well designed and suited for the time and religious development of the people it was given to, but that we reached a point where we were ready to take the next step. You wouldn't solve a multiplication problem using addition today, but that doesn't make addition useless or wrong. So, long story short, we were the ones that changed (by 'growing up' spiritually) and not God.
I should note I don't agree with this view - it's at least a bit offensive to observant Jews - but it's the most logical explanation I've heard.
Am not a Christian, but from what I understand, Christians see Christianity/Jesus as fulfilling the convenant between God and Jews, and therefore, the old convenant is complete and now they have this new one in Jesus. Like an evolution of the relationship between God and humankind.
As a Jew, I have my own feelings about that (obviously!), but there ya go.
wow, you all have been having quite the discussion since i posted! i don't know if i can answer everyone's questions--and i do not claim to have all the answers by any means--but i'll try to get to some of them.
i agree with what alixana says here. as christians we are not under the old (or first) covenant so we are not bound by all the OT (old testament) laws. jesus fulfilled the old covenant and we are now under the new covenant which does include the 10 commandments are they are explicated in the NT (new testament). jesus gave us a new commandment that pretty much sums all of the others up anyway: love God and love your neighbors. this doesn't mean we throw out the bible though. another thing to realize is that the bible is not always prescriptive but rather descriptive. meaning that it is a narrative book that isn't always saying "do this" but rather descriptively just telling what happened and how sometimes people screwed up. that is key. also, the bible is not a book where we can always take a scripture and apply it universally to all people in all times in all circumstances. that is a shoddy, and very modern, way to interpret scripture. it ain't a rule book -- it's a narrative of how God interacts with his people that sometimes contains laws. believe it or not there is some great stuff in the OT too. God deals with different people differently and shows the various sides of his personality in various situations. God isn't schitzo--but rather a well-rounded fully formed...god. :) just like a good parent knows when to joke around and be fun and when to be serious and when to be incredibly compassionate and loving.
when i said we don't cherry-pick or mangle the book i don't mean we follow all the OT laws since the NT tells us not to. what i do personally believe is that the scriptures are inspired (i.e. they are true on matters of faith and conduct) and we read the whole bible in context, and consider the literary style, rather than pulling out a verse here or there to support preconceived ideas. so, we differ from the conservatives who take things literally (so jesus is a gate, a slab of wood? lol) and ignore context and literary form and we differ from the liberals who don't believe the bible really is true. reading the bible, a premodern text, with modern interpretive methods really doesn't come up with interpretations that are true to the text. for example, in corinthians there is a verse that says women should be silent in church (1 cor 14:34) but only a few chapters before in the very same book of corinthians it says women should not prophesy and pray in church with their heads uncovered (1 cor 11:5). taking a literal reading of these two verses ends up in contradiction as a woman who cannot speak in church obviously can't prophesy or pray in church. when we look at what the whole bible has to say about women speaking or prophesying in church and also look at the context of the specific situation the author of corinthians (paul) was speaking to we realize that he was referring to women (probably new converts who sadly were uneducated) being unruly in the service who were taking their newfound freedoms a bit too far. we already know that women prophesied in church anyway from the prophetess anna who spoke about the baby jesus (luke 2). that is only one part of the explanation and there are others you'll find on the blog. i'm not even the one that has done the bible interpretation on our blog. you can click on the author "beautiaful" as tia lynn has done the studies on the blog that start in genesis and go thru the whole book.
ok, more later. :)
Are you certain Paul even wrote the "Women should be silent in Church" bit? I may be mixing it up with another passage, but I think that was one of the passages written by someone else and inserted later that was discussed in Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.
So this is totally random, but you might want to check out Rosemary Radford Ruether's Faith and Fratricide. She's a Catholic feminist theologian who confronts this issue head-on, laying out how the idea that Jesus "fulfills" the law is the underlying support for (Christians') anti-Semitism.
She has some really neat ideas on how to move away from that, too. I don't know if you'll be as interested in those, given the whole not-a-Christian thing (I see this part of the book as a wake-up call for the church), but the other stuff is *definitely* worth it. She's a pretty clear writer, too.
But you know, whatever. Just a suggestion.
Thanks for the title - I've never read anything about supersessionism from a Christian viewpoint that actually acknowledges that it's a basis for antisemitism. I'll definitely seek this book out, it sounds like a refreshing point of view.
replacement theology (aka supersessionism) makes me rather ill. i came from a church that had a number of jewish believers and was very supportive of jews and israel in a balanced way. i didn't realize how anti-semitic some churches are. i encountered some of that recently and i made a point to speak up even thought i am still just learning about it. it really is awful. another book that addresses supersessionism and anti-semitism is our father abraham: jewish roots of the christian faith by marvin wilson.
Also, I already knew about "homosexual" not existing in the original Greek, but how do you explain Deuteronomy 22:23-24?
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."
It seems to me that one would HAVE to cherry-pick in order to reconcile the Bible with feminism.
One thing I would point out in that verse, abhorrent as it is in other ways, is that compared to other legal codes of the time it's very hard on rapists/male adulterers, who usually get off pretty easily. It also does NOT punish women who either called for help or were out of earshot of any help, which is again unusual. To most groups, it didn't matter if a woman was willing or not - if she'd had extramarital sex she was damaged goods, end of story.
These days we just don't punish many crimes with execution, period, and no church has the authority to. But I think even many mainstream Christian churches would take a step toward equality if they - as this verse does - considered adultery by a man and adultery by a woman equally wrong.
Just recently, bell hooks stated:"God is a feminist because if we accept that God is a god of love then we know that God fully intends for females and males to be self-actualized, self-empowered and full of self esteem." (found this time at http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2009/10/bell-hooks-says-god-is-feminist-to.html )
I'm very much not Christian (but am a Feminist!), but the intersection of religion and different "isms" I find to be interesting. I look forward to reading your blog.
A person's chosen deity (God, the Spirit, Mother Earth, whatever...) may be feminist, but Christianity is not. It is a specific dogma that is decidedly not feminist.
On this blog, the authors link to a crisis pregnancy center website and the website for the organization Feminists for Life. These are both notorious anti-feminist associations.
This is not a Feminist blog. It is a Christian blog. Period.
taxgirl said in another comment:
"I said that "Christianity" is not feminist. That is my opinion. If your opinion is that I am a bitch for saying that, then so be it. I said the blog mentioned in the post is not feminist. That is my opinion. If your opinion is that I am a bitch for saying that, then so be it. I did not say which woman or women are not feminists."
hey, i certainly don't think you're a bitch for having an opinion. but it is helpful in discussions if you identify for us which views are your opinions and which you are presenting as facts.
as for the groups i linked to as far as i know neither is politically active in any way so they are not trying to take away anyone's choices. in fact, they are giving women more choices in addition to providing pregnant women with shelter. i'm not sure how is that being anti-feminist. as i understand it feminism is a pretty big tent. there are many, many different types of feminists. not all look alike, think alike or agree. it's the same in christianity. shoot, i even voted for obama the hated "pro-choice" candidate by some christians.
if you read a bit about the history of feminism, feminists like to claim the early suffragists as the first wave of feminism. these women leaders in the US had championed the abolition of slavery before taking up the cause of a women's right to vote. they were strongly influenced by quaker thought and some were even part of the women's christian temperance union so some christians (certainly not all) have been feminists for a pretty long time.
taxgirl said in another comment:
"Anything based on a Bible and Christian Dogma that tells us that women are put on Earth to be the helpmates of men, are responsible for the downfall of human kind (although they would say "mankind"), should not speak in Church, should "submit" to their husbands, drive men to evil, and should never wear pants, doesn't sound very feminist to me."
i can't say i agree with any of that so i guess i wouldn't be a christian by your book. what you have described here is what fundamentalist christians believe. personally, i think they put the "mental" in fundamental. ;) i have a blogpost called labels, the f-word, and splitting hairs that addresses some of this.
peace
Just in response to this, listing a CPC is NOT giving women options. It's providing a biased one-sided and utterly disgusting message in women's heads about how they HAVE to bear their child, give birth, and raise it, end of discussion. Planned Parenthood GIVES CHOICES because they offer the information about abortion but they do not say "abortion is the only way". On the other hand, CPC's do say pregnancy and birth are the only ways because god says so.
If you did not know this about CPC's (which many do not) then I'm sorry for snapping. But if you do understand what it is they do then you should know better not to refer them to women who want choices.
I've never understood how Christian feminists hold such contrary views. I will check out the blog to try to understand.
Oh My God. I didn't know we had the Queen of All Feminism on Feministing. Please, can you take a little bit of time out of you busy schedule to tell us about what the exact definition of feminism. Never mind that feminism is different for a lot of people. What about the Muslim Feminist groups in Iran or Arab nations. People struggle with Feminism and the rest of their lives every day and I am sorry to be snarky but telling women what they are and are not is NOT FEMINIST!
I said that "Christianity" is not feminist. That is my opinion. If your opinion is that I am a bitch for saying that, then so be it. I said the blog mentioned in the post is not feminist. That is my opinion. If your opinion is that I am a bitch for saying that, then so be it. I did not say which woman or women are not feminists.
As for Islam, I do not know enough about it to make any kind of judgment.
Per Websters, Feminism is: "The theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes." Sounds pretty basic. Moving on. Christianity is: "the religion delivered from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies."
Anything based on a Bible and Christian Dogma that tells us that women are put on Earth to be the helpmates of men, are responsible for the downfall of human kind (although they would say "mankind"), should not speak in Church, should "submit" to their husbands, drive men to evil, and should never wear pants, doesn't sound very feminist to me.
I completely and totally disagree with many early texts of feminism, to the extent that the form of feminism I practice would probably be unrecognizable to anyone who understood 'feminism' as those texts. Does that mean I can't call myself a feminist? No, because I'd rather expand the meaning of the label and try to change the tradition from within. I'm not a Christian, but I imagine it works much the same for many feminist Christians. (Obviously, feminism isn't defined by one certain work the way that Christianity is, but it is defined by certain ideas and concepts that are, quite frankly, meaningless in my form of feminism)
Also, using dictionary definitions of such an incredibly complex thing as religious traditions is just ludicrous. What does 'sacred' mean? What does 'delivered from' imply? What exactly is meant by 'Jesus Christ' (the historical person, or something else)? There are thousands of ways to answer those questions, and I'm sure every possible answer has been held by some Christian at some point. And of course, there will always be Christians who disagree with the definition.
In other words, life isn't that black and white.
Icy Bear, there is an important difference between the "early texts of feminism" which you completely and totally disagree with and The Holy Bible Which is The Word of God. By all means, if Susan or Gloria or Simone or Betty say something that puts sand up your knickers then disagree vehemently with what they say, because feminists have not declared that Gloria, Simone, or Betty are The Way The Truth and The Light and that believing lock stock and barrel in what they wrote is the difference between salvation and eternal torment.
When Andrea Dworkin or Naomi Wolf say something that chaps our ass, we have it within ourselves to argue the point completely within the logical realm of reality on its own merits. It is not shot down because what they have written is understood to be infallible and springing of an omniscient, omnipresent power. If God Says a woman must be locked in a shack while she is menstruating, then all of the rational, logical discourse in the world cannot go against the Word Of God who knows all, has hidden plans, and for whom any articulation of dissent is simply waved away as a hardened heart who turned away from the Light.
Yes, if you are assuming one certain form of Christianity which prefers a certain form of literal reading given certain traditions of translation and interpretation. You're missing the infinite number of other ways Christians can understand the purpose of the Bible and the ways it is sacred, as well as the infinite number of ways it can be read.
We all read different things when we read a text. We all change parts of it, make new meanings, and read against the things that we disagree with. Our reading really creates an entirely new text... In my mind, that's the beauty of reading, and it applies to sacred texts as well as any other. What you read in the Bible says nothing about the intensely personal spiritual relationships other readers might form from the same words.
It doesn't mean the words of the Bible aren't incredibly messed up and terrifying, but it does mean there's an awful lot more to Christianity than what a person picks up by leafing through a Bible.
If it isn't The Word Of God, why bother with it at all? After all, there have been numerous secular books written over the course of history that have contained many words of wisdom, but we don't congregate every Sunday to pay tribute to the writings of J.S. Mills, or donate to the coffers of First United DuBois, or call ourselves Aesopians, and struggle with overcoming our identities as both Feminists and staunch Cartesians.
Christians exist because they believe that the Bible is The Word of God. You can cherry-pick all you like, but while Rand may have written one or two interesting ideas down in that mammoth pile of rubbish that is The Fountainhead, it's not like I went out and looked for a community to help me be a Feminist and an Objectivist and spent considerable time and effort partitioning off all the horrible things she's written about women so that I could still call myself both. Because Rand is just another dead asshole and her words mean only as much as someone assigns to them. But The Bible is a little bit more tenacious, and it isn't because it's the most well-written story ever (it's a little too self-contradictory to be that), it's because people believe that The Bible is The Holy Word of God.
Ecumenicism is lovely but you can't really argue it if you believe that a) there is a God and b) His Word is written down in The Bible. If God exists and has created a text by which we all must live in order to truly know Him and be Saved By Him, then you can't just declare that you're going to selectively ignore some of it in favor of the parts that you would rather follow.
If, however, you're iffy on whether or not a) there is a God, and b) his Word has been written down faithfully in The Bible then there's really no point to it. I mean, you can't really call yourself a Christian and yet reject the very foundation of Christian Doctrine... particularly when there's an omniscient God who's watching you thumb your nose at Him. I suppose you could call yourself a feminist and still beat your wife and lobby for a repeal of women's bodily autonomy, and we'd all know better and try to correct the record that that no, you weren't a feminist, but ultimately we can't do a damn thing about it. But if there is a God, and you're rejecting His Holy Word to go off and do your own thing because it doesn't conflict with your patchwork beliefs of Feminism and Spirituality, then you'd better believe that He is going to get the last word in.
I struggle with reconciling my philosophical/ethical beliefs and my feminism all the time. (And hell, if you're a staunch Cartesian and a feminist, you SHOULD be struggling with your identity.) Sometimes beliefs conflict, and it takes a lot of learning and thinking to figure out how to handle that. I'm surprised you've never encountered that kind of struggle before, I thought everyone did.
But what I'm trying to say here is, not every Christian believes in the form of Christianity you obviously think they believe in! The one the fundamentalists go on about, with a God who hates everyone who interprets the Bible differently and demands literal readings (as they are understood by some people today).
I hate to be the one defending Christianity here, because I am one of the most staunchly against-Christianity people out there. I think I just hate that being against Christianity has come to be associated with all these overused, easily-challenged Dawkins-esque ideas. It is just letting Christians dismiss any serious critique far too easily!
Careful Icy Bear, you don't know what my own identity is.
And I challenge you to describe just what the Bible is to Christians if it is not the divinely inspired Word of God. And if it is not the Divinely inspired Word of God, why anyone should bother identifying with its texts at all when there's so much problematic stuff in it.
And if it is not the Divinely inspired Word of God, why anyone should bother identifying with its texts at all when there's so much problematic stuff in it.
Baby + bathwater.
While I am not a Christian, I don't understand this concept of "there are problems with the movement/religion/book/philosophy, therefore the whole thing is utterly worthless." Do you hold anything else to this same standard? Does anyone?
I for one applaud Reflection for working to change Christianity rather than writing it off as utterly damaged goods.
First of all, I'm not sure how anything I said was making any assumptions about your identity, except that you're not all that fond of Christianity, which seems a safe assumption to make...
I have known some Christians who see the Bible as a historical document, making it a reflection of the social conditions of the time it was written, very ambiguous in a lot of ways, put together by a ton of different people with different motives and conflicting ideas, edited over time drastically, and impossible to understand without a lot of contextual information (some of which is not available, because it was compiled so long ago). They keep to it still for a variety of reasons:
a) the tradition of Christianity means more to them than the book itself, for example the community, their family, the act of going to church, etc.
b) as Christians on this board have expressed, they find certain messages (like social justice or love or whatever) to be a stronger theme coming out from all of it. It's a somewhat trivial example, but I tend to think of this like watching Mulan - it's racist, colonialist to the extreme, a disgusting celebration of war, sexist in some horrifying ways, and all sorts of other things, but I can understand that the movie was primarily trying to suggest that women should be who they want to be. I personally can't take that message from the movie and erase from my mind all the other parts, but I can understand how a person might.
c) some Christians actually do reject the Bible! I've seen this in some liberation theologies and with some Quakers. For the Quakers, the tradition, although Christian, was removed enough from mainstream Christianity to be able to non-problematically reject some of its basic parts.
and d) some believe that the human writing and translation of the books of the Bible in a patriarchal society led to censorship of empowering parts to women. they may try to 'write women back in', the same way as I think many feminists do when they find inspiration in old books or films that are blatantly sexist. To stay with the tradition then may mean to take whatever chance possible to reform a patriarchal institution, reclaim it and make it your own, refuse to let the patriarchy continue to define yet another social institution - again, the same as what feminists do with all sorts of institutions.
or any combination thereof, or a huge number of other things i'm invariably missing.
Again, I would STRONGLY caution you to not extrapolate my feelings toward Christianity from what I've written here. I am arguing a point: which is that if the Bible is that the only reason we have constructed entire cultures around the Bible is because we believe it is The Divine Word of God and if so, then it cannot be argued the way that a secular text is argued because you're basically arguing with God. And it's pretty damn convenient to declare which parts of the Bible you're going to follow and which ones you aren't because you have the secret knowledge of what God really meant and you happen to know which of the sections were altered by opportunists over time. If you really have at your core a belief in a Divine Being that "resembles" the being in The Bible, faith demands that you respect That Word and not cherry-pick His Laws based on what makes you most comfortable.
If, however, you do not believe there is a God (whether or not you know it), or do not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired at any rate, then The Bible can very easily be a thing of convenience and you can decide to chuck out whole passages of it.
you're doing a great job so i think i'll just let you respond here. ;) hey, i have a couple of friends who are atheists. they are friends first and atheists second. i try to see people as people first and not their views.
Various sects of Christianity interpret the bible differently and do choose to only focus on certain aspects of what is written. Some Christian sects realize that the bible is a historical piece rather than literature written by the hands of "God". "God" isn't necessarily an omnipotent being in some views of Christianity. These Christian sects understand the need for spirituality and social support for those in the community who may come from a more traditional view of Christianity or are seeking religion.
Christians are diverse. Some sects do interpret the bible as literal truth. Others don't and are adjusting the teachings in the bible to fit more modern times, but are still Christians. Here is a link to a more modern Christian church in my community that does pick and choose parts of the bible and notes that the stories be up for interpretation.
I am personally an atheist but don't like to disregard religion as it can provide immense social support in addition to being progressive for the times and even feminist.
I didn't mean to link the entire last paragraph.
Coming again from a non-Christian perspective, but you seem to be using the assumption that Bible = Word Of God and therefore it must be read word-for-word.
Orthodox Jews believe the Bible is the Word Of God, and have since the beginning of the religion. Also, from the beginning of the religion, they've struggled with just what the hell the Word of God MEANS. Check out the Talmud.
It's really not so easy as yelling, "Word of God! PWNED!"
Heck, the Bible can't even decide what "Word of God" means: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God." (John 1:1)
Generally, in Christianity, "Word" or "Word of God" is taken to be synonymous with Jesus. I don't know about you, but I have a pretty hard time equating an omnipotent, omniscient deity with instructions on how to clean mold out of your bathroom.
>> "It's really not so easy as yelling, "Word of God! PWNED!"
All sermons should TOTALLY close with this. Rabbi, priest, pastor...doesn't matter. This phrase could, quite possibly, singlehandedly revitalize worship.
in many evangelical circles today Word of God refers colloquially to the bible. the bible has been practically elevated to being the 4th member of the trinity. i don't know when that started but Word (capital W) of God = jesus according to the christian bible which contains the words (small w) of God. it is a book like no other though and i do believe it is divinely inspired.
i love how jews struggle with the hebrew scriptures. i went to a bar mitzvah once and i was surprised to hear people comment and discuss during the sermon (sorry, i don't know what that is called in judaism). some of the emerging churches are incorporating things like that a bit. i like it.
I am a christian first and foremost. But I am also a feminist. There are parts of the new testament that tell us that the rules that the Jews lived by were null and void since they were intended for them under the old covenant. But the covenant changed when Jesus died on the cross. Therefore, the rules that we lead changed. The reason that we still use the old testament in Christian religions is in order to prove Jesus's existence. Basically its for the prophecies that said when where and how the messiah was going to come.
Though somewhat more liberal than many Christians -- I am a practicing Christian.
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the old covenant was arranged wherein Salvation could be obtained by living by a certain code. But, humanity failed to live up to their end of the covenant -- they did not abide by the code.
In His mercy, instead of simply releasing the entirety of humanity to just condemnation for failure to keep the covenant, God sent Christ, "His only begotten Son" and the image of moral perfection. Christ bore the entirety of the punishment for the failure to live up to the original covenant (for those who came before, as well as those who come after), and God turned his back on Christ on the Cross as He should've justly turned His back on humanity ("My God, why has thou forsaken me?"). Through this sacrifice, a new covenant was established wherein Salvation (by grace alone) could be obtained through a relationship with Christ.
In this understanding, the new covenant does not completely invalidate the tenets of the original covenant, it simply provides the sacrifice of Christ to fulfill the human end of the original covenant. The words and deeds of Christ reiterated many of the tene
It's the comment section of a website - I have to keep it simple...don't have time for a novel here.
"No, because I'd rather expand the meaning of the label and try to change the tradition from within."
Problem: Women are in control of the "Women's Movement". It was started by women. This is not the case with Christianity. There is a largely male bureaucracy at the helm and there has been since the beginning starting with St. Peter. You could say the same things about politics and other areas, but when so many of the basics are based in patriarchy, I don't see how one explains that away with "change from within."
Also, there's no "Divine book of Feminism" to draw from. The closest thing to that we have is maybe "The Second Sex"? But that is a more contemporary book. Although it would be interesting if there was a divine book...
"Feminism is the way, the truth and the light...she who believeth in it shall never die but shall have everlasting life, equal pay, unfettered access to birth control and paid maternity leave..."
Women have been involved with Christianity in important roles since its inception. A lot of it has been lost (or deliberately covered up) in time, but they were there, shaping the tradition.
And I don't understand your distinction between the church's patriarchy and patriarchy in politics. How exactly is Christianity MORE patriarchal than other major aspects of our world? I was under the impression that pretty much the entirety of modern politics, the concept of the nation-state, Western philosophy, most of the values our children are supposed to grow up learning, etc. are all patriarchal in nature - or at the very least in historical roots. If you live in a world that's on the whole less patriarchal than Christianity, I'm jealous.
so by that thinking, a Satanist can also call herself a Christian because she defines Christianity her way, not your way-
Awesome.
Texts can be interpreted different ways, and still be legitimate. A 2000 year old series of texts that have been heavily entwined with politics and personal spiritualities since their writing can be interpreted in many, many different ways, while still being valid interpretations.
And you know, I bet the God worshiped by some liberal Christians is the Satan decried by some fundamentalists! Are either of these groups then not actually Christian?
Hahah, I love this thinking!
So, if you define African American as saaaaay, someone who likes Spaghetti Squash, and you like Spaghetti Squash viola! You are AA!
Woohoo!
And if you define "intellectual" as someone who likes to watch a lot of TV and you do love to watch your TV, the viola! You are an intellectual!!!
This is so much fun...
I am going to define Super Hero as any woman who has defended herself against religious bullshit!
Viola! I am a Super Hero!!!! Woohoo!
Oh gosh, thanks for the opportunity to be sarcastic!
Oh
and I will now define genius as anyone willing to be sarcastic towards people on public forums like this...we have a lot of genius here!
hahaaaaa!
the meaning of the texts are to be interpreted in community not individually so the sort of nonsensical thinking you've given examples of won't be given any credence. also, when something is repeated over and over in a text it's pretty hard to dispute that that is what the text claims. the bible says jesus is the son of God over and over and over in the NT. kinda hard to start claiming barbie is the son of God and use the bible to support that belief.
Wow, sarcasm is really not necessary when I am simply stating an idea that has been generally accepted for a long time in most fields in which people deal with the interpretation of texts....
Note that there is a big difference between saying that a text has many valid interpretations and saying that ALL interpretations of any text are valid.
Think of the entire discipline of literary criticism. There can be tons of books interpreting a single novel - and while some of those books (or indeed, even a vast majority!) may be total bullshit, it would be naive (and rather stupid) to say that only one of them was making a good point.
Or think back to a time in which you and your friends went to see a movie together or read the same book. Didn't you end up with different interpretations of what went on, or what was most important in it, or what the characters were feeling? Are you really comfortable saying that only one of you was right?
It's a sad state of feminism when we can't even accept that there are multiple valid ways for people to view the world... in my mind, thinking there is only ever one ultimate anything is pretty much the definition of patriarchy.
That is one interpretation of Christianity.
I am an atheist. I used to think the same way you do. I was twelve. I grew out of it.
If your religion believes women should follow men it's not feminist.
If your religion forces women to go thru with pregnancy- that is not feminist.
If your religion doesn't allow women to lead equally- be reverends, ministers, Rabbi's etc.- nope, not feminist.
If your religion bombs Planned Parenthood- you are domestic terrorists, not feminists.
If your religion does not understand that god makes people gay, it is not a choice, it is a gift, not a damnation or abomination-
then sorry dawl' it's not feminist.
Until you are encouraged to think for yourself by your religion, it's just not feminist.
Heaven/ God is within you. Emanates from you. Is not binary, not a "He" or "She" if God is truly omnipresent, then wouldn't you be an emanation of God, just as I am ?
"christian feminism does not think men and women are the same."
Can you clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean and lot of groups have said this and meant radically different things.
It depends on what the person means by "Christian feminism", but the attitude held by more conservative Christian feminists is: "The same in value but not in nature." Meaning, there is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between man and woman, but that difference does not lessen the humanity of women OR men.
This view depends a *lot* on how you interpret the Genesis 1 creation story (that's the "...male and female S/He created them"). Some people take that to mean a male and a female (or, a man and a woman); more progressive theologians see it as a recognition that *everyone* has both "male" and "female" qualities.
The Tanakh (Old Testament) looooves to play with gender.
that's a great question. can i answer it when i figure out the answer? ;) i can tell you that i don't think women are incapable of holding any job or role a man can, and i don't think women have to follow men or be under them in marriage, etc. honestly, i'm still learning about feminism and i heard some christians don't agree with the feminist view that men and women are the same in every way so i threw that in there. i do think that is true physiologically for the majority of men and women. as far as differences emotionally i think it is quite complex and hard to know what is attributable to nature and what is attributable to nurture.
To me, forming a coherent, and meaningful interpretation of both scripture and feminism is much more important than arguing about whether or not one has to accept the whole canon of organized thought classified under one name.
If we took that to extremes, we'd have to accept everything ever created under the same all-inclusive label since human expression has certain things in common like language, alphabet, sentence structure, and logic.
Props for encouraging a more feminist view of Christianity. I think you will really reach a lot of people and hopefully show some people that women could make awesome clergy/ministers and that Christianity doesn't need to be (or can't be) used to keep human rights from women. And other such cool things. :)
Are people on this blog completely incapable of understanding the idea of interpretation? Cherry-picking means that you pick certain verses from the Bible which suit your needs; you pick and choose verse by verse; you ignore context. Cherry-picking is what anti-gay Christians do by picking the 5 or so verses in the entire Bible that deal with homosexuality. Cherry-picking IS NOT what liberal Christians do. Liberal Christians interpret what they see as the broad outline of the Bible, the main point if you will. When we read any work, we interpret; we highlight what seems meaningful and set aside the rest. Reading line-by-line isn't even good for reading comprehension, let alone meaningful spiritual practice. For a 2000+ year old text, a fair amount of interpretation is needed to make use of it today. For example, we ignore parts about shaking the dust off of our sandals, because we don't always wear sandals and we walk on paved roads. Focusing on this insignificant detail would only derail us. Instead, we focus on the thrust of the story, which is (in this case) about the disciples traveling around to spread the Gospel.
And derailing is what the cherry-picking argument does, because intelligent people use it to suggest that they are completely incapable of understanding the idea of interpretation, when most of them read and interpret texts every day and don't think of it as cherry-picking. I am really sick of the anti-Christian rhetoric from this board. You are all more intelligent than this; you can all understand the idea of interpretation and the idea that people practice a faith in different ways. So - echoing Nattles thing - grow up and stop blocking legitimate discussion by ignoring and misunderstanding the useful and legitimate arguments being made by Christians on this board.
One other thing: The Catholic Church is, of course, dominated by men, although women have of course made significant and meaningful contributions. But many Protestant churches currently have gender parity; my father has numerous female minister associates - one being my own grandmother. Please, please, for the love of God or feminism, stop making blanket statements!
First, equating the anti-gay, anti-woman stuff in the Bible with dusting the sand off your sandals is attempting to equate important and fundamental tenets of the Bible with insignificant details. It's a false construct and it's intellectually dishonest. We all know that the story of the Creation and the Garden of Eden are central tenets of the biblical story, used for 20 centuries to justify the subjugation of women. The Eden story was what established us as the "Other", the "weaker sex" because Eve was more easily tempted in the garden and brought about Adam's fall through her own gullibility. Conversely, the dusting off of your sandals is an insignificant detail. One does not equate with the other.
"I am really sick of the anti-Christian rhetoric from this board...grow up and stop blocking legitimate discussion by ignoring and misunderstanding the useful and legitimate arguments being made by Christians on this board."
So challenging any point that a Christian makes is "blocking discussion" and immature? That sounds a lot like what the conservatives say. I think YOU are trying to block discussion by implicitly accusing anyone who challenges Christian dogma of being a religious bigot. I would also disagree with the implication that every argument made by Christians is "useful and legitimate." This is another example of the Christian dogma that your beliefs are divine and therefore not subject to question.
"Please, please, for the love of God or feminism, stop making blanket statements!"
I am not making blanket statements. I am making very targeted statements pulled directly from YOUR book. If you disagree with such a large portion of your book, maybe it's time to pick up a new book.
I was being rhetorical with the sandal dust comparison. Obviously Genesis is more important than that. You are completely right about what it's been used for; this use continues to have ramifications today. However, length comparison suggests that this passage doesn't have the significance you attribute to it. I flat-out disagree that it's a central tenet. In the past, yes. In the present, not in every denomination. Original sin is a concept I think still holds meaning - part of human nature is to do wrong - but the story, given the time it was written in, draws on misogynist constructs in order to make its point. I reject those constructs.
I don't reject the Bible, because there are numerous passages and stories in it which I find meaningful: see the Beatitudes; parables about economic justice; "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (sorry, don't have chapter/verse citations, my biblical knowledge is primarily oral); prophets in the Old Testament preaching about economic justice, etc. So that's why I'm not finding a new book (although I do find meaning and wisdom in many other books, of course).
I really disagree with the idea that these ideas you cite are "so much" of the Bible - you've cited (in the past) Paul's letters and Genesis. That's a very small portion of the Bible, and definitely not what all Christians focus on. And I do believe you (and others) are making blanket statements, because you use these passages to assert that ALL Christian belief is fundamentally misogynist. Could you please grapple with the passages others find important, e.g. "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another" or "Love your neighbor as yourself"? These are seen by many as key. Also, what about "neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither man nor woman, for all are one in Christ Jesus"? The thing is, you are right, you do respond to specific issues. But the problem is, those specific issues are not necessarily significant to people of faith. They are, if not dust on the sandals, certainly not as important as the "great commandments."
I certainly don't agree with every argument a Christian makes. Hell, I don't always agree with my own arguments after I've made them. I am not trying to obstruct discussion. However, the statements on this board that I am reacting to are ones where people a) say over and over again "How can you be a feminist and a Christian?" b) ignore the responses to question A and assert that a faith they don't share absolutely requires literal Biblical belief and c) fail to understand how a non-literal belief could operate, even after it is explained many times.
How hard is it to understand that although there are numerous misogynist verses, in a liberal interpretation, the general, overall thrust of the Bible relates to justice? Literal biblical belief is a relatively recent (re)invention of the Fundamentalist movement. It is not required to be a liberal Christian. The useful and legitimate arguments I refer to are the ones that attempt to explain how non-literal Christianity works. Given that we are facing a divide between Christian and non-Christian feminists on this discussion, I think understanding how exactly it is that feminist Christians think might be useful.
My beliefs are definitely not divine.
Also, I am so far from conservative. Seriously. I am super, super gay. And super liberal. I just wish people could get the idea of liberation theology. As a concept. Not as something to believe. Just as a concept that exists out there in the world, and works for some people, who often are feminists. Then why don't we discuss how conservative Christianity functions oppressively, or how Christian concepts continue to be used to oppress? That would be something we could all get behind.
Forget the Old Testament. 1 Timothy 2:12. Explain it. I'll be waiting.
Heh, I wrote a whole paper for my New Testament class in college on that passage.
1. The verb authentain, typically translated 'to hold authority over/hold dominion over' in that era more often meant 'hold primary responsibility for', which gives a somewhat different connotation.
2. There were proto-Gnostic groups, with a heavily female membership, in Ephesus which was also a center of worship for several goddesses ('Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!', remember?). Some of these sects held that only women could initiate people.
Combining those elements, along with the honor shown women elsewhere (in the Gospels particularly, women are presented as 'getting it' when the apostles don't, faithfully staying at the cross while the men hide, etc.), makes me think Paul was concerned about Timothy's congregation being affected by these unorthodox beliefs.
Hold authority over, hold primary responsibility for. Same difference. It's still misogynist.
Responsibility to another person isn't a bad thing. It means accountability.
Unless, of course, accountability is what you're seeking to eliminate here in which case you'd just be an anarchist.
'Hold primary responsibility' has different connotations, especially in the cultural context of groups around where women were considered not just men's spiritual equals, but their superiors and guides. Not exactly an egalitarian idea.
It's that doctrine that Paul is speaking against. Otherwise, his praise of women who were active in the early church would seem rather inconsistent.
I don't know if you're replying to me specifically, but regarding Timothy, no, I can't explain it, except to say that I believe (as in I recall, not as in I place my faith in this idea) that at the time the early Church was attempting to fit in better with the dominant culture, and so was attempting to adopt more conservative social customs. But if you see my above post, I really, really think that it would be helpful if people would accept the same level of interpretation for the Bible that they do for other books. A line-by-line analysis does no one any good. It's not how we read other things, so why should we read the Bible that way?
My favorite counter-example (a story, not a line, per my own request for context over cherry-picking): When Jesus rose from the dead, it was discovered by the women who had come to embalm the body. They believed immediately, and were entrusted with the task of spreading the news. It was a male disciple, Thomas, who had to touch Jesus's wounds to believe. The fact that Jesus chose to appear first to the women speaks volumes to me.
"the early Church was attempting to fit in better with the dominant culture, and so was attempting to adopt more conservative social customs."
Actually, it was about the Church trying to *counter* what was going on in Roman culture at the time. Most specifically, if a particular behavior was associated w/Greco-Roman religious practices, some Christians felt it was very important to oppose it. This is a fairly common occurance during a period of self-definition. A rough parallel would be, by the way, Levitican law: it's something that sets a group apart and marks it as special.
Thus you get, in the pastoral epistles, the ban on women speaking in church, which is a protest against Dianic cults. In Acts, however, there is quite a bit about women who not only speak during services but actually lead churches (well, proto-churches).
Thanks! I knew there was some church-society interaction, but got it completely wrong. I just learned something... so thank you. :)
BY virute of being born into the discrimination that women face, not liking it and wanting things to change I AM a feminist. By virtue of believing in Jesus Christ I AM a Christian.
I fail to see where teh two are mutually exclusive or contradictory unless BOTH Christianity is Anti-Feminism and Feminism is Anti-Christ.
it really depends on how you interpret "Christianity"
the most common way in the US is absolutely not feminist.
Christianity doesn't have to fit in a box. Many churches have changed how they view Christianity and what God and the bible means as times change. Religion is allowed to be progressive.
The only "Christians" I've met who are feminists are those who have joined Unity, Universalists, New Thought or Religious Science. THat requires a different interpretation of the bible.
Call it cherry picking if you want but, that book was written 300 yrs AD ~
and not a lot of it is Jesus Christ's words.
Unless you are behaving as Christ, which is really more Buddhist than "Christian", I don't consider you a disciple of Christ.
Christ was about compassion, most Christian's are so far from that it's sickening to our culture
Thank goodness this is a secular country and I can abort, regardless of any American Christian Fanaticism.
Don't try to get between me and my birth control, day after pill or abortion or I will defend myself by any means necessary.
Abortion was the best choice for me once, giving birth was the best choice for me another time.
God bless choice!
I believe Christ was not anything like the majority of Christians today. I think he would be appalled by most "Christian" religions.
Heaven is within you.
Just wanted to drop you a line.
Good luck with the blog.
I'm an atheist, so quite often these debates aren't really for me.
But I do hope you'll cross post every now and again.
thanks! you and many others here have been very welcoming and encouraging. maybe i will crosspost things now and then. hadn't thought of doing that.
ciao
I just don't understand why people have to choose a religion to be a part of (like christianity and label themselves as christian) instead of just being spiritual or believing in a higher power and living their lives however they would like to please that higher power (with the exception of like, killing people because god told them to and other such extremities...)
I dropped catholicism altogether because I was tired of being told I had to follow all the rules in order to be a good follower of christ but then after a while I did not even believe that christ existed. I don't persoanlly believe in a higher power either, but that's me.
In terms of people who still are believers, why do you need to choose Christianity? To me that just symbolizes that you believe that Christianity is not only the right religion for you personally but the right religion in general. If you were just to remain spiritual then there would be no comparison to other religions and it would feel more like just your own personal belief and not a belief that you are trying to convince other people of that is the right way.
Just my thoughts.
I think your logic is very flawed here.
First, I don't think that choosing something for yourself necessarily means that you believe it's best for everyone else. Many Christians do believe that their religion is the one true faith, but I've met a lot of moderate and liberal Christians who didn't feel that way at all.
Just because I die my hair red doesn't mean I think redheads are better than other people. It just means I like the way I look with red hair.
Secondly, I think it's terribly hypocritical to complain that Christians think their religion is the only right religion while claiming that unstructured spiritualism is the ONE TRUE WAY. Self-awareness, please.
i think a better solution is "coexist". maybe you've seen the bumper stickers? here is one image: coexist