Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Women in the Christian Church

I was watching an episode of Cold Case the other day, in which the topic was the fight of American women for the right to vote. Being a non-American and having been born about 40 years after it all happened, I completely ignored the sacrifice and persecution the activists underwent to win the fight.

According to the TV drama portraying a 1919 murder, women back then were considered incapable of intelligent opinions, unworthy of an education, and unable to make major decisions—like who to marry.

The saddest part of the show was that, according to my experience, women may have won the right to vote—worldwide—but none of the major religions have upgraded the status of their female devotees.

Nearly 100 years after a few strong-minded feminists won an essential battle, women in the Christian church are still relegated to positions as church administrators, janitors, Children’s ministry leaders, or care takers in roles where the use of their brain takes a back seat to long suffering and hard physical work.

Time and again, husbands are depicted as the heroes and wives are touted as supportive, behind-the-scenes, quiet care takers who are excellent cooks and awesome mothers. Their intelligence, ability to solve problems, education, and capability to hold positions of great responsibility are often ignored and trampled on. All dreams of a career tend to be discouraged and frowned upon.

Because a mentally ill, women hating first-century man named first Saul and later Paul said that women should be submissive to men, now millions of ladies around the earth must be subservient to their male counterparts—regardless of who has the greater I.Q. or who contributes more to the family’s well being.

Christian books usually recommend that strong, intelligent, well-educated females tame down or hide their talents, lest their man’s self-esteem be threatened. The same advice is given about authorities in the church. Women are encouraged to be quiet and pray for what they want. Expressing wishes and working toward making one’s initiatives a reality is a man’s thing—unless, of course, we are talking about a Sunday school for very young children or the kitchen ministry.

And if they happen to lead the church’s music program, female musicians are “Directors of Music.” Heaven forbid they should be called pastors. Talent, dedication, leadership skills, and ability to work in a team are all irrelevant. Insane Saul of Tarsus wrote that women “should be quiet in the congregation,” and now they’re second-class citizens in church—for ever, apparently.

But there are a few women, such as yours truly, who naively believed that they would be heard or recognized. And we, unfortunately, kept at it for years, pointing out mistakes, suggesting improvements, trying to express theological opinions, attempting to innovate, or just trying to be noticed. We saw male morons being highly regarded leaders and failed to understand why they were heard and we were not. As smart as we were, we were unable to comprehend that in church females must check their brain at the door and come in child-like, ready to be led by men who, often, earned the right just for having been born with a greater supply of testosterone—their lack of intelligence notwithstanding.

During the week, we went to work, earned a lot of money, and held positions of great responsibility. Although being a woman in the workforce was, as is even today, challenging and often discouraging. At least at the office our efforts made the boss money, so if our work was good, we got some recognition.

And although it may be hard to believe it, that is the reality today in most Christian churches, especially in the fundamentalist types.

In spite of “earthly” success and sometimes big salaries, on Sunday a woman must go back to her jail cell and become submissive and teachable. Because, we are told, that’s what God wants from us. Highly unintelligent, under evolved males think they have the right to overwrite our opinions, put us down, and give us advice on menial issues. All we are allowed to do is bow our heads and thank them for their kindness. If we dare to tell them that we already know that or if we disagree with their “great” advice, then we are deemed non-spiritual, demon possessed, unfit for leadership of even women’s groups, and—especially—bad company for their sweat wives. We are pariahs, bitches who are unable to control our tongues. How do we dare to challenge their “holy” authority?

The worst part of it all—at leas for me—is that I believed it. I bought it that I was supposed to be submissive, and the fact that I failed at it produced untold guilt. I felt culpable for standing up for myself. I would go home and cry because I had failed God. Then on Monday, I would put my smart-woman hat on and go to work to earn, perhaps, more money than the morons I offended. After all, I was a computer geek. They were blue-collar workers and old-fashioned, retired senior citizens.

To be sure, the issue of female inferiority is one that society at large must face. Being a smart woman is like a curse that one must suffer the consequences of in and outside the church. But infidels aren’t nearly as bad as the religious. At least we see attempts of improvement in the secular world. In the religious world, the push is for going back to the old ways. Dogma is the antonym of progress, it appears.

5 comments:

athinkingman said...

The 'silent women' issue was just another one of many that lead to my own serious questioning and ultimate abandonment of my faith.

On one level, I became so frustrated that the literalists couldn't do a decent job of reading the Bible. It seems to me that there is ample NT evidence for having women leaders - the apostle Junia mentioned in Romans, for example. And anyone concerned to find an answer to the question, "What did these words mean to the people at the time?" would be able to find a different gloss on Paul's words. In an age when women didn't have an education, and when temple prostitution was common (in Corinth, for example) Paul's concerns about women teaching in a fledgling church are at least understandable (even if still wrong).

However, not only were the majority of fundamentalists blind to what the text could be interpreted as saying, they were also blind to the powerful non-verbal messages their churches were giving out. Non-verbal messages are much, much more powerful than verbal ones. And the churches I mixed in were giving out the messages you have written about above - they were saying come to this place, and I was thinking, I wouldn't want my wife and daughter there, and I wouldn't want my female friends there. I value and respect their intelligence and independence too much.

In 100 years time it will be interesting to see what has happened to the churches that haven't moved on on women's rights and on gay rights. I suspect they will only be surviving in areas where there is limited education.

Lorena said...

I guess there were women leaders,as there are today. But I always thought that women were allowed to lead only in the absence of men, as is the case nowadays with female missionaries. The issue, I guess, was and is that a women can't "lord" over men. But maybe I haven't read the passage you mention carefully enough.

athinkingman said...

I understand where you are coming from. Certainly in some of the circles I mixed in women could only lead if the last man was no longer standing (even though the man used to beat his wife and had no education, and the women were often wise and compassionate and sensible and professional etc.) I think there is a good case that can be made from the Bible for allowing women to lead in their own right, regardless of men.

However, I think many of us who latterly came to that conclusion, were forced to looking at the Bible in the light of what was happening to all the intelligent women and finding a different reading. It is interesting that that has happened in some fundamentalist churches in relation to gender, but it hasn't yet happened to such an extend in relation to sexuality and the gay issue.

OneSmallStep said...

Maybe I'm thinking too logically in this, but wouldn't the fact that many women have a drive to do things other than simply marry and have children kind of hint that maybe God wanted them that way? That God designed women to be passionate about all sorts of things?

I'm sure the answer will somehow involve Satan or the inherent sin nature, but to me, that means that God lacked quite some control over creating women.

Lorena said...

"I'm sure the answer will somehow involve Satan or the inherent sin nature, but to me, that means that God lacked quite some control over creating women. "

Ha! I would have to agree that God did screw up creating the complex creatures he named "Women." Because the product surely doesn't fit his apparent intended designed.

But then you could also say that being put "in the box" and never been let out to do other things other than child rearing and providing sexual favours to a man is just the curse for having taken a bite of "the apple."

Conclusion: we are screwed ;)