Is it possible to be a good Christian at the same time as being a feminist?

I'm sorry I may be woefully ignorant, but you'd have to explain to me what a liberation view of feminism is for me to understand you.

I also don't really understand how you can be a Christian without submitting to God...

I agree about the no consistent defintion of feminism, also no consistent definition of Christianity. I have been quite clear about seeing a submission view of Christianity as being incompatible with a liberation view of Feminism.

HolofernesesHead said upthread about her liberal feminism being compatible with her liberal Christianity. That makes sense to me. I can also see that any Christianity has a much harder time against a Radical feminist position. I have a freind who is a Universal Unitarian minister who sees Christianity as a journey for exploring the human condition - finding "that of God" within us; and exploring the mystery and wonder in the universe that we cannot rationally comprehend. I can see how that view can be consistent with a liberation view of feminism, possibly with a Radical feminist view. But her lack of concern with whether Christ was divine or whether the resurection happened means that some would be hard pressed to see her as Christian...

Well all I can say is to me it is as liberated as you can get.

I'm not convinced there is one consistent definition of feminism, but then without God I am apt to fall into post modernist type thinking...so everyone who knows me has won out there!

daftdame I know the message. I'm simply saying it isn't liberation. And that a Christian faith that relies on that view of God is not (IMO) one compatible with a liberation view of feminism.

Emmeline, IMO Religion is full of paradoxes, and one of them us this: yes, faith is about letting go, of surrendering oneself to the divine. But what happens when one does that surrendering is that one realises the huge responsibility and trust that God places in humanity, the responsibility to represent God's nature through the way one tries to live (love, mercy, forgiveness, accountability, cherishing the natural world etc)

So what looks infantalising is actually the biggest call to grow up into maturity as a human being. Alanis Zmorrisette, that great theologian, sang 'the moment I let go if it was the moment I got more than I could ever know, the moment I jumped off of it was the moment that I touched down' (I think that last bit's right. The sentiment's there.)

Emmeline also it is faith in what Christ has done for us, rather than each individual action which redeems us. This faith changes us so that we want, to do God's will, its what makes us feel at peace.

Emmeline in one way yes, we are God's children. Although we are responsible, we have free will, we choose to be a Christian, to follow Christ, do God's will, or not.

daftdame what you are describing as liberation is the way we describe a child as being free. Not responsible for the outcomes so long as you do as you're supposed to. Safety in return for giving up sovereignty over your life.

Untestable, not unreadable! On phone! :)

curlew Faith, knowing you are redeemed through what Christ has done for you, knowing you are loved and not having to worry about anything is incredibly liberating for anyone, not just women.

Is that an unreadable hypothesis, though, Curlew? We can't go back 2000 years and start the history of post-Jesus western civilisation without the influence of Christian churches, is it? I.e. We can't compare like for like, seeing whether life would have been better or worse for women without Christianity.

I was wrong, and admitted it, on one point- which appears to invalidate my opinions!

I think that the Christian church has generally been a bad thing for women. I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but I can't think of ways in which Christianity made life better for women......

Sorry, posted too soon. I was going to say, if it were nasty through and through, it'd be easier to dismiss, but it's not, it's sensitive and wonderful too. So some feminists say that we can't do anything with Job, we have to reject it as a text, but others (like me) try to sift the wheat from the chaff within the text.

Which may be what I do with the church, too...

Incidentally, I'm sure FairPhyllis can defend herself very eloquently, but I don't think she was criticising curlew for having an opinion: she was suggesting, based on curlew's previous posts, that it might be based on some factually wrong assumptions. Which is fair enough.

Something I think is quite important to ask: is the Bible one thing, or lots of things? Is Christianity one thing, or lots of things? Is the church one thing, or lots of things?

Re. the Bible, I veer towards saying that the Bible is not just one thing - it's a collection of lots of different writings by different people. Some of these writings, and dome of the people who wrote them, are deeply sexist. I'm glad that as a Protestant, I don't need to accept Ben Sira as Holy Scripture (IMO far, far more misogynistic than anything Paul says). Some of the writings that are sexist though, I do accept as Scripture. For me, one of the most difficult to reconcile in my mind is Job - a work of stunning beauty, poetry, passion and depth-plumbing - but nastily misogynistic. The reason this causes

There are. But as I said up thread it's frustrating that people talk about Christianity as if it were a monolith. Some (many!) Christians are misogynists. Some Christians are insane (see snake handlers in the US, for example). Some Christians are adherents of the 'prosperity gospel' (religious Thatcherism, if you've never come across it). Some are passionate about community action to help people in practical ways.

Of course I could be wrong. I frequently am wrong about all sorts of stuff. For all I know the Orthodox Jews have got it exactly right and all the rest of us are damned. But the question was whether you can be a Christian and a feminist, and I think you can.

Dogs, I was mainly pulling FairPhyllis up on her insinuation that Culew was somehow a bit wrong for holding an opinion on what the bible might say about women. But also, it isn't as though you are just presented with this idea that it's mysoginistic by non-Christians is it? There are plenty of Christians who believe that women should not take leadership roles, that they were created as second to men, that they are lesser, or simply that they have different (god given) roles to men that they should not step outside of. The idea that the bible isn't misogynist is somewhat novel, so maybe it also isn't true.

Emmeline, of course it's valid and reasonable to say that your experience of the church is oppressive and misogynist. It's also fine to say that because of that experience you can't imagine being a member of a church. But you must see that it's a big leap from that to saying that Christianity is inherently misogynist and oppressive of women. And that it's annoying to be presented with a caricature of what you believe, based on a mish-mash of half remembered stuff, and told that that is Christianity and if you think otherwise you must be deluded.

Fair despite the love-in on this thread about the fantastic impact of Christ on the lives and status of women, for non-Christian (and plenty of Christian) women the impact of the Chruch has been to hold down women and try to push them into a servile role. In what way is it "interesting" that people who have grown up in a culture which pushed this sexist message based in part on the bible are invested in arguing that this is what it says (since that's what they've heard all their lives and what plenty of people who study the bible do believe)? Surely it's simply to be expected that now they are socially permitted to reject this message, they'd like to point out that it sucks?

You put that much more eloquently and politely than I did, FairPhyllis.

It's always very interesting to me how invested so many non-Christians are in arguing that the Bible/Gospels are anti-woman, or that you can't do interpretation or textual criticism of them - just as invested, in fact, as the super fundy 'Bible believing' folk or all the half-dead leadership of the major churches.

curlew By misrepresenting the Gospel and saying that the Gospel has a misogynist message (when it's clear you don't even remember the NT properly), you hand yet more cultural power to people who are not friends to any women, Christian or otherwise. It would be like if I said that Islam preaches terrorism - I'd be reinforcing a dangerous and false worldview.

I'm not saying that there aren't passages of Paul (genuine Paul) that I don't struggle with. But I do think you have to read Paul recognising that he was an exceptionally obnoxious person whose life was changed overnight and was running around truly convinced that the world was about to end. He wasn't trying to build a church for the ages. The first Christians really thought Christ was coming back in their lifetimes. It would be unfair to read him in any other context.

Yy to that last sentence, curryeater!

Curlew:

"I find it ....irritating....that people are so quick to find justification for the misogyny of the Church."

So do I. I got so irritated, and worse, I did not go to church for years. I can never be a Catholic, and I get (quite unfairly) annoyed with Catholics who don't vote with their feet (unfair because I see why they can't too) - because I feel that people staying within the Catholic church while being pro-contraception, for instance, are encouraging an accommodation with unacceptable viewpoints.

" It's always......oh, it's just interpretation...... yes of course there were loads of women among Jesus' followers, they just didn't get written about.......Oh, Paul, yes, he was a bit grumpy but he was an old dote really.....look, god chose a woman to be his son s mother didn't he?....."

This is different. There is stuff in the gospels that is radically pro-woman-as-human. There just is. And don't forget you completely misremembered Martha and Mary. you are mixing up the gospels, the church, and the wider culture within which churches operate. Are you from ROI? You sound Irish cultural catholic to me, is that right?

"women and men are different but equal..of course doing the flowers and polishing the silver is as important as being a priest....."

Yes well the ones that come out with that brand of shite can just fuck off.

Straw man, curlew. No-one on this thread has used anything like those arguments. Paul is problematic for feminists, I agree. But dismissing analysis and commentary on the text as special pleading, without acknowledging that it comes from a period where treatment of women was at the same level as modern Afghanistan, is perhaps overly simplistic. (It also makes some unexamined and irritating assumptions about how 'Christians' read the Bible, which are not true of all of us by any means.) I don't mind arguing about what I believe, but I mind rather a lot when people who want to argue with me start by telling me what I believe!

Sorry for monster post.

The "fully involved women" are the women disciples and followers of Jesus who are named throughout the Gospels and Acts.

Mary, Jesus' mother. Probably present through most of his ministry - certainly there at the first miracle at Cana (and prompted it), and at the crucifixion. Named as present at Pentecost too.
Mary Magdalene. Described in Luke (8:1-3) as having being cured of seven demons and as one of the group of women who were travelling from town to town with Jesus and the Twelve through his ministry and supporting his ministry. Present at the crucifixion, burial and the first witness to the resurrection. Told the Twelve that Jesus had risen.
Salome. Present at crucifixion. Probably also the woman who petitions Jesus for her sons to sit with him in Paradise. Mentioned as at the tomb in Mark.
Mary the mother of James. Named as one of the women who saw the crucifixion and who went to the tomb afterwards.
Joanna - another women who had been healed and travelled with Jesus, financially supporting the group. Wife of Herod's steward and so possibly an eyewitness for Luke the Evangelist on the court of Herod. Another of the first group of witnesses to the resurrection.
Mary of Bethany. Sister of Lazarus. Treated as a disciple as discussed above.
Martha of Bethany. Sister of Lazarus. Jesus also treats her as a disciple after the death of Lazarus, teaching her that he is the resurrection and the life.
Susanna - also healed and travelling with the group and supporting them.
Mary of Clopas - present at the execution. Possibly she is also the unnamed disciple the risen Christ appeared to on the road to Emmaus.
Tabitha/Dorcas - named in Acts. Peter raised her from the dead.
Lydia - named in Acts. A merchant converted by Paul who had the apostles stay at her home.
Mary the mother of Mark John - named as hosting as housechurch in Jerusalem.
Damaris - named in Acts. A Greek woman converted by Paul in Athens.

There were probably more unnamed female followers and disciples, and many of the women who were present at the crucifixion (described as the group who had followed from Galilee) were probably also present at the entry to Jerusalem and the Last Supper.
Plus there is Peter's MIL mentioned in Mark as having been healed by Jesus.

Women named by Paul:

Priscilla. Named in Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy. Priscilla is always named with her husband Aquila - they seem to have been a co-missionary couple who taught theology together. Paul lived, travelled and worked with them and it is clear that he regards them both as co-workers - half the time he names her first and specifically calls her a co-worker. They were Jewish tentmakers who met Paul in Corinth, and were probably involved in the founding of the church in Corinth along with Paul. In Romans he says that they both risked their lives to save his. In Acts they are described as having taken a preacher to one side and having taught him better theology. Possibly the author of Hebrews.
Junia. Called an apostle (in fact 'outstanding among the apostles') by Paul in Romans.
Euodia. Called a co-worker by Paul in Philippians.
Syntyche. Called a co-worker by Paul in Philippians.
Phoebe. Mentioned in Romans as a deacon in the church in Cenchreae, and as a benefactor to Paul.
Julia. Named in Romans.
Nympha. Named in Colossians as having a church in her house in Laodicea.
Apphia. Philemon is addressed to her.
Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis - mentioned as workers in Romans.
Chloe - mentioned in 1 Corinthians. 'Her people' tell Paul that there is dissension in the church in Corinth, which probably means she leads a church there.

Then there's the unnamed women present at Pentecost, who probably included the group who had seen the crucifixion and resurrection, and the unnamed women who are eating with the men after Pentecost.
Also the wives of Peter and the apostles mentioned in 1 Corinthians.

The passage about women teaching in church is from 1 Timothy which is one of the deutero-Pauline letters. It's certainly not consistent with Paul's attitude to and relationship with Priscilla, and there are other reasons for not considering it to have been genuinely authored by Paul.

And going back to my original point, this all adds up to women being involved in the life of the early church in a way they wouldn't ever have been in the contemporary Jewish or Helleno-Roman world.