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

OMG FairPhyllis that's unfortunate; and in RofI as well.

I was actually moderately surprised that Catholicism isn't an established church in RofI.

Church of Ireland is def. non-established too - did a CofI service in RofI once and our conductor messed up big time singing the Responses: 'O Lord, Save the Qu-- er, Guide and Defend our Rulers!' Whoops!

I'm surprised at the monarchy website tbh-"established" in church terms has such a specific meaning that it's weird that it's been written that way. Of course CofS is established-in the sense that it's been around for a long time!

The distinction is perhaps a bit pedantic in terms of this thread as CofS is certainly the largest christian denomination in Scotland, and it has parishes and will provide a minister to perform funerals etc. CofE is the only body to have dedicated seats in the House of Lords though, which is relevant as CofE has a misoginistic problem with women bishops and hence there is only male representation of CofE in the Lords. The moderator of CofS is currently female, but doesn't get an automatic seat in the Lords.

Thanks, FairPhyllis and Woodhead for the clarification. The British Monarchy website explains some of that but confusingly still uses the word "established" to describe the Church of Scotland.

Er ... curlew I'm sorry to pick on your post but there are a number of things which are simply not right in it. Mary Magdalene is not the woman Jesus told to sin no more, nor is she the 'sinful' woman who washed Jesus' feet. That is a traditional misidentification which is well-known to people who know the text of the Gospels well. The only references to MM in the Gospels are as a follower Jesus cured who was probably one of the women who helped fund his ministry, and as a witness to his execution and resurrection.

Martha and Mary: isn't the point of this episode that Jesus specifically tells Martha that it would be better to stop doing the housework (ie stop being so concerned with earthly worries) and concentrate on listening to what he had to say? And that it shows he mixed with the unmarried Mary and Martha just as he did with their brother (against the custom of the time) - that they weren't meant to be confined to the kitchen? I don't see how you can reach that interpretation tbh.

Woman taken in adultery: this is mostly about how nobody should judge another person, but it's also notable for showing that Jesus placed no emphasis on sexual immorality as a 'special' category of sin. Unlike the church today unfortunately. Worth noting also that just before Jesus said 'now go and sin no more' he also said 'I don't condemn you'.

I think the problem is that ideas about what the Bible says have a life of their own which is very hard to confront. Many people have a half-formed idea about what the gospels say (and what that says about Christianity and Christians), but that doesn't necessarily match up with what the text actually is.

Yes, CofS is a "national" church not a "state" church; kirk and state are completely independent and the status of CofS was enshrined in the act of union.

Church-in-Wales was disestablished circa 1920, although it is part of the worldwide anglican communion.

That would be an interesting answer FairPhyllis - I can imagine someone like Justin Welby saying that, and then using it to say that for him faith was something to be lived out in community with others, and how the eucharist was partly an expression of that.

Would be quite a good answer I think. See, I should have been a vicar like my great-grandfather !

"Jesus came to save all people and made strong statements about women's equality (for instance, Martha and Mary; saving the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery by asking the stoners to apply the same standards to themselves; sticking up for Mary Magdalene"

Hmmm. Interesting examples. Mary and Martha- he made it very clear that the domestic sphere was the place for women. The women taken in adultery- social justice rather than specifically a women's issue. And Mary Magdalen- well, he told her to "sin no more" or in other words, stop being a woman sexually active outside marriage. None of these are "strong statements about women's equality.

I often find it interesting to think about how Christianity changed the lives of early Christian women. It was so socially radical in its original context (not that it isn't still!) that it must have felt like a massive force of liberation for at least some women in the first generation of the church. If I could hop in a time machine I think I would go and check out the early church.

AIUI the CofS is a 'national church' (which is why the Queen becomes CofS when she steps over the border even though it is Presbyterian) but is not established in the way the CofE is - it is independent of Parliament.

England is the only part of the UK with an established church.

What about the Church of Scotland? I know its relationship to the state is not the same as CofE, but is it not considered an established church? I can't seem to find a clear answer to this question in my admittedly cursory online research.

From the Queen's website:

"As established Churches, they are recognised by law as the official Churches of England and Scotland, respectively. In both England and Scotland, the established Churches are subject to the regulation of law. The principle of religious toleration is fully recognised both for those of other creeds and for those without any religious beliefs."

It is possible and necessary to be a feminist to be a Christian. imo.

Jesus came to save all people and made strong statements about women's equality (for instance, Martha and Mary; saving the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery by asking the stoners to apply the same standards to themselves; sticking up for Mary Magdalene). If you want to pick and choose what "everyone" means, or who your neighbour is, according to sex, then you just don't get it. Which is the nature of humanity, and being a Christian; there is stuff we all don't get. I forgive these eejits. But they are wrong. (As I can't get so many other things right)

I can no longer be a Catholic because of the way the institution has set its face against women. Not just that there will never be women priests; but the celibacy of the priesthood, at the same time, means that women are formally and informally utterly excluded (not that being, for instance, an MP's wife is any substitute for being an MP, but there must have been good done over the years by men who respected their wives getting a female point of view at home). Apart from this deliberate and hatey exclusion of women's voices, I think that this is part of the general disastrous approach to sex, families, and reproduction. I needed to break away from this institution to find the strength to be an adult and the matriarch of my own little family. Trying to make it work was directly connected to various forms of moral and personal copping out which made me not the whole and good person I need to be for me, my partner, and my children.

I do not worry about the Eucharist and transubstantiation because I have realised that I don't believe in it anyway and in fact I suspect the sacraments in that magical way of being a bit of a racket. This is very convenient for me because it means I can go to a C of E church and not worry about communion. If you do believe in transubstantiation I don't know what you do.

Yes, I follow you fair.

I absolutely agree about community - it was more the aspect of being unwillingly cut off and that making you 'not Christian' I found difficult, but being in suspension from Christian life makes sense.

I do think you're right, it's crucial to know that Christianity is about practice not just a set of beliefs, and it's odd how people often think it's the latter. I think this actually says a lot about how we value practice versus belief anyway - we get exactly the same debates with feminism, I think. I've heard people get really upset saying 'but I'm not a feminist' when their actions are quite feminist - and I've also heard people saying we must accept everyone as a feminist who self-defines that way, even if they're appallingly misognyistic in their actions.

Agree with Holofernes; there are elements of christianity which can be difficult to reconcile with elements of feminism, and the patriarchal structure of most christian denominations is problematic.

As an episcopalian, (and as a member of a very liberal congregation) it's sometimes easier to ignore the more difficult issues in the wider church and exist in a bit of a bubble. I'm not always a very "good" christian, or a very "good" feminist; but I do feel it's possible to aspire to be both particularly if one is trying to concentrate on the most basic premise of each ("love your neighbour" and "men and women should be equal"), at a very uncomplex level, they are not incompatible worldviews.

As an aside; the UK does not have an established church. England is the only part of the UK with an established church.

I suppose I think of being marooned (if you had had a Christian life beforehand) as being in suspension from Christian life, iyswim. I don't think it deprives you of relationship with God or of salvation and you'd still have a prayer life (and perhaps some people think those things are enough), but I do think one's spiritual life - unless you were an exceptionally spiritually self-sufficient person like a hermit - would almost certainly be severely compromised by not being in a Christian community.

And there are aspects of being a Christian that really do depend on community - baptism for example.

It's not just a 'how many angels on the head of a pin' type scenario, because this has happened to Christians when they have become cut off from the church. There were Lutherans in the Soviet Union who went for 60-70 years without the Eucharist because they didn't have a priest. I find it quite hard to understand why they didn't do some emergency ordinations as a congregation.

I am an Anglican too btw - I guess this discussion shows the range of how central the Eucharist is or isn't in Anglicanism!

I would call myself a Christian feminist, or a feminist Christian. I think that that combination makes sense for me as I'm both a liberal Christian and a liberal feminist; I'm not sure that it'd be possible to be a radical feminist and any sort of Christian, or a super-conservative Christian and any sort of feminist.

I imagine it as a sort of matrix in which some of what occurs on that spectrum of Christianity and some of what occurs within the spectrum of feminism overlap, but there are areas that don't (if that makes sense). I find my own place within the spectrum of what occurs in the name of Christianity, and I also find my own place within the spectrum of what goes by the name of feminism.

I'm sure that there are many Christians who wouldn't accept me as a Christian, for ideological reasons, but equally many feminists who would say I'm not a feminist, for ideological reasons - in fact I've been told more than once on MN (by people who'd never met me!) that I'm not a feminist. To which I say - meh. Life's too short to get upset by other people's ideological grounds for rejecting me as one of their own. If they're that picky, would I want to be part of their gang, anyway? (she say, spoken as a true liberal!)

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, fair.

I do disagree, however. But then I'm Anglican, and while the Eucharist is extremely important, not everyone would agree it's literally the body and blood, so I think it has a symbolic value.

Hermits aren't all that rare, and certainly weren't historically. But then I suppose that is voluntary.

I find it very hard to accept that someone marooned could cease to be a Christian through no fault of their own - I think they still would be.

LRD It's not the being able to take the Eucharist regularly though, it's the being able to take it at all. If you're on a desert island, you have no possibility of being able to take it at all, ever. I don't have any 'rules', as you suggest, about how many times a year you have to take communion. If you're alone on a desert island, you are by definition not part of community, and being part of community and living the way of Christ within community is what makes you specifically a Christian. It's not belief alone - it's about practice. I can't meaningfully follow Christ if I can't try to be Christ to other human beings, and to see Christ in them, and be part of the Body of Christ through the Eucharist. And you need a community context for that.

I was careful to say that I didn't think being in isolation like that meant that you could be totally denied of grace/relationship with God. But that's not quite the same as being a Christian imo. Corporate religious practice is so utterly characteristic of Christians since the year dot (with the exception of a very few hermits) that I don't think it's really optional if it's available to you.

I have lived this btw - before I was baptised I spent many years trying to be a Christian by myself and I can tell you that, well, I was deluding myself.

Juggling Part of the problem is that this is one of the letters that quite probably isn't by Paul anyway ...

Also a lot of people are posting about 'Christianity' as if it were a monolith, when it's anything but - a Roman Catholic, a liberal Anglican and a Quaker might have in common a belief in the Trinity, but that's about it. We don't agree on what the sacraments are, never mind who's entitled to conduct them.

I don't think being a headship-believing conservative Evangelical is compatible with feminism, for the record. But some people are posting on this thread as though that's the only kind of Christianity there is, and like so many other aspects of life it's a lot more complicated than that.

Yes, I often think the established church could have gone in different directions. For example during the last supper Jesus is recorded as saying ... "Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" ...

So, we could remember Christ's life before we eat - is that the origin of saying grace ? Or especially whenever breaking bread or drinking wine ?
Perhaps that's more what he had in mind ? Who knows really ?

Also at the synod of Whitby early in the church's history I gather a decision was made to go more with the Roman church rather than the more feminine and linked to nature Celtic church ? Would have been interesting to see that decision go the other way.

I'm very fond of Celtic spirituality such as the old galic blessing ...

"May the road rise to greet you, may the sun be always at your back, may the rain fall softly on your fields, and til we meet again may God keep you in the hollow of his hand"

Quakers are very interesting, though not all Quakers would describe themselves as Christian. They are indeed pro-gay marriage (the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act expressly provides for Quakers and liberal Jews to marry same-sex couples, because they made it very clear when the legislation was drafted that that was something they would want to do), and I'm pretty sure they've had women in leadership roles from the beginning, although it isn't a hierarchical denomination so no-one has a formal title.

My problem here is that a lot of people on this thread are saying that Christianity is inherently misogynist, and therefore incompatible with feminism, but without any argument to back that up. Yes, the institution has frequently been misogynist and has supported non-religious social structures that were also misogynist (although, for example, marriages in which the woman is treated as a chattel have been around a lot longer than Christianity, so we can't blame that exclusively on religion). Yes, you can quote Biblical texts that appear to support a misogynist worldview - but then, you can prove more or less anything by quoting Biblical texts, and I'm not a Biblical literalist anyway: it's a collection of human documents written in a particular time and place and to a particular audience.

The church is like any other human institution: it evolves and changes. There are still plenty of misogynists around, but so there are in law and medicine, and any other institution you care to name. That's the nature of living in a patriarchal society. I don't buy that the church is any different.

If what you're saying is a slightly refined version of 'it's all bollocks and I can't see how nyone with a brain believes it' then that's a legitimate point of view. But you must see that for anyone who does believe, ignoring the church because it's an imperfect institution is not an option, and that only leaves sticking with it and trying to change it from within, as feminists are in academia, politics, the law... It's a frustrating process, but it's not an avoidable one.

We certainly have talked quakers before, juggling, I just remain sadly ignorant!

That's a beautiful description of sacramental qualities. I love that.

It would be fascinating to think what the sacraments in the old Church would have been if woman had had a more active role, wouldn't it?

Quakers in my experience are very good at recognising the transcendent.

Am surprised FairPhyllis doesn't think she could be a christian if marooned on a dessert island and unable to take part in the eucharist. That's an interesting viewpoint.

Quakers have an idea that many or any moments in life can have a sacramental quality to them - which I like a lot.

I think holding my babies in the first moments after birth had a sacramental quality to it, or looking out at the view having climbed a mountain!

We're basically a very wooley, liberal, and possibly heretical lot. But we don't care! (I speak, like all Quakers, for myself there )

Hi LRD. Yes, we decided to seek ways forward towards "equal marriage" for same sex and opposite sex couples at our Yearly Meeting in 2009 - was great to be a (small) part of that, and good to see all the progress that's been made towards this since then.

I'm sure we've talked about Quakers before LRD? - though I have a shocking memory for these things !