does Christianity support the idea of equality of the sexes?

[Elasticwoman]

Or is Christianity followed only by male chauvinists and doormat non-feminist women?
If Christianity CAN be said to promote equality and respect between the sexes, how do we explain St Paul's writings?

Not clear on this - iIsn't Paul really the founder of the Christian Church? Seems odd to say you could 'ignore' him and look to Christ instead for his message. Christianity never struck me as very flexible really, it's deeply paternalistic as an institution.

Well, that's the thing. If you go on the bible alone, there's equality of worth, but not equality of opportunity, which is a main tenet of feminism. Therefore something will have to give if you want to go with both. Most often it's a pick'n'mix approach to the bible.

I suppose my church would say we're not really 100% the bible, we have useful (or not useful) papal edicts too....sadly they tend to make things even more sexist.

I think you have to back to some of the powerful Greek goddesses and more ancient myths, to times which predated sexism to an extent to find a kind religion with female power.

ALlowing a load of women to be C of E vicars but not Archbishops is not really helping hugely.

It's looking like a 'no'. Can you be a christian and a feminist then?

well, yeah, there's plenty have posted who are both. It's just not very easy being consistent about both if you go by the main text of a the religion. But people have been getting around that for years anyway.

I would say I was both and that I know better than my church what it ought to be saying. The principal message of the Jewish and Christian faiths is to do unto others as you would have them do to you or whatever and I think most feminists can live with that.

And let's not forget God created a very defective y chromosome which is dying out (gradually) and is full of junk and defect. Women are the superior and ultimately prevailing sex.

There are lots of fantastic christian feminists

It is perfectly possible to be a christian and to think that Paul was frankly awful

There is a lot of feminist theology out there to read

Thank you morningpaper, shall read. What confuses me though is can one really pick and mix in this way? Xenia says what she thinks is the main tenant of christian faith (and picks a good one) but others would disagree wouldn't they? Is it okay to interpret texts in anyway you want? Is that the point?

Christianity isn't traditionally a religion that is based 'on the book' the way other religions might be

Christianity is really based on 1. Scripture 2. Tradition and 3. Reason.

We interpret scripture in the light of what we know about God and the world through tradition and through reason.

Therefore we can see that Paul was writing in a different time, and our understanding of the roles of men and women have changed a lot since then

Well you've just made more sense in one pithy post than I've ever found through lots of reading and enquiry.

I go with Xenia

Jesus was asked about the commandments

this first was love the Lord Your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength

the second was "like it" according to Christ - love your neighbour as yourself. He said the "all the Law and the prophets" were summed up in this teaching.

Therefore I have to think that the later teaching of Paul (I put Jesus above Paul ) was cultural, but what Jesus said was for all time. Paul had to deal with some pretty hard options with the new churches that were founded, and i have to think he was doing his best, but if we read his instructions wrong then we get into all sorts of trouble.

Jesus wants me to minister - so I will.

Love your neighbour as yourself was a pretty good one.

Can you pick and mix? Certainly not if you're a Catholic. But we'll find out after we die I suppose.

mp, that's the Anglican three cornered stool analogy. Not every Christian holds to that, though.

Interesting stuff! (I speak as a woman about to embark on the long road towards hopefully eventual ordination...)

Reading the Bible it's easy to focus on the stuff which to us looks very sexist or retrogressive (Women shall not speak in church etc etc, which I believe was most definitely was for that particular place and time) and to overlook the bits which are astonishingly pro-women.

Such as...Jesus speaking lovingly and individualy to all kinds of women who were outcasts in their own communities. Deborah in the Old Testament, Esther, who gets one of the best "mission statement" lines in the Bible ("For I know I was born for such a time as this" - how powerful!) And even, if you read carefully, Paul speaking glowingly at theend of his letters to the churches, about many women who were instrumentla in the early church.

I'm uncovering more and more about the reasons why Paul said certain things. One I just came across which you probbaly already know is that in that part of the world at that time it was common for prostitiutes to have shaved heads. So when Paul says that women should cover their heads in church, what he's saying is that women should be able to worship without being publicly marked out as a prostitute. That all should be equal before God, regardless of where you come from or what you have done. So it's actually a thoughtful, pro-women thing to say!

And IMO it's important to read the whole of his letters, not just the controversial bits, and if you read them as a whole what comes across is a deep love for the churches he spent his time travelling to and working with. So as a christian feminist I really love the writings of Paul, and I'm fully aware that there are loads of cultural nuances I just haven't "got" yet.

BTW Xenia bearing in mind that all change is gradual (esp. in the CofE!!!!!) in the next few yrs the question of women bishops is going to be addressed . Now, would I look good in purple......?????!!!!!

And some Christian religions have never been very sexist. I think the Quakers have always had equality. The Sikhs are pretty good with women too although I think their leaders are male.

I suspect before men started comnig together to form empires, before farming started and settlement and gathering of wealth and power women had a better place and role. There was a time when men didn't even know they played a role in getting women pregnant. Marilyn French's 3 volume history of women goes into the very old days very well.

very interesting thread.

Roseylea, I think you are perhaps a bit too generous of Paul.

SueBaroo wrote: "mp, that's the Anglican three cornered stool analogy. Not every Christian holds to that, though."

No, but most of the reasonable ones do. And christianity, like parenting, has lots of schools of thought - we are drawn to the approaches that harmonise with our own consciences and experience. (Or in line with our experience of God, and reason.)

wanders off in a huff because she's unreasonable

not really

Well, actually, depends if I have access to chocolate...

Oh no, is this becoming an AIBU thread??

Fannyannie said "No one abuses his own body, does he?" Or was she paraphrasing Paul? Either way, that's not true. Many people abuses their bodies by smoking, taking other drugs, over or under eating, taking too much or too little exercise, and some even take part in sado-masochistic practices.

Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I do think we have to be reminded to respect our own bodies.

Interesting explanation of St Paul's ref to covering heads in church, about prostitutes shaving theirs. There is (or was) a whole strand of Judaism in which all women shaved their heads on marriage and went around thereafter wearing wigs.

I think the 'not abusing your own body' is in the sense of always doing things with your comfort or perhaps desire in mind. Doesn't always translate to sensible choices in imperfect people, though.

The idea that the body is not yours to do with as you choose, not yours to kill at your own volition etc (and indeed in some groups is the property of your husband never mind God) is interesting.

Custardo summed it up nicely for me