Rejecting Christian Beliefs

[KayHarker]

Don't quite know how to say this, but I guess I need to write it down and maybe get some moral support from someone.

I'm walking away from my Christian faith after about 20 years. I tried extreme patriarchy, and then I tried the more liberal versions, but all they seemed to be were weak attempts to fit a highly patriarchal religion into a cosy harmless box which didn't fit. I still consider myself to be a spiritual person, but I really just have to reject Christian belief because it's so anti-women, and the more I read about feminism, the more I want something different for my daughters.

KH: I don't know if this will be a help or a hindrance but I just thought I would tell you that when I read your OP my immediate reaction was 'Yay! Good for Kay, she's dumping the crap!'
I appreciate that it's difficult for you but I hope you come to a happy resolution (and I think you will )

There are plenty of feminists who have worked on goddess centred spirituality and who celebrate the sacred feminine.

I find this odd. I find the idea of a feminine god to be as isolating and limiting as a male one. When a god has any gender, it seems to be end up defining what I am supposed to be like - either the contrast and support to a masculine god, or the embodiment of the virtues etc. of a feminine god. By gendering god don't we push gender roles on ourselves?

Suchprospects, If GOd's not a male, how did he impregnate Mary? Jesus was God's son, mary was a woman, so how could a gender-neutral God have impregnanted her? God is supposed to be regarded as male.

AFAIK, goddess centred spirituality are the original religions (because they, like women, represent the creation of life and fertility, which are vital to the survival of the human race) It's interesting to see that these were systematically ursuped by patriarchal religions, who all then created a father-like figure (God). They literally are twisting the truth of the universe by saying this male figurehead is the source of all life, when the truth is it's females.

Kay! How funny! I am hardly on MN these days and I was thinking of you and your blog yesterday...and here you are!

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I agree that I'd probably feel the same if I were you. I'm training to be a priest now and tbh come up against a fair bit of misogyny (usually under the veneer of nice liberal Anglicanism). I've become more femionist since I started training for priesthood.

I'll pop back later and talk about God language and stuff! :)

sakura - Yes I get that goddess religions are older and that the gods came along later and usurped womens place as the primary life giver. I just find the idea of having a gendered god somewhat at odds with the idea that we shouldn't be limiting our idea of ourselves through gender roles (which is part of what feminism is about for me).

Having a godess represent fertility still seems to make fertility and the continuation of the species women's role.

I do feel (and I've been wondering about posting more about this in the sahm thread) that women get burdened with continuation of the species while technology (and the society we have) has allowed men to look beyond that biological imperative to a much greater extent. So it still seems limiting to me, even if it puts women in a leading role rather than a subservient one.

It's worth noting that much of the Goddess imagery I've come across so far also has the idea of the male counterpart - be it Jesus and Mary Magdalene, or the Triple Goddess and the Green Man. Not sure if that's relevant but it does seem a different way of doing things.

waves to Clockface Nice to see you - I didn't realize you were training for the priesthood, Bon chance with it :)

SGB, you made me Nice to have your support

SuchProspects - What I understand from your posts is that you think that if we are to believe in a deity at all, then it should be neither male or female, but either an amalgamation of the two or completely neutral of either, as anything else would be limiting on the one hand and role-defining on the other. Is that what you're saying?

KayHarker - It is possible to find a kind of spirituality without believing in any god at all. I derive mine from humanity and life itself. Sometimes I just look at my children in amazement at everything they are and do, or enjoy the beautiful natural world. It doesn't matter whether you think it's the laws of physics or god that produced these things, it's still wonderful to look at. It is a different kind of spirituality, but no less fulfilling.

alexpolismum - Sort of. I wouldn't like to say what other people should believe.

But I find the idea of a gendered god (or gods) at odds with a feminist perspective because of the way it seems to inherently promote gender roles.

That last sentence was supposed to expand on my other post, but it really just repeats. I guess I haven't thought too deeply about this!.

suchprospects, I agree with you.

I look on this board and see third generation post-feminist movement women totally unliberated and being treated (and allowing themselves to be treated) as doormats. I wonder how far we have really come? - men have lost the moral responsibility and pressure to provide for their children, something that the strong church-going culture supported. Now we are more secular, and the state have stepped in, men have been removed from the parenting equation. They don't pay, so women are forced to take lower skilled, part time,low paid jobs to make ends meet and fit in with childcare.

Women are once again defined by their anatomy. Young women define themselves in terms of their sexual availability and attractivness, calling themselves whores and sluts. SO many youngsters have no aspirations. After all these years!

While we aspire to be better, to raise our female children to be whatever the want to be, the desire to nuture our offspring is hardwired into our brains. This is not true of men, as seen so often on these boards.

SO women are still doing what women have always done - getting on with it. Making ends meet. Losing their drive and motivation to progress into a career by having to rely on state handouts because feckless father has pissed off.

I cannot help but think that demise of church authority over mankind (ie men) has lead us to a place where women are worse off.
The church did place high responsibility for taking care of the vulnerable on men. That in turn allowed women the freedom to break free from narrow ideas of motherhood as a career/purpose.

its an interesting topic, and one that has had me thinking all day!

Hatti - I don't recognise your description of a time when the church made women's lives better than they generally are today in the UK. When exactly do you think the church did this?

Sakura - God did not impregnate Mary by having sex with her, but by supernatural means. If you believe in a God who created the entire universe out of nothing, then the odd Y chromosome doesn't seem that big a task.

To me, God is neither male nor female. But we don't have a word to use for a person who doesn't have gender, hence the use of "He", or sometimes "She" or "He/She" - all of these signify our separation into two genders, not anything about God.

I don't think we improve anything by referring to God as "She", except maybe to get people thinking about it. But I try to not use "He" either, as so many people do think that "He" = "he" = male.

Spiritualities which have male and female "gods" don't really work for me either, as then you have two (or more) separate consciousnesses, possibly with different agendas and priorities, and you don't get the sense of a single aim and purpose that a monotheistic religion has.

Hattifattner, what a crock. When superstitious cults had more control over people's lives, these organisations encouraged men to regard women as property, as less than human, as inferior.

Quite a lot of pagan/pantheistic religions make quite a big deal out of having male and female deities sharing power, which seems rather healthier to me than the insistence on a male supremacist at the head of things.
TBH the Catholic church's obsession with Mary started out as a way of roping in the pagan cults it was trying to supercede. but they had to disempower the Mary figure by making her a virgin ie submissive and passive, hence the sexual dysfunction that is at the heart of Cathoolicism.

The Catholics made a brilliant move by creating Mary as simultaneously a virgin goddess and a mother goddess, without any of the messy business that comes in between for most people.

The Quakers and the Unitarians have both been mentioned as avoiding sexism, and that seems right to me. I don't think any of them would be inclined to torture anyone in the name of the God of Love.

OP - I'm a feminist and still a christian.

I struggled for years with this, especially having been brought up in a very strict sect where women were supposed to dress in a certain way, never speak and become good housewives, and nothing else!

However, I have discovered, through much reading, that the Bible is radically pro women. Jesus took time out to speak with women, even/especially those rejected by society, this was radical and was scorned by the (male) leaders of the day. There is language in the OT, particularly the Psalms, that aligns God with the feminine ie metaphors of childbirth etc. The new testament is full of references to women, which, when put into a cultural context, all show a radically different view on women to the culture of the time (and British culture over the last centuries). "In Christ, there is neither male nor female" is one very small example amongst many.

The problem for the church is the twist that men have put on the scriptures, over centuries past and that church leadership has been, and still is, dominated by men. I still meet men who I know are afraid of letting women lead, even though they themselves pay lip service to the fact that Jesus himself, and the letters, advocate gender equality.

However, all is not lost! Read the gospels and the letters slowly and you will find this!

My hat is off to you if you can stay a Christian, it really is. This has been building for years and I'm not sure there is any way back. Not really sure I want to go back either - I think I just don't know how to do Christianity without the other stuff, particularly with a patriarchal church and husband.

Hmm, I feel for you! I'm fortunate to have a husband who understands and believes my point of view. However, I'm not so sure about my own church leaders, even though I come from a denomination of the christian church that has welcomed women leaders. I have to remind myself that they are human, and as such, do not define my faith!

A useful book I read recently, when exploring my own leadership role is 'Why Not Women?' by Cunningham/Hamilton. I was also recommended another book 'I Suffer Not a Woman' but I have struggled to find this. NB this latter title is based on language used in the Authorised Version and should not be read as a negative statement!

I hope you are able to re-find God and set aside all the dross that is associated with the patriarchal church of our society!

hang on then. what does "and of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost" mean?

what about "our father who art in heaven"

YOu might have been able to convince yourself that God is not a "he" MuminScotland, but I can tell you that children all over the world believe he's a he, as I did as a child. Everyone I'D ever spoken to about God referred to him as a "he"

God is God - do we need to define 'him' in these terms. 'He' is beyond gender. We understand 'him' in gender terms for the sake of our own understanding. Perhaps because 'father' is supposed to be that loving, caring, protective parent. The problem comes that this picture has been abused and distorted throughout the centuries to a point where the maleness and paternity of God has been used to control and exert power.

We need to get back to original understanding which requires further reading and study.

I read 'The Shack' recently, and whilst disappointed in the over simplification of some of its ideas, I found the different expressions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, defined by the persons own understanding, quite interesting.

Sorry, dittany, completely disagree.

Been on a long journey on this one, and the misconceptions regarding God are definitely man made. Sure, some will, and do, twist arguments to continually exert mans power over woman. But, this was not Gods intention.

I'm not arguing that God represents women, who does he need to represent women to? But God is a God for women and for the empowerment of women, as much as God is a God for men. As said before, God is above and beyond gender, to try and put him within these arguments, and therefore reject him, is to give way to the male dominated hierarchy of the church over the last few centuries.

Sad to say, but don't confuse God with Church!