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

[SummerHoliDidi]

I count myself as a feminist, and am also a Catholic, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to be both.

I sat through a very Christian wedding (much more overtly Christian than I have ever been to before) yesterday, where there were a LOT of references to the bible passage that talks about women submitting to their husbands but men only having to love their wives. I found myself wanting to tell the minister to fuck off, which is hardly a Christian thing to want to do. The man is the head of the household - fuck off. If a man loves his wife and only wants to do the best for her what wife wouldn't submit? - fuck off. Hearing "obey" in the vows - fuck off. Having children is God's will - fuck off. The bride being "given away" by her father - fuck off.

I appreciate that this particular wedding is not typical of Christianity as a whole, and my friend has actively chosen to have this type of ceremony (she was always very sensible back when we were at uni, but "found God" a couple of years ago and I hadn't realised quite how much she's bought into it).

How do other Christian feminists reconcile both viewpoints, or do you find yourself picking and choosing which bits to take from each?

[daftdame]

^ that should be taking on a 'traditional' role or not.

[daftdame]

Hmm, I have trouble with 'literal' versus 'symbolic' anyway. In the Bible there is imagery and the symbolic, blatant in the prophetic parts.

Jesus is 'the author and finisher' of our faith...Authors use symbolism, so even life itself, I believe, contains symbolism, sometimes I can spot it.

So I find it very difficult to say, when I am reading the Bible whether I would fall into one of these factions (literal versus symbolic), but then again I have explained the problem I have falling into post modernism (read too much narrative theory as well in my life I should imagine, to get a sensible answer from me).

Where this relates is that I am not overly concerned regarding the division of labour in terms of feminism, a flower arranger is no more exploited (or important) than a Bishop, if that is genuinely what they feel fulfilled doing. If not, I am concerned about that.

I let the Bible reveal itself to me through the Holy Spirit. Like in structural approaches in narrative theory it is a 'living' text. The reader interacts with it, in their reflections.

So I have difficulty when people argue that certain texts are not relevant, they may just have to spend more time to understand them. If I don't understand an aspect I pray for understanding and expect it to come, in faith, since for me to understand is God's will.

This applies to my brand of feminism, having choice to do what is right, whether that means taking on a 'traditional' or not.

[curryeater]

Btw I don't mean liberals are worse than conservatives. I just mean I feel more let down by them - not arguing that this is a fair position. Very interesting to hear about meetings etc

[EmmelineGoulden]

FairPhyllis When I say church in this thread I'm referring to the institutions that make up the various denominations.

What do you mean by what I am asking of Christian feminists? I don't think I've really asked anything of Christian Feminists in general. I've said I think a particular view of god is at odds with a particular view of feminism, and I've said you were out of order for implying Curlew had no right to hold or voice an opinion on something that impacts her. But I don't think I've asked Christian feminists to do anything.

[HolofernesesHead]

I see what you mean, Grimble. I honestly think that if I left the church, I'd encounter more sexism, not less. That might just be a reflection on the circles in which I move! :)

[DogsAreEasierThanChildren]

curlew, what do you think many women in the church are doing if not challenging sexism and misogyny? We're not all arranging sodding flowers. I can't speak for any church other than the C of E but it's full of women campaigning and has been for at least 40 years.

[grimbletart]

Holo: I don't want to derail the thread any further as I made my decision re the church and, as I said, I understand if others can find enough wriggle room to square the circle of being Christian and feminist. I do know it was the laypeople not the clerics that vetoed women bishops BTW and I agree it is ironic.

No country in the world is especially good for women, but I know I would rather be in this one than many many others when it comes to female rights.

This thread though is about the church not about other institutions and my comments were therefore about the church, not other institutions. If other institutions are not female fair, that does not absolve the church, unless of course the church sees its role as copying other institutions rather than leading from the front.

Anyway, I'll leave it that as it's probably not fair of me to take up space on the thread about a subject I don't really care too much about (not being part of a church congregation)

[HolofernesesHead]

That was to Grimble tart.

[HolofernesesHead]

That would make sense if it were true, but if you read the stats I've quoted today on this thread, it's not the male herirarchy of the church that has led to the legislation regarding women bishops to go through, it's the laypeople. Ironically, if the C of E were an oligopoly of bishops, it'd be much more egalitarian. Funny old world, eh? (ironic)

As for the formal rights women have I contemporary society; yes, women have the vote, can work outside the home, can file for divorce etc. But it's still insane. The experience of many women does not reflect their formal rights within the law. Many institutions and spheres of life which are, on the face of it, non-sexist are deeply antagonistic places for women to be. I face sexism most days, nearly always outside the church rather than withon it, where i seem to be respected and heard. Snd, to pit things in perspective, two women a week?!?!? Until that statistic changes, I maintain that my country is not good for women.

[curlew]

"Do you advocate separatism in all areas of life (politics, law, personal relationships, child rearing, education etc"

I don't advocate separatism. But I do expect women to challenge sexism and misogyny wherever they find it.

[grimbletart]

If I wanted sanity to dawn, I wouldn't look for in in contemporary British society. What do you suggest?

Sanity has dawned in British society over a lot of issues relating to women Holo (We even have the vote now, good grief) - just not in certain churches and among certain Christian institutions/people.

I don't have the stats to hand but I understand that in the Church of England at least women are the majority in the congregation, never mind among the duties e.g. flower arranging. (The flower festival fundraising for my village church every year would never happen unless women did all the arranging and the rest of the heavy lifting).

Perhaps women who disapprove of the antediluvian antics of the church hierarchy should vote with their feet?

[FairPhyllis]

emmeline

I still need to know what you mean when you say 'Church'. You see, when I say Church, I mean the universal body of believers - The Body of Christ. Simply by being a believer, I am part of that. I can't be a believer and not be part of the universal Church. What you are asking of Christian feminists is by definition impossible unless we stopped being followers of Christ.

OTOH 'Church' here seems to mean anything from the RCC (which I'm not part of - am culturally Irish Catholic and just can't stomach it, like CurryEater) to some amalgam of all the nasty stories anyone ever heard about a Christian, to any mainstream denomination.

I'm not saying that people can't have an opinion about institutions that have an impact on women's lives - far from it. But to have an opinion about the text of Scripture which can be shown to be factually inaccurate is a different thing (I don't know who these 'good scholars' are who support misogynistic readings of the Bible btw - can you tell me about some of them?).

By telling us not to engage with the Church (an impossibility anyway) you are placing a special burden on Christian feminists which I suspect you probably don't require of women in any other aspect of life. Do you advocate separatism in all areas of life (politics, law, personal relationships, child rearing, education etc), or is that just a special requirement you have for Christian women because you're not religious yourself?

I might equally say that all women who are partnered with men (I don't have relationships with men myself) are imo participating in a far more systemic, damaging collusion with patriarchy than women who are trying to spread the Gospel, which has an unambiguous radical women-are-human message. But I'm not asking you to get divorced, if you're married.

[curlew]

I agree. But curry eater put the blame very firmly at the feet of the liberals-I find that questionable at the very least. From my observation of the situation, the "we must make it possible for traditionalists to be accommodated" group were simply the same old sexist gits of both genders sailing under liberal colours.

[HolofernesesHead]

Mummytime, I think that the real rubber will hit the road (so to speak) when it comes time to elect people to the next General Synod. The crap didn't happen last Nov, it happened in 2010 with lots of very political voting of people with minority views onto Gen Synod.

What we ended up with was a Synod that was badly out of kilter with the wider church; we got that because more moderate Anglicans didn't put themselves forward for their local Synods (too apathetic / unaware in many cases). I think that next time round, we'll know what is at stake and the whole process will be much more on people's radars. I hope!

[Woodhead]

Yes, I was despairing too, but also so taken aback I just couldn't come up with a counterposition that didn't sound weak to my ears relative to her absolute position that scripture (at least all NT) should be taken as absolute direction on how to live now.

From her position she was also probably shocked and disappointed in my laxness and self-conceit for thinking I could read the scriptures in a way that was palatable to me.

Thankfully "the Church" is not a single entity, so there is certainly room for cherry-picking-sometimes-atheist-sometimes-christian-liberal-heretics.

[HolofernesesHead]

Curlew, it's impossible to answer that question. Those who voted against weren't required to say why they did so; it was a straight yes or no question. Those who went on record to say why they voted against were a self-selecting group, and of those, the ones picked up by the media were a further selection.

Grimbletart, for the same reason, we don't know how many of the anti votes were by men and women.

I must say, though, I live in an insane world. A world in which women are judged by appearances, women's bodies are claimed unthinkingly as public property and in which women's lives are circumscribed all the time by gender stereotyping and misogyny. Is it still the case that 2 women are killed each week by their partners or ex-partners in the UK? The insanity is displayed here on MN all the time, every day (Relationships is an obvious example). If I wanted sanity to dawn, I wouldn't look for in in contemporary British society. What do you suggest?

[mummytime]

But in my diocese at deanery synod level and most parishes are very pro-women Bishops. However out of 4 laity representatives 3 voted against. The horror at this going against the general views of the diocese, lead to several public meetings, and a lot of unhappiness.

[grimbletart]

That an apparently "logical and intelligent" woman (according to Woodhead) can believe in female submission leaves me in despair. With female friends like that women don't need enemies.

That women can vote against women bishops, likewise.

It confirms for me that, whether or not I believe in a/the God, the church is no place for me. Life is too short to sit around waiting for sanity to dawn.

[curlew]

Would the logical position of liberals to vote against so as to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of the antis? Rather than to vote in favour because they think women should be bishops?

And, frankly, I would prefer to blame the antis than any other group- they are the "most wrong".

[HolofernesesHead]

Just checked the numbers; if six more laypeople had voted in favour, it would hand gone through. But of those who voted against, it's not fair to pick put six of them and blame them for the bill's failure.

[HolofernesesHead]

Sorry, I meant Giles Fraser's column, not editorial.

[HolofernesesHead]

Curry eater, although I can see how your take on the C of E women bishop vote could be true, I don't think it was because of liberals wanting not to alienate traditionalists that the vote didn't go through. I think it was people who genuinely disagree with women bishops.

Remember the vote fell by a tiny, tiny number; it needed a two-thirds majority in all three houses, and iirc got 94% in the House of Bishops, 82% in the House of Clergy and 63% in the House of Laity. So if it were up to the (male) bishops alone, we'd have women bishops by now.

The 27% in the House of Laity who voted against the bill come from quite a wide range of viewpoints; more people were genuinely against women bishops than liberals worried about offending or losing antis. On the whole, liberals were up in arms; Giles Fraser's editorials were absolutely scathing and very clear that he believed that the antis were wrong, and that he didn't respect their position. Bear in mond also that the term 'liberal' has quite a spectrum of meanings.

So it's not really fair or logical to single out a particular 3% within the 27% and blame them, and their motives, for the bill's rejection.

[Woodhead]

I don't feel wracked with guilt about cherry picking, but do feel some level of unease when I think about it too much, and do realise that I need to have some better "off-the-shelf" arguements (like is polycotton an abomination?)

Good take on liberalism, off to self-examine white-supremicist-privilege

[Woodhead]

Thanks Curryeater, that's very interesting about the Bishops vote. Do you feel it was more to do with the sensitivities of (parts of) the wider anglican communion than the sensitivities of members of the CofE?

I have to admit I'd quite like to see the anglican communion break up; or at least become much less formalised.

[curryeater]

sorry, typo:

If you say that this has to change, and the people who persist in degrading and oppressing women within christiantity are wrong wrong wrong, and should NOT be pandered to, you are RIGHT

this is the thing - the people who have any tendency to be right in churches are liberals and they pander too much