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?

[DogsAreEasierThanChildren]

curlew, that's a difficulty that feminists have with all kinds of institution (and not only feminists, indeed). Do you continue to work within the institution and try to change it, for women who come after you and for the institution's own sake (because I do passionately believe that a church that fully values the gifts of all its people will be a better church), or do you take your bat and ball and go home and leave the misogynists to it.

I'm not denying that it's difficult. I went out for lunch with an ordained friend the day after the vote in November: we drank more red wine than was good for us and said some very rude things about certain members of Synod. I don't know how ordained women are coping, because God knows I feel kicked in the teeth by the Church and I'm lay. But I think in the end we have to carry on in faith and hope, because it's our church too and it's better with us than without us.

Having said that, I have twenty years of commitment to the church behind me. I was 18 when the Synod voted to ordain women as priests, and if they'd voted no then I'm not sure I'd have stayed. I do fear that the women bishops fiasco has lost a generation of young women, and that's the church's loss more than theirs.

[curlew]

I'm afraid that I can't begin to understand why you would want to remain part of an organisation that patently obviously doesn't want you.I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's no use pretending otherwise.

[FairPhyllis]

curlew Um, because for centuries women's presence in the (male-written) gospels has been marginalised by a male-run church? We have only assumed that there were only men present. There's no textual evidence that there were definitely only men, or only 'the Twelve' there. There were probably men who were not the Twelve there too.

There's no reason to think that women wouldn't have been present at the Last Supper. In the context of what we know about how Jesus' followers travelled together and ate together from the gospels and Acts, the women followers being present at the Last Supper would be totally consistent with what we know of the group's behaviour.

It's fairly standard that for women's history you have to read between the lines of most historical sources, isn't it?

[curlew]

"There's no reason to think that women wouldn't have been present at the Last Supper"

But no reason to suppose they would- indeed the known Jewish traditions of the time would suggest that they wouldn't.

And you can tell the church hierarchy that you've found women in the interstices of the Gospels until you are blue in the face, and finding them might make you as an individual feel better, but it doesn't make the church any less of a misogynistic institution...........

[JoTheHot]

but if you don't want to adhere to the rules, why join the club?

[daftdame]

JoTheHot What do you know about the Law and Grace? For a Christian (believing in Christ) their faith isn't about adhering to rules it is about following Christ through the promptings of the Holy Ghost and reading and reflecting on what is taught in the Bible.

Your actions are a result of the change that takes place within you when you decide to accept Christ as the son of God. You don't believe you can be made righteous by your own actions but rather by your faith in what Christ did for us.

[curlew]

I think Jo is talking about the Church rather than Christianity.

[daftdame]

Ah, but the Church strictly speaking is just a collective term for all Christ's followers. Not a building or an organisation.

[FairPhyllis]

curlew No, Jewish men and women of the time wouldn't have eaten together. But there are references to men and women of Jesus' group eating together both before and after the Resurrection. That's the whole point - the group didn't obey Jewish customs of the time. That's why they were so scorned. They ate with and touched people who were unclean too. That's why it would be consistent with what we know about them.

I'm sorry you obviously feel so angry about the church. But repeatedly telling Christian feminists not to engage with the church because of its misogyny (which I think you'll find we acknowledge) is like telling feminist academics not to work in higher education because it's institutionally misogynistic (which it is).

That's sort of the point of patriarchy - there is literally nowhere you can go that is not permeated by it. Some feminists choose to work against it in whatever sphere they happen to care about most. For some that happens to be the church.

[DogsAreEasierThanChildren]

curlew, would you also say there was no point in women struggling to become solicitors or doctors a hundred years ago? Those were patently institutions that didn't want women. If you see a difference it must be because you think law and medcine are intrinsically worthwhile and the church isn't. Which is a fair enough point of view, but it's not the same as saying you shouldn't stick with an institution that doesn't want you.

As to the women in the Gospels, there's a great article by Dorothy L Sayers called 'Are Women Human?' which considers Christ's radical attitude to women and contrasts it unfavourably with the church's.

[DogsAreEasierThanChildren]

Sorry for typos - on phone. I also can't post as fully as I'd like to because it takes so long to type a post!

[JoTheHot]

The trouble with these discussions is 'christian' is interpreted differently. Those arguing compatibility between feminism and christianity hide behind a restricted definition of christianity along the lines of believing in jesus. This may be an uncontentious definition among practicing christians.

However, I'm a strong believer that usage carries all else before it when it comes to the meaning of words, and the great majority of people understand 'christian' much more widely. They understand it to include the traditions, habits and opinions of people belonging to christian organisations.

It is disingenuous to call yourself christian, restricted sense, whilst knowing this will be understood in the broader sense. Or equivalently to reply to questions about christianity, broad sense, as though they had been asked about christianity, narrow sense.

Christianity, as defined by popular usage, and as I understand it to be used in the OP, is incompatible with all branches of mainstream feminism, and so you must choose.

[DogsAreEasierThanChildren]

Cross-posted, FairPhyllis. I agree with your post.

[daftdame]

Well jo why not let people of the faith describe themselves? Would you say that to a person of another faith, well actually the majority of people here understand your faith to mean this, so it does, regardless of what you, as a believer think?

In fact there are a lot of misogynists about, if they are the majority can they tell you what feminism actually means? No, I don't think so...

[LRDYaDumayuIThink]

jo, do you actually know very much about Christianity?

I do.

That's why I'm Christian and a feminist. Not because I am ignorant enough to go by the 'popular usage' (of either 'Christian' or 'feminist', come to think, as I'm pretty sure - depressingly - that 'popular usage' of the latter means 'angry hairy lesbian'. And I'm only hairy.)

[DogsAreEasierThanChildren]

Hang on, JoTheHot, who's defining 'Christian'? The Episcopal Church in the US ordains women as bishops, priests and deacons, and as someone pointed out up thread their present Primate is a woman. Are they somehow now not Christian?

[DogsAreEasierThanChildren]

Sorry, I keep cross-posting! It is just like saying 'feminist' means 'angry hairy lesbian'. Personally I'm only angry!

[LRDYaDumayuIThink]

Sorry, rufous, I realized I missed your question. I don't 'reject' exactly - I like the Bible - but I'm closer to the second position. I'm not a biblical literalist.

[LRDYaDumayuIThink]

dogs - we just need a lesbian and we're onto a good thing.

[EmmelineGoulden]

daftme your response to me at 16:34 is what I'm talking about when I said earlier that Christians can describe their faith in ways that sound like an abusive relationship. You define the boundaries of your life in accordance with an external value set, tie yourself in knots trying to adhere to it and accept the grace of being saved from your failure to do the impossible by the entity who created all the rules in the first place. It sounds fucked up.

You say "If you view God as being synonymous with good and what is right" and here is the crunch - why do you give up your view of what is good and right and replace it with another's? This is part of submission - not simply attempting to be "good", but accepting those values, placing them above your own. That isn't liberation.

[curlew]

But Christianity as defined by the Bible and 2000 years of history is intrinsically misogynist. You can follow your own personal sect which isn't, but once you sign up to any particular church, you are signing up to an institution which has misogyny at its heart.

FairPhyllis- please don't tell me I'm angry when I'm not!

[daftdame]

If you do not use any external value set for reference, you are merely a victim of your own biology, no more than a collection of impulses and synapses.

People can go mad when left in isolation cells, even their vision can be altered and they may start to hallucinate.

If you are truly post modern and believe all is subjective and relative everything begins to unravel...

[EmmelineGoulden]

What is wrong with our biology daftme?

[EmmelineGoulden]

daftdame I'm really sorry I've just realised I've been misnaming you. It was not intentional and I hope it did not offend or detract from the conversation.

[daftdame]

I think our biology is amazing and we have great potential. However there are lots of flaws we get ill etc. Hubris and all that...