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?

Emmeline, of course it's valid and reasonable to say that your experience of the church is oppressive and misogynist. It's also fine to say that because of that experience you can't imagine being a member of a church. But you must see that it's a big leap from that to saying that Christianity is inherently misogynist and oppressive of women. And that it's annoying to be presented with a caricature of what you believe, based on a mish-mash of half remembered stuff, and told that that is Christianity and if you think otherwise you must be deluded.

Dogs, I was mainly pulling FairPhyllis up on her insinuation that Culew was somehow a bit wrong for holding an opinion on what the bible might say about women. But also, it isn't as though you are just presented with this idea that it's mysoginistic by non-Christians is it? There are plenty of Christians who believe that women should not take leadership roles, that they were created as second to men, that they are lesser, or simply that they have different (god given) roles to men that they should not step outside of. The idea that the bible isn't misogynist is somewhat novel, so maybe it also isn't true.

There are. But as I said up thread it's frustrating that people talk about Christianity as if it were a monolith. Some (many!) Christians are misogynists. Some Christians are insane (see snake handlers in the US, for example). Some Christians are adherents of the 'prosperity gospel' (religious Thatcherism, if you've never come across it). Some are passionate about community action to help people in practical ways.

Of course I could be wrong. I frequently am wrong about all sorts of stuff. For all I know the Orthodox Jews have got it exactly right and all the rest of us are damned. But the question was whether you can be a Christian and a feminist, and I think you can.

Something I think is quite important to ask: is the Bible one thing, or lots of things? Is Christianity one thing, or lots of things? Is the church one thing, or lots of things?

Re. the Bible, I veer towards saying that the Bible is not just one thing - it's a collection of lots of different writings by different people. Some of these writings, and dome of the people who wrote them, are deeply sexist. I'm glad that as a Protestant, I don't need to accept Ben Sira as Holy Scripture (IMO far, far more misogynistic than anything Paul says). Some of the writings that are sexist though, I do accept as Scripture. For me, one of the most difficult to reconcile in my mind is Job - a work of stunning beauty, poetry, passion and depth-plumbing - but nastily misogynistic. The reason this causes

Incidentally, I'm sure FairPhyllis can defend herself very eloquently, but I don't think she was criticising curlew for having an opinion: she was suggesting, based on curlew's previous posts, that it might be based on some factually wrong assumptions. Which is fair enough.

Sorry, posted too soon. I was going to say, if it were nasty through and through, it'd be easier to dismiss, but it's not, it's sensitive and wonderful too. So some feminists say that we can't do anything with Job, we have to reject it as a text, but others (like me) try to sift the wheat from the chaff within the text.

Which may be what I do with the church, too...

I was wrong, and admitted it, on one point- which appears to invalidate my opinions!

I think that the Christian church has generally been a bad thing for women. I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but I can't think of ways in which Christianity made life better for women......

Is that an unreadable hypothesis, though, Curlew? We can't go back 2000 years and start the history of post-Jesus western civilisation without the influence of Christian churches, is it? I.e. We can't compare like for like, seeing whether life would have been better or worse for women without Christianity.

curlew Faith, knowing you are redeemed through what Christ has done for you, knowing you are loved and not having to worry about anything is incredibly liberating for anyone, not just women.

Untestable, not unreadable! On phone! :)

daftdame what you are describing as liberation is the way we describe a child as being free. Not responsible for the outcomes so long as you do as you're supposed to. Safety in return for giving up sovereignty over your life.

Emmeline in one way yes, we are God's children. Although we are responsible, we have free will, we choose to be a Christian, to follow Christ, do God's will, or not.

Emmeline also it is faith in what Christ has done for us, rather than each individual action which redeems us. This faith changes us so that we want, to do God's will, its what makes us feel at peace.

Emmeline, IMO Religion is full of paradoxes, and one of them us this: yes, faith is about letting go, of surrendering oneself to the divine. But what happens when one does that surrendering is that one realises the huge responsibility and trust that God places in humanity, the responsibility to represent God's nature through the way one tries to live (love, mercy, forgiveness, accountability, cherishing the natural world etc)

So what looks infantalising is actually the biggest call to grow up into maturity as a human being. Alanis Zmorrisette, that great theologian, sang 'the moment I let go if it was the moment I got more than I could ever know, the moment I jumped off of it was the moment that I touched down' (I think that last bit's right. The sentiment's there.)

daftdame I know the message. I'm simply saying it isn't liberation. And that a Christian faith that relies on that view of God is not (IMO) one compatible with a liberation view of feminism.

Well all I can say is to me it is as liberated as you can get.

I'm not convinced there is one consistent definition of feminism, but then without God I am apt to fall into post modernist type thinking...so everyone who knows me has won out there!

I agree about the no consistent defintion of feminism, also no consistent definition of Christianity. I have been quite clear about seeing a submission view of Christianity as being incompatible with a liberation view of Feminism.

HolofernesesHead said upthread about her liberal feminism being compatible with her liberal Christianity. That makes sense to me. I can also see that any Christianity has a much harder time against a Radical feminist position. I have a freind who is a Universal Unitarian minister who sees Christianity as a journey for exploring the human condition - finding "that of God" within us; and exploring the mystery and wonder in the universe that we cannot rationally comprehend. I can see how that view can be consistent with a liberation view of feminism, possibly with a Radical feminist view. But her lack of concern with whether Christ was divine or whether the resurection happened means that some would be hard pressed to see her as Christian...

I'm sorry I may be woefully ignorant, but you'd have to explain to me what a liberation view of feminism is for me to understand you.

I also don't really understand how you can be a Christian without submitting to God...

If you are talking about equal rights, Christians are equal as children of God.

We all have to submit to God...if you are talking about the Law of Moses we are all equally guilty under it and we all have equal access to Grace, Redemption and Salvation.

emmeline

I'm trying to make a distinction between the text of the NT and the culture of the Church here. They are not the same thing, but they are being repeatedly conflated here. I don't think any Christian feminist has said on this thread, or would ever say that the Church is just peachy and has only done marvellous things for women. I've seen horrible misogyny in the CofE.

There is a cultural war (among other cultural wars) going on in the church at the moment between feminists and misogynists and I don't appreciate people who don't seem to have a good knowledge of the text of the Gospels telling me that they say xyz and support a misogynistic world view when that view seems to be based on misrememberings of the Gospel. Having this discourse going on from non-Christians is incredibly damaging to what we are trying to do within the church to make it a less sucky place for women. It hands more power to misogynists within the church to represent themselves as the authentic face of Christianity.

If someone has absorbed a message from their cultural milieu that the Gospels support a misogynistic worldview, then undoubtedly that is a failure of the church to educate. We know that it is a problem. I said upthread that I wanted better adult Bible education for Christians. But it's also frustrating that people absorb that claim about the Gospel unthinkingly, without investigating it for themselves or being prepared to listen to why some women on this thread disagree with it.

I don't even know if we are talking about the same thing here when we talk about 'the Church'. People here seem to be talking exclusively about RCism, which is interesting, but there is a universal church and I don't think any of us here are actually RC. I was baptised in a church which ordains women and has a gay woman bishop and a presiding bishop who is a woman. Christianity is not a monolith. It has an exceptionally rich and varied cultural and intellectual history.

I only mean what I said in my Mon 29-Jul-13 16:17:54 post, that it depends on whether you think feminism is women's liberation and needs to be about freeing women from that which binds them even if what binds them binds men too. I don't mean to imply there is some kind of accepted "Liberation Feminism" movement.

As to you not seeing how you can be a Christian without submitting to God, I can't help you with that.

I would like to correct my language in recent posts stating I think faith is "compatible" or "incompatible" with a liberation view of feminism. I'm getting caught up in rhetoric. I should say "at odds" or "not at odds". Because I don't think they are incompatible. People live with all sorts of dual systems that don't fully mesh and find their way through successfully, often improving both systems as they go.

Don't worry Emmeline I'm happy submitting to God, it is my choice to do so...you don't need to help me.

Was just trying to understand what you were talking about really...

As I have said before I think if you don't choose what is right, submit to God you, can become a 'slave to sin' (Mon 16.34 post).

I think people's whole way of thinking, ultimately their brain physiology can be altered this way, since our brain responds and develops with our thinking and emotional state. I can see how it could be possible to be enslaved, oppressed.

When I talk about post-modernism it is because I think there needs to be a more reliable reference point than individual self. I also think there needs to be more reliable reference point than society or biology too, since all are flawed.

Fair sorry I must have been writing my last response when you posted and I went to bed befor eI read the thread again.

Part of Curlew's point above was that however much Christian women in the church are fighting misogyny in the Church, they haven't won that battle. So their presence in the Church gives power to the misogynists - and this impacts on non-Christians and on the role and status of women in society. Her understanding of the texts may be incorrect in some areas, but it isn't as though there aren't many good scholars who support a misogynistic reading - it isn't simply a lack of education that makes a misogynistic understanding of the bible possible. So it's not really that out there for a non-Christian feminist to take the view that Christian women who engage with the established churches shore up the power of institutions that have hurt women, continue to hurt women and may well always do so.

It's part of the radical/liberal question. I'm of the view you can change institutions at least as well as you can set up new ones so I'm more on the liberal side, others that you have to stop engaging in processes stacked against us. But that's the question - not whether someone who doesn't wear the right badge should be entitled to hold opinions on something that impacts their life.

Women in the church just have to 'play the long game' and bide our time....some things have changed for the better, I think you'd agree.