Faith and feminism

[Spindelina]

Inspired by another recent thread, I’d like to talk about feminism in the context of faith and/or faith in the context of feminism.

I grew up in a Quaker family, then took a detour via evangelicalism to somewhere in the middle. My feminism is more recent - really since having DD.

My church has become much less evangelical in the last decade or so. We started out on a path of wanting to “do good” and kind of realised that running the holiday lunch club was much more important than meeting on a Sunday morning.

I don’t have any particular questions, but I’d just like to chat. There were a lot of wise words said on the other thread.

“I love her strength and guts and her care for people, especially the poor and displaced....even when pregnant at such a young age”

Where does this come from?

Bertrand asked this question which no one has answered. Where does this come from?

Hello @Italiangreyhound - great to see you too! How have you been?

Yes - I did mean not all evangelicals etc. I kind of loosely label myself evangelical but less and less so since it has become so much more associated with some of the harsher dogma of the Bible Belt right which I really really don't align with. I just like the word as a position which explains my commitment to scripture and sharing the gospel (if invited to). I prefer 'open evangelical' or even 'charismatic' though that word comes with all kinds of issues in itself. Sigh!

Great thread. For some fabulous feminist Christian writers I recommend Lucy Peppiatt, Paula Gooder and Elaine Storkey. Loads more too. I've also associated myself on the more radical side of feminism for years, and agree that it aligns more with how Jesus spoke and acted.

I tend to find that people who talk about how strong and powerful women in early Christianity were, and how Jesus and the apostles and Paul and so on were practically feminists have very little, if any actual evidence to support their view. The representation of Mary by some posters on this thread is a case in point. She submitted willingly to the will of God before the incarnation, and was a passive observer of the events to follow. The fact that one of her virtues is that she was conceived and conceived without the stain of sin is a strong indicator of the Christian view of women's sexuality. And Jesus' "Go, and sin no more" is another.

I don't think Paul was a feminist, no. And I don't think the early Church was feminist, and I certainly don't think the modern Church is either. As a woman who very tentatively approaches the label of 'feminist' myself, I just don't think I am somehow bound to read the essential elements of my Faith as anti-feminist, however much people may have done that for centuries.

I don't see how Mary's conception has anything to do with her sexuality or women's sexuality in general. The virgin birth I can see being used in that regard, but the idea of her being preserved from sin from the moment of her conception isn't a sexuality thing at all.

I don't read her as passive at all. I recall having an argument with a reformed Baptist way back when I was mired in proper patriarchal women-must-be-silent religion, about his belief that Mary had no choice in the matter and was no more special than the donkey that carried Jesus into Jerusalem.

Given that the atheists here don't believe the baseline things about all this anyway, it's a bit of a philosophical theory question anyway, but I don't think you are compelled to accept that she was not a free agent if you believe it all happened at all.

I tend to find that people who talk about how strong and powerful women in early Christianity were, and how Jesus and the apostles and Paul and so on were practically feminists have very little, if any actual evidence to support their view

I am an atheist to the core - but I find the history and archaeology of religion fascinating, and, of course, I tend towards the Abrahamic religions because I am most familiar with these. I just can't help thinking that there is so much speculation based on so little evidence. Looking at it from 'outside' I think it is so interesting the way that different stories and interpretations are pieced together - but it really is (to me) the archaeology of myth.

That’s interesting, Floral.

I think my view is that Mary could have not complied, but the fact that she did “Be done to me according to your word” is what makes her revered. And surely that the sex free conceptions are glorified means that the idea of women fulfilling their procreative duties without sex is preferable to them having sex?

I don't read her as passive at all

Have you read Marina Warner's Alone of All Her Sex? It was a great book, but what I took from it is that we know very little about Mary. We only know about her from second hand accounts written many, many years after her death. So what are we seeking? Truth about the 'real' Mary or truth about the real story of Mary?

“I don't read her as passive at all.”

Can I ask how you read her as anything else?

Just thought- in the traditional nativity story, it’s Joseph who was the publicly transgressive one- not “putting her away privily”* Which I presume was a tough thing to do in the times.
*Sorry, I am steeped in the KJV.......

Bertrand, the immaculate conception wasn't sex-free. It refers to her being conceived by her parents in the normal sexual manner, but supernaturally being prepared in a different way to everyone else.

The Annunciation, which is when Christ was conceived in her (often confused with the immaculate conception but not the same at all), is when Christians believe her mission was presented to her and she consented.

Obviously she is revered because she said yes, but that's because due to her choice, we believe the plan of God was able to be enacted. Sure, if she'd have said no, we wouldn't have heard of her. But that's a bit of an odd critique. We're all only ever judged by history through what actually happened.

With regards to Joseph 'putting her away', yes, his choice to not reject her was a very positive one - but she didn't know that's what he would do when she said yes. For all she knew he would publicly shame her and all that entailed.

I think of her at the first miracle, being the one who instigated it. And most especially I see her as one of the very few who stayed by Jesus, her son, to the bitter end. I don't think having the guts to stay with your son as he is brutally executed speaks of a passive woman at all.

Look, I am the very last person to suggest that Christianity in particular is without guilt in the way women have been treated and seen in the last two thousand years. I've experienced much of it first hand. I just don't think it has to be that way just because it has been before.

YetAnotherSpartacus, I've not read it, no. Personally I'm not enthused about historical biblical criticism. The attempts to find the 'historical Jesus', for example, are just thinly veiled attempts to strip away any supernatural understanding and try and make sense of texts that are entirely based on a supernatural understanding. It's a hiding to nothing.

So yes, if you go on bare text, there is not an awful lot of Mary in the bible. But I'm not a 'bible Christian', so I take a much broader view, looking at how the Church has understood her through the past two millennia, and how I relate to her now.

I understand this is the perspective of a believer, but I'm not here as an evangelist, I'm just explaining how my understanding of my faith, and my leaning towards feminist beliefs, gels together.

Actually you might like the Warner book then!

I shall add it to the pile!

I agree with you about Mary, Floral. We don't know a great deal but we can surmise that she consented to something out of love for God and that she must have shown some strength in staying to the end. We know also that Jesus asked John to take care of her, knowing at the time his siblings weren't interested in following him but she wished to.

I've never really understood the immaculate conception thing and not sure where it originates.

With you on the endless circular arguments for the historical Jesus, too!

I agree on the pointlessness of the search for the historical Jesus. There was probably a person called that about then-but it diesn't really matter. But I find the idea of blatantly making stuff up really frustrating- particularly about incredibly shadowy figures like Mary. That's when the circularity is really problematic. Mary is a shadowy figure. People make stuff up to fill in the gaps and fulfil their desire for strong female chararacters in Christianity. Then, lol and behold, Jesus was surrounded by strong female characters.

But she wasn't a shadowy figure in early Christianity or throughout the next 1500 years. She's considered to be pretty central.

I don't think Jesus was surrounded by strong female characters. I think His behaviour towards women as recorded in the bible is remarkably open for the time, but there's no getting away from the fact that his closest companions were men.

As I said, the bible is only part of the record of beliefs of Christians. The faith is also found in the works of the Church fathers, the monastics - male and female - through the ages, and yes, more modern readings of the basics.

But I do take the point about people seeing what they want to see, most definitely. I try to be honest with myself that I am still a Christian because I want to be, and therefore have significant motivation to find an understanding of these things which I am comfortable with.

Which is why this discussion is about faith and not science (which is my day job!)

Oh, OK, i’ll opt out then. I thought a discussion about feminism and faith would be interested in the actual portrayal and role of women in religion, not how we might like it to be.

Bertrand, I wish you wouldn't. Obviously no one has to join in where they don't want to, but I hold the opinions of people who I respect that disagree with me very highly indeed.

With respect to what you have said in your last comment, I don't see why it can't be both. If we can't be honest about the failings of religion, those of us who value it are in no good place to be able to take it in better directions.

Yes, sorry Bertrand that wasn’t supposed to say that people without faith weren’t welcome to contribute.

I just meant that the sort of reading and contemplating and listening and seeing what chimes that I think Flora is talking about is the essence of faith, and where it is very different to science (or even scholarship in other areas) where we explicitly try to avoid bias by not just reading stuff and see what chimes.

(I’m much better at equations than paragraphs so I hope this makes sense.)

the immaculate conception wasn't sex-free. It refers to her being conceived by her parents in the normal sexual manner, but supernaturally being prepared in a different way to everyone else

Well not quite "in the normal manner" as unlike everyone else she remained free of the original sin which taints every other conception.

But really there are no facts about Mary. There is nothing other than whatever who is putting their particular spin on it from time to time wants to say or what you each individually and personally want to believe.

Sorry, posting three time’s when one should have sufficed. But in addition to what I said about faith and scholarship:

I shouldn’t have said “this is a discussion about faith”. I was referring to Flors’s post, rather than the discussion as a whole.

But surely when it comes to something like feminism and faith, particularly considering how destructive of women faith has been and still is, there is no point discussing stuff for which there is no evidence? Obviously if people are talking about their own faith and how it supports them that is a different matter. But pretending Christianity is something that it isn't is pointless in this context. And potentially dangerous.

This is a really interesting thread, thanks OP. It's something I've read, thought and written about a lot over the years.

The absolutely crucial part for me is God said 'Let us make humankind in our image' ....'in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.' Men and women as equal bearers of God's image, none superior or inferior to the other. What happens later (as a consequence of disobedience, as I understand it) is descriptive - that there will be enmity, fracture and a power struggle in the relationship between women and men.

Within the context of their culture both Jesus and Paul appear to have been radically inclusive of women, encouraged the teaching and participation of women and (in Paul's case) endorsed the appointment of women to leadership positions.

Paul commends Phoebe, a deacon, and Junia, an Apostle whom he refers to as 'outstanding'. Of course Bible translators couldn't countenance the possibility that a woman was capable of being an apostle so they altered the name to Junias, a male 'alternative' which was unheard of, not an actual name.

Men very quickly airbrushed women out of their radical place in early Christianity but there is plenty to suggest that women were active and valued in their ministries. The fact that Priscilla's name regularly appears before her husband Aquila's suggests she was the more prominent one of the couple, and it says in Acts 18 that they instructed Paul. Jesus praises Mary (not his mother, Martha's sister) when she sits listening to him rather than working in the kitchen (though I always feel a bit sorry for Martha!) and that would have been unheard of in that culture.

Bertrand, if we were talking about airbrushing out the damage done, then yes, I'd agree there's not much point.

I don't really hold to the retconning on the early church being a quasi-feminist paradise that got squashed by something else. If we are talking about how little evidence there is for Mary's place in Christianity (which I don't necessarily agree with anyway) there's certainly very little for the idea that there were lots of female apostles and priests running about in New Testament times, bar a couple of possible mistranslations and hefty inference.

Personally I find the question of how someone can hold to feminism and still have a faith in the more traditional religions an interesting discussion, but it's not the entirety of the topic - as you rightly point out there is another question of whether a religion like Christianity is inherently dangerous for women, particularly given the context of how it has been used to oppress women in thunderously appalling ways.