Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Good question--one I have grappled with often.
    
    I don't think feminism and Christianity have to be incompatible;
    but most organized religions today are in fact incompatible with
    feminism.                                                               
                                                                            
    I was raised Catholic and am a marginal member of the Church still.     
    But the God I believe in did not create women as inferior.  I'm         
    having a great deal of trouble with discrepancies between what I        
    believe as a feminist--and what makes sense to me--and much of what     
    the Church says I should believe, which does not make sense to me.      
                                                                            
    And given my misgivings, what do I teach my daughter about God and 
    religion?
    
    -Tracy
         
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
    
    

    When I entered my reply (.1), only the title of your note was there
    and I thought you were just throwing out the question.  Now that
    the article is there, I'll go back and read it before responding.
    I didn't want you to think I missed the point...
              

    re: -.1
    
    Teach your daughter what you believe about God.  If there is an
    organized religion that nearly coincides with your beliefs then join it.
    If not, then do without.  Explain to your daughter that religion was
    created by people to help them worship but that belonging to one isn't
    necessary to know God.  

    As near as I can figure by reading the Christian notes file, there are
    as many definitions of what a Christian is and what a Christian
    believes as there are Christians.  The main problem that many
    Christians have with Feminists seems to me to be one of politics not
    religion.  Unfortunately, however, many Christians seem to want to
    equate the two.  I guess if you believe in Jesus Christ and follow his
    precepts (love thy neighbor etc.) then you are a Christian.  I don't
    see any real incompatibility with wanting fairness and believing in
    Christ. 
                      
    Mike 

I do not see being Christian or Catholic as being incompatible with equality.

Christianity consists of the belief in Christ; the practice of your faith as an
expression of your person will follow naturally from that.  Your faith and
practice will be unique to you because you are a unique person.  Catholicism is
one set of Christian beliefs and practices added onto the belief in Christ. 

I was raised, and became Catholic, and still consider myself Catholic even
though I have disagreements on some issues and I am many other things as
a person in addition to being Catholic.

A church will never change if all the people who disagree with it, leave.

I think one would be hard pressed to show Christ 'oppressing women'.  Christ is
my role model, not the Catholic church.

I believe that God created male and female equal but different, perhaps suited
to different roles.  I do not consider the current trend toward equality to be
inappropriate.

Even if the roles of women in Christ's time were subservient, that does not lay
the blame for such on Christ (except that Christ accepts all our blame).
Interestingly enough, Christian are all supposed to be subservient.  Slavery
even, was not spoken against by Christ, merely that slave and master should live
Christian lives.

JMB

    I'm both feminist and Christian (Lutheran), so I have to answer
    the question "yes, they are compatible."
    
    --bonnie 

    I've believed that Christianity is perfectly compatible with feminism,
    but if the question has come up, it makes me wonder if I've missed
    something. Can someone offer an example of a Christian principle
    for which compatibility is debatable?

    For the record, I believe that most ORGANIZED religions are
    incompatible to greater or lesser degrees.
    
    A recovering Catholic,	( <-- joke, courtesy Kate Clinton )
    Chuck

    The subject of abortion comes to mind.
    
    Mike

    
    re: .6
    
    I once read an excerpt from the bible which said something to the
    effect of :   the male in the household should have the final say
    on all decisions.  I can't remember the exact location - we need
    a bible expert for that...This was brought to my attention by a
    baptist friend at college last year.  He was explaining that, although
    he would listen to his wife's opinion, he would have final decision
    making power in their household.  I subsequently became turned off 
    to what he claimed was the Baptist interpretation of this excerpt 
    from the bible.
    
    Another example of the incompatibility of feminism and Christianity
    is the denial of priesthood to females in several religions.
    
    							nancy b.
    

    Nancy,
    
    Could you be thinking of Chapter 11 in First Corinthians?  Such
    as verses 3, and 7-9?  Here they are:
    
    3  But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ,
    the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
    
    7  For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image
    and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.  8  (For man was
    not made from woman, but woman from man.  9  Neither was man created
    for woman, but woman for man.)
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Unsurprisingly, this subject has been beaten upon in the old
    file, in 476(?) "Dehumanization of Women", 518 "Beliefs in Early
    Civilizations" (Ah-hem.  Use the summary in 84.1 (in this file)
    to find some of the more pertinent replies.), and one other, later
    entry, which ended when the instigator came to agree that women
    were treated differently from men, and that there were greater
    onera (I think that's the plural of onus.) on the women.
    
    P.P.S.  Did Jesus really say, "I have come to destroy the works
    of the female."?  (This would be in an apocryphal work of logia
    only, but I can't find the reference.)

'male head of household'

While it is true that the male head of household may be said to have the last
say based on this verse out of context, my interpretation of all that is said in
the bible on the subject is a lot closer to consenus then to male rule.

'no female priests'

various organizations have that rule, but it is not very well founded in
Christ's life, or the bible, and that belief has little or nothing to do with
whether or not that person holding the belief is a Christian or not.

'abortion'

I feel this a much clearer issue that a Christian would be against abortion. I
doubt that anyone would say that abortion is 'a good thing'.  Mostly it depends
on how badly you feel abortion should be avoided (at all costs?). 

But then again, just as it is possible to be a member of a church, and disagree
or be unconvinced on a particular practice, it is also possible to be a feminist
and disagree with some of the feminist party lines. 

"Did Jesus really say, "I have come to destroy the works of the female."?"

I never heard anything like that.  I seem to remember hearing something about
'destroying the pride of man', though. 

JMB

RE: .11

The reference list tells the whole story in itself... an axe to grind...
'Research is only as good as it's sources.'  One sided sources yields one sided
research. 

"How can you be a freethinker if you are content that half of the human race is
subjugated?"  One can be religious without this contention... 

"And how can you be a feminist if you refuse to defer to men on Earth but submit
to a divine authority?"  Certainly...  This makes it sound like if a good
feminist would refuse to defer to a man with a good idea because he was male... 

"the mystery is not that he should have reportedly done these things but that he
didn't do more"  How do you know that there aren't more unreported events? 

"Jesus offered "pie in the sky" egalitarianism for souls in heaven but not on
Earth, never condemning servitude or slavery.  It is true that Jesus teached
that everyone should serve one another.  I don't see the inequality in that. 

'the adulteress' personally, I don't see this as having much to do with feminism
at all... 

from the NAB:  "The story of the adulteress is missing from the best early Greek
MSS.  where it does appear, it is found in different places in different MSS,
here or after 7:36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Luke 21:38. It seems
to have been preserved largely in Western and Latin cirlces.  There are many
non-Johnine features in the language, and there are also many doubtfull
readings.  It appears in Jerome's Vulgate.  However, it is certinaly out of
place here, it fits better with the general situation in Luke 21:38. The
Catholic Church accepts it is inspired Scripture."

"Nor can this passage be reconciled with Matthew 5:17-18 in which Jesus declares
that he came to uphold every jot and tittle of "the law." Not only that but,
according to the doctrine of the trinity, Jesus wrote that dastardly law
himself.  He had to uphold it!"

The whole point of Christ's coming is that of mercy triumphing over dead laws.
I sincerely doubt that at the time of the Commandments that the idea of mercy
being more inportant then law, or that the spirit of the law is more important
then the letter of the law would have been understood by people.

""Woman, what have I to do with the?""

Refers to Mary telling Christ at a wedding that the party is out of wine. Christ
replies, "Woman, how does this concern of your involve me?  My hour has not yet
come."  Refering to the fact that it is not yet time in history for Christ to
"proclaim the Good News".  However, in deference to his mother, Christ performs
a miracle by changing "'100 gallons'" of water into wine, but does it
discretely. 

"Jesus clearly denounced fertility and goddess worship when he refused to bless
his mother. A woman in the crowd had cried out for him to bless "the womb that
bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.""

Refers to a time when Christ was teaching:

"While he was saying this a woman from the crowd called out, "Blest is the womb
that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!"  "Rather," he replied, "blest
are they who hear the word of God and keep it."

Clearly an exclamation of delight, rather then a request for a blessing, and
being as it is in the midst of a set of parables, Christ brings the subject back
to his definition of "true happiness".

"Either feminism is valid on its own merits or it isn't. Since when do feminist
look for male approval before taking a stand? Since when do they defer to male
authority?"

Yes, either feminism is valid or it is not.  Avoiding male approval or authority
which happens to be male because it is 'male' is rediculous.

"Feminism cannot be argued by authority--much less by male, supernatural
authority."

I don't believe God is male...  I wonder why this writer feels God is male...

"Argument by authority is the opposite of feminism."

Would a self proclaimed feminist care to comment on this?  It sounds as much
like Libertarianism or Objectivism etc, as it does feminism.  It doesn't seem to
have muchg to do with feminism at all to me.

"women's voices count for nothing within the church"

This is hardly the case in any of the churches I have been a memebr of.

"But by playing patriarchy's game, they lose."

Hardly... it depends a lot on what their goals are.  There goal might be to
change the church rather then to leave it.  I doubt that the author can command
what all religious women's goals are. 

JMB

    The story about the "Woman taken in adultery" is not only an
    interpolation, it is anachronistic.  Since about the second
    century b.c.e., the death sentence had rarely been handed down
    for any crime, and had been carried out less than once in a
    generation (every twenty years or so).  So, not only does it not
    belong in the space in which we find it, it does not belong in
    that time.
    
    One author dryly observed, "Any hero who speaks to his mother only
    twice, and on both occasions addresses her as `Woman,' is a difficult
    figure for the sentimental biographers."
    
    The question I asked about the quotation, "I have come to destroy
    the works of the female." is a real question.  The closest I've
    come to sources are two compilers who agree that most of the [very]
    apochryphal "sayings of Jesus" are invented drivel.  Maddeningly,
    neither gives his opinions as to which are which -- nor gives any
    examples.  One (writing in 1928) does cite _The_Unwritten_Sayings_
    _of_Christ_ by Griffinhoofe, published in 1903.  There must be more
    known by now!  Who can point me to a source?
    
    							Ann B.

""Any hero who speaks to his mother only twice, and on both occasions addresses
her as `Woman,' is a difficult figure for the sentimental biographers.""

Why do you assume that since it is documented "twice", that it only happened
twice?  There is on record of Christ Sh!tting either, does that mean He didn't
have an *sshole?  (God, is this irreverent!)

""I have come to destroy the works of the female." is a real question.""

I'll go with the "invented drivel" vote on this one... :-)  Why bother inventing
bad remarks about someone you think is imaginary anyway? 

You could try the "Lost Books of the Bible", "The Forgotten Books of Eden", The
'Nag Haramichi', and the apocyrapha, but I imagine you already have...

JMB 

I am a Christian.  I sure believe in equal pay for equal work and the right 
to vote and a variety of other things ... I also believe that women are 
NOT _less_ valuable than men.  AND there's only one reason why a man should 
get a job instead of a woman:  QUALIFICATIONS.  

Society has changed a lot in the past few thousand years.  It's amazing that 
the things that were not allowed back then, are accepted without question
today.  Now-a-days, women can carry on intelligent conversations with other 
men - she wouldn't be banished to the back of the tent to sew or make bread 
or something like that.  Long ago, if a husband had a barren wife, he could 
take another wife (I don't think they knew the term "low sperm count" back 
then) and the opinion of a woman didn't count for much.  I love my husband a 
great deal but I'd have a problem calling him "lord" (which was what women 
called their husbands back then.)  But then, like I said, things have changed.

RE:  an earlier note ... I'm not in favor of abortion in general but insinuating
that all feminists approve of abortion is like saying 'all people who enjoy 
seafood also like octopus.'

I'm glad that my parents taught me their beliefs about God when I was a child.  
Thinking about it, it was wonderful having something so profound to believe in. 
Back then (and even still)  having God was like having a refuge.  He was a 
place to "hide" when I had bad dreams and a confidant when I felt like
I couldn't 'trust' anyone else.  It was a neat way to explain away the 
mysteriousness of nature ("how does a seed know which way to grow when it's 
under the ground and can't see the sun - why doesn't gravity pull it down - 
and speaking of gravity, how does it work - and speaking of the sun, how come 
it hasn't burned up???")  When I became an adult, I "ran away" from all that I 
was taught.  I tried to "find myself" in places I had no business looking.  One
day it became apparant to me that I had to make my own decisions about who I 
thought God REALLY was, whether or not He REALLY existed and if He did, what 
was He all about.  Not being taught about Him would have sure limited my 
choices.  

Elaine 

    Just because the godhead is normally portrayed as male in a
    male-dominated culture doesn't mean the godhead is in fact male. 
    
    The godhead is much more likely to be something beyond our
    understanding of male and female, something that is both male and
    female, and neither male nor female. 
    
    Ann, I think your quote comes under the same heading as the famous
    American proverb "The Lord helps those who help themselves."
    That's not in the Bible anywhere, either. 

    --bonnie

    
    God is like a toplevel widget; we would be subclasses with 
    some inherited properties (but not all).  

	re .19: I see you've had too much DECwindows exposure - tell
	me, do you see traffic lights as radio boxes:-)?
	
	Mike

    re: .19
    
    Not a bad analogy at all . . .
    
    --bonnie

    I have a copy of 'In Memory of Her, A feminist Theological
    Reconstruction of Christian Origins" by Elisabeth Shcussler Fiorenza
    that I would recommend to any christian feminist...it is slow reading
    tho. It does reexamine a lot of our assumptions about the origins
    of Christianity and how Christ's message to women has been changed
    over the years by the the theologians who came afterwards.
    
    I ordered the book from my local book store and I'd rather not loan
    it...I lent my copy of The Chalice and the Blade and can't remember
    to whom.
    
    But In Memory of her is published by Crossroad and costs $13.95
    in paper back.
    
    Bonnie

    I believe that all Christian denominations are mysoginist and therefore
    I cannot/will not support them.  Beyond christion demoninations,
    I think that most organized religions are oppressive to women.
    
    Spirituality is personal and I don't think it should be organized
    and controlled by rules.
    

    re: .24
    
    How about reading....
    
    Mary Daly - "Beyond God the Father"  or anything by Mary Daly for
    that matter.
    
    Merlin Stone - "When God was a Woman"  (I think she wrote this book)
    
    Adrienne Rich - "Of Woman Born"
    
    I think it would be far more useful for you to do your own reading
    and draw your own conclusions than for me to explain my reasons
    for feeling that patriarchal religions hate/discriminate against
    women.
    
    New Words Bookstore in Cambridge has an excellent selection of feminist
    and theological theory to choose from beyond the literature suggested
    in this note.  Go browse the shelves and choose for yourself.
    

    
    	re: .26
    	Hey Russ,  have you discovered the books by Alice Miller?
    You may find them interesting.   _For_Your_Own_Good_, in particular.
    
    a.

	RE: abortion and Christianity being incompatible

	I'd just like to point out that *many* christian religions
	believe in the right to choose abortion.  There is an
	entire organization called (I believe) "The Religious Coalition
	for Choice", and they are very active in support of pro-choice.
	This coalition includes many Christian religions amongst other
	religions.

	Please do not confuse Catholic and fundamentalist beliefs with 
	Christian beliefs.  

	...Karen

    re: .28 
    
    For that matter, let's not forget that within any religious body
    there is a wide variety of individual belief -- there are liberal
    Catholics and even, believe it or not, liberal fundamentalists [of
    which I am one].  Christianity at bottom isn't about rules, or
    churches, or organizational structures. It's about love, and
    truth, and freedom, and the individual's relationship to God --
    all things that deeply impact one's social and political behavior,
    but not in themselves social or political. 

    The writings of C.S. Lewis are one example of a theology of this
    type, and Andrew Greeley gives a modern Catholic interpretation of
    God-as-Goddess-and-lover. 
    
    It's worth keeping in mind, too, that Christianity has not always
    been the dominant religion.  When it started, it was the religion
    of slaves, paupers, and outcasts. Remember Jesus -- you know, the
    guy who got executed for being suspected of leading political
    insurrection against the government in power?  
    
    --bonnie

    Well, Bonnie, in that light, aren't *most* religions about
    
    "...love, truth,freedom, and the individual's relationship to God."??
    
    In which case, the differences boil down to "rules and regulations"
    handed down by the rule-makers of the religion.
    
    Don't they actually even tell their adherents that this relationship
    will be harmed by how well they follow the rules and regulations?
    
    Doesn't it then come down to looking at the rules and regulations,
    because, after all, one doesn't *need* the structued regs in order
    to pursue "...love, truth, freedom, and the individual's relationship
    to God..."  ?
    
    --DE
    

    re: .30 
    
    I'm not sure I understand your point here, Dawn.  It sounds
    like you're saying that what a person believes is less important
    than the form s/he chooses to express it?  
    
    Let me see if I can elaborate on what I was trying to say. 

    Yes, most religions are about love, truth, freedom, and the
    individual's relationship to God, however one envisions
    him/her/it/them.  But there are many answers to the questions
    raised about truth, love, freedom, and the individual's
    relationship to God -- as many answers as there are people. 
    
    At some point each individual has to figure out his or her own
    relationship to God. Each of us dies alone.  Nobody else can do it
    for us, nobody else can take responsibility for us, and nobody
    else can face whatever lies on the other side of death for us.
    Sooner or later, each of us has to make peace with our own death
    -- or fight against the dying of the light, if that's our choice. 
        
    A "church" is like any other institution -- it exists only through
    the individuals that make it up, but it also seems to have a life
    of its own.  (I'm not speaking of just the Christian church here
    but of any organized religion, from Wicca to Methodist to Free
    American Unity.) In its simplest form, when several of us find
    similar answers, we get together and share our beliefs in a
    spiritual communion commonly labeled "church" or "religion."  We
    share our answers with other people in the hope that what worked
    for us will also work for someone else. 
    
    Some groups who share beliefs share a belief that if we share a
    key belief, we have more in common, no matter how widely our
    opinions on abortion and transmigration of souls differ.  Others
    think that any divergence of belief, no matter how small, cannot
    be tolerated.  Some of these churches codify what they expect,
    while others are less formal.  These are the rules and
    regulations. 
    
    Looking at the rules and regulations can be a quick way to guage a
    person's beliefs -- presumably if one disagreed violently with
    many of the principles of a particular denomination, one would
    find a denomination that shared more of one's own beliefs. But
    that doesn't necessarily follow.  Catholicism, for example,
    requires that one adhere to certain key principles that are
    believed to define the religion, but outside those areas are
    matters of personal belief to be sought out and illuminated by the
    individual.  And for the most part translating the beliefs to
    behavior is entirely for the individual's conscience. 

    Fundamentalist Christianity isn't even suseptible to the
    quick-look test because it's not a denomination, it's a
    description of a certain attitude toward scripture and religion. A
    fundamentalist Christian might belong to any of several Baptist
    denominations, the Assemblies of God, some Methodist groups, or
    one of hundreds of small and large affiliated and nonaffiliated
    independent denominations.  She or he might also be a more
    "conservative" member of a mainstream denomination, as I am.
    
    But when I say I'm a fundamentalist Christian, all you can really
    tell about me is that I probably believe in the Bible as the word
    of God [whatever that means] and that I believe Jesus was the son
    of God, true God and true man at once, and that he died to redeem
    us from our sins. True, most of the people who presently adhere to
    that belief also adhere to a standard program of social and
    political beliefs, but a lot of us look at the Sermon on the
    Mount, take it literally, and wind up as liberal pacifists willing
    to turn the other cheek, give without expecting return, and go out
    of our way to help the outcasts of society. 

    Is that any clearer?  
    
    --bonnie

    Hi Bonnie,
    
    Yes, I see what you mean now. My point was more like: Since all
    the "goodies" can be pursued without organized religion, then
    what one is really choosing is the rules and regs one prefers
    when choosing a religion.
    
    (Which, to connect this to the base note, immediately eliminates
    certain groups from contention for women. Now, of course, women
    self-defined feminist women, even, still belong to such groups,
    which is a mystery to me, but anyway...)
    
    May I disagree with you? You said a church was the sum of it's members.
    IT sounded like you meant "church" as in "The Lutheran Church" [if
    you didn't, the following is moot]
    
    I believe a church - your firendly, local, corner church - actually
    *is* that, to some degree. I *don't* believe The Lutheran Church
    [for example] is a sum of the people - I believe it is a reflection
    of the Rulemakers.
    
    I guess what I was trying to say is that, since one can purse the
    "goodies" on one's own, and the deciding factor in choosing a group
    (assuming one feels there *is* a choice - one of my problems with
    organized religion; no choice is encouraged)
    
    ...the deciding factor is the rules and regs, WHY in [heh,heh] God's
    name would a woman [for example] choose a group which institutionally
    discriminates against women?
    
    There are black Mormons; I don't understand *that*, either.
    
     My last question is a real one, by the way...I'm trying to find
    that out - which is why I've been reading your last couple of notes.
    
    
    Dawn
    

    re: .32 
    
    Whew!  You do ask good questions, Dawn.  Let me answer the one
    about belonging to discriminatory institutions first, because
    that's the easy one.  The issue of getting the goodies alone is
    going to take longer to explain. 
    
    I stay a member of a mainline and not overly open church mostly
    because I was raised Lutheran, and received a great deal of
    spiritual nourishment and support in difficult times both from
    individual members and from the structure -- the feeling of
    connection with believers from hundreds of years past can be
    immensely strengthening, to stand before God as Luther or St.
    Catherine did. 
    
    I could leave -- sometimes I do.  I'm only loosely associated
    right now.  But I never totally leave because I feel like I owe my
    church something.  If I think it's wrong, I shouldn't just let it
    wander on in error, I should do something to change it. 
    
    Plus it's easier to change something you're a member of.  It's one
    thing for you to tell the Lutherans they should change their
    discriminatory or homophobic policies; quite another if I, a
    member of a rather quiet congregation, tell them the same thing.
    You're right that a church is in part a product of the rulemakers,
    but it is also and at the same time the sum of its members.  Both
    are true.  If the members change, the church will change. When I
    was a child, our pastor told us we'd be committing a mortal sin to
    allow a woman in the ordained ministry.  Now some 10-15% of
    Lutheran ministers are women.  Not wonderful, but more than
    there used to be, and more than there are women priests in
    the Catholic church.
    
    So, we're making progress.  I think we'll continue to make
    progress.  And that's what I'm working for -- small steps. 
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    in re .31
    
    Bonnie,
    
    Tho  I would not normally call myself a fundamentalist Christian
    (since to me it means things like the innerancy of the Bible,
    women submitting to male authority etc) I agree entirely with
    what you state in your last paragraph about your beliefs.
    
    Bonnie J

    RE: 33 Change From Within
    
    I hear you, and I have talked with women who feel the same way you
    do. And yes, there *have* been some changes. But I have another
    question for you.
    
    OK, women try to make changes from within. Now then, it appears
    to me as I look at different groups (some from having been "within";
    some from "without") it seems to me that the driving energies,
    the forces that maintain the very lives of these groups come from
    the women members.
    
    Much money is raised by women; women have the least money to give.
    Yet, the bake sales, the bean suppers, the flea markets, etc. etc.
    are often staffed by women, run by women, instigated by women.
    
    It is women who attend services, who get the kids to attend, and
    often push the men to attend. (Not ALL men, of course)
    
    It is overwhelmingly women who support the life of the group.
    
    Now, what would happen if those women who do not support the sexist
    (say) policies *withdraw these energies* from the group? Make it
    clear why this was happening. Say "if you change the policy I 
    return my energy".
    
    How much does fear of not going to heaven, or whatever, have to
    do with this? How much does belonging to a group affect this - I
    mean the feeling of acceptance, etc.
    
    How much does the dynamic of women-must/should-support-male-dominated-
    institutions affect it? (I'm wondering how things have changed since
    my involvement in church, before the latest wave of feminism)
    
    --DE
    

    re: .35
    
    I think it's because, while the structure is presently controlled
    more by men than by women, most of us don't feel at all powerless
    within that structure.  You cited many of the reasons and places
    where we have power.  You're right, if we withdrew, the
    organization would fold.  
    
    You always speak as if the church structure was something imposed
    from outside, something that came in and took control and told us
    what to do.  It may be true in a limited sense for Catholicism,
    but for most protestants it's not even a concept.  The church is
    the outgrowth of the individuals and of the congregations they
    form.  We choose the representatives, the administration, the
    pastors and teachers, the instructors in the seminary, and they're
    ultimately accountable to us, men and women alike.  When
    congregations started calling female pastors, the seminaries
    quickly loosened their policies.  The Lutheran Synod I grew up in
    was recently divided when the authorities tried to impose a rule
    that disagreed with the beliefs of many of the members; the result
    was a complete division of the synod. 
    
    It's our structure too, a shared belief in something beyond the
    strength of individuals that allows us to try to work past our own
    limitations and learn and grow into something newer and better. We
    are free in Christ -- free to try new forms, free to choose the
    best of the old and throw off the things that were not good. 
     
    We aren't perfect, I don't even begin to claim that.  We'll never
    attain even the shadow of the goal we're aiming at. But if we keep
    trying, we can make things a whole lot better than they are now.
    
    --bonnie 

Following is an edited version of a sermon preached by the Rev. Donald
Rudalevige, pastor of St. John's United Methodist Church, Watertown, MA, and
the 1988 recipient of an Award for Excellence in preaching given to
one pastor in the Southern New England United Methodist Annual Conference each
year.  The award is given to one who preaches the _whole_ Gospel, regularly
addressing issues of both personal faith and social justice.

For his text, he used selections from Jeremiah 31, which records God speaking
of God's people embodied in Ephraim, father of one of the 12 tribes of Israel.
He contrasted the passage as it is usually rendered with a transalation by
noted biblical scholar Phyllis Trible.  For the purpose of comparison, here is
the same passage (Jer. 31:20) from the Revised Standard Version:
	Is Ephraim my dear son?
	Is he my darling child?
	For as often as I speak against him,
	I do remember him still.
	Therefore my heart yearns for him;
	I will surely have mercy on him,
	says the Lord.

Now for the edited sermon:

*****************************************************************************

The sermon scripture is taken from a translation by Phyllis TYrible in her
outstanding book, "God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality."  I just want to re-read
one part of that passage:
	Is Ephraim my dear son, my darling child?
	For the more I speak of him, the more I do remember hime.
	Therefore, my womb trembles for him;
	I will truly show motherly compassion upon him.
	An Oracle of Yahweh.

We have lost, thought our masculine language, an entire aspect of God and our
joy cannot be complete until we have restored the balance.  God cannot be
perceived in anything like the comprehension we should have until that balance
is restored.

It seems to me ironic that feminists should be blamed for a lack of balance, a
fanaticism, when they -- we -- are in fact the ones wanting to use more
balanced language.  It is those who would confine their understanding of God to
purely masculine language who are the extremists, denying others the
opportunity of a broader understanding of the nature/being of God.  "Well,
don't you understand the word 'man' to include 'woman'?  It has always been an
inclusive term."

Sure it is!  Which is why, I suppose, a woman wasn't allowed to vote until this
century ... and why the United States Supreme Court ruled until the turn of
this century that the word "Man" in the Constitution meant men only and
deliberately excluded women ... and why women were not allowed to inherit
property in this land until a slave-owning widow married a man who freed her
salves.  The Virginia legislatrue quickly saw that a woman then might inherit
property!

Sure the term in inclusive, which is why the Pope tells us that only men can be
priests, becuse they are built like Jesus ... though why that should make any
difference in a celibate priesthood is beyond me.

Does "Man" include women?  Look at hymn #11 -- "Men and Children Everywhere";
or a real favorite, #191, "God Give Us Men"!  In #233, a hymn I rather like
actually, the words used by the United Church of Christ hymnal are "strong men
and maidens meek ..."  We have changed those to "strong men and maindens fair
..."  We've kept the sexism and added racism.


"Wait a minute!  None of that was intentional."

Of course it wasn't.  None of it is intentional, I will grant that -- but that
is precisely the point.


LANGUAGE CREATES IMAGES

The way we use language sways our thoughts, even forms the way we think.  Our
language determines the images we use, the perceptions we have about other
people and what they are like.  How we name people and things directs how we
shall think and speak about them. ...

We see the way language determines our thoughts, even as we translate -- what
is possible for us to imagine.  At the end of Romans, Paul commends to this
readers Phoebe, who is, according to the King James Version, "a servant of the
Church," according to the RSV and Philips translations, a "deaconess," and in
the New English Bible, "one who holds office."

What's wrong?

Nothing -- except the word, in the same context used anywhere else in the New
Testament would be used of a man who is a "deacon."  And it is very clear from
the language that Phoebe was a deacon, too.  There can also be an argument made
for I Timothy referring to male and female deacons, rather than deacons and
their wives.  It is admitted by the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible that
no order of deaconesses was known to have existed in the Church until about
300; but, indeed, there must have been an order of deaconesses,
_because_Phoebe_was_one!  She is allowed [in our translations] to tend the
sick, but not assist the bishop!

It simply could not be conceived of that a woman could hold such an office.


LANGUAGE BIASES UNDERSTANDING OF GOD

Just as language and translations have worked together to produce a bias, and
to exaggerage a bias, with regard to Phoebe and deacons, so in our
understanding of God have the same biases crept in.

We say there is no sexuality in God and then paint a very masculine God
creating an equally masculine Adam (no Eve in creation, an interesting
omission) on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

It is a natural tendency for Christians to regard God as masculine, beyond the
language issues.  We know that God is not truly representable, and so Jesus
becomes the only "picture" of God that we think we have and therefore maleness
is bound to predominate.

For whatever cause, our translations have eliminated all references to God
having female characteristics, a feminine nature, references which were clearly
present in the original.

Look again at the difference between the RSV translation of the passage from
Jeremiah 31 and the Trible [translation]: "my womb trembles ... I will show
motherly compassion."  Changing the language wasn't a deliberate act, in the
sense of a conscious decision.  The men who translated simply could not
conceive (perhaps a poor choice of words) of a female-ness of God, that God
might be female as well as male.

Yet there is one area in which God does appear female -- exclusively so.  I
write to a distinguished linguist and Oxford University college president about
this instance.  "Isn't it true," I wrote, "that Wisdom and Spirit of God are
always referred to in feminine terms in the Old Testament?"  Dr. Sykes wrote
back waying, "Yes, or course, Donald -- but you must realize, this is only a
linguistic device"!!

"A linguistic device" -- how easily dismissed!

But what of the creation story?  Is that to be so easily dismissed?  God
created humanity in God's own image, male and female God created them.  For a
long time, I believed that this phrase ment that man and woman were only
complete when in partnership (as indeed the "other" creation story in Genesis 2
would affirm) and that a man or woman is not in God's image fully unless they
are part of that partnership.  Two realities destroyed that notion:  first, the
completeness of individuals who were not partners of anyone and secondly, but
related to it perhaps, the recognition from psychology that every human being
has within him or her the characteristics both of male and female, the hormones
of both.  And with this, there came a new understanding of the passage:  that
both men and women are complete in themselves and contain within themselves the
image of God.

Yet, if each is in the image of God, that surely implies that God possesses
female aspects as well as male.

Of course!

But, that also drive me back to the so-called literary device and that which
was so easily dismissed can no longer be so easily ignored.  If the Wisdom, or
Spirit of God, is feminine in the Old Testament, it _was_ with a purpose and is
not simply a matter of linguistics.

We come to see God in a new light:  the light of compassionate mother as well
as loving father ... life-enhancing feminine and supportive male.


GOD IS STILL FATHER

How then do we regard God; how do we describe God?

God is still Father.  We do not have the right to deny that attribute.  We
cannot eliminate that aspect of God, even if we wanted to.  The description of
God as Father -- "abba" -- is a gift given me by Jesus Christ and it is vital
to the identity of God to see God as Jesus did, as he obviously did.  Even
though for some it seems a liminting image -- limited by how many have had such
terrible, evil fathering, and we are only now getting a true idea of the extent
of that abuse -- nonetheless, Jesus gives us a new image of the divine Father
and what fatherhood can be.

In the same way, Jesus is undeniably male and there is no argument about that.
I know some will separate Jesus from the title "Christ" and argue that though
Jesus is male, there is no sexual or gender identity attached to the Christ,
but I am not persuaded by the case that is made; nor do I think there is much
chance of such a concept becoming "real" to very many people.


SPIRIT ALWAYS FEMININE

But again and again we come to the Wisdom, the "Sophia," the Spirit of God,
seen by most Old Testament scholars as just another way of saying "God" wihout
invoking the divine name, _Yahweh_.  Yet always, the Spirit, who is God, is
feminine.

The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, who empowers us, who nurtures us, who is the
present living, activite God within, is for me the feminine aspect of God as
she presents herself to us.

We speak of God as being three personalities in one being (Being who is Spirit,
Love and Truth in the New Testament).  It is through this _personality_ that
God has chosen to reveal her feminine aspect.

For me, this has given God a wholeness and a unity otherwise found lacking.  It
restores the balance, for God is stunted without this female side.  This is not
to denigrate previous understandings of God's image, nor does it alter the
value of the words "Father" and "son," but we expand our comprehension of God
as we meet God in the Spirit.  She expands our understanding of God who
"suckles Israel at the breast" (Isaiah), who nourishes us and directs us in
daily living.


NEW IMAGES OF GOD

Obviously, this is not Church doctrine.

We cannot even get a hymn with the words, "Strong Mother God," into the new
hymnal, let alone an ackowledgement of female Spirit imagery in our credal
statements.

There is not much in print that speaks of the female image of God -- perhaps
because we are not very much a Spirit-filled or Spirit-oriented people
-- though the 3rd centry Syriac Church leaders spoke of the Spirit as feminine.

But it is essential, I believe, to declare the God who is female as well as
male, essential to a comprehensive understanding of God and how she deals with
us, how he relates to us.  I cannot now conceive of a God without that female
side.  Certainly I cannot comprehand the creations tory wihtout seeing God as
male and female.

It is essential to remain true to a faith in a God who encompasses all
sexuality, a God who is whole and invited each of us to wholeness by embracing
the masculine and the feminine in ourselves.

It is essential to the proclamation of a God who guides and inspires us and
reveals herself anew to us age after age and invites us to know her/him in new
ways in every age.  This God invites us into a journey of understanding, a
journey of discovery as we seek her image.

Amen!

****************************************************************************

    <--(.38)

    
    
    Re: .38
    
    Thanks for entering your note....I've been struggling with this
    issue lately and really needed to read that!
    
    Carole

    	When he says that not much has been written about the feminie
    aspect of God, he shows that he's not been to a UU fellowship. :-)
    
    	Seriously, our weekly bulletin had an article similar to but
    not as in depth as this one.  I strongly considered typnig it in
    here, but my time is very limited right now.  Let me just suggest
    to anyone who finds this kind of idea exciting, fulfilling, whatever,
    find your local Unitarian Universalist Church or Fellowship.    
     
    	Different congregations have different levels of consiousness
    about "women's issues" but in general they tend to range from pretty
    good to superior.  My congregation is sensitive enough to issue of
    gender in language, that they ordered new hymn books that had new
    hymns and alternative words to old hymns that eliminated things like
    "God and *King*", "Let all *men*", "*Lord* of all", etc.  
    
    	(It's all also pretty nonsexist, non "ageist" in how the fellowship
    is run.  Several of the youngest (adult) members are on the board
    (including me).  Also it's evened out to about 50/50 this year,
    but last year the board was overwhelmingly female.  In fact, all
    four elected officers (pres, VP, sec, treas) were female.  (This
    year it's female pres and sec and male vp and treas.)
    
    tlh
    
    

    re: .41
    The sermon was preached by a United Methodist to a United Methodist
    congregation.  (He has no idea he is getting this kind of exposure!)

Saturday, Channel 5 in Boston broadcast the consecration of the
first woman bishop in the Episcopal church.  The service was
remarkable and was an epoch event in the history of the
christian churches.  My wife and I were extremely impressed
with the warmth and joy and profundity of the entire proceedings.

The preacher who delivered the homily was especially noteworthy
and set a tone for the deliberations.  The laying on of hands
by some 55 bishops from diverse Episcopalian diocese was
an emotionally inspiring sight, including a bishop from the
Anglican communion in England.

God truly has spoken.

Amen and praise God.

I read about it in the Globe, and was truly shocked at how low the numbers were
of the bishops and committees that 'approved' this. It really was 'just' a
simple majority (60-some-off out of about 110 in both cases). Unfortunately, it
gave more credence to the 'divisive' claims of the detractors. Does anyone know
if such low approval numbers are the norm?
	Mez

"Recent research has established the primacy of the Goddess figure in human 
thought, as a direct outgrowth of the primacy of the mother in every 
individual experience....it has been shown that the creative power in all 
the oldest traditions was female.... 

"With the advent of patriarchal societies, many of the names and symbols of
the Great Goddess were suppressed and finally forgotten. The new father-
gods usurped her world-creating functions, her attributes, even the very
words and phrases of her ancient scriptures. The Bible contains many
plagiarized excerpts from earlier hymns and prayers to Ishtar and other
Goddess figures, with the name of Yahweh substituted for that of the female
deity. In biblical Hebrew, the word for 'Goddess' does not exist.... 

"Today a few well-meaning reformers sporadically try to restore a semi-
female component to the idea of God....Some try to call him 'God the
Mother' or present him as either bisexual or sexless. Every symbol for what
western civilization now calls God has been so heavily weighted with
masculinity, however, that no such equivocations can make much
difference.... 

"Whatever else deities may be, they are certainly symbols par excellence;
and what they symbolize is the idealized human being. Men stole women's
greatest symbol and left them spiritually impoverished while they went on
to inflate their own male deity to positively blimpish dimensions. It may
take more than words to redress that wrong." 

			-- Barbara Walker, The Woman's Dictionary of 
			Symbols and Sacred Objects, 1988, article "Goddess"

			See also The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and 
			Secrets, 1983, by the same author

    Ian,
    
    In addition to being one of the Goddesses in the Celtic triad,
    Brigit is *all* of them; she is the Triple Goddess (again).
    
    The Christians called her St. Brigit, and said she was a nun who
    founded a convent.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Ann - you are quite right: Bri[d]git was indeed both the representation
    of part of the triad and of all of it.
                                           
    St. Brigit was a classic case of the Church claiming as its own
    an older tradition in order to subvert it to Christian worship.
    
    The Gaelic folk are far from forgetting the Old Religion, as witness
    the common use of tri-fold designs in gaelic art, and of course
    the choice of a triple-leafed plant (shamrock) as a national symbol.
    I'm tempted to say that the fold memory is also responsible for
    the three bands of color on the Irish flag (a tricolor). Leprachauns
    are of course simply the old sprites of a largely animistic part
    of the Old Religion.
    
    /. Ian .\
    (who claims descent by direct line from a high priestess of the
    Old Religion even if it is only a "Family Tradition", and is a
    initiated member of Wic'ca. - and no, I don't want to debate that
    here :-)