Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts

Monday, July 6, 2009

Are Women Inferior to Men?

Richard Rohr shared a wonderful meditation about women the other day ... and it launched a multi-forum discussion online. I'll share all of it here, in the hopes that it will further an awakening.

First, here's what Richard shared:
Until quite recently we white males of the Northern Hemisphere have been holding all the cards, naming all the questions, and providing all the answers for the entire Christian era—except for those few golden years when God took poor flesh in Jesus. He took twelve Jewish men and tried to show them how they could be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Unfortunately, it didn’t work. Males continued to build towers and operate as lords over others, and the sacred feminine or human vulnerability just didn’t fit in.

That is the world and the Church that I was born into. It has been preoccupied with domination and status-quo logic to this day and thus finds itself largely incapable of understanding, much less believing, most of the clear teaching of Jesus. Poverty, meekness or nonviolence, tears, justice-love, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking and reconciliation, and bearing persecution…are his eight opening statements. But try to get elected in a Christian country or promoted to high office in the church today while seriously following those teachings! Yet we all agree that Jesus called them the “Eight Happinesses.”


I shared that with a few loved-ones -- here's what my husband, Mark, had to say:
I don't think that we as men realize how pervasive the male superiority mindset is and how it has permeated every aspect of our lives. Actually, I know we don't. And, the sad part is, we don't want to. To acknowledge this mindset in ourselves, means we have to change, and there will not be a cultural change until enough of us have allowed the change individually. Interesting, I just went back and read the last line and the words "allowed the change" jumped out at me. We really don't have to work hard to change the mindset, we just have to see it for what it is. We were not created to have this mindset, it is a learned mindset. It is not who we really are, and it is not who we were created to be. It is a lie that we have believed, and when lies are replaced, the truth, that is always there within us, is allowed to take it's rightful place. At the same time, the mindset is so pervasive, so ingrained, that it's not just one big lie that we can deal with and it's gone, it is thousands of little lies that tell us how we react and what we say in various situations. What I mean is that I am aware, usually afterwards, of comments and attitudes that I have that show that I believe in form and fashion that I am better than Dena. On a conscious level I don't believe that, and Dena and I have had numerous conversation on this subject. So I make a comment or have an attitude, and Dena will say something, I will usually acknowledge that and go on, but there are times that I don't want to see it, or don't think that it applies under the circumstances. It is a cancer, it is a sickness, that needs transformation, revelation, renewal, healing.

I think that all of this is based on fear; fear of the unknown. We don't really know how to be men, at least not the men that God created us to be. And so what do we do when we are afraid, we don't become humble, we don't acknowledge our weaknesses, we don't accept our poverty; we take control, and we lord over people. We start with women and children, and then other men: that's where wars come from.

The more I write, the more frustrated I get, and the more I feel for the women of the world living in male dominated societies, or households. The sad part is that I was raised by my mother until I was 13, and did not have a male role model with this dominant mindset. If I, being raised without this mindset being demonstrated in my home on a daily basis, with the realization that it is wrong, still struggle, how much harder must it be for men who were overtly taught as small children that it was their job to rule. I know it may seem that I am now taking up for men, but I am not. I just think that we need to realize that this means an entire paradigm shift for most of us. A right shift , but a major shift none-the-less.

May God enable us all to be and live as He created us to be. In equality, love, humility, honoring others (especially those who have been dishonored for so long) above ourselves.


Then began the deluge, LOL...! I noticed that the folks who said this was "no big deal" and that we women really needed to "get over this" were white males. Funny that. Perhaps because my husband is Jewish, he's got an inside-track to how it feels to be maligned (just a wee bit)..?

Several brave and noble (not to mention self-honest) men dared to speak up, and admit that this male-dominance superiority is rampant ... though most men who are perpetrating it are largely blind to it (& that when they dismiss our pain, they're in effect ripping off our scabs). I then got this response:

Can you give me some examples of what you are talking about as far as this pain and the way that apparently most men are abusing women. It seems that I come at this from a different perspective than most on this board, but my observations over the course of my life is that women have been as equally guilty as the men. What are the things men are doing to cause these wounds/scabs? And how are these wounds any different than the wounds that men carry around? Thanks.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for the question, and the opportunity to discuss this!

First, yes, everyone has wounds of one sort or another -- none of us live this life wound-free. I even have come to believe that wounds are the vehicles by which we heal from the deeper things we're not even aware of.

Secondly, yes, women are as "guilty" as men -- but, let's be honest, there's not been a prevalence of women dominating men, telling men what they can do, and then punishing them (overtly or covertly) when they disobey or show defiance.

I recall hearing Paul Young speak to this ... he said (paraphrased from my memory):

"Men have historically been responsible for 90-something percent of all the crime in this world, of all the violence in this world, of all the rapes in this world, and of all the wars in this world -- and yet our theology tells us that it was God's idea to put men 'in charge'?!? Yeah riiiiight."

Let's look at those wars ... Sister Joan Chittister spoke before the UN, claiming that 90+ percent of all killed in war are civilians -- mostly women and children. War is a crime against women and children -- the very ones men claim to be protecting.

How's that working...?

Violence against women is at epidemic proportions -- violence against men, by women, is rare enough that it's shocking ... and the damage done is far less severe than the damage done to women by men (men are, by and large, more powerful and aggressive than women).

I do not say that men are not abused by women, nor am I condoning violence in any way, shape or form ... and certainly it can happen in childhood/youth. What I'm saying is that there is something within men, that if left unchecked, that seeks to lord over women -- to somehow feel better/bigger/superior by making women feel lesser/smaller/inferior.

Here are some of the ways in which men lord over/abuse women:

- Women (still) make only 3/4 as much as men, doing the same jobs
- Women were not allowed to vote in the USA until the turn of the last century (watch the movie "Iron Jawed Angels" for a gut-wrenching expose of the fight for those rights)
- Women were considered to be property (barely above cattle) for millennia
- Women still do not have equal rights in many counties
- Women are required to wear coverings (i.e., burqas), to "protect" the men, in many cultures
- The vast majority of those who are sold into sex trafficking are women - for men to use
- Women are told to be quiet in church gatherings -- "in the name of God"
- Women are not in positions of leadership, with rare exceptions
- Women are seen as objects by some men
- Women's opinions are not considered as valid, by some men
- Pornography is a means of dehumanizing and using women for their sexuality
- Women were burned at the stake, as "witches" for showing healing ability (i.e., knowledge of herbs), and for seeking to relieve the pain of women in childbirth (as recently as 100 years ago, in Spain)
- Rape victims were long blamed for the rape -- "asking for it" by the way they dressed, or where they went
- Women and girls are being gang-raped by male soldiers in The Congo, Rwanda, and other warring nations in Africa ... gang-rape is considered to be a male-bonding exercise, by the men who see women as little more than objects.


And then we have the prevalence of misogynistic quotes, down through the ages, even declaring this to be the will of God:

- "Praise be to God that he has not created me a Gentile, a woman, or a dog." (Hebrew Prayer said by Jewish men, even in front of their wives)

- "The courage of man is shown in his ability to command. The courage of a woman is found in obeying. (Aristotle)

- "Women are those who fell pray to their irrational, emotional side, and are therefore incapable of reason and making rational choices ... moresoever as irrational beings, women may not always know what they really want, and so it is the man's domain to decide for them." (Plato)

- "We have courtesans for our sex and pleasure. We have young slave prostitutes for our physical use, and we have wives to bring up legitimate children." (Demosthenes)

- "Even the most virtuous of women is a witch." (Old Jewish law)

- "Woman is a temple built over a sewer. It is contrary to the order of nature and of the law for women to speak in a gathering." (Jerome - who translated the Vulgate)
- "Because of you we are punished by death ... because of you, women, the Son of God had to die." (Tertullian)

- "Men should not listen to a woman even if she says admirable things or if she says saintly things. They are of little consequence since they come from the mouth of a woman." (Origen)

- "What is seen with the eyes of the Creator is masculine and not feminine, for God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine." (Origen)

- "By herself woman is not of the image of God. The man, on the other hand, alone, is the image of God." (Augustine)

- "Her low estate was not simply a result of the Fall. Woman was an inferior person even at the moment of her creation ... Image has to do with authority and only man has that ... Man is subjective to no one while woman is subjective to man. For a man to go to a woman for advice is like going to the lowest kind of animal to seek advice." (Chrysostom)

- "Woman is defective and misbegotten." (Aquinas)

- "The wickedness of women is greater than all other wickedness. a dragon is more curable than the familiarity of a woman. Avoid them like poisonous animals." (Pope Innocence III)

- "There is no gown or garment that worse becomes a woman than when she would be wise." (Martin Luther)

- "Let the woman be satisfied with the state of her subjection and that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex. Because she receives her origin from man, therefore she is inferior in rank. She was created for man, therefore she is subject to man. All women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior to the male." (Calvin)

- "You would not let an eleven-year-old child stand up in a meeting and talk. Then why should you allow a woman to speak in a meeting?" (statement made by a man at a Christian conference in the 21st century)


Shocking, no?

This is the collective perspective of many of our "church fathers." Elements of those beliefs are still prevalent within Christianity ... far too many men are still believing themselves to be inherently superior to women (& believing that it's backed up by Scripture).

I know who I am as a woman ... I know that I'm not in any way inferior (or superior!) to men. I know that each person is endlessly precious and beloved, as an equal child of God. But, as a woman, I do have to say that I feel the weight of the collective consciousness of women's subjugation. It's a reality, just like the air I breathe. Just like gravity. It's there, in effect.

It's the hallmark of a largely unconscious, reactionary, and immature way of life, of relating to others. It's a self-absorbed, "I'm the center of the universe; I'm bigger and entitled, and can do what I want" perspective that we're meant to mature out of.

For the most part, because I'm blessed to have been born in this nation, where, at least by law, I'm considered a whole human being, but I still run into this very UNconsciousness, all too often. It still breaks my heart, whether it's done to me, or witnessed by me. I long to see all people set free from all things which enslave them ...!

Shalom, Dena

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Women, Men & Biblical Equality...

Some days are just more blog-worthy than others ...! :)

So, I get a newsletter from a man I've only met online ... someone who has previously provided food-for-thought. And in this newsletter, he writes something that I find to be -- shall we say, contorted (even as I recognize that it's what I once believed myself!).

Here's what he wrote:

Leadership in God’s Ekklesia
In Christ man and woman can live harmoniously—and should. But where leadership is required—and some form of leadership is essential where two or more are involved in a common cause—the man surfaces. Paul confirms this in Ephesians 5:22. He is not talking about dictatorial headship, but rather a loving leadership.

This seems to be the message in Genesis 3, where Eve was told that her husband would “rule” over her. “Rule” is not a good English translation. The woman is to show deference to her godly husband, and the husband is to respect and honor his wife. In every era of God’s people, the man is considered the foremost leader. We can take the “politically correct” position until the cows come home, but in the end God still places the man in the leadership role.—Buff.


Now, nevermind for the moment that my understanding of the ekklesia (or "church") differs from his (I see it as the 40-year generation who were called out of the old covenant, into the new covenant, during the first century) ... and that I see no more need for institutional leadership in this current covenant ... what I really want to address is the confusion over the verses that he references. A confusion that has done much to malign the nature of God, not to mention wrecking havoc with male/female relationships through the centuries ... causing untold damage and pain toward women in particular, as well as burdening men with a dominion that they were never meant to shoulder.

Here's my response to him:

Dear XXXXXX -

I appreciate that you are a man of integrity - a man who values truth -- who wants truth more than he wants to be right. I admire that about you, and I share that aspiration with you.

May I share something I've discovered in my own journey? Something that has brought me both joy and liberation? If what I share bears witness in your Spirit-to-spirit connection, wonderful. If not, then do with it as you're so led ...

I notice in Genesis 3:16, after the fall (or "turning" as I have come to see it), God is here addressing the woman, Eve ("And he will rule over you."). IF God were giving a command, for the man to rule over the woman, then God would address the man directly (this is consistent throughout Scripture). Instead, I notice that He addresses the woman. What I see is that He is not commanding the man that this *should/shall* happen, but He is warning the woman that this *will* happen, due to the condition of the man's heart now ... IOW, now that the man has chosen to turn from a God-focus to a self-focus, he will surely abuse his relationships ... and God wants to warn her, so that when it happens (as it inevitably will), she will understand that it's not about her - it's about his own self-tainted nature. From this verse, we have made a command out of a warning - a doctrine out of faulty decision.

Regarding Ephesians 5:22 -- are you aware that there is no verb in that verse (seriously - check it out in Strong's concordance - notice the utter lack of it in the Greek*)...? Hupotasso ("submit") is only found in verse 21. So, whatever it means in verse 22 (where it is implied), it derives its meaning from verse 21 (where it is defined).

Here's how those verses read in the NASB:

21 and be subject to one another in the fear [reverence] of Christ.

Marriage Like Christ and the Church

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.


I see that in verse 21, the notion is all about mutuality -- mutual submission (IOW, the Christ in me recognizes, and honors, and submits to the Christ in you).

The insidiousness of the traditions of man (which continue to nullify the word of God), is that not only is this singular thought broken down into two verses, but many translations further abuse the text by putting in extra-biblical sub-headers (see above, and also in the NIV, the New Irrational Version, as an example)..!

Women in that culture had to obey their husbands, by law -- they were considered as property -- barely above cattle. They wouldn't dream of disobeying, without severe consequences. BUT, this entire letter of Paul's (which really must be read in full, to perceive the full contextual meaning) is about going beyond the *doingness* of a thing, into the *beingness* of a thing ... IOW, it's not about what to do, but about the heart's inclination. He's saying, in effect, "Wives, I realize that you already know our society calls upon you to obey your husbands ... and yet Jesus is showing us that in the Kingdom (which is at hand), there is no male/female distinction -- all are one. What I want to impress upon you is that God wants your hearts inclined in mutually-submissive love toward your husbands ... not to merely conform to outer obedience, as our primitive culture now dictates, but to also yield, voluntarily, to an inward submission, out of the recognition of Christ who is in all. Oh, and husbands -- this is critical -- you are to see your wives as your partners, not as your property -- you are to love her as you love yourself ... as Christ loves His own Body ... you are to treasure her as a priceless porcelain vessel -- the type honored for special occasions, and not merely used as an every-day earthen vessel. We in the Kingdom are not to limit ourselves to the dictates of our current world's culture, but to move into the higher/deeper realm of the Spirit, of the Kingdom."

Consider the absurdity of the husband who reads these verses through the understanding of the traditions of man. In verse 21, he is taught that in the Body of Christ, there is to be mutual submission ... and so he would see all the other women in the Body as his spiritual equals. However -- regarding his own wife, imagining (due to what he's been taught, and his own dominating inclinations) that he is to consider his wife as submitting to him alone, he would then, in effect, put all other women in the Body *above* his very own wife ... relegating her to the lowest position amongst all other women...!

We have learned to read & interpret the scriptures through the lenses of our misogynistic collective mindset - that which goes back for millennia ... rather than allowing the Spirit to show us what He both inspired and now interprets to our own spirits. Reading the letter of the law, we miss the deeper nuances of truth, which indeed set us free.

What if it's time we questioned the traditions of man, including their tainted agendas, and discovered the "too good to NOT be true" nature of our God, and to discover what He's been communicating to us ... that which we could receive if we would but put aside the traditions that blind us.

Thanks for listening ...


Shalom, Dena


*Here's the link to that Strong's entry: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=5&v=21&t=KJV#conc/22