Outcomes of gender inequality

[Paidiske]

One of the things I've had a lot to do with over the last few years is the work my diocese has been doing on primary prevention of domestic violence. One of the things the underlying research has identified is that gender inequality leaves men who want to abuse, feeling as if they have a right to do so. It gives them tacit permission. So some of the work we've been doing is about undercutting any religious narrative which says gender inequality is God's will or the Christian way to live and so on.

(There is a repository of resources and reports and so on here if you'd like to explore that set of ideas more: Resources & reports )

Here in this forum I wondered whether we might be able to explore together what we've seen, both as negative outcomes of gender inequality, and effective ways to bring about change in our communities?

 

[Ken Behrens]

I wish I had time to read the whole thing. No one in ministry can escape working in this area. I assume you are Australian by the nature of the documents. USA is somewhat different based on the TV programs I have watched from Oz. You are most fortunate to be ordained in a denomination that permits women to serve in all ordained ministerial roles. Do you suppose that if all churches would follow this lead, that this would be a great help to changing the culture?

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, I think it would.

Two important disclaimers: first, that ordaining women, on its own, isn't sufficient. And second that I think it is possible, without ordaining women, to build a culture which treats women as equal in every other way (but it is very hard).

But that said, yes, I think the ordination of women helps. I think when, in the church, leadership, preaching, teaching, and presiding over worship is shared between men and women, that sets a very powerful example in front of the community. Also, women are then involved in decision making at all levels, and bring their particular sensitivity to these issues to that involvement.

And, in pastoral situations, women tend (from their own experience) to be both more sensitive to and less tolerant of the abuse of power between men and women; so people seeking pastoral care are likely to get a perspective shaped by that. (Eg. a woman is less likely to send an abuse victim home to "submit" to her abuser).

I realise that my last paragraph might sound as if I'm criticising men in ministry, and I don't want to come across that way exactly. There are many, many lovely men who believe women are their equals and treat them that way in ministry. But I also observe that because they have not had the personal experiences of being treated unequally, it's easy for them to be a bit oblivious or clueless, and to say things or to act in ways which are not helpful. Not because they mean badly but because they just don't always realise the impact of their words or actions.

@Ken Behrens, in what ways do you see the USA as being different from Australia in this area?

 

[Ken Behrens]

@Ken Behrens, in what ways do you see the USA as being different from Australia in this area?

I am going from Australian TV I watched where churches, ministers, etc. were involved as part of the plot of the programs. Also, from a few things I have picked up here and there. Generally, Australia is more conservative officially.

There is a greater tendency for your PM and other officials to make statements regarding the importance of traditional religion in your country (for example the recent statement about immigrants being free to worship as they choose, but not to try to change the established customs). USA would never make such a statement, as our constitution provides separation of church and state.

I see greater respect for established clergy at all levels in Aussie shows than in America. For example, shows from the late '90's show the level of respect of churches that American shows do not portray past the late 80's. About a ten year time-difference (for comparison, I note that Aussie shows are about five years ahead of us in technology incorporation). This is communicated by the amount of respect and understanding of the church shown, say by police officers chasing bad guys into churches or by interviewing pastors for leads in investigations.

Third, is that Australia lags behind the US in establishment of new types of churches, but then seems capable of catching up and surpassing us in terms of news value. Examples include Hillsong (now one of the world's top worship groups, but based on changes that we saw by 1982), the hilarious church of the flying spaghetti monster website (only a few countries have one), and the recent videos that I have been sent from members of my online fellowship of problems with homosexuality involving Australians, where Australians seem far more outspoken and willing to tolerate the differences in opinion.

I think it is all related to the difference in our histories. America considers itself founded partially to allow for religious experimentation, and this is written into our laws. Australia seems to be more interested in making certain each person has a quality life, which of course, includes religious freedom. It is a difference of which priority comes first.

It applies directly to this topic also. Ordination of women is a very divisive issue here. As Catholics are divided from Anglicans on the subject, we see members of thousands of "little" denominations expressing themselves in public one way or the other. There are more denominations, so there is more competition in public.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm... I would have thought quite differently from what I can see of America in the media!

It's true that we have no formal separation of church and state. We do have a constitutional clause that there shall be no Established religion, so that places us somewhere between England and America on that. I've known American immigrants to be shocked that we have religious education in state schools, for example. But it's optional and many parents opt out.

But it seems to me that in America it would be hard to be elected without having the right sort of religion. We had an atheist prime minister and mostly that wasn't an issue. I think America is some way from electing someone who wears his atheism on his sleeve? (I mean, I don't actually believe that President Trump is particularly devout, but he still claims faith and probably needed to, to get elected?)

I thought American clergy got more respect than we did. But maybe that's because Americans can be a bit more formal overall? Your clergy seem to get addressed by title, whereas most people here would assume they would be on a first-name basis with clergy, even on a first meeting. Respect for churches here has been badly eroded by the sexual abuse crisis. Now I am much more likely to encounter outspoken disrespect for the institutions, than respect, from people who are not already churchgoers.

I think it's true that the American scene is just much bigger overall. Australia has a population of about 24 million, and only about 10% of them are active worshippers in any tradition. In American terms that's a very small number of people.

 

[WolfGate]

But it seems to me that in America it would be hard to be elected without having the right sort of religion. We had an atheist prime minister and mostly that wasn't an issue. I think America is some way from electing someone who wears his atheism on his sleeve? (I mean, I don't actually believe that President Trump is particularly devout, but he still claims faith and probably needed to, to get elected?)

But the right sort of religion is not what you might intuitively think. The politician has to show some faith, but not too much. Otherwise they'd either be viewed as anti-church or as a religious fanatic. Really, the segment of our voting population that decides whether the democrat or republican wins wants a leader with a lukewarm faith that won't threaten their comfortable lives and one who will allow political issues to rule their religious statements, and not the other way around. I know that sounds cynical but I think it is not. That is a reality that results in candidates finding a way to not alienate their base while appealing to the small percentage who do not align with either political party.

So yes, Trump needed to claim some faith.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I've known American immigrants to be shocked that we have religious education in state schools, for example. But it's optional and many parents opt out.

But it seems to me that in America it would be hard to be elected without having the right sort of religion.
Your clergy seem to get addressed by title, whereas most people here would assume they would be on a first-name basis with clergy, even on a first meeting. Respect for churches here has been badly eroded by the sexual abuse crisis. Now I am much more likely to encounter outspoken disrespect for the institutions, than respect, from people who are not already churchgoers.

I think it's true that the American scene is just much bigger overall. Australia has a population of about 24 million, and only about 10% of them are active worshippers in any tradition. In American terms that's a very small number of people.

Our laws prohibit religious education in public. That's what shocks people when they see it in Australia.

This is true. Most officials try to present the appearance of "converted" as part of their campaign.

It depends on denomination. Methodists do all they can to get rid of the title. Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopals try to get rid of it, but seem to me less successful. I think the title stays because so many found their own denomination, and want the title to bolster their lack of professionalism.

Our figures are 16% in any given week, 40% at lest once a month. But we must define "Active" carefully. I think there are more worshippers in America, because they can shop around for a new type of worship every Sunday, so they wind up "somewhere" and are counted. Plus religious shows on TV keep up the interest in finding a "better church". If you equate by denomination, I think you will find our weakest attendance in precisely the denominations that are more traditional, and most of Americans,especially those under 50, have gone on to the newer type of churches. If Australia has more traditional churches, that alone would explain the lower attendance there, as there are fewer other churches to attend.

This is also the answer to the sexual abuse crisis. Word that the mainline churches abuse sexually has gotten about. Word that the new self-made pastors do this is still pretty much a secret.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know about more traditional churches in Australia? It's true that our biggest denominations by far probably fit that bill. But there are plenty of less traditional options if you want them, especially in the cities. Less true in rural areas.

I have a hunch that Australia has just never been as devout. You were colonised by Europeans looking for religious freedom; we were colonised by prisoners and their guards, and in that scene the church wasn't exactly a beacon of love and joy (nb. the "flogging parson"). And religion has never been central to any sense of Australian identity. Australians remain culturally skeptical to claims of the transcendent.

 

[teresa]

negative outcomes of gender inequality, and effective ways to bring about change in our communities?

is it gender inequality or is it subjugation?

if there is a difference doesn't it differ on where it occurs, such as in the home with DV, or at work with unequal pay?

and with DV, doesnt the making a difference part need to happen in the home?

But then again, if the mom is being subjugated, how can she step up and make a difference of stopping the cycle of violence unless her voice is allowed to be heard?

More and more, stepping up and making a difference is happening at the schools, where more and more it is now a normal role of the staff to teach values to students, as they are not learning them at home.

And teachers must stick to a curriculum or have strict guidelines as to what they can and cannot say or do or teach without severe repercussions.

 

[Paidiske]

is it gender inequality or is it subjugation?

Is the difference more than just a difference of degree? (Ie. subjugation would be very strong inequality?)

if there is a difference doesn't it differ on where it occurs, such as in the home with DV, or at work with unequal pay?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I think gender inequality affects all parts of our lives, it just takes on different forms in different contexts.

and with DV, doesnt the making a difference part need to happen in the home?

I would have thought we would need wider social actions to affect the attitudes which shape behaviours at home? Like education on equality and non-violence? Which comes back to your point about schools. But teaching this sort of thing at school seems to come in for a great deal of criticism and angst...

 

[Ken Behrens]

I don't know about more traditional churches in Australia? It's true that our biggest denominations by far probably fit that bill. But there are plenty of less traditional options if you want them, especially in the cities. Less true in rural areas.

I have a hunch that Australia has just never been as devout. You were colonised by Europeans looking for religious freedom; we were colonised by prisoners and their guards, and in that scene the church wasn't exactly a beacon of love and joy (nb. the "flogging parson"). And religion has never been central to any sense of Australian identity. Australians remain culturally skeptical to claims of the transcendent.

Here are a few stories from our history that make Christians the great enemy of the people.

Conquistador - Wikipedia

Mormonism and violence - Wikipedia

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia

As you read note: we consider all these to be motivated by religious ideals, and they are all organized violence.

Devotion can be overdone.

 

[Fantine]

Ken, it seems to me that often the churches that are least traditional stylistically--evangelical non-denominational--are the most traditional substantively.

Personally, I would choose substance over style every time.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I have not found any such rule of thumb.

 

[Paidiske]

Do we need to define "traditional" before we can even be sure we're talking about the same thing, there?

 

[All4Christ]

I have not found any such rule of thumb.

Our laws prohibit religious education in public. That's what shocks people when they see it in Australia.

This is true. Most officials try to present the appearance of "converted" as part of their campaign.

It depends on denomination. Methodists do all they can to get rid of the title. Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopals try to get rid of it, but seem to me less successful. I think the title stays because so many found their own denomination, and want the title to bolster their lack of professionalism.

Our figures are 16% in any given week, 40% at lest once a month. But we must define "Active" carefully. I think there are more worshippers in America, because they can shop around for a new type of worship every Sunday, so they wind up "somewhere" and are counted. Plus religious shows on TV keep up the interest in finding a "better church". If you equate by denomination, I think you will find our weakest attendance in precisely the denominations that are more traditional, and most of Americans,especially those under 50, have gone on to the newer type of churches. If Australia has more traditional churches, that alone would explain the lower attendance there, as there are fewer other churches to attend.

This is also the answer to the sexual abuse crisis. Word that the mainline churches abuse sexually has gotten about. Word that the new self-made pastors do this is still pretty much a secret.

In my region (and other regions across America), there is a growing movement of young people moving from less traditional churches to more traditional ones. I for one am very thankful for finding my "Traditional" church when I was in my 20s. Many Traditional churches are consistently growing.

I also disagree with your statement that "having a higher availability of traditional churches = decreased attendance and devotion".

There is much we can learn from each other (different types of churches).

 

[Ken Behrens]

In my region (and other regions across America), there is a growing movement of young people moving from less traditional churches to more traditional ones.

I also disagree with your statement that "having a higher availability of traditional churches = decreased attendance and devotion".

There is much we can learn from each other (different types of churches).

I am aware of the movement. I think it depends on your perspective. I am considering htat in 1975, there was nothing but traditional churches. By 1990 or so, millions had moved to the new system. Yes, the movement to traditional churches is significant, and may be argued is growing. But overall, it is small compared to the original shift in attendance patterns.

There is also a growing movement toward home-churches, which, as it is being practiced in America today, is non-traditional. I'd love to know if anyone has stats on which of the two movements is bigger.

Decreased attendance does not mean decreased devotion, simply change in how the devotion is expressed.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Do we need to define "traditional" before we can even be sure we're talking about the same thing, there?

The definition I am using is pretty simple: Four hymns spaced out and interspersed with sermon, prayer, Bible readings, etc. is "traditional". Twenty minutes or more of music first, long sermon, and then whatever else is "non-traditional". Granted, that's a continuum and not absolutely distinct categories, but it works for what I see around me. Also, home church in any area of the world that is not under governmental persecution, and not used as a temporary measure to plant a church, is non-traditional automatically.

 

[All4Christ]

The definition I am using is pretty simple: Four hymns spaced out and interspersed with sermon, prayer, Bible readings, etc. is "traditional". Twenty minutes or more of music first, long sermon, and then whatever else is "non-traditional". Granted, that's a continuum and not absolutely distinct categories, but it works for what I see around me. Also, home church in any area of the world that is not under governmental persecution, and not used as a temporary measure to plant a church, is non-traditional automatically.

We wouldn't match that (either description)- we have singing for about 75% of the service, with the sermon and the Eucharist (which also has singing in the background) for the rest. Most Scripture is sung, though the Gospel reading and Epistle reading are chanted, not sing melodically. I honestly don't see that on the continuum of being closer to non-Traditional churches. Personally, I'm of the mindset that Theology and the way we come to those beliefs determines Traditional vs non-Traditional. Perhaps we could further divide that into Western-heritage traditional worship style, modern worship-style and Eastern/Coptic-heritage traditional worship style. Even that is limited though. Another categorization of worship style could be liturgical vs modern.

I'll post my definition later - gotta start work.

 

[JoeP222w]

I think it is a requirement to define what is meant by "gender inequality" and implicitly what is meant by "gender equality".

In regards to work, if a man or woman is equally qualified to do a job, they should absolutely receive the same salary and respect and authority.

In regards to sexuality, God made male and God made female. Biologically, male bodies are different from female bodies. God made the male body complementary to the female body in design to be expressed in the covenant bond of marriage. In this regard, there is indeed a inequality between male and female, and it is a very good thing. If the male and female bodies were identical in every way, the components would not fit together, and this is why homosexuality is against God's design.

God also designed male and female roles. Biblically, the male (husband) is to be the head of the household, just as Christ is the head of the church. The female (wife) is to submit to her husband, as commanded by God. This is not to say that the wife is to be slave that is abused by her husband to satisfy his selfish desires. The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands, but the Bible never tells husbands to make sure your wife submits to you. Husbands are to lay down their lives for their wife, to edify them and to never tear them down, just as Christ builds up the Bride (the church). The Bible never licenses the husband to abuse his wife. However, God has defined roles for men and for women. Men are called to be leaders. Women are called to bear children. Men are called to strengthen and train the children. Women are called to nurture the children. Men are called to be the providers. Women are called to manage the household. There are exceptions (such as in the case of temporary unemployment, injury or incapacity), but these are not intended to be a permanent model.

When the Bible speaks of submission, it is to do so out of selfless love. Not as the world thinks of submission, out of abusive slavery.

God created inequalities in some areas, and equalities in others. Inequality is not automatically an evil thing.

 

[Ken Behrens]

We wouldn't match that (either description)- we have singing for about 75% of the service, with the sermon and the Eucharist (which also has singing in the background) for the rest. Most Scripture is sung, though the Gospel reading and Epistle reading are chanted, not sing melodically. I honestly don't see that on the continuum of being closer to non-Traditional churches. Personally, I'm of the mindset that Theology and the way we come to those beliefs determines Traditional vs non-Traditional. Perhaps we could further divide that into Western-heritage traditional worship style, modern worship-style and Eastern/Coptic-heritage traditional worship style. Even that is limited though. Another categorization of worship style could be liturgical vs modern.

I'll post my definition later - gotta start work.

You are correct. The old Catholic high mass was kind of the same way. This How Many Orthodox in North America and the World? - Questions & Answers says there are 1-6 million Orthodox in North America, probably between 2-3 million. That's less than 1% of the population, which is why I clarify that my definition works for what is around me. By definition, the Orthodox worship pretty much as they did 1900 years ago, so I classify them as "traditional".

One of the most amazing contributions to this "rabbit trail" is the discovery of "Ethiopian Coptic Chant" with its method of accompanying traditional chants (most people will think of Gregorian chant for an example, but that is not correct), with a percussion sequence. Isolated for 1800 years, until musicologists reached them by helicopter (I am told ca. 1934), the first recorded music (which I studied in graduate school) demonstrates that there is nothing "contemporary" about using percussion in church.

But does this have anything to do with the OP?