Is Christianity Bad News for Women?

[teresa]

Tallguy is correct that it doesn't say anywhere that nobody else gave Jesus and his group of disciples money.

But this is the only instance I'm aware of where Scripture says that anyone did. And I didn't say his ministry was exclusively funded by women, just that it was funded by women.

got it! thank you. this is a great thread. Im loving it.

 

[Dave-W]

got it! thank you. this is a great thread. Im loving it.

I take it as the women were the only ones who gave enough to be recognized as doing so.

There is a big difference between me who contributes $10 a month to a local PBS station and the ones who get their names shown on screen who have given millions.

 

[WolfGate]

I take it as the women were the only ones who gave enough to be recognized as doing so.

There is a big difference between me who contributes $10 a month to a local PBS station and the ones who get their names shown on screen who have given millions.

I don't think I can reach that same conclusion because I think it more likely that there was a specific reason the women needed to be mentioned. Given what I understand of culture at the time, it would be assumed that the men would support so no need to state the obvious. Stating that women did also gives biblical indication that that is a role/privilege/responsibility they share as fellow disciples of Christ. The Widow's Offering in the gospel makes it plain the amount is irrelevant in the principle of supporting ministry.

 

[Zoii]

I have been rebuked several times here when I express a view that questions literal translations in the bible. Specifically if I question that the words written are by man and not in fact the hand of God (albeit Gods thoughts trickling through the hand of man). So the logic/rebuke put to me is that I cannot deny that the bible is literally coming from the mouth of God. If its coming from the mouth of God then it is timeless and perfect and isn't swayed but changing cultural norms. There doesn't seem any room for a view that would consider consequences of human views and influences in the writing of the bible. If those views are all true of Christianity, then I feel as female quite defenceless. I feel quite exhausted by Christianity and rather than it drawing me in I feel that I need to regularly step back from it because its depressing and oppressing in its capacity for me to think liberally or even more spiritually/esoterically.

Am I the only one who feels this?

 

[JackRT]

I have been rebuked several times here when I express a view that questions literal translations in the bible. Specifically if I question that the words written are by man and not in fact the hand of God (albeit Gods thoughts trickling through the hand of man). So the logic/rebuke put to me is that I cannot deny that the bible is literally coming from the mouth of God. If its coming from the mouth of God then it is timeless and perfect and isn't swayed but changing cultural norms. There doesn't seem any room for a view that would consider consequences of human views and influences in the writing of the bible. If those views are all true of Christianity, then I feel as female quite defenceless. I feel quite exhausted by Christianity and rather than it drawing me in I feel that I need to regularly step back from it because its depressing and oppressing in its capacity for me to think liberally or even more spiritually/esoterically.

Am I the only one who feels this?

You are certainly not the only one. I am convinced that the bible is entirely a human construct but I very much appreciate your proviso ---- "albeit Gods thoughts trickling through the hand of man".

 

[Zoii]

You are certainly not the only one. I am convinced that the bible is entirely a human construct but I very much appreciate your proviso ---- "albeit Gods thoughts trickling through the hand of man".

I would like to respond to that but I know a discussion on that point results in a formal warning. So I shall think carefully how to respond and reply later

 

[Paidiske]

I have been rebuked several times here when I express a view that questions literal translations in the bible. Specifically if I question that the words written are by man and not in fact the hand of God (albeit Gods thoughts trickling through the hand of man). So the logic/rebuke put to me is that I cannot deny that the bible is literally coming from the mouth of God. If its coming from the mouth of God then it is timeless and perfect and isn't swayed but changing cultural norms. There doesn't seem any room for a view that would consider consequences of human views and influences in the writing of the bible. If those views are all true of Christianity, then I feel as female quite defenceless. I feel quite exhausted by Christianity and rather than it drawing me in I feel that I need to regularly step back from it because its depressing and oppressing in its capacity for me to think liberally or even more spiritually/esoterically.

Am I the only one who feels this?

I don't think you're the only one. I think that as we develop and mature in our faith we each come to our own understanding, and then it's less of an ongoing wrestle because we've decided what we believe and it feels settled.

For what it's worth, as long as posts are in accord with the Statement of Faith of the site (basically the Nicene Creed) there's plenty of room to discuss and debate how to understand various Scriptures. And since the Creed doesn't touch on gender issues at all, there's much more room for us to explore that than some other topics.

 

[Zoii]

I think the upside is the slow n steady increase in women pastors. I seriously hope that continues albeit it must be such a tide to swim against for them.

 

[Zoii]

I don't think you're the only one. I think that as we develop and mature in our faith we each come to our own understanding, and then it's less of an ongoing wrestle because we've decided what we believe and it feels settled.

For what it's worth, as long as posts are in accord with the Statement of Faith of the site (basically the Nicene Creed) there's plenty of room to discuss and debate how to understand various Scriptures. And since the Creed doesn't touch on gender issues at all, there's much more room for us to explore that than some other topics.

Why is it that the Nicene Creed is so off limits to anything but an absolute literal interpretation?

 

[Paidiske]

I think the upside is the slow n steady increase in women pastors. I seriously hope that continues albeit it must be such a tide to swim against for them.

Mostly, for me, it's not been too bad. The problem in my corner of the world is that even when we're allowed to be ministers, we're still expected to behave the way male ministers traditionally did; working six days a week, being on-call 24/7, and generally acting (if we have a family) as if there's a wife standing behind us doing all the domestic and family stuff.

And that's not reality for many of us, so I observe that we struggle more to juggle everything; whether that's pregnancy in the first place or all the stuff that comes after. Church culture needs to change more if it's to be truly enabling for not just women, but a more diverse range of people to fully exercise our gifts in ministry.

Why is it that the Nicene Creed is so off limits to anything but an absolute literal interpretation?

Well, I wasn't on CF when they made that decision, but I can make some guesses.

As an ecumenical site, there are very few things that we could all agree on as some sort of basic standard of Christianity. But the Nicene Creed (in its current form) is kind of the historical benchmark on that point; those who agreed with it were considered Christians, and those who didn't - like LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as more ancient groups - were considered so badly wrong they weren't really Christian any more.

So I guess it's a natural go-to statement when trying to work out what kind of basic statement we could have that just about every Christian group would say, "Yep, we can agree to that being true."

 

[Dave-W]

The problem in my corner of the world is that even when we're allowed to be ministers, we're still expected to behave the way male ministers traditionally did; working six days a week, being on-call 24/7, and generally acting (if we have a family) as if there's a wife standing behind us doing all the domestic and family stuff.

And that's not reality for many of us, so I observe that we struggle more to juggle everything;

So what are you saying; that women pastors should have a lesser time requirement as opposed to male pastors?

 

[Paidiske]

So what are you saying; that women pastors should have a lesser time requirement as opposed to male pastors?

I'm questioning the expectations placed on all pastors, to be honest. I don't think it's any better to expect a man to work like a machine, leaving his wife to do all the family stuff and household drudgery, either.

What I observe in reality is that women are over-represented in chaplaincies, which have better work-life balance, and under-represented in parish roles, especially senior parish roles, where it often takes a man and his (unpaid) wife to keep the wheels turning.

For example, it was Shrove Tuesday this week. Many of my male colleagues could put their wives on pancake duty. Me, I spent two hours in the kitchen (on top of my other ten hours of work that day).

 

[Dave-W]

I'm questioning the expectations placed on all pastors, to be honest.

But there were good reasons the job expectation evolved into that model.

Too many congregational needs and too few clergy to address them. (and usually no money to hire additional clergy)

What I observe in reality is that women are over-represented in chaplaincies, which have better work-life balance, and under-represented in parish roles, especially senior parish roles, where it often takes a man and his (unpaid) wife to keep the wheels turning.

What I have seen for chaplancies, is it is added onto an already full time pastorate.

 

[Paidiske]

But there were good reasons the job expectation evolved into that model.

Too many congregational needs and too few clergy to address them. (and usually no money to hire additional clergy)

I'd dispute that, to be honest.

I keep track of what I spend my time on. The biggest chunk of my time - more than worship services, or preparing sermons or teaching, or pastoral visiting - goes on administration.

There is no earthly reason why the pastor needs to do the bulk of church administration, except that people are quite content to leave it to us!

What I have seen for chaplancies, is it is added onto an already full time pastorate.

That's not the usual model in the Anglican church. I'm talking about women choosing to be a school chaplain, and work school hours, or a hospital chaplain and work, say, four days a week, rather than the six-day-a-week-and-you're-lucky-if-you-get-your-day-off parish experience.

 

[Dave-W]

I keep track of what I spend my time on. The biggest chunk of my time - more than worship services, or preparing sermons or teaching, or pastoral visiting - goes on administration.

Indeed. The congregation I was at in the 90's The pastor and his wife (part time pay) did EVERYTHING except for what I did. Plus he was chaplain at a local county jail house. (unpaid)

I was the "music minister" (unpaid) and that amounted to an average of 25 hours a week between music rehearsals, writing and arranging music, and leading the music at 3 (or sometimes 4) services a week. That was in addition to my day job of being a tool and die design engineer that took 55-60 hours a week. Oh yeah - I was also on the elder board.

In the congregation I left a couple of years ago, the senior leader was also a chaplain for the US Coast Guard. I do not know if that was paid or not.

 

[Paidiske]

That doesn't sound healthy, really, Dave.

And the thing is, it's one thing for someone to choose to work at that level, if that's what they feel called to do and it suits them etc. It's quite another thing for a congregation to expect it as the default.

We don't think it's okay for workers to be exploited in any other setting, why should it be okay in the church?

 

[Dave-W]

We don't think it's okay for workers to be exploited in any other setting, why should it be okay in the church?

Because church work is a calling from God instead of a secular job. That is supposed to bring supernatural strength to do it.

 

[Tallguy88]

I'm questioning the expectations placed on all pastors, to be honest. I don't think it's any better to expect a man to work like a machine, leaving his wife to do all the family stuff and household drudgery, either.

What I observe in reality is that women are over-represented in chaplaincies, which have better work-life balance, and under-represented in parish roles, especially senior parish roles, where it often takes a man and his (unpaid) wife to keep the wheels turning.

For example, it was Shrove Tuesday this week. Many of my male colleagues could put their wives on pancake duty. Me, I spent two hours in the kitchen (on top of my other ten hours of work that day).

This is an argument in favor of the celibate priesthood. Many priests have said they don’t have time for a wife and kids with all of their priestly responsibilities.

 

[JackRT]

This is an argument in favor of the celibate priesthood. Many priests have said they don’t have time for a wife and kids with all of their priestly responsibilities.

With all those priestly responsibilities they need a wife and family even more.

 

[Paidiske]

I could be a celibate priest... but I am a better priest for being married and a mother. (And not because I drag my husband into doing some of the work, but in terms of my own maturity and emotional equilibrium).

Because church work is a calling from God instead of a secular job. That is supposed to bring supernatural strength to do it.

Well, frankly, there's a really long line of burnt-out pastors that suggests it's a bit more complicated than that.