Outcomes of gender inequality

[All4Christ]

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?

Would you be interested in moving this to another forum? I know the worship forum is supposed to be for modern worship now though so I'm not sure where it should go.

@Paul Yohannan would be a good person to discuss the Ethiopian Coptic chant. I remember some past discussions with him on this subject. I'm fairly knowledgeable about the Catholic high Miss - especially the Tridentine mass , and the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, and do know enough to discuss the Ethiopian Coptic chant, but he is much more knowledgeable on that subject.

 

[rturner76]

The Bible does say:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. in everything to their husbands.

But it also says:
7 Husbands, also live with your wife the way you know is right. Respect her because she is a woman. She is not as strong as a man. Also respect her because God has given her, as well as you, the blessing of life. In this way, you will not stop God from doing what you ask him to do.

I think that the submission has more to dowith back in those days women had no property rights. They were basically like children in the family unit. They had no say when it came to the doing of business as it relates to property, farming, herding, or shopkeeping. They pretty much could not do any business without a man to represent their interests weather they were married or not. That's why the Bible always speaks of orphans and widows in the same breath. They were helpless st that timebut for the kindness of an adult male

Now women are able to own property and have equal rights so those rules (though the Bible is timeless in many ways) are not exactly applicable the same way in the law of the land especially. Nowwe are equals and we can choose who plays what role in terms of bread winner Though it usually is the male it doesn't have to be and if it is, it doesn't mean they don't have to consult their wife on decisions that affect her or their children.

 

[JackRT]

God also designed male and female roles.

I see roles as very much culturally conditioned. Both Judaism and the surrounding nations of the Mediterranean world were extremely patriarchal sometimes to the point of misogyny. Jesus himself seems to have been largely gender blind and Paul not so much so. The egalitarian trend in the early church was pretty much suppressed by the time the pastoral epistles were written about 60 years after Paul's death.

 

[JoeP222w]

Both Judaism and the surrounding nations of the Mediterranean world were extremely patriarchal sometimes to the point of misogyny.

Misogyny is never promoted or commanded in the Bible. Paul never promotes misogyny.

Jesus himself seems to have been largely gender blind

I think that this claim is more eisegetical than exegetical.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

I had an Australian friend and she had very little interest in religion, and hardly any knowledge of it. That's very rare in the US. Even atheists in the US can usually quote a fair amount of the Scriptures. Aussies just don't seem to be very spiritual people.

Believe it or not, there are sections of the US, like the west, that have this type of attitude. My grandpa's family in Oklahoma had that type of attitude, which was odd because Oklahoma now days is a big Bible Belt. He would believe in God theoretically, like a deist ,but not in a God that placed any demands on anyone or was involved in anybody's life. His family actually had alot in common with Australians as the story is, that he was descended from people that fled into Indian territory, running away from legal problems.

 

[WolfGate]

A quick short rabbit trail but I am totally surprised by the whole Australians-not-religious posts. Why? Because the main thing that comes to mind when I think of people in Australia is Hillsong and Planetshakers. yeah, ignorance I know but based on limited exposure

 

[Paidiske]

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.

That's a very Protestant style service, either way. As Laura pointed out, I think that distinction only really works when talking about a certain kind of Protestant.

A quick short rabbit trail but I am totally surprised by the whole Australians-not-religious posts. Why? Because the main thing that comes to mind when I think of people in Australia is Hillsong and Planetshakers. yeah, ignorance I know but based on limited exposure

Yeah, but the thing is, in America you probably have large numbers of churches like that. We have... Hillsong and Planetshakers. And the rest of Australia thinks they're weird.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Would you be interested in moving this to another forum? I know the worship forum is supposed to be for modern worship now though so I'm not sure where it should go.

@Paul Yohannan would be a good person to discuss the Ethiopian Coptic chant. I remember some past discussions with him on this subject. I'm fairly knowledgeable about the Catholic high Miss - especially the Tridentine mass , and the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, and do know enough to discuss the Ethiopian Coptic chant, but he is much more knowledgeable on that subject.

Start it and message me or respond again to this post with the link.

 

[Ken Behrens]

That's a very Protestant style service, either way. As Laura pointed out, I think that distinction only really works when talking about a certain kind of Protestant.



Yeah, but the thing is, in America you probably have large numbers of churches like that. We have... Hillsong and Planetshakers. And the rest of Australia thinks they're weird.

No, actually I mean that "guitar masses" are traditional worship with modern music.
Australia thinks they're weird? I knew it. American youth think they are marvelous, but fairly common.

 

[Paidiske]

Australia thinks they're weird? I knew it. American youth think they are marvelous, but fairly common.

Weird not so much for their style, but for their... sensibility. I don't know how to describe something I recognise intuitively.

In Australia, it's okay to have faith and to go to church and that is, if not celebrated, tolerated. But to be part of something with the outwardly visible enthusiasm level of a Pentecostal mega-church is suspect.

Oh, but as to how this is relevant to the OP...

One of the things I value about a more liturgical style of worship, is that a lot of what is said and prayed is somewhat "scripted." There are forms to follow. It is therefore easier to make sure that the liturgy actually expresses equality than it would be in a situation where everything is extempore.

 

[Dave-W]

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.

There is a biblical difference between submission and obedience.

Submission is a heart attitude, while obedience is outward performance.

That means (using modern western logic) that one can be submissive but not obedient; or one can be obedient without submitting.

The idea of enforced obedience (slavery, abuse) being "submission" is a misuse of the language.

 

[Dave-W]

The Bible does say:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

True enough. The bible ALSO says this (and the gender in the Greek means it is addressed to men):

Heb 13.17 (NASB) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.

IOW, if a guy is demanding obedience from his wife, he had better be prepared to give the same or greater degree of submission and obedience to his congregational leadership. (pastors, elders)

 

[Dave-W]

No, actually I mean that "guitar masses" are traditional worship with modern music.

They were not considered "traditional" in 1970.

But to be part of something with the outwardly visible enthusiasm level of a Pentecostal mega-church is suspect.

Guitar Masses in the Catholic church in 1970 did not have that level of enthusiasm. The youth just liked hearing acoustic guitars instead of thundering pipe organs.

 

[Chaplain David]

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?

I am completely for equality. But have a question about your post.

When you say ..."religious narrative which says gender inequality is God's will"... is that narrative from the church, cultural narrative or are you talking about Biblical narrative?

Peace.

 

[Ken Behrens]

One of the things I value about a more liturgical style of worship, is that a lot of what is said and prayed is somewhat "scripted." There are forms to follow. It is therefore easier to make sure that the liturgy actually expresses equality than it would be in a situation where everything is extempore.

Just because you change the rote liturgy, how do you know that you are changing the hearts of those who worship? Eventually, you must wait for the extempore parts of the church life, such as social hours, and group organization, to really find this out.

 

[All4Christ]

Just because you change the rote liturgy, how do you know that you are changing the hearts of those who worship? Eventually, you must wait for the extempore parts of the church life, such as social hours, and group organization, to really find this out.

Despite liturgy being scripted, it is not necessarily "rote". When I was a Pentecostal, I did not understand that. (I'm sure some do understand that, but I didn't and many others I know did not.) Rather, when we have a set format and outline to the liturgy, it allows for freedom of worship within that. It is a beautiful concept and act when embraced in its proper understanding.

Doing something by rote (or being rote) has the connotation of doing something habitual by memory, without thought of meaning. Even dictionary definitions include that meaning. Our liturgy is nothing like that. Certainly it has the same words for much of the liturgy, but it definitely is not without thought of meaning.

I still plan to create a thread for this concept, but I didn't want to let this go without clarify in any thread discussing "rote" liturgies. I understand that you may not think of it that way, but many do.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Despite liturgy being scripted, it is not necessarily "rote".

I just needed a word to separate the service which has almost no need of printed materials at all, from the more traditional mainline liturgies, that depend quite a bit on printed materials. Please keep clarifying, as we do not know who will later read these forums.

 

[WolfGate]

True enough. The bible ALSO says this (and the gender in the Greek means it is addressed to men):

Heb 13.17 (NASB) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.

IOW, if a guy is demanding obedience from his wife, he had better be prepared to give the same or greater degree of submission and obedience to his congregational leadership. (pastors, elders)

Fascinating post. While it doesn't directly address what submission as covered in the bible should look like in our lives, it might have use when I'm talking to men who apply it selfishly in their marriages. Because selfishness would not be open to the same level of submission and obedience as they demand from their wife.

 

[All4Christ]

I just needed a word to separate the service which has almost no need of printed materials at all, from the more traditional mainline liturgies, that depend quite a bit on printed materials. Please keep clarifying, as we do not know who will later read these forums.

Understood and agreed

 

[Paidiske]

I am completely for equality. But have a question about your post.

When you say ..."religious narrative which says gender inequality is God's will"... is that narrative from the church, cultural narrative or are you talking about Biblical narrative?

Peace.

@Chaplain David, I think it's both church and cultural. So, for example, one of the things we did (which got mothballed, but that's a whole other story) was to prepare Bible study materials which looked at all the passages traditionally used to argue for inequality, and re-examine them in light of an egalitarian hermeneutic.

The Bible can be used either for or against equality - it has both strands within it - and it would be dishonest to deny that. But I think most of us have to make a choice, conscious or unconscious, about which strand will be normative for us, and we were nudging people to choose an interpretation which was egalitarian.

Just because you change the rote liturgy, how do you know that you are changing the hearts of those who worship? Eventually, you must wait for the extempore parts of the church life, such as social hours, and group organization, to really find this out.

Are you familiar with the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi?