"What I've learned from 10 years of blogging on mutuality"

[bekkilyn]

***Please note you are in the EGALITARIAN faith group forum***

This article came out today by Marg Mowczko:

What I've Learned from 10 Years of Blogging on Mutuality

I particularly found truth from my own experiences in what she wrote concerning these following statements (emphasis mine):

When I first started listening to questions, especially to questions from people who have a problem with the egalitarian ethos, I quickly got the niggling feeling that the real issue wasn’t with 1 Timothy 2:12, Ephesians 5, or any other Bible verse, but with deeply-held, negative beliefs about women. Some expressions of this belief have been more overt than others, but I could often detect a mistrust of the intrinsic nature and capabilities of women.

Ten years later, this niggling feeling has been confirmed many times. I continue to observe that the reluctance for people, both men and women, to accept that the biblical case for disallowing women to be church leaders is flimsy at best, has more to do with how they see women and how they feel about women than with what the Bible says about women.

After all, if the majority of Christians whole-heartedly believed that some women, just like some men, can be mature, capable, reliable leaders and talented expositors of scripture, and that women have important insights and valuable perspectives which are indispensable to the well-being of the church and vital to its mission, I doubt 1 Timothy 2:12 would be understood as a universal, timeless injunction that hinders women from using their talents and gifts. Rather, 1 Timothy 2:12 would be understood as referring to a specific situation in the Ephesian church which seems to be the case.

Poor attitudes about women also affect the issue of women in marriage. Some Christians believe that chaos will result if women are not governed and led by their husbands and that the family or household will suffer. What does this say about their view of women? That women need to be governed by men otherwise things will fall apart?

These same Christians are usually not pedantic about other aspects of the household codes in Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3-4. They are not especially concerned about (grown) children obeying their parents, and most think that slavery is abhorrent, yet they continue to insist that the husband being the leader of his wife is crucial for the wife’s well-being and for marital and family stability. Again, what does this say about their view of women?

Others tell me that the real issue is about power rather than distrust. They’ve observed a profound reluctance, and even a fear, that stops some men from relinquishing authority and sharing leadership with women. I think it’s probably both: (1) a distrust of the nature and capabilities of women and (2) an aversion to sharing leadership with women.

What I have learned from 10 years of blogging on equality and mutuality is that we are living with the legacy of some terrible interpretations of scripture that have been produced by, exacerbated by, and supported by a legacy of poor attitudes towards women, attitudes that have nothing to do with how the Bible portrays women. But this is changing, slowly, as women are being educated and are gaining more opportunities in society and in the church. Women are proving that they, as well as their brothers, are smart and resourceful and have gifts, talents and meaningful insights to contribute. We dare not squander these resources.

I can't count the number of times that well thought out comments backed by scripture have been posted in support of Christian egalitarianism only to be met by some of the most vitriolic and hateful comments.

And then there is the complete and utter ignorance of those who refuse to see how demeaning and extraordinarily offensive their comments and bigoted attitudes are towards their sisters in Christ, and even to the point of them literally walking out of a space where women are speaking. Unacceptable!

For months on end here on CF, thread after thread of vitriol against women have been posted and treated as normal, when making the same statements against ANY OTHER GROUP (besides homosexuals) would be (rightfully) censured as the unfounded bigotry it is. Somehow it's perfectly okay to cherry-pick scripture to support the subjugation of women and intentionally using misinterpretations of scripture to oppose and obstruct the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of women. Perhaps it should be seen as the attempted murder of another person's very soul.

 

[Dave-W]

The idea that anyone can just read the plain text of scripture and NOT put in their own cultural back drop and personal prejudices has been proven false over and over again.

Those people see the verses thru their own pre-suppositions and cannot see past that.

I have seen it over and over again on any number of topics. But one thing they all agree on: it is up to the individual to make their own decisions apart from anyone's traditions. SO if you have 10 of they you usually have 11 or 12 different positions. (borrowed from the Jews)

Of course the Catholics and Orthodox will fall back on the traditions of the early church fathers and their own church leaders. It is they who have said women are no good in the world besides popping out babies. that has shaped a LOT of centuries of christian thinking.

 

[topher694]

What these people don't realize is that they are in fact fulfilling scripture, just not they scripture they think and not in a way that is positive or that reflects well upon them.

 

[timothyu]

Perhaps it should be seen as the attempted murder of another person's very soul.

Is that not the point. There is no male/female soul. We are one in the spirit within us.

 

[mkgal1]

Of course the Catholics and Orthodox will fall back on the traditions of the early church fathers and their own church leaders. It is they who have said women are no good in the world besides popping out babies. that has shaped a LOT of centuries of christian thinking

Careful about these general blanket statements, please. One of my favorite statements about Ephesians 5 came from Pope Francis. He wrote:

"True equality, understood as mutuality, is not measuring out tasks (who prepares the meals, who supervises homework, and so forth) or maintaining an orderly schedule. It thrives at a much deeper level where the power of the Spirit resides. Here, the grace of the vowed life not only makes the shedding of willfulness possible, but also leads to a joyful willingness.

Mutuality is really about sharing power and exercising responsibility for a purpose larger than ourselves. How household duties are distributed should follow from understanding what it takes to build a life together, as well as the individual skills and interests you bring to your common life.

Our experience as pastors shows us that genuine marital intimacy and true friendship are unlikely without mutuality. One spouse alone is not the keeper of love's flame. Both of you are co-creators of your relationship. Nowhere is this more vividly portrayed than in your decisions about having children. The Church promotes natural family planning for many reasons, among which are that "it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility" (On Human Life, no. 21). ~ Follow the Way oF Love​

 

[mkgal1]

The idea that anyone can just read the plain text of scripture and NOT put in their own cultural back drop and personal prejudices has been proven false over and over again.

So true - everyone reads through some sort of lens (with bias).

 

[timothyu]

We've been programmed since birth to think in the backwards ways of man. We try to make scripture over in our own image, but the only successful way is to look past what man has taught, reverse the mirror and see not God, but us through His eyes.

 

[Paidiske]

Good article, thanks for sharing it. I'd say what you've highlighted in the OP rings true, in my experience. Especially the part about power.

The words were spoken and written into a particular mindset with filters and biases. It can only be properly understood by looking at it with those same filters and biases. And Paul tells us in Romans 3 that the “oracles of God” (scriptures) were entrusted to the JEWISH people, and they have records of the thoughts and practices of late 2nd temple Judaism.

I disagree. We don't - for example - need to have the same filters and biases as a first-century educated Greco-Roman Pharisiac Jew to "properly" understand Paul's letters. We do need to have some understanding of his filters and biases; but that's doesn't mean we should uncritically adopt them.

Which is just as well, because the filters and biases of the folks who edited the Torah as we have it, would have had very different filters and biases from, say, the author of Revelation!

And especially, we do not need to expect everybody to become Jewish or emulate Judaism. We would be stupid to ignore Jewish wisdom and insights, but that is not the same as saying that we all have to think as Jews in order to understand Scripture.

---SE---

 

[archer75]

I don't have a good feeling about posting this, but I will anyway.

It seems to me that many of these negative attitudes towards women are at least in part formed in response to, and defenses against, widely-held (not just by women, and not by all people) negative opinions regarding men. The simplest way I can say it is: men are disposable junk and have value only if they "buy" it. But since you can never chase money hard enough (there is always more money to be had), this in effect means "men have no value."

And the pushback against this is "women need to shut up, be controlled, be mistreated"... and so on.

 

[Paidiske]

That's an interesting reflection, archer.

Maybe it is one side of a more universal cycle of denigrating/misusing one another which is part of the human pattern of sin.

Certainly our consumer culture seems to see every person as existing only to be exploited and then disposed of (I'm thinking of the way employers tend to treat employees; not all employers, certainly, but a very great majority of them).

I think, though, that as a woman, I'm very aware that (as a general rule) men have more power in that cycle, and women are often at the vulnerable end of the misuse of that power. So even though the problem might catch us all, I think women tend to be disproportionately negatively affected (as reflected in DV stats, poverty stats, etc).

I don't know that there are any neat answers. Building a culture of respect and inclusion would seem to be likely to improve things for everyone?