Here is some qualification on the earlier post.
Firstly, the Church is incredibly varied and I can only speak for my experience of the Western (largely evangelical) and British angle of things.
Secondly, I began the earlier post by arguing that conventional masculinity could be said to have been dramatically called into question by the Lordship of Christ. While this may be true, this hasn't stopped males dominating the hierarchy (?!) of the Church for most of its history. The Church in the West has adapted with the prevailing feminist trend in the last forty years and begun to recognise its lack of openness to the fullness of the gifts possessed by women. This has surely brought with it a criticism of the apparently failing (dropping Church attendances and influence on society) male dominated Church. Certainly, from a Reformed perspective, the male who leads through the preaching of the Word does look ... anachronistic. The Church today certainly does not (I'm not arguing it should) think this is sufficient.
So it is better to point out, I think, that the idea of Christ as someone who radically criticises conventional ideas about the place and role of men in society, is a relatively modern one. This is not to say that this criticism is not there in Christ and his work, and that it is purely a modern invention, but that our particular understanding of it and emphasis on it, has come with the modern reassessment of gender outside and inside the Church. To put it simply (thanks Jake), we were patriarchal and this must continue to be regretted; we're now experiencing a matriarchal response; is it possible now to encourage the Church to gain a more balanced position?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I wonder if the Church might could have avoided some of the problems it has run into by being a frontrunner in the feminist movement. It strikes me as odd that the church was (is!) one of the last places insights from feminism took root. If, on the other hand, the Church had begun something like feminism (rather than accepting the long-standing patriarchal bias of secular society) and set some ground rules on the basis of scripture, then the situation would look different, less reactionary maybe.
Now that we have had to stumble through accepting feminism (rather than establishing it at the start), we might well have taken on board certain aspects that we didn't mean to, while losing some of the really good insights that feminism has to offer. What to do now? Turn to scripture!
Yes ... but what is it about the Church which has meant that it hasn't been an innovator in this regard? Why did it end up playing catch up?
Either:
(1) I'm wrong about the correctness of certain aspects of feminism and the church actually is not 'playing catch up' but is rather capitulating;
or, (2) the church comprises humans and is therefore sinful.
Obviously, I lean to (2), but could be proven wrong!
Maybe those two answers are too simple?
How about this: the Church sits in the world and so interacts with it. The Church also has its own history, and listens to that as well. It has to do both ... but both the world and Church tradition need to be constantly called into question by the reality of God which dwarfs our theological perspectives and by his plans for our future in the Resurrection, which also place our achievements and abilities in a humbling perspective. Both reveal to us our sinfulness and limitation and need of grace and consequently our need of prayerful reading and rereading of scripture.
So it's shouldn't be surprising if the world chastens us so that we reread scripture and see things we had not seen before.
Nor should it be surprising if the world tells us things we cannot accept because when we read scripture we can do nothing other than disagree with the world.
Nor should it be surprising if tradition reminds us of things we had forgotten, and chastens us to reread scripture to see what we had forgotten.
Nor should it be surprising if tradition tells us things we can simply no longer accept because scripture tells us something else.
In summary, there is no simple solution to assess every new question and to ask whether we should be 'faithful' to tradition, or 'sensitive' to the world. In fact both of these sources of questions need to stand under the judgement of God, together with our own deliberations. We have to listen to all and prayerfully seek God's will in the scriptures.
In the case of feminism ...
I think that is probably a good way to construe the issue, as long as the evaluation of the past and present occurs on the basis of scripture... (which obviously you're saying).
Post a Comment