Is There Salvation for Women? March 8. 2005
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
My goodness, I just realized how much I miss seeing the words "he" and "him" in your posts. This entry was chock full of both words!! 
"Can a male be the savior of women, or does the particularity of Jesus' gender preclude him from being a universal savior?" "If true humanity is by definition masculine, then women must always be less than fully human." - These questions, that paragraph, seem to illuminate the boundary between feminism and anti-sexism for me. As with some previous comments I had, I think it's one thing to disallow gender from coming into the equation, and another to say that only a woman could truly relate to women, or truly be a model for women. Isn't that sexist itself?
"[..] because Jesus was male, women should not be ordained to the office of ministry." - that's not an entirely accurate portrayel of the stance. Priesthood is not "the" office of ministry. It's a leadership role, which progresses to a teaching authority role. "the office of ministry" has never been relegated to men, women are notoriously superior ministers!
"Can a male be the savior of women, or does the particularity of Jesus' gender preclude him from being a universal savior?" "If true humanity is by definition masculine, then women must always be less than fully human." - These questions, that paragraph, seem to illuminate the boundary between feminism and anti-sexism for me. As with some previous comments I had, I think it's one thing to disallow gender from coming into the equation, and another to say that only a woman could truly relate to women, or truly be a model for women. Isn't that sexist itself?
"[..] because Jesus was male, women should not be ordained to the office of ministry." - that's not an entirely accurate portrayel of the stance. Priesthood is not "the" office of ministry. It's a leadership role, which progresses to a teaching authority role. "the office of ministry" has never been relegated to men, women are notoriously superior ministers!
Justin your statement: "the office of ministry" has never been relegated to men, women are notoriously superior ministers! speaks a lot to David's argument (perhaps moreso in other posts than this one). Women have limited upward mobility in the realm of assuming leadership positions from within the church, and the higher positions now held by women have taken generations to obtain.
Why could a woman not be the leader of the church? If woman were considered by the church to be fully equal to men, then a woman would be equally capable of being qualified to lead the church, or a parish for that matter.
Why could a woman not be the leader of the church? If woman were considered by the church to be fully equal to men, then a woman would be equally capable of being qualified to lead the church, or a parish for that matter.
"If woman were considered by the church to be fully equal to men" - the Church considers man and woman to be "equal" but not "identical". She (the bride of Christ) acknowledges that we all have unique callings, and has chosen to make a statement as to the members of this particular type of calling. It's an observation on the nature of man and woman. It's something that has been maintained in scripture and tradition, while the church is notorious for openly speaking out against injustices throughout the ages, starting with Jesus.
Finally, someone noticed. I thought it was just me. I choose my pro-nouns very carefully and it makes a huge difference in the understanding I have to give up a preference of one over the other when referring to God.
As for your second point, the intention was to show that gender is not a part of the equation in regards to Christ Work for salvation and ministry. The statement could be considered sexist if it were not for the sexist state in which women are placed. To break the mould of patriarchy many women have needed to emphasize their experiences apart from the the patriarchy validating/invalidating those experiences. Other waves of feminism have begun emphasizing other areas (more towards what I think you would call anti-sexism) that explore the nature of human identity.
For your third point, I didn't mention the Catholic priesthood at all but I will speak to the points which you made. You state that priesthood is a leadership role that can only be held by men and also that men are the sole office workers of this progression to a teaching authority role. It would seem that because gender is not in the equation of Christ's authority neither should it be in the structure of the Church which has Christ as the head. To perpetuate a doctrine of male superiority or male exclusivity in any role is to deny the full humanity of Christ witnessed to in the Gospel message. Christ radically challenged these patriarchal roles in the expression of Christ's humanity as well as Jesus' ministry.
If we claim the gender does not enter into the equation then we must practice our faith as such.
As for your second point, the intention was to show that gender is not a part of the equation in regards to Christ Work for salvation and ministry. The statement could be considered sexist if it were not for the sexist state in which women are placed. To break the mould of patriarchy many women have needed to emphasize their experiences apart from the the patriarchy validating/invalidating those experiences. Other waves of feminism have begun emphasizing other areas (more towards what I think you would call anti-sexism) that explore the nature of human identity.
For your third point, I didn't mention the Catholic priesthood at all but I will speak to the points which you made. You state that priesthood is a leadership role that can only be held by men and also that men are the sole office workers of this progression to a teaching authority role. It would seem that because gender is not in the equation of Christ's authority neither should it be in the structure of the Church which has Christ as the head. To perpetuate a doctrine of male superiority or male exclusivity in any role is to deny the full humanity of Christ witnessed to in the Gospel message. Christ radically challenged these patriarchal roles in the expression of Christ's humanity as well as Jesus' ministry.
If we claim the gender does not enter into the equation then we must practice our faith as such.
About second point: (actually to connect to first point) are you saying that women need to stray into sexism temporarily to regain the balance between the two genders? as in, 2 wrongs make a right? as in, let's call God a "she" for a few hundred years in order to sufficiently de-genderize God?
I know you didn't mention Catholic priesthood directly, but I also know that the Catholic Church may quite possibly be the last organization in coming years to speak out on this. I wasn't talking about just any "equation"... rather, the "humanity" that you were discussing in your post, that Jesus represents. To be blind to gender in any equation would seem to be ignorant of basic facts of life.
I know you didn't mention Catholic priesthood directly, but I also know that the Catholic Church may quite possibly be the last organization in coming years to speak out on this. I wasn't talking about just any "equation"... rather, the "humanity" that you were discussing in your post, that Jesus represents. To be blind to gender in any equation would seem to be ignorant of basic facts of life.
I say nothing of the sort! You are correct in picking up on the potential problem with emphasizing a particular experience. The case, though, is that women have needed to define themselves outside of the modes of patriarchy in which they find themselves. There are cases, of course, where some have strayed too far in their emphasis to become sexist themselves and your flow of thought picks up on feminist discourse on your very point. So it is not that 2 wrongs make a right but rather a seemingly wrong according to the status quo but is really not. As to your "let's call God a "she" for a few hundred years" I would say yes let's call God 'she' for a few hundred years and explore what it means to call God 'she' and how that affects our theology. This is not an exclusive calling God 'she' but rather investigating what has not been previously investigated. God can still be called "he" or "creator" or "sustainer" or "Jesus" as well as "she." There has already been 2000 years of investigating what it means to call God "he."
The Roman Catholic church is not the only church addressing the exclusivity of the "priesthood." Many, if not all, fundamentalist groups are in alignment with the Roman Catholic church on this matter. So you are not alone. To be blind to a person having a penis or a vagina would in fact be ignorant but rather my point is that in ministry, in authority, in sacramentally, in full humanity there is no gender limitations. Jesus' Godly humanity destroys this notion for in Christ there is no male or female. Paul discovers this truth of Christ's humanity when he declares as much. There are also other parts of the bible that define segregating male and female in any "offices" or works of humanity is in fact a sinful state. For example, we read in Genesis when God creates humanity male and female they are created utterly equal in all work. The hebrew is usually translated through patriarchal lenses and does not seem in English to declare so strikingly the equality of the male and female counterparts/co-laborer. The hebrew when describing the "helper" status of women actually speaks to male and female being like a left and a right hand embracing. They are co-helpers with all the same abilities. It is only after the fall that 'adam takes on a position of authority over the woman and names the woman. So, when we go back to the original hebrew understanding of the Genesis story, we see that the state of patriarchy is actually a state of sinfulness and is not the ordained nature of humanity, male and female. As such, in the humanity of Jesus we are called to restore and are restored to the pre-fall understanding of humanity, male and female, co-laborers in creation equal in all offices for the work of God.
The Roman Catholic church is not the only church addressing the exclusivity of the "priesthood." Many, if not all, fundamentalist groups are in alignment with the Roman Catholic church on this matter. So you are not alone. To be blind to a person having a penis or a vagina would in fact be ignorant but rather my point is that in ministry, in authority, in sacramentally, in full humanity there is no gender limitations. Jesus' Godly humanity destroys this notion for in Christ there is no male or female. Paul discovers this truth of Christ's humanity when he declares as much. There are also other parts of the bible that define segregating male and female in any "offices" or works of humanity is in fact a sinful state. For example, we read in Genesis when God creates humanity male and female they are created utterly equal in all work. The hebrew is usually translated through patriarchal lenses and does not seem in English to declare so strikingly the equality of the male and female counterparts/co-laborer. The hebrew when describing the "helper" status of women actually speaks to male and female being like a left and a right hand embracing. They are co-helpers with all the same abilities. It is only after the fall that 'adam takes on a position of authority over the woman and names the woman. So, when we go back to the original hebrew understanding of the Genesis story, we see that the state of patriarchy is actually a state of sinfulness and is not the ordained nature of humanity, male and female. As such, in the humanity of Jesus we are called to restore and are restored to the pre-fall understanding of humanity, male and female, co-laborers in creation equal in all offices for the work of God.
Michel Foucault. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
Wayne A. Meeks. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul.
Michel Foucault. The History of Sexuality Vol. 3: The Care of the Self.
Presbyterian Church (USA). Book of Common Worship.
