There's been so much swirling around in my brain the last few weeks that I feel guilty about not getting around to writing about some it. A lot of it has been prompted by the role of women in the church.
It started back in September when I had a chance to spend half a day with Maggi Dawn over in Cambridge. One of the many things we talked about was sparked by a question she asked me about the feminization of the church – basically, has it alienated men?
My short answer was that the church has always been run mostly by women, they just haven't been able to hold the reins of leadership officially for most of church history, and even today there are only limited parts of the world where they are allowed (almost) equal power.
This is a huge issue, because the vast majority of the Emergent/Emerging Church (not a) movement is dealing with the issue for the first time, being comprised mostly of people emerging from a fundamentalist evangelical perspective where women can basically do anything they want, as long as it's limited to making the coffee after church.
It would be easy in the Episcopal Church to pat ourselves on the back and smugly declare how much further ahead we are, but the reality is still far from ideal. We elected a female Presiding Bishop. A bunch of people left the church – again. The Gene Robinson election of 2003 resulted in a bunch of people leaving the Episcopal Church but, if anything, it appears the fallout from Jefferts Schori's election is causing even more of an exodus, exposing the "traditionalists" for the sexists that they are. In addition to such overt discrimination, more subtle discrimination still exists against women clergy. Female clergy I know still experience animosity of various kinds and it remains difficult for women to become rectors of larger congregations. It's almost easier to be elected bishop than head up a large congregation. There's still a bias to marginalize women to the more "caring" roles, i.e. struggling congregations and administrative roles.
Even with those cautions, it's still a better situation than many denominations.
While pondering all of this, I began to wonder about why some people feel obliged to hang onto 2,000 year old ideas of women's place in society. Because the Bible says so? We've all been over this territory a thousand times, but my thinking boils down to this: The Bible is an artifact of the culture in which it was written. The one true timeless thing that the Bible shows us is that human nature hasn't changed much. People are greedy, lazy, envious, gluttonous, angry, prideful and lustful uniformly throughout history. The amazing thing about the Bible is that this is shown over and over to us in ways that we can relate directly to our own experiences today.
What is not timeless about the Bible are those things that are a product of Middle Eastern culture 2,000 plus years ago. Head coverings, stonings, animal sacrifices – not so relevant these days.
For a really interesting parallel with women's status, let us consider the disabled. Here in the USA in 2007 we have a little thing called the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. It basically mandates that people with disabilities be treated with honor and fairness and that reasonable effort be made to allow them to participate in normal life.
Now run the Scooby-Doo time machine and take yourself back 2,000 years…
The JDA (Jews with Disabilities Act) of 30 AD states that anyone with a disability is on their own. There's no requirement to give people a chance at a job, or any kind of support. What it does allow them is the opportunity to sit at the city gates and beg for money. Blind? Crippled? Get out there and beg your heart out.
But wait, there's more! Not only aren't they afforded any help, but it's all their own fault! Genius!
Blind? What did you do wrong to deserve that? Well, maybe your parents screwed up, but if they did, somebody has to pay and it might as well be you.
Now, this is all perfectly biblical. Jesus came by and healed a few cripples and blind people, but it's not like even he made it his life's work to fix everyone. The miracles were a way to demonstrate God's power and compassion, not part of some divine socialized health care plan. So what are we to make of this? Basically that treating the disabled appallingly was the societal norm.
Now turn the time dial back to today, and imagine how things would be if we insisted on a strictly "biblical" world view of how to treat disabled people. Sound like a good idea? I sure hope not (well, maybe only to Pat Robertson…). Yet that's exactly what most Christian denominations around the world want to do with women – limit them to a 30 AD Middle Eastern societal perspective.
I leave the extension of the argument to the gay community as an exercise for the reader…
