So many things in the world today are invisible. Invisible toxins can kill us. Invisible illnesses strike without warning. I pass invisible people every day -- the ones who are hard to look in the eye, because looking means realizing a mother of three can be homeless and hungry and realizing brings responsibility to do something about it, something beyond saying, "Be warm and filled." And by the way, God loves you. It's just easier not to see.
There's another kind of invisible -- invisible tradition. As an example, my friend recounts to me his travels to Japan, specifically Tokyo where he studied for a year. In general, he found the city and its people pleasant.
In Japan, there is no racism; it doesn't exist. Japan is not like the U.S. My friend heard this repeatedly from different friends he'd made at the university, all of whom were Japanese. Despite having observed others crossing to the other side of the road to avoid walking with him, despite having seen restaurants deny him entrance, claiming there were no tables even as later arriving Japanese customers were continually seated, despite all of this, racism does not exist in Japan.
His friend weren't just covering for the status quo. It's hard to cover something one doesn't see. Racism is impolite, it's loud and angry and an attitude more than an action -- at least as it's perceived in Tokyo. Everyone had politely declined to allow him full participation -- after all, he's not Japanese. But that's not racism -- it's just the way things are.... Right?
Wrong. The intent and attitude are, of course, elements, but the action is the essence. The invisible bias against the "outsider" is a polite form of racism so subtle and ingrained that it links seamlessly with life as lived.
My friend pointed out another invisible bias that I've never quite known how to vocalize. And even now, my doing so will not be effective. My friend points out the Western invisible bias of the masculine. It's likely that those words from a female will align her immediately with the far feminist left whereas a male who states it "may have an interesting point."
The invisible bias is pervasive. It does not occur to many men why many women do consider the ongoing question of women and the church to be an important question. "Why rock the boat?" But the question is bigger than women and the church; the underlying question is women and God.
It doesn't occur to some the lack of female "role models" in either testament. Most women are valued or commended for their roles in preserving the bloodline, the male legacy. Men walk and talk with God "as a man with his friend." Women have never seen the divine. Men are righteous for living according to the law of God, women for living according to the law of their husbands. But when this comes up, often well-meaning men will point to Jesus as the only example needed and claim that to look elsewhere is to lose the focus of the Christian walk.
Why then are men who exhort us to have the heart of David, the wisdom of Solomon and the drive of Paul not given similar lectures?
Jesus is the ultimate expression of divine love and his sacrifice is all-sufficient for our salvation, yes. But if a woman were to follow his example very far, she'd find herself at diametric odds with the church; she'd walk contrary to doctrine.
Often I've heard 1 Corinthians 11:7ff as an answer -- man is the reflection and image of God; woman is the reflection and image of man. How is this an answer? It only brings more questions. This verse has been quoted to me so often, I no longer (if I ever did) know what it means. The words are senseless to me. The same ones who quote it to explain away the "problem" of woman are the same ones who claim that woman is not inferior.
Woman seems always at least one more degree removed from God than is man. Man is the reflection of God; woman is the reflection of man. A copy of a copy makes a lousy copy. Man is created from nothing; woman is 'built' from man. Moses sees the face of God, Miriam is stricken with leprosy. After the rape of Dinah, Jacob is angry -- but not because of what has been done to his daughter. He's angry because his sons have avenged it and brought conflict on his house. And where was God? God is silent there as much as he is in Judges. God doesn't speak much in Judges. If God is King and there was no king in Israel, was God simply absent? Covering his face?
This is why I struggle. When I voice my questions, I'm "reassured" that God doesn't think women are inferior or secondary -- but I'm given no reason to believe it. When I voice questions challenging the status quo, I'm rebuffed as a radical or seen as a boat rocker. If I'm rocking the boat, it's only from grabbing at the side and trying to climb inside rather than continuing to drown.
I seriously considered deleting this entry. It's full of questions no one can answer and that many won't even see as valid questions. But today I got an e-mail from a friend asking many of the same ones, asking any advice or encouragement in dealing with them -- and I didn't have any. But she shared hers with me so I feel compelled to leave mine here. Maybe they're not valid questions, I don't know. But I do know I'm not the only one who struggles with them.
Questions, at least, shouldn't stay invisible.
11 comments:
this is a great post.
thanks for asking the questions and for writing it.
keep going with this. i think these thoughts will take you somewhere rich and full of hope.
richard tarnas in his book "the passion of the western mind" addresses exactly this thought in the epilogue. it's worth standing in the aisles at borders for a sneak peek. :)
blessings to you on your journey today
jen lemen
Q,
I am proud of you for being real and fearless. Thank you for all the times you've made me think about how I didn't even realize there WAS a status quo -- I appreciate you. And remember, the only dumb questions are the ones never asked.
Tough questions. Would we really be open to the answers? Would any answer really satisfy? I'm not sure. I see your point about women being a copy of a copy. I have always thought of it as more of a compliment to a compliment.
The question of God being one degree further from woman in scripture (and life) is one I have not contemplated. I wish the New Testament had a book of Mary or Martha, just as the Old Testament has Ruth and Esther. Would that give us more of a clue? Have you looked to the Apocrypha just for kicks to see the different role of women? The Greek version of Esther, and the book of Judith? Though we believe them to be more folklore than inspired, they are telling of the times. And isn't it interesting that God never speaks in the book of Esther. Must we be truly equal? Is God's love towards us any better or worse even if He did create us to be the weaker, or stronger sex? Many questions to ponder!
As usual Q, you have given me much to think about and inspired me to test the boundaries of my comfort zone! Thank you!
A very touching post. These are some of the questions we wrestled with in my Philosophy of Religion class last semester. A difficult issue indeed--and more difficult than I, as a man, will ever realize. I was struck this week while doing VBS at my small congregation. All 5 nights of our curriculum were centered around 5 different men of the Bible. The lessons were written from a man's perspective with things included that interested men. And guess who was in my adult class as I was teaching. ALL women. As I was preparing the lessons, I was struck with this imbalance. Yes, there were great men of faith, but what about the women. What about Sarah who suffered the pain of infertility until her very old age. What about Ruth who was faithful to everyone she met and, consequently, preserved the promise of God to bring a Messiah into the world. What about Mary Magdalene who was the VERY FIRST person to see the resurrected Christ. Mary also became the very first to preach about the resurrected Christ. Mary Magdalene--a woman, not Peter--a man, was the first to preach a Gospel sermon.
But, even in light of these heroines of the faith, the difficulties still arise. Why is God a "He?" Why does he repeatedly covenant with men, leaving the women to tag along. You ask some very real, very visible, very difficult and troubling questions that we men are too dumb, sexist and prideful to ask. Thank you for asking and struggling with scripture. And though I know it is gravely inadequate, I am sorry for millennia of sexism and abuse brought about by my gender. Though I cannot undue things, I can work to change things around me, beginning with the way I treat my wife, my one-day-possible daughters, and the women God puts in my path to minister to. You're so very right. We've got to stop pretending the issue is invisible and start shining light on the darkness we have so comfortably learned to live in.
Sorry for the long comment, but I’ve seen your comments on Mike Cope’s Blog! :-)
Is Jesus' position to the Father inferior/submissive? Is the Holy Spirit inferior/submissive to Jesus? It is obvious throughout scripture that all members of the trinity seek the glory of the other. My life for yours in principle.
Your position leans more to my life for me in principle.
Are you a trinitarian believer?
First, you assume I have a "position." All I've put here are questions -- of which I have more:
Do you understand the trinity? If not, your question is meaningless and unanswerable. If so, you're farther than any theologian in Christian history.
It's not submission I have a problem with. All believers are called to submit to God and to each other.
Secondly, you assume that my questions are for my sake. While they are, in part, concerns in my life, what concerns me most is the message being conveyed. If, as in your example, the church managed to function as your explanation of the trinity, there wouldn't be questions like this. If there were a clear picture one way or another, there wouldn't be questions like this.
All I've got to work with is what I know, what I've seen and what I've heard. And from that, I see that there is a problem -- and one that glossing over with talk of "self-less-ness" will never rectify.
I appreciate your comments and this reply falls far short of the answer they deserve -- one which perhaps I can better flesh out. I wish I knew who you are, but I appreciate the fact that you cared enough to comment, even if not enough to sign your name.
Dear Q (Gender-confused),
You (avoided) didn't answer my question on inferiority in the Trinity? I see inferior and submission are not mutually exclusive to you based on other posts. So is it?
Also, your 'glossing over with talk of "self-less-ness" will never rectify' comment doesn't make sense.
To sum up, in a time when many women are more qualified to take a wife than many men are, it is not suprising that gender confussion is rampant in the church.
It seems you've fallen away from discussion and decided to launch full-on into insult and attack mode -- and while I appreciated your earlier comments and your willingness to make them, this I do not appreciate. I hate to change comment settings to "registered users only." I prefer people say what they want, even if they have to hide to do so. But there's a difference between speaking and simply shooting.
RE: the "self-less-ness" remark, it is apparent that this is the only post which has caught your attention, otherwise you might have connected the comment with an earlier post in which it was used and explained more fully.
For women to become self-less in the way many churches would have them be, they are not being taught simply to put others before themselves or to seek to serve, but rather to subjugate all identity. God called to become members of the body of Christ and adopted children; he didn't call us to become an ameobic, amorphous mass.
As to the trinitarian question: I believe in God the father, the holy spirit and in Jesus Christ the son. Whether you call me trinitarian due to that or some other criteria matters little to me. I've found the phrase "trinity" the way we use it in the biblical text about as often as I've found the premillennial "rapture."
I wonder why you feel the need to comment anonymously on the blog of a woman you don't know. (At least I assume you don't know me; but you've the advantage in that you at least know what to call me and via this interface have some idea of who I am and what I think.) I wonder why you feel compelled to fling insults in what could have been a good conversation between differing convictions.
But then, most people who are convicted regarding something have also the tendency to stand behind it -- not to hide in anonymity, throwing stones. Perhaps you are the one who is "confussed" (sic).
I will, however, tell you what I do know about you:
Your IP address is in the 150.252.72 range and you're posting from ACU. I'm guessing you're a student and probably undergrad. I seriously doubt a professor would have the time or the interest to attack a tiny blog author ad hominem.
And rather than setting comments to registered only, I'll just report any harrassing behavior to your ISP administrator via the contact information given in the ARIN database.
You're welcome to continue to discuss, but not to troll.
Q,
Wow, I've missed some stuff. Just to let you know, I am from ACU, but that is not my IP address. But I'll keep my eye out for rude commenters on campus. And, good job on standing your ground. Be encouraged! You are asking the right questions.
Q,
I wish I had some great answers for you, but I don't.
What I do know is that regardless of your take on women's roles, there is no hierarchy among believers. Women are not secondary or inferior and definitely do not need an intermediary between then and God. And to say they do is to lessen Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
I've been reading through Hebrews and think you might like reading through it as well. Around chap. 7, the writer goes into how Christ is the perfect sacrifice and is now the perfect high priest interceding for us. We no longer need a priest sacrificing daily on our behalf because what Christ did he did perfectly and will stand for all eternity.
Notice that he does not say "Now this is only for men and you women are out of luck." No, our basis for fellowship with God is based solely on Christ, not on our gender. Therefore, women are not secondary and are not removed from God in any degree.
Does this make sense? It's getting a little late and I'm not thinking as clearly as I should be.
Let me know if I need to clarify anything.
Grace and Peace!
Sozo (sozo@reasonswhy.org)
www.reasonswhy.org
Post a Comment