Email RSS Facebook

It’s All About Relationships

The church needs to hear more women's voices


One of my favourite newspaper cartoons was about a Nova Scotia judge who had been making sexist comments to female lawyers and clients based on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible. It featured a little cherub bonking the judge with his gavel on the noggin and whispering in his ear: “It’s God … she wants a word with you.”

Despite the fact that God is beyond the distinction of gender, a view of God as male has dominated all forms of Christianity. Slowly, however, that is being challenged by contemporary women theologians and the rediscovery of past female theologians.

Our cover story this issue focuses on 19th – century theologians. Their influence was considerable, despite the fact their names have been largely forgotten.

But this also raises the larger question of why women are still in the minority in church and religious academic leadership. In fact, despite their equality under the law, women are still under – represented in most spheres of our society.

Afghanistan has a higher percentage of female politicians than Canada, for heaven’s sake, and that’s in a country where the Taliban still wield tremendous power.

And while the Taliban are extreme, their fear regarding women is really what motivates most gender politics in most cultures. Because educated women who can control reproduction spell the end to patriarchy.

The church says women are equal to men in every way. Unfortunately, the record indicates there is still a long way to go.

Female elders are still outnumbered by males; some presbyteries barely have any women. Female ministers of child – bearing age say they are often asked questions about their intentions regarding pregnancy.

Not only is this unethical, it also violates human rights legislation, but complaints are nonexistent out of fear of being blackballed.

And the halls of the academy are still dominated by male theologians. In fact, so prejudiced are we, that we call the work of female theologians feminist theology. As if male authored theology should be seen as normative.

What we should perhaps do is refer to masculinist theology. It might be instructive.

Perhaps it is a product of environmental psychology, but I find women in general and women theologians (the few I am familiar with) are far more focused on relationship than men.

Certainly this makes sense from the perspective that they are the ones who bear children. Until recently and still only in the developed world, this was and is exceedingly dangerous. A visit to any gravesite shows how many women died in childbirth.

And, given that it was only the generation before me that had access to birth control, these facts meant women’s lives were almost entirely focused on their family, hence the concern with relationships.

As a final result, this also kept most women from becoming scholars, and so this perspective has been lacking in theological discussion.

Male theology has instead focused on definitions and rules, on laws and hierarchies. It has concentrated on the head, not the heart.

Not only has this produced unbalanced theology and fuelled the divisions in the faith over the most arcane differences, it is profoundly at odds with the story of God’s love for us humans (i.e. relationship) portrayed in scripture.

Love, after all, is not about rules, it’s about relationship. And, somewhat ironically, when it comes to what we can say most clearly about the nature of God from a Christian perspective, relationship is what God is all about.

All that God has revealed to us about God’s inner life is that it is about relationship: the doctrine of the Trinity is just that: Father, Son and their mutual Love we call Spirit.
In a time when anxieties about interpretation of scripture are regrettably but increasingly defined by a fundamentalism that disregards context and the overarching theme of scripture in favour of a narrow, tortured legalism, the church would do well to reassess what it’s purpose is: to reveal God’s love for all people.

Let’s have more women’s voices please.

About the author

avatar
David Harris is the publisher of the Presbyterian Record.

3 Comments

  1. avatar
    Katie Munnik says:

    Thank you.
    If Jesus, in the context of an intensely patriarchal society, could compare himself to a mother chicken, we mothers in the church should be brave enough to let ourselves be heard today.

    [Reply]

    avatar

    D. A. (Sandy) Beaton Reply:

    The editor bandies about the term “fundamentalist” as if he actually knew what he was talking about. In 1910 the Presbyterian Church (US) defined what were the fundamental i.e. the foundational beliefs, of a Presbyterian. The five fundamentals identified were the inspiration of the scripture; the virgin birth; the substitutionary nature of the atonement; the resurrection of Jesus and the miracles of our Lord. If you subscribed to these tenets you were a fundamentalist.

    Now, without reaching back to the ancient creeds of the Church let me quote one of our subordinate standards – Living Faith. 5.1 “The Bible has been given to us by the inspiration of God”. 3.2.1 God became man and dwelt among us…Conceived by the Holy Sprit, born of the Virgin Mary… 3.4.3 Jesus is Saviour…”atonement by a priest. It is also the innocent dying for the guilty, the ransom of a slave, payment of a debt… 3.5.1 “Jesus suffered, died and was buried, but God raised him from the dead.” 1.3 “The church upholds and defends the truth given to the apostles and recorded in the Scriptures. The Old and New Testaments witness to God’s mighty acts.”

    Thus, each of the five fundamentals identified 101 years ago continue to be a subscribed doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. If you subscribe to these teachings (doctrine, dogma) then you are a fundamentalist. Would the editor share with us why he is not a fundamentalist? With which of the fundamentals do you disagree?

    Second, the Holy Spirit is not the mutual love of Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is a person who, “together with the Father and Son is to be worshiped and glorified.”
    Third, love is not just about rules BUT it is about rules. The Ten Commandments were given as a response of God’s love to a slave nation. The mother’s rule for her children that they must come inside when the streetlights come on is a rule fashioned for children out of love. That we drive on our own side of the double yellow line is a rule for the love of neighbour. It is Jesus who said:”if you love me you will keep my commandments.” Commandments and love arise in both matriarchal and patriarchal societies.

    Love demands that you call if you are not going to be home on time. Love demands that you not cheat on your spouse. Love demands that you say sorry when you have hurt someone. Love, as the Israelites discovered meant “I am Holy and you must be Holy.” Isn’t it true that we set higher standards (another word for rules) for our family than for outsiders?

    [Reply]

    Reply
  2. avatar
    Mark Tremblay says:

    Weak & narrow understandings of concepts rarely help inform our conversations about important ideas. A survey of the world’s newspapers over the past 30 years should help him understand how fundamentalism is understood in the media and by most in the church. Given the language of hate and judgment that most fundamentalists espouse, it is hard to understand why any christian would want to wear that label.

    Moreover, the idea of a demanding God of love is an amusing contradiction. It is easy to forget and loose sight of those words about love written by Paul. Love is patient …Love is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way … love bears all things. Is Mr. Beaton writing about another kind of love and perhaps another kind of god?

    [Reply]

    Reply

Leave a Comment

--