Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Mike,
    
      What is "feminist theology"?
    
    Gil

    The reason I didn't post a general description of feminist theology
    here is that I am anything but an expert on the subject.  There are
    many books that discuss the subject--for example, "In Memory of Her" by
    Elisabeth Fiorenza.  The only book length treatment of the subject that
    I have read is "Standing Again at Sinai", by Judith Plaskow--and
    Plaskow writes from a Jewish, rather than Christian, perspective. 
    However, since Plaskow and Fiorenza seem to cite each other's works in
    their own writings, it is probably fair to consider that Jewish and
    Christian feminist theology have similar concerns and perspectives on
    many issues.

    I would say that feminist theology is a response to the sexism that has
    permeated much of Western theological thought.  By sexism, I mean both
    sexism in doctrine and sexism in practice.  The idea of God as male,
    for example, is a sexist doctrine that feminist theology would patently
    reject.  Sexist practices would include, for example, the male-only
    priesthood and hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church, or the idea
    (particularly common among fundamentalists) that wives must submit to
    their husbands.

    Feminist theology goes beyond those explicit sexist objections,
    however, by arguing that the male-only image of God has certain
    negative implications for religion and for society.  Feminist theology
    argues that the "masculine" characteristics of God include such values
    as hierarchy, authoritarianism, and militarism, which have served to
    justify oppression in our society.  Feminist images of God are
    typically that of someone who is with us rather than over us, who
    suffers with us when we suffer, and who persuades rather than controls.
     
    Matthew Fox, a leading proponent of creation spirituality (which shares
    many of the assumptions of feminist spirituality), argues in his book
    "A Spirituality Named Compassion" that there are two mutually exclusive
    spiritualities:  that of Jacob's Ladder, and that of Sarah's Circle. 
    Jacob's ladder is, in his view, competitive, hierarchical, and
    oppressive; Sarah's Circle, on the other hand, is cooperative, sharing,
    and egalitarian.  Judith Plaskow devotes a large section of her book to
    images of God as co-creator, lover, friend; feminist theologians reject
    the "Lord" metaphor for the divine.

    Feminist theologians may have several emphases of research into the
    historical traditions of their faith.  Some of it simply involves
    recapturing the neglected role of women in the origin of the Jewish
    faith or the Christian Church.  Sometimes it involves archaeological
    research into possible "pre-patriarchal" societies and religions.  In
    all cases, however, it works to overcome patriarchal values in Western
    religion.

    -- Mike

Article          403
Path: shodha.enet.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!rust.zso.dec.com!bacchus.pa.dec.com!decwrl!apple!lll-winken!looking!clarinews
From: [email protected] (DAVID E. ANDERSON)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.group.women
Subject: Priests urge bishops to scrap women's pastoral
Keywords: organized religion, religion, women, special interest
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 12 Sep 90 16:57:27 GMT
Lines: 62
Approved: [email protected]
Xref: shodha.enet.dec.com clari.news.religion:403 clari.news.group.women:279
ACategory: washington
Slugword: catholics
Priority: daily
Format: daily
ANPA: Wc: 618; Id: a0855; Sel: na--w; Adate: 9-12-1250ped
Codes: ynrodxx., ynjwdxx.
 
 
	WASHINGTON (YPI) -- A group of 241 Roman Catholic priests urged the
nation's bishops Wednesday to scrap their proposed pastoral statement on
women, saying it is ``guilty of misogyny.''
	``Do not continue this sad tale,'' the priests, organized by the
independent group, ``Priests for Equality,'' said in an open letter to
the U.S. hierarchy.
	``Abandoning the pastoral at this point would be unique, human and a
wonderfully Christ-like graced moment,'' the priests said.
	The role of women in the Catholic church has been one of the most
bitterly debated topics in the church for the last decade, touching on a
wide range of issues from birth control and abortion to the ordination
of women to the priesthood.
	The National Conference of Catholic Bishops -- the nation's more than
300 Catholic bishops -- has been struggling with a pastoral letter on the
role of women in society and the church since 1982, when Bishop Michael
McAuliffe of Jefferson City, Mo., first proposed such a formal
statement.
	It has been an arduous and controversial process since then and the
fate of the statement's current incarnation -- a 99-page document called
``One in Christ Jesus: A Pastoral Response to the Concerns of Women for
Church and Society'' -- is to be decided this week during a meeting of
the bishops' conference's administrative board.
	The 50-member board is meeting this week to set the agenda for the
November meeting of the NCCB and its social policy arm, the U.S.
Catholic Conference.
	In urging the bishops to scrap the proposed statement, the priests
said the letter is ``now at a point beyond which no amount of rewriting
or amending can recoup the damage done.''
	``The second draft is misogynous,'' said the Rev. Joseph Dearborn,
 national secretary of Priests for Equality, ``when ... it implies that
woman's sin is greater than man's and quotes Genesis 3:16 to reinforce
the point.''
	That passage, following the story of Eve's temptation by the serpent
in the Garden of Eden, has God telling her, ``I will greatly multiply
your pain in childbearing. ...''
	``Not only is this the only quote from the Old Testament in the
document but it is so abused by misogynists,'' Dearborn said, that it is
used to argue that pain in chilbirth is a more severe punishment than
man's punishment to labor with the soil and thus to argue that ``woman's
sin is greater than man's.
	``This use of scripture reflects no textual analysis, no reference to
the writing of contemporary scholarship, yet alone acknowledgment of
feminist scriptural critique,'' Dearborn said.
	Dearborn noted that the current draft of the statement has been
criticized by Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, Wis., that the
Leadership Conference of Religious Women has called for scrapping the
project and that two members of the committee charged with drafting the
document have resigned.
	The draft under consideration, released in April, was widely
criticized at the time of its release as less forceful in its support of
women's equality than an earlier version of the statement and strongly
reaffirms the church's tradition of an all-male priesthood.
	It also appeared to abandon a promise made in the first draft to 
``foster a dialogue'' with those who oppose the church ban on birth
control.
	But it does continue to label ``sexism'' a sin.
	In their letter to the bishops, the Priests for Equality said the
hierarchy should acknowledge that their pastoral letter itself is
permeated with sexism and such an admission ``of fact is the most
powerful and hopeful measure you can deliver to women given the
circumstances of the moment.''

    Last January, I posted in the Religion conference the following note,
    which summarizes the contents of an interesting pamphlet that is
    published by Pendle Hill, a Quaker study center:
    
    
    Yesterday I received in the mail a copy of a pamphlet that I had sent
    away for.  The pamphlet, published by the Pendle Hill (a Quaker study
    center which publishes essays in pamphlet form once every two months)
    is titled "Batter My Heart", and is written by Gracia Fay Ellwood. 
    This fascinating essay discusses the biblical images of God as a
    patriarchal marriage partner.  The author discusses the version of this
    image presented in the Christian scriptures, though she focuses on how
    the ancient prophets conceived of Yahweh as the husband in an
    authoritarian marriage with Israel as the bride, and compares this
    conception of a patriarchal "marriage" with what we know about
    violently abusive patriarchal marriages between men and women.  The
    implications of this analogy are disturbing, and the author suggests,
    among other things, that this traditional image should be altered.

    The author states in the introduction:

	The cause of equality, justice, and peace requires...a deep-level
	understanding of the bases of hierarchy, oppression and violence;
	and an important source of these evils in our culture is, unhappily,
	the Bible, the very source that has often inspired its readers to
	oppose them.  I do not refer only to its influence upon those
	Christians and Jews who consider it absolutely authoritative; the
	Bible has done much to shape Western culture as a whole, to influence
	commonly-held views as to the proper relationship between male and
	female, between ruler and ruled, between the Divine and human.  Its
	effect has been ambivalent, tending to put out the fires of violence
	and oppression by day while relighting them by night.

    In her essay, after briefly discussing some of the male images of Yahweh
    in the Bible, she then considers the specific example of the symbolism
    of marriage used by the prophet Hosea:

	In order to understand Hosea properly, one must know the outlines in
	Canaanite thought of a sexual relationship analogous to a Sacred
	Marriage.  According to the texts found at Ras Shamra (ancient
	Ugarit) since 1929, the union of Anath, a Goddess of high sexual
	energy, with Baal, the bringer of order and the rain-giver, was
	feted especially after Anath defeated Baal's enemy Mot (the power of
	drought and death which prevailed during the hot summer), and
	brought Baal back from the dead.

	The Ugaritic texts are dated many hundreds of years before the work
	of the prophets, and Anath is scarcely to be found in the Hebrew
	Bible.  The biblical Astoreth seems analogous to her.  In any case,
	it is very likely in reaction to such a sexual relationship between
	two Deities that Hosea and the prophets after him developed instead
	a Sacred Marriage between Yahweh and Israel.  Contrasting strongly
	with the union of Baal and Anath, who are both very powerful in
	their own right, the Covenantal marriage is unequal, decidedly
	patriarchal, with Yahweh being the husband and Israel the wife.  The
	prophets never reverse the image.

    The theme of Yahweh the abusive and authoritarian marriage partner
    recurs over and over again.  Worship of Baal or other deities is
    considered an act of adultery, to which Yahweh responds with some sort
    of violence, usually resulting in oppression of His people,  until a
    repentant Israel returns to Yahweh.  The author, in startling ways,
    compares this to the patterns of behavior in abusive marriages, as
    described by various researchers (Lenore Walker, Del Martin, Roger
    Langley and Richard Levy).  Specifically, the prophetic imagery of
    violent retaliation expressed for Yahweh by the prophets is often quite
    disturbing.  Ellwood describes how overkill, jealousy, possessiveness,
    rape, and child battering are all expressed by Yahweh--mirroring the
    traits often identified by these researchers to be characteristic of
    violent marriages.

    Ellwood then offers her theological criticisms to those images.  She
    explains that she is "not undercutting or rejecting all that the
    prophets have given us, but applying the prophetic critique to the
    prophets themselves."  She suggests that the possessive images of
    "adultery" and "fidelity" are themselves theologically suspect.  She
    further argues that the prophets' denunciations of social oppression
    contradict the oppressive images of Yahweh that they advocated.  She
    points out that this image of divine justice was inappropriate, because
    of "the failure of the unfaithfulness metaphor to meet the complexity of
    the religious and political situation":

	Israel was not one woman, who either "did" or "didn't", but many
	persons, some of whom engaged in Canaanite worship while others did
	not; some of whom exploited the poor, while others did not (or were
	the exploited).  The violence of Assyria and Babylon, though
	striking with particular venom at the powerful, also destroyed many
	defenseless and innocent.  The metaphor is a theodicy, an attempt to
	justify God in the face of this great horror:  how could our
	righteous God, who promised to cherish us and preserve our royal
	line, do such a thing?...

	Nonetheless, the poor fit of these and similar images was suspected
	early.  For the "wrath of Yahweh" to retaliate with murderous
	violence against guilty and innocent alike was no improvement at all
	on the original situation of class exploitation and violence.

    Finally, she argues that this image of God as the patriarchal husband
    "is unacceptable because it encourages tendencies to violence and
    domination in human husbands/fathers."

    Her essay continues with other images of God, including the image of
    female Wisdom and certain patriarchal aspects of the New Testament view
    of the Church as the bride of Christ.  She then discusses, with
    admiration, the one book of the Bible that celebrates an egalitarian
    marriage, the Song of Songs.  Arthur Waskow, I might add, has also
    praised this work for similar reasons in his own writings.
    
    Ellwood discusses the need to reimage God:

	Can we continue to use male images for God in the old manner without
	implicitly supporting patriarchy?  Can we use any hierarchical
	images for God (either male or female), or any images of submission
	for humanity, without in some way fostering oppression?

	I see no way that we can do so and remain loyal to our
	testimonies...

	Images of inflexible hierarchy are equally unacceptable, whether
	they be "Queen" or "Lady", or genderless terms such as "Sovereign"
	or "Ruler;" further, references to ourselves as "servants" of God,
	or the life of the Spirit as "Holy Obedience" are likewise
	unhealthy.  Gender-free images of temporary hierarchy, such as
	derive from teacher-student or guide-follower relationships, are
	less questionable, if also less powerful.  The same could be said of
	God as "Parent."

    This is only a brief summary of Ellwood's essay.  It is a fascinating
    work, and well worth the $2.50 I spent to purchase it.

    -- Mike

    Gee, I wonder how God feels about being portrayed as a rapist, wife
    beater, child molester, etc...
    
    Gil

    Who knows how God feels about patriarchal theology.  Perhaps God is
    less concerned about our images of Her than She is by how we apply
    those images in our social relations to our fellow humans.  In any
    case, feminist theology would argue that certain negative portrayals
    (including, Ellwood argues, that of rapist, wife beater, and child
    molester) should be changed, for the benefit of both religion and
    society.

    -- Mike

    How does feminist theology deal with Jesus' many references to God
    as 'Father'?  I don't recall any scriptural references to God as
    'Mother'.
    
    Sue

    Sue,
    
    As I understand it from Aramaic scholars Rocco Errico and Neil
    Douglas-Klotz, the Aramaic name Jesus used for God, Alaha, is best 
    translated as "Essence", "Substance"...of all things;  it also can 
    mean the "divine parent", which is also the essence of all things, 
    (and parents come in *both* sexes).  The Greek and English language 
    do not have an equivalent to the word Jesus used for God.
    
    Karen

    re:  .2 -- Jacob's Ladder vs Sarah's Circle
    
    The two are mutually exclusive only when we think in a limited
    perspective.  Mathematicians will tell you that a LINE (perhaps
    analogous to Jacob's Ladder) in its infinite aspect is a CIRCLE that
    passes through the POINT at INFINITY.  Similarly, a CIRCLE of infinite
    radius becomes a LINE that encompasses all.  
    
    Jung claims that each of us has aspects of masculine and feminine.  One
    can read Genesis in a similar way -- "In His own Image He created them;
    Male and Female created He them."  (From memory)  
    
    DR

Re:  Arabic name of God used by Jesus

The only Arabic name we can see for sure that Jesus used for God would
(in my opinion) seem to be "Abba" which, translated into English, means
"Daddy".

Ya, I know, that doesn't fit into the theology too well.  :-)

Collis

    Would I could be so secure in such an intimate relationship!  
    
    DR

    Collis .10,
    
    Jesus didn't speak Arabic.  He spoke Aramaic.  Arabic is a derivative
    of Aramaic.  I think the word you may be thinking of is AWOON or ABWOON
    which is translated as you say, "Daddy" or "Pappa".  
    
    Acording to Rocco Errico, Jesus used this word to try to teach his
    disciples that God is benevolent and kind and approachable, because
    before Jesus' teaching, God was depicted as some mysterious, awesome,
    and fearsome deity who lived far from Creation.  God was so far removed
    that even his name was considered to be too holy to speak.  Jesus
    taught that God is not someone to be feared, rather God is someone
    with whom *anyone* can commune - directly, without shame or hesitancy.
    
    Karen 

    >>God was so far removed
>>    that even his name was considered to be too holy to speak.  

Not quite.  If one studies the Old Testament (OT) it is quite clear that the 
Jews had no such perceptions.  Consider the Ark of the Covenant - God lived 
there, the Holy of Holies (in the Temple), The pillar of fire/smoke.  And so 
forth.  God was always among His children, right in the midst of them.  Which 
should come as no surprise, because orthodox Christianity accepts that Jesus 
Christ is God in the flesh; again, living right amongt His Children.

>>	Jesus
>>    taught that God is not someone to be feared, rather God is someone
>>    with whom *anyone* can commune - directly, without shame or hesitancy.

	God was NEVER to be feared (read the Psalms, etc. to see how much 
God's LOVE was evident in the OT), but always understood to be completely, 
absolutely, and perfectly HOLY (which is STILL the case) and as such, 
unapproachable by us because of our LACK of perfect holiness.  And this wasn't 
because God was snobbish, but rather because we, as imperfect beings, could 
not begin to approach perfection and expect to survive the encounter.


	Through the action of the Cross, the life, death and resurrection of 
Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, God among us, He made it possible for us to 
appraoch God directly.  That's whole message of redemption; God reenabling man 
to be in His presence.  

	So, God was never far far away, but always right in the midst, but 
thru Jesus, made that an even more intimate contact.

Greg...
    

    If anyone is interested in ordering the pamphlet by Gracia Fay Ellwood,
    they can write to
    
    	Pendle Hill Publications
    	338 Plus Mill Road
    	Wallingford, PA 19086
    
    The pamphlet is number 282, and costs $3.00
    
    -- Mike

Oops!  Sorry.  Yes, of course, Jesus spoke Aramaic.  Never mind.

Collis

Re:  .13

Got to disagree with you, Greg.  God is very much to be feared.

Psalm 111:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom."

God is both all-powerful and all loving.  His just wrath is to be feared
as much as his warmth and self-sacrificial love is to enjoyed.

Collis

Right, we agree Collis.  perhaps I didn't state my reply well.  "Fear" doesn't 
always mean "to be afraid" though clearly one does not come face top face with 
the sovereign of the Universe calmly, I wouldn't think.

But as you noted, He is pure love AND pure Holiness, and where that may seem a 
contradiction to us mere mortals, it is resolved through the cross.

Basically, the point I was making is that God was NEVER far away off in His 
heaven meting out judgements willy nilly.  Rather, He was actively involved in 
the lives of His people, living amongst them.  And still is.

See? (of course you do! :-) )

Greg...

    Thanks for your thoughts Greg.  What you've written contradicts some
    of the sources I've read regarding the religious culture 2000 years ago,
    and that's okay.  
    
    Returning now to the basenote topic.
    
    Karen

    I'm sorry to say that I haven't yet had a chance to read more than a
    few small portions of Anne E. Carr's book "Transforming Grace".  I have
    glanced through it, though, and she has some interesting comments to
    make on feminism and Christology.

    While other metaphors and models of traditional Christianity may have
    been used to justify oppression of women or minorities, the "father" and
    "son" relationship designated for Jesus and God is particularly
    "problematic" for feminists who wish to renew and reform Christianity. 
    Carr does not infer from this, though, that Christianity is hopelessly
    and inherently patriarchal (as some feminists do).  As a Christian
    theologian, she confronts this issue head on.

    The problem with the traditional "father-son" interpretation of Jesus'
    relationship with God is that "it appears as a clear reflection of
    patriarchal culture in which men rule over wives, daughters, sisters,
    and the earth, of gender roles that are not equal but hierarchically
    values."   Furthermore, she points out, "it epitomizes a long Christian
    history in which the correlate reference of son to God as father in
    heaven has legitimated the rule of fathers or men and primacy of sons
    over daughters on earth.  The unconscious power of this gender dualism,
    reproduced in patriarchal society and taken for granted as 'natural',
    bears a mighty weight, despite feminist criticism."

    So how are we to interpret the "abba" tradition?  One possible
    interpretation, which she briefly cites, comes from the work of biblical
    scholar Robert Hamerton-Kelly, who argues that "abba" "connotes an
    intimacy and trust more commonly associated with motherhood and in
    connection with the Lord's Prayer, with God's sovereignty, compassion,
    liberation, reconciliation, faithfulness, and forgiveness".  Citing
    Matthew 23:9 ("call no man your father in earth, for you have one
    father, who is in heaven"), the relationship with the father God becomes
    different from the patriarchal nature of human family relationships.
    The Gospel of John characterizes Jesus' status as son by "his equality
    with and dependence on the father, and the 'glory' of his unity with the
    father in the cross and resurrection", which is "the same unity in which
    Christians share in loving one another in a single family"  Thus,
    Hamerton-Kelly argues, "Jesus' sonship undermines patriarchal patterns
    in its offer of a spiritual relation to God that transcends these
    forms."

    Even if that analysis is accurate, however, Carr points out that this
    has typically not been a common interpretation in Christianity, which
    has been so dominated by the father-son imagery.  "In the name of the
    son and his father in heaven, wives have been subject to husbands and
    fathers, told to be silent, blamed for sin, denied the fullness of the
    image of God, and burned for witchcraft, even as they were told they
    share a glorious equality through baptism in the community of faith."
    Pointing out the sexist implications of this, along with other male-only
    language in Christian liturgy, she then asks the question:  "Is the son
    and father symbolism irretrievable?"

    The answer, she believes, is no.  For one thing, she points out that the
    patriarchal image of God is inconsistent with Jesus' proclamation of
    God's Kingdom/Queendom for "the poor, the oppressed and excluded."  Her
    conclusion is as follows:

	Christologically, transformation of the masculinist connotations of
	sonship only occurs when the symbol is set in the narrative context
	of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, only when it is read in
	conjunction with other symbols, of servant and sacrifice, for
	example.  Taken together, these might set a Christological pattern
	for today.  Confronted with the question raised by Christian women,
	the narrative pattern of the earliest witness about Jesus, about
	God, and about human persons precisely denies all hierarchical
	significance in its universal inclusion of all in intimacy with God
	and equal unity with one another.  All notions of male supremacy
	associated with the sonship of Jesus must be explicitly rejected,
	corrected at every point by the use of many other images (including
	female and natural images) and by feminist criticism in theology,
	preaching, and church practices....  
	
    -- Mike

    
    
    	I have a small nit to pick with this Aramaic stuff.  Jews during
    Christ's were fluent in 3 languages; Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
    The spoke all three.  To say that Jesus spoke only in the Aramaic
    tongue is stretching it.  Depending upon where a person was
    (geographically) determined for the most part what language they
    spoke most often.  As I said, most Jews were fluent in all 3 tongues,
    Aramic being one, but not necessarily the main one.
    
    							bill..g.
    

re Note 11.18 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

>     Thanks for your thoughts Greg.  What you've written contradicts some
>     of the sources I've read regarding the religious culture 2000 years ago,
>     and that's okay.  
  
        But Karen, that is part of what makes the Scriptures so
        special!  They were written by people whose eyes were opened
        to seeing God as intimately involved with life, and not just
        a far-off monarch.  That was, and continues to be, an
        uncommon ability.

        This also helps answer the question posed in Note 11.5 by
        Bernier:

>     Gee, I wonder how God feels about being portrayed as a rapist, wife
>     beater, child molester, etc...

        I didn't read Ellwood as portraying God to be a rapist, wife
        beater, child molester, etc.  Rather, I believe that she is
        claiming that the cited portions of Scripture portray such a
        God.

        I think that she is wrong in that, but even if she is right
        (that certain scriptures portray God as a rapist, wife
        beater, child molester, etc.), I am not sure that God takes
        (or took) offense.

        The reason I think this is because of my view that Scripture
        is the writing of people whose eyes were opened to the
        presence and working of God in their world.  This is in
        distinction to a more traditional view that Scriptures are
        God's dictation, and hence self-description.

        If you take (as I do) the view that the narrative and
        historic portions of Scripture is an inspired human view of
        God's action in the world, then that view is remarkable, and
        uniquely valuable, even if colored by interpretations
        stemming from the author's personality and culture.

        I don't think that God would be offended by an author who
        portrays God in some ways that would seem unsavory today but
        which, in the author's culture, were generally accepted
        practice.  I think that it is our responsibility, when
        studying Scripture, not just to accept the human author's
        viewpoint at face value, but to understand what the divine
        actions underlying it were, and then to re-express those
        underlying divine actions in the words that we would use to
        describe them today.

        Bob

    bill .20,
    
    Your nit with "this Aramaic stuff" was discussed somewhat at length
    in the now archived version of Christian.  According to the Aramaic
    Biblical scholars I have studied the statement that 
    
    > Jews during Christ's were fluent in 3 languages; Hebrew, Aramaic
    > and Greek.
    
    is a bit over-generalized.  Suffice to say, I have not seen any evidence
    to the contrary that suggests Jesus' native tongue was not Aramaic. 
    Again, this was discussed just recently in depth and please forgive me
    if I do not seem eager to pick up the discussion again.
    
    Bob .21,
    
    I *by no means* am implying that Scripture is not special.
    
    Karen  

re Note 11.22 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

>     Bob .21,
>     
>     I *by no means* am implying that Scripture is not special.
   
        Karen,

        That wasn't my point, but rather that what makes it special
        is, in part, that the Scriptural authors had points-of-view
        that were decidedly unusual for their (and our) day. 
        Unfortunately, this makes it a little difficult to understand
        "where the authors are coming from" by simply studying their
        contemporary culture, because they were probably quite
        atypical in at least some ways.

        The guidance of the Holy Spirit is indeed needed as we try to
        gain a better understanding of the texts.

        Bob

Re:  .19

Thanks for putting this in, Mike.

I've just read .19 (haven't seen the other replies), but wanted to put
down my thoughts while they were still fresh.

Anne Carr supports the work of Robert Hamerton-Kelly "who argues that 'abba'
'connetes an intimacy and trust more commonly associated with motherhood...'".
Therefore, the conclusion is to look to God less as a Father and more as
a mother.

This is backwards!  Let's *not* define God by how our society views things.
Let God define Himself and then change society's perception of God based
on this definition.  If God represents himself as a "loving father" who
has the qualities of "intimacy and trust", then let's represent him that
way instead of redefining him so that we can throw off some of the biases
that we have.  Because there is much more potential for misunderstanding
God by redefining him than by changing out opinions so that they correspond
to his original revelation of himself.

Regarding the patriachal image of God

Again, she wants to redefine God because of society, instead of changing
society to *truly* conform to God and what he says and is.  The patriarchal
system that the Bible establishes (e.g. Ephesians 5) is a submission of
one to the other, a sacrificial love of the husband for the wife and the
submission of the wife to the husband.  Just as it is clear that the misuse
of this system reaps problems many times over, it is clear that the proper
use of this system (as outlined in the Bible) produces peace, love and
a supportive environment for all.  Let's not throw out the system because
it is misused and misunderstood.  Let's stick to the God-given model
and conform *ourselves* so that we produce the fruits that God intended.

As an example of how the system can and does work, I look at my own
marriage with my wife.  In the nearly five years we have been married,
there is not one important decision that has been made that has been a
source of conflict when it was made.  In other words, we agreed on the
decision (even if it wasn't necessarily what each partner wanted).  This
*is* the patriarchal system defined in Eph 5.  Our submission to each other,
my love (and therefore respect) for my wife and her submission to me (which
she finds quite natural) lead us to work well together.  I am convinced that
the system itself will (and does) work.  The problem (as with any system
that humans use) is people who sin.

There is no perfect system that will solve the problem of sin.  Let's
stick to the model God has given to us (in the Bible) instead of transforming
the Bible to conform to society.

Collis

    Gotcha Bob (.23).  I understand more clearly now what you 
    were saying.  Thanks for your patience.
    
    Kb.:-)

    Collis, I really can't speak for Christian feminists, since I am not a
    Christian (and probably not really much of a feminist, for that
    matter).  I am in no position to say how they view God and the Bible,
    other than that I doubt that they share your assumptions about the
    Bible; as a result, the fact that there would be different conclusions
    naturally follows.  In fact, much of feminist theology is a *response*
    to conservative and fundamentalist theology. 

    I can only speak from my own point of view, as one who has found much
    value in feminist spirituality as I have developed my own spirituality. 
    Since I am not a Christian, I quite obviously also don't work from the
    assumption that God authored the Bible.  I therefore am not necessarily
    compelled to defend anything contained within the Bible, and as a
    result I find much of the feminist analysis of the Bible and Christian
    theology to be quite interesting and worthy of my own investigation. 
    In particular, given the feminist critique of patriarchal doctrines
    often found within Christian dogma, Carr is nevertheless an example of
    a theologian who can still find value in the Christian religious
    tradition, despite its historical rough edges.  In thus rejecting an
    all-or-nothing dogmatism, Carr and others present ideas that I find
    useful in my own spiritual explorations.

    I particularly like Carr's comment that patriarchal theology is
    incompatible with Jesus' identification with the poor and the
    oppressed.  In this way, as Gracia Fay Ellwood pointed out, we can
    apply the prophetic method ourselves in critiquing patriarchal
    theology. 

    -- Mike

    In what ways can the Sophia tradition serve as a foundation for
    feminist theology?  How does the Sophia tradition relate to
    Christology?

    The July/August 1990 issue of Creation magazine has an interesting
    article called "Christ Sophia".   The author, Robert Lentz, discusses
    the Sophia tradition in the eastern Orthodox tradition as it related to
    images of Christ.  He points out that Russian icons often depicted
    Sophia/Christ as an androgynous figure.  In that spirit, the author
    painted his own icon of Christ Sophia, a picture that clearly
    represents his subject as a woman.  A representation of just such an
    icon appears with the article.  Lentz comments:

        Christ Sophia is a very dangerous memory for Christian people, one
        which many--perhaps leaders especially--will continue to try to
        bury.  She accuses us of our many sins against women, gays, and the
        earth itself.  She demolishes our theological excuses against the
        ordination of women.  But she brings us a blessed freedom that
        comes with every expression of the truth.  She is an earthy,
        playful expression of our God.  By welcoming her back into the
        heart of our faith we can regain a catholicity--a wholeness--we
        have lacked so long.

    There have been some books that I am familiar with, but have not read,
    that discuss Sophia theology.  "Wisdom's Feast" is one such book.  In
    _Reclaiming a Resource_, the recent Quaker anthology of articles on the
    Bible, there is an article titled "Who is Sophia?  And Why is She
    Important?", by Cyntia Taylor, which also explores this issue.

    -- Mike

re Note 11.27 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     He points out that Russian icons often depicted
>     Sophia/Christ as an androgynous figure.  In that spirit, the author
>     painted his own icon of Christ Sophia, a picture that clearly
>     represents his subject as a woman.  

        I like it, and yet I am uneasy.  As God, Christ definitely
        possesses all qualities of which human beings, both male and
        female, are images.  As fully human, Christ definitely
        possesses all qualities of human beings, since Christ is like
        us in all ways but sin -- and I am certain that that
        identification is meant to include all women as well as all
        men.

        Nevertheless, the incarnate Christ, as fully human, did
        posses a human body, and human bodies almost always are
        either definitely female or definitely male.  I am a bit
        concerned that a depiction of Jesus as androgynous, or
        female, has an implication about the meaning and importance
        of the historic presence and reality of Christ among us.

        On the other hand, when an artist paints the Christ, is the
        artist's intention to paint the physical body, or the greater
        reality that cannot be conveyed merely by a picture of a
        human body?  If so, an androgynous body may be more
        appropriate, because it conveys the bigger picture better,
        even if it is somewhat less faithful as a depiction of a
        "mere" physical aspect of Christ.

        Bob

    The Book of Wisdom explicitly refers to a feminine deity.  It and Karl
    Jung's ANSWER TO JOB are wonderful resources for this discussion.
    
    DR

    Hi DR,
    
    > The Book of Wisdom explicitly refers to a feminine deity.
    
    Could you tell us more?  Any brief excerpts you might have handy?
    Thanks also for the pointer to Jung's _Answer to Job_.
    
    Karen

    The first nine chapters of Proverbs and chapters six through 11 of
    Wisdom discuss the concept of a female Sophia.  I like Cynthia Taylor's
    comment in her article on Sophia in my book from the Friends Bible
    Conference:  "In the long run, Sophia cannot replace Yahweh.  Neither
    can she be separated from Yahweh.   The male and female energies need
    each other to complete the vision, interdependent in every way.  Sophia 
    could--but she will not stand alone, a separate goddess of nature or
    culture."

    -- Mike

    I learned what is secret and what is manifest,
    for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.

    There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy,
    unique, manifold, subtle,
    mobile, clear, unpolluted,
    distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen,
    irresistible, beneficent, humane,
    steadfast, sure, free from anxiety,
    all-powerful, overseeing all,
    and penetrating through all spirits
    that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle.
    For wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
    because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.
    For she is a breath of the power of God,
    and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
    therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
    For she is a reflection of eternal light,
    a spotless mirror of the working of God,
    and an image of his goodness.
    Although she is but one, she can do all things,
    and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
    in every generation she passes into holy souls
    and makes them friends of God and prophets;
    for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.
    She is more beautiful than the sun,
    and excels every constellation of the stars.
    Compared with the light she is found to be superior,
    for it is succeeded by the night,
    but against wisdom evil does not prevail.

    Wisdom 7:21-7:30
    New Revised Standard Bible

    Beautiful, Mike (-1)
    
    Thank you *very* much.  These words are like a gentle
    balm my spirit is soaking up.
    
    Aaaahh.
    
    Karen

    
    
    RE: .32
    
    I really like that!
    
    Carole

    Re: .24
    
    I think you've brought up a key point, Collis. 
    
    I get unsettled at the thought of changing the Bible to remove gender
    or to modify a patriarchal influence. For those of us who believe 
    the Bible is the inspired word of God, it seems that our task would be
    to understand and put into practice it's wisdom and decrees in the area
    not only male-female relationships, but also those between ourselves
    and our neighbors and between us an God.
    
    One of the outstanding messages in Jesus' teachings is that of
    servanthood, submission, and peace between all people. Jesus was 
    obedient to God even to death on a cross. His mother, Mary, declared
    herself to be the 'handmaiden of the Lord' and in her submission
    allowed Jesus to be born to be our Savior. 
    
    Self-sacrifice according to God's will is a major theme of both old
    and new testaments. As God's creation it is His Will that this be
    the manner of behavior that is pleasing to Him. I, personally, think
    it is helpful to remember that we were not created for this world,
    but for the next.
    
    The Gospel message is ment for both men and women and if we put it
    into practice (hard as it is to do so) I don't think we'll end up
    minding if God is called 'Father'.
    
    						Peace,
    						   Mary
    

    Mary,
    	I am not all that convinced that God has a gender, at least as we
    would know it. The God of the Old Testement certainly exibits
    stereo-typical male responses but the God of either book must be quite
    capable of representing itself to us in any form or gender it desires.
    As a female baby or a Gilgamesh-hero, or as Christine Jorganson, or
    even a talking poodle. I think most people would be unsettled by any
    but perhaps the second of those options, so maybe God WANTS you to be
    unsettled. As for the gender-specific references in the Bible, some of
    them are "correct", while others are otherwise - gratuitous, spurious,
    self-serving, irrelevent, convenient all come to mind - and lend
    themselves to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. A lot of
    women-bashing has been justified by Biblical quotes which perhaps
    should have been gender-neutral except that the writer (I did not say
    the author) came from a patriarcal society which valued its farm
    animals more than its women (check Job's list and its order). Remember
    also that some languages do not allow for gender-neutrality and that
    anything written in that language MUST be sexist. English is one that
    allows but discourages such. When speaking of a hypothetical person,
    don't most people refer to "him"?
    	It may be unsettling to change some of the words in the Bible,
    particularly if you are one of those who believes in the inerrancy of
    the text. Yet the words are changing all the time! At least the English
    translation is. It's the meaning which doesn't, or shouldn't, shift.
    And if the new English words fit the old Aramaic words better, they can
    never fit them exactly, then should they not be adjusted? (or Greek, or
    whatever language a particular sermon or epistle was recorded in)

Re:  .36

I believe you make some excellent points, Dave.

If I did not believe that it was God himself who breathed out the Scripture,
I might believe as you do.  In fact, there is some argument for saying that
God (the Father) represented Himself as the Father primarily because of
the patriarchal society He was represeting Himself to.

However, I also believe that God himself instituted a patriarchal society
(at least in terms of the family) which certainly does *not* justify the
abuses (which, unfortunately, are many).  So, even given this, I still
think it is best to think of God as a Father and adjust our concepts of
what a Father is according to what the Bible teaches God is (rather than
changing God from Father to neuter or Mother because we believe that a
father does not have the appropriate attributes that God gives Himself).

Collis

    I believe that ascribing a sex to God is limiting and unscriptural. 
    Note that the Book of Wisdom has Wisdom, a feminine deity, on a par
    with God the Father.  In addition, how could God create man in "His"
    own image - male and female - without being not merely both but perhaps
    somehow beyond sexuality?  
    
    One could go on about the polarities that exist within God.  Surely God
    is Love, for example, but how then does he get off "hating" the
    Nicolations in Revelation?  In Job, God conspires with Satan (who, by
    the way, is hanging around in God's court of all things!) to break many
    of God's own laws.�The Psalms have darkness and light the same within
    God.
    
    The point is not to temporize and say, well actually God didn't HATE
    the Nicolations �or whatever other polarity one wants to examine. 
    Rather to point out that a single-polar view of God is both incomplete
    and unscriptural.
    
    DR

God "conspires" with Satan???

Perhaps you meant to use a less, shall we say, controversial word?

Collis

Re:  38

I do agree with you that God (the Father) *is* sexless.  He is a Spirit
and always will be a Spirit.

I also agree with you (in a sense) that calling God (the Father) "Father"
can be limiting.  Because of our conditioning, "Father" means some things 
that "Mother" does not mean and vice versa.

Given that, God Himself tells us that we should call Him "Father".  This
is what I see as the most important.  He describes Himself primarily as
a Father and wants us to think and respond to him as children to a father.

Collis

    Satan is only mentioned three times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old
    Testament).  The "Satan" of Job was not presented as someone evil so
    much as a member of Yahweh's court, a sort of official accuser.  I
    believe that "conspired" is an appropriate term for what happened in
    the story of Job.  The concept of Satan presumably developed after the
    Jewish exposure to Persian dualism, the result of which was the purely
    evil force that we saw in the New Testament.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .41

Evidently, you mean Satan is mentioned in three books (I Chronicles, Job
and Zechariah).

The reference in I Chronicles 21:1 says, "Satan rose up against Israel
and incited David to take a census of Israel."

Satan is *never* presented in the Bible as being on the side of God.
He is explicitly presented in the Old Testament as *not* being on the
side of God.  Therefore, to say that Satan conspired with God is a
distortion of the facts.

Do you want me to look of the definition of conspire and see if it fits?
Please, Mike.  This really is a distortion of the facts.

Collis

    Of course it is a distortion of the facts.  After all, it doesn't
    conform to your own dogma.
    
    -- Mike

Agreed, it does not conform to what I think (which you call dogma).

However, it also does not conform to the facts I have presented.  Perhaps
you could enter your interpretation of these facts?  And how they support
your conclusion?  It's up to you.

Collis

    I intended to use the word conspired, because God made a deal with
    Satan.  I'll get the quotes when I get home.  

    Let's not, however, get all tangled up with Satan as represented in
    Job, when we're talking about feminist theology.  The thrust of my note
    is that God embodies opposites such as male and female, light and dark,
    love and hate.  You can get to the ultimate reality by focusing on
    only one pole, such as God as Father, but that's only because the
    polarity is only apparent (or in this case, a parent).   Look closely
    into Fatherhood and you'll find aspects of mothering.  Conversely ....
    For me it is more direct to recognize that God the creator of ALL must
    surely embody ALL, for what created thing could be beyond God, and if
    it wasn't created, what kind of life or substance can it have?
    
    By the way, these ideas come almost wholly from Karl Jung's
    _Answer_to_Job_, previously recommended.
    
    DR

    DR,
    	let me get in the middle here for a minute (then I'll duck). You
    are right in how you describe the situation in the story of Job, but
    Collis is certainly as right in objecting to your terminology. Satan
    and God acted in concert there, but not with the same goal in mind. God
    was acting to prove Job's unswerving and undeserved faithfulness while
    Satan was acting to prove that nobody could be that stupid as to
    continue to worship the cause of their destruction. God, of course, was
    right; there are people stupid enough to worship the cause of their
    dispair. Seems to be a built in response: hostages fall in love with
    their captors, addicts with their drugs - just goes to show that God
    stacks the deck.
    	Hey, Collis, are you glad that I agreed with you or what.;'>

    
    Jung also decided that God set up Adam and Eve.  He created them and
    understood their basic nature.  And he created the serpent to tempt
    them.  Joseph Campbell says that this allowed them to make a choice
    in which they became the initiator of their own lives.
    
    It just hit me that perhaps the choice to follow Christ is the mature
    decision made by the adult to submit to a greater plan - God.  Sort
    of brings things full circle....
    
    guy

    
    	Perhaps underneath it all,
    	Satan has been assigned a "Divine Mission" by God:
    
    	That of awakening us *to God*
    	through thoughts and actions that produce suffering.
    
    	After all, suffering has been a very potent motivator
    	of human beings throughout time.   
    
    	Karen

    Re.48
    
        Reminds me of something I read by a Zen teacher:
    
     "Do not hate the devil. Even he has his place in the universal
      scheme of things."
    
                                                       Mike

    re:  .48 Another Zen saying --
    
    "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him."
    
    Re:  comment on conspiracy and intent, a few notes back --
    
    Well and good, but in a court of human law, intent doesn't count. 
    Also, what about Job's whole family, who I think were killed.  Seems
    like a bit much to prove _somebody_else's_ virtue.  Start studying Job
    and you get an idea of what the ancients meant about the fear of God.
    
    DR

Re:  .45

  >The thrust of my note is that God embodies opposites such as... light
  >and dark.

The thrust of I John 1 is the opposite:

  "This is the message we have heard from him [Jesus] and declare to you:
   God is light; in him there is *no* darkness at all.  If we claim to
   have fellowship with him yet wlak in the darkness, we lie and do not
   live in the truth.  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
   we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son,
   purifies us from all sin."  [my emphasis]

I agree that there are "feminine" qualities to God the Father as well as
mothering qualities.  These sure certainly be recognized and appreciated.
However, it does not (in my opinion) justify calling God a She just as
*my* "feminine" and mothering qualities (of which I have some) do not 
justify calling me a she.  The reason, again, is not because God is a
male (which He is not), but rather because He sovereignly chose to
represent Himself as a male.

Collis

It makes me **glad**, Dave, to see you agree with me.  Not because I'm
right (which I personally am convinced of but is debatable :-) ), but rather 
because it shows a willingness on your part to (at least somewhat)
objectively view what is being said.  (Not that those who disagree with
me aren't being objective - I can't comment on their motives.)

Hope that I too can and will be objective.  This is one of the reasons I
like to get down to the basic logic in issues, because that is where I
find objectivity (and reason!) to be truly put to the test.

Collis

    Or perhaps the patriarchal human culture in ancient Palestine chose to
    interpret their experience of God in male terms, which was reflected in
    the scriptures they wrote.
    
    -- Mike

  >In the court of human law, intent doesn't count.

???

Are you speaking specifically about "conspiracy"?  Or about law in general?
Intent makes a tremendous difference in murder cases, for example, where
it is the intent that can make the difference between 1st degree murder
and justifiable homicide (i.e. innocent).

I don't know the specifics of U.S. law on conspiracy, but then again I'm
more concerned with God's law where intent is *always* the first and
foremost measure.

Collis

    Actually the Aramaic transliteration of the term Jesus most often
    used for God meant "The Divine Parent of All" which includes both
    genders.  So I believe we are dealing with a somewhat limited 
    translation.  There are *many* inequities between the Aramaic and 
    Greek languages.
    
    Karen

    re .45 wrt I John
    
    One wonders what John would have said about the Psalms, wherein God
    claims to see no difference between light and dark.  Moreover, isn't
    the author of I John the same (by tradition at least) as the author of
    Revelation?  In the epistle, we have God is Love; in the Revelation, we
    have God hating the Nicolations.
    
    DR
    
    

Re:  .56

Do you have a reference for the verse in Psalms?  Perhaps I John and the
Psalm reference are not talking about the same thing.

The I John quote discusses sin where "darkness" is sin.  There were those
who in John's day claimed that God had both good and evil in Him.  John's
primary purpose in writing I John was to correct this false teaching.

God *hates* sin.  God *loves* righteousness*  God *loves* people, but
*hates* their sin.  This message is consistently voiced throughout the
Bible.  Perhaps you have a particular verse which contradicts this in
mind?

Collis

    Just as a perhaps side comment, I would like to let people know that a 
    Massachusetts chapter of Christians for Biblical Equality is currently
    forming.  We are having a breakfast tomorrow and Kari Tarjesen Malcolm
    will be speaking.  Other excellent speakers are planned for the fall
    and through next year.
    
    CBE is a group that is concerned about issues of freedom and full
    personhood for all of us, men and women, in Christ Jesus.  
    
    I don't like the distinctions of "feminist" theology as if it is
    different and seperete from "theology".  It's not.  As christians, we
    should be concerned with understanding what the Bible truly has to say.
    There is much evidence to indicate that through translations, women and
    their true role have been changed or deleted.  If this is true,
    shouldn't we all be concerned about this and work together to search
    for the true meaning of the scriptures?
    
    If anyone is interested in getting more information about CBE please
    feel free to contact me.
    
    Beth

    For a resource for the Christian perspective from the opposing view to
    feminist theology I recommend 2 books by Mary Pride: _The_Way_Home_ and
    its sequel _All_the_Way_Home_. Mary was a radical feminist and though
    she's no longer a feminist she's still a radical. These books are
    written with much love and a biting wit. Be warned though, she is about
    as subtle as a sledge hammer and uncompromising on her views. That I
    happen to have already held many of the same views made this easier to
    take.
    
    Gil 

    I have read both of those books and I did not find them written with
    love nor wit...  I found them rather offensive actually.  I thought
    they were bordering on a christianized version of Fascinating Womanhood
    which is a book that made me want to throw it across the room so much 
    that I finally just trashed it.  
    
    Why is it so hard for people to accept that there might be REAL
    evidence for a different view of women and their roles that is TRULY
    Biblical and not emanating from a hidden agenda????
    
    

    re .60
    
    Good question.  Would you share it with us here if you learn the
    the answer?
    
    I suspect it has something to do with pulling up the anchor on
    one's meaning systems.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 11.60 by SOFBA1::PHILP:

>     Why is it so hard for people to accept that there might be REAL
>     evidence ... not emanating from a hidden agenda????
  
        I suspect that there is a fundamental weakness in human
        nature to have hidden agendas and to suspect others of them.

        I think this affects people of all sides of issues.

        Bob

    Well, like I said she's as subtle as a sledge hammer. It wasn't the
    hidden agenda stuff that made me like the books but rather the views on
    the joys of simply being a wife and mother taking care of the home and
    family as opposed to trying to live up to the myth of a superwoman.
    
    Gil

    Gil, I really don't mean to pick on you (I promise, really!) but I've
    become increasingly convinced that this is an area where we need to
    stop saying "to each his own" and looking more closely at what the bible
    has to say.  In other areas such as those involving more overt acts of
    sin, such as adultery, we never say "to each his own".  Is it not
    sinful to refuse to look at what the Bible says about this very
    important area?  I know many women who have walked away from
    Christianity because of the views held toward women.  
    
    As I pointed out in the domestic violence topic in CHRISTIAN, the verse
    in Genesis that states "your desire shall be for your husband and he
    sahll rule over you" was describing an effect of the Fall and not a
    description of how God designed the relationship between man and woman.
    Just as we are to fight the effects of the Fall in other areas of our
    lives such as disease and the so-called "natural" tendency in humans to
    do harmful things to themselves, etc., should we not fight the tendency
    to act in a dependent manner on our husbands?  This is not to say that
    wives are not dependent, I think there is a mutual dependency in
    marriage.  What I'm thinking of I guess is how many of us have seen
    teenage (or later) girls who think their self-worth or happiness is
    dependent on finding the right boyfriend?  
    
    That may be a really bad example, I'm having a hard time being
    articulate today...
    
    Women, just as men, are answerable to God and God alone.  An example is
    Ananais (sp?) and Saphirah (?).  When they were trying to hide money,
    God punished the woman for her individual role and not as a person who
    was subordinate to her husband. 
    
    Another thing that bugs me is that it is often overlooked that in all
    instances where scripture addresses the role of taking care of
    children, it is directed to the Father.  These are not instances of the
    man being the "General" directing his "lower officers" either, which is
    an explanation that is used.  
    
    While I do believe that is is BEST, not necessarily more christian,
    that SOMEONE in the family be at home with children as much as
    possible, I think it's wrong to insist that it be the woman.  Each
    couple has to work out what is best for them and in Massachusetts at
    least that can be a very difficult decision...
    
    I also think that if there is scriptural evidence that women were
    approved as teachers, deacons and ministers (and there is) that it is
    against the will of God to deny those gifts that are given to women.
    One particular argument against women teaching men that makes
    absolutely no sense to me is that - as Eve was tricked by Satan, she is
    more easily swayed to wrongful teaching -...  If women are so vulnerable
    then why is it that they are allowed to teach what is considered the
    most vulnerable groups, i.e. women and children!  Shouldn't the "wiser"
    men who are not easily deceived be teaching them?
    
    I wish I had some references here with me to be more specific about and
    I will try to bring some in if anyone is interested.  
    
    I think women and men who hold views like those of Mary Pride need to
    be challanged and countered with a quiet, persistent questioning of the
    grounds of those views.  
    
    Beth 

    Beth
    
    Up until the 3rd century there were Christian groups where indeed
    women were pastors and even Bishops. The various roles were rotated
    among all the adult members of the community. Paul even refers to
    a woman 'deacon' in the end of one of the epistles (modern translations
    often render this 'deaconess' but the original word is the same
    for both sexes, the gender difference is one of translation.) 
    
    In the 3rd century a group of men, church fathers, decided that
    these Christian groups, which had existed since the days of
    the early church were 'heretical' and banned them. To me this
    looks like a case of the winners rewriting history.
    
    Bonnie

    re:  .64 
    
    Ahhhhh.  A return to the topic.  I'll provide the references requested
    in .58 or so  after the weekend shutdown.  Then if anyone wishes
    further discussion on whether God is a "Conjunction of Opposites" as
    contended by Karl Jung and one or two of us here, let's start another
    string.
    
    Speaking of women and Jung's ideas, Karl considered the Roman doctrine
    on the elevation of Mary (proclaimed around 1950, I think) to be one of
    the most important events of the 20th century.  Maybe we ought to ask
    Mary what she thinks....
    
    DR
    
    

    
    Bonnie -- right on. Are we reading the same materials, or what? :)
    
    I was just listening to a tape last night on "The Structure of
    the First Century Church and Synagogue." [I'd be glad to share it
    with anyone who is interested.]
    
    Irena

    Irena,
    
    Could you summarize some of ita here?
    
    Bonnie

    
    Bonnie, it's easier for me to dupe the tape and ship it off
    to you than to summarize. There is a great volume of material
    on this tape, which is approximately an hour long, and packed
    with information. It makes frequent and specific references
    to scripture verses and explains them in their historical
    context.
    
    It is a very good treatment of the subject, in my estimation.
    
    Irena
    

    Thanks Irena I'd enjoy listening to it!
    
    Bonnie

    Re:  Need for References
    
    I looked them up last weekend and then left home the paper.  The
    reference for Job (God's deal with Satan) was, I think, Job 1:8.  The
    one for the Psalms (darkness and light are as one to Thee) was in Psalm
    139.  The New English Bible has the foregoing wording almost exactly.
    
    When I find the references, I'll produce them and others in a different
    string.  That way, we can restrict ourselves to Feminist Theology in
    this string.
    
    DR

    Beth,
    
      I could debate you but I won't since I feel that to do so would edify
    noone. I will say that I believe that God had specific roles in mind
    for man and woman before the fall and that they were to have different
    functions and responsibilities in the workings of the family. I
    probably also have a different understanding of the Gensis verses that
    you reference but will not share it here unless God leads me to do so.
    
      As for working against the results of the fall, I believe Jesus'
    death and resurrection atoned for sin already. If anything else was of
    relevance I don't know of it.
    
    Gil                                                                   

    Hi Gil.
    
    I'm glad you weren't offended by my reply...
    
    I think perhaps I should expand on my definition of leaning against the
    effects of the Fall.  I agree that the atonement of Christ for our sins
    is all that is needed for salvation but I think in between birth and
    death we are called to fight against the effects of the brokeness of
    this world.  Genesis describes two of those effects that effect women
    directly.  Increased conception and a tendency to have our husbands
    rule over us.  Other effects such as disease, death, hardened hearts
    and a deceitful spirit are also direct effects on the Fall and as
    Christians we should resist these and fight against them.  I also
    believe that we should fight against the other effects as well.  I know
    that this is a very controversial issue, especially the conception
    part...but I think if we want to be true to scripture we need to be
    true to the whole of scripture. 
    
    The idea of the traditional family is not uniquely Christian.  It is
    rooted in the most pagan of cultures and religions and I think it is
    wrong to claim it as God designed.  This does not just effect the
    structure of the family but also effects the structure of our churches. 
    I think we need to realize the freedom, dignity and respect Jesus
    specifically gave to women as an example of how they should be viewed.
    Women as well as men are to "sit at the feet of Jesus" and learn. 
    This was addresed directly when Mary and Martha were with Jesus and
    Martha was running around cooking and cleaning and Mary was literally
    sitting at Jesus feet.  Jesus said that Mary had chosen the better way.
    This is not to say that there is anything degrading about cooking and
    cleaning!  It is just to give an example of the concern Jesus showed
    that women also be included as were the men.
    
    Someone a few notes back mentioned Phoebe the deacon.  Yes, the same
    word was used for her as for the male deacons but it was changed by a
    translator to be interpreted as "dear christian woman".  There are
    other (many) instances in the Bible that make it clear that Jesus came
    to set women free from bondage and called them to the same committment
    and responsibilities as men.  I know someone who had a wonderful
    christian woman friend who had a burning desire to evangelize and
    witness the good news of Christ.  Her husband's reaction was simply to
    say "but what about my dinner?"  He was serious too.  Now I think this
    man is going to have to answer for holding back a gifted wife and not
    supporting her in her use of her God-given gift. 
    
    It's time for us to put aside our own prejudices and take a close look
    at the scripture.  Men are not mediators between God and their wives.
    Women are responsible to God for the actions and decisions.  I think
    the scripture shows clearly that husbands and wives are to work as a
    team in mutual submission and respect and with God as the head of the
    family.
    
    I'd like to pre-recommend a book that will be published next summer
    which will be titled "I suffer not a woman...".  It is by Dr. Catherine
    Kroeger and specifically addressed the verses in Timothy re: I suffer
    not a woman to teach...
    
    Another book that is very good is by Kari Malcolm and is called Beyond
    the Crossroads.    
    
     She has also written a few other books along with her husband that are 
     excellent.
    
    Beth

    Beth, 

    >  I agree that the atonement of Christ for our sins
    >is all that is needed for salvation but I think in between birth and
    >death we are called to fight against the effects of the brokeness of
    >this world.
 
     Hey, I'm all for ecology, too. My family even volenteers at a recycling
    center. But somehow I feel you mean something else. :-)

    >Genesis describes two of those effects that effect women
    >directly.  Increased conception and a tendency to have our husbands
    >rule over us. 
    
     Excuse me, but I think you're misquoting. Genesis 3:16 says that God would 
    increase the *pain* of childbirth but says nothing regarding an increase
    in rate of conception.

     This next part may get me flamed, and is why I was hesitant to share it in 
    my last reply but I am not ashamed of what I believe so...

    "your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you" (NIV).
    I have heard so many interpretations on what these words mean!! Yours was a 
    new one to me. I don't see here "a tendancy to have men rule over" woman
    but a God ordained change of position because of the Fall. Ephesians 5 lays
    out God's plan for authority/submission balance after Jesus' atonement for
    mankind'sins. Yes, husbands and wives should submit to each other and to
    the Lord, but God has still placed the man over the woman. Mind you, his 
    job is not to a domineering macho pain-in-the-rear, but to lay down his 
    life for his wife (and kids) as Christ laid down His life. This means loving
    them to the point where their needs are more important to him than his own.
    He is to humbly submit to God and to take care of the others in his family
    without complaining and then take care of himself. It's a real priority 
    change. I see it as:
    			God first
			Wife second
			Kids next
			then others
			then me
    

    >...but I think if we want to be true to scripture we need to be
    >true to the whole of scripture. 
    
    Many amens.

    >The idea of the traditional family is not uniquely Christian.  

    No, but the submission of each other, and the roles of the man (eps) and
    the woman are.

    >   I think we need to realize the freedom, dignity and respect Jesus
    specifically gave to women as an example of how they should be viewed.
    
    Me, too. But how is this different from the freedom given by Jesus to men?

    Mary and Martha:  I believe that Jesus was saying that is better to be 
    with Him than to be "busy" with less important things.    
    
    >    other (many) instances in the Bible that make it clear that Jesus came
    >to set women free from bondage and called them to the same committment
    >and responsibilities as men.  
   
    I agree up to a point. Thay have the same freedom to be in right standing 
    with God and the same responsibilities to God. However, this does not IMHO
    have an effect on what is written in Galations 5.

     Regarding the evangelistic woman and the hungry hubby. Right, he has his 
    priorities mixed up. But how about her? Doesn't God call us to a balance
    in such things? Even the requirements for deacons makes it clear that it is 
    important to God that we have our households in order before going off to 
    "minister" in His name. They need to seek God for His balance so that BOTH 
    are free to serve Him and that the household functions are not impaired.
    
    >It's time for us to put aside our own prejudices and take a close look
    >at the scripture.  Men are not mediators between God and their wives.
    >Women are responsible to God for the actions and decisions.  I think
    >the scripture shows clearly that husbands and wives are to work as a
    >team in mutual submission and respect and with God as the head of the
    >family.
    
    Amen!
    There's only ONE mediator between God and mankind: Jesus. (I Tim 2:5)
    God is the ultimate head of the family since man is head over the woman
    BUT God is head over man (and woman, kids)

    Gil (donning asbestos pj's and waiting for the flames) 

    Hi Gil,
    
    My, those asbestos pj's are cute on you! :-)
    
    But I'll turn around and you can change back into your regular clothes
    cause I'm not here to "flame" you. :-)
    
    Just a question on something you wrote that seems inconsistent:
    
    Regarding the scene with Mary and Martha you say:
    
    > I believe that Jesus was saying that is better to be with Him than to
    > be "busy" with less important things.
    
    i.e. household functions I assume.
    
    Then regarding the "hungry hubby" you go on to say:
    
    >  ...he has his priorities mixed up.  But how about her?  Doesn't God
    > call us to a balance in such things?  Even the requirements for deacons
    > makes it clear that it is important to God that we have our households
    > in order before going off to minister in His name.
    
    Did God and Jesus see the importance of household functions
    differently, do you think?  It sounds like it has to be a priority for a
    women to have her household in order first then she may consider
    ministering in God's name.  But Jesus considers household functions as
    less important than listening to him...?  And how can she go out and
    minister in God's name if she has a husband and kids to take care of? 
    Maybe just between meals, food shopping, dishes, and loads of laundry 
    perhaps?
    
    Karen  

    Hi Gil.  
    
    Yes by all means return to regular clothes.  No flames here!
    
    I wish I had some references with me but alas they are not here.  I
    don't know the words but I've talked with several people who have
    done an in-depth study of Genesis and increased conception is a more
    accurate translation of the words used.  I think its "I will increase
    your pain AND conception" and not your pain in childbearing.
    
    I don't think God redesigned things after the Fall.  That verse about
    your husband shall rule over you is among other descriptions of the
    fall so why do you see it as something different?  
    
    The woman I was speaking of was not someone who had screwed up her
    priorities.  THEIR home was very much taken care of but her husband
    wouldn't "let" her go out to minister to others because it might take
    her away from home some evenings and he was not about to cook his own
    dinner....
    
    I'm concerned not only with the relationship of husband/wife but the
    number of women who are not allowed to take leadership roles in
    churches because it is not their place.  That's why I'd like to
    recommend the book "I suffer not a woman..." to everybody who is
    involved in an organized church.  
    
    I feel I should say here that for many years I believed the direct
    opposite from what I believe today.  I bought the whole party line of 
    the subordination of women... But, through studying and learning from 
    Godly men and women who have spent consideral time researching this I
    became convinced that the "church" is denying the equality of men and
    women to serve the Lord and build truely scripturaly founded marriages.
    It was not an easy journey from one place to the next and it has caused
    me to take a closer look at my responsibilities as a christian woman.
    
    

re Note 11.74 by GOLF::BERNIER:

>     "your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you" (NIV).
>     I have heard so many interpretations on what these words mean!! Yours was a 
>     new one to me. I don't see here "a tendancy to have men rule over" woman

        Actually, I offered such an interpretation in the Christian
        conference one or two volumes back.  And I didn't even get it
        from somebody else -- it's actually a kind of obvious
        possible meaning.


>     God is the ultimate head of the family since man is head over the woman
>     BUT God is head over man (and woman, kids)

        Gil,

        How do you define "head"?  (as used here)

        Bob

    What am I gonna do with these marshmallows ?

    Dave - 
    
    Make Marshmallow Krispies!
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

    Love us?
    
    :-)

CAUTION: joke to follow.

Adam: God, why did you make eve so beautiful?

God: So that you will love her.

Adam: Why is she so smart?

God: So that she could over look your short comings.

Have a smurfy day!

calvin

Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.features
Subject: Women's movement takes root in Judaism
Date: 12 Oct 90 05:02:49 GMT
 (Commentary)
 
	At the end of August, the Executive Council of the Cantors Assembly --
the organization of liturgical leaders of Conservative Judaism -- voted
29 to 1 to admit qualified women to its membership.
	The vote ended three years of study, discussion and sometimes
rancorous debate and underscored how Jewish women, like their
counterparts in Protestantism, are taking long strides toward equality
in their religious institutions.
	A strong feminist theology is also developing with Judaism, as it is
within both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, although in all three
cases the perspectives being developed by feminist theologians are
having a harder time gaining a hearing within the institutions.
	One of the best examples of the challenge of feminist theology to
Judaism is in a new book by Judith Plaskow, ``Standing Again at Sinai,''
(Harper & Row).
	Plaskow, an associate professor of religious studies at Manhattan
College, is also co-editor of the Journal of Feminist Studies in
Religion.
	In the book, Plaskow presents a sharp critique of Judaism's
patriarchal tradition -- a tradition that has been at the center of all
Jewish self-understanding and that stands at the center of the Jewish
Bible.
	That traditional self-understanding has long meant that feminism and
religious Judaism were polar opposites and, as Plaskow argues, forcing
every Jewish feminist to define herself in split terms, to ask herself,
``Am I a feminist or am I a Jew?''
	At the same time, however, Plaskow writes that she has decided to
remain a Jew despite its patriarchal tradition not because ``there is
some non-sexist 'essence' of Judaism'' to take hold of but rather to
attempt to change the very nature of Judaism.
	In ``Standing Again at Sinai,'' Plaakow is arguing that Jewish
feminists must go beyond the question of equal access as in the fight
for admission of women to the Cantors Assembly.
	She makes her case by looking at a number of key concepts, including
how to imagine or think about God and the use of language about God in
Jewish life; the question of Jewish history, especially as contained in
the Torah and the recovery of women's history; and the problem of
community, including the role of the state of Israel in the Jewish
understanding of community.
	On the question of God, for example, Plaskow argues for an
appreciation of ``a plurality of images for God,'' an argument that is
consistent with the Bible itself although the diversity of images
present in the Bible have been pretty much eliminated from both
Christian and Jewish worship and theology.
	In the chapter on Israel and community, Plaskow looks at a number of
issues, raising questions not just about Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians in the occupied territories but also about the difference
between Eastern European and Oriental Jews and how these rifts also
influence male-female relations in Israeli society.
	``It seems,'' she writes, ``that the Jewish experience of oppression
has led not to the just exercise of power by Jews in power, but to the
Jewish repition of strategies of domination.''
	``The many forms of oppression to which Jews have been subject, from
denial of fundamental rights and outright expropriation of resources, to
lack of respect for Jewish culture ... are recapitulated within and
between various groups in Israel.''
	Plaskow's book is an important contribution to the continuing
religious dialogue that is Judaism but it is also one that non-Jews,
both men and women, can learn from.

                                                         
    A few Sundays ago, there was a guest minister who spoke of feminist
    theology (UU church), and I wanted to share one story with you.
    
    She told this story about a group of elderly women who obviously had
    given much to their families and to the church over their many years. 
    They had a gathering where a young male minister was invited to speak. 
    He spoke about the need for selfless service in their lives.
    
    Obviously, these women were all too well versed in selfless service,
    given that they'd spent most of their lives doing just this, and though
    they politely listened to him, his words to them were meaningless -
    they got no spiritual fulfillment or wisdom from what he was talking
    about, primarily because they already *lived* that way.  
    
    When the service was over, the women went outside to enjoy each other's 
    company - to talk, laugh, hug, relax and find pleasure getting away from 
    their otherwise demanding world.  To them, this was the most
    spiritually fulfilling part of the service and their day.
    
    My own reflections follow:
    
    All too often, one has men preaching to women that they should be doing
    such-and-such and so-and-so, on and on, without any empathy for where
    the women are at in their own spiritual growth path.  I see feminist
    theology as a way to bridge the serious gap that exists today.
    
    Regarding God as Father and Mother - I see these as being masculine and
    feminine aspects of God as energy - God as the Father is 'without', and
    God as Mother is 'within' (as in the Kingdom of God is within, a.k.a.
    the Holy Spirit).  So, when praying 'without', I use 'Father', and for
    going within, I use 'Mother', or 'Holy Spirit'.  This 'within' energy
    is also known as prana, orgone, c'hi (sp?), and a number of other names
    used throughout the various religions and cultures.   
    
    Cindy

    Shekina.
    
    As I recall, Shekina is the Hebrew word for the Spirit, the Holy
    Spirit.  It is a feminine word, as opposed to the Greek term
    for the same thing 'parakletos', which is masculine.  The term
    'Spirit' in English is, of course, without gender or neutral.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.interest.people
Subject: Church group declines to rule on God as a male
Date: 26 Oct 90 21:13:15 GMT
 
	DENVER (UPI) -- The highest judicial body of the nation's second-
largest Protestant denomination Friday unanimously agreed to leave to
the church's top legislative body whether God may be referred to
officially only in male terms.
	The United Methodist Church's Judicial Council also ruled unanimously
that church funds may be used to support an abortion rights
organization.
	The issue of whether traditional language must be used to refer to
God as ``father'' has caused controversy because modernists and
feminists object to designating God with a male term.
	The church's nine-member court ruled in response to an inquiry from a
committee that is revising the Book of Worship for the 8.9-million-
member denomination.
	The book's final version must be approved by the top legislative
body, the General Conference, in 1992.
	Two members of the judicial council pointed out that the last General
Conference in 1988 adopted four policy statements that use traditional
language referring to God as ``father.'' The conference adopted one
policy statement that rejected efforts to legislate how God should be
referred to in worship and liturgy.
	The abortion issue arose after Wisconsin Bishop David J. Lawson ruled
that church funds of his region could be used in that state to support
the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.
	Conservative evangelical members of the church oppose abortion.

    I'm with Cindy in .83......
    
    Lately I've been reading some interesting books - one is called,  
    Dance of the Spirit - The Seven Steps of Women's Spirituality by Maria
    Harris this book looks at the growing spirituality of women as if they
    were steps in a dance.  Graciously, welcomingly, warmingly written
    (your mileage may vary, of course) - and of course this book may help women
    find their own spirituality based on where THEY are (as Cindy stated in
    .83, often sermons/speaches/preaches don't take into account that women
    are in a different space religiously than men are sometimes)....
    
    Another is "Reinventing Eve"  - Modern Woman in Search of Herself 
    by Kim Chernin - it's an interesting reinterpretation of women's roles
    in the bible, using not only text from the bible and alternative
    translation but the gnostic gospels as well.  It casts the women of the
    bible (particularly Eve) in a more powerful, empowered, self-deciding
    and self-acting group of women rather than the weak, sinful, helpless
    critters they are sometimes purported to be (though not all the time)
    Her purpose I think for writing this book was to help women re-evaluate
    the patriarchal society with new insights into its religious
    foundations....
    
   
    -Jody
    

Article          377
From: [email protected] (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.group.women,clari.news.issues,clari.news.top
Subject: Bishops approve inclusive language; celebrate Columbus
Date: 15 Nov 90 21:57:36 GMT
 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Roman Catholic worshippers will hear more gender
inclusive Biblical texts during the mass but God will still be generally
referred to with a masculine pronoun under new guidelines adopted
Thursday by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
	The more than 300 bishops, ending their annual four-day fall meeting,
adopted a set of principles and a set of guidelines aimed at translators
of those verses from the Bible that make up the lectionary -- the three-
year cycle of Bible texts publicly read each Sunday.
	For example, the passage from Hebrews 5:12, which in the New American
Bible reads, ``You have forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as
sons: ' My son, do not discipline of the Lord ...''' will be heard when
read at worship as, ``You have forgotten the exhortation addressed to
you as children: 'My child, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord
....'''
	In approving the new guidelines and principles, the bishops are
following in the steps of most mainline Protestant churches in efforts
to make the language more inclusive and less male-oriented.
	But the proposal was bitterly fought by some bishops.
	``I'm opposed to inclusive language,'' Auxiliary Bishop Austin
Vaughan of New York flatly told the meeting. ``I believe our people have
worshipped effectively for 1,900 years without inclusive language.''
	He said the move, long sought by many women in the church, ``is part
of a trend to defeminize women'' and when that is accomplished, ``men
will become less masculine.''
	But Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb of Mobile, Ala., chairman of the
committee that drafted the guidelines, said the church must make the
Bible as accessible as possible to all people while remaining faithful
to the original texts.
	``If the Word of God is not somehow 'user friendly,''' he said, ``we
have betrayed what we are all about.''
	Also on Thursday, the bishops heard a pledge from Bishop Joseph
Imesch of Joliet, Ill., that his committee will continue to press
forward in writing a pastoral statement on the concerns of women in the
church and society.
	The proposed pastoral was to be debated at this meeting but was
pulled from the agenda in September under the direction of the Vatican
which expressed some dissatisfaction with the text.
	Imesch and his committee have been struggling for seven years with
the statement, drawing fire both from feminists and traditionalists.
	And despite some reports that the letter has been killed, Imesch
said, ``the pastoral ... is alive and well although it is taking a well-
deserved sabbatical.''
	Although he could not predict when the bishops would vote on a final
draft, he said he has asked for time at one of the conference's
forthcoming meetings -- either in June or November -- to begin the debate
on the final text.
	``If its not done by 1999,'' he joked, ``we're all quitting.''
	The bishops' also approved a lengthy statement on the 500th
anniversary of the arrival of Columbus -- and Catholic Christianity -- in
America.
	The statement, which stresses evangelization, seeks to strike a
balance in what promises to be a controversial celebration as some
groups sharply condemn the negative aspects of the Columbian discovery
on Native Americans and blacks.
	``The encounter with the Europeans was a harsh and painful one for
the indigenous peoples,'' the statement said. ``The unwitting
introduction of diseases to which the Native Americans had no immunities
led to the death of millions.
	``Added to that were the cultural oppression, the injustices, the
disrespect for native ways and traditions that must be acknowledged and
lamented,'' the statement said.
	But it also found cause for celebration, saying the negative elements
were ``not the whole picture, that many of the early missionaries 
''raised their voice against sin`` and that the encounter ''represented
a widening of the frontiers of humanity.``

re Note 11.87 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

> 	``I'm opposed to inclusive language,'' Auxiliary Bishop Austin
> Vaughan of New York flatly told the meeting. ``I believe our people have
> worshipped effectively for 1,900 years without inclusive language.''

        Of course, through most of that time, the average worshiper
        didn't understand the language used in worship at all!

        Bob

    I have a couple of thoughts here. 
    
    1.
    
    I attended Assumption College, a Catholic college, for a short time. 
    One of the requirements there was a course in the bible.  The course
    dealt with the literary and historical value of the bible, as well as
    with the theology.  One of the things we spent a great deal of time on
    was the commandment that we must not make graven images of God.  We
    talked about the fact that for most people, that meant something along
    the lines of Pagan statues.  But, I asked, what about the statues of
    Jesus that are so prominent in Catholic churches?  If we were to
    believe that Jesus was a manifistation of God, were these not graven
    images?  
    
    This led to very...er...*lively* discussion.  But what I learned is
    that ANY image I create, either in my mind or my heart or my soul or on
    paper, is a graven image.  That whenever I do this, I limit God.  If I
    say "God is _this_, I am also saying "God, therefore, is *not* _this_."
    How very presumptuous of me!
    
    So, now, I try to think of and feel God as everything and nothing.  It
    is a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise, but the best I have been able
    to find.
    
    
    2.
    
    
    I would like to post here a note I posted in Womannotes.  It dealt
    quite extensively with the role of women in theology among the Friends.
    
    
    "Mothers of Feminism.  The Story of Quaker Women in America" by
    Margeret Hope Bacon
    
    This book is surprising, enlightening, and thought provoking.
    
    A few small excerpts:
    
    	"The stereotype of colonial,marriage in which the wife married
    	young, had many children, died early, and was in turn replaced by
    	another young wife, does not prove true in the case of the Quakers.
        Quaker women born before 1730 married at the average age of 22.8
    	years, while comparable males married at 26.5 years.  Most couples
    	were close in age, and marriages between older women and younger
    	men were not uncommmon."
    
    The book also discusses the number of female Quaker ministers that 
    travelled alone throughout the Colonies, and, in fact, travelled back
    and forth between England, Barbados and the Colonies quite often.
    It talks about the fact that Quaker women "must have used some form of
    birth control" after 1760.
    
    There is so much more.  This book is truly a rich feast for the mind,
    heart and soul.  I am not even halfway through it, and still there are
    30 or 40 passages that I would love to quote for you (and no, it is not
    a huge book!).  I normally do not like historical, biography type
    books, but this is one I surely am.
    
    One other thing I will quote.  "The pioneer role that Quaker women 
    played in the development of feminism in this country, had its origins
    over two hundred years before the [first women's rights] convention at
    Seneca Falls.  The Society of Friends itself, born during a period of
    religious ferment in England, became the first sect to embody a concept
    of the spiritual equality of men and women within its church 
    government and discipline, liberating Quaker women to preach and 
    prophesy as well as to share responsibilites."
    
    And it continues to this day.
    
    E Grace
    

My personal perspective on inclusive language:

Bottom line: I believe it is wrong.

Rationale: The Bible, whether one believes it to be God's literal truth, the
sincere but perhaps fallible recollections of various writers, or whatever, was
created by individuals immersed in a specific culture, with all its warts. As
long as translations are kept as close to the original as current linguistic
knowledge allows, the burden/freedom of *interpretation* is 
incumbent on/available to the reader.

The use of inclusive language editorializes on the original content of
scripture, in effect taking away the reader's ability to decide for him or
herself whether a particular gender-specific reference contains meaning in a
particular passage. The culture of the times had definite conventions regarding
the roles of men and women, and the imagery in the Bible cannot be, IMHO, be
fully and meaningfully interpreted if those subtle cues are removed.

If inclusive language versions of the Bible are produced, I believe they
should be clearly identified as paraphrases, which are often produced in an
attempt to make the Bible more accessible to everyone, from children to
inner-city gang members.

Before I am accused of being sexist, let me deny the charge. I grew up in a
healthy combination of strong figures from both sexes and all races and
religions. I am equally bothered by attempts to characterize females as somehow
inferior and similar attempts to make them somehow superior. We're all God's
children, and that's more relevant than any exclusive sense of gender-exclusive
"sisterhood" or "brotherhood."

Bob

re Note 11.90 by TLE::TLET8::ASHFORTH:

        I am in agreement with this.

        Bob

    re 11.90 & .91
    
    Bobs,
    	that sort of answer would be fine for those who understand the
    nature of the cultural parameters of the time and who are inclined to
    evaluate such limitations/exclusions in the light of that knowledge.
    But what about the real world where too many, a solid majority I think,
    are NOT aware of that culture ?  What about the real world where all too
    many, not a majority I hope, are unwilling to evaluate those statements
    either because they feel that such exclusions and biases are just and
    right or because they feel that these English words are exactly what
    God meant, not one sylable more or less ?  We can point to examples of
    the later case from the entries in this file. They are among us and
    claim to be Christians.
    	Objecting to inclusionary wording on the basis that each individual
    ought to make those decisions for themselves presumes that every
    individual has both the information upon which to make such a decision
    and the wisdom to decide with love. Where these exist, I agree with
    you. In most cases I cannot.

    One of the reasons that I like the NSRV is that it uses inclusionary
    language.  It always indicates that it is doing so with a footnote. 
    For example, the NSRV reports I Cor. 1:10 as saying "Now I appeal to
    you, brothers and sisters"; the footnote for that passage indicates "Gk
    _brothers_", to show that the source text uses only the male form.

    -- Mike

    Bob(s),
    
    Your points are well-taken and ones I had never seen presented -- for
    *that* you have my heartiest applause!!  I think I may even agree with
    you -- *when* the Bible is being used for *study*!  
    
    However, when the Bible is used in worship, the use of male language 
    encourages two very negative things: (1) an incomplete impression about 
    God's characteristics and (2) an insidious, subconscious contribution to
    relegating females to a second-class position.  For use in worship, I find
    nothing wrong -- and many things right -- about using inclusive
    language.

    I agree with Dave's assessment in .92, and support the use of
    inclusionary language *with* footnoting.
    
    For we should never forget from whence we came.
    
    Karen

re Note 11.92 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     What about the real world where all too
>     many, ... feel that these English words are exactly what
>     God meant, not one sylable more or less ?  

        Such people, for that very reason, will ignore anything you
        do in the form of editing the texts -- they certainly
        wouldn't be reached by an openly modified text.  In fact, you
        are far more likely to harden their position, I think, for
        by editing you seem to be saying (to them) that God did
        indeed intend to be exclusionary.

        (Besides, once you accept a "modification" of a text based on
        one sort of doctrine, you make it harder to resist other
        well-intentioned modifications for theological or political
        reasons.)

        Bob

        P.S. My objection is to modifications of the historical
        scriptural texts (or their translation in ways that are not
        warranted by generally accepted principles of translation). 
        I have no objection to inclusionary wording in liturgical or
        lyrical texts that are not presented as literal readings of
        Scripture.

I agree with the previous noter- no surprise, as we apparently have been in
agreement before!

My point on modification is actually in synch with .94, that we shouldn't do
anything to have the Bible give "an incomplete impression about God's
characteristics. Only trouble is, the quotee thinks inclusionary language
gives more info, and I think it hides it. Words such as "Our Father" are simply
not as evocative of God's characteristics as "Our Heavenly Parent," which I've
heard as an inclusionary paraphrase.

I've got to say, I don't "study" anywhere near as much as I worship. For many of
our congregation, their worship IS their only study. What they hear is the only
experience many of them have of Scripture. Diluting the meaning by removing or
altering gender-specific references doesn't raise any consciousness, either- as
people listen, they relate what they hear to their own knowledge and
experiences, and the unnatural, stilted quality of inclusive language simply
serves as a signpost saying "Something we didn't like was removed here." Does a
child go to bed and say, with staunch egalitarianism, "Goodnight, parents?"

In terms of representation of women in the Bible, note that references to
females in the Bible present them in their cultural perspective, not simply as
"inferior." Let's go further: Why is Jesus the *son* of God?

The writers of the Bible used our human understanding of the roles and
relationships of family members to help illuminate their meaning. I have no
doubt that whatever anthropomorphic view we have of God is only the way we see
Him "through a glass darkly," and so I have no trouble with imagining that God
is at once Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, Sister, Brother- I know not what.

I, too, have no objection to the use of inclusionary language in non-scriptural
liturgical text, and find it in fact preferable in every respect. If in fact any
church wishes to use an inclusionary paraphrase *instead* of Scripture, that
too is fine- I just think it should not be identified as Scripture.

    	The English language, like many others, does not deal well with
    inclusionary language. In many cases you get to choose from "he" or
    "she" or "it". Either of the first two is exclusionary and the last is
    at least somewhat offensive to many people. "They" is not always a good
    choice, or "you" or "we". However, I've heard that "Goodnight,
    parents." example before, the speaker was a rabid male chauvanist who
    would stretch any point to the silliest level possible to insure that
    inclusionary language was excluded from his "world". I would hope both
    the discussion and the participants here could maintain a higher
    ground.
    	I do understand the problem about the "one modification leads to
    another", but I don't see that as a serious concern where each
    inclusionary passage - or other modification - is footnoted. I also see
    the problem of scansion and would not want to see poetry destroyed in
    this cause. Yet these same poems have been interpreted in more than one
    way while maintaining scansion, an inclusionary interpretation doing
    the same ought to be possible.
    	As for "Our Father", please !  That term cannot be intended to be
    sexually explicit else we would not be here. God cannot be a father
    unless there is a mother who is an equal. Fathers cannot have children
    without the assistance of mothers, although parthenogenesis allows an
    occasional mother to have a child without the assistance of a father.
    The argument that "God can do what God wants" does not hold because
    "father" is a defined term, not a fact. God COULD be our mother without
    another, but not our father. The term "father" is used as an honorific
    and as a role descriptor and can thus be translated in many ways with
    or without gender exclusivity. ;-) Smile before replying ;-)

    >Only trouble is, the quotee thinks inclusionary language
    >gives more info, and I think it hides it. Words such as "Our Father"
    >are simply not as evocative of God's characteristics as "Our Heavenly
    >Parent," which I've heard as an inclusionary paraphrase.
    
    I agree that "Our Heavenly Parent" is a poor substitute for "Our
    Father."  (Actually, "Hey, Daddy" might be nearer Jesus" intended
    meaning :-) )
    
    Anyway, that example is not an appropriate one on which to judge the
    value/disvalue of inclusive language and does not represent what I was
    saying.
    
    Actually, we use inclusive language *more* in terms referring to people
    than in terms referring to God.  Thus "men" becomes either "men
    and women" or "humanity."  Again, what *I* am espousing is using
    inclusive language *in Scripture* used in worship -- and, of course,
    doing that only where it does not change the meaning.  To substitute
    "men and women" or "humanity" for the so-called inclusive term "men"
    does not change any meaning. 
    
    Nancy

    >Re:  Discussion on inclusionary translations and the dangers of
    >changing the translation for the benefit of one or another good
    >intention: 
    
    Maybe we should be asking God for new scriptures.  Jesus said that not
    a jot nor a tittle of the Law would be changed _until_it_was_fulfulled. 
    Yet He proclaimed a New Covenant.  Is yet another covenant upon us?  
    Has nothing been written in the last 1800 years that would qualify as
    scripture?  Can we be sure that nothing will in the future?   
    
    Dare you to be God's instrument for a new scripture?  
    
    DR

Hi,

At a Lay Eucharistic Ministry meeting recently, we scanned over the new
Episcopal Supplemental Eucharistic Prayers, also known as the "Inclusive 
Language" version.  (Not stressing that God is male or female, both or
neither, but that such catagories are transcended, and that the view of a
creating Father and the sustaining Mother have nothing to do with sex.  Also 
that while Jesus the Christ was indeed male, he entered into the *human* 
family to draw and redeem us All.) 

They are experimental rites, "the first having as its theme the creation of
all people in the image of God as the source of Christian inclusiveness.  The 
second ... has the central metaphor of God bringing to birth and nourishing
the whole creation." 

In our discussion we found some points of disagreement, points where we 
thought the new liturgy was a little spotty in the sense that there were
oversights and omissions here and there that were eventually balanced out 
elsewhere, or not quite living up to its intentions, but overall we thought it
was very moving, speaking well to our spirits. 

Some Collects have a more charasmatic flavor than the usual conservative 
Episcopal language, and there was a refreshing inclusion of sins against 
*ourselves* in the general confession.

At times the text works to avoid the use of the word "Lord", mainly I think, 
for the many *connotations* that word now carries, however it seems to do this 
inconsistently.  Occasionally the Holy Spirit seems to get short shrift, it 
seemed spotty, but still a definite trinitatian message.

Parts of the liturgy have what some might call too much of a "goodness and 
light" emphasis.  It's balanced by an acknowledgement of our fallen state, 
but with the "mood" sometimes intruding in incongruous ways.

There's even some acknowledgement of the sustaining mother image of God.

I want to clear any issues about copyright before I enter any excerpts here, 
but first, is there any interest in seeing what the Episcopal church has come 
up with here?  Personally, I'd like some feedback, as our group at church is 
going to be exploring this in greater detail in the coming months, and I'd 
enjoy having such a diverse group of people afford me feedback.

Peace,

Jim

    Jim - 
    
    I'd be very interested to see what the church has come up with.  I was
    raised an Episcopalian but left the church when I was 13 partially
    because of the exclusionary attitude I found in the services.  Please
    share some of these changes if you can.
    
    Nanci

    Jim,
    
    Yes, do continue.  I too was raised as an Episcopalian and have 
    recently started attending services in the Nashua Episcopal church.
    I'd be interested in reading some of the material.
    
    Ro
    
    

re Note 11.101 by TFH::KIRK:

> At times the text works to avoid the use of the word "Lord", mainly I think, 
> for the many *connotations* that word now carries, 

        And what might those connotations be?

        Bob

    Jim, I'd love to see them, too!
    

re: Note 11.104 by Bob "without vision the people perish" 

�> At times the text works to avoid the use of the word "Lord", mainly I think, 
�> for the many *connotations* that word now carries, 

�        And what might those connotations be?

Hi Bob,

I believe the connotations are built upon experience with human monarchies, 
with political leaders claiming representational power from God, and the 
likes.

An aspect of that might be found in the American Heritage Dictionary, where
"lordly" means not only dignified and noble, but also arrogant and haughty. 

It is also a masculine title, and so might not be considered "inclusive", 
although Jesus was a human male, so there might be a difference between 
saying "Lord Jesus" and "Lord God".

(Though I've often wondered if "god" has the same problem, since there is also 
the term "goddess", however while my dictionary defines "goddess" as a female 
deity, there is no gender specific term used in its definition of "god" (or 
"God").  Personally, I've let go of much of any gender aspects of God, but 
that doesn't mean there aren't issues and aspects to explore and come to terms 
with.)

Just some thoughts, if that's any help...I'm not 100% sure about all this 
myself.

Re, others...I've asked our rector about including excerpts here, and he told 
me he'll ask the appropriate people in the diocese, stay tuned... .-)

Peace,

Jim

re Note 11.106 by TFH::KIRK:

> Just some thoughts, if that's any help...I'm not 100% sure about all this 
> myself.

        Thanks.

> (Though I've often wondered if "god" has the same problem, since there is also 
> the term "goddess", however while my dictionary defines "goddess" as a female 
> deity, there is no gender specific term used in its definition of "god" (or 
> "God").  Personally, I've let go of much of any gender aspects of God, but 
> that doesn't mean there aren't issues and aspects to explore and come to terms 
> with.)

        There would seem to be no end to where you could go in
        "reforming" such use of language.  How does one decide where
        importance ends and trivia begins?

        Bob

    Jim,
    	about your rector being involved in this file, that may be a
    violation of corporate policy. It is my understanding that the contents
    of these files is for internal use only, although you may discuss the
    contents with non-DECies and report back on such conversations. Should
    a mod have other information, please correct me.

    Jim didn't say his rector had ever even *seen* this file... but he is
    the avenue from which Jim will hopefully get permission to quote
    the readings he mentioned earlier.
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    	it was not my intent to accuse Jim of any wrong-doing, only to warn
    against infringing on what I understand the rules to be. Sorry if
    anyone misunderstood. My personal opinion of many of those rules is
    that they exceed the need that spawned them, but they are the rules.

Hi Dave,

No worries, Nancy is correct, I'm just working with our rector to get 
permission to post some excerpts in this file.  No offense taken, brother, I 
appreciate your concern.

Peace,

Jim

Note 211.8

>                  In the ancient of days, the presence of God, the
>          Shekinah, dwelt in the temple.
           ^^^^^^^^
Ron,

	As I understand this Hebrew word, it means "Spirit" and it suggests
a feminine entity, does it not?

Peace,
Richard

PS Mike V: This is the word I mentioned in Friends Meeting once.

Article 1482 of clari.news.religion:
From: [email protected] (PHILIP WILLAN)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.religion,clari.news.europe,clari.news.group.women
Subject: U.S. bishops called to order over women's issues
Date: 29 May 91 21:34:59 GMT
Lines: 65


	VATICAN CITY (UPI) -- Senior Roman Catholic Church officials suggested
Wednesday to a delegation of U.S. bishops that they tone down the
content of a planned document on the role of women in the church.
	Pope John Paul II called the unusual, two-day Vatican meeting, which
ended Wednesday, out of concern a pastoral letter being prepared by the
U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops might not be in full accord
with official church teaching.
	The six U.S. bishops listened to criticism of their draft pastoral
letter, ``One in Christ Jesus: A Pastoral Response for the Concerns of
Women for Church and Society,'' from representatives of the Vatican and
bishops from around the world.
	The pastoral letter, the most authoritative form of document that a
bishops' conference can issue, is being prepared for official release in
June 1992.
	In September 1990, the adminsitrative board of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops agreed to postpone any further action on
the pastoral letter until after the international consultation convened
by the pope. After the meeting, the committee working on the statement
will now begin work on a third version.
	The pastoral has been in the works since 1982 and the second draft
was widely attacked by Catholic feminists as taking a more exclusionary
approach to women's equality in the church than the first draft.
	In their draft document the U.S. bishops say women should be allowed
to hold virtually any church job short of priesthood. They condemn
sexism as a sin and urge the use of non-sexist language in the liturgy.
	``There was considerable criticism of the draft,'' said the head of
the delegation, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati.
	``The major concern was that the draft was not sufficiently
reflective of the pope's Apostolic letter ''Mulieris Dignitatem`` (The
Dignity of Women),'' Pilarczyk said.
	That document, on the role of women in the church and society, was
issued by Pope John Paul in 1988.
	Pilarczyk said he saw the meeting as ``an expression of concern'' on
the part of the Vatican hierarchy rather than a call to order of the U.
S. bishops.
	The two-day conference was opened with a warning from the Vatican
Secretary of State, Archbishop Angelo Sodano, against allowing the 
``spirit of the world'' to enter church deliberations.
	Sodano, the highest Vatican official after the pope, said the meeting
was intended to offer the U.S. bishops advice on how to present the
teaching of the Roman Catholic Church ``without betraying the integrity
and originality of the Christian message.''
	The discussions were presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the
head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a noted
conservative on theological and social questions.
	Pilarczyk said Ratzinger had had a lot to say during the debate and
was concerned about many aspects of the U.S. document.
	``Cardinal Ratzinger's role in the Curia is to defend the purity of
the church's theological teaching,'' he said.
	``He tends to be very cautious and very precise about what he thinks
is theologically dangerous. He exercised his responsibility with great
expertise and diligence.''
	Pilarczyk said the Vatican was also studying the questions being
examined by the U.S. bishops and did not want to have its conclusions
preempted by the U.S. document.
	``The Holy See moves at a pace that is sometimes less than what we
Americans would find appropriate,'' he said.
	He said the U.S. bishops would consider a proposal made at the
meeting that the U.S. document be downgraded from a pastoral letter to a
pastoral statement, a less authoritative church document.
	Other American church officials at the meeting included Archbishop
William Keeler of Baltimore, Archbishop James Stafford of Denver, Bishop
Joseph Imesch of Joliet, Ill., and Monsignor Robert Lynch, secretary-
general of the drafting committee.

    Can a feminist look to the Judeo Christian Tradition as a source of
    inspiration?  Can a women find inspiration in symbols, myths, and words
    that are all Male.  Can a woman constantly translate every reference to
    the masculine and still be inpired?

"Perhaps it is no wonder that women were first at the cradle and last at
the cross.  They had never known a man like this Man - a prophet and teacher
who never nagged at them; who praised without condescension; who never mapped
our their sphere, never urged them to be feminine; who had no axe to grind,
no uneasy male dignity to defend.  Nobody could possibly guess from the words
and deeds of Jesus that there was anything 'funny' about woman's nature."

						- Dorothy Sayers

Note 11.115

>    Can a feminist look to the Judeo Christian Tradition as a source of
>    inspiration?  Can a women find inspiration in symbols, myths, and words
>    that are all Male.  Can a woman constantly translate every reference to
>    the masculine and still be inpired?

I consider myself a feminist.  Granted, what you are saying is quite valid.
And I can certainly understand why one might possess the impulse to utterly
reject any tradition that has imposed oppressive attitudes and conditions upon
women.

At the same time, there are too many accurate observations such as the one
by Dorothy Sayers in 11.114 for me to completely abandon Christianity as
unsalvageable.  Even Paul, product of his culture that he was, made an
occasional incredibly visionary statement about gender equality.

Peace,
Richard

    I have a wonderful book at home called _The Land of Milk and Honey_
    that has some insights in it.  If I remember right it was written by a
    German woman named Elizabeht Molt___.  I think it was published in
    about '78.  If you are interested, I could make a point to get the
    exact information.  (It is not my book, so I can't offer to lend it.)

    Debbi,
    
    I can probably find the book from the information you have included. I
    see three perspectives regarding feminism.  Right now I am aiming for
    the middle.
    
    Fundamental.  If I accepted that the bible was word for word inpired by
    God then I would have to believe what Paul said about women shutting up
    in church and submitting to there husband.  I would also have to
    believe that Lot,  a drunken child abuser was the only good person God
    could find in Sodon and Gommorea.  I would have to believe the total
    nothingness that women were assigned in the books of Moses was inpired
    by God.  Clearly I cannot accept that.
    
    Middle.  The the prophetic tradition and the words of Jesus point to
    freedom from all oppression including the oppression of women, slaves,
    homosexuals, poor, etc.  That there are great ideas in the bible that point 
    beyond the historic realities of the Judeo Christian culture.  That the
    Judeo Christian culture, not the Divine,  ordained the subordination of
    parts of humanity to other parts of humanity.
    
    Radical.  That to realize one's own spirituality and divinity one must
    have myths, symbols, and liturgy that affirms oneself in all ones dimension. 
    For a women, this is impossible in the Judeo Christian tradition
    because all the myths and symbols are male.  The Wicca movement is
    persuasive in this regard.
    
    My leaning right now is to incorporate the best of the Judeo Christian
    tradition with powerful feminine myths and symbols.  To know that God
    as God or as the Holy Spirit is not Male or Female.  That God sent his
    son rather than his daughter because the Greek/Hebrew/Roman world at
    the time would not accept a Female Christ.  If Christ were to come
    today, I would hope she would come as a Woman to rescue the world from
    the authoritarianism, militarism, oppression the still reigns.
    
    Pat

        Pat

    This book has alot of examples of feminine symbols that are Christian
    and that have been, oh, sort of backgrounded, over the centuries.  I
    myself am not very capable of abstract thinking, so I have a hard time
    grasping alot of what was said, but I think there is alot there.  There
    is also an extensive bibliography.  (Unfortunately the author is
    German, so most if not all of her references are German.)

    Some of what I did grasp had to do with the differences between
    maternal love and paternal love.  And there is alot of time spent on
    trying to prove that Jesus practiced a maternal form of love, but that
    the writers did their best to downplay that.  The chapter I am
    currently trying to wade thru talks alot about the fact that it was
    three *women* who were the first to know about the resurrection.

    Debby

Debby .119,

>    Some of what I did grasp had to do with the differences between
>    maternal love and paternal love.

In Erich Fromm's classic "The Art of Loving," the author examines how
God's love is both maternal and paternal, unconditional and demanding.

Peace,
Richard

From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Quaker Concerns, peace issues, consensus process, spirituality" 21-FEB-1992 01:07:18.76
To:	Michael Valenza <BIGQ::valenza>
CC:	
Subj:	Feminist Theology mailing list

   The following notice about FEMREL-L, a computer discussion list on
feminist theology, appeared on ACTIV-L "The Activists' Mailing List"
back in January. I don't know anything about FEMREL-L from personal
experience, so I have no idea what it is like. But Bruce felt that the
topic of feminist theology might be of interest to some on QUAKER-L, so
here goes.
                 Peace, Cathy Flick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(from Rich Winkel, list owner of ACTIV-L)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 14:03:25 CST



Following is a self-description of an electronic mailing list devoted

to feminist theology. I have no connection with this list.



-------  FEMREL-L  ----------------------------------------------------



FEMREL-L on [email protected]



   FEMREL-L is an open discussion and resource list concerning women &

   religion and feminist theology.  Our goal is open, stimulating

   discussion on any and all issues pertaining to these topics.  All

   religions, creeds, beliefs, opinions, etc. are welcome, although we

   do ask that participants respect differences.



   To subscribe, send the following command to LISTSERV@UMCVMB via mail

   or interactive message:
    SUB FEMREL-L your_full_name


   where "your_full_name" is your name.  For example:



      SUB FEMREL-L Joan Doe



   Submissions to the list should be sent to:



      [email protected]



   Owners:  Cathy Quick <[email protected]>

            Bonnie Vegiard <[email protected]>

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA09563; Thu, 20 Feb 92 22:10:40 -0800
% Received: from VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU by vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 7610; Fri, 21 Feb 92 00:09:45 CS
% Received: by UIUCVMD (Mailer R2.07) id 3537; Fri, 21 Feb 92 00:09:43 CST
% Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 1992 01:09:00 EST
% Reply-To: "Quaker Concerns, peace issues, consensus process, spirituality" <[email protected]
% Sender: "Quaker Concerns, peace issues, consensus process, spirituality" <[email protected]
% From: CATHYF%[email protected]
% Subject:      Feminist Theology mailing list
% To: Michael Valenza <BIGQ::valenza>

From the Pope, John Paul II, to the former Presiding Bishop of the
Episcopal Church, John Maury Allin, to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Robert Runcie, to the outspoken Anglican Bishop of London, Graham
Leonard, the most remarkable words have been spoken to prove that
the "unbroken tradition of two thousand years of an all-male priesthood"
is not a manifestation of prejudice and sin of a patriarchal, sexist
society, but rather a manifestation of the unchanging will of God
supported by "the word of God" in the Bible.....

In separate ways, but with patriarchal consistency, the various Christian
leaders accepted a definition of women that precluded the possibility
that a woman could represent God at the altar.  Without daring to say so
outright, they were nevertheless suggesting that women are not created
in the image of God.  Only men share that honor.  Paul had made that
argument in the First Epistle to the Corinthians -- "For a man ought not
to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is
the glory of man (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.) (I Cor 11:7-9).
Paul drew in that same epistle the conclusion that, therefore, "the
women should keep silence in the churches.  For they are not permitted
to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.  If there
is anything they [women] desire to know, let them ask their husbands
at home.  For it is shameful for women to speak in church" (I Cor 14:34,
35).

If this passage is taken literally, if the Bible is regarded as the "inerrant
word of God," then no woman can sing in a choir, participate in liturgy,
teach Sunday School, or be ordained as a pastor or priest.  Churches with
women participating in any of these areas, and that includes every church
in Christendom on some level,have thus ignored, reinterpreted, dismissed,
or relavitized these biblical passages......It is only a matter of time
before all vestiges of the ecclesiastical oppression of women will come to
an end.

				-Bishop John Shelby Spong
				 from "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"

    
    I was at a Sahaja Yoga gathering last night, watching a video of Sri
    Mataji talking about the ego and the superego.
    
    One very interesting point she made was that, "There was the Father,
    then the Son, and now is the time for the Mother."
    
    Cindy

    I have been reading sections from George Fox's journal, written some
    350 years ago, and it is always interesting to run across passages that
    express his views on women.  He often stood up for women against the
    sexism of his day.  I would like to quote a couple of references to
    this subject that I have run across so far.  Here's one:

        After this, I met up with a sort of people that held women have no
        souls.  But I reproved them and told them that was not right, for
        Mary said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath
        rejoiced in God my Saviour."...

    And here's another:

        In Leicestershire, as I was passing through the fields, I was
        moved to go to Leicester, and when I came there I heard of great
        meetings for a dispute and that there were many to preach,
        Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Common-prayermen.  The
        meeting was in a steeplehouse; and I was moved to go among them. 
        And I hard their discourse and reasonings, some being in pews and
        the priest in the pulpit, abundance of people being gathered
        together.  At last one woman asked a question out of Peter, what
        that birth was, viz. a being "born again of incorruptible seed, by
        the Word of God, that liveth and abideth for ever."  And the priest
        said to her, "I permit not a woman to speak in the church"; though
        he had before given liberty for any to speak.  Whereupon I was rapt
        up, as in a rapture, in the Lord's power; and I stepped up in a
        place and asked the priest, "Dost thou call this place a church? 
        Or dost thou call this mixed platitude a church?"  For the woman
        asking a question, he ought to have answered it, having given
        liberty for any to speak....

    -- Mike

                Listening to the voices of Catholic women
         review of GENEROUS LIVES: American Catholic Women Today
                             By Jane Redmont
                         in today's Boston Globe
                           By Teresa M. Hanafin

    Given all the conflicts between being a Catholic and being an American
    woman--the church's opposition to birth control, abortion and the
    ordination of women, to name a few--one wonders why any woman would
    choose to remain part of the church.  The answers, explored through the
    voices of Jane Redmont's "Generous Lives: American Catholic Women
    Today," are varied, complex, and ultimately touching.

    There is Karen Doherty of Manhattan, assistant directory of membership
    for the American Management Association, who grew angry at the church
    for its refusal to allow her to divorce a violent man and still
    maintain her standing in the church.  Yet she remains faithful: "When I
    pray in a community with the symbols and the traditions I've been
    raised with," she says, "they speak to me."

    Or Marlene Jones of California, who briefly attended a Baptist church,
    but returned to her Catholic roots.  Although some traditions annoy
    her--"One day they're going to realize that women can be priests," she
    says--she find comfort in others.  "I was Catholic," she says.  "It was
    something that was innate.  That's what it's all about.  It's the
    tradition."

    Redmont turned on her tape recorder and let it run, not shutting it off
    until she had interviewed more than 100 women across the country
    ranging in age from 17 to 92.  The result is fascinating: women
    speaking in their own words about their religious and personal lives
    and their relationship with God and the church, interspersed with
    essays by Redmont exploring topics raised by the women: knowing God,
    the role of sex, Catholic women as ministers.

    While not all the women interviewed by Redmont criticized the
    paternalism of the church, almost every woman questioned whether the
    church respected them as valuable, fully adult human beings.  Many
    of them longed not just for female priests and bishops, but for a more
    visible, public voice in the hierarchy of the church--a decision-making
    role, rather than the traditional supporting role that women have
    always filled.

    Redmont believes that American Catholic women carry a dual burden: As
    women, they are expected to be the caretakers of their families; as
    Catholics, they are given the public mission of caring for others.  The
    result is that many women "do for others" to the point of neglecting
    themselves--the so-called generous lives of the title.

    In many ways, the yearnings of women in the United States are unique in
    the worldwide church.  Redmont maintains that Catholics in this
    country bring a uniquely American experience to their relationship with
    the church.  Accustomed to free speech and participatory democracy in
    every other aspect of their lives, many Catholic women find themselves
    labeled rebellious when they question church dogma.  Most disagreed with
    the church's official teachings, in both theory and practice, but did
    not see themselves as defiant for not following those teachings. 
    Rather, they shrugged off many of the church's views as simply
    irrelevant to their practical experience.

    What Redmont discovered is that many women stay in the church because
    they have a deeply personal, spiritual connection to God, and
    attending Mass provides a forum for them to renew that relationship. 
    "The belief that God is present in the ordinary life is
    characteristically Catholic," she writes.  "It is also typically
    female."  Nancy Vitti of Brooklyn, who drives a school bus for disabled
    children, is one such example.  "I speak to God the way I'm speaking to
    you," she says.

    As interesting as the women's first-person testimonials are, Redmont's
    chapters on the issues raised by the women are equally provocative. 
    She discusses the demographic distribution of American Catholics, and
    how Catholics' presence sometimes infuses the political and social life
    of a region.  As Sister Mary Boys, a professor of theology at Boston
    College, points out, "You'd never find a Monsignor O'Brien Highway in
    Seattle."

    Redmont also borrows from Rev. Andrew Greeley's book, "The Catholic
    Myth," to make the point that American Catholics--now better educated
    and more highly paid than their Protestant counterparts--are changing
    the American face of the church from that of immigrant to professional,
    making it more ecumenical, more supportive of women's rights--changes
    that often put them at odds with the institutional church.

    But Redmont's women simply refuse to allow the church to drive them
    away.  As Caryl Rivers, author and Boston University professor, whom
    Redmont credits with persuading her to write the book, says: "I am
    Catholic by *my* definition, which is the only one that really
    matters."

	Maybe it's a sign of getting old, but there's something that been
bugging me for a while now.  I just have to get this off my chest.

	It seems to me we've slipped up on the potential for truly improving
the quality of our lives and the lives of others on God's earth.

	The women's movement opened up a host of possibilities for creating
equity and parity for all people regardless of gender.  But what came out
of it?

	Well, we now have TV commercials for menstrual pads, douches
reminiscent of 'summer rain,' vaginal moisturizers, and over-the-counter
remedies for recurring vaginal yeast infections.  Live models may now wear
bras on TV commercials instead of being displayed on a tailor's form or some
ghost model.  We still have commercials appealing to air-headed self-
indulgence with pitches such as, "Here are the curls, girls!"

	Women raised our consciousness to the exploitation that occurs in
the form of erotic dancers, nudie bars, Playboy centerfolds, etc..  But what
came out it?  Chippendales, male strippers, and slick magazines with male
centerfolds.

	Then there's the military.  Did we feminize attitudes towards
war?  Was "Another Mother for Peace" successful in convincing the populace
that war is unhealthy for children and other living things?  No.  Not only
no, but Hell, no.  We did succeed, however, in getting women into infantry
combat, and more recently, into piloting fighters in combat missions.
Hooray for us.

	Now we're struggling to secure the acceptance of gays in the military
when we should probably be setting our sights on having *all* people banned
from military service.

	Did we take a wrong turn somewhere?

Richard

    
    >Did we take a wrong turn somewhere??
    
    Yep, away from God.

	Not all have turned away from God, of course.  And even some who
haven't turned away from God don't always exercise their God-given
conscience.

	The pursuit of the almight buck ($) has certainly demonstrated amazing
flexibility in adapting to whatever societal circumstances it encounters.

Richard
    

      Feminist theologians have given themselves license to create
      a New Mythology for a New Age, freed from the "oppressive"
      inherited "myth" they believe was imposed on them by "the
      patriarchy".  In "claiming their power" they feel compelled
      to reject authority (though they are quite willing to exercise
      power over others).  They seek to impose their "new morality"
      on the rest of the world, to manipulate and politicize
      language, to deconstruct texts of Scripture and re-construct
      them according to the feminist "hermeneutic of suspicion"
      and to inhabit and use the established structures of Christianity
      (i.e. the churches) in order to effect a collapse from within.
      One of the most dishonest of the New Myths is the claim of
      feminist zealots to speak in the name of _all_ women -- including
      those who are "not yet aware" of "oppression by the patriarchal
      Church".
      					Helen Hull Hitchcock
      					Women for Faith & Family

    
          Women must create a  New Mythology for a New Age.
    
          many aspects of The inherited myths are "oppressive".
    
    	  In   "claiming our power we are compelled to reject hierarchical,
    patriarchal authority.
    
          Feminist theologigan struggle for a concept of power with and not
    power over.
    
    We seek to show the world how oppressive traditional religion can be
    because we believe that the divine is good and oppression is evil and
    therefore when good people realize how oppressive inherited structures
    can be, they will change them.
    
    Language is manipulative and political.  Feminist seek to create feminine
     symbols to balance the masculine ones.
    
    Feminists must either reject scripture or reconstruct it.  Accepting
    oppressive scripture and symbols is not a viable alternative.
    
    Each feminist decides for herself whether to seek faith within the
    structures of Christianity or Judaism or other religion or to
    reconstruct ancient pagan religions or to create new symbols.
    
    All women are oppressed by a tradition that teaches that women should
    be quiet and only men are created in the image of God.  All men are
    also oppressed by that same tradition.  Women are oppressed by being
    taught that God is a man and they are "other".
    
    
    
                               regards,
    
    Patricia   -who is very opinionated on this subject.

    RE: Pat,
    
    		Well now you've gone and done it! ;-)  I just gotta put my
    2� in.  I challange you to find *ANY* so-called "ill" in this or any
    other nation that isn't blamed on the "white, anglo-saxon, het, male".
    Since I fall into this area, I have been blamed for Womens oppression,
    African American slavery, drug abuse, rape, child abuse, and on and on
    and on.  And *I* didn't do anything.  I'm beginning to believe that
    with the extreem polorization that is currently happining in this country
    that I am now a "minority".   I wonder........? :-)
    
    
    Dave

RE:             <<< Note 11.130 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>
                                 -< rebuttal >-

    
       
   . Feminists must either reject scripture or reconstruct it.  Accepting
   . oppressive scripture and symbols is not a viable alternative.
    

     As I understand the Scripture, God has a slightly different view on
     restructuring same.



       
   . All women are oppressed by a tradition that teaches that women should
   . be quiet and only men are created in the image of God.  All men are
   . also oppressed by that same tradition.  Women are oppressed by being
   . taught that God is a man and they are "other".
    
    
     I'm a man and I do not consider myself oppressed..and I believe I can
     speak for several women in my church to do not consider themselves oppresed
     in fact consider it joy to be obedient to the God who has given them 
     life...I get tears in my eyes when I see and hear the joy that is present
     in men and women in my church...what is oppressive, IMO is someone telling
     THEM they are oppressed.




 Jim
    
        
    

I have been asking you for a long time to show me where anyone but the
feminists teaches that Christianity teaches that only male humans are
made in the image of God.

This claim is a direct contradiction of Genesis 1:27 which is extremely
specific that God created both men and women in the image of God.

You are producing a specific example of dishonest feminist deconstruction
when you claim that Christianity teaches that only male humans aremade in
the image of God.

What is the purpose of this false claim?

/john

     The truth is that feminists don't like women, and they don't
     want to be women.  Like Gloria Steinem, a few may wish to become
     the men they once wanted to marry.  But most, including the
     statisically significant proportion who are lesbians, disapprove
     of gender entirely.  Viewing existence through the distorting
     lens of self-pity, they are enraged with the limitations of
     incarnational reality.  Probably because few of them are tied
     to the concrete necessities of family life, feminist theologians
     exceed secular feminists in ideological zeal and perseverance
     and exceed Prometheus in presumption.  Their ultimate rebellion,
     against God the Father and his Son, the male Saviour Jesus Christ,
     has been disguised for public consumption as a campaign for
     "inclusive" liturgical language.  On its face, it is a child's
     complaint against grammatical convention, to be addressed in an
     introductory course on the structure of the English language.
     But in private, and in their own publications, feminist theologians
     reveal, behind that mask, naked denial of the objectively existent,
     transcendent Father God.  They hope to replace him with a gnostic
     deity, androgynous, immanent, and worshipped in themselves.
     Chesterton's prediction "that Jones shall worship the god within
     him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones",
     is as true of Catholic feminists as of other gnostics.
     
     					--Donna Steichem

    I guess I am growing in my faith enough to be able to smile at Donna
    Steiche's quote and to know how truly oppressed she is.
    
    I will write more when I have a bit more time.\
    
    
    Patricia

    RE: .134
    
    		Its nice to know that there is someone in this world that
    can truly read minds and determine exactly whats wrong with everyone
    else and take that power to apply a persons motivation in a very
    negative manner.  And we wonder why the world looks at Christians as 
    "judgemental".  
    
    
    Dave

>It's nice to know that there is someone in this world that can truly
>read minds

Donna Steichen is not "reading minds".  Her book, "Ungodly Rage, The Hidden
Face of Catholic Feminism" is well researched and well documented.

The neo-pagans behind the goddess cult have openly published their hatred of
patriarchal structures and their intent to destroy Christianity by a practice
of direct infiltration of the existing structures.  Mrs. Steichen provides
ample references -- or go to any New Age bookstore yourself.

No Christian can afford to ignore the deliberate fifth-column attack on
Our Lord and Saviour and His Church.

/john

	I smell stereotyping and it smells bad.

	My beliefs are different from Eileen's are different from
	Patricia's are different from Dave's are different from
	...... and so on.

	To say that "Feminists believe this" is like saying all
	Christians believe dancing is a sin.  It just ain't so.

	Stereotyping depersonalizes.  It doesn't promote love of
	God (male, female, neither or both) or love of one's
	fellow human being.

	Tom

re Note 11.134 by COVERT::COVERT (quoting Donna Steichem):

        > Probably because few of them [feminists] are tied to the
        > concrete necessities of family life, feminist theologians
        > exceed secular feminists in ideological zeal and perseverance
        > and exceed Prometheus in presumption.

        Of course, if lack of tie to the "concrete necessities of
        family life" explains a charge of "ideological zeal" and
        "presumption", then might not the Christian church's history
        of celibacy and communal living also be expected to lead to
        extreme positions?

        Perhaps an examination of contemporary extremist movements
        teaches us not only about those movements but also about
        historical traditions which are possibly just as extreme, but
        not viewed as such because of familiarity.

        Bob