Reading through my own recent posts, I’ve been struck and saddened by how little I have written about how my faith and my feminism intersect. I realize that I have spent too much time writing for an audience. Most of the blogs that I read that deal with feminist and men’s issues aren’t much concerned with faith; only a few of the Christian blogs I am fond of spend much time on gender issues. (There are some fine exceptions, like Lynn, Jenell, Camassia, and Christy).
My Christian faith and my pro-feminism do not exist in separate compartments. Though I’m pretty good at living with internal contradictions, my faith and my feminism are not at odds with one another. Indeed, I’d like to think that they inform and shape each other, always challenging me to grow spiritually, intellectually, and morally.
As I’ve blogged before, I’m a "cradle pro-feminist." From childhood through young adulthood, I was raised with egalitarian, liberal, and thoroughly secular values. In my family, politics was our civil religion, and the fight for equal rights for women the central focus. But as I grew through adolescence towards manhood, I did not find sufficient purpose and meaning in political struggle alone. I tried, believe me, even abandoning liberalism for revolutionary socialism in my mid-teens. (Guess who was subscribing to the Militant at age 15?) It wasn’t enough. I had a harder and harder time matching my language and my private life. I spouted fine things in public, and was a mixed-up, typically self-destructive guy in private. My political feminism did not help me in my relationships with girlfriends, I found. When it came to relationships with women, ideological commitment alone was not enough to overcome my selfishness and my insecurity.
I first came to Christ in college. In the eighteen years since I first asked Jesus into my heart, I’ve known most of the classic highs and lows of the convert. I’ve gone from absolute, blissed-out certainty to horrible, crushing doubt — and back again. I’ve church-shopped with the best of them: I’ve called myself a Catholic, a non-denom evangelical, a Mennonite, and an Episcopalian. I had brief but intense flirtations with the Assemblies of God and the Salvation Army. I’m at home now, in my church, and far more at peace with my faith than ever before. My denominational affiliations shift from time to time, but my Christology doesn’t. Jesus is Lord, the ancient and simple statement of faith, remains a creed I can say and believe without hesitation. Beyond the power of words to describe, I love Him.
I don’t blog much about my faith these days because it is, in some sense,almost embarrassingly simple. I love Jesus and I try and follow Him. I want to grow to be he whom He wants me to be. I pray to Him, I talk to Him in the car, I listen to Him when I run in the mountains, I read His word and am humbled and shaped by it. But though all of that is true, I’m still in some sense fiercely protective of my faith. I don’t mind my politics being ridiculed — I do mind my relationship with Christ being questioned in the wide open spaces of the blogopshere. Faith, like the intimate details of one’s sexuality, ought to be more private, or so it seems to me.
But how do my faith and my feminism intersect? We all read the Scriptures with our own preconceptions, of course. I need other Christians who don’t share my poilitics to show me my biases, and I am grateful to have such friends in my life today. There is much in the New Testament that touches on male-female relationship, and I’ve turned to it regularly as I reflect on gender issues. It’s eas to get into proof-texting, and I don’t do it and ask my commenters not to. (That means quoting a passage out of context as "proof" that Jesus or Paul felt a certain way on a contemporary issue). But in recent years, I’ve become increasingly aware of God’s call to do radical justice in the world at large and in one’s personal relationships. Sexism,in its myriad forms, is profound sin. I believe Christians are called to question what the world tells us about men and women, and to be in our own lime as subversive of traditional roles as Jesus was in His.
I believe in the Christian idea of a "calling", or a vocation. I believe God wants me in the classroom, and He wants me doing gender work. I don’t mean that I think that every word I type or speak is God’s will — heaven forbid! Rather, I believe that working to reconcile men to the reality of their privilege — and to help them to transform — is real ministry. I don’t do it as well as I’d like. I get frustrated and ill-tempered and filled with doubt. But I do believe that in my own deeply imperfect way, I am doing exactly what it is I was meant to do.
My faith has given me the strength to live out in private what I proclaim in public. Without God, my feminist commitments would be passionate but superficial. Whatever success I have had in matching my language to my life is thanks to Him, not me. I don’t push my faith on my students or my allies in the feminist movement, but I don’t generally try and hide it, either. Lately, however, I haven’t been blogging about it, and it was starting to nag at me.
Before I go on the Glenn Sacks show on Sunday, I’m going to say a small prayer for Glenn and his listeners, and I am going to ask my God to guide my speech. I want to speak — and listen — in love. I want to be slower to anger, less prideful, less condescending to those who don’t seem to "get it." (Lord, remind me that sometimes, I don’t "get it" either.) I’ve been praying a lot lately for reconciliation within the men’s movement and for those who are on the "other side". I would be so grateful if some of my readers who are of faith would pray for me and for Glenn before Sunday’s show.
I will surely try to listen to the Sacks program via straming audio on Sunday. It sounds like it will be provacative: “Schwyzer will attack Glenn and the men’s movement on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, January 23 at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST.” I hope it’s not as combatative as all that; clearly you are a critic, but to say that you “attack” the men’s movement and Sacks himself is very odd. The man clearly sees things defensively.
I will be thinking of you.
Alles Gutes
Troy
Well said Hugo!
As I fellow Christian, and a university student who is trying to understand various gender issues, I have learned to respect your opinions on many issues. I am not always in agreement with you, but I’m sure you expect that of your readers.
Keep up the good work, and I would love to see you integrate your faith into more of your posts.
I’m curious as to which Christian authorites you have come to respect in the area of gender studies? What are some well-written books you’ve read? (I understand that you are a busy man, but I would love to know.)
ianvh
ianvh, the single best writer on women in the church — from a New Testament perspective — is David Scholer, a prof at nearby Fuller Seminary. Any of his many books and articles on women are super. He’s an inclusive evangelical trusted by folks across the theological spectrum.
Of course, though conservatives may sneeer, I think the world of Rosemary Ruether. Again, she’s got tons of books out there — all are useful.
Hugo,
I’m thrilled that you will have this wonderful opportunity to expand your views on the men’s movement. I’m really looking forward to tuning in and rooting for you.
I pray for spiritual guidance to light the way for you, to give you the strength and courage to stand up for your convictions; to illuminate you.__
Indeed, best of luck.
I have steered away from that conversation myself. I find I no longer have the energy to argue it out even on my blog. It is too taxing for me at this point. So, peace and wisdom go with you, sir. May God bless the conversation.
Thanks so much, folks.
fwiw, a quick layperson’s guide to feminist Biblical scholarship is “The Word According to Eve”, by Cullen Murphy. Author is not a theologian or Biblical scholar, but an editor at Atlantic Mo. or Harper’s Mag.. This is well written, and it conveys some of the controversy and new scholarship in the area.
One problem with faith being ‘private,’ as you say you want it to remain, is that not everybody thinks it ought to be. That is, there are various denominations of Christians who think that it very much ought to be made as public as possible, from demonstrations to changes in the laws. And, as a Christian, your own faith is then seen as ‘fair game’ for analysis.
Put another way, one of my responses to fundamentalist Christians is to question the very notion of faith in the Bible (and via the Bible, Christ–if you don’t buy the bible, then why would you buy Christ?). There are many senses in which faith just doesn’t make sense–if one can’t analyze it at all, then I can go around ‘having faith’ that Christ was a big jerk, and really nobody can say anything other than “I don’t have that faith.” And on and on.
So, if you’re going to make Christianity part of your belief system–and if you’re going to try to intersect it with feminism, something I see as a tough row to hoe–then you’re going to have to be able to take some criticism, right?
Hugo-
Have you read CS Lewis? I think you’d like him and I’d reccommend “Mere Christianity.” It’s especially good if you can keep in mind when it was written. He makes a couple of comments about homosexuality with which I disagree, but in general it’s the best book about Christianity I’ve ever read.
As a tangent related to another thread: I don’t think there’s any contradiction between Christianity and feminism as long as one considers the political aspirations of Constantine. In many ways Christianity transformed Rome AWAY from an intensely patriarchal culture and into one that valued an exclusive marriage contract in which men and women had a much higher degree of equality.
In fact I’d argue that you can’t arrive at the conclusion of equality without first recognizing that all are made in God’s image.
Yes, I have read Mere Christianity and I love it. My favorite “adult” Lewis books are “Till we Have Faces” and “The Great Divorce”; as a child, I loved the Chronicles of Narnia. Oh heck, I still love them.
I haven’t read any of his fantasy books.
A website you might like:
http://www.ronblock.com
Look under his “writings” section — some pretty deep stuff and very influenced by Lewis.
He’s also a kickass banjo player with Alison Krauss and Union Station.
I think you and I might find more that we agree on than disagree.
OK. I’ll ask more directly: Hugo, doesn’t it bother you that Christianity, as taken from belief in the bible, is inherently sexist?
I don’t think it is, jp. I think that we have many ways of reading Scripture. There are many ways to interpret Paul, for example, where he comes out looking quite remarkably egalitarian, if not in a way that most folks would realize.
I also think there’s a big difference between what is Christianity and what is the “Roman Church.”
Not to be too crass here, but how many books of the bible were written by women?
Now, the fact that there is a dearth of books of the bible that were written by women doesn’t logically entail that the religion is sexist, but it does imply that the situation needs to be at least addressed, that the potentiality of it being sexist is huge.
God is a man. The savior is a man. All of the apostles–men. Holy ghost is given as male. All of the people in the position of spiritual power in the bible are men. I’m at a loss for how that can be interpreted as not being sexist…
JP, can you distinguish between the use of male pronouns (which the Bible does use for God), and God’s actual gender identity? Most Christians do. I haven’t met many who would insist on the masculine identity of the Holy Spirit!
I’d have to go with your take on things, Hugo, when you say ‘most christians do,’ because of my limited exposure to christians–but don’t you think that’s controversial? Maybe in your christian circles it’s true, but do you really think the christian masses who, say, voted for Bush Jr. think of god as genderless? Most of them?
Also, regarding the Holy Spirit–I may have this wrong, but wasn’t it the Holy Spirit that did the dirty work for god to get Mary pregnant? That seems decidedly masculine.
Also–doesn’t it bother you as a feminist to follow the word of god as written down by only/mostly men? At all? Isn’t it something that ought to be addressed by christian/feminists?
…guess not…
Whoops, I never saw this thread.
“but do you really think the christian masses who, say, voted for Bush Jr. think of god as genderless?”
Folks have many reasons for voting for Bush. I know many thoughtful evangelicals who voted for W because of his stance on social issues — but they are well aware that God is not male in the biological sense. They are comfortable using the male pronouns both out of tradition and, in some cases, out of a desire to see unending love and care identified with male attributes.
I have no trouble with the circumstances of Mary’s conceiving Jesus. Conception — be it by the Holy Spirit or through sex — is not inherently oppressive to women.
Most Christian feminists are less concerned with the maleness of the authorship of Scripture than with the maleness of the traditional interpretations of Scripture. Big difference!
Thanks for responding, Hugo.
When you say “Most Christian feminists are less concerned with the maleness of the authorship of Scripture than with the maleness of the traditional interpretations of Scripture. Big difference!” it makes me think, well, I’ll just bet they are…but the two things are inextricably intertwined. It seems difficult to believe that the fact that all of the books of the bible were written by men wouldn’t influence the very nature of the Scripture–no matter how one tries to interpret things, god is still referred to as a man in the bible, right? Every. Single. Time. It’s that darn “He” pronoun. Whomever is doing the interpreting is influenced by that fact.
Still, I do think that if one is going to be a Christian, one ought to keep in mind what you say about interpretation.
Regarding Mary–One of the things that has always bothered me about the Jesus-conception story is that there is no explicit consent. Did god ask Mary if she wanted to be impregnated? Nope. Did the Holy Spirit ask if he could enter Mary’s body? Nope. Sounds particularly anti-woman to me. Conception might not be inherently oppresive, but conception without permission is. I don’t see how one gets around that. Sure, Mary might have been overjoyed at the thought of bearing the son of god, but why wasn’t she explicitly given the choice?–in my mind, she wasn’t given the choice because of the inherent misogyny of Christianity.
Um, JP, Luke 1:38 seems pretty clearly to emphasize Mary’s consent.
And most Christians don’t tend to think of the Holy Spirit as “just another guy.”
See, that sort of response is what is so frustrating about people who base their ethics, their lives, on a book that needs to be interpreted–and yet pretend that the interpretation isn’t up for debate (i.e. *I* don’t think that it clearly emphasizes what you think it does), because I think you took that quote out of context, and changed the meaning of the thing. Take a look at the context:
“Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.â€
34“How will this be,†Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?â€
35The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God.â€
38“I am the Lord’s servant,†Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.†Then the angel left her. ”
Mary said what she had to say–what choice did she have?–she wasn’t offered a choice, she was commanded with what WILL happen. There was no, “Hey, would it be ok with you if I impregnated you?” There WAS “this will happen, and that will happen”. Mary’s ‘consent’ was an afterthought, and not a response to a question…all the part of the quote that you give us tells us is that IF Mary HAD been asked, she would have been fine with it. That’s not my point–the point is that it’s misogynistic that god didn’t ask.
I mean, HE even dictates the kid’s freakin’ name. Geez.
Look at it another way for me: Let’s say I’m a powerful king, and I have my messenger dictate this to a woman…even if she WOULD have consented (because, hey, I’m powerful and she has a lot to lose to refuse me), she isn’t given the choice, at the outset. Wouldn’t THAT be misogynistic?
I suppose I’m more like Liebniz than Kant–god doesn’t get off the hook for misogyny just because he’s god.
And it isn’t important to my point that the holy spirit be ‘just another guy’–it IS important to my point that he IS a guy, and is ANOTHER GUY in the sense that the bible is full of godlike men and subservient women.
I know you’re a busy guy, Hugo. But I am genuinely curious to know what you think about my response to what I saw as your misleading response…if you get the chance.
JP, God does this with everyone, men and women. Even his most precious Son, our Lord, pleads in the garden of Gethsemane to “let this cup pass” and not go to the cross. God is sovereign, JP, meaning that He is not a man, he is our Lord and Ruler — albeit the ultimate loving, benevolent ruler. Men and women alike serve him in total submission, but with trust that his way is best.
“Men and women alike serve him in total submission, but with trust that his way is best.”
HIS way. Why not eliminate the pronouns for god in the bible? Because it MATTERS that god is a man in the bible. If it didn’t matter, they woulnd’t have done it that way.
It matters in the King James Version in common use in the English-speaking world today. But the real question is, what does the original text say?
Well, you may be right that it could be different in the original, zuzu, but is that what the real question is? Who uses the original version today? If the King James (and other common versions) are used today, by most christians, and they contain sexist language (i.e. god is always a He), then I say the religion can’t help but be sexist.
is that what the real question is? Who uses the original version today?
Fair enough point, as far as it goes. Your original statement was Why not eliminate the pronouns for god in the bible? Because it MATTERS that god is a man in the bible. If it didn’t matter, they woulnd’t have done it that way.
Perhaps I misinterpreted who you meant by “they.” If “they” means the original writers, then a look at the source materials would find out if in fact “they” had “done it that way.” If, as you seem to be saying now, “they” refers to later translators, then the source material is less important since the current state of the religion is based on modern translations.
Of course, I maintain that mistranslations just show that this isn’t really the Word o’ God.
Preaching to the converted aside (pun intended)–because it sounds like we may not have such different opinions on the subject–I sort of like Judaism regarding the Word o’ God, as subject to our interpretation; the fact that we HAVE to interpret is built into the religion itself, instead of pretending that there could be any one way of interpreting.
I’m open to the idea that christianity based on the bible isn’t anit-feminist; I’m just trying to get Hugo to own up to the fact (as I see it) that it needs to be addressed if you’re a christian and a feminist.
Of course Hugo, like god, is now absent from the discussion. ;)
I have stumbled upon your web site by looking for ‘anti-feminism’ web sites. I decided to enter because I have seen your name mentioned on the Man Power site. Now I do not judge a person by second hand information, however, what i have seen here is only reinforced by what i read concerning you on Man Power. No one is attacking feminism for self- serving reasons. Let’s both, for a moment, erase everything we have ever learned and felt regarding male- female roles and relationships in the world. It is a lot to ask, but I promise you, it is the only way to find Truth. Now let us spend a week touring the country together, both big cities and small towns. Let’s visit the homes of Americans and the businesses and bureucratic offices they work in. Now since we are talking about male and female relationships, we will focus soley on those for the moment. Everything is ok because we are in our own little bubble. We are without judgement because we are on a clean slate. Now….. listen if you will, to The Holy Spirit. Not with your eyes because your eyes are temporary and what you see with them will not last. I hate to use the word ‘feel’ because emotions sometimes mean something temporal too. But deeper. Go deeper into your soul where it all connects, and ask yourself, “Is this morally and ethically right? Are we to challenge God and play with what’s both natural and supernatural by tampering with WHO WE ARE as man and woman? You cannot take the femininity out of a woman, but YOU CAN take the woman out of femininity. This is not actually, but Truthfully, morally. Actually you ‘can’, but with great work. Because it is not natural, it is not supernatural. I ‘can’, over time, get used to ‘enjoying’ heroin. But what happens? My life deteriorates, although under the influence of heroin i may see my new life as progress. i have new ‘friends’ now. i may even have been chosen as a head drug dealer, over time, and this is a sense of power i have never experienced before. But what does this really do to the universe? This is an important question because my very existence depends on it. We are all connected, and what goes around, comes around. Even Jesus Christ taught this. That is the most crucial part of His Charity statement. “…as you would have them do unto you.” Charity, the the only love of God, is based on Law, the only truth of God. He was the fulfillment, not denial, of it. Many Christians today still insist that Jesus Christ abandoned Law. Wrong. Are we disregarding Law by abandoning our roles as man and woman? YES. Just as Jesus Christ fulfilled Law, Holy Bible fulfills Holy Spirit. Be very careful when feminists say they are fighting for women’s ‘rights’ out of ‘love’. Just as people pass off thier lies, based in hate, as Law, they pass off thier hate, based in lies, as Charity. Please unsear your conscience friend, and allow The Holy Spirit to heal you.
Jason, have you heard of the Constitution?
Who uses the original version today?
Uh, the Jews?
“You cannot take the femininity out of a woman, but YOU CAN take the woman out of femininity.”
Really? Where is this nation called Femininity? What is the longitude and latitude? I can’t find it on the globe. And do women lose their citizenship there if they cross its borders?
Jason, feminism has held great appeal for me ever since I was a child. Why? Because with feminism, it’s ok to be myself. My whole self, not just the truncated “feminine” version (which not only changes over time, but is also a standard set by males, which ought to seriously give one pause for the cause). Feminism says that I don’t have to squeeze into a rigid, limited role. That I don’t have to Method-act my way through my own life.
I remember the sex-segregated want ads. I remember the decision that required Little League to accept girls as players too. In many respects, my daughter will have fewer battles over the bare-bones basics than I (like being allowed to take certain classes in school, or being able to choose a certain career).
Then again, the fact that you and your ilk are around to still question these basics, and get all bent-out-of-shape and deterministic about them, means that she’s still going to have plenty of opportunity to fight the same ol’ same ol’ battles time and again.
If one is secure in one’s own masculinity, then one does not feel the need for women to recreate themselves as lesser beings. Food for thought.