8) We recognize patriarchy and sexism are “a mix of power, privilege, and prejudice.” [Freed in Christ: Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA], 1993), 4.] They prevent all human beings from living into the abundant life for which God created them. Patriarchy is a social system dominated by men, identified with men, and centered on men’s actions, voices, and authority. In patriarchal systems, men are typically viewed as better than women, given more power than women, and have more authority than women. This patriarchal worldview harms women and girls. Sexism is the reinforcement of male privilege. It promotes silencing, controlling, and devaluing women, girls, and gender non-conforming people. Everyone intentionally and unintentionally participates in a patriarchal system, and it affects individuals in different ways.
9) We recognize that when society and church have spoken about women and girls, the hidden assumption often has been that they are white and heterosexual. However, this statement’s references to women and girls are inclusive of all women—women of color and white women, lesbians, transgender women, women with disabilities, and immigrant women.
10) We believe that many individuals who suffer under the weight of patriarchy and sexism also experience intersecting burdens. In addition to sex or gender discrimination, they may also be treated in oppressive ways according to their race, ethnicity, economic status, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration status, or ability, or because of the language they speak.
11) We reject patriarchy and sexism as sinful because they deny the truth that all people are created equally in God’s image. Too often behaviors and decisions rooted in patriarchy and sexism cause overt harm, inequities, and degradations. Examples include gender-based violence (including physical and emotional violence and coercion), pay inequality, human trafficking, restricted access to health care and economic resources, inadequate research on health issues affecting women, denial of educational opportunities, objectifying portrayals of women in media, and failure to value and support elderly women, mothers, and children. [See ELCA social teaching documents that address many of these topics: ELCA.org/socialstatements and ELCA.org/socialmessages.]
------------------------------------------
Before we get to my thoughts, please note that the two areas in brackets above are footnotes in the Draft Statement which I have included for reference purposes.
Any systemic injustice or prejudice (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) can have both overt and covert elements. For example, there are racists such as the so-called "alt-right" who are incredibly blatant in both their racism and sexism. On the other hand, you sometimes have people who are not overtly racist, sexist, etc, but they still act in ways that are racist, sexist, etc. If you stop and think about it, I would imagine there has been at least one time when you have done so yourself. It is often a passing thought, a reflexive action, or something so small you probably didn't even think about it.
For example, have you ever seen a young black man walking down the street and watched them just a bit closer than you would other people? Or more to the point here, have you ever seen a woman and judged her intelligence based on how she looks? Both of these are examples of how even the best of us may be affected by the systemic prejudices that infect our society. We may not consciously say to ourselves that a woman who looks like a model is unintelligent, but because of the notions that our society has as assumptions, we may do so without even thinking about. To go the opposite direction, we may consider women who aren't as pretty or who wear glasses to be more intelligent because this is another notion that our society has: intelligence and smarts don't generally go together.
This sort of problem becomes even worse when the woman involved is a woman of color, a queer woman (whatever her gender identity or sexual orientation), or a queer woman of color because there are then multiple intersecting prejudices which come into play. In other words, not only do they have to deal with the sexism that a white heterosexual woman would have to deal with, but they also have to deal with prejudice based on their race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other identity (several of which are listed in 10) above).
When it comes to the church and to worship, patriarchal notions have an impact there as well. Until relatively recently, women either could not hold positions of overt authority or be ministers. I say overt authority because there have been women who have exerted covert or behind the scenes authority, which has led to certain stereotypes of women as being backstabbers or scheming vixens. But if you think about it, not giving talented women a chance to exercise their skills/talents in the open is going to force them to exercise them covertly, which leads to the stereotypes and simultaneously reinforces them.
I know when I first visited CTS, I was surprised at seeing a female pastor. Having grown up as a Catholic, I have had no experience with women leading worship services. I have almost always had female bosses, so the idea of females in authority doesn't bother or faze me, but I did have to take a teeny bit of time to adjust to a female pastor. But I have found Pastor Kari to be as good as (or in certain cases better than) other pastors or priests I have had contact with in the past. I will admit that my reaction was sexist of the covert nature. I didn't discount the idea of a female pastor, but it was something that I had never seriously considered because I just took it for granted that women couldn't be pastors. As I said above, I wasn't consciously putting women down, but I had grown up in a religion where women didn't have religious authority, so seeing a woman with religious authority challenged some ideas that were foundational to my understanding of religion.
I know that there have been other times (some of which I have acknowledged to individuals in the past) where I have inadvertently or unconsciously said something that was sexist. If I have ever done so to you, I want to apologize because I do try very hard not to do so, but I know that I am not perfect. If I do so in the future, please pull me aside and tell me and I will apologize then and there.
Please take a look at your own life and your own words. Do you ever do something to accidentally (or purposefully) perpetuate a sexist system? Do you actively police what you say in order to be sure that you don't say or do something that reinforces sexism? Do you challenge others when they do so?
We are all children of God and we all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of any aspect of our identity.
- Matt Vandover
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Monday, August 20, 2018
September 2018
From the Draft Statement, Basic Statement, Section III, Resources for Resisting Patriarchy and Sexism
16) While God’s Word of Law and Gospel speaks through the Scriptures, there are words and images, social patterns, and moral beliefs in them that reflect the patriarchal values of the cultures and societies in which they arose. Their continued misuse contributes to maintaining hierarchies and patterns of inequity and harm.
17) The Christian theological tradition also bears this dual character. In particular, some doctrines affect our understanding about humanity and God more than others. These teachings affect our use of language. The teachings about the image of God, the Body of Christ, and the Trinity have sometimes been misused to support patriarchal beliefs, attitudes, church practices, behaviors, and structures. At the same time, these doctrines also provide liberating resources for healing the effects of the sins of patriarchy and sexism.
---------------
I want to start with the two paragraphs above which, I believe, encapsulate the reason why we need to take care to examine the language that we use during religious services or when discussing God in general.
The Scriptures, like anything written by humans, reflects the cultural and personal biases that are present at the time it was written. While we cannot dismiss the Scriptures out of hand, we also should not accept them uncritically. We need to be aware of the biases that may creep into what was written and reflect on how those biases may affect how we personally (or collectively) interpret the Scriptures.
For example, the first Person of the Trinity has historically been referred to as God the Father. This stems partly from the belief that, when it came to bringing children into the world, the purpose of the father was to create and the purpose of the mother was to bear the child. As an aside, this is why Mary is often called the “Mother of God” (in Greek “theotokos” which can be translated as “God-bearer”). It also stems from patriarchal notions that were (and are) present in many societies. A lot of people continue to call the first Person of the Trinity “God the Father”, but there are also a lot of people who call the first Person “Mother” or just “God” to reflect that God is genderless and also to reflect that all of humanity, regardless of gender, is created in the image and likeness of God (“imago Dei”).
This understanding of using language to more accurately reflect the genderlessness of God is also why people have written alternative forms of the “Our Father”. These are not written out of any sense of disrespect, but to show a much more profound respect for the diversity that exists in the creation that God has made. After all, is God not also our Mother? Historically, a mother’s role has been to nurture her children and to offer succor when needed. Does God not do this throughout the Old and New Testaments? So calling God our Mother is an equally valid option.
Then we also have to reflect that, since gender is a social construct and sex is biological and God has no physical form, it would also be accurate to use language that reflects that God is without gender or sex, and therefore using gender-neutral or non-binary language is also appropriate.
I know that when I write, I try and flip between these different options to reflect the multidimensional understanding that we have of God as Father and Mother and non-binary Parent. Other people prefer one or another of these choices, but I prefer to use them all.
What do you think?
- Matt Vandover
16) While God’s Word of Law and Gospel speaks through the Scriptures, there are words and images, social patterns, and moral beliefs in them that reflect the patriarchal values of the cultures and societies in which they arose. Their continued misuse contributes to maintaining hierarchies and patterns of inequity and harm.
17) The Christian theological tradition also bears this dual character. In particular, some doctrines affect our understanding about humanity and God more than others. These teachings affect our use of language. The teachings about the image of God, the Body of Christ, and the Trinity have sometimes been misused to support patriarchal beliefs, attitudes, church practices, behaviors, and structures. At the same time, these doctrines also provide liberating resources for healing the effects of the sins of patriarchy and sexism.
---------------
I want to start with the two paragraphs above which, I believe, encapsulate the reason why we need to take care to examine the language that we use during religious services or when discussing God in general.
The Scriptures, like anything written by humans, reflects the cultural and personal biases that are present at the time it was written. While we cannot dismiss the Scriptures out of hand, we also should not accept them uncritically. We need to be aware of the biases that may creep into what was written and reflect on how those biases may affect how we personally (or collectively) interpret the Scriptures.
For example, the first Person of the Trinity has historically been referred to as God the Father. This stems partly from the belief that, when it came to bringing children into the world, the purpose of the father was to create and the purpose of the mother was to bear the child. As an aside, this is why Mary is often called the “Mother of God” (in Greek “theotokos” which can be translated as “God-bearer”). It also stems from patriarchal notions that were (and are) present in many societies. A lot of people continue to call the first Person of the Trinity “God the Father”, but there are also a lot of people who call the first Person “Mother” or just “God” to reflect that God is genderless and also to reflect that all of humanity, regardless of gender, is created in the image and likeness of God (“imago Dei”).
This understanding of using language to more accurately reflect the genderlessness of God is also why people have written alternative forms of the “Our Father”. These are not written out of any sense of disrespect, but to show a much more profound respect for the diversity that exists in the creation that God has made. After all, is God not also our Mother? Historically, a mother’s role has been to nurture her children and to offer succor when needed. Does God not do this throughout the Old and New Testaments? So calling God our Mother is an equally valid option.
Then we also have to reflect that, since gender is a social construct and sex is biological and God has no physical form, it would also be accurate to use language that reflects that God is without gender or sex, and therefore using gender-neutral or non-binary language is also appropriate.
I know that when I write, I try and flip between these different options to reflect the multidimensional understanding that we have of God as Father and Mother and non-binary Parent. Other people prefer one or another of these choices, but I prefer to use them all.
What do you think?
- Matt Vandover
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)