I can understand where they are coming from, even though I profoundly disagree with them.
If you believe something strongly, you want to be consistent. The argument goes, if you decide to take your rules from the book, you then can’t pick and choose which rules you want to follow.
That seems to be the position taken by many of the traditionalists in the Church of England, now ringing their hands (and if reports of tears are to be believed, their handkerchiefs) over the recent Synod decision to allow female bishops.
“If Jesus had wanted women to have authority over men, he would have called some women as disciples and given authority to them as well. Our faith is a ‘given’. It is something we have received. We are not free to change it to suit the whims of society,” they say.
Although I can understand that argument, I think there are several things wrong with it. It seems that the core of the problem is that it makes sense only if you think within the box. “I believe the bible; the bible says this; therefore I do this.” As soon as you start to think outside of the box, the argument becomes less compelling.
Their basic premise is that the bible has to be taken seriously as a guide to faith and conduct. But the bible was written by people operating within social norms for a readership of people living within those social norms. Although various prophetic characters challenge a lot of the religious and moral conventions of the day, others rights, which we would now regard as fundamentally important, are ignored. In many ways, racial and sexual discrimination is endemic in the bible. Slavery and polygamy are tolerated at various stages.
In attempting to follow this book, the traditionalists should also accept the following:
- They are already picking and choosing which bits they wish to follow, and are not following all of it consistently. So, for example, even the traditionalist rarely, if ever, worship on the biblical sabbath, insist that women have their heads covered in church, stop women from teaching males (especially when the women work as missionaries or in a Sunday School), and stone those caught in adultery.
- Secondly, because the book itself was written by fallible human beings and is interpreted by fallible human beings, sincere followers can use it to justify almost anything. It has been used to justify slavery, and apartheid. It wasn’t so very long ago that it was used to justify the financial, political, and sexual abuse of women (especially within marriage - wives must submit, after all). The present traditionalists may argue that they are different, but it isn’t immediately clear how they are different if the basis of their argument is a belief in the book.
- Some would argue that the concern for human rights and equality shown by many of the liberals and non-believers are making the traditionalists look slightly ridiculous, and far from attractive and compelling advocates for a supposed life-enhancing religion. You could argue that it is making the ‘heathens’ look more moral than the believers.
Although I am most decidedly not Catholic, I have been a member of a methodist church since i was born. Now, however, they are taking on a female pastor, and half the congregation is deciding to leave.
I think it’s a sad story. First, with the criticisms of women who choose to share the word, woman have to be very dedicated to God and to their beliefs if they are going to become teachers of it. So it is likely that their faith may be even stronger then that of their male counterparts. They need to really feel God’s calling and be willing to suffer for that calling. Second, if God calls a woman to the faith, who are we to tell him nay? And third, the bible says that once men and woman have accepted Christ in our life we all become brothers and sisters in God. there are sites based entirely around quotes from the Bible that argue that that Christ did call woman too. I think it also needs to be considered that Jesus couldn’t have called woman disciples in that day and age because of the role of woman in that society. Even if he had wanted to : these days woman don’t have the same limitations imposed on them, and so they are able to spread the word. After all, isn’t that what it’s truly about?
As I have said many times before, logic doesn’t come into it. We may accuse religious believers of being inconsistent but they don’t see it that way. End of discussion.
I long ago realized that the only sensible way to approach a religious creed is to accept that “the creed is whatever believers say it is”. It isn’t anything else and it certainly isn’t what we unbelievers say it is (or isn’t). Likewise, to believers, the Bible says what they say it says. If we try to tell them it says something else, we are missing the point.
Some Anglicans say that their creed does not admit female officiants. They have no need to “justify” this precept because this precept is part of their creed as they define it. That is good enough for them and we will save a lot of wasted time, energy and frustration if we let it be good enough for us too.
The only question that really matters is what if anything we, as a community, should do about it. In this instance the answer is nothing. It doesn’t impinge on us and it’s not even worth thinking about, except possibly as a spectator sport. Let the Anglicans sort themselves out, as they have a perfect right to do, as long as their actions don’t impact unfavourably on anyone else.
It looks as if the Anglican Communion has outlived its usefulness and is splitting up. It will be interesting to see what organisms emerge from the wreckage. I think some will be pretty unpleasant.
Hello Thinking Man:
wow. great article. i learned long ago that everyone who uses the hebrew or christian scriptures is a selective literalist. they pick and choose what they’re going to believe is literal and historical and what is symbolic or no longer applicable. of course, this is done in line with one’s particular biases! don’t want to be presumptious, but i have a posting about the bible that is very similar; you might enjoy it. i also have postings about prayer and the recent rise of an “angle cult” in post-modern western culture, along the same lines. anyway, i’ll return when i can read more. i love humor and i’m intrigued by how it shows up on your blog.
Peace, Gus