The anti-woman views expressed in
these Bible verses are still at the core
of fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
In case you think that the Bible quotes referenced in the link
above are no longer accepted by fundamentalist Christians, consider this quote
from the Rev. Pat Robertson, one of today's most influential Christian fundamentalist
evangelists:
The Feminist agenda is not about
equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement
that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft,
destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
And just recently The Southern Baptist Convention,
the nation's largest Protestant decision-making body added to its core teachings
that a woman must be subject to her husband in all things. Plus, a woman is
not to have authority over a man—a concept that could even now reap havoc in the
workplace.
In marriage and family life this is termed "headship, with the
husband's views prevailing, no matter how ill-informed.
More examples of the strong anti-woman currents
in fundamentalist Christianity can be found
here.
|
The Judeo-Christian tradition allowed for
multiple wives and refused to allow allow for divorce, no matter how abusive the
husband.
These views saw women as not educatable, not intelligent enough
to vote, to own property, or to enter a profession (except possibly for prostitution,
which at one time was apparently excused by the Catholic Church as being a "necessary
evil").
|
It should
come as no surprise that even those who staunchly maintain that every word of the
Bible is inspired by God and is to be taken literally prefer not to quote the linked
passages above.
Any attempt to "explain them away" based on a rationale of earlier
times and conditions simply opens the door to "picking and choosing" what to
believe from the scriptures and what to discard, which is what more modern religious
thinkers do anyway.
Even so, the impact of these strong anti-woman, anti-sex scriptures
remains.
|
Denouncing a scriptural tradition that sees women as both corrupt and corrupting
must be the operative principle of a religious system that quotes Jesus as saying,
"I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly." (John 10:10)
-Bishop John Shelby Spong
|
But it's not only women that are affected.
Just yesterday (06/01/2005), we heard from a Nevada man who,
as a result of his ultra-conservative Christian upbringing, has struggled all
of his adult life to overcome debilitating personal problems. Although
for privacy reasons his experience will not be published here, we also recently
received this letter at an earlier
date with similar personal issues.
The vast majority of people learn (in varies degrees) to adjust,
cope, ignore, or abandon these deleterious views. Even so, the effects remain
and they can take a significant toll.
Were Jesus' Views on Women
and Sex Quite Different
than
We've Been Led to Believe?
It would appear so.
A number of Bible quotes could be cited, but we'll just recount
one story. You many remember the account of the woman who poured perfume on
Jesus' head and feet. Although the gospels contradict each other on the details,
the basics (except for the account in John) remain somewhat the same.
|
In a very sensual act the woman washes Jesus'
feet with her tears and drys them with her hair.
And interesting act, but possibly not totally remarkable--until
you consider the historical context.
|
In Luke it is stated that this was
"a woman of the city," or simply a prostitute. Her actions (especially in the context
of the times and Jewish culture) were viewed as being highly sensual, clearly
provocative, and totally out of bounds for any woman.
The act described in these gospels becomes even more bizarre
when you consider that in that day a woman (especially an "unclean" woman, as she
supposedly was) was simply not to touch a man in public.
Thus, the men present immediately jumped up and soundly condemned
her. Considering the power of Jewish tradition, we get the impression that they
may have even thrown her out if Jesus had not intervened.
We all know that at this point Jesus
defied the strong Jewish tradition in which he was raised, as well as all the men
and women in attendance, and defended her act as "a beautiful thing."
Keep in mind that Jesus knew that his response would clearly
damage his credibility and standing in the Jewish community.
|
It would seem that Jesus did not share the
strong anti-woman, anti-sex bias that is so clearly stated in the scriptures and
that subsequently became a part of fundamentalist Christianity.
|
John's Account Raises an Interesting Possibility
The gospel of John's account of this
differs in some key ways and this introduces an interesting possibility.
In John's gospel it's Mary, Martha's sister, that does the anointing
and she is neither a stranger nor a prostitute. In this gospel her act
seems to generate no scandal or rebuke; in fact, it seems to pass with little notice.
So where did all the strict patriarchal Jewish rules about
proper conduct by a woman suddenly go?
This chapter
explores the controversial theory that Jesus was married and the fact was later
almost completely expunged from the gospels.
