Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Religious Hypocrisy and Women as Leaders
Are conservative religious groups hypocritical to think that a woman can lead a nation and not a congregation? Hypocrisy is one of those critiques that is truly in the eye of the beholder. So, we always need to ask when we hear the charge of hypocrisy, hypocritical according to whom? To religious liberals who do not understand religious conservatives, who tend to minimize tradition and even see tradition as oppressive, and who (like religious conservatives) these days more often than not see life and religion through the prism of gender, religious conservatives who do not permit woman to become clergy but do think that a woman can lead a nation are hypocrites? But this name calling adds nothing to the conversation. Why do the norms, customs, and rules we live by in one of our groups need to be the same in another? Different social settings - business, academic, religious, political, artistic - have different premises and purposes and therefore different ways of organizing themselves and different power arrangements.
As long as one is not compelled to stay in a specific group that one feels is oppressive why is it hypocritical for someone to be both a citizen in a country that allows women to lead a nation and to be a member of another group in which woman do not have, what outsiders to that group see as, the analogous position of authority. Liberals, and I consider myself to be one, may well see President of a country and clergyperson (rabbi, pastor, minister, priest, imam, dalai lama) as analogous leadership types and we may think that it is religiously and spiritually required that men and women be given equal opportunity to become clergy but the fact that we see things this way does not make someone that disagrees with us hypocritical. All this shows us is that hypocrisy is often a label one group uses for another group when it does not understand how that group holds together seemingly inconsistent positions.
Perhaps, religious conservatives are simply moving more slowly than religious liberals in opening up religious positions of authority to women. Let's recall that religious liberals moved far more slowly in permitting woman to become clergy than the surrounding secular culture did in permitting woman to be political leaders and that did not make them hypocrites. The feminist revolution and deconstruction of patriarchy was predominately a secular movement and a break with traditional religious cultures. Religious groups reacted to this secular expansion of rights - as they did with many of the modern political expansion of rights - at different paces. In fact, one of the ways to distinguish liberals and conservatives, before we get to any theological rationalizations which always come after the fact in order to make sense of how people are already living out their values, is the psychological predisposition to change. Liberals tend to be more psychologically predisposed to change (until it comes to questioning liberalism) and conservatives tend to be predisposed to conserving and preserving what is. In other words, one of the differences between liberal and conservative, often hidden in theological and legal apologetics, is one of pacing. Liberals will always see change as not happening quickly enough and conservatives will always see change as happening to quickly. But let's not confuse pacing issues with hypocrisy.
Among the many characteristics that make religious liberals liberal is that they have adapted, reformed, and adopted the secular deconstruction of patriarchy into their understanding of religion. And it took them plenty of time to do so and plenty of debate and consternation. And the fact is that women in conservative religious groups have far more authority (thankfully, though not enough in my view or the liberal view) than they did twenty years ago. What makes religious conservatives conservative is that they change more slowly. This does not make them hypocritical.
Rather than attacking groups with whom we disagree as hypocrites we would be better off understanding where we ourselves are not living up to our own ideals and aspirations. A basic psycho-spiritual truth taught by every wisdom tradition is that our judgments of another may well be true but the reason we make those judgments, the reason the judgments even resonate within us is because they are in some way also self-judgments.
With all the advances in liberal religious groups regarding the role of women there are many unacknowledged issues and plenty of unfinished business beyond "allowing" women to serve as clergy. In many liberal religious groups, even after years of being able to serve as clergy, woman do not get the plum positions and the largest and most prestigious congregations, nor are they paid at the same rate as clergymen. Moreover, it is common knowledge, though avoided in politically correct circles, that as women in liberal religious groups have (as I believe they should) attained positions of religious authority there has been a conspicuous decrease in men participating in religious life. It is far easier for liberals to call religious conservatives hypocritical (because conservatives have not made the changes that liberals have made after much struggle) and feel satisfied with where they are than to work on our own issues which would call for some very serious and heart wrenching introspection.
The relationship between men and women, especially with regard to the dynamics of power, is very complex and while liberals have addressed this relationship in profoundly positive ways it is not as if our public culture with its promiscuity, pornography, and objectification of women, is so evolved. Perhaps, rather than attack people for being hypocrites we would do a lot better if we tried to put ourselves in the other's world and understand - not what is wrong with the other's way, that is too easy and almost always a deflection from work on our own moral and spiritual development - but what is the partial truth that is embodied in the belief and view with which we disagree. We might even come to understand something new about ourselves.
By
Irwin Kula
|
September 8, 2008; 7:22 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Nations are Easy, Congregations are Hard |
Next: Will Conservatives Tell Palin to Practice What They Preach?
Posted by: Tonio | September 9, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What Kula describes as a "secular expansion of rights" is really the recognition that the rights already existed in principle and that practices and traditions were interfering with those rights. While I appreciate Kula's point about the psychological predisposition to change, the core issue is that an individual's rights are more important than other people's comfort or discomfort with change. As a matter of principle, as long as an individual's rights do not conflict with the rights of others, then others should not even care about that individual's rights.
"In many liberal religious groups, even after years of being able to serve as clergy, woman do not get the plum positions and the largest and most prestigious congregations, nor are they paid at the same rate as clergymen."
Any organization, liberal or conservative, religious or secular, is capable of that kind of gender bias. One can argue whether an honest keep-them-barefoot-and-pregnant sexist is more or less preferable to a person who harbors latent sexism and is in denial about it.
"Moreover, it is common knowledge, though avoided in politically correct circles, that as women in liberal religious groups have (as I believe they should) attained positions of religious authority there has been a conspicuous decrease in men participating in religious life."
I don't know why that is the case. Perhaps a number of men are simply uncomfortable with women in power. If so, that's their problem, and this should not be used to justify a barrier to women in such positions. This applies to the secular vice presidency as well - the reason to oppose Palin is not because of her gender but because of her theocratic views.
"It is far easier for liberals to call religious conservatives hypocritical (because conservatives have not made the changes that liberals have made after much struggle) and feel satisfied with where they are than to work on our own issues which would call for some very serious and heart wrenching introspection."
Excellent point. Whether one is a liberal or conservative, the goal is to recognize one's degree of comfort or discomfort with change, and to recognize that the emotion has nothing to do with the merits of the change.
Posted by: Tonio | September 9, 2008 12:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rabbi, I congratulate you on your perspicacity. Yes, both liberals and conservatives fail to see the big picture, at times, and content themselves with cheap shots at their opposite numbers, thereby diminishing the prospects for genuine dialog and consensus problem solving.
I would like to suggest a different perspective on the question of liberal vs. conservative mentality. It frequently happens that a person adopts a liberal perspective in there youth, out of a natural sense of compassion for the suffering of others, and, later in life, after experiencing a series of disillusionments regarding the fundamental goodness of human beings, "snap back," if you will, to a more conservative stance. This helps to explain the phenomenon of neo-conservatism, for example, and there are countless examples of this in historical biographies. My favorite example is Pope Pius IX.
It is also possible for such a transformation to take place as a result of a spiritual conversion, even if only indirectly, as happened in my case. In these cases, the stance of conservatism takes on a deeper level, and tends to be more articulate and more nuanced. My favorite examples here are Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa.
Judging by your remarks, I see something similar happening in your views.
Posted by: Fr. Larry Gearhart | September 8, 2008 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I had previously posted part of this comment in response to Sally Quinn's question.
The question:
Women can be presidents but not pastors? I don't understand. I would like somebody to explain this to me.
My response:
The answer is related to the concept best presented by St. Augustine a few years ago.
The christian, according to the bible, is "in the world, but not of the world". In other words, their faith is to be integrated into their life to the point that things of God(faith) supercede the "pragmatism" of the world and it's concerns.
St. Augustine descibed this concept as two cities; The City of Man and The City of God.
The Christian resides in both.
The City of Man would include the areas of civic reponsibility. The City of God includes the responsibilties to God.
Therefore a woman may be a candidate for president; a civic office. And a woman may not be a candidate for pastor; a spiritual office.
Some will criticise this as a 'false dichotomy' allowing avoidance of a charge of hypocricy. However the dual nature of humans (spiritual and carnal) requires a choice of which will be the dominant guidance. This choice does not remove the subordinate nature. Christians (or more precisely, disciples of Christ) daily must deliberate between "pragmatism" and God's Sovereignty.
Of course there are those who debate the prohibition of a woman holding a pastors position, but the orthodox christian position is a more literal interpretation of God's word contained in scripture.
Posted by: James DeForest | September 8, 2008 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Clarification - in the first paragraph of my previous post, the last sentence should read, "...then others should not even care about how the individual exercises those rights."