Rethinking the "Sacredness" of Scripture

Former president Jimmy Carter and other world leaders issued this statement: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable." What's your reaction to these statements? Are 'male interpretations of religious texts' to blame for the 'deprivation of women's equal rights?'

It is long overdue for former President Carter and his group to see the problems of gender bias that he addresses. However, rather than suggesting that 'male interpretations of religious texts' are the problem, maybe they should look at the texts themselves.

In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religious traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), God is always depicted as a male, and women are often depicted as being of lesser importance. It seems to follow suit then that in Judaism, for example, all the prophets were male, and until recent history, women could not become rabbis and were discouraged from reading the Torah. In Christianity, even though women were among Jesus's most devoted followers, none of them are ranked among the 12 apostles nor were any of their writings included in the New Testament (the "Gospel of Mary" would have been a great addition). Until the last century or so, women could not be ministers or leaders in Christian worship services. In many denominations, they still cannot.

In the holy words of Islam, found in both the Qur'an and the Hadith, there are multiple references to women as inferior to men in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, testimony, intelligence, and even salvation. An example of this can been seen in Sahih Bukhari (1.6.301). Only in minor sects have women ever been allowed to lead mixed congregations in prayer in a mosque, and there is little or no record of women as religious teachers within Islam.

The reality is that throughout most of their histories, each of these traditions have had a singular approach to the gender issue. Clearly, when the primary or sole texts of each have been male dominated in their formulation and conceptualization of God and of humanity, of doctrine and of belief, then the lack of women's rights and roles in religion and society is a natural outcome.

Add to this the fact that in both Christianity and Islam, there is a strong belief in a close connection between the body and the soul and that one's gender in this life is continued even in the afterlife, heaven or hell. The consequence is that males always remain, in the eyes of most believers, closer to God than females and thus carry more religious authority.

In the Dharma Traditions, especially Hinduism and, to some extent theistic Buddhism, the issue of the Divine's gender is quite different. Here, the Divine can equally be depicted as male, female, or non-gendered, and devotion to a feminine deity is not only prevalent but paramount in various denominations, particularly within Hinduism. At the same time, unfortunately, the more orthodox segments of each tradition have definitely limited women's participation in a myriad of ways including not allowing them to be priests. Yet, there are multiple texts considered sacred and multiple options in considering the issue of gender in relationship to God.

Some texts outright reject gender in determining one's spiritual qualities and have thus inspired various devotional and some ascetic schools to allow for full participation of women. As a result, there have been and continue to be significant Hindu female spiritual teachers and leaders. While many of the more orthodox Hindus continue to maintain a lesser view of women nonetheless, there are valid textual sources that have encouraged many others to move beyond such narrow views.

With respect to eschatological concepts in the Dharma traditions, the various paths to enlightenment or liberation carry one through multiple lifetimes, with births in different forms, both male and female. Because the body is but a temporary sheath that covers a non-gendered soul, gender is viewed as a temporal category and of no ultimate consequence.

We live in a world today where evaluations of individuals or groups based on external traits, be they ethnicity, gender, race, age, or religious affiliation, are increasingly becoming known for what they are--prejudices that only limit our abilities as humans to live together in a world of peace, harmony, and equality.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  July 22, 2009; 8:42 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: The Radical Left vs. The President | Next: Sacred Traditions Should be Gender Blind

The comments to this entry are closed.