DiscussMormonism.com

The problem with me and patriarchy is, I didn't grow up in a religious home. My parents called themselves Christians, but we rarely went to church and they never taught me about God or Christ. They certainly never taught us that good girls prepare for the noble calling of wife and mother while good boys prepare to become elders, priests, pastors, missionaries, and breadwinners. By the time of my childhood in the 1980s and 1990s, the idea that men and women were equal and women could do anything that men could do was being regularly taught in public schools. And the crazy part is, I believed it. I hate to be cynical, but it seems to me like it takes significant lifetime conditioning to perform the mental gymnastics it takes to believe patriarchy = equality. It was conditioning I never got.

I converted to Christianity when I was 10 and the first three denominations I attended were the Church of the Nazarene, Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.), and the Assemblies of God---all egalitarian denominations. There are some problems with the egalitarianism in the Church of the Nazarene and the Assemblies of God in that both of these denominations have very few ordained women clergy and have been accused of privately promoting traditional gender roles in spite of their official positions. Still, I never had to hear sermons on the proper role of women or anything like that. The PCUSA was the best about it. They had very prominent and active female elders (among them my aunt who had converted me to Christianity; she had followed me in my switch from the Nazarenes to the Presbyterians), and not long after I went off to college they hired a female executive pastor whom I said hello to whenever I was in town.

I switched from the Nazarene church to the PCUSA when I was 16, and it was later in that same year that I was introduced to two things: a position among evangelical Christians poorly termed as "complementarianism" and the LDS church. The first complementarians I met had some strong arguments and I (at least briefly) accepted their system, but it never felt right. It didn't take very long for me to figure out that their arguments were riddled with faulty reasoning, poor exegesis, and obfuscation of any biblical texts which contradicted their position on women. I jumped ship for egalitarianism, never to look back.

Then there was the LDS church. As fascinated as I was by the church, I was always far more interested in what the men were doing than what the women were doing. When I complained about this, I was given every terribad apologetic in the book, none of which I found to be very satisfying (I could easily do a post on the ten worst apologetics for barring women from the priesthood if we wanted to). In August 1999, I wrote to Sheri L. Dew (then the 2nd Counselor in the Relief Society Presidency), pouring out my heart over the matter of women being excluded from the priesthood. On May 10, 2000, I was surprised to receive a letter back from her.

Here is an excerpt:

While I can understand the questions you raise, I must tell you that this entire question of women and the priesthood does not distress me unduly. And that is for one simple reason: I truly believe that Joseph saw what he said he saw in a grove of trees in upstate New York. I know for sure that President Hinckley is a prophet, prepared and ordained of God ... I also know that the priesthood is the most powerful, penetrating force on earth -- and it is the only power that can only be used to bring about good.

Have I ever been frustrated in working with priesthood leaders? Of course I have. Are there times and ways in which the interaction between men and women in a gospel setting doesn't function as well as it should? Of course there are. But on the other hand, I have had absolutely magnificent opportunities working with priesthood leaders. And it is important for me to express that we as sisters are not excluded from any blessing the power of the priesthood can bring.

I appreciated that she wrote me back---I really did. She sent me a free copy of her biography on Gordon B. Hinckley as well as several talks she had given on the role of women in the LDS church. Still, I found her response rather underwhelming. I had asked very specific questions about female prophets in the Bible and the apostle Junia (Romans 16:7, my old handle) which she had completely ignored in favor of bearing her testimony. What did it mean that not even the women in the top tier of LDS leadership were pondering or acknowledging these problems?

During my time at BYU, I largely put the question out of my mind. Mormons had repeatedly insisted that Mormon women were fine with their system and it was none of my business as a non-member, so I let it go to focus on more important things. I wasn't involved in the women's studies minor or the ill-fated Women's Research Institute or anything and I rarely discussed the matter.

When I started my master's at the University of Utah, I enrolled in a gender studies class which was taught by a lesbian---HUGE change from BYU for sure. I read several of the texts for the class before dropping out.

I didn't think again much on the subject of feminism & issues affecting women until last year when I had my conversation with EAllusion on this discussion board on whether or not Sarah Palin was a feminist, and what feminism was. That was actually a good learning experience for me and I reflected back on it several times in the year that followed.

By that time I had begun attending a church that was part of a denomination known as NewFrontiers. I had fallen in love with the church before I had really paid attention to what the church was teaching about gender. I had told the pastor that I could play guitar, sing, lead worship, read the languages of the Bible, and was an excellent teacher, yet the only thing the church ever asked me to do was work in the nursery. As time went on, it dawned on me that women weren't really performing any roles in the church other than singing back-up in the worship band and working with the children. The denomination seemed to take a rather hardline interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12---I never saw women as Sunday school teachers, worship leaders, or guest speakers. On a few rare occasions a woman gave a prayer or made some announcements, but that was it. I did some research into the denomination and was shocked to learn that they seemed to be one of the worst as far as the role of women goes: big fans of people like Wayne Grudem and Mark Driscoll. All in all, their treatment of women was even worse than that of the LDS church. At least the LDS church lets women give talks in Sacrament meetings and has female conference speakers who address both men and women and aren't simply the spouses of the male leaders.

It really broke my heart to learn all of that about the church I was attending. The people there were good people who had helped me through my mother's illness and death, and I didn't feel right about just abandoning them over their position on gender. I decided to just tough it out and wait until I moved to Illinois a few months later.

So, I've made some changes:

~ I've joined Christians for Biblical Equality, the main activist organization for evangelical egalitarians.
~ I sought out a church with a woman pastor because I had never had one. I may make the Evangelical Covenant Church my permanent home as I'm learning that a lot of egalitarians seem to be happy with them. (Kevin Barney blogged about visiting my church here).
~ I switched to using gender-inclusive translations of the Bible such as the TNIV and the NRSV. I'm currently working on a petition to the Committee on Bible Translation asking that they maintain some of the TNIV's gender changes when they re-do the NIV in 2011.

So, am I a feminist? I dunno. I hesitate to identify as one. I certainly agree with a lot of the principles of feminism, but most of my activism is limited to voting and religious matters. I'm still moderately pro-life, which a lot of feminists seem to see as problematic. I'm opposed to the toleration of homosexual sexuality within the church, but in favor of rights for gays as far as the state is concerned. I'm starting to re-think some of my positions on militarism and the death penalty in light of what the earliest Christians taught on the matter, though the jury is still out for me on those, too.

We'll see where I end up.

|
|
|
|
|
|
V

I also know that the priesthood is the most powerful, penetrating force on earth -- and it is the only power that can only be used to bring about good.

Quite some symbolism on Sister Dew's part. Perhaps the more powerful and penetrating the more good as well. Additionally she had no mention of size, like some do, when they speak of growing in the Priesthood as a glory in itself. Some Priesthood holders are conscientious about that Priesthood aspect.

moksha wrote:

I also know that the priesthood is the most powerful, penetrating force on earth -- and it is the only power that can only be used to bring about good.

Quite some symbolism on Sister Dew's part. Perhaps the more powerful and penetrating the more good as well. Additionally she had no mention of size, like some do, when they speak of growing in the Priesthood as a glory in itself. Some Priesthood holders are conscientious about that Priesthood aspect.

Moksha, you're killing me. :D LOL

moksha wrote:Quite some symbolism on Sister Dew's part.

Mmm, I know. Rather unfortunate choice of words. Perhaps that was her subtle way of telling me the real reason why women can't have the priesthood.

In fairness to Sister Dew, I have seen other LDS leaders use that adjective when describing the priesthood, so it's not like it was unique to her.

Interesting read. I refuse to accept that I influenced anyone's thinking on anything ever. :p

There really must be some odd no true Scotsman fallacy thinking going on in Dew's head to argue that the LDS priesthood is the only force on earth than can only be used for good. That she disallows such fallacious thinking as applied to, I don't know, the Catholic priesthood also is pretty implicitly harsh when you think about it.

EAllusion wrote:I refuse to accept that I influenced anyone's thinking on anything ever. :p

Your comments are generally insightful and interesting. You're one of my favorite posters to read, even if you are usually playing for the other team.

The only ecclesiastical office legitimately available to women is deaconess (e.g., Phoebe). As for Junia, even if the Greek is rendered "well known among the apostles," instead of "well known to the apostles," it is clear to me that apostle, in that case, is used as a synonym for evangelist.

Moreover, every major denomination that has "ordained" women to other offices has fallen into serious apostasy, the Episcopal Church being an outstanding example.

Calculus Crusader wrote:The only ecclesiastical office legitimately available to women is deaconess (e.g., Phoebe).

Phoebe was a deacon, not a deaconess. The Greek term in Romans 16:1 is masculine. The feminine wasn't attested until the third century.

Calculus Crusader wrote:As for Junia, even if the Greek is rendered "well known among the apostles," instead of "well known to the apostles," it is clear to me that apostle, in that case, is used as a synonym for evangelist.

John Chrysostom said otherwise, and he lived in the fourth century and almost certainly had a better working knowledge of Greek than you do. What makes it "clear" to you when it wasn't so clear to him?

And by the way, "among the apostles" was the most common way of rendering Romans 16:7 in English translations until Junia's true gender was discovered and male headship advocates started pushing the panic button with that "well-known to the apostles" translation. See for yourself.

Calculus Crusader wrote:Moreover, every major denomination that has "ordained" women to other offices has fallen into serious apostasy, the Episcopal Church being an outstanding example.

Let me get this straight: you think the entire Anglican Communion (including the Anglican Coalition of Canada and the Anglican Coalition in America---two organizations that specifically accused the ECUSA of apostasy and broke away from them), the American Baptist Church (USA), the Assemblies of God, the Church of the Brethren, the Church of the Foursquare, the Church of the Nazarene, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the Christian Reformed Church, the Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Free Methodists, all Quaker factions (including the conservative ones), the Mennonite Church (USA), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Church in America, the Salvation Army, the United Methodist Church, the Vineyard Fellowship, and the Wesleyan Church have all fallen away into "serious apostasy"?

Howso?

Ms Jack Meyers wrote:Phoebe was a deacon, not a deaconess.

A deaconess is a female deacon.

The Greek term in Romans 16:1 is masculine.

Diakonos is a common-gender noun.

The feminine wasn't attested until the third century.

That is not correct. The latin equivalent is used by Pliny in his letter to Trajan.

John Chrysostom said otherwise,

You'll have to be more specific.

and he lived in the fourth century

Long after Paul.

and almost certainly had a better working knowledge of Greek than you do.

Than the both of us, no doubt. However, as I wrote above, he lived long after Paul and he certainly was not free from error. Moreover, he did not have access to the gigabytes (terabytes?) of Greek texts that modern New Testament scholars like Daniel Wallace have at their fingertips.

What makes it "clear" to you when it wasn't so clear to him?

Like I said, you'll need to cite what he wrote.

And by the way, "among the apostles" was the most common way of rendering Romans 16:7 in English translations until Junia's true gender was discovered and male headship advocates started pushing the panic button with that "well-known to the apostles" translation. See for yourself.

That don't make no nevermind to me.

Let me get this straight: you think the entire Anglican Communion (including the Anglican Coalition of Canada and the Anglican Coalition in America---two organizations that specifically accused the ECUSA of apostasy and broke away from them), the American Baptist Church (USA), the Assemblies of God, the Church of the Brethren, the Church of the Foursquare, the Church of the Nazarene, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the Christian Reformed Church, the Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Free Methodists, all Quaker factions (including the conservative ones), the Mennonite Church (USA), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Church in America, the Salvation Army, the United Methodist Church, the Vineyard Fellowship, and the Wesleyan Church have all fallen away into "serious apostasy"?

First of all, the members of the Anglican communion who have broken away and/or shun the episcopal church do not ordain women, as far as I know. Secondly, I had in mind the episcopal church, the evangelical lutheran church, and the presbyterian church (USA).

Calculus Crusader wrote:A deaconess is a female deacon.

Let me explain my reasons for quibbling on this:

• Some churches set up an order of deaconesses separate from and subordinate to the male deacons, usually with lesser responsibilities and functions. If that isn't what you're advocating, then there isn't much to argue.
• The "-ess" ending for feminine titles is becoming archaic and falling out of use in modern English.
• The Greek form diakonissa isn't attested until the 3rd century. The Latin feminine plural equivalent ministrae is, but Paul uses a masculine word in Romans. This is one of the indications that Paul was talking about an ecclesiastical office and not a mere "servant" as so many traditional translations rendered it.
• I believe it's just good policy in our language to call the same job by the same name.

If you're not trying to establish a separate order and function from male deacons, then we really have no quarrel on this.

Moving on to Junia, in commenting on Romans 16, John Chrysostom wrote:

In Epistolam ad Romanos, Homilia 31, 2 (J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca [= PG] 60, 669f.). wrote:Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.

He was fine with deeming Junia an apostle, and Chrysostom was no proto-feminist. His other statements on women were quite typical for the time period.

Calculus Crusader wrote:However, as I wrote above, he lived long after Paul and he certainly was not free from error.

You and Dan Wallace lived much, much longer after Paul and are just as prone to error, if not more so. If you want to believe the text is ambiguous on the matter, okay, but it's far from "clear" that Paul was merely naming Junia an evangelist.

Calculus Crusader wrote:Moreover, he did not have access to the gigabytes (terabytes?) of Greek texts that modern New Testament scholars like Daniel Wallace have at their fingertips.

Please tell me that's a joke.

And by the way, Wallace and Burer have been thoroughly critiqued on this. I respect Daniel Wallace. I corresponded with him a bit for a paper I was working on when I was an undergraduate at BYU, and he was very helpful. But in the case of Junia, I honestly believe he's letting his agenda get in the way of true scholarly examination.

For perspective, Wallace is also one of the few hold-outs who thinks Phoebe wasn't a deacon.

Calculus Crusader wrote:That don't make no nevermind to me.

It doesn't bother you that the only people who believe the "well-known to the apostles" translation is not only viable but preferable are modern-day scholars with an avowed anti-feminist agenda? Because personally, I view such innovations on the text with just as much suspicion as I do the feminist ones.

Calculus Crusader wrote:First of all, the members of the Anglican communion who have broken away and/or shun the episcopal church do not ordain women, as far as I know.

Nope. The Anglican Coalition in America, the Anglican Coalition in Canada, and the Anglican Mission in America is an alliance of denominations that broke away from the Episcopalian Church (USA), accusing them of apostasy. They've set themselves up to represent the Anglican Communion in North America instead of the Episcopalian church. They couldn't agree on the issue of the ordination of women, so the ACiA and the ACiC ordain women while the AMiA does not. I know all this because I considered attending an AMiA a few months ago.

And even though the AMiA does not ordain women as presbyters (priests/elders to them), they definitely allow for female deacons and female pastors. The congregation I was considering had a woman whose title was "Pastor of Worship and Congregational Care." In practice it was virtually an egalitarian congregation with a male senior pastor and a female associate pastor.

Beyond that, the Anglican Communion elsewhere in the world has been ordaining women as priests for quite some time now. But they're a mess in more ways than one.

Calculus Crusader wrote:Secondly, I had in mind the episcopal church, the evangelical lutheran church, and the presbyterian church (USA).

That's a far cry from every major denomination that has ordained women.

As for the ECUSA, the ELCA and the PCUSA, if you're referring to the fact that those denominations have accepted or are trending towards accepting homosexuality, I think those are great examples of how correlation ≠ causation.