Is Christianity sexist? Some think so...

There are a couple of different but related stories that caught my eye yesterday. Each one deals, essentially, with the relationship between the church, as in Christianity and christian tradition, and women.

The first thing I saw was an appearance by Cokie Roberts on "This Week" on ABC during a roundtable session. They (Roberts, George Will, Fareed Zakaria and George Stephanopoulos) were discussing the Iraqi Constitution, and the discussion was - predictably - negative. If there was any acknowledgement that this process represents something new and exciting in the middle east, I missed it. No, it's a disaster because there's not complete and total agreement between all parties today. (I don't normally see the Sunday morning shows, and I'll have more to say on this one a bit later, but nothing happened that makes me want to watch again...)

But the one line that jumped out at me was from Cokie Roberts, and it jumped out because it was gratuitous and irrelevant. She was concerned about the Iraqi constitution's protection of "women's rights" and said:

Do we have american men and women losing their lives in a battle zone, where in the end the constitution does not protect women's rights? And even the pope this week, who has not been known to be particularly friendly toward women, chastised the aspects of islam, which are anti-women's rights.

Excuse me? What are we talking about here? In what way has the Pope "not been known to be particularly friendly toward women?"

In the absence of specific complaint, I have to assume that she is equating the Church's traditional positions on abortion, birth control and ordination with not being "friendly toward women." She is, of course, entitled to her opinion. As am I to mine, that hers is outrageous.

“It is women, in the end, who even in very desperate situations, as attested by history past and present, possess a singular capacity to persevere in adversity, to keep life going even in extreme situations, to hold tenaciously to the future, and finally to remember with tears the value of every human life.”
- Pope Benedict XVI

Are those the words of someone who is not "friendly toward women?" Of course not. The fact is that, despite the attempts of the feminist movement over the past 30 years to try to claim otherwise, men and women are different. Inherently different. The Catholic church recognizes those differences. In many ways, what the church does is recognize a reality that Cokie Roberts and others of her mindset have been trying to deny.

None of that is to say that men are better than women (though they tend to be at certain things), or that women are better than men (though they tend to be at certain things) - just that they are different, with inherently different natures that should be respected. One can disagree with the church's stance on birth control, abortion and ordination without saying that the church is "un-friendly toward women."

A little later on, I ran across this news story on how the Lutheran church has approved a new hymnal, with some different vocabulary. In doing so, they're pandering to modern sensibilities while claiming to remain "faithful to the best of Lutheran tradition."

Then, after two hours of debate, delegates gave sustained applause for the approval of work on the new book that attempts to be open to different cultures and new musical styles. It will offer alternatives such as "Holy Eternal Majesty, Holy Incarnate Word, Holy Abiding Spirit" for the male-dominated Trinitarian image of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayers during Sunday services.

Let us leave, for a moment, the change of "Father" into "Holy Eternal Majesty" and the addition of "Abiding" between "Holy" and "Spirit" - why, exactly, is it offensive or sexist to refer to Jesus as a "Son?" How is it more "open to different cultures" to replace "son" with "Holy Incarnate Word?" Not that it's inaccurate, but why is it better? Yes, the Gospel of John begins that way - Εν αρχη ην ο λογος - and that is one of the legitimate names for Jesus, but how is that a better phraseology? In what context is "Holy Eternal Majesty, Holy Incarnate Word, Holy Abiding Spirit" going to fit a service better than "Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"

My guess is that there isn't one. This isn't a constructive change, it's change for the sake of change sake, to try to mollify modern sensibilities, to appease someone who's looking for a reason to be offended. And it's going to drive sincere Lutherans who actually want to remain "faithful to the best of Lutheran tradition" out of the church...



Update:
The Anchoress has got some thoughts on the Lutherans that are well worth reading.

When I hear “gender neutral” I hear fingernails on a blackboard, everything becomes murky and earth-bound and I become dreadfully antsy and embarrassed. “Oh, no…” I find myself thinking, “once again we serve the idea that women are too stupid to understand that “mankind” includes them, and they’re too insecure in their understanding of their own sex to simply let God be - as Jesus called him - “Our Father.”