« photo: modes of illumination |
Main
| Why things are the way they are »
An Illustration from Islam
If you want a well- thought and researched essay, this isn't it, but I wanted to provoke some thinking.
In Resuming the Conversation I brought up the point that Islamic society and religion illustrates the structure of raw hierarchy in our world systems, especially as it concerns the place of women. The reason it is better for this than the example of Western cultures is because -whether it is recognized or not- Christianity so permeated the basic ideas of how we should relate to one another that it skews our view of the raw idea of hierarchical authority being God >man >woman. We give lots of nods to equality even though what we are advocating may not be aligned with that ideal of equality. In Islamic culture you get to see the raw reality. Women can do what men allow them to do. Men have the dominance in the decision making and ruling structure. Women operate within that, and to the degree that men are convinced that women are capable or have rights... to that degree the society gives women a place. Islamic-ruled societies illustrate what happens to women when men decide to take away that support for their rights, dignity of life, and significance. 
Further, this serves as a warning to all Christian Traditionalists, who ought to see that much of what they are saying sends them on the same path. Islam, too, gives a lip service to ideas of equality, but the de facto actions make women terribly vulnerable to the whims of humanity. Now there is thought that ought to strike a warning bell in every Christian heart. If we know the sin nature and its outcomes...we want to -at every juncture- avoid being subject to the fickle whim of our fellow human beings; particularly as to whether we have rights or significance...or are able even to exist. It isn't mere hierarchy or structure that we need to commit to as a standard. And those who advocate "nature" as a standard rule are also on a fools errand. What ape form, or any animal, has a religion? Riddle me that one.
But back to illustrations from Islam....
You have probably seen in the news this article on the rising problem ( or more reported) of the increasing self-immolation of Afghan women. To be so disenfranchised that the only way out is to set yourself on fire, there is one huge cry for help- and indictment of this Taliban influenced society. Men rule, but they do it rather badly in this case....why?
That is what Christian traditionalists should ask themselves. What is the missing piece of the puzzle... because a society with rigid gender roles will not necessarily turn out a good and healthy society. If it were only a matter of following the "natural" hierarchy, why isn't it producing a naturally good outcome?
Christians will then answer me...why, silly, because God isn't at the head of it. And yes, that is so, but then you have the problem of explaining to me the many poor outcomes from traditional God-fearing Christian homes. Not most, not all, certainly, but enough that it is sort of a cliche in our society. Even comes up in comments made by well-meaning Christians, and we often see it portrayed in the media, if we are are attuned to that. "Traditional Christian= Neanderthal abusers", that is the implication, isn't it?. The reason we see it lobbed about is because there is an element that illustrates it.
So then, what is the missing ingredient? The X-factor, if you will, that creates the healthy relating that we have come to agree upon in our ethos in this society?
I wrote upon it somewhat at the beginning of my posts here @ Intellectuelle, but it gets downtrodden in the clash of opposition arguments. So let's revisit from another angle,
I leave you here. Think, talk, and I will get back to the topic with further discussion. Right now, I'd like to see if anyone out there has something to say.
What happened to men and women can both do what God has said that they can do?
If you're using Islam as a comparison for Christian traditionalism - uh...I really don't know what to say.
Too tired tonight to think this out fully, but a couple of comment anyway.
One problem I'm having here is your idea of "raw hierarchy". I don't know what you mean by "raw". If you mean, fallen and untransformed by God, then I could certainly agree, but then the assertion that hierarchy within Christian societies is automatically sending us on the same path is clearly wrong.
I too find this comparison of Islam and Christianity a little mind-boggling.
"If we know the sin nature and its outcomes...we want to - at every juncture - avoid being subject to the fickle whim of our fellow human beings"
At every juncture? This sounds like advocacy of radical individualism and anarchy. And why?
"It isn't mere hierarchy or structure that we need to commit to as a standard."
I don't know any Christian who takes this position.
"And those who advocate 'nature' as a standard rule are also on a fools errand. What ape form, or any animal, has a religion?"
If you're speaking of those who argue from 'natural law', imitating fallen non-human creatures has nothing to do with it. Natural law is that which is written on the human heart (Romans 2:14-15) - there's a nice essay here on it.
"And yes, that is so, but then you have the problem of explaining to me the many poor outcomes from traditional God-fearing Christian homes. Not most, not all, certainly, but enough that it is sort of a cliche in our society."
And there are plenty of non-Christians who love that cliche and wish to bring it up at every opportunity. I don't know how true it is.
Although it is reasonable to expect that a truly Christian family within a truly Christian society will have better 'outcomes' (what does that mean exactly? at what age and by what criteria do we make that judgment? I was certainly a 'poor outcome' by Christian standards for years), even then the effects of the Fall and sin will make themselves felt. Then add in the influence of non-Christian society and values, and some 'Christian' parents and authorities who are in fact hypocritical, abusive, etc.
I am glad everyone so far is finding the comparison between Christianity and Islam mind boggling. It means some of the cobwebs are being swept away.
The question that I am asking is what are the catalystic differentiating factors with Islam and true Christianity? And are Traditionalist Christians - who trumpet hierarchy as the mode of operation of men and women...IN THE CHURCH... ( not yelling-just making clear that this must be faced) different from Islamists on this topic?
Reduce it down without the mitigation of lip-service to "equality", which I find undefined in the traditional/hierarchal camp. Tell me, then, how it *is* different on the topic of women and then I will hone in on what terms you *must* use, and then we can get down to the brass tacks of the topic. Then we can start talking outside of the tired non-thinking party lines.
Now -yay- finally there is a little commentary and discussion.
"What happened to men and women can both do what God has said that they can do?" Here's what happened to that:
The idea that we have within New Testament Christianity is completely at odds with a "natural" idea that we base within nature. What we call nature is bound by this fallen world-"all the creation" came under the curse for our sakes. Sin and Death has effects everywhere in nature. Including how order works. Christ brings us something different, and as the Church we have not harmonized this. All creation is brought under the Lordship of Christ, but there is a battle to see that exemplified,realized, in the earth. this is why we are taught to pray: Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Otherwise we wouldn't need to pray that way.
There are things that the Traditionalists refuse to properly recognize.
I have found that there is no way to escape the hierarchy, however. It is still extant, and taught as extant in the New Testament teachings. But I find that it is constantly given modifiers of the New Testament reality that often exhibits itself as freedom, or "egalitarianism". This is where it divides from the world system of gender: men in domination over women. Everywhere I look I cannot find one instance of freedom and equality for women that is not afforded them by men in some way. And every place I see oppression of women I see men asserting dominance in the name of their "order".
I look at the writings of Paul, and I see extreme carefulness in the precision of his language iin striking a balance between the place of all humans who find refuge in Christ and operating properly within this present world system. I do not find such carefulness of exegesis within the community of the modern Church in what has become a conflict on this.
If we don't figure in *all* the gospel, and just the parts we choose- as I believe taking one side or the other will lead us, then the Traditionalist system will lead to a Sharia-like system. That might need the next post to flesh out, although I'd rather focus in on how egalitarianism modifies the natural order and best expresses God's plan for us. Authority and authority structure is not abrogated, but it is taken to a higher place. Given new expression within Christ Jesus.
If we are to move forward on this conflict of "opinion" we are going to have to see this.
Right now the Traditionalist thinking only makes room for tradtionally living women. There is no real place for women as they function in leadership in the culture. Something is wrong with that picture. The way the feminists of the Church asnswer this is to say "Change the church, change the doctrines". We cannot do that. Not without rebelling against God. So we have to come to see what God says and submit to that. Not the traditions of men.
And lots of Traditionalist doctrine, although starting its base within the scripture, departs in such a way that it ends up as tradition of men- unable to integrate other obvious truths found in those same scriptures: to wit, that women in the New Testament Church had a place of leadership, had dignity and significance. this included being prophetesses, which are second only to apostles in the listing in the scripture. They were also deaconesses- a place of authority/ministry in the Church.
for those who don't get the connection between where Traditionalism is able to go and Islamist tradtionalism...well, I guess you missed the Shepherding movement. Which means I have alot of explaining to do.
"It isn't mere hierarchy or structure that we need to commit to as a standard."
I don't know any Christian who takes this position.
Perhaps you have forgotten how we moved from the idea of "divine right of kings" to Lex Rex.
Samuel Rutherford, a Prostestant theologian, is best known for giving the most influential work on this change of viewing scripture. We do not give the carte blanche to any hierarchy that does not recognize the highest echelon of that hierarchy:"God". Even kings are subject to God. And when they are not, then there are many places in scripture from one of Peter's confessions to that of Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego..... that confirm the necessity to ignore the lesser one in order to honor the greater one.
This is the foundation of many egalitarian ideas. You do not want a society where egaltarianism is excised. You want an understanding of what its proper plaement and mode is within that society.
The question that I am asking is what are the catalystic differentiating factors with Islam and true Christianity?
I’m no expert but just off the top of my head here are a few possibilities. Islam is hyper-monotheistic and explicitly denies both the Trinity and the Incarnation. He is utterly transcendent and non-human, and they do not believe God has any loving relationships within himself. As Chesterton said,
The complex God of the Athanasian Creed may be an enigma for the intellect; but He is far less likely to gather the mystery and cruelty of a Sultan than the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet. The god who is a mere awful unity is not only a king but an Eastern king. The heart of humanity, especially of European humanity, is certainly much more satisfied by the strange hints and symbols that gather round the Trinitarian idea, the image of a council at which mercy pleads as well as justice, the conception of a sort of liberty and variety existing even in the inmost chamber of the world. For Western religion has always felt keenly the idea “it is not well for man to be alone.” The social instinct asserted itself everywhere as when the Eastern idea of hermits was practically expelled by the Western idea of monks. So even asceticism became brotherly; and the Trappists were sociable even when they were silent. If this love of a living complexity be our test, it is certainly healthier to have the Trinitarian religion than the Unitarian. For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence) — to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology, and even if I were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be relevant to do so here. Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and, the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.
The relationship between the Mohammedans and their God is one of slave and master, never of child and father. Further, their God definitely does not love everyone, and love and grace do not appear to be stressed in the religion.
These basic facts about Islam colour the entire faith and Islamic societies. Even before considering any specifics about male-female relationships, it would be rational to predict that any hierarchical relationships in such a society would be far “rawer” than in Christian societies, that people in different positions in the hierarchy would be more distant and “other” to each other, and love might well be less influential in the practical workings of such hierarchies.
These factors in and of themselves are enormous differences between Christian and Islamic values.
Aside from that, some specific difference which occur to me:
* Islamic marriage is a contract, not a sacrament. A woman cannot freely contract marriage, but she must have the consent of a male guardian – in fact, this male guardian and the husband are the ones who speak the words that create the marriage in the marriage ceremony, not the woman.
* In Islam, divorce is not only not prohibited, the husband can divorce a woman at will.
* Physical punishment of a disobedient wife is mandated by the Koran, and husbands are nowhere commanded to love and sacrifice themselves for their wives (up to four of them, of course).
* Celibacy is not a valid vocation in Islam, which (especially in low tech societies) ties virtually all women to full-time domestic responsibilities, which (especially in low tech societies) can preclude any other role in society.
And are Traditionalist Christians - who trumpet hierarchy as the mode of operation of men and women...IN THE CHURCH... ( not yelling-just making clear that this must be faced) different from Islamists on this topic?
Yes.
When you capitalize Traditionalist like that, it sounds to me like a denomination. Is it? If not, how are you defining it?
Everywhere I look I cannot find one instance of freedom and equality for women that is not afforded them by men in some way. And every place I see oppression of women I see men asserting dominance in the name of their "order".
Given that sin and evil are the twisting and corruption of right order and goodness, this is hardly surprising, and in no way disproves that some form of patriarchy may be part of natural and/or divine law.
I do not find such carefulness of exegesis within the community of the modern Church in what has become a conflict on this.
I wouldn’t expect any non-Scriptural writings to be as perfectly balanced, but personally I find documents such as Mulieris Dignitatem very beautiful, powerful and nuanced.
If we don't figure in *all* the gospel, and just the parts we choose- as I believe taking one side or the other will lead us, then the Traditionalist system will lead to a Sharia-like system.
Heresies in general are an exaggeration of one part of the gospel at the expense or denial of another, so that could well be a possibility even if some form of patriarchy is part of natural and/or divine law. However, could you give examples of what you mean by this, and/or define “Sharia-like” and “traditionalist”? There seem to be lots of people who think everything except post-1960s Western societies are Sharia-like, so I want to make sure we have our meanings straight.
Right now the Traditionalist thinking only makes room for tradtionally living women. There is no real place for women as they function in leadership in the culture.
Now I definitely need a better definition for Traditionalist!
for those who don't get the connection between where Traditionalism is able to go and Islamist tradtionalism...well, I guess you missed the Shepherding movement. Which means I have alot of explaining to do.
Never heard of it, so please do explain.
"It isn't mere hierarchy or structure that we need to commit to as a standard."
I don't know any Christian who takes this position.
Perhaps you have forgotten how we moved from the idea of "divine right of kings" to Lex Rex.
[snip]
We do not give the carte blanche to any hierarchy that does not recognize the highest echelon of that hierarchy:"God". Even kings are subject to God.
Even James VI / James I claimed to be subject to God. Furthermore, as I understand it, the standard understanding of “divine right of kings” which he promulgated was itself a pathological version of how it was understood previously.
Atlantic, you are preaching to the choir on the difference between Islam and Christianity. I did not say they were the same. I said that the Traditionalist view on women, as it is now iterated and defined, leads to something that is the same as the Sharia view of women leads to. Primarily because it leaves unfactored many of the very differences you have outlined. When I used the modifer "raw" which you asked me to explain earlier, that is what I meant. If you reduce things down to God made man and then woman, and for eternity woman is under man in heirarchy.. along with more than I can enumerate here, but in a raw power form.... you get the Sharia philosophy and results.
The operative words I would pick out of your comments are "loving relationships". Ok, now, what makes that? order? hierarchy? there are some things missing in the description of Traditionalist doctrines on the matter. I want us to articulate that when we talk about women in the Church. So we don't go around squashing people like Sharia law does.
capitalize Traditionalist
If you go back to some of my earlier posts that outline to two main stances on the issue of what place and authority women may exercise in the Church... you get Egalitarian and Traditionalist- both claiming belief in heirarchy of some sort and both claiming belief in equality, but being at odds in how they are defining and practicing these concepts in application. I capitalize because it stands for a large concept, it is a proper name for it in my writing.
"disproves that some form of patriarchy may be part of natural and/or divine law"
I'm not trying to disprove that, since my conclusion is that we cannot avoid the fact that there is patriarchy. God is Father... that is a final sort of patriarchy, isn't it?
non-Scriptural writings to be as perfectly balanced
as a Protestant, my view is that it is our duty to rightly divide the Word. It is our duty to find the balance that Paul was originally giving. I don't say that our writings are scripture...but our understanding is to get corrected until it perfectly lines up with scripture, that is the goal.. and until we get there, our duty is to ..Protest.
"Now I definitely need a better definition for Traditionalist"
I think it fits better than than the formal term, advocating a "hierarchal subordination" view. Traditionalists tend to hark back to Victorian definitions, exemplified in 1950's mode, of women and their roles. I find this unacceptable when we are talking about New Testament truth. The Victorians didn't get everything right.
"Shepherding movement": summarized well in a nutshell if you follow the link.
Even James VI / James I claimed to be subject to God.
Yes, he did... all the "divine right" kings, of which the French are better examples... did, as well, but I think a reading of Samuel Rutherfords work would do a world of good in explaining it.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the standard understanding of “divine right of kings” which he promulgated was itself a pathological version of how it was understood previously."
Not sure how you understand it, or by what standard you are saying it was "pathological". What exemplified the norm, and what created the pathological designation? What makes an exercise of authority "pathological" is the reduction of the question here.
I appreciate the time and thought you are putting into the issue, which might well be one settled in your own mind.
I said that the Traditionalist view on women, as it is now iterated and defined, leads to something that is the same as the Sharia view of women leads to…If you reduce things down to God made man and then woman, and for eternity woman is under man in heirarchy.. along with more than I can enumerate here, but in a raw power form.... you get the Sharia philosophy and results.
If it’s real Christianity, it won’t be in a raw power form.
The operative words I would pick out of your comments are "loving relationships". Ok, now, what makes that? order? hierarchy?
Love, of course. In an ideal Christian society, hierarchical relationships and power certainly would exist, but ordered to love.
there are some things missing in the description of Traditionalist doctrines on the matter.
Examples?
Traditionalists tend to hark back to Victorian definitions, exemplified in 1950's mode, of women and their roles. I find this unacceptable when we are talking about New Testament truth. The Victorians didn't get everything right.
They didn’t get everything wrong, either.
At this point I haven’t any idea if you would count me as a traditionalist or not. Om one hand, I completely agree with the Catholic prohibition on women priests, and I think altar girls and female Eucharistic ministers are a bad idea. I think that most people have a vocation for marriage, and that ‘traditional family structures’ are preferable. I believe in wifely submission.
On the other hand, I think that there should be (and are) plenty of opportunities for women also to take roles outside the home, or to entirely eschew marriage for another vocation. I can think easily of dozens of examples of famous Catholic women with non-trivial authority in the temporal and/or spiritual spheres, and I don’t think there’s a thing wrong with taking them as role models.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the standard understanding of “divine right of kings” which he promulgated was itself a pathological version of how it was understood previously."
Not sure how you understand it, or by what standard you are saying it was "pathological". What exemplified the norm, and what created the pathological designation? What makes an exercise of authority "pathological" is the reduction of the question here.
The germ of “divine right of kings” is obviously based in Romans 13:1-2, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
However, for centuries the power of the ruler in Christendom was understood to exist in the context of the Church and the general mores and customs of Christendom, which tempered their power and made it non-absolute. Aquinas, for example, taught that a ruler could lose legitimate authority through tyranny, and that regicide was justified in extreme situations. He stated:
Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
ST 1a 2ae, 105,1
(Note that his definition of “king” is that of a single person who rules, which could indeed be an elected office.)
It was only later (around the time of the Reformation) that the concept of “divine right of kings” arose as the term is usually understood – essentially unlimited temporal power usually passed on via primogeniture, frequently mixed with spiritual power as well (e.g., the Supreme Governor of the Church of England).
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this arose around the time of the Reformation – broadly speaking, I tend to see this as the combination of the undeniable basis of Romans 13:1-2 together with the Protestant values of private judgment and the primacy of the individual conscience. In this case, the judgment and conscience of the king alone.
Whatever it was, it was a tyrannical aberration.
I have nothing to contribute to the discussion but just want to say that it's a wonderful example of how bringing elements of different Christian traditions to the table can be helpful, even crucial, to a more complete understanding of important issues. Thanks, ladies!
"If it’s real Christianity, it won’t be in a raw power form."
If it was that simple we would have never seen the Spanish Inquisition. Not that that is the only example I could use from any of the streams of Christianity.
We have to talk about what makes the real Christianity. Actually articulate it rather than our usual " assuming " that everyone knows what real Christianity is.. even us.
"Examples?"
Some of the things that Egalitarians talk about.
"They[Victorians] didn’t get everything wrong, either."
When we hold something as a standard that statement isn't really very useful in my opinion, not trying to be harsh- but it seems to takes us circular instead of forward on the topic.
Catholic women have a different situation in the issue than Protestant women. In how I see this, the men of the church have the jurisdiction to give place to women to participate in ministry.... by virtue of the fact that we are not to usurp power over men.
Many Protestant churches have women clergy in some sort of variant ( although they like to make distinctions in church and parachurch at times), but women often are found in positions of leadership. The Vatican has already prohibited women from certain forms of ministry, and some conservative Catholic women are more restrictive than is what is presently allowed by the Vatican. If you look at the Protestant teachings on an hierarchal stance, you might find yourself in that category, but I couldn't say at this point. A way to deterine this is to ask you : when you say "I think altar girls and female Eucharistic ministers are a bad idea" I would say to you, upon what premises? What are your reasonings, other than "preference" ..and what is that preference based upon?
Although you have this preference how does it align with your idea,"I can think easily of dozens of examples of famous Catholic women with non-trivial authority in the temporal and/or spiritual spheres" How do they get to this point? Is there an orderly path for this? Although I can partially figure your answer which is facilitated by the fact that the Catholic church retains a gender division in Chruch vocations that Protestants don't have.
In your thinking on the "divine right of kings” You find yourself in immediate trouble in the modern age. If, indeed, that system of thought even worked at all in former ages* (which I would stand ready to debate), we come now to ideals of freedom of religious practice, and ideals of church state separation and oops! your view becomes anachronistic in actual ability to be practiced in our present world.
We have to move on into egalitatarian ideas that now form the parameters of our governments and our thinking. and I would hold forth the scriptures as the basic foundation of the egalitarianism as it rightly should be understood and practiced. On that part we agree... there is something.. and we need to verbalize the outlines of that some thing that restrains both what you are saying about authority, and what I am saying about the form of freedom. And I am talking about the God given, God protected form of freedom.
"tyrannical aberration" We kind of have to look at this. Only not in historical kings, but in the workings closer to home. What makes this in a church leader? what defines this in a husband... if there is tyrannical aberration, abuse of power, what constitutes this.... and what is the answer to it?
*edited to add:
it worked in the final authority, keep order type of way, but not in the Christian service and character sort of way. The abuses of power and corruptness of character are too well known in history. The number of truly Christian kings can probably be counted upon the fingers of our hand.
Hi again – sorry it’s taken me so long to reply, but Real Life™ has been pretty demanding recently.
"If it’s real Christianity, it won’t be in a raw power form."
If it was that simple we would have never seen the Spanish Inquisition. Not that that is the only example I could use from any of the streams of Christianity.
I think it’s very important to distinguish between abuses of the system, and a system which is intrinsically abusive. This can be hard to do sometimes, since a lot of us find it very easy to conceive of the abuses in our own favoured system(s) as peripheral and those of other systems as intrinsic. However, we can look at how abusive elements are regarded within a system to help answer this question (assuming, of course, that we’ve already agreed that a given element is abusive). For example, does the system itself regard a given element as a normative ideal or central teaching? Is it historically commonplace in the system? Did the correction (if any) come from within the system? Etc.
I think it’s extremely arguable that Mohammedanism is more intrinsically “about” raw power than Christianity, so authoritarian and power-oriented abuses are intrinsically built in.
A way to deterine this is to ask you : when you say "I think altar girls and female Eucharistic ministers are a bad idea" I would say to you, upon what premises? What are your reasonings, other than "preference" ..and what is that preference based upon?
In the case of Eucharist ministers, it’s a bit too close to the function of the priest, even if it’s technically permissible. I don’t like male ones, either, incidentally. I’ve never lived in a parish where the layperson/priest ratio was so large that any were actually needed (except possibly for distribution of the Eucharist to the sick and homebound), which technically makes using them an abuse.
In the case of altar girls, it is also in a sense too close to the priest. Altar boys used to be in part a sort of ‘farm system’ for the priesthood. I think that given the way many boys don’t want to do ‘girly’ things, and that girls seem to have a greater tendency to get involved with religious things to begin with, that the use of altar girls tends to effectively replace altar boys, which isn’t good for the boys and it isn’t good for priestly vocations.
(This replacement phenomenon is obvious in my current parish – we have two regular Sunday Masses, one being more ‘modern’ and the other more traditional. Altar girls are used in the first but not the second. The result is that we have altar girls only for the first Mass – even though there are slightly more families with school-age children who normally attend this Mass as compared to the other.)
Although you have this preference how does it align with your idea,"I can think easily of dozens of examples of famous Catholic women with non-trivial authority in the temporal and/or spiritual spheres" How do they get to this point? Is there an orderly path for this? Although I can partially figure your answer which is facilitated by the fact that the Catholic church retains a gender division in Chruch vocations that Protestants don't have.
Partially – quite a few of the examples I have in mind are nuns or sisters of various sorts, including foundesses and abbesses. In addition, it is entirely acceptable in the Catholic world to have a vocation as an unmarried non-religious. Next, it could well be that with such models of women serving outside the domestic sphere, it may be more relatively normal for a married Catholic woman to do service in addition to the domestic sphere, compared to some conservative Protestant circles, where it seems to me that the women’s roles are conceived of as almost exclusively domestic.
However, as far as authority goes, in a sense there’s no ‘orderly path’ to achieve authority. I suppose one could discern a vocation to a religious order and hope to eventually be elected abbess, but aiming to be an abbess for the sake of authority is not a particularly good qualification for actually being an abbess. (That goes for every position of authority in the Church, though, even if there’s no way to guarantee that every authority-seeker will be filtered out.)
In your thinking on the "divine right of kings” You find yourself in immediate trouble in the modern age. If, indeed, that system of thought even worked at all in former ages* (which I would stand ready to debate), we come now to ideals of freedom of religious practice, and ideals of church state separation and oops! your view becomes anachronistic in actual ability to be practiced in our present world.
I am a little confused by your statements above. I haven’t given my opinion on what form(s) of government I think would be best practice today. Maybe it would clarify if I restated the main points, and in a different order:
1. The standard meaning of the term “divine right of kings” (essentially unlimited temporal power usually passed on via primogeniture, frequently mixed with spiritual power), which arose around the time of the Reformation, is a tyrannical abuse.
2. However, there is a germ of truth in the descriptor, “divine right of kings”, as expressed in Romans 13:1-2. Let’s call this “divine authority” to distinguish it from the type in point 1.
3. During a long period in Christendom, such “divine authority” as was exercised by kings was tempered by other forms of authority such as Church authority and the authority of the traditional norms of Christian society. This made the king’s authority less than absolute, reducing the chances of tyrannical abuse. You could even see the different forms of legitimate authority as a “checks and balances system” – and the “divine right of kings” of point 1, by giving one “branch” absolute power, destroyed the checks and balances.
Furthermore, “divine authority” is not inherently opposed to either church-state separation or freedom of religion. “Divine authority” is not and cannot be anachronistic.
"tyrannical aberration" We kind of have to look at this. Only not in historical kings, but in the workings closer to home. What makes this in a church leader? what defines this in a husband... if there is tyrannical aberration, abuse of power, what constitutes this.... and what is the answer to it?
An utterly enormous question. If I try to tackle it now, I’ll never post this comment.
The number of truly Christian kings can probably be counted upon the fingers of our hand.
Hm. I need at least two hands for sainted kings, so for those who were merely Christian ones of good will, I think I’d need to take off my shoes, at least!
"Real Life™" I understand.LOL!
"very important to distinguish between abuses of the system, and a system which is intrinsically abusive."
I absolutely agree with you here- this is where we will distinguish between the system of Christ's gospel and that of Islam.
"I think it’s extremely arguable that Mohammedanism is more intrinsically “about” raw power than Christianity, so authoritarian and power-oriented abuses are intrinsically built in."
Ok, let's look at this. If I understand you, I agree with you. First, I want to point out that I was not equating Christianity in its outcomes with Islam. I was saying that the pathway that some Traditionalist/hierarchalist theological conclusions and practical teachings on gender and roles were leading to is a similar outcome to Islamic Sharia- and for the same reasons.
When we look at mistaken applications of Christian purpose and intent we see the abuses, and we can call them that, because they are obviously out of line with Christ's teachings ( looked at from the distance of history). I am trying to make the case that perhaps in the name of restoring family values and tradition, we are again in danger of making one of those types of mistakes. I compare the outcome with Islam's for the same reason we may compare the use of brutal force to attain conversion could be compared. Christianity does not and never was meant to work in that way. As in conversion- so in the male female relationships, and in the relationship of authorities, in general.
====before we go on this thread of discussion====
you said:"technically permissible" in reference to Eucharist ministers ( laypersons) and altar girls. You mean that the Vatican approved it, yes? You have to ask yourself where your lines of authority actually lay. I have known many who did not accept Vatican II, but we have to ask ourselves, what are we doing in such instances? What is the basis by which we understand authority? I think we are starting to enter Romans 8 territory here.
================
"aiming to be an abbess for the sake of authority is not a particularly good qualification for actually being an abbess."
I'm not thinking of this... I am thinking more of the problem that arose when I discussed St. Brigid of Kildare. The use of ecclesiastical terms to try to explain her place of authority through what - I think- was God's blessing on her works.
===getting into the topic of divine authority====
Atlantic, I highly enjoy this discussion, and you are a formidable thinker, but you are getting into some trouble here.
As soon as you say."“divine authority” as was exercised by kings was tempered by other forms of authority such as Church authority" , you run into the obvious problems that history has in the corruption and abuse of the Church authority which directly led to the Reformation. In much the same way that you were able to say "“divine right of kings” (essentially unlimited temporal power usually passed on via primogeniture, frequently mixed with spiritual power), which arose around the time of the Reformation, is a tyrannical abuse." which was a true statement. IOW, we were led down the path of government becoming the present form by a long string of temporal abuses.
Which then loops back to your statement,"I haven’t given my opinion on what form(s) of government I think would be best practice today." Truthfully, I don't think you have much in the way of practical choice on this, given the present earthly situation of being unable to guarantee Christ's rule upon the earth short of it being verily *Him*. If under the best states of Christendom it could not be implemented well...then in our postmodern age, when the pillars of faith have been hacked in much of society.... we could not have this ideal which I believe you might be holding out for in that statement. I will say plainly that free democratic republics are the only real choice. You can throw on the figurehead of the British Queen and that works fine, but basically you are left with the forms we have in the West at this time.
You might feel I am being arrogant in presuming you to have to take that stance, but I foresee the end of any discussion ending up there.
"by giving one “branch” absolute power, destroyed the checks and balances"
Claiming the authority of God on earth is a huge trump card. I don't see any check on such power. And the church would always trump the civil government. Again, no check or balance. History bears this out.
"“Divine authority” is not and cannot be anachronistic."
here, I can only give you that point when we are strictly relegating this to God. And this is the point I see being made in lex Rex. God is the final authority, and those who have authority by reason of His raising them up are still subject to his Law and Sovereignty. If they abrogate that- they forfeit their call upon divine authority in their position.
"I need at least two hands for sainted kings, so for those who were merely Christian ones of good will, I think I’d need to take off my shoes, at least!"
OK, LOL! Your Catholic training has trumped me;)
"An utterly enormous question."
It was meant to be, and I like asking the big questions. Often there are ways to bring the perspective down to size so long as we do not try to make a treatise of it.
I would offer that the key is in the monumental work that has already been done in the thinking... looking at such treatments as Lex Rex, which is similar to the idea in another application as Sola Scriptura. Not meaning to ring bells for your Catholic-trained mind:) There is agreement with Scripture being the base by which we judge matters, in both creeds.
Real Life ™ has been getting to me again…sorry it’s taken me so ridiculously long to get back to you on this. I’ve actually omitted some of the points I wanted to reply to because otherwise, I amnever, ever going to get anything at all posted.
When we look at mistaken applications of Christian purpose and intent we see the abuses, and we can call them that, because they are obviously out of line with Christ's teachings ( looked at from the distance of history). I am trying to make the case that perhaps in the name of restoring family values and tradition, we are again in danger of making one of those types of mistakes. I compare the outcome with Islam's for the same reason we may compare the use of brutal force to attain conversion could be compared. Christianity does not and never was meant to work in that way. As in conversion- so in the male female relationships, and in the relationship of authorities, in general.
In some cases, perhaps – there are definitely “Christian” sects out there that practice appalling abuses – but I think you’re applying a very broad brush and seeing this as a very present danger in all traditionalism/hierarchicalism. I don’t think that’s true. It is possible that such abuses might be more likely under traditionalist/hierarchical systems, just as other forms of abuse are more likely in more liberal/”egalitarian” systems…but on the other hand, properly-constituted tradition and hierarchy can also act as a brake on abuse. You’re probably familiar with the phenomenon that a lot of youthful ‘rebels’ are not particularly opposed to authority per se, but rather authority as applied to them by others. I’ve also noticed that supposedly anarchic and/or egalitarian groups can indeed slide into de facto authoritarianism, largely (IMO) because part of the purpose of hierarchy is to put limits on the innate drive to power. It seems to me, for example, you find this pattern in the case of an abusive husband where the couple is non-denominational sola scriptura: the husband interprets Scripture to recognize no authority over his wife except his own, and if his current pastor disagrees with him, then he feels he has the perfect right to schism and perhaps even start a house church where he has even more isolating control. If they are Catholics, however, the actual doctrine and traditions of the Church, the genuine spiritual authority of his priest and/or confessor and the prohibition of schism have the potential to act to limit or stop such abuse.
you said:"technically permissible" in reference to Eucharist ministers ( laypersons) and altar girls. You mean that the Vatican approved it, yes? You have to ask yourself where your lines of authority actually lay. I have known many who did not accept Vatican II,
Yes, they are a particularly exotic breed of Protestant. :)
"aiming to be an abbess for the sake of authority is not a particularly good qualification for actually being an abbess."
I'm not thinking of this... I am thinking more of the problem that arose when I discussed St. Brigid of Kildare. The use of ecclesiastical terms to try to explain her place of authority through what - I think- was God's blessing on her works.
Then to go back to the original question, “How do they get to this point? Is there an orderly path for this?”: there is no single “orderly path” by which a woman acquires authority, any more than there is for men, ranging from being born in the right time and place, to following God’s call in radical and completely unexpected, unconventional ways.
…we were led down the path of government becoming the present form by a long string of temporal abuses.
Which then loops back to your statement,"I haven’t given my opinion on what form(s) of government I think would be best practice today." Truthfully, I don't think you have much in the way of practical choice on this, given the present earthly situation of being unable to guarantee Christ's rule upon the earth short of it being verily *Him*. If under the best states of Christendom it could not be implemented well...then in our postmodern age, when the pillars of faith have been hacked in much of society.... we could not have this ideal which I believe you might be holding out for in that statement. I will say plainly that free democratic republics are the only real choice.
I really don’t know what you think my opinion is here! I thought I’d given a broad hint with my Aquinas quote and qualifier above, but here’s something a bit more detailed:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0003.html
Sample quote:
The ancient Church which is often depicted as retarding modern enlightenment, liberty, and democracy, was the very agency which produced the great protagonists of democracy in the period of its greatest danger and saved out of the democracy of the Middle Ages what might be termed the seed-thought for the resowing and growth of democratic principle and practice among the nations of modern times.
It doesn't summarise my views exactly, but perhaps you might find it interesting.
such treatments as Lex Rex, which is similar to the idea in another application as Sola Scriptura. Not meaning to ring bells for your Catholic-trained mind:) There is agreement with Scripture being the base by which we judge matters, in both creeds.
It comes back to the main different here between Catholicism and Protestantism – the question of who has the authority to interpret. A law text, by itself, just sits there, with no eyes or hands. By itself, it has fewer divisions than the Pope. And even the Constitution of the United States recognizes that private interpretation isn’t workable; that’s why we have a Supreme Court for constitutional questions.
