There was a time when I would have argued that "patriarchal" is most often used in ways that detach it from the meaning and intent used by our spiritual mothers and fathers. I believed that it was most properly applied in their contexts to the spiritual care and oversight offered to us within the universal church, and specifically within the Orthodox churches and their traditions of love, healing and pastoral care that extended to believers and helped their societies survive both foreign invasions and influences and whatever evils were present within those societies. I have seen three Orthodox Patriarchs and many leading Orthodox bishops and abbesses up close and received blessing from many of them. There were quite a few priests and monks and nuns who I encountered along the way who also seemed to live blessed lives in that patriarchal environment and who were doing the hard work of living as solitaries while fighting evil and transmitting to us God's great blessings. There were among all of them those whose piety and holiness were immediately evident and surrounded them and those in their presence like a comfortable sweater.
Today I am more aware of some of the contradictions within orthodoxies and the struggles between feeling moved to withdraw from the world and live in holy piety, wheher one is a monastic or not, and feeling the need to struggle in the world in order to defend with integrity God's creation and life and give active witness to God's bottom line of justice. Moreover, it is hard to believe that in these moments of widespread war, destruction and despair that the traditional and national patriarchial churches and their modern ways of defending particular governments represents a movement towards God's kingdom. In the treasury of their work and teachings there are many gems for us to take from their traditions and go forward with, and the ark that we are navigating the flood that we are in has room for all. The masts, bow, stern, starboard and port side of our ark needs many bright lamps and we depend on many lighthouses as we travel through dark and stormy times in search of our home.
In defending God's creation and life we are necessarily dependent on the positive accomplishments of the past and on the good accomplished by the Enlightenment and the humanism of the oppressed who Jesus loved so dearly, but all of this will be transformed into something greater and beyond our imaginations. There is a danger in maintaining aanything against the times and there is a danger of throwing everything overboard. Real conciliarity and inclusion should be used to guide us.
The post below that I have taken from the Coalition of Christian Feminists Facebook page takes us through some Biblical possibilities that feed my imagination and that argue for a different way of reading Scripture and understanding our traditions and possibilities. The closing point in the post should be taken as encouragement to double down in the work that needs to be done. Please visit the Coalition's Facebook page.
The post:
If religious patriarchy was true, the angel of the Lord would have spoken first to Manoah about the miraculous conception of Samson.
Instead, he spoke to Manoah’s wife—a woman—alone (Judges 13:2-24).
If religious patriarchy was true, the angel Gabriel would have spoken to Joseph first about the miraculous conception of our Lord.
Instead, he spoke to Mary—a woman—alone (Luke 1:26-38).
If religious patriarchy was true, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would not have spoken to a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well, revealing to her that he was the Messiah.
He did speak to a woman—alone—and she bore witness to her community that the Messiah had come. Many believed because of her testimony (John 4:4-42).
If religious patriarchy was true, the Risen Savior would have first revealed himself to men, entrusting them with the good news of his victory over sin and death.
Instead, he spoke first to women—alone—entrusting them with the good news we call “the gospel.” When the women revealed this message to Jesus’ male disciples, the men did not believe (Luke 24:1-11).
In diagrams, blogs, podcasts and books, religious patriarchy claims that women must relate to God through the “spiritual covering” of men in the church and in the home. Without this covering of “masculine authority,” women—it is claimed—are in danger of being deceived.
Whom are we to believe?
Patriarchal men; or the angel of the Lord, the angel Gabriel and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Whose example should we follow?
I believe the disciples in the book of Acts spoke wisely when they told the religious leaders of their day, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
No comments:
Post a Comment