Does Religion Matter?

Let me be clear again; I'm not here to convince you. I'm only hoping to share some of what I have learned and to pen my thoughts for my own clarity. If it is helpful to you, then wonderful.

In my last post, I ended with the statement that everything depends on what or who a person believes God to be. That cannot be summed up in one post, but I'll start here.

Since embarking on this journey outside of traditional (sometimes known as "institutional") Christianity, my beliefs have changed a great deal. I have come to the point that there is nothing that isn't worth questioning. This doesn't mean I have tossed out every traditional belief, only that I have questioned each and every one of them; coming to conclusions on some and feeling fairly undecided on others.

Before I delve into any of that, though, there is a question that is increasingly on my mind. Summed up in a sentence or two, it might look something like this:

"Does what I personally believe about God:...who God is, what God is, how God works...matter at all? Because, in all fairness and honesty, what I believe, for that matter, what anyone believes, doesn't change the truth, does it? We just don't know with any certainty what that truth is."

Whether my truth be a biblical concept of God, a pagan or Neo-pagan concept, a Muslim concept, a Buddhist concept, or even an atheist concept....none of that changes the reality of God/no god.

Put another way, no one can definitively prove the existence of God, nor can they prove what interpretation of God is true. Nor can anyone definitely disprove the existence of God. For as long as we walk on the earth, God is simply a human perception. I can believe God exists, but does that make God exist if God actually does not exist? Or, if I believe God does not exist, does that make God not exist, even if God truly does exist? If I believe in the Christian God, but God truly exists in more of a polytheistic or pantheistic way, does my belief in the Christian God make the Christian God exist?

See what I'm saying? What I, what ANYONE believes about God, even if a person believes they know the absolute truth, it is still only a human perception. Any one person can insist until they day they die that they know the truth, but what do they actually find out when they die? No one knows.

So, then, what does this mean about the existence of God? Not to be too philosophical, but what if God is something humans have made up, continue to make up, to help us deal with our existence? What if God is just a figment of our minds? I know most atheists would agree with that. Then again, if so many people for so many millenia continue to feel that some kind of religious beliefs are beneficial to their lives, maybe there is something to it?

This is why I have come to the belief that discussion about religion is ultimately futile. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves. Granted, some people aren't afforded the freedom to decide for themselves, but for many people what I believe or what you believe has no bearing on what someone else believes. Yes, you can try to change their minds, and maybe you would be saving a soul (if you believe that), but it still doesn't change what the TRUTH is. However, we don't, can't know that truth, so we are only ever operating under assumptions.

Then, I think, looking at the sheer volumes of people all over the world who hold to devout religion (not including the spiritual-but-not-religious types, the agnostics, and the atheists) how could so many people all over the world be wrong? But, then, if the Hindus are wrong, who is right? The Christians? The Muslims? The Jews? The Druids? The Buddhists? The Rastas? The Pastas? Is rightness determined by the numbers of adherents? If so, then it is equally likely that Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism is the "true" religion. Is it determined by how long a religion has been in existence? If that's the case, it is Hinduism, hands down. Is it determined by money? We all know the answer to that.

The one thing that the majority of people in the world hold in common is the belief in some kind of higher power. However, atheists would say the argument against believers is simple: that science hasn't yet trumped tradition, and most anyone with a thinking mind would have to disbelieve in God. But again, does any of it matter? Why?

I have already rambled too long, so I'll try to wrap it up for now.

What good is religion, then? If we can't agree, if we can't know for sure...why do we bother?

I have come to the conclusion that valid religion (or non-religion) is anything that moves one person to treat another person with greater kindness. Conversely, I do not believe that any tradition that aims to belittle, oppress, marginalize or abuse any segment of the population has anything at all to do with God. I don't believe that morality needs to be determined by the confines of religion, with the distinct exception that any belief or behavior that creates a victim is, collectively, not of God. I believe that any religion (or non-religion) that moves an individual or our society more toward equality, kindness and grace is a good religion and serves a good purpose. For some people, that motivation is God. For some people; their intellect.

As soon as a religious belief causes one person to harm another person, either physically, verbally or mentally, it is no longer of God. Of course, we all make mistakes that hurt others. I'm speaking of those who make it a mission to use religious beliefs to abuse others.

Obviously there is no religion that doesn't marginalize or abuse some segment of the population (including self); if there were, we would probably all be following it. Hence, the religion you choose to follow (assuming you have the freedom to choose) depends more on who you personally marginalize or what behaviors/beliefs you consider to be wrong than it depends on the religion's "rightness".

After this post, you might wonder what I, personally, believe. Or you might wonder why what I believe matters at all.

For over five years I have repeatedly been told not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...meaning, don't leave church just because people are human and make mistakes. I have cringed every time someone has said that gross over-simplification of why I left.

However, I'm finally at a point where I have chosen not to throw the baby out...it's just a different baby.

More on why I continue to follow Jesus...even if scripture has been manipulated, even if what I've been taught about his life isn't true; even if he never existed in the first place...later.

The De-Gendering of God

You'll have to forgive me as I ramble here. I am primarily recording these thoughts for my own peace of mind, as part of my personal process; they are not meant to be theologically sound arguments. I am far beyond caring about theological accuracy as the religious set would have it. For me, God and divinity are more clearly experienced by my own spirit than dictated by some ancient and culturally irrelevant text or some doctrinal surety.

That said, I'll continue my train of thought from the previous two posts.

Humans have always had the tendency to break the divine down into terms we can understand. We attribute a thousand human characteristics to a God who holds none of them. Maybe I'm a mystic at heart, but attempting to define divinity by any human concept or language will fail to bring us any closer to the God we seek. Whether it be gender or justice or mercy or love or faithfulness, our understanding of God is pitifully limited by the best and worst of human language and experience.

The problem with gender inequality isn't that we know God as being male. The problem is that we know God as any gender at all. To say that God is both male and female is inaccurate. To say that God is neither male nor female is too enigmatic for us humans to have a meaningful relationship with, leading us to assign God a gender -- traditionally male. God does not have a form that could be assigned a gender, but 'genderless' suggests to us some kind of eunuch. We struggle to understand a formless God, but there it is, and try we must.

Depending on your view of the bible, you could argue that the ancient Hebrews wrote that God was a "He", and that was inspired of God, therefore it must be true. However, just about everyone knows that Hebrew has no neuter pronoun, so the choices were "he" or "she". Neither was entirely appropriate, but 'he" was more in line with their culture. So "he" it was. If you want to argue semantics, I suggest you look at the Strong's for Genesis 1:2, ruwach, or spirit, is a feminine noun. So you can't have it both ways. If God is a boy, then His Spirit is a girl. The Hebrews could have been inspired to choose a male noun for 'spirit', but they didn't. I believe this was purposeful, with more intention than we might realize, either by God's inspiration or human word selection; evidencing balance, or gender partnership. Not suggesting the possession of actual gender, but as an example for us that one cannot operate independently of the other in the process of creation. God (Genderless) required Christ (male) and Spirit (female) in order to create.

In my math class, we often solve simple equations or conversions using imaginary terms or units. This is to reinforce to us that the process for is not dependent on our understanding of what the equation actually means. Some people simply cannot wrap their minds around this because the numbers and units and terms have to mean something specific in order for them to even begin to tackle a solution. For others, just knowing that there is a process is reassuring enough, even if the end result of that process is meaningless. Neither is ideal; we need both kinds of people: those who believe it is more important to have meaning than answers, and those who believe it is more important to have answers than meaning. 

Assigning God human characteristics is an attempt to have answers. In fact, the bible is full of human definitions of the characteristics of God. For a person who needs answers, this would be a valuable tool. However, for those who seek meaning, it would become apparent that the original text of the bible was still limited by human vocabulary. Often, a trait that was assigned to God, even maleness, was due to such a limitation. For the people who desire meaning over answers, they would say that the vocabulary used to describe God in the bible is thoroughly limited by vocabulary, using our best understanding; but by no measure accurately describing God.

For those who require answers, the bible is often used almost as a scientific text; everything in it is true and verified, at least by God. Because the arguments for gender roles made in religious circles are usually based on scripture, I would tend to start at the beginning using the rule of first mention. It would seem clear in Genesis 1:27 that the creation of male and female genders was intentional and both genders were viewed as equally necessary for what God had in mind -- reproduction, or creation. Even if you believe in evolution, it would seem clear that humans are not the only species to have evolved into dual gender reproduction, and in fact, only a few creatures on earth reproduce asexually. Therefore, there must be some biological practicality in it.

However, when one begins to separate the genders by more than physiology, that is where things break down. The favorite proof-text for female inferiority is "The Fall"; woman (or Eve), fell victim to the wiles of the serpent (evil or selfishness) and therefore she singlehandedly 'broke' creation. Aside from the obvious problems with believing in a literal Eden, a literal Eve, a literal talking serpent, who literally tempted Eve with a fruit that she was not supposed to eat -- there are many other problems with this situation. The reality is the entire story is too complex to successfully defend with any ounce of reason. One must entirely suspend common sense and laws of science in order to literally believe this. A metaphorical understanding can be helpful, but then what is it a metaphor for?

All these arguments depend on what/who a person believes God to be. So I'll go there next.

Feminism?

I happened across Already Pretty by accident, while surfing today. I think the quotes I found on this post are entirely relevant to our present discussion, so I want to share them. Just let them settle on you.

Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, "She doesn't have what it takes." They will say, "Women don't have what it takes." ~Clare Boothe Luce

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute. ~Rebecca West, "Mr Chesterton in Hysterics: A Study in Prejudice," The Clarion, 14 Nov 1913, reprinted in The Young Rebecca, 1982

There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina. All other jobs should be open to everybody. ~Florynce Kennedy

Nobody objects to a woman being a good writer or sculptor or geneticist if at the same time she manages to be a good wife, a good mother, good-looking, good-tempered, well-dressed, well-groomed, and unaggressive. ~Marya Mannes

You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman. ~Jane Galvin Lewis

Brainwashed (The Evil of Being Female, Part 2)

Frankly, I don't really have any vested interest in women holding leadership positions in church. Quite frankly, I don't care about most church issues at all, and no longer consider myself to be qualified to testify to most of them, having been out of touch with church for over five years now. 

One issue I do care about is far bigger than a church issue, but a faction of it does originate there: gender inequality. It has taken me most of five years to deprogram myself from the unhealthy beliefs I learned there, and the unhealthy way I viewed myself because of them. Rebuilding my sense of self and recovering from depression, redefining my marriage and my parenting style, and re-evaluating the various secular vs christian arguments that used to be clearly decided in my mind...it all has been an amazing and liberating process.

Here, it's important that I clarify that my experiences are from conservative, charismatic evangelicalism, and that is the perspective from which I speak. If you wish to tell me that your experience in your denomination doesn't line up with mine, I certainly consider that to be a possibility. 

That said, I think the problems I outline are far more rampant than any of us, even women, realize or care to admit; because admitting it is an excruciating process. Looking at the men who have professed to love us: fathers, brothers, husbands, and seeing them as pawns in a ploy to separate women from their identity, to oppress them from being fully human or fully free...well, that is a kind of betrayal that we don't easily want to explore. So it's easier for women to explain it away, to justify it with God's Word, and to accept this as "the way things should be" than to stand up against it. In some ways, women are at fault, if only for choosing to accept the ridiculous justifications than to fight against them. But in all fairness, when a woman's father or husband inflicts oppressive beliefs upon her, she has little choice than to accept them and make the best of it, for her only alternative is to run. What choice is that?

The reality is in many evangelical circles, women are seriously oppressed. I'll be the first to say that the kinds of oppression found there are not usually to be equated with the more severe oppressions women experience in other cultures, but it is damaging and dangerous nonetheless. Sometimes, it leads to behaviors that we should be actively working to dismantle. Read this, and visit some of the links (especially the one at the word "example" -- I dare you not to cry), so you can see what I'm talking about. Forgive me for not wanting to link to it directly. This is "God approved" domestic violence, advocating that as a method of "discipline, the husband has the authority to "spank" his wife with his hand, a strap or a hairbrush, and the wife consents to it. Unless this is some thinly-veiled justification for S&M, it completely breaks my heart. This particular subject, when I landed on it by accident, made me weep for my sisters, but it is very clear they don't want to hear any arguments against the practice.The thing that devastates me most deeply is the arguments the wives have in favor of this arrangement. How brainwashed they are! 

The general problem is the belief that God designed men to be rulers of women. With this belief, women are first subject to their father, and later to their husband. It is explained to be for the womens' own protection, and because it is God-mandated, there is no other way things should be. These beliefs are carried out to various degrees, depending on the situation and context. However, any belief that tells a woman that she is in any way "less than" a man - less qualified to lead, to make decisions, or to be independent - is evil.

Somewhere along the line it was decided that because women have the reproductive organs that bring life to children, women are best suited to domestic chores. Also, because women have cyclical and unpredictable hormonal changes, they are unsuited to positions of leadership, either religious or secular. And because women are physically "weaker", they require protection, and that protection demands submission...for their own good and because God says so. Because women have breasts and men are clearly unable to control their sexual urges, women must not preach, and must dress modestly so not to tempt their brothers. And so on and so forth. Granted, if you have never been exposed to such teaching, you might not understand at all -- the reasoning or the repercussions. 

Who made these decisions? Men, of course. Some arbitrary thousands of years ago, a certain war was waged against women, by men. Your guess is as good as mine as to the reasoning, but anthropologists and historical theologians have some ideas. At the dawn of humanity, women were not subjugated but were entirely equal in their communities. However, as the human ego (as in Freud's concept of ego, or "sense of self") evolved from the "only existing as part of a group" to being "autonomous"...and agriculture began, and the need to "own" land grew, and wars began... women became a liability, possibly because they weren't as physically strong as men, and, more likely, because they are "weakened" in their ability to fight by pregnancy and childbirth and breastfeeding. Because pregnancy is a physical handicap and prior to modern contraceptive methods, women were pregnant a lot.

It's important to note that most religious beliefs and practices today have been molded and shaped by history, not mandated by God. If you want to argue about God's word being law, I would argue that you must first read the bible in it's original languages and in it's original culture and context before deciding what is God's law and what is not. My eyes have been opened to the complexity and inaccuracy of most Christian religious beliefs -- not only practices (rituals, rules, and structures), but theology, as well. 

So, then, we have a very scarred system at work here. We have a system that still perpetuates the myth that the difference between the genders is more than just "difference", but that one gender is "better", "stronger", "smarter" than the other.  This belief causes all kinds of grief for women today. However, because it is still considered taboo to argue with "God's Word" (or whatever is the operative but altogether human interpretation of God's Word), most of that grief is held very deeply under the surface and leads to depression, anger and mental illness. And she suffers in silence.

More later.

The Evil of Being Female (Part 1?)

Or, "Why the owning of breasts should fall under the 'Christians with Disabilities Act'.

Something has changed.

It all began with a book. A book that Sue recommended to me that has changed my perspective. It has rocked my world. It made me weep. It's called Dance of the Dissident Daughter. It's no secret that I'm an egalitarian when it comes to faith. In other words, there is no place in my spiritual life for misogyny, sexism or patriarchy. There is no point in arguing with me. If you believe in those things, I don't read the same bible you do. Or know the same God. Women have been subjugated, enslaved, oppressed and every other kind of evil thing in the name of God for thousands of years. I read DDD with eagerness and tears. It impacted me, deeply and set me free. There now exist words for my pain and validation for my decision to no longer pay any homage to a religious institution that has been so genuinely evil to 50% of the population -- women  (and that's not counting the other minorities that religion has been evil to), in the name of GOD.

Next, I read another book: The Fall. It's only one book, one opinion, but it makes so much sense to me. At the dawn of biblical times, something changed. As you may have guessed, I don't believe in literal biblical creation. I believe there were humans on this earth long before the beginning of the bible. But, something changed at the beginning of the bible, the beginning of recorded history. Women, who had been more or less equals in their societies, became subservient, and God became a tool with which to control them. Why? Well you'll have to read the book to find out. Needless to say, it had a lot to go with the end of the great ice age and the beginning of agriculture, and child-bearing. However, this has helped me immensely with reconciling the biblical roles and mandates to women as cultural and, decidedly, not Godly.

Then, a few days ago, "Naked Pastor" David Hayward posted a cartoon "2 Problems with Women Clergy"; (they have breasts). It may seem laughable, but I have been given this precise argument in the past: women can't preach to a mixed congregation because they have breasts. Breasts are distracting for men...men don't want to think about sex when they should be thinking about Jesus. Riiiight. Maybe those men need to put on their big boy Underoos and grow up.

Last year, my friend Pam Hogeweide was invited into a book project with Jim Henderson. This project is for the purpose of "researching how the modern American church treats women". However, due to complications with the publisher, Pam was dropped as co-author. Read more about her take on the experience HERE.  I value Jim's willingness to speak to this topic, and I hope and pray that his authority as an author leads to the willingness of many men to read the book. However, I can't help but express my frustration that there is no woman co-author for such a topic, but maybe that is the path this project is supposed to take in order to be what it needs to be.

In spite of no longer being involved with the project, Pam recently assisted Jim with interviews of some women here in Portland. I was one of those women and I was humbled and honored to participate. However, this interview forced me to articulate what happened to me as a woman in Christianity, and how escaping that changed my life. It forced me to think clearly and be rational about what, exactly, it is about the widely held view of women in the church that is so damaging. In a nutshell, because women have been told for millenia that they are not as good as men, they have come to thoroughly believe it and have learned to operate within the boundaries set for them by men in order to survive.

In the process of his research, Jim commissioned the Barna Group to do a study about women's views of how the church treats them. The results were beyond fascinating, they were jaw-dropping. Jim has posted some of the results and asked for feedback. Apparently, according to the study, women who are regular church goers feel that their church treats women fairly. Say what? Because that is so far away from my own personal experience. My experience says that the majority of church going women are brainwashed. And that pisses the hell out of me. When a person is told they must hold a certain position, and that other positions are off-limits to them due to their gender and there is no other way things can be because God has mandated it that way, well, it's human nature to make the best of it, as women in church have done for thousands of years, and as the Barna research seems to suggest is still going on. But is it right? Is it fair? Is it loving? Is it of God? Decidedly, no.

I used to be one of those zombie church women. I was convinced that the bible supported complementarianism. I drank the company Kool-Aid, as Kathy so beautifully puts it. I worked my ass off to meet the criteria I was told I should meet as a woman, wife and mother, and it damn near killed me. 8/9 of my Christian women friends were on antidepressants because, as they explained it, they primarily didn't "feel good about their ability to live up to the standards they were expected to live up to", or they didn't "like their role as a Christian woman".

Ya THINK?

I didn't take antidepressants. 5 1/2 years ago I sat on the brink of suicide for the exact same reason my friends were on antidepressants. However, I didn't have the guts to kill myself because I couldn't leave my kids with that legacy, so I drank to medicate. Not surprisingly, that lead to my exit from church, and exiting church saved my life. The standard is set up to make women crazy, to make them deny themselves, to make them slaves. The ideal of the "Good Christian Woman" is hogwash, designed to make women feel like they have some measure of control, by outlining the behaviors that will gain them status as women in the church. If done properly, eventually they will earn the status of" "Good Christian Woman". But the status is only to a point, and the standards are such that no human, save Jesus, could ever truly live up to.

The idea that women shouldn't be pastors falls into the same shit-bog as the attitudes about the "Good Christian Woman". Sure, some evangelical churches give lip-service to gender equality, but it's only a false front, designed to pretend to address the problem without actually changing anything.

What is at the root of the problem?

Men.

Now, I don't mean all men are the problem, not in present day, anyhow. I mean the select few men who have the power to maintain this status quo, to preach it, to teach it, and to be heard. It's born of fear, nothing more, and it's pathetic. Somewhere along the line, men became fearful of women holding power, and for thousands of years, men have successfully oppressed half the world's population, not only in matters of religion, but in all roles, careers, and callings. It's unfortunate, and this mentality has been the driving factor for many of the world's conflicts. For, when half the population is rendered impotent...the feminine half...well, it's obvious what the historical results have been. I'm not saying that the world would be a peaceful place if women were in charge; that's a stereotype, too. I'm suggesting that, if women had historically held equal roles in religion, and in leadership in general, some things would be very different, for the better.

In the end, God does not have a penis. God created mankind in "our image". A very neuter God. A very male Jesus. A very female Spirit. OUR image. This life is not a masculine dictatorship, this is a dual-gender partnership working towards a complete picture of God. Until the church "gets" this, the world is working with a tremendous handicap.

This post has become altogether too long, and I haven't even begun to talk about the changes in my perspectives: about women, about Godde, about religion, the bible, life, my spiritual reality.

Until next time. Soon.