Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Political Correctness Infects Religious Organizations
When I was in Israel just over a year ago, I had one of my most uncomfortable moments related to Judaism. I visited Beit Hatfutsot, the Diaspora Museum, on the Tel Aviv University campus. In one room, they featured small replicas from synagogues all over the world; it was a beautiful display. They also had films of international congregations conducting services from many different cities and towns. One of the films stopped me in my tracks: a group of Jewish women were being led in prayer by a small group of women—wrapped in tallitot and kipot—prayer shawls and skullcaps. As I recall, they were filming a service in the Midwest. Granted, I haven’t been in a Conservative or Reform synagogue in a very long time, but it was still a shock. I stepped away from the film and collected my bearings.
It’s not like I haven’t been exposed to the idea of women wearing tallitot previously. In fact, I had joined a Jewish group in Los Angeles that had a weekly discussion of the Torah. I also attended a silent retreat with them. At the end of the retreat, the women in the group called us all up (Aliyah) and we surrounded ourselves with prayer shawls. It was a unique and moving experience, and I decided to purchase my own prayer shawl.
The first morning I was going to say the prayers at home, I pulled out my new tallit and prayed. I was uneasy and uncomfortable the whole time. I put the tallit back in its bag and never took it out again.
In researching the use of tallitot by women, I was surprised by what I learned. The Torah does not prohibit women from wearing the tallit, but women are not obligated to do so. At the same time, Chabad, an Orthodox community, suggests that women might want to wear the tallit for the wrong reasons:
While altogether the feminist movement is to be commended for the equal rights it has secured for women, and the elevation of the woman’s social, legal and economic status, a certain aspect of this movement’s aims is questionable at best. I refer to the desire to make women masculine, rather than accentuate their feminine qualities. To evaluate a woman based on her ability to “do whatever a man can,” is to dishonor womanhood, and all the unique qualities it brings to the table. A true feminist is someone who believes and is committed to making others understand the equality and importance of a women and the natural feminine role, not someone who believes that women should forsake their femininity in favor of becoming more man-like.
Judaism has also been accused of denigrating women, but the fact is that both men and women are appreciated for their different roles. For example men have stronger bodies, and it is said that women have stronger souls :
Women are more soulful than men. While men may excel in physical prowess, women are far ahead when it comes to spiritual strength. Women are more sensitive to matters of the soul, more receptive to ideas of faith, more drawn to the divine than men. The feminine soul has an openness to the abstract and a grasp of the intangible that a male soul can only yearn for. This is why G‑d told Abraham, the first Jewish man, ‘Whatever Sarah your wife tells you, listen to voice.’ She was the greater prophet, her soul more intuitive than his.
Thus, Judaism is wrestling with its own identity in the different communities: what is required, what is appropriate, which practices honor G-d.
So I have a number of questions that I am posing in this post:
- Has today’s political correctness taken your church/organization in a negative or unproductive direction in general, or when it comes to men and women?
- Are there conflicts within the organization that compromise traditional values or beliefs?
- Are there practices that make you uncomfortable?
- Do you think women intuitively have the ability to make a stronger connection to G-d than men?
I always like to remind people that I am still exploring my Jewish roots, trying to understand the Torah, the origin of Jewish ideas and practices, and what I feel I am able to include in my own practice.
I’d love to learn more about your own struggles with your home church or the larger organization, or the ways your organization has resisted, or been co-opted by, the pressures of political correctness.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
A few years ago, I went on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s website for something or other. I steeled myself for what I assumed was going to be a furious full-frontal blast of fru-fru PC multi-culti drivel. (God must love fools. That’s why there are so many of them.)
What I got was full-throated support of the”Palestinians” and their “cause.” A whole section of it.
I briefly considered writing a 96th thesis. In the end, I just went renegade.
Wow. That would have been shocking. And discouraging. Thanks, @percival.
Most “mainline” Protestant Christian denominations are considerably infected with “political correctness.”
Mrs. Tabby and I left the Presbyterian Church (USA) [not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)] a few years ago because the denomination’s agenda (as reflected in the biennial denomination-wide General Assembly, published policies, and public statements) became more interested in being aligned with the “correct” side of political issues than in helping people become better disciples of Christ. And “correct” always seemed to be as decreed by the noisiest opinion makers in popular culture.
This tendency toward following culture grows out of a desire to be attractive to potential participants by appearing “relevant” to those in the culture. And that’s not a completely nutty concern. But it can be carried so far that the religious group loses its identity and its reason for being.
That might be the goal, but the churches that are most worldly are the ones that are losing the most members. If people want to be like the rest of society, they don’t need a church or synagogue to do that.
A line some Protestant Christian churches have is the ordination of women to be pastors and/or official leaders of the church. The Presbyterian Church in America does not ordain women.
That doesn’t happen to be a theological issue for me, but I understand how it can be for many. [Though I will say that most of the women pastors I have dealt with have been awful – almost every one of them has come into the ministry with a giant chip on her shoulder about the awful patriarchy and uses that chip extensively.]
Susan, I like much of this post, but I think that the idea that women have “stronger souls” than men is nonsense. Frankly, it looks exactly like the sort of feminist, politically correct nonsense that you criticize in most of your post.
Sarah laughed at God’s promise of a child in their old age. Abraham believed. This is in Genesis 18.
The instruction for Abraham to listen to Sarah is in Genesis 21, where Sarah demands that Hagar and Ishmael be cast out, after the birth of Isaac. Remember that the whole Hagar-Ishmael thing was Sarah’s idea (in Genesis 16). This seems a dubious basis for concluding that Sarah was the greater prophet than Abraham.
I don’t think that, in terms of soul, “stronger” and “weaker” are helpful conceptualizations. Different but equally precious to God, I would say. That’s Genesis 1:27.
Women’s souls seem more attuned to compassion, children, and home. Men’s souls seem more attuned to justice, protection, and provision. There are few Biblical exceptions — Deborah is admirable and strong; but then Jezebel and Athaliah were horrid.
I think all religious groups are faced with this dilemma. And it’s nearly impossible to keep your feet in both camps: politics and faith. Thanks, @fullsizetabby.
Obviously (well maybe not so obviously), the debate that has been rolling through Protestant Christian churches about the level of affirmation of homosexual conduct.
The church has been subjected to the same confusion as the society at large between acknowledging thoughts, tolerating behavior, and celebrating behavior.
Thanks, AP. Almost everyone in the Torah goofs up at some point. The Hagar-Ishmael idea was Sarah’s, including sending her away. We could debate whether that decision overall was wise. But Abraham was the one who twice lied that Sarah was his sister, to save himself. Not such a great choice. I think that ultimately, since Ishmael was not going to be a leader of the Jewish nation, but was the first born, it might have been the best choice to send him away. And in the end, it turned out okay, with Ishmael and Isaac at Abraham’s funeral.
Since I’m not a man (!), I don’t know who is “spiritually stronger”; I believe this point is more about women having less distractions and more open to spirit than men tend to be (like men’s thinking about sex a lot, for example). I’m fine with your revision, “different but equally precious to G-d,” because we know that to be true. That’s a different point.
I wonder if there are really two concerns here. First, what the church itself stands for. Second, what parishioners choose to support. There is a tension if there is a difference, but is it possible for the church to take a traditional stand and respect that followers have to make their own decision? Or does that not make sense?
I disagree and wonder at your objection. Do you think it feminist, politically correct nonsense to say that women have better color discernment (while men have better response to fast moving visual stimuli and fine detail)? Research does say that is the case. So, why not differences in spirituality along with demonstrable physical differences (to which you did not object)? Women are party to creation. Only women can bear and bring a baby into the world. Nothing feminist about that observation, as the feminists seem to want to share equally in killing those babies. Pregnancy and motherhood are profoundly spiritual experiences, when understood correctly as partnership with the Creator. How does that not lead to spiritual elevation unreachable by men?
I noted that to my former PC(USA) congregation as we left – there are plenty of places someone can hear the messages society is publicizing, but only in the church can they hear the salvation of Jesus Christ, so don’t you want to be different from the society at large? – but they were unimpressed.
A much better response than mine, @caryn! Your Jewish “chops” are showing. Thanks!
Many current problems are that churches are taking a stand for the new “politically correct” view while the parishioners favor the traditional view. So the problem for parishioners tends to be that the parishioners see the church moving away from the teachings of God and think, “How long can I rely for spiritual guidance on a church that I see moving in the wrong direction?”
My earlier comment actually was intended a bit differently. Political correctness does not allow a church to say, “We condemn homosexual behavior (just as we condemn adulterous behavior or many other behaviors), but we acknowledge that there are people who have urges in that direction. We love you as a created person, and we acknowledge that we all sometimes succumb to urges.” Political correctness now insists that if a church doesn’t celebrate and encourage homosexual behavior, the church “hates” everyone who has ever had a homosexual thought or urge. Many churches have fallen prey to this “politically correct” failure to distinguish between thought and action, and therefore conclude that the church cannot uphold any standards of righteousness.
Excellent point! This is the PC mind control that says we all have to share the right ideas, believe them, embrace them and celebrate them. Instead of your more subtle point that I bolded above. Insisting that we all must agree is totalitarian and we have to fight it. When I was still involved with Zen Buddhism, I participated in discussions that allowed many different perspectives. The shift happened slowly, but once Zen communities insisted there was only one “right stance,” I was finally done. It didn’t just show up in the communities, but every publication tried to out-do the others for being enlightened–yeah, pun intended. And they weren’t.
I haven’t attended any church’s services since I graduated from university (not due to theological or philosophical objection, but rather mostly due to laziness), so I cannot answer questions 2 or 3.
However…
The denomination I was raised in has refused to remove an avowed atheist from her position as an ordained minister, so there’s that.
Note, it’s not the individual congregation I attended while growing up that made that decision. I don’t know much about how my former congregation runs that church these days, or what they think about the decisions made by the Head Office in Toronto. I do know that total membership in the United Church of Canada had fallen to only 400,000 people (in a country of over 35 million) as of December 2017.
I don’t have the capacity to judge the strength of any individual’s personal connection to G-d.
That being said, I might wager that women are more likely than men to be the impetus for a family’s church attendance. I’d also wager that unmarried women are more likely to continue attending church beyond their teens/20s than are unmarried men.
I can’t say that any possible disparity in attendance is due to differences, whether inherent or conditioned, between men and women when it comes to the “strength” of their individual faith or their personal connection to G-d. There are all sorts of other differences between the sexes in terms of cultural and/or aesthetic preferences that could just as easily explain the disparity.
One might note that churches that by design cater to more stereotypically “male” aesthetic preferences (so-called Biker Churches to name one example) seem to have little problem being self-sustaining, if not actually growing their congregations in huge numbers.
I am not a Christian butt I am deeply affectionate towards Christianity because Christ died a similar death to Socrates. He spoke the Truth and the the consequences were secondary to the Truth.
I feel like that is a masculine ideal. It is masculine because it ignores people. There is a decent argument that Socrates was a terrible husband (though it seemed he was good father according to Crito).
Ladies (in my very limited experience) don’t make great ideologues or rebels. They tend to be more cooperative and comforist but that’s not great for religion. Religion is only intersting if it is about Truth and the necessary sacrifices that come from Truth. Ladies have a a harder time of making that sacrifice.
Mis, that is bizarre, hypocrisy of the highest order. They probably kept her because they were afraid they couldn’t find another minister, and/or because she’d probably take a bunch of misguided people with her, and they’d already lost a bunch.
As I read the rest of your comment, I couldn’t help reflecting on the different types of practices people have. Some people are perfectly happy going to church (or synagogue) to be in the community, follow the holidays and rituals and maintain a belief in G-d that is distant yet present. I think others rely on a more intimate connection with G-d that often (they feel) guides them and enriches the rest. There isn’t a better or worse approach, or right or wrong, and I think our different temperaments seem to lead us to different ways to relate to faith, and our religions create space for us to do that. Sorry–didn’t mean to ramble . . .
Yes, tons of things have an impact on how we relate to religion and G-d. Do you still see yourself as a Christian?
I should probably note that Rev. Kate (aka GrannyDude) @katebraestrup is the polar opposite of the awful women pastors I have dealt with. Rev. Kate is always thoughtful and worth listening to.
Whoa, lots to parse, @henrycastaigne! So you think that speaking truth is a masculine ideal but not a feminine one. What is the reason? And when you say, “the masculine ignores people,” do you mean that men are less concerned about speaking the Truth even if it alienates people? I think that would tend to be a masculine characteristic (in terms of inclination), since I will speak the “truth” but often feel uncomfortable doing so if it creates hard feelings. And I expect that leads to your conclusion that it’s harder for women to sacrifice telling the truth because we are concerned with maintaining our relationships. Do I have that right? If not, set me straight!
Double like!
This makes me wonder if women and men have different preferences when it comes to congregation size.
Jordan Peterson often claims that women tend to rank higher on surveys of “agreeableness”, so maybe they tend to prefer churches that prioritize maximizing the size of the congregation by taking a “something for everyone” approach to their mission. If one believes that the whole point of church is to save as many souls as possible, one might reason then that the church with the biggest congregation would be the “best” church, right? Furthermore, if the congregation of a church that prioritizes size is going to manage to get along with each other, then the culture of the church is going to have to put a greater focus on aesthetic formalism (i.e. catering to the lowest common denominator, for want of a better term), if not outright conformity.
By contrast, maybe men (who are often characterized as more “individualistic” than women) are more likely to prefer churches that prioritize catering to the preferences of a “niche market” (for want of a better term) instead of trying to be everything for everybody, thereby reducing the need for aesthetic formalism for everybody to get along.
Just speaking for myself, my favourite religious communities were 1) a small rural church that held services in the basement of a strip mall that I chose to attend when I was a teenager because it had a really strong youth group (and because it wasn’t my parents’ stuffy old church), and 2) bible camp, where one’s immediate community was no greater than the six or eight guys in one’s own cabin who were all about the same age and had more-or-less similar interests and one didn’t have to wear one’s Sunday’s Best for daily Bible Study.
Commenting on your points regarding large and small communities and men and women preferences is well beyond my pay grade. I’d love to hear from others, though.
I wonder if it might actually have more to do with whether one is an introvert or extrovert. I’m the former and don’t like any kind of big groups. I don’t currently belong to a synagogue and don’t have plans to join one for several reasons, including not liking big groups! Plus, smaller groups are more intimate, rather than getting lost in a mob, er, big community. But even though I’m a girl, I would have loved both communities you mentioned–well, the boys group being a girls. When I was in a Zen community–same thing. Small, intimate groups.
One of the really great things about both the OT and NT is the honesty about the failings of genuine heroes, from Abraham to David to St. Peter and St. Paul. They are depicted fairly, warts and all. I do agree that it was God’s will that Hagar and Ishmael be sent away, which explains the instruction for Abraham to follow Sarah’s lead on this one. He protected them, as promised.
On the male-female divide, I do have the impression that women are generally less subject to temptation than men. I do not know whether this is a spiritual advantage, or the practical result of greater physical weakness and vulnerability. Women do tend to be more socially vicious and gossipy than men. Obviously, there are exceptions.
Oh, AP, I was with you full bore until this one. I’ve had a few men in my life say men are worse. Maybe men and women talk about different vicious kinds of things. Then again, I try to avoid gossiping with anyone! “Try” is the key word . . . Oh, and I think the gap may be closing between men and women re temptation. A wonderful outcome of pushing for equality [sarc off]
I think that this ties to Misthiocracy’s comment #22 about agreeableness. Disagreeable people are competitive, blunt, and don’t much care if the truth offends someone. They make good managers, scientists, and lawyers. Agreeable people are cooperative, conciliatory, and dislike disagreement or conflict. They make good mothers, teachers (at least to girls and smaller boys), and employees.
Guess which one I am?
I don’t think that FST’s point is that it’s harder for women to sacrifice telling the truth. I think it’s the opposite. An agreeable person would be more likely to sacrifice the truth to the desire for harmony. This doesn’t necessarily mean telling a lie; it can mean simply not pressing the point.
Yeah you are basically right. I believe that it is a masculine thing to say, “I think this is Right.” And then, suffer for it.
I am a very limited human. But I am much more comfortable telling a group of men, “All of your beliefs are totally wrong because all the data says the complete opposite of your stupid beliefs.” than I am saying to a Mom “Your kid’s autism has absolutely nothing to do with vaccination. I’ve read the study. Quit crying. You are making me uncomfortable. ”
So my problem is that if girls cry then they win. But they don’t win in my soul. To win in an agument, you have be like Thomas Sowell and be called all sorts of names forever.
To respect the counterargument, Ayan Hirsi has the balls of Thomas Sowell.
I so appreciate your further explanation, Henry. And yes, Ayan Hirsi is amazing. As is Thomas Sowell.
Note: A little more knowledge of the history of the United Church of Canada might help, but I’m not gonna go into it too much here. The Cliff’s Notes version is that it was founded by merging congregations from three different denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist) for administrative purposes, and as such the pastoral independence of the local congregations is a fairly core tenet of the denomination.
The founding principle of the denomination is pretty much that Head Office is allowed to go on its dang fool political crusades about whatever social issues it wants (Head Office has really close ties with the NDP, Canada’s biggest “social democratic” party), and in return it leaves the congregations the heck alone, free to run themselves as conservatively or as liberally as they prefer.
The local congregation is the one to hire the minister, and it’s phenomenally unusual for the Head Office in Toronto to even consider telling a local congregation that they can’t keep the minister that they hired absent some sort of financial impropriety and/or criminal offense, so I can totally see why Head Office wanted to do anything it could to avoid setting the precedent.
The deal that Head Office made with this congregation has not been made public, but I’d wager that it might include a promise by the congregation to refrain from trying to propagate their idiosyncratic views to other congregations, and to not make any claims about being representative of the United Church of Canada as an whole.
Oh yeah, for sure. A very neo-Platonic one, but still a big booster of ol’ J.C.