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
Then again, I can’t imagine feminists celebrating any female religious leaders, and Athaliah is probably one of the more devious. She may not be such a great role model!
Yes, but I noticed this in the article you cited:
Didn’t Baal worship include the sacrifice of infants? I think it did. That would be right up the feminist’s wish list with their infanticide push.
Re:# 58
So here’s the theory I want to start checking out, starting later today: In the Bible, women are shown as more aware of, more influenced by, spiritual beings. Men are more discerning as to whether a spiritual being or message is sent by God.
@ansonia, what leads you to believe either point? Not disagreeing, just puzzled.
Also, I believe that “spiritual beings,” angels are all messengers from G-d and are not free to act independently; they must take G-d’s direction. Does that influence your theory, or do you believe otherwise re spiritual beings?
Re: 64
The New Testament has devils and/or demons. The Old Testament has, at least, “other gods”. Are the “other gods” presented in the Old Testament being presented only as delusions, figments of people’s imaginations ? I don’t know.
I believe devils or demons exist outside of human imagination. I also believe the New Testament shows them existing outside of people’s imaginations. I don’t know what I think the Old Testament shows, because I haven’t read enough of it.
—Oh, I want to just edit this to say: If, in the Old Testament, there are spiritual beings not sent by God they don’t act without God giving them some kind of permission. I did, at least, read Job.
I would be interested in your conclusions. I would be surprised if that were true. When I first read the OP and saw Susan’s thought that women might be more sensitive to spirituality, my first thought was, Moses wasn’t a woman. None of the prophets were women, and what is a prophet but someone who God speaks through. The only major woman personage that I can think of of is Jesus’ mother Mary in the New Testament. But I would love to read what you find.
That doesn’t mean women aren’t more spiritually sensitive. It’s just not really recorded.
A footnote to honoring your wife more than yourself: When the man cuts the challah (specially braided bread) on Friday night, he should give his wife a bigger piece than he gives himself.
Yes. We don’t believe in demons. We believe in the capacity for people to be good or evil, and we get to choose when those inclinations arise. We are responsible for our actions.
A book was recently published addressing biblical idol woship. There are numerous other gods in the Bible and this book covers them all.
Re:# 70
Thank you for the link, Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu.
The comments on the book at Amazon have me thinking it’s going to be fascinating. But I hope the sequel, which I’ll probably also want to have, turns out to be available on Kindle. It’s great being able to adjust font size.
Re:# 68
“We are responsible for our actions.”
True.
Hmm. I have a close family member who has come out, so at a certain level I somewhat understand where this woman is herself. There are a lot of thoughts I do have about this, but there are a couple that I think do need addressed here.
Excellent points, @skipsul. I think we have gone off the rails around the need for people to satisfy their desires. What if I want lots of money? Does that justify my robbing a bank? What if I’m deeply attracted to another man? Does that give me permission to betray my husband? Most people would agree these things are wrong. But for some reason, we think it is okay to betray religious rules about sexuality. Why? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t care if a person is gay. I don’t care if he or she chooses to attend a religious community. But sexuality is not discussed at religious services, and I’m not interested in discussing his or her sexuality either. A person can’t expect me to celebrate or approve of his or her “gayness.” There is such a difference! So when people attack others for their sexual preferences, especially publicly, they are wrong. We are permitted to make judgments–but not at the cost of humiliating another. The point is that when we strongly want something, no matter what it is, and it is strictly forbidden by our faith practices, there is a reason. And part of the reason is that struggle will help us learn and grow through our suffering.
I think it comes down to the distinction between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Many religious institutions believe that heterosexual sex is acceptable as long as it takes place within marriage, presumably a consensual marriage (not a child marriage or a forced marriage).
But two single homosexual men, who are lonely and want to strive for monogamy, want to enter into a consensual relationship.
I can see why some people might say, “Sure. Why would God be opposed to that?”
Others will say, “No. God opposes homosexual sex in all cases. No exceptions.”
So, it becomes a battle over interpretation over text, which requires people to brush up on their Hebrew and Greek. That’s where it gets a bit dicey.
Quite often the result is a split of single church denomination into two small denominations. I think the United Methodist Church will soon split over the issue of same sex sexuality/marriage. People don’t want to hear that their son or daughter is engaging in a sinful lifestyle simply for loving another person, through sickness and in health, for richer or poorer.
Sure, someone can create a church and be very strict in the interpretation. But who will attend? So, it’s easier to just say, “Love one another” and let that be that.
I don’t think it’s a matter of translation, @heavywater. It’s also not about what we like or don’t like, what makes us feel good or bad. It’s about serving G-d. People can choose to do whatever they want, but they can’t change G-d’s mind by doing things differently.
I don’t follow the 613 mitzvot of Judaism. That doesn’t please G-d. I have to live with my choices and not make excuses for them.
Some people will only follow God if God is making sense to them.
Ask most people, “Would you do as Abraham did and be prepared to offer your son as a sacrifice to God?” Most people would say, “No. I would disobey God and accept God’s harsh judgement.”
People blink when God’s word goes against their deeply felt beliefs. This might be due to doubts as to whether the Hebrew Bible (The Old Testament) is truly the word of God.
Someone can doubt that the Bible is the word of God and still attend their religious institution so long as they aren’t asked to stone the adulterer or sacrifice Isaac.
Or in the case of Jesus, it’s easy to follow Jesus until he asks you to “sell all you posses and give to the poor.”
I remember when I attended a church service a year ago. The pastor asked, “Who wants to give up everything they own to follow Jesus?”
Few hands were raised.
But I’m an atheist. So, I punt on that one.
Another issue that comes up sometimes in Christian contexts is Jesus’s statement from Matthew 5:39 “But I tell you, do not resist an evil doer. But anyone who strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”
I occasionally watch a You Tube channel hosted by a former Mennonite Christian. He says that back when he was part of the Mennonite Christian faith, he knew people who were so devout in their beliefs that Jesus called them to be pacifists that they said that they would not resist someone harming their family.
I am currently reading a book by a former Jehovah’s Witness. When he was chased by bullies in grade school, he ran from them. But he knew he should not try to strike back at them based on the teachings of his religious sect, Jehovah’s Witness (JW).
Now, let’s say another Christian preacher comes into town wearing an NRA cap with a handgun holstered on his hip. Most people will prefer the preaching of that NRA-Christian preacher over the Mennonite or JW preacher.
Can we set aside our biases when reading the ancient texts?
Good post!
There hasn’t been much of this in the Southern Baptist Convention. (Women have lots of power there controlling the committees and whatnot.) When you stand under the authority of Scripture, it’s not as easy to compromise your theology for politics.
Sending away Ishmael and Hagar seems harsh to modern minds. It strikes us as some sort of violation of Hagar’s rights.
What it actually is is an affirmation of the rights of Sarah.
I.e., sending Hagar and Ishmael away is a vindication of the rights of a wife. This is the woman-affirming act that creates a civilization that recognizes the rights of women.
Should I be saying something here?
Been there.
St. A is correct, @heavywater. If you want to argue Christian theology, you can, but I won’t. I can tell you that Jesus’ statement doesn’t make him a pacifist.
I fully admit to being overly simple minded on this but it is always the inclusion of the “B” in the all inclusive (and always expanding) agenda identifier that makes me wonder about the next step in the capitulation once you grant this seemingly simple point. How long after the split will the Progressive Methodists be performing “B” weddings?
And don’t even get me started on the “Q”.
And self-weddings? How long will that take?
I get that.
But notice that different Christian sects (the Mennonites, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Catholics, United Church of Christ) have differing interpretations of not only Matthew 5:39, but all kinds of other New Testament verses.
So, if someone decides to go to church on Sunday, they might choose the church that holds to interpretations that they agree with. They might even think that their choice of church is/was “objective,” not based on personal feelings, but based on an unbiased reading of scripture, undistorted by personal situations.
But are all of us really that unbiased?
So, you might see growth in attendance in one church and decline in attendance in another church. But maybe the church that is declining in attendance has actually interpreted scripture more objectively.
Maybe political correctness is simply caving into bias, which we all have.
They can choose to rationalize their choices any way they wish. It doesn’t make them legitimate.
I don’t claim to be unbiased. I don’t see your point. If I admit my biases, do they make my choices more palatable? To me? To others? I don’t think so, if they conflict with what Torah says.
We all have biases, but some are more legitimate than others, IMHO. When we don’t own up to them, and use them to rationalize our decisions, there’s a problem.
I dig.
Bias plus rigorous attention to logic and evidence can be a very good way of seeking the truth. Well spoken were those words of William James:
Right on, dude!
One decision that is available to people is to decide which Holy Text they view as Holy.
One can accept the Hebrew Bible as Holy Text while dismissing the New Testament.
One can accept the Christian Bible, both Old and New Testaments, while rejecting the Book of Mormon.
But we’re just getting started. Then one can go about interpreting the text.
You could end up at a church with a preacher that congratulates some of its members for serving bravely in the Iraq War or in Afghanistan or you could end up in a Mennonite Church where members are told not to join the armed forces.
Different churches have different views on female pastors.
The last church I attended had a female pastor who was pro-same sex marriage, even though the subject never came up during her sermons. (I heard her talk about it at a board of elders meeting.)
I’m not going to put my thumb on the scale and say who’s right or who’s wrong.
But when someone says, “Don’t rely on your own understanding. Rely on the Holy Text,” this presupposes that we are all reading the same Holy Text. The Mormon next door neighbor is reading a different book.
Your Hindu co-worker is reading something else.
So, I can see how political correctness gets a foot hold. With so many Holy Texts to choose from, many people mix and match.
Not only do people disagree over which Holy Texts to adhere to, people disagree over whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.
Here is a debate between Dr. Michael Brown, who says that Jesus was the Messiah and Rabbi Daniel Freitag, who says that Jesus was not the Messiah.
It’s an excellent debate. I enjoyed the question and answer part at the end.