Does the New Testament contain sexism?

[HopOnPop]

A few more thoughts I wrote on the topic today, and on that particular comment about "love" and "respect" (largely reiterating what's already been said):

The issue is only a matter of “positional distinctions” and their relation to “issues of person value” when positional distinction is taken to mean perpetual inequality in the treatment of persons on the basis of their sexual identity, in both their private and public life, as has been widely observed in the practice of so-called Christian morality, as in every other patriarchal framework. The very idea that, in the private and public spheres, a woman is commanded to be, “as the church is subject to Christ, subject in everything to their husbands,” (Eph. 5:24), “should keep silence in the churches... they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says” (“If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church”) (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and the list goes on and on (1 Cor. 11:2-10; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; Col. 3:18-22), is by definition patriarchal. In other words, women ought to be obedient and revere men at the expense of offending Christian sensibilities regarding the liberty to speak, learn or teach in public, and disregard the wisdom of any male “intrinsically appointed” as their parental-like authority. The justification for this patriarchal system that “since [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man,” is just as sexist and devaluing as it would be racist to declare, “since light-skinned persons are the image and glory of God; but dark-skinned persons are for the glory of the light-skinned.” In both cases, attempts at justification are as equally abyssal in their lack of cogency to the easily perceived meanings and implications of the statements at hand.

This bit really hit home for me, in demonstrating the actual nature of the male-female relationship actually defined for Christians in their own dogma (as opposed to the whitewashed portrayal fed to the public by preachers and apologists). The new point I took away from your citations is, rather, that Chrisitianity isn't merely a patriarchal system, but rather something far worse.

You aptly described, at one point, the NT view of males as having a "parent-like" position in relation to women (implying too, that women have a child-like position in relation to men). Further, in passing, you noted that if one merely substitute ideas of white-purity (like light- vs dark-skinned) in for gender, it can demonstrate just how utterly incoherent this kind of doctrine sounds at its root. This exercise, while you may not have meant it this way, further demonstrated to me that the Christian male-female relationship, at times, it also very much a master-slave relationship.

Now, if Christianity were simply a patriarchal (or matriarchal) system, one might forgive its doctrine for a tendency to be imbalanced. Given the ever-present and deeply complex dialectic between men and women (and their respective gender-sociopolitical issues) it would perhaps seem likely, and I would think rather uncontroversial, to believe one gender would likely dominate at different eras of human history, far more often than having society strike a true balance between the genders (for striking such a balance is a difficult feat for any dialectic to ever achieve). Indeed, I think earlier posts in this thread discussed this tendancy toward matriarchal-patriarchal dominance in human societies.

But when one really examines the Christian view, it isn't really just a benign form of patriarchy, say, like "the protectors protecting the nurturers" or "women needing more love and men needing more respect" or some other equally banal "different but somehow equal" justification for existing gender inequity. If the patriarchy of Chrisitianity were really that minor, one might live with it; and it certainly would not be so infuriating to women. Given your plentiful quotes from the NT, however what we actually see creeping out is a truly harsh inequity that one would certainly call unethical (as well as insideous in its design). Not merely a patriarchical system, but one perhaps better labeled male-supremacy.

I think humans all understand that those in power (for whatever reason) do deserve a chance to rule, and demonstrate their ability to be mostly fair for those that they rule over, before society condemns them. That is simple politics. In a rather "acceptable" form of patriarchy (or matriarchy) if such a thing could exist-- which Christianity usually attempt to claim their's to be -- both men and women could likely feel mostly equal and free despite the obvious imbalance at the top. But when the powers-that-be attempt to reforge society in terms of institutionalizing the "ins" as innately superior, and the "outs" as innately inferior -- as the NT undeniably does with these incideous master-parent and slave-child gender roles -- this kind of patriarchy violates human morality itself. For such a system really has nothing in it that reflects human "traditions" or ideas that reflect "natural order" (assuming we are willing to accept the existence of such notions, in the first place) as one often hears in the defense of Christian patriarchy. Instead, this kind of patriarchy attempts to redefine humanity as a strongly sexually dimorphic species, which even a child can clearly see to be false.

I would think, having now pondered this thing for a mere couple of days, that Christian patriarchy would shock any truly moral person who, alternatively, reads this stuff all the time over a lifetime. It baffles me, even more than ever, that so many Chrisitians instead defend it. Those who attempt to "innocently" portray Christian patriarchy today, in terms like “A woman does need to especially feel loved; A man does especially need to feel respected” now sound more like Christians of a bygone era, who once upon a time, thought opposing abolitionism was part of God's plan too.