Dear Bro. Don,
As a sister, I’d like to share a different perspective on Christadelphian attitudes toward women. It most recently came up in an article by Bro.
Ben Brinkerhoff, in which his pen-pal, an interested friend named Mary, expressed concern at what she perceived as misogyny in a book she received as a Sunday School prize. I read with interest Bro. Mac Dougall’s letter, in which he agreed that, while the book
didn’t handle its subject matter well, it wasn’t as bad as Mary said it was. He also noted, correctly in my opinion, that a wide range of opinions on non-essentials is healthy for the brotherhood.
My initial response to Mary is to say that while misogyny toward women is not part of official Christadelphian teaching, it is certainly — and unfortunately — a part of Christadelphian practice. Mary’s response, while ostensibly confined to what the book said, was probably also informed by other experiences. Bro. Ben’s answer to her was valid and I am heartened that a young brother has such a wonderful, loving perspective.
If only that one book was the end of it. Sad to say, insensitive and paternalistic comments about both women in the scriptures and today’s sisters are not uncommon from the podium, in Bible classes and in conversation between believers. Fortunately, brethren are loving and appropriate most of the time, though some are more tone-deaf than others. While some brothers are truly open to hearing a sister’s thoughts, I have found others flat-out dismiss concerns, even when they are lovingly expressed. Then there are the rough reprimands; one brother told my mother to shut up because she was “just a woman.” Few seem to really “get it,” and thus the lapses are perpetuated.
Sometimes it’s a matter of what brethren choose to emphasize. Case in point. In last month’s Tidings, the exhortation contained two references to appropriate clothing, one specifically in relation to the need to avoid arousing lust during the memorial service. I don’t know where to begin in addressing that statement. Clearly, it was intended for women, and yet in all the years I’ve been a Christadelphian I have consistently seen sisters dress in a most modest manner. Even if there is an occasional lapse, it is by far the exception and easily addressed by an elder sister in a quiet chat. Is lust-inducing clothing such a pressing problem in the brotherhood that it merits mention in the same paragraph as warnings against wrong teaching?
Beyond that, the Bible is clear on the subject of temptation. We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lust and enticed. It is not the fault of the chocolate cake when we break our diets, it is not the fault of the television when we neglect our Bible studies, and it is not the fault of a sister when a brother finds himself distracted by lust during the memorial service. We all know this to be true, yet comments like the one concerning appropriate dress are routine and are indicative of an attitude that feels comfortable blaming women for men’s sins.
The same is sometimes true of our interpretation of scripture. We hear Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah, represented as “the one who played the harlot and deceived Judah.” Yet Judah is not presented as, “the man who married outside his faith, raised two sons so evil that God struck them dead, and a man who frequented prostitutes.” While I have often heard Tamar identified by her deception of Judah, I have never known a brother to really consider what it must have been like for her to be married to a man so evil God killed him, and then coupled with another man who used her, his widowed sister-in-law, as his sexual toy.
I heard a brother argue that the Levine in Judges 19 didn’t do anything wrong when he sent his concubine into the night to be raped and killed in his stead; she was, after all, a concubine, not his wife, and the KJV said she went whoring (though the NIV and Septuagint say she simply left him to return to her father’s house). Another brother, in a Bible school reading session, said it sounded like a second Tamar, the daughter of David, wasn’t necessarily averse to having sex with her brother Am non, she just wanted to marry him first.
Not only do 1 wonder what that says about our understanding of scripture and our insights into at least half of the body of Christ, I am also concerned about the message it sends to our sisters who suffer from private pain. I know several sisters who were sexually abused as children, many of them by brethren who broke bread each Sunday. In fact, I know more sisters who have been thus victimized than I know sisters who dress in an unseemly manner for meeting.
When sisters do take advantage of rare opportunities to express their concerns, I pray that brethren will open their ears and their hearts to what we have to say. We are not “women’s libbers” with plans for revolution. Brethren already know this, I am sure, and simply avoid an in-depth examination of the issue because they’re uncomfortable and we lack an effective forum. It is, however, a real problem; every sister I know has a good half-dozen examples like the ones I mentioned above, not to mention the times we have shrugged and moved on. Ignoring this issue can damage relationships and rob us of valuable spiritual growth. We, who are bound together by the blood of Christ, should aspire to be better than this.
It is because I love and respect my brethren that I, first of all, am sometimes hurt by this issue and, second, feel compelled to share my thoughts. Brethren so often serve me with their wonderful words; I pray they will accept my humble attempt to return the favor.
The day will soon come when we pray we will all be fully one with Christ; let us start that work today.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One