Today in Cultural Anthropology we discussed the differences between different cultures: we observed them not to point out their flaws and weaknesses or to build ourselves up, but to understand the difference that exist between people groups and dig into why we are the way we are.
There is a man named Geert Hofstede who has come up with a system of comparing different aspects of societies all over the world. One of the things he measures is “masculinity.” Here is the definition of this dimension in culture:
“Masculinity (MAS) versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women's values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women's values on the other. The assertive pole has been called 'masculine' and the modest, caring pole 'feminine'. The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values.”
And here is the description of the United States Masculinity dimension:
“The next highest Hofstede Dimension is Masculinity (MAS) with a ranking of 62, compared with a world average of 50. This indicates the country experiences a higher degree of gender differentiation of roles. The male dominates a significant portion of the society and power structure. This situation generates a female population that becomes more assertive and competitive, with women shifting toward the male role model and away from their female role.”
This is what I understand from the text: women always have a tendency to be modest and caring but will be more or less assertive and competitive depending on how much men dominate the power structure in their society. Men will be more modest and caring in a feminine society, and women will be more assertive and competitive in a masculine society, but tend to be more inclined to their assigned characteristics.
In America we are a masculine culture. There is a heightened sense of assertive and competitive characteristics in the men in our culture, as well as in many women. Many of the leaders in our culture are men, though this is gradually beginning to change, and many leaders regardless of their sex exhibit assertive and competitive characteristics. Therefore when a typical American envisions a leader they envision them as not only male, but with assertive and competitive characteristics. This affects an Americans opinion on who makes the best leader and what characteristics they should contain.
I see this in the modern American Christian. The Bible states the roles of men and women in a marriage: the man is the head as Christ is the head. That’s not what I’m writing about. Christians will claim that the Bible states that men are supposed to be the leaders when it comes to spiritual teaching in the Church. They back up this claim using I Timothy 2:12 where it states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” The opposing view often states that there is a need for taking cultural context into consideration and that Paul was talking to a specific audience in their specific situation. The conservative Christians disagrees. I often have to question this disagreement as they argue about how they take the Bible literally and follow exactly what it says. But, if they’re going to take to Bible literally, than does Paul not say that women are to hold no authority over men, in any situation? They shouldn’t be teaching in schools or leading in business. I usually hear the conservative say that there’s a context to which Paul speaking here in response to that: which is exactly what the liberal would argue as well.
In turn, how are we to take the verse, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” (I Corinthians 14: 34). As I look back through Old Testament scripture I find nothing in the laws about women being silent in churches, or about church structure in general that carries over to the way the New Testament Christians were organizing their “services.” It makes me wonder if this is context once again, if this applies to a specific culture with specific struggles, and how someone who claims to take the Bible literally can allow women to read scripture in church, make announcements or, worship freely: especially in a charismatic setting.
I think conservative Christians who claim that women cannot be pastors are more slaves to their culture context than they realize. The Bible never talks about having one person be the head teacher of the Word of God over a group of people, let alone having that person be only male, and it contains examples of women proclaiming the good news and being prophets in their society. The Bible does concretely say in certain letters from Paul to specific people groups that women should not speak at all in church or hold any authority over men. Yet we still see conservative Christians in our culture letting women hold positions of authority over men outside the church and allowing women to hold positions of authority in a church as long as they are not the pastor. And worst of all we see some Christians claiming that men just naturally are better leaders because they tend to have the characteristics of a leader.
Why is it that some people think men have more leadership characteristics than women? What are these characteristics that they have that women don’t have to the same degree? I have heard that men are more decisive, logical, and assertive as examples. I would say that people who believe that in America are looking at the characteristics of good leaders in their culture, seeing that those characteristics are held by the majority of males, and concluding that that men naturally have those traits and therefore men are better leaders. I, being a women, who thinks more logically than emotionally, though many conservative Christians claim to know me better than myself and tell me that I make my decisions emotionally despite what the evidence of my life shows, see that in society there are plenty of men who are not leaders that do not have those characteristics, and are still fulfilling perfectly acceptable roles in society. Not all men have leadership characteristics, whereas others do. Not all women have leadership characteristics, whereas other do. You cannot make an assumption about gender characteristics based upon the leaders in your masculine culture.
It’s nothing new to say that the Bible has a cultural context. It’s nothing new to say that people’s mindsets and worldviews are a product of tradition and their own cultural context. It’s nothing new for me to say that I am a women who exhibits characteristics of a “male leader” that feels led to lead not just in her society but in a spiritual way as well: and not just over six year olds in Sunday school. My opinion is heightened by the fact that I don’t believe in one person, as a pastor, being the head over an entire group of people, and that women being pastors is the real argument that is raging. The argument I’m making and the points I want people to see are nothing new. So maybe all I’ve really stated is a view held by a significant population of Christians, but at least I’ve added it to my repertoire of honest beliefs that make me who I am.
10/11/11
No comments:
Post a Comment