whispers pile softly: writing: when religion reinforces sexism

This was my final paper for Sociology 1000 (CU-Denver Succeed program), presented in May 1998. It gave me a lot of research time, was enjoyable to write, and is intended to spark discussion.

Throughout history women play secondary roles within organized religion. One might disagree with this citing the pantheons of Ancient Greece, Scandinavia, Egypt, et al, but when one looks at the hierarchy among the deific powers, a male power is overwhelmingly the agreed head of such organization. Using symbolic interactionism, organized religion - mainstream Christianity in this paper - uses a social construction of reality within its doctrine to reinforce certain concepts into its followers. Such a construction involving women's roles within a religious hierarchy are used today, leading to the reinforcement of sexism - whether intentional or not.

Where do the misperceptions of women begin? Take a look into the early Christian church and we see Ruether's looking-glass self of woman: laws do not address her or acknowledge her existence, status and honor are derived from her ability to bear children, and she is always subject to male authority unless widowed or divorced [1]. Old Testament women certainly lacked education since Jewish law forbade women from engaging in intellectual pursuits. Learned men saw no use for women as Koszarycz notes [2], John Chrysostom presented women as "at least filthy"! Women didn't get the advantage of a level field upon which to try and carry equal status.

In his work Searching the Scriptures, Samuel Korateng-Pipim devotes an entire chapter to Biblical passages that reputedly provide obstacles to women's ordination. He identifies 1 Timothy 2:11-14 as a crucial text but points out it is not about muzzling women into silence. Instead, Korateng-Pipim tries to draw our attention to the idea that we are given a "prohibition of women to 'teach and have authority over men' goes beyond the home" [3:60]. The other significant passage is 1 Corinthians 14:34, but is explored in less analytical depth. One might conclude the Biblical scholar is weaving a social construct in front of our eyes as he concludes that both passages are valid in today's world because the principle they teach is based on the creation arrangement [3:61]. A social construct that women cannot take non-submissive roles stratifies women from men, which in modern day would be discrimination yet is still believed and followed to this day although to a lesser extent.

Are gender and religious discrimination related? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 criminalized gender discrimination but its Section 702 exempted:

This was amended in 1972 to encompass all activities of an employee including religious activity. According to the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance [4], the following are the only reasons for which an organization must treat women equally:

Since the position of an ordained minister does not fit the above criteria, it is not protected by the Civil Rights Act and churches can legally deny women ordainment - connecting gender and religious discrimination. Perhaps it is the ulterior motive of mainstream Christian sects that do not ordain women to preserve the "traditional" American roles where women are kept at home and away from education and higher thought since an educated populace is required for any changes to truly come about in a government or other bureaucracy.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, carries such discrimination against women to a logical conclusion - they refuse to hire male faculty who favor the ordination of women [4]! From a sociological standpoint, the seminary is definitely practicing impression management.

Are deeply held beliefs leading to discrimination intrinsically wrong? Richard Anderson at CU Denver cleared up that issue with some material from a Sociology of Religion course [5]: intrinsic religiosity describes internal convictions and the prejudice of a person depends on what their doctrine states; and extrinsic religiosity describes group pressure as the motivator and their prejudice depending on the group leaning. Anderson also points out that "among fundamental groups the higher the adherence to religious conformity, the greater the prejudice."

Many of the denominations firmly against female clergy are conservative; conversely, many of the denominations already practicing female ordination are liberal. Inductive expectancy would say that phenomenon is due to intrinsically religious groups forming an early stand and later extrinsically religious groups simply join a side in order to have a firm position.

In Biblical terms, a small amount of women were outside such sociological dilemmas as social constructions and dramaturgy, but in so small numbers they make little difference to those against female ordination today. It's still comforting to know some women managed to escape the institution's reinforcements. Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance again gives examples [4]: Miriam, daughter or Aaron and one of Israel's leaders during the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 15:24); Phoebe, a minister of the church at Cenchrea (Philippians 4:2); and in the original Greek text, Lunia, a female apostle (Romans 16:7).

Female ordination is only the most recent issue in how Christianity as part of the larger institution of religion reinforces the concept of sexism, but it is one of the most potent. On a slight sidelight, Pope John Paul II mentions that "Christ's way of acting [no active stance on ordinating women] did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time" [6]. Sociologically, the Pope's observation is sound because at the time of Christ, women were little more than property to bear children! Even in the present day, the highest-ranking person in the hierarchy of a Christian sect still can make a comment without relevant background and people ignorant of the social context might base a faulty argument on it. Such a situation is an ironic note in the present Information Age.