The Problem of Misogyny in Christianity

Nine months ago I wrote a blog post called "The Problem with Orthodox Tradition on Female Virginity," and seven months ago I shared it on Facebook. In it, I had some harsh words about misogyny in Orthodoxy, and I proclaimed that I would no longer be taking Communion at Church. The Facebook post generated, shall we say, a stir among my Orthodox friends and my family.

I'm not going to take back anything I said. I have not been receiving Communion as I said wouldn't, because I still have not resolved my deep reservations about Orthodoxy, and I can't repent of what I don't regret. I do have one regret about the post, though. I wish I hadn't shared it on Facebook, at least not before I had private conversations with family and close Orthodox friends. I could have avoided some drama that way.

This is a follow-up post to the arguments I put forward in my last post.

First, I want to say that misogyny in religion is not a problem confined to Orthodoxy. It is entwined in the roots of all forms of Christianity. Other branches of Christianity may not venerate the saints I mentioned in the last post, but all Christians hold up the Bible as the primary source of doctrine, and the Bible itself contains numerous passages that devalue the spiritual worth of women. I will point out some of these passages in a moment. Misogyny is mixed up in many other major religions as well, but I will leave it to people of non-Christian backgrounds to critique their own religions.

Second, I want to say that individual Christians are not necessarily misogynists just because there is misogyny in elements of their tradition. Christian tradition is self-contradictory in its messages about the status of women, and many Christians choose to focus on the messages that affirm the spiritual equality of women. So why can't I do the same? Why can't I turn to the verse in Galatians where Paul says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," and ignore the rest? 

Because I want to be intellectually honest and consistent. If you believe the Bible's teachings are true and good, you have to reckon with the WHOLE Bible, not just the pieces you like. If you cherry-pick, then deep in your heart you believe the Bible is not completely trustworthy. To be intellectually honest, you must have some systematic way to determine which parts are true and which are false, or else you must admit that you are relying on your own value system independent of Christianity. It's fine to rely on your own value system, but to be honest you should admit to yourself that Christianity is not the foundation of your worldview, even if you may still value your faith as a source of community, comfort, and inspiration.

My crisis of faith was the result of realizing that I cannot accept all aspects of the Bible and Orthodox Tradition as true and good. I haven't yet come up with a systematic way to determine which parts are good and which are bad, so right now I can't trust any of it.

In case you are a Christian who doubts my claim of misogyny in the Bible, I'll give you a few examples.

• Deuteronomy 21: The Israelites are instructed by God that in war, they may seize women as captives and force them to be their wives.
• Deuteronomy 22: Under Mosaic Law, if a woman is raped in a city, she is to be stoned along with her rapist, "because she did not cry out." It is incumbent upon the woman to prevent rape. There is no mercy for women who are coerced but did not cry out, or presumably even for women who cry out but are not heard. (This situation, by the way, is exactly what happened to me. If I had been a Jew living before the time of Christ, should I have been stoned?)
• Judges 12: The tribe of Benjamin is saved from extinction through the violent capture of women in Jabesh Gilead and Shiloh. The other tribes of Israel ultimately had sympathy for the tribe of Benjamin and condoned their actions.
• 2 Samuel 11-12: David "sent messengers and took [Bathsheba]." There is no indication that Bathsheba had any say, and it seems unlikely that she would feel free to refuse the king. God sends Nathan the prophet to David to accuse him of his sins, but David is not accused of any offense against Bathsheba herself, only against Uriah for murdering him and taking Uriah's wife as his own. Furthermore, part of God's punishment of David is that his wives will be taken captive and raped.

This is not a comprehensive list, but it's enough to make my point. I'm focusing here on sexual assault because it's the most obvious example to me, but we could also talk about the scapegoating of Eve, the acceptance of polygamy, the general lack of agency women had in choosing their own husbands, and the treatment of women as possessions of men who are passed from father to husband.

These examples come from the Old Testament, and Christians may argue that they are superseded by the teachings of the New Testament. But are we saying that God used to disregard or even approve of rape under certain circumstances, but after Christ He didn't anymore? What kind of God would EVER approve of rape? Isn't God eternal and unchanging?

There is a very simple answer. These passages were written by men, fallible human beings who were influenced by the thinking of their time. They were not divinely inspired, and hence not completely trustworthy. This is hard to swallow for Christians, but it's better than trying to reconcile yourself to the idea that women's value is subject to change the same way that Jewish rules about unclean foods were subject to change.

I am not aware of passages in the New Testament that so obviously condone rape. However, that does not mean that the New Testament is free from deeply problematic teachings about the status of women. For one example, consider Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." This analogy likening the relationship between husbands and wives to the relationship between Christ and the church is even incorporated into traditional marriage vows in many Christian churches. (I had to fight hard against the Methodist officiant at my own wedding to omit that part.)

Think what an extreme statement this is of the authority of the husband over the wife! The wife is to be subject to the husband IN EVERYTHING. The relationship of the church to Christ is total, worshipful obedience. Christian marriage, according to this teaching, is in no way a relation of equals. This is similar to the statement in Ephesians 6:5 about the relationship of slaves to masters: "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ." (The implication here with regard to the morality of slavery is another troubling matter.) Wives must therefore be as obedient as SLAVES to their husbands.

I will not and cannot accept these misogynistic Biblical teachings. I have tried to reconcile myself to them through all kinds of mental gymnastics, and the effort tore at my heart. I am angry at the Church for encouraging me to do so. I am angry that the Church exacerbated the pain of my own internalized misogyny instead of helping me to heal. As painful as it is to reject my faith, it is more painful to believe in a God who would condone such treatment of women.