Social Norms: Christianity's Trojan Horse

Hello one and all!

As I write this, I am 40,000 ft in the air as I fly back to University, numbed by the exhilaration and fear elicited by flying and a healthy gin and tonic, and I can’t help but reflect on the state of Christianity and Christian culture; particularly about the inheritance, into Christian culture, of certain notions about disenfranchised groups in society. Now, all this was brought on by a documentary series called The Ascent of Woman (available on Netflix and comes highly recommended by me). This documentary focuses more on the creation of “woman” as a social construct, than on her biological formation and I am thoroughly enjoying it.

As I rewatch the first episode, titled Civilisation, an important point was raised; about how the women in Ancient Greece were treated as well as the women in Afghanistan at the height of the Taliban. With this treatment, social notions about the inferiority of women accompanied and justified this treatment. For those who weren’t aware and to put it simply, women of Ancient Greece wore veils, were denied citizenship and were treated as property, without the endearingly patronising notion of “Republican motherhood” that accompanied such treatment of women in the early days of American Independence”. The justifications that accompanied such treatment, came from my old friend, in the Taylor Swift/Kanye way, not the Taylor Swift/Selena Gomez way, Aristotle. Freaking Aristotle. He, providing a destructive rationale for the oppressive treatment of women, suggested that women were not a different species, like Hesiod suggested, but sub-male. Imperfect versions of the male form that lacked the semen, the essence of masculinity, to complete them and achieve perfection. Owing to their imperfection, and incompleteness, women are incapable of the rationality men are renowned for. While men were considered to be sophron, in that they know and understand their limits, rationalities and agendas, women were incapable of such a thing. As a result, we needed to be controlled, much like you’d control a puppy or cow. All this, interacts with the honour/shame nexus which characterised Greek households; the honour of a household lay within the female form. Therefore any transgression, be it laughing too loudly or a failure to bear sons, reflected badly on the households and, perhaps more importantly, on the man of that household. Thus, in order to avoid such shame, women had to be controlled so as to ensure honour. Unfortunately, this legacy has yet to be confronted by the modern world who choose to view the Ancient Greeks as purely democratic beings (another issue for another day).

His annoyingly influential thoughts garnished the Greek world, and came to be found in subsequent Roman and classical Arabic traditions and, subsequently, Christian and Medieval cultures as well. The result is that versions of this can be seen in the Bible and in modern day Christian culture. Men can, and do, get away with a lot, while women are chastised for the simplest of things. Women can sing and help with the children’s ministry, but dare they preach. Families are often, and largely, judged upon the behaviour of the matriarch and daughters, not of the sons. Now, I am a Christian and so this comes from a place of disappointment and frustration, not out of contempt. See, in as much as the Bible is God-breathed, it is important to remember that it was written by a fallible man! (literally!!) Therefore, failure to take into account the circumstances that surround the words written, and a literal interpretation of them, will lead to a society akin to Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that Paul was influenced by Greco-Roman culture and values as he  wrote 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (the verse instructing women to the quiet in church) or 1 Timothy 2:15 (the verse saying that salvation for women comes through childbearing) Or that, in an attempt to tailor the preaching of the Gospel and make it more amenable to people, he begrudgingly adopted unfortunate cultural norms which contravene God’s purpose for woman (to be a vital and important helper designed to be a source of strength as the Hebrew word originally used in Genesis 2:23, ay-zer) and, famously, Proverbs 31 which depicts this image. Given that accepting Christ as one’s Lord and Saviour restores one to the “original position” (eeeeyyy, jurisprudence reference), these verses don’t make sense, to my mind. Especially when Paul had written Galatians 3:28 earlier, at least chronologically. It seems like an entire controversion of God’s purpose for woman; to be an equal partner. (Now I know to some that the word “equality” conjures images of men having to give up their status, I assure you that is not the case. In fact, for a brief analysis of the term “equality”, look here)

Now, some of you might say “Sweetie, you’re reading into these verses because of your feminist leanings. They really are innocuous and are designed to reinforce the man’s duty to his family. Being quiet and child-bearing does not equate subservience, you know.” To which I will respond with, “You may be right. But when that is all a woman is permitted to do, it becomes a problem because woman was designed for more than that. She was designed to be her own person and to have agency, not just an attachment to man. Even though questions may be raised about the extent to which Paul reduces her position to simple subservience, the much larger question is why such an attitude persists in modern day society, particularly in Christian circles.” Or, macroscopically, why Christian culture has allowed itself to be so permeated by social constructs and why we decline to address this issue.

Though I am glad to see the Churches I have visited and the Christian friends I have, engage in this type of rigour, when it comes to the interpretation of the Gospel, most too readily accept these constructs. It is not just with regard to women; but with regard to the poor and race (while the LGBTQA+ features in this, a discussion of that specific topic is warranted). People are poor because they fail to work hard, or are being punished not because socio-economic policies prevent the poor from accumulating wealth in any substantive way. Racism is an issue that should be prayed over, rather than tackled because though blessed are the meek, blessed are those who pursue righteousness. We, Christians, are not meant to be additional band-aids, but an entirely new treatment to the problem. Rather than accepting the cannon, do as Jesus did; take some time to draw some lines in the sand, to reflect on the questions raised. We have simply failed to do so and, in that, we have become complacent in our faith.

I had no idea what this post was going to end up being, but after that last sentence, I realise it was designed to show folks that Christianity needs social movements too, particularly feminism; because the story of Christianity cannot be told without the unwarranted subjugation and disenfranchisement of women. Because Christianity has its own version of toxic masculinity. Because, Christians can no longer continue to decline the impact of social norms in the interpretation of doctrine and, therein, the impact of that Trojan Horse.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcome, but rudeness is not.

Your AWKward Girl Next Door,