My Protestant Bible Study Group and Lessons in Womanhood
For the past few months, I have attended a Non-denominational neighborhood women’s Bible Study group. (the term “Bible Study” was to me particularly misleading because, in my ignorance, I had thought we would be reading passages from the Bible and discussing them in their context and various interpretations… I was unaware, however, that “Bible Study” in non-Catholic terms to me equated into something like Protestant CCD – educational and informative, just…not what I had in mind) At my lovely neighbor's house (she's a wonderful woman), we watch DVD's by the Christian author Beth Moore about Living in the Holy Spirit. Beth Moore is a wonderful speaker and relates exceptionally to women... but that got me thinking about a number of things... things that made me feel uncomfortable, and pondersome, but, for lack of a better phrase, it didn't feel right to me.
As the youngest of the group (which consists of myself, another Catholic, some fallen-away Catholics, and Protestants), I noticed my mentality about such a study was noticeably different from that of the other women (including my mother). They all expressed the belief that... even if you don't agree one hundred percent with something, you take from it what you can and learn from that. That's why you read about other religions, and psychology, and different theologian's interpretations and connections to even your own religion.
This, to me, seemed a little off. While I'm all about learning about other interpretations, views, and especially ways of thinking, I suppose that I do take from it what I can but I don't know that now I would describe my objective as such (Although, back in high school I probably would have). I learn from the way they look at something, yes, but I think it’s important to evaluate first and foremost how that teaching compares with the Catholic teaching (this I learned from my orthodox Catholic friends). If it appears to be another perspective or example that would adhere also to infalliable teachings, then it is good to note. If it's not, it's good to learn to understand differences. But everything is in relation to how well that speaker adheres to the Truth while preaching in his or her own way. This Truth aspect I don’t think sticks as well with my neighbors, but I hope this is just my misinterpretation. In the opinions of most if not all of these woman (who are good, kind, and intelligent women), it's like... everyone has an equally valid way of viewing something. Since we're all working for the same end, anything also that you can use to "be a better person" is good. Only when I compared my perspective (which changed during college and a better grounding in the fundamentals of our faith) with theirs, did I see how radically different this fundamental basis for learning about religion and our role as women really was.
Orthodox Catholics would probably tell you a talk/discussion/theory etc. that is discussing womanhood is incomplete without the inclusion of the Virgin Mary. But, as we all have been taught, a discussion of womanhood that doesn't include her example doesn’t mean it's completely worthless. It may indeed possess vital parts of the truth, even while it deviates into other fallacies because Mary's presence is lacking.
My question in this day and age is... how important is it to really learn the non-Marianite feminisms and expressions of womanhood (apart from comparison)? I find the history of feminism fascinating and I like to learn a lot about them... but this question is particularly addressing, say for example... a woman who wants to learn more about her faith and femininity but doesn't want to make a career out of it ;)
While I certainly find value in going to learn about womanhood from say, a Protestant perspective, or a secular feminist's perspective...I don't think many of us would posit that it'd be acceptable to just go to such a discussion group in place of a Catholic one.
I think that today... so LITTLE is emphasized about true womanhood and the role of Mary that any further education in other expositions of womanhood almost cuts into that little bit that those women could possibly know of Mary. We are raised in secular humanism, where feminist mantras are engrained in our everyday culture. It seems to me, for the average woman, a misuse of time to learn any feminism that is not Marianite because of the many women's severe disassociation with the Blessed Mother and misunderstanding of the vital role she plays. I feel like...it's SO great if learning about womanhood in this way brings my neighbors closer to God. But the message is SO deeply lacking in the basic fundamentals of the very salvation they are trying to explicate! (because of the exclusion of things like Mary and the Eucharist....) - that such discussions are only rehashing things they've already learned in our culture and not bringing them closer to the Truth... even though it may be bringing them into a somewhat closer relationship with the Bible and God and such.
I wish they could learn about Mary, and how the sacraments, and grace, and the Eucharist, and the communion of saints take "living in the spirit" to a whole nother level that these evangelical DVD's can't even begin to touch on (not that I negate the good intentions of these missionaries, for they are in many respects much better people than I).
What do you think? In *Ideal-land*, every woman would go to a Catholic women’s study group to learn about her femininity and, if she desires, go to learn about other religions as well to help her understand her own. In the aftermath and continuation of feminist philosophies and New Age fundamentals, is going to such groups worth the time in light of the devastating widespread ignorance and misunderstanding of the Truth?
As the youngest of the group (which consists of myself, another Catholic, some fallen-away Catholics, and Protestants), I noticed my mentality about such a study was noticeably different from that of the other women (including my mother). They all expressed the belief that... even if you don't agree one hundred percent with something, you take from it what you can and learn from that. That's why you read about other religions, and psychology, and different theologian's interpretations and connections to even your own religion.
This, to me, seemed a little off. While I'm all about learning about other interpretations, views, and especially ways of thinking, I suppose that I do take from it what I can but I don't know that now I would describe my objective as such (Although, back in high school I probably would have). I learn from the way they look at something, yes, but I think it’s important to evaluate first and foremost how that teaching compares with the Catholic teaching (this I learned from my orthodox Catholic friends). If it appears to be another perspective or example that would adhere also to infalliable teachings, then it is good to note. If it's not, it's good to learn to understand differences. But everything is in relation to how well that speaker adheres to the Truth while preaching in his or her own way. This Truth aspect I don’t think sticks as well with my neighbors, but I hope this is just my misinterpretation. In the opinions of most if not all of these woman (who are good, kind, and intelligent women), it's like... everyone has an equally valid way of viewing something. Since we're all working for the same end, anything also that you can use to "be a better person" is good. Only when I compared my perspective (which changed during college and a better grounding in the fundamentals of our faith) with theirs, did I see how radically different this fundamental basis for learning about religion and our role as women really was.
Orthodox Catholics would probably tell you a talk/discussion/theory etc. that is discussing womanhood is incomplete without the inclusion of the Virgin Mary. But, as we all have been taught, a discussion of womanhood that doesn't include her example doesn’t mean it's completely worthless. It may indeed possess vital parts of the truth, even while it deviates into other fallacies because Mary's presence is lacking.
My question in this day and age is... how important is it to really learn the non-Marianite feminisms and expressions of womanhood (apart from comparison)? I find the history of feminism fascinating and I like to learn a lot about them... but this question is particularly addressing, say for example... a woman who wants to learn more about her faith and femininity but doesn't want to make a career out of it ;)
While I certainly find value in going to learn about womanhood from say, a Protestant perspective, or a secular feminist's perspective...I don't think many of us would posit that it'd be acceptable to just go to such a discussion group in place of a Catholic one.
I think that today... so LITTLE is emphasized about true womanhood and the role of Mary that any further education in other expositions of womanhood almost cuts into that little bit that those women could possibly know of Mary. We are raised in secular humanism, where feminist mantras are engrained in our everyday culture. It seems to me, for the average woman, a misuse of time to learn any feminism that is not Marianite because of the many women's severe disassociation with the Blessed Mother and misunderstanding of the vital role she plays. I feel like...it's SO great if learning about womanhood in this way brings my neighbors closer to God. But the message is SO deeply lacking in the basic fundamentals of the very salvation they are trying to explicate! (because of the exclusion of things like Mary and the Eucharist....) - that such discussions are only rehashing things they've already learned in our culture and not bringing them closer to the Truth... even though it may be bringing them into a somewhat closer relationship with the Bible and God and such.
I wish they could learn about Mary, and how the sacraments, and grace, and the Eucharist, and the communion of saints take "living in the spirit" to a whole nother level that these evangelical DVD's can't even begin to touch on (not that I negate the good intentions of these missionaries, for they are in many respects much better people than I).
What do you think? In *Ideal-land*, every woman would go to a Catholic women’s study group to learn about her femininity and, if she desires, go to learn about other religions as well to help her understand her own. In the aftermath and continuation of feminist philosophies and New Age fundamentals, is going to such groups worth the time in light of the devastating widespread ignorance and misunderstanding of the Truth?
posted by Silabella @ 11:30 PM
3 Comments:
At 7:07 AM,
Silabella said…
Don't think that I've forgotten about your question :p But it's such an immense question, that I don't even really know if there's a definitive answer to or if I have even close to the knowledge or authority to try to summarize one. I haven't forgotten about it though, and if I come across some way to explain it concisely (which means when I'm not completely out of my head like I am normally..hehe) I'll post it asap.
At 3:14 PM,
Silabella said…
This is from an Interview with Pia de Solenni, where she's asked to describe feminism:
Woman is created in the image of God. Like man, she is created for the purpose of knowing, ultimately knowing God. True feminism, therefore, respects woman´s essential identity as an image of God. Where she differs from man, a true feminism understands that these differences are constructive and complementary.
As a result of many feminist theories, woman begins to be considered an atomistic individual, an individual without relations to others. Yet, we see that every aspect of our life — for both men and women — we need others. Our happiness relates intimately to our relations with others because we come to know ourselves and others, including God, through these relations. The Christian tradition has shown us that the feminine vocation is lived out in countless ways — look at the women saints. You can't put it in a box and say that a woman should do x, y and z.
True feminism concerns itself more with how a woman exists, rather than the jobs that she can do. Whatever she does, she does as a woman, not as a genderless creature. The same is obviously true for man.
At 3:16 PM,
Silabella said…
More Solenni!:
Feminism can be categorized in many different ways. I think it's easier to break it down into general groups based on how the individual man and woman are considered in relation to each other. Under each of these groups, you´ll find people who might not even agree on their views, but their essential understanding of man and woman is the same.
That would give us about four basic categories.
First, there's feminism of equality. This feminism maintains that women and men are absolute equals and exactly the same. The differences are conditioned by external factors. This tradition can be traced to Plato who considered the body to be nothing more than the container of the genderless soul. It's also the tradition found in the 18th-century feminism started by Mary Wollstonecraft. John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor developed this thought in the 19th century. It's also held weight into the 20th and 21st centuries, especially in theories of androgyny.
Out of the feminism of equality arises feminism of difference. Within the feminism of difference, there are two major trends: polarity and complementarity. Polarity asserts that one sex is superior to the other. This trend includes thinkers like Mary Daly, Carol Gilligan and even Aristotle. Complementarity maintains that man and woman are different, but equal. John Paul II has most notably developed this thought.
Anti-essentialist feminism grew out of mid-19th century existentialism and the increasing sensitivity/awareness of the differences between man and woman. It's similar to feminism of equality, but it takes the claims much further. Within this view, women are understood to be limited by society's imposition of stereotypical feminine roles and prohibited from freely living out their own existence and creating their own essence. They seek an existence which is free from the impositions of others, especially those of a male-dominated society.
Deconstructivist feminism builds on all three groupings of feminist traditions. Besides saying as the anti-essentialists do — that essence is something created by experience, in the context of a community — deconstructivists maintain that things which are seen as true and somewhat absolute are, in fact, relative to the person. Most postmodern feminists are deconstructivists.
As Christians, we recognize the inherent equality of all human beings, man and woman. The differences are constructive even if we don´t understand them. Remember that the differences existed before original sin. The tensions that arise from them, however, are due to original sin.
Why should we settle for any system of thought that gives us anything less than being created in the image of God?
[So Marian feminism is JPII's feminism, a feminism of difference based on complementality. Hope this helps :)]
Post a Comment
<< Home