Change is central to life, but people resist it. The degree of resistance varies with the magnitude of the modification. It also depends on whether change affects things that are deeply personal or significant to the individual. And what could be more emotional and difficult when it comes to altering something that has religious roots?
Peoples' religions and beliefs systems are at the very heart of who and what they are or aspire to be. It deals with their relationship to God. What could be more important? What could cause greater controversy? Do the words 'inquisition,' 'burning at the stake,' and Salmin Rushdie's controversial book entitled 'Satanic Verses' remind you of anything?
Suppose you mixed together a religious and a social (gender) issue? Imagine what would happen. Wow! That would be hot. The issue: women's role in the church.
What about the question of having women elders, priests, etc? This subject arouses impassioned responses. Of course, in very practical terms through the ages, the church was supported -- if not kept alive -- by women. It was done mostly through their traditional roles of planning social activities, cooking, cleaning, organizing, overseeing, caring for children and so on. This support was critical, especially during the early church years when even a very little support was essential to keep the entire movement afloat.
Is the message timeless? Women can never or should never serve the church in any manner other than what they traditionally have done. This is a very important matter, because it raises, among other things, how people respond to change. How and, under what circumstances, do they recognize a legitimate need for modification? How do they know if the status quo is preferable? And how do they know if any transformation is appropriate or judicious? How can we be wise enough to know what should be different now compared to the past? Should some things never be altered? How can we know what are absolutely, positively eternal principles?
Murder is an example of something that the majority of people would agree should never be condoned. Even though murder is seeming to become almost commonplace nowadays, some things shouldn't be accepted merely because they occur with ever increasing frequency. Also, actions shouldn't be taken just because others do it. If that were true, parents could never ask their children: "If Johnnie decides to jump off a bridge, will you?" [Did your parents say that to you? Yep, mine too. I guess all parents do.] Societal mores don't and shouldn't merely reflect popular opinion or desires.
Some religious leaders may say that a woman's role should never shift -- it holds a stature of permanence. Just as society hasn't modified its intolerance of murder, its view of women in the church, they say, shouldn't be fooled with either. Even though women are assuming roles of increasing influence in some societies, some theologians believe that women's basic religious position is constant. It's as if it were one of the Commandments -- an immutable rule of God.
But how would religious leaders respond when it's pointed out that women's place in religion is not covered in the 10 Commandments. Would they relent, very much like a Constitutional lawyer would argue that any governmental power and responsibility not specifically enumerated as a federal function inevitably reverts to the states for control. If none of the Commandments precluded greater female involvement, why not allow churches to decide on their own?
In reality, that's what many churches already do. The Catholic Church, of course, is the notable exception. I belong to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and our congregation just hired a female assistant minister. Some church members are taken aback, to be sure, but our new minister is generally welcomed and being given the benefit of the doubt as she begins working with her flock.
So where do we go from here? We have the Old Testament, New Testament, and Koran, all of which has the same message regarding women. Is a Newer Testament in draft and due out on the bookshelves soon that recasts the feminine role in religion? Or do we await the arrival of another prophet -- or the messiah -- to guide us on this and other questions about life and theology?
If such a prophet were to proclaim himself -- or herself -- would she or he be accepted? I think we all know the answer. We are usually blind to history as it unfolds in our midst. The only notable exceptions, regrettably, are assassinations of prominent or well-loved public figures such as JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, or Robert Kennedy. The prophet would be scorned, ridiculed and killed. That happened to Jesus. Today millions worldwide worship him as the Son of God, but the vast majority of the people of Israel in 30 A.D. certainly didn't see it that way. They saw hysteria, not history.
We may be living through the modern-day version (or should I say inversion) of the Tower of Babel. You may recall that Man had gotten so full of himself that he built a tower to glorify his power and prowess. God destroyed it, scattered the people, and gave them multiple languages to prevent a recurrence of such harmful human hubris. Now, we have pervasive ethnic warfare in many regions of the world -- I'll call it "regionicide." What are we seeing? History or hysteria?
How can be wise enough to distinguish between eternal principles and those needing revision? Perhaps we should just consult the 10 Commandments on the issue of women in the church, as well as other key social matters. After all, they're cast in stone.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 945 words.
© 1997