Responding to an e-mail defending the subordination of women, Andrew Sullivan writes:
The strength to be subordinate! And this comes from a religious tradition that began with a man who defied almost every social convention of his time and treated women — even single women — as his equals; who never married and broke up the families and marriages of his disciples; who told his own parents as a teenager that they had no final control over him; and whose best friends were a single woman and a single man who is described in the Gospels as resting his head on Jesus’ breast in an act of profound intimacy. How you get the subordination of women and the persecution of homosexuals from all that is beyond me.
The exchange brings succinct clarity to a key difference between Christ-centered Christianity, and the political ideology practiced by Focus on the Family and its allies — including a recent Bush administration judicial nominee.
Hang on a minute. What did Christ do? Didn’t He make Himself a servant, even “unto death”? And didn’t that result in Him being lifted up?
It’s like the concept of last being first and first being last, hence Paul’s advice that husbands and wives “submit TO EACHOTHER” (emphasis mine), quite a departure from the Greek family ideas of the time.
I guess this means I agree (?) with Sullivan on this, but then I don’t think it was suggested that women weren’t equals. It’s more about the connotations we place behind the words.
I’d just like to comment on THIS…
[I]a single man who is described in the Gospels as resting his head on Jesus’ breast in an act of profound intimacy.[/I]
Sullivan’s final comment suggests that he takes this as homosexuality. I really wish people wouldn’t jump to these conclusions about a culture we really don’t understand. Looking at Turkey, another near-east culture (and a MODERN one at that!) we see men engaging in outdoor oil wrestling, with nothing on but a rather loose pair of pants, then walking off together [I]holding hands[/I]. Is this homosexuality (the state of being erotically and emotionally attracted predominantly to the same sex), or just a different culture’s ideas of masculinity, perhaps less crippled by the ambivalent homophobia which grips our own? I submit that it’s the latter, though I would also submit that the former has aspects of the latter.
I’ve heard about a Syrian author who talks about many of these things in the context of near-east culture (modern and ancient), including the whole David and Jonathan thing, but I’ve forgotten his name. Anyone have any ideas?
Trevize said:
Yes.
I don’t think Sullivan suggests that at all. He suggests what you indicated — a group of people not crippled by the runaway fear of male affection. This phobia or hysteria is now being promoted by the same organizations that seek to ban gay civil unions.
This phobia or hysteria is now being promoted by the same organizations that seek to ban gay civil unions.
I don’t know about that. But I guess they’re doing little to try to change the culture.
Ironically, I don’t think this homophobic culture will change with the increased acceptance of homosexuality. The way it’s going now, people with same-sex attractions are becoming more accepted, but only when classified into that “gay” box. If you’re “gay”, then it’s ok to do that. If you’re not, then it’s still not. The increased visibility of “gay” life actually makes this worse, since men/boys from “straight” culture will be even more inhibited so as not to appear “gay”.
Many of the countries that have more male affection like I described above are greatly influenced by Islam. My guess is that this actually makes it safer for “straight” men to show this kind of affection, since them being “gay” would be so totally out of the question morally.