hb@prime.acc.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (10/27/89)
A couple of weeks ago the question of whether Wicca was a "feminist"
religion was raised in the soc.<gender> groups. The following quotes
from Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" (Beacon Press, Boston,
1986) seem relevant. The first two paragraphs are from the first
chapter; the rest are from Chapter 8, which discusses feminist
presence in the Craft. Emphasis and punctuation are Adler's;
underscores indicate italics.
Since many of the groups I interviewed for this book consider
themselves to be Witchcraft covens of one description or another,
it will be impossible to unserstand their nature if one is burdened
by stereotyped notions about Witches. The mere words _witch_ and
_witchcraft_ unlock a set of explosive associations that inspire
unease if not fear.
Dictionaries define Witches as (primarily) women who are either
seductive and charming (bewitching) or ugly and evil (wicked). In
either case, the women are supposed to possess a variety of
"supernatural" powers. The lexicographical definitions ot _witch_
are rather confusing and bear little relation to the definitions
given by Witches themselves. Participants in the Witchcraft
revival generally use _Witch_ to mean simply an initiate of the
religion Wicca, also known as the Craft.
...
Margo and Lee, in their _New Broom_ article, note that many in the
Craft have been disturbed by the appearance of feminist Witches
outside the "traditional" Craft, as well as the emergence of
all-women covens.
A Feminist calls herself Witch and claims, "Witchcraft is
totally ours." The Craft rustles uncomfortably. She has never
been initiated into a Coven. She knows little of Coven Law and
myth, but proudly states, "I worship the Mother, I am a follower
of the Old Religion, I work for the restoration of matriarchy
under the Goddess." Wicca squirms. _Witch_ is our name, our
identity, our life. How, we demand, can these political women
drain our identity of its deepest emotional and religious
significance? Do they have any right to our name?
_Yes_, say the writers.
Feminist "witches" are seeking their own heritage as women.
They are reaching back, beyond five thousand years of
patriarchy. Independent of _any_ help from the Craft, they have
found the Goddess. They have found Her in the past; they have
witnessed Her rape in the man-ravaged earth; they have found Her
within themselves.
What the feminist Witches hold is a new, yet ancient,
essence of pure worship. They hold the future.
And they come, as the North Wind: with the chill of change,
and the freshness of rebirth. [*]
[*] _The New Broom_, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Lammas 1973), 21, 28.
--
Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)
Vote YES to sci.aquaria; send votes to richard@gryphon.COM.johnob@tekigm2.men.tek.com (John Obendorfer) (10/28/89)
In article <891027.001438600@Prime> hb@prime.acc.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) writes: > > Margo and Lee, in their _New Broom_ article, note that many in the > Craft have been disturbed by the appearance of feminist Witches > outside the "traditional" Craft, as well as the emergence of > all-women covens. > > A Feminist calls herself Witch and claims, "Witchcraft is > totally ours." The Craft rustles uncomfortably. She has never > been initiated into a Coven. She knows little of Coven Law and > myth, but proudly states, "I worship the Mother, I am a follower > of the Old Religion, I work for the restoration of matriarchy > under the Goddess." Wicca squirms. _Witch_ is our name, our > identity, our life. How, we demand, can these political women > drain our identity of its deepest emotional and religious > significance? Do they have any right to our name? I feel compelled to add a few comments here. The reason why the Craft "rustles uncomfortably" at the statement "Witchcraft is totally ours" is that this statement is a rather bold one for the feminists to be making. Witchcraft, in its "traditional" form, came to the United States in the mid 1950s; the feminists did not jump on the bandwagon until the mid-to-late 1970s. Having lived and worked with the Craft communities in 3 west coast cities over a 10-year period, my rough guess is that non-Dianic Crafters outnumber the Dianics by a factor of at least twenty to one. (This guess is derived from observations of festival attendances, circle attendances, and a lot of work in the San Diego, Portland, and Seattle Pagan communities.) For these two reasons, for feminist Crafters to make the statement that Witchcraft is "totally ours" or a "Women's Religion" is, IMHO, somewhat nervy. I certainly agree that feminist Crafters worship the Mother; that they follow the Old Religion is questionable. Gardnerian-derived Crafters worship the Goddess as well as a Consort; in Dianic Circles the role of the Horned God is downplayed severely if not eliminated. Gardnerian-derived Crafters believe in an egalitarian approach, where women and men are both honored; Dianic Crafters frequently do not permit men to join their Circles. Gardnerian-derived Crafters MOST certainly do not "work for the restoration of Matriarchy"; thank you, most of us would prefer a culture where what matters is your wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence, not the equipment you've got between your legs. For these reasons, I would say the feminist Crafters are not Witches in the traditional neo-Gardnerian sense of the word; I would say that they are feminist Pagans. > > _Yes_, say the writers. > > Feminist "witches" are seeking their own heritage as women. > They are reaching back, beyond five thousand years of > patriarchy. Independent of _any_ help from the Craft, they have Again, this is a little hard to swallow. As I indicated above, the point at which one began seeing strongly feminist "Craft" Circles was in the mid-to-late seventies; those women who initiated this movement borrowed heavily from the same archetypical sources as the neo-Gard- nerians who came before them, and put their own particular slant on it. I would go so far as to say, were it not for the preceding twenty year wave of work and publication by Gerald Gardner, Ray Buckland, Janet and Stewart Farrar, Alex Saunders, and even good 'ol Lady Sheba, among many others, feminist Witchcraft would not exist; the mainstream of the Craft would not exist! > found the Goddess. They have found Her in the past; they have > witnessed Her rape in the man-ravaged earth; they have found Her > within themselves. > What the feminist Witches hold is a new, yet ancient, > essence of pure worship. They hold the future. Okay. What they are doing is perfectly fine; let's just be honest about where it came from and how it is different from what came before and what is alongside them. That's all I ask. John > [*] _The New Broom_, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Lammas 1973), 21, 28.
rsp@PacBell.COM (Steve Price) (11/09/89)
In article <8911070310.AA06802@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: >Steve Bloch writes: > >>[...]straight men have something "better": powerful, established religions >>and social structures that tell them they're wonderful. > >Social structures, maybe. But religions? Which religions? This seems like >an overgeneralization. The "established religions" I know about -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism -- don't necessarily tell males they are "wonderful"; in fact, they often tell them they are bad or in need of major improvements. But I think what Mr. Bloch meant (correct me, Steve, if I misrepresent you), is that established religions tend to place males in the dominant or normative positions. Priests, clerical authorities, interpreters of tradition and scripture tend to be male. Husbands seem to be placed above wives with religious doctrines: "Wives be submissive unto your husband", says Christianity's St. Paul. Hindu tradition permited the burning of a widow on the pyre of her late husband. Witness the fury attending the ordination of women to the priesthood or rabbinate. Islam permits multiple wives, but not multiple husbands. Buddhist monks avoid touching or gazing upon females to preserve cultic purity. The Pope won't talk unity with Episocopalians because of women priest. Orthodox rabbis actively attempt to block a woman rabbi from receiving an appointment to military chaplancy. etc. etc. etc. for the last 10 thousand years or so... So while religions may not say men are wonderful, it does tend to act like they are better than women -- in any case men are in charge, according to all the relgious practices I see in "established" relgions. (A good case could be made that established religious notions about gender roles played a large part in the defeat of the ERA in the USA.) -- Steve Price UNIX: pacbell!pbhyf!rsp PHONE: (415)823-1951 ...argument does not teach children or the immature. Only time and experience does that. Doris Lessing
adam@castle.edinburgh.ac.UK (Adam Hamilton) (11/09/89)
In article <8911070310.AA06802@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: >Steve Bloch writes: > >>[...]straight men have something "better": powerful, established religions >>and social structures that tell them they're wonderful. > >Social structures, maybe. But religions? Which religions? This seems like >an overgeneralization. How about Judaism where men thank god every day that they were not made a woman. Or Islam, where the testimony of 1 man is considered equal in court to the testimony of 2 women. Or both of those and Christianity where women are debarred from the priesthood.
hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) (11/11/89)
In article <7381@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> bloch%mandrill@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) writes: >hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) writes: >>[Adler] also says that in her search for covens to research, she found all-female >>covens, mixed covens, and gay-male covens, but has never found nor hear of an >>all-straight-male coven. >> >>Although I don't like to believe that Wicca is female-only, I do see it as not >>appealing to most traditional straight males. > >What does "traditional" mean here? [....] > I meant "typical" straight male who believes that males are superior. [Note that the quotation marks imply that Harvey does not think this is really the norm. Otherwise, I would have asked for a rewrite of this sentence. - MHN] >Now, I don't see any a priori reason Wicca should appeal more to gay >men than to straight men, or more to women than to men, except that >straight men have something "better": powerful, established religions >and social structures that tell them they're wonderful. [....] Bingo. Most religions teach that men are superior to women. To embrace Wicca, a man would have to admit that women are equal. He also would have to admit that being "effeminate" is not inferior to being "masculine". __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com) (uunet!x102a!hnewstrom)
jan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (11/14/89)
>Steve Bloch writes: > >>[...]straight men have something "better": powerful, established religions >>and social structures that tell them they're wonderful. > >Social structures, maybe. But religions? Which religions? This seems like >an overgeneralization. > >Charley Wingate > For an analysis of the subconscious effect on both men and women of worshipping the "Father", and of worshipping God as male, or even of being an atheist in a male-God-worshipping society, read "The Changing of the Gods" (I think by Judy Goldberg, not sure), and "WomanSpirit Rising", by Carol Christ and Judith Plaskow. I personally found that just calling God "she" for 6 weeks (seriously, including picturing Her giving birth to the universe and spreading Her skirts over the Heavens) was a very scary and life-changing experience. In essence, until you invert the usual practice, the effects are powerful but invisible. Whether you are a Christian, a new-ager, or even if you are an atheist, try referring to the God that does or doesn't exist as "She". If you think you are advanced past the point where this would affect you, I can only say I thought so too, but there is a big difference between holding an intellectual opinion that God is genderless or that the ways you use to refer to God are unimportant versus actually experimenting with vocalization and visualization. If you believe it would be evil to refer to God as "she" for 6 weeks, then the point that it affects us very strongly is already made. Also, a thought experiment: imagine confessing something like wife-beating to 1. God (male), who created the Universe and can throw thunderbolts, vs 2. God (female), who created the Universe and can throw thunderbolts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Universal Consciousness cannot be confined to any of the 5 genders, but we must worship Uy as each in turn in order to keep a balanced outlook." -- St. Xphlcyb of Alpha III
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (11/15/89)
In article <61131@aerospace.AERO.ORG> jan@orc.olivetti.com writes: >If you think you are advanced past the point where this would affect you, I >can only say I thought so too, but there is a big difference between holding >an intellectual opinion that God is genderless or that the ways you use to >refer to God are unimportant versus actually experimenting with vocalization >and visualization. I certainly agree with you that there's little meaning to a personal but genderless god. The conclusion would then seem to be that belief in such a god (male or female) is intrinsically antithetical to the variety of feminism which wants to call into question the whole notion of eternal and "natural" gender. How can a god be a god and still participate in some particular, human social organization? Insisting that gods have gender is like insisting that they speak 20th century American English. We can give up the language requirement -- the gods can be mute, or they can speak Deitese, which no human will understand. But can we give up the gender requirement? Certainly calling the god female doesn't accomplish this -- that's like saying she speaks Russian instead of English. And I'm not sure any of us can really imagine a truly genderless, but still personal, being (the point made by Jan, above). My conclusion is that feminism has taught us the impossibility of believing in a personal god, male or female. Or rather that such a belief is at odds with feminism. Gender is a human issue, exclusively.
trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) (11/15/89)
BTW, does this go to a moderator, or to the group directly, or what? [If your posting mechanism works correctly, it goes to a program which sends the post to one of the moderators at "random" - MHN] In the referenced article, jan@orc.olivetti.com writes: >In essence, until you invert the usual practice, the effects are powerful >but invisible. Whether you are a Christian, a new-ager, or even if you are >an atheist, try referring to the God that does or doesn't exist as "She". > >If you think you are advanced past the point where this would affect you, I >can only say I thought so too, but there is a big difference between holding What should I do, being a Discordian (believer in Eris, the Greek Goddess of Chaos, Confusion, Discord, Bureaucrasy, and International Relations as the ultimate force in the Universe)? -- "When you're down, it's a long way up When you're up, it's a long way down It's all the same thing And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
wilson@csli.Stanford.EDU (Nathan Wilson) (11/15/89)
hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) writes: >In article <7381@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> bloch%mandrill@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) writes: >>hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) writes: >>>[Adler] also says that in her search for covens to research, she found all-female >>>covens, mixed covens, and gay-male covens, but has never found nor hear of an >>>all-straight-male coven. >>Now, I don't see any a priori reason Wicca should appeal more to gay >>men than to straight men, or more to women than to men, except that >>straight men have something "better": powerful, established religions >>and social structures that tell them they're wonderful. [....] >Bingo. Most religions teach that men are superior to women. To embrace >Wicca, a man would have to admit that women are equal. He also would have to >admit that being "effeminate" is not inferior to being "masculine". This seems a bit extreme. The finding doesnt seem to me to have anything to do with the appeal of Wicca to straight men vs other groups. Dont get me wrong, I strongly believe and know that I could find an abundance of evidence that those told they have and are given power-over are less willing than their victims to participate in groups that destroy that power. However, this finding doesn't have anything to say about this belief. Rather it relates to the questions of why and what kind of exclusive subgroups form within groups that are based on equality and inclusivness. The finding suggests to me that within such groups the only people to form 'exclusive' subgroups are those that feel they would be unconsciously or subconsciously repressed or dominated by people who are more impowered than they within the dominant culture. Thus no all-straight-male covens. The question that occurs to me is what about all-lesbian covens or all-homosexual covens? My intuition says that the first exists and that the second doesn't but it's hard for me to explain why. Nathan Wilson Teleos Research nathan@ai.sri.com
rsp@PacBell.COM (Steve Price) (11/16/89)
In article <61131@aerospace.AERO.ORG> jan@orc.olivetti.com writes: > >I personally found that just calling God "she" for 6 weeks (seriously, >including picturing Her giving birth to the universe and spreading Her >skirts over the Heavens) was a very scary and life-changing experience. > As a male Christian I find this whole topic of gender and the Deity fascinating. I have been encouraged by friends who practice Wicca to try imaging God as Female. I have been trying to sneak up on that "scary" experience by thinking about Mary, "The Mother of God" and "The Queen of Heaven", in a more Catholic way -- I was raised VERY protestant. Kneeling before the Shrine of the Virgin in Grace Cathedral (Esicopal) in San Francisco, I felt rather awkward, my whole background being challenged. But I think I need the challenge. So you see that this attempt to Feminize our concepts of The Divinity are "scary" for more than one reason. The current issue of the magazine TIKKUN has a great article on Jewish Feminist attempts to propose Female images of God to balance the traditional patriarchial language of Jewish (and therefore Christian and Islamic) theology. If there is interest in this topic, I could post further details from and/or about TIKKUN and this article. -- Steve Price UNIX: pacbell!pbhyf!rsp PHONE: (415)823-1951 ...argument does not teach children or the immature. Only time and experience does that. Doris Lessing
hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) (11/18/89)
In article <11030@csli.Stanford.EDU> wilson@csli.Stanford.EDU (Nathan Wilson) writes: }[....] }The question that occurs to me is what about all-lesbian covens or }all-homosexual covens? My intuition says that the first exists and }that the second doesn't but it's hard for me to explain why. I know of three all-homosexual-male covens. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com) (uunet!x102a!hnewstrom)
jan@orc.olivetti.com (11/19/89)
In the referenced article, ray writes >What should I do, being a Discordian (believer in Eris, the Greek Goddess ^^^^ >of Chaos, Confusion, Discord, Bureaucrasy, and International Relations as >the ultimate force in the Universe)? You misspelled it. It's IRS. > And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\.. Yeah. In article ? rich writes: >In article <61131@aerospace.AERO.ORG> jan@orc.olivetti.com writes: >>If you think you are advanced past the point where this would affect you, I >>can only say I thought so too, but there is a big difference between holding >>an intellectual opinion that God is genderless or that the ways you use to >>refer to God are unimportant versus actually experimenting with vocalization >>and visualization. >[...] But can we give up the gender requirement? Certainly >calling the god female doesn't accomplish this -- > >My conclusion is that feminism has taught us the impossibility of >believing in a personal god, male or female. Or rather that such a >belief is at odds with feminism. Gender is a human issue, exclusively. There are two issues here. One is, is there a Supreme Being. The other is how do we refer to Him/Her. The first is a personal-experience-based decision for each person. (Although whether or not there is a Supreme Being is unlikely to be actually caused by whether or not it agrees with feminism.) The second is whether or not we balance our language when referring to this being or lack thereof. I do not advocate addressing Her as "She" for an entire lifetime, just long enough for it to seem as believeable as He is (or isn't), then half the time thereafter. And I think this will even affect an atheist's ideas about men and women, even if it doesn't affect that person's belief about God. My objection to 'it' is that it excludes personhood (in English) whereas using BOTH genders a) balances existing practice and b) is inclusive. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Universal Consciousness cannot be confined to any of the 5 genders, but we must worship Uy as each in turn in order to keep a balanced outlook." -- St. Xphlcyb of Alpha III
jan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (11/20/89)
I don't believe I properly addressed rich's questions to me in my previous return posting. Richard Shapiro writes: >I certainly agree with you that there's little meaning to a personal >but genderless god. The conclusion would then seem to be that belief >in such a god (male or female) is intrinsically antithetical to the >variety of feminism which wants to call into question the whole notion >of eternal and "natural" gender. He is saying, if I understand correctly, that a committed feminist doesn't believe in 'Eternal' masculine or feminine, and if that means that we cannot address God(ess) in a meaningful way, then God conflicts with reality as we are trying to understand it. I used similar logic to decide Mary was not a virgin, i.e. Mother in Heaven loves all of us, the doctrine of the Virgin tends to create contempt for the way the rest of us give birth, God would not consider contempt for the majority of Her Terran children to be a minor issue, therefore She wouldn't do that to us. So the "begats" in Mattew have more authority for me than Luke's idea of The Birth. Many people would disagree with my logic, but that kind of thinking is a useful tool for living out one's committment to all people's liberation from gender roles. What I want to achieve by alternating calling God He and She, is to *separate* , both consciously and unconsciously, God, a symbol for eternity, authority, creativity, power, and omniscience, *from* the idea of gender. I want to show gender as a local, symbolic, temporary function, and to show authority as being equally a property of both genders. And, as my .sig file shows, I don't believe gender is eternal or even universal in the way we understand it. I *do* believe in connecting our local feminine symbols with God half the time, (i.e. skirts, long hair) because we are surrounded by masculine symbols of God, (long beard, strong right arm, etc) and our unconscious connects these with authority, so, again, to separate authority from masculinity, we need to visualize God with symbols of the feminine gender to universalize the effect. And again, atheists would probably benefit from visualizing the Goddess they don't believe in as feminine, because God is still a cultural symbol for authority and continuity, etc. and these symbols need to be detached from any one gender. I wonder if cross-dressing ( or, rather, ignoring society's ideas about how you should dress) would be more tolerated if people pictured God in skirts half the time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Universal Consciousness cannot be confined to any of the 5 genders, but we must worship Uy as each in turn in order to keep a balanced outlook." -- St. Xphlcyb of Alpha III
mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (11/23/89)
Various people answered the question I posed in more or less the way I
expected: they pointed to the three big semetic religions as
offenders. Now, I will not make any attempt to speak to or for Islam.
Some of what I say probably can be mapped to Judaism, but again: as a
gentile, I do not feel I can speak for Jews either.
Those who follow the religion groups know that I am Christian,
episcopalian by denomination. I will speak for my own religion. Let
me say right off the bat that christendom deserves almost all of the
criticism leveled at it for the way women have been abused in Jesus'
name. Even the bible itself condemns it. Men have been wont to read
Paul as saying "Wives, be submissive to your husbands" without
continuing on to the next verse. The abuse directed at women by the
church fathers is a great evil indeed.
But saying that christianity tells men that "they're wonderful" is,
uh, dubious. Even where christendom has placed men over women, I
don't think it is fair to read this as glorifying maleness.
Historically, christianity after the middle ages has been a religion
of women rather than of men. Excepting certain flavors of "muscular"
american protestant, christianity has tended to denegrate traditional
male "virtues"; strong religion is reviled as "sissy". Christianity
among males is weakest precisely where Macho looms large. This
disproportion alone should lead us to question how much this supposed
elevation of males really matters in the end.
That said, I would like to drift over into this question of
god-language. Several people have expressed opinions which I would
characterize as saying, in essence, that we should tailor our
god-language to have to say what we want affirmed aobut our
world-view. Now, we have several points here when we come to
christianity. As far as the three Persons are concerned, Jesus is
definitely a male, the Father is referred to in heavily "male"
imagery, and the Spirit is referred to in the neuter, but with a lot
of "female" imagery. The traditional imagery tends to exaggerate this
and to keep the Spirit very neuter by consistent use of neuter
symbols-- the dove, fire, wind, etc. Now to some extent this is all
phony, in that it IS human language, and that it is not generally
clear what all the gender language is doing. At the same time, the
imagery we have is the imagery we have. Presumably, there is the
strong posibility of there being a good reason for the state of the
imagery.
But God is not man-- except when he is Jesus. What Paul has to say
has almost nothing to do with God language. Paul could say "She" on
every page without ever affecting his statements about christian
behavior. And conversely, what the priest or bishop does has little
to do with God language. One thing that has continually bothered me
is that, in the Episcopal Church, we have been slow to develop a
female model of priesting. Female priests tend to act like male
priests whose cassocks fit differently. There is obvious value in
maternally-centered models of pastoral care, but they seem slow in
coming.
On the other hand, we seem to have this weird problem with accepting
what may be. It may well be that there is a very strong reason for
the genders used in the traditional god-language. The question which
then has to be confronted is, So What? I hardly see this as spelling
the death knoll of feminism. Likewise, I see problems with the
expression that women really-o truly-o are "equal" to men. Well,
suppose they aren't? I don't see that as grounds for discrimination.
If fewer women than men are suited to directing a large development
project, it remains true that these women are more capable at this
task than the vast majority of men. However, if women continue to
claim otherwise, the potential exists for a strong backlash. It seems
clear to me that equitable treatment for women is demanded regardless
of how different the average man and woman are.
I should also point out the christian charity would seem to be at odds
with some pretty common attitudes among feminists. While I disagree
strongly with the conservative element of my church, the fact remains
that the most liberal elements of the church have dealt with their
opponents rather insensitively and self-righteously. Certain american
bishops on the feminist side have said things about their opponents on
the order of "we don't care if you don't like it; we're going to shove
it down your throats anyway." Obviously this doesn't win them
friends, and it serves to reinforce the resolve of the traditionalists
to defend their positions. Several compromises have been made in
order to accomodate the traditionalists while at the same time
allowing matters to progress along the road of greater opportunity and
freedom for ordained women. But these compromises have largely failed
in execution due to the intransigence of various powerful liberals,
notably several bishops. The image painted by their actions is that
ordained women are being pushed on the church by a bunch of
self-righteous bishops and theologians. It is a false image, but it
has brought on a lot of needless ill-will. Great moral crusades offer
great opportunities for meanness, and feminism has thus far proven to
be no exception.
--
C. Wingate + "Our God, to whom we turn When weary with illusion,
+ Whose stars serenely burn Above this earth's confusion,
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, The steadfast order sure
mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, Endures, and shall endure."