Many conservative religious groups bar women from becoming clergy. And even in those denominations in which women do serve as clergy, they often face barriers in their careers because they are women. I was asked this week, if I think it's hypocritical to support a woman's bid to lead a nation but not to lead a congregation?
Initially, it does seem odd that someone could support a woman as leader of our nation, but not of their own congregation...until one appreciates that not all forms of leadership are the same, and not all leaders draw their authority from the same sources. If one believes that congregational leadership must reflect a certain interpretation of biblical verses or communal history, then it may not be possible for such people to admit women to such traditionally male roles. Ironically in fact, it might be hypocritical for them to embrace women as religious leaders!
Hypocrisy though, is a funny thing, since it's generally a charge made by people against others, who almost by definition, do not see things as their detractors do. Yet it assumes that they should. That is why, rather than simply seeing difference, those leveling the charge see intellectual inconsistency and moral confusion in those upon whom they have turned their sites. Thus it is a charge given to much abuse and even greater sanctimony on the part of those who level it. So let's be careful here.
Because those same people accept that in a democracy, political authority flows not from a text but from the citizens of the state, they have no problem with women as political leaders. So while some of us may disagree with their interpretations, they are not guilty of hypocrisy in the usual sense. Though I know this will frustrate all those who can not wait to level the charge of hypocrisy at anyone "stupid enough or sufficiently misogynistic" to think that a women could be a president but not a priest. Sorry, but you'll have to find some other basis for your moral superiority complex.
However, people who would embrace a woman as their Commander-In-Chief, but not as their rabbi, imam, or minister, may be guilty of hypocrisy in the literal sense of the term i.e. failing to look closely and questioningly enough at themselves, their practices and those of the communities to which they belong. Seeing that there is room for women to contribute in every other area of life, they need to ask if they have done all that they can to empower women in their respective communities.
They need to explore how to remain faithful to their honestly arrived at interpretation which precludes women as equal leaders, without settling for a status quo that fails to integrate the full contribution which women can make. They need to listen to those voices within their community which think that they have not done this sufficiently, and they need to learn from those voices. They may not end up with women as ordained clergy, but I bet they will discover how to expand the roles which women can play in their communities without running afoul of that which they currently believe.
It is this kind of ongoing self-critique, regardless of the specific policy outcomes, which assure we are not hypocritical. And without that ongoing process, by definition, we are - no matter who is standing in our pulpits.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
If women are so bad, why are they still living?
Women are just as capable as men at running a nation or a house of worship. Of course, not just anyone of either sex can or should be a world leader, but talent, intelligence is distributed equally between the sexes. For generations, women have been denied the opportunity but as attitudes change, more and more women will take on leadership.
Of course, they must be the right women, and I cannot believe that Ms. Palin is one of them. I state this not because she is the mother of young children (since fathers can and should be equal partners in childrearing), but because I find her views extreme. How could one woman tell another she could not terminate a pregnancy that was brough about by rape or other abuse? For most women, this would be tatamount to forcing them to suffer the rape over and over again for nine months. As a former teacher (now a small business owner who employs teenagers) I can also say that one can encourage abstinence, but it cannot be taught. Teenagers must already have those values that encourage abstinence and it helps if these are supported by the community around them. However, if they do not have them, teachers cannot hope to compete with the images in the media that encourage anything but abstinence and delayed gratification. One can encourage abstinence and teach about birth control since birth control is something most people will want to use even after marriage. (Obviously, abstinence only education did not work for her own daughter, and I am quite sure it was a behavior encouraged at home.)
I cannot help but be sickened by pictures of Ms. Palin proudly showing her young daughter the bloody moose she has just shot or sitting near a bearskin rug in her office. These poor animals do not count at all, I suppose. She even advocates ariel hunting, which is horribly cruel. I know many will say one cannot equate animals with humans, but this seems to reflect a rather heartless nature.
As to women being spiritual leaders, I absolutely believe they should be allowed to do so. I believe this strongly enough that I will not attend synagogues that do not allow women full participation. That is my choice and they have a right to their own choices. I cannot understand why other women accept it but, of course, I am not them.
WELL SAID RENAE EXCEPT I THOUGHT HE WAS YESHUA(LISTEN TO MARY IN THE RECENT MOVIE) HA MESHIACH
SCOTT A MESSIANIC HEBREW; 1ST BORN SON OF SIDNEY, A VERY POOR PATERNAL ROLE MODEL OF JUDAISM G_d FORGIVE MY EARTHLY FATHER, AND PRAY YOUR GRACE UPON OUR GREAT UNITED STATES CREATED IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, ITS ELECTED LEADERS TO COME AND YOUR SERVANT AND HIS ADULT SON DANE.
let me see if i have this right.there seems to be a lot of talk about sarah palin ,and her ablity to run this nation, just because she is a woman..right.. they dont think she can be the pres, mmmm ok now i got it, but something has gone wrong then because i thought it was john mccain who was running for the office of our nations leader mmmm,this must mean that everyone assumes that john is going to die in office and she will be the pres.i see... then this is good reason to vote for obama,because a lot of people think that joe biden would make a good pres,mmm,see what happens when u assume..or speculate to the abstract.. gd bless b'h'
Oh, Debra, please, it has nothing to do with Palin being a woman that makes me unhappy with McCain choosing her.
It's her utter and blatant lack of qualification to be VP and potentially POTUS that makes me want to run screaming.
Further, some of her values are diametrically opposed to my own.
It's a cop-out, plain and simple, to reduce this to sexism.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.