Claims about religious women

By contrast, liberal women — defined in my research as those in traditions like Episcopalianism and (most) Lutheranism that officially affirmed female leadership — fought for denominational policies that gave them standing in the pulpit. And yet there are few progressive female celebrities. Ordained progressive women secure a measure of institutional sway, but they lack the cultural capital of their conservative counterparts. My research shows that conservative women gain considerable influence without institutional power, and liberal women gain institutional power without considerable influence.

That is from Kate Bowler, interesting throughout.  Via Greg R.


As T.C has put it in different occasions, you can get political concessions without any real meaning.
Last decade of feminism has been a process of telling women they are smart and empowered, with no real substance, at the expense of scolding and telling off those advocating for traditional roles.

The richest women in the world are inherited wealth or through marriage. I guess it's a feminist victory that these marriages become rarer and female talent is not allocated into such arrangements.

Who did Oprah inherit or marry to become a billionaire?

If a woman starts a company, but happens to be married, her husband must be included as cofounder even if his contribution is zero, because of either legal or informal patriarchy.

This is changing as more women create businesses which can be pumped and dumped by Wall Street, aka, IPO at market cap of multiples of capital assets, and then have Wall Street inflate those derived assets to ten times actual capital invested.

Women also tend to enter markets where substantial existing capital exist which means they will be deflating existing firms share price/market cap. Eg, fashion, style, personal care, which are also labor intensive.

Of course, men are not judged by the same standard.

Let's remove all the billionaires who did inherited wealth, or were hired hands of big corporations, two criteria Forbes used to eliminate the women billionaires of the Walton and Koch clans. All the men in those clans inherited wealth and merely increased it, at best, so they are not self made.

Was Bill Gates really self made?

Warren Buffett didn't come from poverty, and he had friends with money who trusted him. With good reason, but a black kid, male or female, who earned money from odd jobs and invested it well in stocks would not likely find people to trust him with a thousand dollars when Buffett was entrusted with $50k.

IIRC the richest woman in the world currently (without googling) is the Amazon divorcee. My guess is if you then took the next 99 richest woman Oprah is most likely the black swan to the point of statistical irrelevance outside maybe some that slept their way as well via de facto sex work. It's also worth noting she is where she is based on her gender though that isn't to say she wouldn't have been successful regardless as she obviously has talent and intelligence but being a "articulate black woman" had a lot to do with it and separated her from her 80's competitors of Donahu, Rivera, and (later) Montel Williams (apologies on any misspellings, doing that off memory).

Also give her credit for keeping the production rights, which largely contributed to her wealth.

How many women were marrying men tens of billions of dollars richer than Bill Gates?

All of the women in the Episcopal church are lesbian activists who choose to be their to make Episcopal churches into bastions of LGBTQ activism. They destroyed the church. Why would anyone "affirm" them of give them power??? They came to destroy the church and they did.

I personally know 2 episcopal priest women, both highly educated married women with children.

So are you denying the take over of the church by lesbians or denying that they destroyed the church?

I am denying that you have ever dared talk to a woman.

As an outsider, I can only view churches in pragmatic terms: are they or are they not helping people - and by extension society - to live good lives and not make a hash of them?

I don't attribute to people generally and perhaps especially not to women the ability to see clearly the possibilities inherent in the actions they undertake with the greatest fervor, so I won't say anyone wanted to destroy anything. But a Protestant church that a casually religious friend joined some years ago fits your description to a tee, down to the church logo incorporating the gay-pride rainbow. (They are *technically* at odds with their national group, but of course, that's most piquant, part of the attraction, rebels! - indeed it would probably be bad for membership if that ever changed, and it's the beleaguered orthodoxy that's now heterodox anyway.) As such, it could only be in the bizarre position of countenancing - nay, I have no doubt: celebrating - the devastating breakup of her decades' long marriage-with-children when - in the supportive bosom of his new posse of fun gay church friends, and a helpful counselor - her husband announced to her he must have been gay after all.

The higher moral authority they may be, but there is a limit to what the average woman can be offered by such churches, and that they are often headed by a den mother is a matter of total indifference.

There's "right" and there's relevant.

Influence over what? Institutional power over what?

Ordination has given women more influence over a church-o-cracy which is ignored by the rest of society. It is ignored because it is run by mediocre people who have nothing consequential to say about anything that might matter to anyone, and generally have the attitudes and prejudices of randomly selected NGO administrators. Capable parish clergy are about the last people likely to have influence in diocesan architecture, much less in denominational architecture. That's if they're not run out for being 'divisive'.

The first female priests were ordained in the Episcopal Church in 1974, eleven of them, in Philadelphia. They are often referred to as the Philadelphia Eleven, as though criminals. In a way they were: they were ordained against the wishes of the Church. Alison Cheek, one of the eleven, died a month ago at age 92. She was the first female priest to celebrate the Eucharist at an Episcopal service. “God here now as father and judge sees you trying to make stones into bread,” the Rev. George W. Rutler, one of those opposed, was quoted as saying. “You can only offer up the smell and sound and sight of perversion.” Mother Cheek, an Australian by birth, was married to an economist, Bruce Cheek, who was educated at Harvard. He was her tutor in economics when she was in college. He later worked at the World Bank.

And as we all know it's been nothing but an upward trajectory for Episcopalians since then.

That's unfair, many Episcopalian churches have very active Knitting Clubs.

What women enter, men leave. And the dignitas leaves with them.

While this is not factually true I do believe it is perceived as truth by a large chunk of feminists. Which works well for them, since their "struggle" is about status and therefore it is eternal.

Male spaces are prestigious because that's where the men are. Men are going to raise the bar wherever they inhabit, because they're competitive and form strict hierarchies. QED, women campaign to become Episcopal clergy, and now nobody but women and their homosexual friends wants to become an Episcopal priest.

"Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant"

But I guess it was a long time ago.

Ridiculous. The bishops are the successors to the Apostles, who were men. The priests are the deputies of the bishops and in their role as celebrants, iconic of Christ, who is a man. You're not even wrong.

Oh, I see. I think I missed the "male spaces are prestigious because that's where the men are. Men are going to raise the bar wherever they inhabit, because they're competitive and form strict hierarchies" Bible verses. They must be there somewhere though... Maybe it was the Parable of the Prodigal Bro.

Are you a Protestant literalist or something? Lots more to the Church besides the Biblical canon.

Hahahahaha. Lots more to the Church than God's Word. What can I say?

Stop reading your Bible on your own. Get your priest to explain it to you until you've incorporated the Church's teachings.

Maybe I should ask a Catholic priest to hide the Bible from me, as the Catholic Church used to do. I wonder why some many "men of God" (even some "Reformed" ones) hate so much God's Word.

It is written: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Thus spoke the Lord.

Looking back, it's incredible how poorly structured Biblical sentences can be.

No, they can't. It is written: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

You are confusing the religion with the trappings as ANG nails it with his retort to you. It's the same way the majority of observant Jews are atheists. Synagogue has nothing to do with God and why the Talmud > Torah.

Thank you, but I prefer to believe in the real God, the Lord.

and now nobody but women and their homosexual friends wants to become an Episcopal priest.

Not nobody, but I have it on reliable authority that 40% of a recent entering class at a leading Episcopal seminary were self-declared homosexuals. The ratio of such to the rest of the student body exceeds the ratio found in the population as a whole by 23-fold.

In my part of the country, you'd be hard put to find an Episcopal clergyman ordained after about 1960 who would strike you as someone with whom you could have a serious conversation bar a few for whom the ministry was a second or third career. I knew one old priest who went from the Navy to the business world to the ministry late in life and another who had left the ministry around 1970 to work in business and returned to it late in life. The bishops are, if anything, worse.

Take heart, I ran into my Episcopal reverend at a bar with his wife one Friday evening!

Places I'm familiar with, there's an ample supply of men in various 'ministries'. Irregular eucharistic ministers, lectors, cantors, permanent deacons, Knights of Columbus, parish councillors, &c. And very little dignitas. You're assaulted every week with 'hymns' that sound like leftovers from the score of something shown on the Hallmark Channel.

You'll have to convert to Orthodoxy.

They still hold weekly pogroms, I mean, church services? Do they still worship icons?

I attend Byzantine-rite services when possible. The Ukrainians and Melkites have been less influenced by the kultursmog than the Maronites, AFAICT.

I go to 7:30AM Sunday Mass where I don't have to hear bubble gum church music.

A Catholic blogger of my acquaintance had a take on the ruin of a parish in greater Washington which had been turned over to the Society of Jesus to run. He came to the conclusion that the utility of a married clergy is that in a protestant congregation, the parish sea-hags have to get past the pastor's wife if they want to do any real damage.

Meanwhile, Brazil's President, Captain Bolsonaro, draft a female preacher, Mrs. Damares Alves, for his cabinet.

Yeah. Mr. Bolsonaro is a clear header, honest leader. It is a shame, we, Americans, have nothing like Mr. Bolsonaro in our country.

I think we should take a keaf from Brazil's playbook. Brazil's Bolsonaro is a godly leader.

Thiago is seriously insane

This observation is equally true of male pastors. Conservative churches have influence because they stand apart from modern society, offer a different voice, and purport to speak from authority. Progressive churches are much more just an echo of what one hears from the media and academia, and by their very own doctrine, it's harder for them to claim to speak with any unique wisdom.

They don't have influence generally, but they can under certain circumstance influence their members and establish benign relations with elements of the surrounding society.

As far as I can see from my perch, evangelical bodies in our time are troubled and commonly run by people with a sales mentality or by people who actually want to ruin their institutional missions. See some of the writing of SM Hutchens on the trajectory of contemporary evangelicalism.

It's ironic that the females who claim to need ordination and the pulpit for women's voices to be heard wind up being very unheard while the two most heard and influential female Christians of the last 50 years, Elisabeth Eliot and Mother Teresa, both avoided female ordination and were outspoken against it.

For some reason reading these misogynist comments brings to mind this sentence from Earthly Powers by Anthony Burgess: “It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me.”

The term 'misogynist' does not mean what you fancy it means.

True enough, not every misogynist has a catamite.

Is everybody that disagrees with your moral certainties and shallow self-righteousness a "misogynist?"

you seem new, the left has stopped engaging in logic dialogues for many years now. Like a parrot, has only learned a handful of words, all insults, except their pronouns.

Thanks. I knew that. I go easy on rayward because I feel sorry for him. Charity was one of the cardinal virtues before most churches surrendered to the earthly culture.

I guess supporting Trump makes sense, then. I would struggle to find a more suitable specimen of "earthly culture".

Maybe you can help me.

Does the left hate Trump because he's making Obama, the Clintons, the Bushes, life-long politicians, the deep state, the Fed, et al look like the idiots they are? Or, is it because he puts Americans first?

Neither Bush was a lifelong politician. Bush the Elder's political involvements prior to 1964 were strictly avocational. George W. was a campaign worker for a period (1972-73; 1988) and ran for office once (1978), but otherwise worked in business prior to 1994. Jeb had a period running a state government department (1986-89), but otherwise worked in banking and real estate from 1974 to 1998. Prescott Bush had a series of tedious and thankless local offices over a period of 19 years. He did not land a f/t political office until he was 58 years old.

You aren't the 'real' Art Deco. He types 200 or 300 words to say something.

The odd thing about this article is that there aren't really any Lutheran or Episcopalian "celebrities" at all, male OR female. It's very strange to gender this.

None since James Hashcookies Pike (d. 1969).

My impression is that these groups turned themselves from religious denominations into 2nd (or maybe 3rd) tier NGOs. Not much to celebrity in that space.

Or, like, houses for worship of God rather than the glorification of money.

Not much celebrity or institutional power there, either, which appears to be Bowler's primary concern, at least judging by the complete lack of reference to the divine will in her article.

There are hardly even any Catholic celebrities -- none that I can think of at the moment. Evanglicals are somewhat outliers in that they go in for television so strongly, and that is what is needed to become a celebrity. Now, does this really build a religious institution? it certainly can raise money, but I'm not so sure about the stability and sincerity of this kind of religion.

Indeed, I was going to make the same comment. The essay says this:
"And yet there are few progressive female celebrities. "

But I see few progressive male (religious) celebrities. I think it's the nature of progressive churches at least in recent years, and not related to gender.

OTOH her observations about gender roles in evangelical churches are indeed as Tyler says interesting throughout.

It's interesting how easily the progressive types took over the mainline Protestant churches. A similar dynamic seems to be playing out now within the Catholic Church.

It seems there are still a few energetic and devout Christian churches, but they are often weird, seemingly heretical groups such as Charismatics and Pentecostals.

I'm an atheist but I feel a bit concerned about the rapid decline of conventional faith, especially since it seems to be accompanied by a corresponding rise of interest in the occult/aliens/other superstitions.

Come on. Are you serious? We have been hearing about abductions, séances, astrology and all that for decades. None of these superstions, by the way, have as much impact as the Evangelical-fueled satanic scare from the 80's had.

Actually, if you ask around, you will find that an alarmingly high level of people believe in the supernatural (god, ghosts, people in heaven, etc.). Academics are not that way with modest exception, but the general population is very, very different than the academy.

So what? That is not the point at all!!!! The point is, people already believe crazy things.

Almost as though there was just mistaking of the the signs of power and things of power signified.

God is really going to be pissed


She reads these comments.

This is not twitter, and you cannot succeed at all by such simple-minded "takedowns".

Grow up.

Since it seems that sociologists don't know anything appreciable about religions (even ancient religions with long histories and appreciably arcane theologies), sociologists (like so many employed in our corrupt and corrupting Media Establishment) might do well or might accidentally say something of note were they to assess instead Holy Science and its chief avatar Applied Technology, and their dedicated priests with their own arcane hieroglyphics.

Heterodox Lutheran and Episcopalian women indulging in ecclesiastical "power" politics, hunh? Hardly surprising. Since I could not stomach reading the cited article, I can only assume that these pious women reflect and meditate little to not at all upon the sacred careers of the Virgin Mary or of any sainted women, monastic or no.

These American Protestant women may be far more detached from Christian ecclesiology, sacramental and liturgical theology, Trinitarian theology, Christology, Pneumatology, and Mariology than they realize: their feminist ambitions themselves might be better suited to pious careers in Holy Science (or as pious devotees in the cult of Applied Technology).

The Christian virtue of self-emptying and self-effacement (kenosis), the Church has discovered across two millennia, means next to nothing when not put into practice.

Evangelicals' troubles come exactly from the same source as for the pious Lutheran and Episcopalian women cited: Evangelicals, too, are heterodox, non-Catholic Christians (the only Churches that can even pretend credibly to being The Church founded by Christ Himself are the Catholic Churches, Orthodox {Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian] and Roman).

Evangelicals should therefore be expected to have little appreciation for the (Catholic) Christian virtue of kenosis, since with the defective ecclesiology and Christology most of them try to work with, they don't even witness liturgical displays of self-effacement in their worship, in spite of the fact that their English-language Bibles remain based upon received Greek texts.

"Evangelicals should therefore be expected to have little appreciation for the (Catholic) Christian virtue of kenosis."

I see. That is why the Roman Church tried to hide the Bible from the people. Self-effacement. That is why Catholics tried to kill those who preached the Word of the True God, God. Self-effacement. That is why the Catholic Church filled its coffers with the sale of indulgencies. Self-effacement. That is why Catholics worship "saints" (the Bible says "The Lord our God is one Lord"). Self-effacement. That is why the Roman Church teaches that the Pope is infallible (only the Lord is infallible). Self-effacement.

The Roman Church is actually just the old Roman pagan religion with the pope in the role of Pontifex Maximus (Caesar was Pontifex Maximus).

Even though Protestants of the most ancient sectaries have been around formally for only five centuries, they and their Protestant and their heterodox offspring of Christian enthusiasts surely have acquired themselves by now a few missed opportunities at observing a reasonably attentive kenotic lifestyle (which, alas, may not have the widespread social significance an earnest sociologist might want to discover in the essentially individual practice, active or inactive as it might be within the social structures of the Church itself) .

Kenoticism does have a developed theology of its own as an aspect of Orthodox and Catholic meditations on Christology from way back. Across my short years, though, I've never once heard any Protestant even mention in passing "kenoticism" as a rather basic Christian virtue full of Christological significance.

I'm reasonably certain that the earnest pursuit of kenoticism is and can only be practiced steadfastly in today's world in remote and somewhat severe places.

Thank you, but I prefer the real God, not idol-worshipping. The Lord has said about the idol-worshiping "church", "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

You did not warn that it was an NYT link.

Comments for this post are closed