Wednesday was International Women’s Day. Looking around the world it is easy to see why such an observance can resonate with concerns of freedom and human rights.
I have made the comment before that it is curious to note how when religious systems, cultures, and theocracies become more rigid or fundamentalist, one of the first areas of control is over women’s bodies and freedom. These men who like to be in charge demonstrate an astounding lack of originality.
Historically this has been true in the context of many religions, including Christianity.
In the evangelical church, many women can point to multiple occasions on which they were scolded, corrected, or given direction about how what they were wearing was inappropriate. When I was pastoring an evangelical church, on repeated occasions, a church leader came to me and asked if I would speak to one of the female youth leaders who, in their estimation, regularly wore clothing that was “too tight.”
I refused to do this.
I think back also to a dress code document that I once read for a local church camp. The camp in question ran with a separate leadership team each week of the summer. The director for this particular week had, apparently, determined that the way in which campers and staff had been dressing was unacceptable. He wanted to be clear about what would be allowed, hence the document. I wish that I still had it, because I remember when I first read it thinking that it was creepily detailed and exhaustive, and, unsurprisingly, almost entirely directed at the young women. There were notes on sleeveless tops, tube tops, length of shorts, and a whole section on swimming attire. When I read the document, I started to feel that it was saying more about the person who wrote it than it was about its intended audience.
My friend David Goa, who teaches in the Orthodox Christian tradition, has reminded me and others that this kind of moral fervour is most often a form of public confession. Pope Francis famously noted a number of years ago that rigidity is always hiding something.
So, what of the regimes in places like Iran and Afghanistan or the self-appointed moral gatekeepers in the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist denomination?
One of the most striking literary depictions of Jesus comes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s, The Brothers Karamazov. It is contained in a chapter called “The Grand Inquisitor”. You have likely heard of this book and chapter and I am one of the many who has often referred to it. A very basic summary - Jesus returns during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. People begin to follow him. The religious authorities become suspicious of him and imprison him. The chapter is made up of a one-sided conversation, in which the Grand Inquisitor explains to Jesus how the Church had been able to establish control over the masses of people. This control was, according to the Inquisitor, benevolent and beneficial, it was to the advantage of the people. Freedom was a threat to this system, and to the people. They could not be trusted with such freedom. Jesus, on the other hand, rejected ownership of the things that made the control possible, namely miracle, mystery, and authority. The Church held tight to these things and used them to control the masses. Jesus’ very presence threatened to upset the system - he would have to be killed once again.
It’s quite a chapter.
There are always reasons given for the supposed necessity of control on the part of religious and non-religious moral crusaders. It is not difficult to find, in any culture, practices, norms, and presentations that can be damaging to concepts of self, of others, and of sexuality. You may have heard of a recent social media phenomenon on TikTok. It is called “Bold Glamour”. It is a visual filter that makes people beautiful according to popular standards. A young woman (or anyone) can use their phone to take their normal or “non-attractive” face and see what they would look like if they were as beautiful as say, a social-media influencer. You don’t have to think hard to see how damaging such a filter could be.
Into the void of danger created by such things, moral and religious zealots are willing to step. In fact, some of them seem almost gleeful to tell others what is acceptable and what is not.
I read an article last week on unexplained poisonings in Iranian high schools. Girls in these schools are becoming sick apparently from some form of chemical exposure. The theocratic regime in Iran has been blamed for these attacks partly because there have been incidents of the regime targeting teenage girls for protesting against morality police or for standing up for their own freedom.
Here are the words of one 15 year old girl who had been hospitalized in one of the unexplained incidents;
“We had a feeling they would come for us. I never felt safe here. I wish one day women here would be free from threat and they can make the country more attractive with just their hair. I would rather die than bring children into this regime.”
One of the reasons I have been thinking about these things is that a Biblical text I recently spoke from at church described Jesus interacting with a woman in a way that would have been judged as unacceptable. It is in the Gospel of Mark and the scene has Jesus on his way to help the daughter of a synagogue leader. While Jesus and others are making their way to where this little girl is, a woman pushes through the crowd towards Jesus. This woman has suffered from a condition of bleeding for 12 years. Her desperation mirrors that of many women today with various health needs that are ignored or used to cast judgment upon the woman herself. She reaches out to touch Jesus’ cloak. Jesus discerns that he has been touched. The most likely response of a religious leader at this point would be to castigate the woman for such an act. At best they might simply ignore her.
What Jesus does instead is turn to her, amidst the attention of the crowd, and speak to her words of healing and peace. He says, “Take heart, daughter. Your faith has healed you.” Technically, it is Jesus who has healed her, but it seems that what Jesus is doing in saying what he did is elevating the faith of this woman. She is someone not to be derided, judged, and controlled, but rather someone to be emulated. He lifts her up, restores her to life and holds up her faith as exemplary.
I find myself emotionally moved by people like the 15-year-old girl who imagines a day when the hair of women in Iran might just make the country more beautiful.
“Take heart, daughter. May you be blessed to know that the people seeking to control you are weak. They are afraid of people like you. They should be. They have inquisitor like strength. You are showing actual strength.”
We can tell a lot about a society, culture, or religion by the way women are treated. Thanks for speaking truth.
Thanks again Todd. Appreciate your work.