![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Which came first, the culture or the God?
I was bored with the reading for class today, so I thought I'd skip ahead to the Sophia stuff. And within that, I found an all-too-common assumption about the early Jewish culture. The assumption is that Jews were patriarchal, therefore, their God reflected those patriarchal values. It is as though the culture came first, and then God developed from that. But if all the cultures around them were distinctly different, especially if they were matricentric as is argued in my GRs class, it makes no sense that the Jewish people would randomly develop into a patriarchal society for absolutely no reason, and then create a God from that.
What makes more sense, to me, is that the Jewish culture was and is "patriarchal" (though without the evil connotations that word has accrued in some circumstances - there is nothing wrong with competent male leadership and you can see yesterday's entry if you want more) because they were a closer reflection of how God wants his people to live. In other words, the patriarchal values of the Jews reflected their God.
Now, you have to be careful when speaking of this sort of thing, because patriarchy has taken on such negative connotations. However, as I've read more, I'm beginning to understand that, in fact, masculine leadership tends to be more beneficial for everyone, including women. This is not to say that all leaders must be male. However, good leaders will all employ tactics which are traditionally considered "masculine" (and yes, much of this comes from having read Why Men Hate Going to Church yesterday - it's on my mind), and those benefit both men and women. People need to be challenged, especially men, and sometimes they need to be thrown to the wolves because they're ready, even if they don't think they are. Traditionally, the masculine leaders are the ones who are willing to do this, whereas the feminine leaders are more likely to comfort and coddle. While that has its place, this constant emphasis on not hurting anyone's feelings and protecting everyone to the extent that no one can grow is hurting everyone.
Just something to think about.
-Jaya-
mehWhat makes more sense, to me, is that the Jewish culture was and is "patriarchal" (though without the evil connotations that word has accrued in some circumstances - there is nothing wrong with competent male leadership and you can see yesterday's entry if you want more) because they were a closer reflection of how God wants his people to live. In other words, the patriarchal values of the Jews reflected their God.
Now, you have to be careful when speaking of this sort of thing, because patriarchy has taken on such negative connotations. However, as I've read more, I'm beginning to understand that, in fact, masculine leadership tends to be more beneficial for everyone, including women. This is not to say that all leaders must be male. However, good leaders will all employ tactics which are traditionally considered "masculine" (and yes, much of this comes from having read Why Men Hate Going to Church yesterday - it's on my mind), and those benefit both men and women. People need to be challenged, especially men, and sometimes they need to be thrown to the wolves because they're ready, even if they don't think they are. Traditionally, the masculine leaders are the ones who are willing to do this, whereas the feminine leaders are more likely to comfort and coddle. While that has its place, this constant emphasis on not hurting anyone's feelings and protecting everyone to the extent that no one can grow is hurting everyone.
Just something to think about.
-Jaya-
Comments