Women and the Structures of the Church – The Position of Maori Women

Tu Tangata, Issue 32, 1 October 1986, Page 64

Women and the Structures of the Church - The Position of Maori Women

na Jenny Kaa

I want to begin with some historical references to the position of women in the Church, because naturally enough, it is this inheritance that has dictated the framework within which Maori women have received, celebrated, endured and are now in many instances beginning to challenge, male interpretation of the Good News.

The creation story, shared by Christians, Moslems and Jews, is a cornerstore of the historical bias against women. According to this Hebrew folktale, Eve tempted Adam with the forbidden fruit and thus triggered humankinds expulsion from Paradise. The identification of woman with evil, temptation and sin thus became a primary ingredient in Christian tradition. While man was linked with spiritual, the reasonable and the godly, woman was associated with flesh, matter and the world. Good and evil were given their clear sexual counterparts. According to this view women actually caused evil to come into the world. As a result they must atone for their collective guilt and redeem themselves. How is this to happen? Patriarchal religion says women are redeemed by willingly accepting their gender roles. They should bear children, keep their sexuality under control and be prepared to subordinate themselves to the wishes of men. When we look at the relationship between Jesus and women, male church leaders will remind us that [male] Priests are following the example of Jesus, as justification for a virtually all male Priesthood. The sayings of men like Paul, concerning women being silent are usually added for good measure and the history of the Churches are added as further corroboration of the thesis that the Priesthood should be confined to males. While the facts of the case seem to be true, there are many loopholes in this

line of argument. First of all it is not clear that Jesus actually established the Priesthood. The Priesthood as it is currently known, probably began later in the life of the Church. (This statement is open to challenge having been made on the basis of somewhat limited research). If it is argued that Jesus gave the power over the Eucharist to his apostles and that they are the predecessors of the Bishops, then should not the Bishops be the ones who should always preside over the Eucharist.? Why can Bishops confer this power to other males who are Priests and not to any woman? Is the male traitor better than the faithful women who stood by Jesus at the foot of the Cross? Is it not to them, that Jesus first revealed himself after his resurrection? One could further argue that since the Apostles were Jews, all Bishops should be Jews and circumcised. Couldn’t we also argue that the chief of the Bishops should be married as Peter was... Just where do we draw the line in following the example of Jesus? Could it not be possible that the line was drawn on a sex basis due to the tradition of male domination rather than due to any divine inspiration. The Vatican has already declared that men should be Priests in order to be like Jesus this presupposes that Jesus was an ordained Priest of the Christian Church, but of course, Jesus was not an ordained Minister he was a rabbi a lay teacher among the Jews. Nor it seems, did Jesus actually begin the Christian ordained Priesthood. In so far

as he is called the unique High Priest of the New Testament, there are to be no Priests like Him He teaches that we can go direct to the Father without any intercessors therefore, it does not seem to be a valid conclusion from the maleness of Jesus or Nazareth, to argue that women cannot be Priests. If this were a valid argument, once again, can we not ask whether all Priests should not be Jews, circumcised, poor, vagrant... like Jesus...and that only males should ever be at the Table, as at the Last Supper?

Not only is this case rather poor, it is adding insult to injury to women. It is bad enough women are thus treated in the Church but when the sex characteristics of Jesus are adduced in favour of a male Priesthood, one can see to what extent male domination will go to suit it’s own purposes.

How far are these actions or a continuation of these actions justifiable? Contemporary emancipation of women has fortunately brought many searching questions to the fore. It is noteworthy that the movement for the emancipation of women has emerged and developed without much direct support from the Churches. They have tended to be the last refuge of male dominance. They have given male chauvinism not only a practical expression, but also a theological and even quasi-divine legitimation.

The Anglican Church has to a certain extent attempted to accommodate the feminine appeal for change. The irony of course, is not now being so easily lost on women...women, who have traditionally been the most faithful supporters of the Church. Without women many Churches would not even have a congregation. Children are brought to Church by their mothers... young women often persuade

their husbands to return to worship... women contribute generously to the mainstay of the clergy and to church activities.

For some, the foregoing statements may seem a little outdated because of the significant increase in the numbers of Priests who are women today, but in Maori terms the situation is quite different. We have yet to bridge the ideological gap between ancient Maori theology, missionary teachings and a modern and probably a significantly urban Maori religious persective.

There are currently only two Maori women who are Anglican Priests in the Auckland Diocese. Not surprisingly, much controversy surrounds their participation, particularly in relation to the Eucharist, in certain parts of this Diocese.

For those of us who are younger and predominantly urban raised Maori women, there are a number of conflicting issues with which we are constantly confronted. Not the least of

these is of course feminism versus maoritanga. Some aspects of Western feminism are absolutely incompatible with ones maoriness for instance, the understanding or definition of whanau, conveys a sense of inclusiveness which is unconditional by comparison, radical feminism would present options of selective exclusion, even within families.

Evolution of training for Ministry Most Maori Priests down through this century and the latter part of last century, were educated and/or trained according to the traditional Anglican, Methodist, Catholic or whatever dogma or instruction being imparted by the early missionaries, and later their successors. Thus in many ways a contradictory view of the role and importance of Maori women was developed as our Maori Priests struggled to acquire a grasp of the missionary messages which were in the first instance

from Old Testament teachings only. I do not believe that in pre-conduct (pakeha) times, Maori women were treated with little respect, as were Jewish women (Biblical). Maori women did not live withdrawn from public life and neither did Maori men need to avoid conversing with them publicly, as was the case for early Jewish women... and so the Christianisation system of social relationships failed to validate the cultural context within which the Good News eventually appeared and further served to reinforce quite erroneously, the servile and passive position of women in the Church.

Maori response My understanding of the Pihopatanga o Aotearoa is that it was established in response to an identified need, for Maori people to have a structure that was more in tune with Maori needs and aspirations, a structure that was not so fraught with a rigid hierarchy and bogged down in ritual (peculiarly English) a structure which would permit a ‘peculiarly’ Maori growth and development to take place in partnership with the orthodox Anglican Church.

I suppose the closest parallel (in my assessment) would be to look at the Department of Maori Affairs and its relationship to other Government Departments, again ostensibly in partnership. The assumption being that here is a ‘peculiarly’ Maori Department, specifically established to care for the needs of Maori people and that’s a fine assumption until one looks more closely at the parameters which limit selfdetermination.

Just as the Department of Maori Affairs cannot really distinguish itself from any other bureaucracy, neither it seems has the Pihopatanga really escaped the ‘English’ model. It is simply in both cases, more of the same but with a brown face. There needs to be a radical reassessment of the place of all women in the Church, otherwise the position of Maori women will continue to be determined according to a predominantly male Anglo-Saxon interpretation of the Scriptures.

If women are not accepted as equal persons in the long term, the Churches will suffer perhaps much more than women. It is not likely that women, and predictably Maori women because of the predominantly youthful nature of its population, will tolerate chauvinism for too much longer. This is not merely a question of opportunism for the Churches, it is a matter of justice to all people.

The Church comes to bring Christ it does not come to bring the culture of another race. Evangelisation aims at penetrating and elevating culture by the power of the Gospel. Na to rourou, na taku rourou Ka ora tatou.