A few weeks ago, I was sitting in SUU's food court talking with a few of my favorite people. Of course, the reason they are some of my favorites is because they are geeks who think about language as much as I do. I don't remember the exact flow and meanderings of the conversation, but I said/thought, "Oh. Wow. The Church is actually worried about semantics."
A comforting thought to me personally, indeed.
My mom has been attending church with me recently and as we were sitting through a mundane high councilor speak about flying or something, my mom leaned over and asked, "What do you think of this?"
She held in her had a ward directory and was pointing to the title of the column, which read "Head of House and Spouse."
My immediate response was, "Yeah. That's not the doctrine of the Church." My second reaction was indignation for three reasons.
One. As I recalled at the time, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" definitely sets forth criteria for equality in marriage - in my mind, this includes labels.
Two. There are many single parent families in the Church where a mother or father may be a head of the house with no spouse.
Three. My brother is listed by himself on that sheet. Who, oh who, would a ward member contact in our house if my brother is neither head of house or spouse? I can already feel the anxious confusion of literal-minded ward member needing to contact someone in our home.
(Here I shall digress for a moment, but hopefully, I will come full circle.) My habit, as much as I hate to admit it, is to let things I get worked up about go without much of a mention. If I'm really upset or annoyed, I try to calm down... and usually by the time I do, I decide not to say anything so that I can spare feelings.
But with my mom by my side and my semester of feminist studies, I decided to say something. (Alas, I did have to say something to an old white guy, but a very kind one at that :D.) I used my sweetest voice possible and mustered as much Christlike love as I possibly could and spoke to a member of the bishopric.
Though I know he didn't really see the problem, he took time to listen. Though the wording of ward lists may not change today, some day it will change as either people grow or members of a certain generation move on to the next adventure (morbid? Yes. But it's true.) I don't know if anything will change, but I felt, for the first time in a while, like an effective member of the Church. Nothing has been accomplished in this particular denomination without asking questions or trying to move forward in understanding - and for that, I am grateful.
Now. My last little semantic thought for the day/ridiculously early morning hour. I re-read "The Family" a few minutes ago and I AM struck by the extraordinarily thoughtful nature of the wording. I don't understand all of the contents and I am learning about others, but much thought was put into this document.
Unlike scripture, women are actively referred to in this text. Every time man is mentioned, so is woman - and this makes my heart happy. The authors specifically state, "...fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
There it is - equal. I know that not everything can be divided into clear cut groups, but men and women are meant to be equals in life because God's Plan identifies requirements for eternal life as such.
Now. As much as I'd love to say I have no questions about the document, one thing remains and this is where I will leave you, dear reader. When setting forth the criteria for the roles men and women play, the authors state, "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."
I understand that there are different responsibilities to be had in life and that personalities and genetic hard wiring play a vital role in that (and I am in no way advocating that mothers be "required" to stay home while fathers bring home the bacon - the authors later recommend prayerful consideration of such matters and decisions.)
My question resides in the use of one word - preside. If we are supposed to be equals, what does "preside" mean?
Does it mean that a father needs to understand that the best way for a mother to nurture her children is not to be home all day? Does it mean that mothers are not equal in the presidency of the home? Or, is there something I'm missing?
5 comments:
I like your points- especially about the equality thing. I agree with your definition of "preside". That is the same thing a bishop does for a ward- try to determine what is best for everyone involved.
Oh, how I love your thought process and how you take us along for the ride! As far as the idea of presiding not really meshing with the idea of equality,it's kind of tricky, I think. To me it is a matter of accountability. Such as if you were to preside over a meeting and it went horribly, you would have accountability for that. In the church, and in a marriage in the church, it seems like presiding means that the husband is accountable to the Lord for what his responsibililties are and the same is for the wife. That's not saying that each partner doesn't have an integral part in the other, but that they are ulimately responsible for it. I'm not sure that that makes sense, but it's what came to my mind as I thought about presiding.
Wow. I've never really looked into the Proclamation this deeply, although I did always feel that it mitigated most of the anti-feminist complaints people had against the Church. As for the Presiding business, well, I always reckoned that the term was vague because every marriage is different, but that presiding tied into the fact that the man holds the priesthood.
I'm glad your bishop was cool about it.
I don't know really what to say, Sarah. For years I kneaded out my own questions with the gentle fist of "gifts differing" and "divided responsibilities" but repeatedly I saw women denied access to true leadership in church (this is a challenge for many Protestant Faiths). Oh, we were fine to handle Primary (Nursery and Sunday School outside the LDS ward), or Young Women (Youth Groups), or anything that had to do with hospitality or planning meals or the kitchen, but not in the nitty gritty of the planning or decision making. Which I find odd because in a marriage, that's what is supposed to happen, right? "Submit yourselves one to another" and "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek." And surely if we in the church, we supposed to be in Christ!
I think to understand what "preside" means you should look at the date the Proclamation was written and then find the Webster's for that time and look it up. My guess is that it isn't that different from today: "to be in charge of, have authority over." That sounds pretty clear to me.
We are students of words, ultimately, only the arrangement and collection of them varies. And, yes, English is evolutionary, and in many ways, so is the LDS church. It's one of the things I can appreciate about the faith. Even if it does mean "charge of" and "authority over," you have to decide what it means for you. Where it fits, how it fits, what you can do with it. I don't think that means you'll leave your faith. Isn't faith about it being a part of your life, not your life being a part of faith?
I'm not a feminist and probably never will be. I am an egalitarian. I reject that any one sex or gender is more equipped than another whether by genetics (gentle or raging) or influence or endowment. We are all equally capable of good or villainy, nurture or neglect, leadership or following. My having a vagina makes me different from males, not dominate over or subservient to, males. My X chromosome makes me no more superior than it makes me inferior. When the church truly becomes egalitarian, then she and I can come out together. Her home boys aren't too comfy with a confident, capable female asking questions and rejecting pat, two thousand year-old answers (or one hundred fifty for some ;) ).
Regarding marriage, and removing the sexual aspect of it, it really isn't any different than friendships with your best friend: consideration, humility, desire to improve, organization of duties--and they be what people read into preside today, but it is absolutely not the meaning of the word--, commitment to communication, etc.
Much love, girl. I know you'll figure it out. You're smart like that :D
I read your post immediately before going to church last week, which was glorious timing, I think. =) I had the same thought as far as "presiding" as it connects with the bishop. A bishop presides over his ward; a father, in ideal situations, presides over his family. How many times have we heard that no calling is any greater, any more important in the Lord's eyes, than another? The nursery leader and the stake sports director and the bishop and the prophet have all been called to do a particular thing, and the honor lies in magnifying that calling, not in whether that calling is seen as prestigious or whatever. It seems like "preside over" (the father's role) is just as important as "primarily responsible for" (the mother's role).
Also, "presiding" isn't, I don't think, associated exclusively with gender. I read recently in my little "Family Guidebook" (which I think would be available at distribution centers and the like) that, in the absence of a father, the mother is the one who presides in the home. It made a special point of saying that even if there are boys in the home who hold the priesthood, the mother is still the one who presides. So ... I don't know. That seems important to me, as a feminist: presiding - or any role, really - isn't exclusively about gender. It plays a part in everything, but - as the proclamation says so clearly - adaptation may be necessary based on individual circumstances, and that's totally fine.
And by the way, KU-DOS on being the cool person who brought up the discrepancy there. That is freaking hard to do, man. I congratulate you on overall awesomeness. =)
Post a Comment