0.24 6.1 conclusion  (Page 8/8)

If churches press for a repression of women inconsistent with the capabilities they exercise in other aspects of their lives, some women will withdraw in response, but many will respond by trying to change the institution from within, not willing to relinquish elements of their religious faith that have been a source of comfort and strength and a provider of meaning. Religion is not something women will easily cast aside. Pluralism and relativism have stimulated intellectuals, but their appeal is an elitist one, often unsatisfying to the majority and incapable of winning the affection of a large segment of the population. Women will remain in churches and churches will change.

The liberation of Christian women holds forth hope. They have served as a repository for so-called "feminine" qualities (more appropriately designated "human" qualities)--an appreciation for familial relationships, a willingness to nurture, and a capacity for empathy and cooperation--that need to be conveyed to and embraced by the rest of society. In many ways their tradition of service and their value of interdependence fit the demands of modern industrial society better than does self-centered independence.

The tendencies conservative Christian women will have to overcome in order to participate in shaping the society of the future are, at least, threefold. First, they will have to learn to deal openly with conflict and power, accepting the possibility of failure that the assumption of responsibility always entails. Second, they need to take on intellectual challenges of substance and depth. One reason women are not currently teaching biblical and doctrinal subjects in Baptist seminaries is because they have not aspired and trained to do so. In order to exercise real power in the denomination, they will have to infiltrate the seminaries, as well as the tap echelons of denominational bureaucracy. From this vantage point, they will be in a position to assist in recasting patriarchal theology to fit a broader view of humanity. Third, they will do well to curb their attitude of self-righteousness, of thinking that their way of perceiving and operating is the one right way, rather than "a good way."

Gayle Graham Yates, a professor of women's studies at the University of Minnesota, has isolated three paradigms under which the alternatives for women's liberation can be divided. Within the first, the "feminist" position, women view themselves as the equals of males and ask to be dealt with on the same terms as men. A second alternative, the "liberationist" perspective, operates on a conflict principle, placing women over against men in pursuit of their unique, feminine destiny. The third model Yates terms "androgynous," one that is based on sexual equality, but emphasizes a cooperative female-male relationship.

Gayle Graham Yates, What Women Want: The Ideas of the Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975).