Some initial thoughts upon reading the draft, There are some very solid points made in the statement, particularly in the historical deficiencies regarding medical diagnostic and treatment practices that were normed on predominately male populations. The same deficiencies have been noted regarding racial groups. Strong also are the statements on objectifying people in any form, both by presentation of bodies as commodities and by the marketing of products by use of stereotypical presentation. References to worldwide issues of repression, e.g. inability to vote or participate in economic activity, human trafficking were also solidly presented.
Less strong is the reliance on the language of identity and the use of the currently fashionable meme of “intersectionality.” Also less than strong are the statements regarding hearing the voices of women and girls, which could be interpreted as there being some particular wisdom that a group has as a group. This would simply restate a common stereotype in a reverse direction, unintentionally reenforcing the very sexism being decried. I also do not see how the discussion is moved forward by interjecting the issues of the trans gendered and homosexual populations and linking them with the female issues being addressed by the very title of the draft.
The economic components come off as weakest. Paid time off for maternal/paternal leave always begs the question, “Who pays?” In a private employment economy, the only way to do this equitably is through a social security like payroll tax to be distributed to meet this end. Lacking this, the incentive to hire and retain women of the age of fertility diminishes considerably under such a policy, particularly for small businesses. (The draft does acknowledge that the issue of equal pay for equal work has been pretty much dealt with in our US economy, some studies suggesting that there may even be a slight tilt toward women in some fields.) The second weakness regards the muddy distinction between finding a way forward to the neighbor getting what is needed as a component of justice and an implied desire to smooth out the economic and compensatory peaks and valleys across populations. The study correctly notes that the church itself has problems dealing with compensation issues for rostered members and other employees. The same comment can be made of the political disparities, male and female. The current crop of politicians seem to bear the same burdens of competence/incompetence regardless of gender.
The pattern of using a Biblical interpretive method of differentiating moralisms arising from dated cultural norms and present social conditions has been pretty consistently maintained in most of the ELCA social statements, and as such is not surprising. I would have appreciated an exposition of how the study understands “sonship” in light of the deeply patriarchal “you are my son, today I have begotten you,” and other statements in the Gospels, such as “this is my beloved Son, listen to him.” The study seems to avoid any legitimate gender languaged delegation of authority by framing such as sinful patriarchy. I do find it very difficult to de-gender “All power is granted to me in heaven and on earth, go therefore, instruct all nations, baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Or, perhaps even more difficult, “Our Father...” Both examples seem to me of a piece with the language of divine kingship. I am not sure how you can get past that linkage without doing violence to a core understanding of the divine/human relationship. C.F.R. the recently publicized Swedish Lutheran Church’s statements on the use of “he” and “lord” regarding God. It seems only just to me that Christians ought to be able to address God using the same language as that used by Jesus Christ without being accused of the sin of patriarchy or sexism.
