Lives of two feminists

What am I reading these days?

Well, thanks for wondering (if you did, that is). I’ve been reading the lives of two feminists: Gloria Steinem and Katie Funk Wiebe. (I’m not sure KFW called herself a feminist, but she dared call herself a theologian, so close enough;  plus I know one of her daughters gives her that label.)

These two women were born about a decade apart. Funk Wiebe is 85 now, and Steinem is 76. In many respects they were quite different, but both are writers, and both are known for their leadership in the women’s movement, Steinem as an internationally recognized icon of the “revolution,” and Funk Wiebe on the smaller but still significant stage of the Mennonite world.

I picked up The Education of a Woman: The Life of Gloria Steinem (1995) at the local used bookstore. I was drawn to it for two reasons. It seemed a good way to recall an era that I, though younger, also lived through. And who wasn’t aware of Steinem, so often in the papers, on the covers of major magazines, founder of Ms. magazine, author of books like Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions (1983) and Revolution from Within (1992)?

Steinem was a journalist and political activist, for causes like migrant farm workers and then on behalf of women’s rights, including abortion, and, as already stated, leader and spokesperson for the Women’s Liberation Movement (as it was called then), in the 1960s and 70s.

Yes, it takes me back all right, to the controversies, the milieu of the world I was entering as a teen and young woman. Consciousness-raising.  It’s been a long time since I heard that expression! Consciousness-raising groups were “intimate assemblies, in which women discovered that their problems were not singular but ubiquitous and widely shared…” The phrase eventually referred, I think, simply to making people aware of sexist language and attitudes, and inequalities between men and women.

I was also interested in this book because I wanted to see how author Carolyn G. Heilbrun, who studied how women’s lives are written (Writing a Woman’s Life, 1988), would approach this biography. I felt she was too analytical of Steinem at times, and thus stood between Steinem and the reader, but her work also seemed thorough and it was well written.  

I found myself very much liking and admiring Gloria Steinem. Though I disagree with some of her views, I’m thankful to her, and of course many other women as well, for their courage and convictions about the rights of women. Steinem was quite relentlessly attacked, both within the movement and without – too radical for some, not radical enough for others. She was articulate, confident, and willing to defend herself when necessary, but refused to respond to much of the hostility directed at her. “She is … an extraordinary combination of change-maker and peacemaker…,” someone said of her, “genuinely humble and kind.”

 (In reference to the “trashing” within the women’s movement, Pat Schroeder wrote, “Women have not yet learned the game of ‘rumps together, horns out’.”)

She was an especially beautiful woman, which was considered an advantage in reassuring those who imagined feminists as some kind of hideous harridans, but her looks also garnered no end of unwelcome comment and celebrity.

The Woman’s Liberation Movement may already seem ancient history to many. In “Remembering the 70s,” an article I wrote for the MB Herald back in 2001, I noted, “When the earth is altered in some way, say by cutting trees or planting them, bulldozing in a road or excavating for a new housing development, we soon forget the contours of the earlier terrain; we soon imagine that this is the way this particular space has always looked.” Yes, one easily forgets. Reading Gloria Steinem’s life, I remember earlier spaces, and I remember changes, and I’m grateful.  

And in a subsequent post, I’ll say something about reading the life of Katie Funk Wiebe.

The pieces we’re missing

A news article in the latest MB Herald, with the headline “MB seminary professor apologizes for remarks,” reveals that B.C. conference minister Steve Berg sent an email to the MB seminary (MBBS) board in November expressing “his concerns” that “Mark Baker states that penal substitutionary atonement is unbiblical.” The email also said, “In what is already a very challenging time for MBBS, we are concerned that there is a disconnect underway between BCMB churches and MBBS, and the atonement debate is accelerating the process.” 

The article describes and quotes Baker’s response to the B.C. executive and pastors. Baker sounds gracious and thorough in explaining what he believes and what he wishes he’d communicated more clearly, what he wishes he had not written. The content of it sounds very much like what he stated at the MB study conference in Saskatoon in October — the same affirmations, clarifications, attempts at nuance — though he goes further to address a number of his responses at the conference itself. At that event, he stated his first book will be revised. He also clearly affirmed the MB Confession of Faith, Article 5 on Salvation, and does so again in his letter. I attended and reported — here — on the Saskatoon conference. I don’t recall “‘unbiblical’ rhetoric.” I do know that Baker felt himself rather on the block, so to speak, which is never an easy place to be, and I do recollect that he responded carefully and with integrity to the challenges raised to him. 

My opinion on whether an apology is necessary is beside the point, however. He made it, and it needs to be received.

But, will it be received? Has it been? Maybe that’s what’s bothering me about this article. It’s not what’s here, but the pieces we’re missing. The back story. And what happened next.

Re. the back story, I’m wondering why Berg sent this email to the seminary board after the October conference, when Baker’s views had been clearly indicated there. Berg himself led the session in which Baker presented. Is there other pressure coming to the B.C. executive? From the two people Baker says he wishes he had responded to more affirmingly? From those who did not attend? What’s going on?  Berg notes an accelerating debate, but it’s hard to believe that Baker is responsible. And, to be honest, I’m queasy, fearing he’s being made the fall person. 

MBBS president Lynn Jost is also quoted in the article. He thanks the B.C. executive  for communicating their concerns directly with the seminary, and reminds of the seminary’s commitment “to biblical authority and to interpreting the Bible in a way consistent with the MB Confession of Faith.” This commitment, truly said and truly meant, is also not new. Has it been heard and truly received? I can’t help recalling Jost’s words at the MB Forum recently, about “the difficult position that a culture of suspicion raises for the Seminary.” 

Yesterday, I happened to be sorting through a pile of papers and came upon the candid words of a young B.C. pastor to the recommendation on women in ministry at Calgary some years ago. He intended to support the motion, he said, even though it hadn’t gone as far for full and equal participation as he wished. Because of that, it would require his own “self-control and respect of people who believe very differently.” He went on to say, “It will also require some of you to stop labeling me and others who believe similarly, as heretics or on a slippery slope to liberalism, or as being soft on ethics, or whatever other label you might use to write off people who hold a reasoned opinion that disagrees with your own.”

His words felt oddly familiar within this new context. There’s been labelling, baiting, mollifying of behaviors that foster a culture of suspicion, withdrawing of financial support. (The latter has always struck me as the most pernicious, and I’d even say ungodly, strategy individuals or churches can use to exert pressure, because it’s so powerful and puts others into danger not just economically but spiritually.) 

The letter has now been reported. But is there more we should know? And will there be other, good, responses to come?