I remember back in college during a theological seminar (was studying academic theology, the female equivalent of seminarian), a seminarian turned in frustration to me in a small group discussion about calls of the Holy Spirit and said quite loudly, “Why can’t you accept the fact that God only wants men to be priests!” And in my unequivocal way, I responded: “Oh, so you have a direct line to the Holy Spirit, do you?” He was disgusted and left the group. I tell this story because I have always felt it is important for girls/women to know that they should follow their calling wherever it takes them, regardless of the opposition others may have to that calling. I fear the tide is turning, though, toward greater opposition to this idea.

I also wrote a paper in graduate school about the obstacles women leaders face by attacks against their characters, often times sexual or intellectual as a mechanism to render their words, actions and relevance null and void. I remember how difficult the meeting with my professor was, not wanting to acknowledge what I thought was well documented paper. He believed it biased because I had way more women in my bibliography than men. I did question whether he compared the gender equality of all bibliographies, and he just got mad, which was stupid of me to say because he gave me a C. I don’t think he quite understood me, so he was surprised when I picked him for one of my panelists when defending my thesis. I won’t go into why, but afterward he went back and changed my grade from a C to an A. I believed, back then anyway, that if I could present something in more of a three dimensional way, perhaps a more female orientation then everyone’s perspective is broadened. In this case I believe I was successful. When I use the past tense in the aforementioned story when I say “back then”, it really means that more people than not used to be open to a greater truth, and new ways of seeing things. (of course many don’t, but there is nothing I can do about those kinds of people). Today, I don’t feel that way anymore.

Lets go back then. Late in his second term, Bill Clinton was impeached for an improper relationship with an intern. I think the outrage went across the aisle on this situation and he was rightly tried. Now, we have a president elect who, by a court of law, by a jury of his peers is found guilty of being a sexual predator (this was a civil, not criminal trial so he is not a sexual offender…legally anyway). Whether you believe it fair or not, his behavior like Clinton’s was established and proven legally. And yet, and these are the posts that gross me out most on social media, are the allegations that Kamala Harris slept her way to the top, which can be factually, on the record dispelled, but still believed because she was deemed not smart enough or qualified to get there on her own. It literally took me seconds to fact check the veracity of those allegations. The generalization here is that men get away with shit, even when they are actually guilty of it, and woman are metaphorically stoned or burned, even when they are not.

There are plenty of places in Christian Scripture where Jesus pushed back against the status quo when men test him on the treatment of women. One important time was when a mob brought a woman caught in adultery (so the mob says) to him in John 8: 3-11

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say? “They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”

The interesting thing in this dynamic is that the man involved in the adulterous situation is nowhere to be seen. I am fully aware of the law at that time, and that women were considered no more than chattel, or property. Jesus, however, did not see her or other women that way. As a matter of fact, time after time Jesus helped and stood for women even when, by all cultural and temple standards, he should not have.

So, here we are. I expect there will be more character assassinations of women, people of color and sexual orientation who will be vilified and have their character questioned whenever their voices, qualities and callings make people in the status quo uncomfortable. In an age where facts just don’t matter as much as self righteous indignation and moral finger pointing (and yes, I am aware it happens on both sides) it does become more difficult to duck stones that come flying at my head. The hope for me comes when the woman walks away from Jesus, free from her accusers condemnation and Jesus saying “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life”