Preface to the NRSV

Here is the complete preface to the NRSV, and I have cited the part referring to gender here. I have added paragraph formatting for this blog.

During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text.

The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, more than once the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict. The various concerns had to be balanced case by case in order to provide a faithful and acceptable rendering without using contrived English.

Only very occasionally has the pronoun "he" or "him" been retained in passages where the reference may have been to a woman as well as to a man; for example, in several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original.

In the vast majority of cases, however, inclusiveness has been attained by simple rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage. Of course, in narrative and in parable no attempt was made to generalize the sex of individual persons.

The key phrase here is that if we know that the Greek or Hebrew word refers to both men and women, then the English should use an inclusive term in order to indicate this. Fair enough, one might think.

Kurk Gayle's Response to "Who do you sleep with?"

I have reproduced Kurk Gayle's response to my earlier post. He writes about Nancy Mairs and Rachel Barenblat. I love how well Kurk has picked up on my main point, that "ancestors/fathers" is parallel to "my people."

________________________________________

Beyond the Binaries for Suzanne McCarthy

Suzanne has written a blogpost this week entitled, “Fathers or Ancestors: Who do you sleep with?” If you read it, then you get what she’s after. She’s going beyond the binary and is letting male Hebrew writers and male English translators go too. She actually starts with what the male Hebrew speaker (quoted, I presume, by Moses) is saying:

Here is Jacob, asking to be buried with his “fathers.” Does this translation “fathers” make any sense in this passage, or should we think rather of the term which is used as a synonym, “my people?”

What McCarthy is getting at is the parallelism of the Hebrew of Jacob, the appositive of the noun phrase אֶל־עַמִּי with the noun phrase אֶל־אֲבֹתָי. She points us readers to what the NRSV translation team has done my letting the appositive, the parallel, be between “my people” and “my ancestors” in their English just as it is a parallel, an appositive, for Jacob speaking Hebrew (and for the writer Moses recording what Jacob says). And then she address us:

But you might ask me whether or not the Herbrew really says “fathers.” It does, and it does not. In Hebrew, as in Greek, the common word for “parents” is the plural of the word for “father.” But it is clear from its constant use for parents of both genders that this is its meaning – parents. In the English of today, the word “fathers” cannot refer to parents of both genders.

I’m going to ignore McCarthy’s metaphorical personification of the language as a thing so personally really saying something. I’m going to remind her blog readers and you that it’s really people, persons using Hebrew and humans using English, who are really saying “fathers” and “ancestors” and “parents” and “אֲבֹתָי.” Likewise, our meaning, Moses’s meaning, Jacob’s meaning, McCarthy’s meaning, my meaning, your meaning, the NRSV team’s meaning, the ESV team’s meaning, are really what we mean. The words don’t mean unless we make meanings. And yet, the crucial point is this: if the binary has to be “fathers” vs. “mothers,” then McCarthy is urging us meaningfully to go beyond the binaries. We can, she says. And Jacob and Moses do, I say. They’re saying “ancestors” by saying “people” — by saying and writing אֶל־עַמִּי with the noun phrase אֶל־אֲבֹתָי.

(Now, there’s a bit of a discussion following her post in which some are insisting on a binary, a division, a separation and distinction between “gender inclusive translation” and “gender accurate translation.” Even to that, I say, Let’s go beyond the binaries here, please, and bravely so.)

Why I don't post the biblioblog image

I have never posted the biblioblogger image on my blog and there are many reasons why not. Originally, I did my bibleblogging at the Better Bibles Blog, and I really enjoyed that. I tried to blog about 30% of the time on women's issues, and given the dearth of women biblioblogging, I thought that was fair. However, it caused problems and I left.

I felt at that time that the community did not want a woman talking about women's things. I also felt that a very few people were trying to imply things about me that were not true. I don't know why this happened, I never figured it out, but it hurt me deeply.

However, now I find that I still can't feel that I am a full participant. Whenever someone speaks in a positive manner about a scholar who is actively trying to keep women under submission, I feel that this is wrong.

Here is an example. In this video, Carson says something about the word authenteo that is false. He says, "the verb authenteo in most instances has a neutral or positive overtone. But there is a handful of instances where you can at least make a case that it can have a negative overtone." This is simply not true. There are NO cases of authenteo with a positive overtone. None. He must know this, because he must know that he doesn't know of any.

Perhaps he is quoting someone he trusts, or is saying something that he thinks is true. However, he is definitely saying something for which he has not seen the evidence.

How can an otherwise careful scholar do something like this? I understand this kind of thing as a display of the true feelings of a man toward women - that a woman must be restricted and subordinated in order to coexist with him in his universe. I cannot be part of that.

Let's also mention his aggravated "sigh." What are women? Pesky little children that need to be humoured? What does his overall tone and comportment say about his attitude toward women? I wish I knew, but nothing good, I am afraid.

Women's jailors - that what I get out of this.

Does the Bible put women down? Response to Ken Pulliam

I have been following a series of posts which started with The Persistence of Patriarchy by Anne Eggbroten. In this article she visits John MacArthur's church and finds, of course, that the submission of women is alive and well. But she asks,

Here’s the question: Is God permanently committed to the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently, when education and voting were opened to women? Or does the vision of Paul in Galatians 3:28—“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”—take precedence?

Al Mohler responds to this in his post,

At this point the agenda becomes clear. Eggebroten argues that the church has simply perpetuated the patriarchal traditions of the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures that formed the social context for the early Christian church. Against these she contrasts the Apostle Paul’s beautiful declaration in Galations 3:28 — “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

Ken Pulliam, in turn, weighs in on this,

Eggebroten would like to find a change in perspective on this subject from Paul but she is misguided. In addition to the passages that Mohler cites, Paul also told women to be silent in the church and learn from their husbands (I Cor. 14:34-35) as well as implying that women are more easily deceived than men and need to allow their husbands to make important decisions while they concentrate on motherhood (I Tim. 2:12-15). This was the role of women in ancient cultures (and today in fundamentalist churches) and so, one should not be surprised to find the Bible supporting it.

What I find astonishing here is the weight given to two passages from the epistles, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and 1 Tim. 2;12. There are arguments which undermine the current interpretation of each of these passages. Mohler responds to this as well,

To read Galatians 3:28 the way Eggebroten reads the verse, you would have to believe that the Apostle Paul was in direct contradiction with himself, when he restricts the teaching office to men in letters such as 1 Timothy and Titus.

Or . . . you can try to deny that Paul actually wrote those latter letters. Eggebroten accuses conservative evangelicals of ignoring “evidence that the ‘pastoral epistles’ (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were written in honor of Paul long after he died and reflect a second-century debate over women’s roles in the church–whether to conform to social customs for the sake of winning converts, or to advocate radical social equality (and even celibacy) in the last days before the Second Coming.”

What this reveals, of course, is the argument of many evangelical feminists that we can discard the teachings of the Pastoral Epistles. We can keep the Apostle Paul we like (taking Galatians 3:28 out of context, for example) and disregard the Paul we do not like.

Nor are the Pastoral Epistles the only biblical texts subverted by this line of argument. With reference to 1 Corinthians 14:35 (”Let a woman learn in silence with full submission”), Eggebroten suggests, among other options, that “verses 34-35 began as someone’s marginal comment, later copied right into the text.”

With this approach to the Bible, you can simply discard any text you dislike. Just dismiss it as a marginal comment, or deny that Paul even authored the text. This is where the denial of biblical inerrancy inevitably leads — the text of the Bible is deconstructed right before our eyes.

Mohler is quite well informed on all the arguments against these two passages. Let's review them. First, there is an opinion among many scholars that the letters to Timothy, Titus and the Ephesians were not written by Paul. There is no current consensus on this, so one can only discuss this as a theory.

However, the fact remains that the writings attributed to Paul are often in contradiction. Is he promoting celibacy for single men and women, or is he counselling marriage? Is he advocating reciprocal and matching marital obligations, as in 1 Cor. 7, or asymmetrical ones, as in Ephesians 5. Whether we are reading letters from two different times in Paul's life, or the letters of two different people, there is a contradiction and we need to admit this.

Regarding the status of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as a marginal note, I find it instructive that the NET Bible online considers this to be the most likely scenario. Most text critics agree that it was a marginal note at one time, but they vary with regard to when and by whom they believe this note was written, and then incorporated into the body of the epistle.

This is an unusual occurrence. There are no other passages of this length, which began their career as marginal notes, which are now incorporated into the text, without comment in our present Bibles. The Net Bible claims that although they were marginal notes, they were written by Paul.

I guess this begs the question. Is anything written by Paul to be considered canonical? If so, why were other letters, which we know Paul wrote and have been lost, not preserved by the Holy Spirit for posterity? For example, suppose verses 34-35 were written by Paul. How do we know that they were canonical? How do we know that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were not just a non-canonical after-thought which came to Paul's mind? Or perhaps Paul did not add this note himself after all.

We do know for a certainty that early manuscript copiers altered the text to reduce the status of women. For example, in the passage referring to the church in Nympha's house, Col. 4:15, the pronoun referring to Nympha was altered to the masculine by a scribe for the purpose of masking the leadership role of a woman.

It is a fifity-fifity choice, in my view, whether 1 Cor. 14:34-35, was added by a scribe who did not like women, or was added by Paul as an afterthought. But we still have to deal with the whether this would qualify as "inspired by the Holy Spirit" or simply Paul's private opinions.

Is it really biblical feminists who are deconstructing the Bible, or is it the reasoned scholarship of text critics in general, both conservative and liberal? Even the most conservative text critics realize that there was something irregular about these verses.

On 1 Tim. 2:12, we have the continued assumption that authentein really does say "to exercise authority" which Mohler knows very well is not the lexical meaning of the word. This word is unusual and can only be found 2 or 3 times elsewhere within a few centuries of the epistle. Although there are many cognate words which could enter our discussion, the only times the word authentein itself was used, it had a negative meaning when it dealt with one person's power over another. It cannot mean that women should not "function as church leaders" - this is not one of the possible meanings of the word - but rather that some particular woman, or women, should not continue in their assumption that women had the right to dominate over men.

Neither 1 Cor., 14:34-35 nor 1 Tim. 2:12 are clear examples of the scriptures forbidding women to participate in the leadership structures. Other scriptures do indicate that Paul was probably speaking to men only, but there is no use of the word "male" and the word for "husband" appears, only to indicate that if married, the person designated as husband must be faithful.

It appears to me that usually, in the letters, Paul was referring to male leadership, but I see no attempt on his part to ensure that leadership be restricted to men only. I do not believe that either 1 Cor. 14 or 1 Tim. 2 are clear enough to fill that function.

In contrast, we have many women who were in leadership position, as head of their house, deacon, apostle, leader of a group of Christians, and so on. These are Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla, Nympha, Chloe, and the "elect" lady. I can see no other explanation except that Paul did accept women as leaders over a mixed group of people. There seems to be no other way to describe Chloe or Nympha.

While Ken Pulliam describes himself as an agnostic atheist, I would have to call myself an agnostic Christian. I am open to Ken's arguments and do not feel that I have to defend every passage in scripture. I honestly do not find scripture to be a cohesive and clear set of texts. I regret that anyone would try to pick out two or three passages to shape their life, or the life of all women. This is truly misguided. However, I am still sympathetic with the aims of women who engage with the text as biblical feminists.

Zachary has added a personal post on Christianity and Patriarchy in response to Ken Pulliam.

Fathers or Ancestors: Who do you sleep with?

The burial place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah, is called in English, "The Cave of the Patriarchs" but in Hebrew it is the "Cave of Machpelah." According to Genesis, these six people were laid in the grave in this order; Sarah, Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob. There is no male priority to this list.

Sometimes English gender treatment in translating from Greek or Hebrew brings about fundamental misunderstandings. So it is with the word "partriarchs." We understand in English that this word means "father-ruler" or "male-ruler."

But, in fact, the term "patriarchs" is often used as a translation for a term referring to our "ancestors" of both genders, those from whom we are descended. And it refers to both fathers and mothers. By translating this concept with the word "patriarchs" or "fathers" we are communicating a predominance of maleness, when, in fact, there was none in the original.

Here is Jacob, asking to be buried with his "fathers." Does this translation "fathers" make any sense in this passage, or should we think rather of the term which is used as a synonym, "my people?"

All these are the twelve tribes of Israel. This is what their father said to them as he blessed them, blessing each with the blessing suitable to him. ²⁹Then he commanded them and said to them, "I am to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, ³⁰in the cave that is in the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite to possess as a burying place. ³¹ There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife. There they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife, and there I buried Leah— ³²the field and the cave that is in it were bought from the Hittites." ³³When Jacob finished commanding his sons, he drew up his feet into the bed and breathed his last and was gathered to his people. Gen. 49 ESV

Who did Jacob want to rest with in death? His grandparents, his parents, and his wife. Abraham had bought the field to bury Sarah, and then later he was buried beside her. Each man with his wife. Because perhaps a man wants to rest with his wife, or his mother. In fact, this speaks to us of the integral unit of the family, not of the father representing the mother; but truly, the father wishing to be buried with his wife.

There is a family intimacy to this narrative which is completely belied by the term "patriarchs." Patriarchy, in English, is understood to mean that the father rules the children and the wife. The wife is under the rule of the husband. However, the "patriarchs" of the Hebrew Bible are simply the "parents", the ancestors, who, as couples, as mother and father, engender their children as a blessing from God, and who teach their children the Torah.

But you might ask me whether or not the Herbrew really says "fathers." It does, and it does not. In Hebrew, as in Greek, the common word for "parents" is the plural of the word for "father." But it is clear from its constant use for parents of both genders that this is its meaning - parents. In the English of today, the word "fathers" cannot refer to parents of both genders.

Here is an example. In contemporary Hebrew, the term for a seniors home is beit avot. There is no attempt to segregate the seniors into "men's homes" and "women's homes". But this is the impression you might get if this term was translated as "house of fathers." It would be bizarre and meaningless. The phrase refers to "parents" - a shelter or home for parents, or elderly people of both sexes.

In fact, much of the time the word avot in Hebrew ought to have a gender inclusive translation in order to carry the meaning over from the Hebrew.

The TNIV uses "fathers" in the passage above, but the NRSV uses "ancestors" and this, in my opinion, is the best choice, the one that communicates the meaning of the original Hebrew the best.

Roman Catholic justice

I was reading about this in the newspaper this morning. I thought some writers were exaggerating but it appears not. The Vatican has placed ordaining women on the same level as abusing children. They won't turn perpetrators over to the civil government and they put down the ordination of women as immoral.

If I haven't got the story straight, Pam has blogged about it here.

Prodigal Thought on 1 Tim. 2

I know my readers will want to read this post by Scott on 1 Tim. 2:8-15. Scott treats verse 12 within the context of the entire passage and refers to the worship of Artemis in Ephesus as well. I too believe that this is an integral part of the context. He proposes that the author is writing about one woman in particular.

Therefore, from 1 Timothy 2:11-12, I would argue that Paul was not silencing all women for all time. Instead, he was silencing one particular woman who had been deceived. For why else would Paul switch from the plural to the singular? And Timothy would have known exactly whom Paul was talking about. But since the letter would have probably been read publicly, Paul refrained from mentioning her name, helping to pave a way for repentance and restoration for this woman.

However, he concedes that even if this is not the case, the instructions are still in response to a heresy. He concludes,

In the end, even if one does not accept that Paul is addressing one particular women in vs11-15a, one must at least recognise that Paul was addressing a particular situation in the Ephesian church where a particular heresy (or heresies) were being espoused, possibly from current Artemis worshipers or those who were newly converted Christians but had not yet come under solid teaching. And, thus, it is very obvious that Paul’s words are confronting these particular women and this specific situation in Ephesus.

Thus, I am still very convinced Paul is not laying down a command for all time that women should remain silent and never exercise authority over men. And, by no means is this founded in the creation account. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul is addressing part of the wrong teaching that was coming forth in Ephesus, reminding them in vs13-14 of what really took place: 1) who was created first and 2) who was actually deceived. But none of this should be seen as a foundation to the gospel for all time that women must remain silent and not exercise authority over men. The new creation has come!

Scott has written in response to a post by TC which brings up the importance of the role of women in the church.

My only quibble, a minor one, is that Scott appears to assume that autentein means "to exercise authority." This is widely held misconception, but in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that this was one possible meaning of the word. It is a kind of urban legend, and an instrument of deceit, a ploy of Satan, an impertinence of man, wishful thinking on the part of the immature - whatever you want to call it.

But "to exercise authority" is not a meaning of authentein found in antiquity. I have put this challenge out on the blog, and no one has offered this evidence.

Common English Bible blog

The Common English Bible has a blog. Here are some verses compared to the NIV and the NRSV. Genesis and Matthew are available to download.

Comparing the ESV and NRSV

Here are three Bible translation charts. The first one is found all over the internet and clearly displays the ESV as more literal than the King James Version, while the RSV and NRSV are = less literal than the KJV. I am not sure where this chart originated.

The second chart is from Parchment and Pen. The NRSV is not found in this chart but the ESV is considered less literal than the KJV.

The third chart is a display of a software comparison of several Bible translations. It is worth noting that the ESV and the NRSV, which feature so far apart on other charts, are actually very close together. What I am wondering is if the first two charts are based on any evidence or analysis, or are just free hand sketches of what someone thinks is so.

Does submission lead to sanctification?

The discussion on gender continues. On this post Dave comments,

Kristen and Tim,

To take the slavery example Kristen gives.

Even if you have a wonderful owner isn't slavery still abuse? At the end of the day you are not free, you are not equal. In other words you cannot treat a slave so well that it is not abuse to be a slave.

So as far as I can see it would be true to say "Slavery is abuse. Period".

Should patriarchy really be different? Yes, there seem to be many patriarchal marriages where people are happy but isn't the system of patriarchy itself abuse as slavery is?

For some might the lack of awareness that they are not equal and not free be a sign of abuse?

I don't want to make the jump that all patriarchal marriages are abusive in terms of physical abuse. But equally I do want to say

a) physical, spiritual, emotional abuse is more common in patriarchal marriages.

b)if you are not free to be equal then isn't that a form of abuse? ("image of God abuse"?)

A female commenter on this post admits that submission is difficult, but offers the following justification,

As a woman and wife I often find this command of submission difficult but I believe that God’s word is inerrant, His ways are best, and that obedience to the biblical design of complimentarianism leads to great blessing and sanctification. We have only to look at the culture around us to see that egalitarianism and complemegalitarianism are flawed and ineffective.

My response is that all cultures throughout history have been flawed and ineffective. Women are better off today than ever before. Just because we are not aware of the many women in the 19th century, and throughout history, who remained single all their life, who became prostitutes, who lived in debtors prison, who were raped by husbands and strangers - just because our great novels do not often celebrate their lives - does not mean that they did not exist.

Egalitarianism offers women the chance to earn a living, save for old age, support their children and basically contribute to the well-being of their family when difficult circumstances arise.

If submission brings sanctification and blessing just because it is difficult, I think one could arrange to get cancer or some other suffering of that sort. I do not see the need for the soul-suffering that a life of inequality has to offer. Why would men want to enforce this on their wives anyway? It seems a perverse arrangment to demand of a wife something one knows is difficult and what one has no intention of living with oneself. Women already have to bear children. Isn't that enough?

Storied Theology on women

Daniel continues to write about the role of women - as equals in Plotting Women into the Gospel Story.

Gender Wars

Jocelyn Andersen has written a book called Woman this is War: Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System. Her thesis is that Patriarchy leads to abuse. Period. Dave Warnock supports this thesis here and muses more on what action his church should take here. He also intends to review Jocelyn's book. I look forward to this.

There are several important statements in Dave's post and comments. He writes,

Oh and friends in the Church of England, don't think we won't notice if you give in to a noisy minority and don't implement full and equal women Bishops. We are watching and waiting, I for one will not be willing to compromise on this.

I for one am tempted to say Methodists should not consider any more steps implementing the Covenant with the Church of England (such as Bishops ourselves) until a women is installed as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I am fully with Dave on this. I do not think that any form of compromise with those who do not treat women as equals is useful. It is only under prolonged pressure and disapproval, that those who do not treat women as equals will shift their position.

It is similar to smoking cigarettes. Once society as a whole disapproved of smoking in public places, cigarette sales decreased. On the other hand, some forms of smoking have gone underground when made illegal - for example, marijuana. Will those who treat women as chattel and babymakers simply retreat further? I don't know, but like prostitution and pornography, I don't think we can compromise in hopes of mitigating these evils. We need to stand against them.

If laws and societal disapproval can decrease the number of people smoking, why not come out against treating women as non-equals in the home and church? Shirley Taylor on her blog, Baptist Women for Equality, asks this of us all.

PS Joel has also written about this issue here linking to a post on Daniel Kirk's blog. I have to run but will read these later.

Reading the Preface

I mentioned recently that gender language in the English Standard Version can only be understood as the translators intended it, if you read the preface. Yesterday a friend handed me a copy of this thesis about the preface of the King James Bible by Edgar Goodspeed. It is an excellent academic response to the KJV only folks.

The author points out the inappropriateness of publishing a book without its preface. There is the added problem that those who read the Bible often do not read a preface even if it is provided. Goodspeed writes,

Especially for students, the Preface, with its wealth of contemporary materials and attitudes, is indispensable. In a humanities survey course for college Freshmen, a western university recently purchased 43 copies of the King James Bible without the Preface. In no other field of study would such a course have been dreamed of. To approach that version historically, and as any student should, without the Preface, is simply impossible. What has been said of the importance of the Preface to the general reader is even more true of the student, and it is high time our teachers of the English Bible in colleges awoke to the fact. But how can they be expected to awaken to it, when very few of them have ever seen a Bible containing the Preface? For the past hundred years, from the point of view of everyone -- ministers, professors, students, general readers, pious readers -- the Preface has been virtually suppressed.

The chief edition of the Bible containing it since 1821 is the English royal quarto, published by the Oxford University Press. This is an expensive pulpit Bible, seldom seen in America, which we cannot expect colleges to place in quantities in their reading rooms. On the other hand, the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society seem never to have included the Preface in their Bibles at all. It has been included in only two other printings of the Bible, so far as I can learn, in the past hundred years.

Cherry Garcia Ice Cream

I have been having a marvelous time in the States the last ten days, and am really enjoying the warm hospitality south of the border. After a delicious desert of Cherry Garcia ice cream tonight and watching the fireworks, I happened on this video. It turns out this is what I have in common with Wayne Grudem - Cherry Garcia ice cream. Listen and enjoy. No negative comments, please. But you can wonder what will happen to little Hannah if you like, the Grudem's grandaughter, who wants to be a pastor.

Websites for women

A commenter has asked,

Is there a group of "abused ministers wives?" I am about to lose my home as some of the continuing fallout from his harrassment after the divorce. No one is willing to help me. No one seems to want to help me. One church said, "We are not going to help YOU!" That seemed like a personal rebuff and hurt greatly. Of course, without support from my children and at age 63, the burdens become greater all the time. At this point in time, no one knows the despair I am going through or the depths of my anguish. Please don't suggest I pray.

I do know some "abused minister's wives" and perhaps some "abused ministers" but I do not know of a relevant group. I can only recommend that you read the following websites and blogs, which will affirm that other people have experienced the same thing.

No Longer Quivering
NLQ Stories (Journey has a similar story to yours)
NLQ Take Heart Project
Submission Tyranny
Women Submit
Emotional Abuse and your Faith
Baptist Women for Equality
Church Exiters
The Redheaded Skeptic is a great blog on this topic. Follow her story starting here and here.

Perhaps my readers could suggest other resources. Thanks.

Pastoring Women

What does this mean? Women who pastor, or men who pastor women? Shockingly, it is the latter.

Somehow I am not surprised that the following "sex act" theology comes from a relative of Bruce Ware. Here is what Owen Strachan wrote on the blog Pastoring Women in order pastor women,

These different roles depend, we should note, both on divine fiat and on the different constitutional and physiological realities which this creative force brought into being.[8] Generally speaking, God made men physically stronger, analytically inclined, and the initiator of the childbearing process. Women are often physically weaker and more emotionally and linguistically attuned than men, and they require physical initiation to bear children. The very bodies of women show that they are designed to nurture children, even if our culture wants to overlook these basic bodily realities. The wisdom of God’s will is embodied by the men and women who bear his image. What God has called women to be in spirit he has made them to be in body.

I will let commenters remark on the many stereotypes found here. But I want to point out that in the scriptures many sex acts which lead to the birth of significant children were initiated by women. Think of Rachel, Hannah, Ruth, and Tamar. I thought at first that most, if not all, historic conceptions recorded in the Bible were initiated by women, and that this was proper. But I have changed my mind.

It appears to me, on reflection, that a sex act can be initiated by either a man or a woman - this important role does not belong to exclusively to one gender. I think that is what Paul meant in 1 Cor. 7 - he meant that it belongs to the man to have the power to arouse the woman, and it belongs to the woman to have the power to arouse the man. This is the reciprocity that Paul writes about.

Anyway, there is lots more to life, and as we age and enter into caring for children, parents, siblings and friends, and life rounds out and fills in, the almighty sex act is not the central piece that this paragraph makes it out to be. We find ourselves to be siblings and friends, coworkers and colleagues, journeying together, finding that we have more in common all the time. We are all of us, women and men, vulnerable, courageous, kind, fearful, voluble and at a loss for words, dense and insightful.

Well, this blog is quite disturbing but it goes to show that some of what I have heard others mention, really is taught to women.

On a final note, I really like what Susan Hunt writes.

On how to find the meaning of a Greek word

Here is an excellent article by Bill Mounce on how we define biblical words. Here is my summary of his points.

• lexicons and translations
• Latin translation
• ancient lexicons
• occurrences of the word classical and Koine Greek literature
• range of meanings in these contexts
• context in the Bible

This is why I usually first study the meaning of a word in several lexicons and in translations starting from the Vulgate to the present day. From the lexicons, one can look up the use of the word in other Greek literature. This is the most basic evidence for what a word means. Context in the Bible is the last piece one uses.

However, you cannot establish from context that a word means something different from what it usually means in Greek literature, without proving that it cannot possibly have a meaning that falls within its normal meaning in Greek. Using "context" is not license to interpret a word in the Bible in accordance with your presuppositions and biases.

This is a very important list for the many times that complementarians and egalitarians differ on the meaning of a word in Greek.

rambling thoughts on feminism

Christian women are torn on the use of the word "feminism." Even if you never use it yourself, as I never did, it will be thrown at you - if you do not scrape the ground and play dead. Then what do you do? Stand up and say, "Not me! I would never agree with equality for women?" Not ruddy likely! So like it or not, a woman has to deal with this word.

The first time I told a colleague at school that I had been called a "...... feminist" online, she spurted a mouthful of coffee right out of her mouth. Clearly, I am not your typical in-your-face feminist in my bricks and mortar life.

The reality is that unless a woman is deprived of rights, she has little reason to ask for more rights. As a female teacher, I have all the rights of the male teachers, and as one of the majority, it is my duty to make the male teachers feel welcome and included. I have been in schools where female teachers do not make the men feel comfortable, simply by steering the conversation in directions that are not easily engaged in by both sexes. But in my present school, we love our male teachers, and make a concerted effort to express our appreciation and concern for what makes them feel included.

Anyway, I am rambling - what a mess. In my work life, I don't have to be a vocal feminist, but in the Christian community it is very necessary because normal rights that we need to carry on basic life and care for ourselves, our parents and our children, are being removed from women.

Here is the link that I meant to pass on about Sarah Palin. She is expanding the use of the term feminism. I am happy with that. Feminism should be a broad term like "conservative" or "liberal" or "Christian" and many other terms which take on meaning in their context. I am happy to be a "feminist," sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal and sometimes "Christian" .

Prodigal Thought

I have recently been reading Scott's blog, Prodigal Thought. In this post, he summarizes his series on the role of women, and continues it. Scott is taking a unique approach, which I am sure you will enjoy.

TC discusses his switch to the ESV here and here. It really bothers me that we do not have a Bible translation which most people can make peace with.

Ken Pulliam blogs about Biblical Counselling and Christian women. Paula has earned a place in the top 50 biblioblogs.

Finally, there has also been a fair bit of talk about an article entitled The End of Men. Mohler wrote about, also Gary Simmons and Julie Clawson.

Another June Wedding

It was a gorgeous wedding, very relaxed and fun. My son and his sweetheart were married down by the beach. There were no prepared speeches but we did have an open mike session. As you can see, it was very lively!

Charis has posted pictures of her daughters wedding, so I thought I would share.

Reminders about the ESV

Since a discussion about gender language in Bible translations has cropped up here and here, let me provide a reminder of why the ESV is not a good Bible translation with regard to gender.

Here is a passage from the preface to the ESV,

In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original. For example, “anyone” replaces “any man” where there is no word corresponding to “man” in the original languages, and “people” rather than “men” is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Likewise, the word “man” has been retained where the original text intends to convey a clear contrast between “God” on the one hand and “man” on the other hand, with “man” being used in the collective sense of the whole human race (see Luke 2:52).

In Greek there is one word for man, as a male, aner; and another word, anthropos, for a "human." Since in English we don't use the word "human" in normal discourse, when this word occurs for a single male, we translate it as "man." However, when this word occurs in the plural, we translate it as "people." So, in translating Greek, the plural of aner is translated as "men" and the plural of anthropos is translated as "people."

Let's look at these verses in the ESV,

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 2 Tim. 2:2

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.” Eph. 4:8

And Jesus said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men. Mark 1:17

And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God Luke 12:8

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. John 1:4

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. Romans 5:18

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2:5

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Hebreww 5:1

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21

According to the preface of the ESV, these verses should have been translated using the word "people" in order to be literal, gender accurate and transparent to the Greek.

If the ESV used "men" instead of "people" in order to be traditional and to preserve euphony, then the translators had better say so. They would need to admit that the translation is not all that literal, not literal at all when it comes to gender, but traditional, conservative, and preserving the rhythm of the KJV.

What is so wrong with admitting this? Why do the translators claim for their translation something that is simply not true? It's a tissue of nonsense, a tangled web of half truths.

Why use a gender inclusive translation

Here is Daniel Kirk on the topic, HT Joel,

To the overall question, why require a gender-inclusive translation? My overall answer is this: to keep transforming the culture of the church until we actually believe (and therefore act like) that women and men are equal members of the body of Christ, equally addressed by the word of God, and equally empowered by the Spirit to serve in it (and therefore lead it).

My student asked specifically about requiring the now defunct TNIV and the NRSV that was sponsored by the World Council of Churches and has not been well received in evangelical circles.
This is a crucial question. In my estimation the reason that these gender inclusive translations have not caught on in evangelicalism is precisely because conservative churches are theologically opposed to gender equality. It is because they are guarding against the sort of transformation that I think needs to take place that they choose to preserve and further language of masculine hegemony. In resisting even gender-inclusive language for humanity, however (e.g., not allowing adelphoi to be translated “brothers and sisters,” but instead insisting on “brothers”), the English translation expresses an exclusivity that was not there in the Greek. This is a case where “more literal” is not equivalent to “more accurate.”

The final couple of questions from my student were along the lines of who cares? and why bother? Why not use “mankind” and “man” rather than human? In addition to what I’ve outlined above, the reason I care is that women who are learning to locate themselves, as women, in the world, need to be told and have reinforced from every angle that they do not have to become male (or approximate maleness) in order to fully realize their humanness, to become who God desires them to be as restored image-bearers of Christ.

The church has been shackled by the idea that maleness is ontologically superior to femaleness. This has ramifications for how the church thinks about Jesus and how it thinks about gender among us humans.

With respect to Jesus: the ESV gives some hints as to the necessity for certain people to hold onto Jesus’ maleness as a sine qua non of salvation. A translation that prides itself on rendering words consistently and accurately translates ἄνθρωποι as “people” in 1 Timothy 2:4, “…desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” With this desire for all people as the set-up, however, the ESV simply cannot bring itself to say that a human is a sufficient category for a savior. No, it has to be male: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men [!, ἄνθρωποι], the man [! ἄνθρωπος] Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

We need to embrace gender-neutral terminology for humanity so that we can start to disentangle ourselves from skewed notions about maleness and salvation. And if you think I’m just making up the idea that the maleness of Jesus is an essential part of conservative evangelical theology, then maybe you can drop a note to Paternoster Press and ask why, after printing Neil Williams’ new book The Maleness of Jesus, they canceled the contract and are refusing to distribute it.

Of course, as soon as being male is required to represent humanity before God, then being male is required to represent God before God’s people. The continuing deafness of the evangelical world to the biblical passages that give counter-testimony to 1 Timothy 3 from the early church is another lingering effect of gender-exclusive Bible translation. So long as we think that to be truly human is to be man, and so long as we think that a man must be the mediator between God and man, women will never be able to participate as full, co-equal partners.

So yes, I care. And as a man I think it’s more important for me to champion this cause than it is for women to champion it themselves. Because the call of the gospel isn’t to spend all our time getting worked up over our own rights, but to spend all our time getting worked up over how life can come to the other.

Thanks very much, Daniel.

Just overworked

I don't expect to be blogging much for the next few weeks, and I haven't blogged much this year. However, I am not sick or depressed, nor am I a mirthless sourpuss feminist - just overworked. While I am absent, I will post my staff pic to keep you company.

(Well, I am a feminist - just not mirthless!)

Clubbish

I read Ron Hendel's critique of the Society of Biblical Literature a few days ago. I have not attended SBL but I do follow its meetings with interest. I then read this response. I don't myself think that there should be any place at SBL for faith committments, as long as these include an attitude which subordinates, or denounces women, queers and any other natural class of human beings.

I particularly take exception to the ongoing critique of feminist and queer hermeneutics as being "clubbish." First, I have no doubt that some of it is unattractive. So here I wish to address what I have found to be "clubbish" among evangelicals, and why I would not go anywhere into any physical space where there is a danger of their attitudes about women being given voice.

I am acquainted with a very vocal and well-known SBL theologian of the evangelical leaning. I sat and listened to him lecture 200 young people on how the cause of contemporary divorce is that women will not accept their role. This was his interpretation of Gen. 3:16 and this view is widely held by evangelicals. He is an influential theologian.

I questioned him on this since I was in the process of divorcing because I had suffered ongoing violence, being controlled by being shut in my room, hit and sworn at, combined with having Bible verses used to condemn me to hell.

The theologian in question did have any interest in this situation, but he vociferously questioned my right to remarry. I had no interest in remarrying, I simply wanted to be safe.

I found his lecture, his commentary on Gen. and his response to a woman wanting a divorce for violence to be incrdibliy callous and yes even "clubbish." But he gets rave reviews by evangelicals for being so "reasonable" and open-minded.

Unless one has actually been beaten, as many women and queers have been, for reasons relating to being a woman or a queer, then I suggest that using the term "clubbish" for the hermenuetic of feminists and queeers is not appropriate.

The appeal of Christianity is that Christ actually experieced being beaten, he did not claim a privilege not open to women and queers.

However, Paul did claim a privilege not open to women, slaves, and non-Roman citizens. He asked, as a Roman citizen, not to be beaten.

That women have not had such a legal privilege until recently, that they may experience this for much of their life, that being beaten can be just a normal consequence of being a woman, is still to fresh in my mind.

Perhaps feminists and queers are clubbish, but [some] evangelical Christians are callous to the most outrageous suffering in their midst and should clean out their own stables first. I firmly believe that any space where people are free to express their faith commitments, in such a way as to denigrate even the tiniest bit, women, homosexuals, or those of another religion or race, is not an appropriate place for academic exchange.

Paul and Thecla

James McGrath links to a post about Paul and Thecla. There is an interesting tradition that Thecla's eyes and hands were erased because they were a sign of her authority.

Bart Ehrman (if I remember correctly) shares a photo of the same fresco in one of his books, and points out that Thecla's "teaching hand" has been deliberately defaced (as have her eyes), by someone who found this depiction of her authority threatening. Crossan and Reed also make this point.

hilarious

I don't usually laugh out loud at America pronunciation. I try to muffle my mirth if I can. Of course, I expect to be the source of a little mirth myself. But listen to this. HT Nick.

Huguenot

Huguenot

I had never heard the first one before, but I am of Huguenot stock myself so I am familiar with the first rendition in the second link. Give me a call and hear how I pronounce it! is there anyone out there with the Oxford pronunciation?

Because it matters

This blog, by Danni Moss, was one of the first blogs that I read in the Christian blogosphere. I just read today that the author has died of cancer. I am so grateful for her blog, and I hope that her influence will remain. Its a long journey out of violence as a way of life.

Not a slam dunk

There has been a discussion on Cheryl's blog, where a commenter is very sure that kephale, meaning "head," as in the object on top of your neck, is a slam dunk for "authority". He perhaps thinks this because he has read this entry.

"Definition
the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
of things: the corner stone"

However, if you were to look in a dictionary of classical Greek, i.e. English-Greek dictionary: a vocabulary of the Attic language by S. C. Woodhouse, you would not see either kephale or authenteo, as equivalents for the English word "authority."

One may argue that this is because Hellenistic Greek was just that different. In fact, the main difference in the lexicons is that one dictionary is theologically motivated and the other is not. Lexicons of classical Greek routinely include meanings from Hellenistic Greek.

Kephale was not a Greek term for "master" or "lord" occuring in any context other than interpretations of verses in the New Testament itself. There is no outside confirmation of this use, except that the word kephale was used for Jephthah. This is an unusual use of the word in the Septuagint, and is rarely discussed. I would be interested in discussing why, of all leaders in the Greek Old Testament, only Jephthah was called kephale.

This is an interesting topic for discussion - but not a slam dunk. Someone needs to mention to me one other person besides Jephthah, outside of the New Testament (but preceding or at the same time as the NT) who was ever called the kephale of a person or group that he or she was in authority over.

Passionately outspoken for Christian feminism

I have been reading too many critiques of feminism in the Christian blogosphere recently, as if it were to blame for anything one doesn't like. The premise seems to be that we have only had _______ since women have been declared equal under the law. Now fill in the blank with the economic crisis, earthquakes and oil spills. I would like to take credit for modern dentistry myself, but I forget how it is a consequence of feminism. Not that explanations are usually required.

According to Mary Kassian, a prominent Canadian Christian author and anti-feminist, "pornography, and rape and homosexuality and sexual perversion were uncommon and rarely encountered" in the 1960's, preceding the expansion of feminism. I personally thought all these vices were alive and well in Sodom and Gomorrah, where feminism doesn't seem to have had much traction.

In a blog comment on this post, Mary Kassian declares,

I think feminism and Christianity are incompatible. Feminism can’t be “redeemed.” If you’re interested in finding out more about the history and philosophy of feminism, I suggest you read my book, “The Feminist Mistake.”

However, Alex, a brave commenter and Christian woman, responds to Mary Kassian at length and with passion about the proper attitude of Christian women towards feminism. Here is one of her later comments,

We must remember that we owe a lot of our freedom today to the feminist of the past. The fact that you can write a book without using a male alias, the fact the we can get ‘equal pay for equal work’, the fact the rape is illegal in marriage, the fact the a women’s testimony is not worth less than a mans and many more freedoms have been won. Truly if you want to see the effects of feminism, look to the places without it. In places like Asia and Africa were girls are married of young, sometimes 13 year old to 50 year old men, were women are treated as the property of the father to be bought and sold, were women have babies so young that they suffer from fistulas, were women are worth less than a man, so much so that a Christian women’s testimony in court is worth a quarter that of a man’s and were 6 billion babies girls have been killed simply because they were female.

In times gone past a woman’s testimony was so unreliable they had to be tortured to prove it because they ‘made up things’, in times gone past women older than 13 without husbands were considered old hags, in times gone past women were thought not to have souls, which was only begrudgingly over turned by the church who decided they ‘may’ have souls.

Surly we must look and thank our predecessors for the fact that we are not thought of as less than a man. Sure they made mistakes but so many freedoms we enjoy today are due to their brave fighting, their protests, imprisonments and pain for our freedom.
We must thank them by going forward to free women throughout the world from violence, humiliation and destruction.

Say what you like about feminism but first look to the sufferings of women around the world and think of how we can improve their living standards, improve their treatment to more than house slaves or cattle, improve their pregnancies so that they don’t die in birth or get pressured to abort babies girls. Say what you like about Western feminism but look to the women and girls of the developing world and help them. What they need are basic human rights and to be treated better than cattle. In the west this was achieved by brave men and women fighting for recognition. It was called Feminism. What will we do for people in the developing world?

We mustn’t lose sight of what it means to be a Christian woman, but part of what it means to be a Christian woman is to love and serve other women around the world. Call this movement what you like, Christian women fighting for and caring about other women around the world, in the past it was called Feminism, today who knows what we will name it but it must happen!

The problem with simply slamming feminism is that it draws attention away from our responsibility to women around the world who still need these rights; still need this love and care.

And may I add that there are still many women on this continent who need this love and care. As women, we need to care equally for both other men and women. But that is the premise of feminism, that women need to be cared for equally and as equals.

I am sorry that Mary Kassian cannot say thank you to the first Christian women who went to university, paving the way for her.

desire bordering on disease

I remember distinctly the first time I saw pornography. It was in a cheap hotel room in Rome and I was a young teenager. I still remember the nauseating feeling as I discovered the well used stash of magazines in the bottom dresser drawer. I didn't understand exactly what use they were put to - nonetheless, it was a sickening moment which has stayed with me till now as a vivid memory.

Another one of those moments was experienced recently while reading Keil and Delitzsch page 103 - the same mixture of nausea and disbelief, the same loss of innocence. I read,

The woman had so broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תְּשׁוּקָה from שׁוּק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man. "And he shall rule over thee." Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mohametanism also, - a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation, viz. that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.

I wish I had never read this, had never known that bible commentators thought these things about women, thought that being ruled was a mark of mutual esteem, etc. etc. Now I know that apparently some men, in spite of the fact that men are not innocent of creating pornography, believe that it is women who are diseased in their sexuality. Nice!

A woman can never study bible commentaries with the same freedom as a man. I personally - clearly many women won't share my reaction - regard reading bible commentaries as risky business, knowing that I am exposing myself to unmitigated nonsense, and in some cases simple filth. Blogging about the bible, for women, can never be a light hobby, a satisfying preoccupation. It is more like wandering through a minefield, or more like walking across my backyard, after the dog has been lounging around using it for his own needs.

I would really like to find this kind of thing funny. I do my best. But ultimately, I have to resort to other sources for humour, that elixir of life.

Responding to Adrian and Tim

Tim asks,

I wonder if any women readers would be willing to give me some very brief (just a few sentences) soundbites about one or more of the strategies you use.

Adrian comments,

I thought today I would highlight two blogs written by women, as Christian blogging especially is still something of a male domain. This surprises me a little as these days it is not a geeky activity, and since so many women are great communicators I would have expected there to be more.

Men continue to wonder about the voice of women. Which is very curious because women are speaking out all the time. Women are saying what they think about the way men interpret the Bible. Of course, every woman has a different opinion, we don't have a 'group think policy'. But some women do share a common view and they are getting together on it.

Shirley Taylor announces on her blog,

There will be a conference in Orlando Florida on July 24 called Seneca Falls 2 Christian Conference – trying to find solutions and to offer a united front in favor of gender-equality for Christian women. This conference is led by Jocelyn Andersen, author of the new book Woman this is WAR. You can order this book on her website www.womansubmit.blogspot.com.

A few female bloggers I have read recently are -

Shirley Taylor
Jocelyn Anderson
Waneta Dawn
scratchpaperthoughts

Over and over again, women are blogging about the need to be treated as equals. I don't have much hope right now myself. In the bibliosphere, I often see that those who defend patriarchy are not only tolerated but praised. Dan Wallace, Peter Kreeft, Bruce Waltke, and many other names come to mind.

It is v ery painful for me to think about what these men teach about women. If men think of "tolerance" as purely the acceptance of both complementarian and egalitarian men in one happy community, then it's all fine and dandy. But they should not ponder the absence of women.

Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill and Grudem's systematic theology

I read an article in the newspaper yesterday which suggested that the Anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda still has a chance of passing. Even if it does not pass, homosexual behaviour is punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years. There was an appeal made for those Americans who went to Uganda and provided encouragement for anti-homosexuality legislation, to go back to Uganda and say that homosexuals are human beings whose rights should be respected.

I feel that a very popular book on systematic theology encourages Christians to lobby for stricter anti-homosexuality laws. In his Systmeatic Theology, page 893, Dr. Grudem writes,

It is right for Christians to attempt to persuade governments to make laws that protect families and private property and the lives of human beings – laws that both outlaw and punish murder, adultery, theft, and the breaking of contracts (things that violate the Ten Commandments), as well as prohibit homosexual conduct, drunkenness, drug abuse, abortion, and other things that are inconsistent with the biblical standards of morality.

Dr. Grudem needs to be aware of how many homosexuals and women suffer violent crimes linked to scripture exposition.

It is my opinion that anyone who blogs about the Bible ought to take on issues in Bible exposition which support, reinforce or act as justification for acts of violence against women and homosexuals. I know that it is more popular to ramble on about those darn creationsists, but I am more interested in how we can support victims of physical violence, not just intellectual exiguity.

If it weren't so tragic the whole thing would be comical. Theologians can go on and on about how unnatural anal intercourse is because it sometimes "results in ruptures and diseases." By this same criterion, heterosexual intercourse and in particular childbirth, must also be considered unnatural. But lesbian sex is just fine and dandy, not causing either this or that.

Walking on water

I don't know it this one has made the rounds in the bibliosphere yet. Enjoy a good chuckle. These guys really manage to keep a straight face throughout.

Sexism in Higher Education

A post on Sexism in Higher Education states,

The 2010 national breakdown in the United States: for every 100 men, 142 women graduated with a bachelor's degree; 159 women completed a master's degree, and 107 women earned a doctoral degree. Trend lines indicate that the imbalance is only getting worse. Go here for details. I agree with one of the commenters to the thread. The pump that produces the inequality is primed in middle school if not before. Since I work with 7^th and 8^th graders, I see it with my own eyes. Boys are not socialized in a way that allows them to compete on a par with girls in a knowledge economy.

It’s part of a larger problem in which the specific contribution of men to particular niches of social ecology – the family, the workplace, church and synagogue - is not valued whereas the specific contribution of women is. There are exceptions to this rule, but that's what they are: exceptions.

Our culture no less than previous cultures is crisscrossed by routinized patterns of gender complementation. Patterns of imbalance are, according to old-school social theory, indices of social oppression. That is an oversimplification, but one thing is clear. Current trends in the socialization of boys disadvantages them in countless ways.

Feminists and anti-feminists alike continue to fight yesterday’s wars. A pox on both their houses. Neither offers even a first approach to the real issues of the generation of boys and girls I see coming through the pipeline.

An article written in Alberta provides some insight into the nature of the disparity between men and women,

According to Statistics Canada data for 2005, for full-time, full-year workers in Canada—the most common measure of the gender gap in income—women earned just 70.5 per cent of what men earned, a number which hasn’t improved since 2000. When all types of work—including part-time and other non-standard work—are looked at, women earn just 64 per cent of men’s salaries.

In part this disparity is because most employment for women continues to be concentrated in a handful of traditional sectors, with two-thirds working in teaching, nursing or other related health care fields, clerical positions or sales and service jobs in the retail sector. Meanwhile, women still hold just seven per cent of jobs in transportation, trades and construction, and just a third of all manufacturing jobs.

Women also far outnumber men in part-time jobs, with just over a quarter of women working less than 30 hours a week, compared to just one in 10 men—and one in five women say they don’t work full-time due to personal or family responsibilities, a problem made worse by a serious shortage in affordable child care spaces across the country.

In Alberta, the recent years of a red-hot economy actually widened the gender gap, says Susan Morrissey, the executive director of the Edmonton Social Planning Council.

“We looked at the earning gap between males and females over the past 30 years, and the data shows that the gap between men’s and women’s earnings for full-time and full-year employment seems to grow during economic booms. During the boom men are more likely to go into occupations like oil and gas extraction and construction, where they get paid very, very well.”

Because few women work in these occupations, income in Alberta is more unequal than in Canada as a whole, with women who worked full-year, full-time in 2006 earning just 59.3 per cent of men’s salaries, down from a peak ratio of almost 71 per cent in 1995.

Combined with the high cost of living in the province, the income disparity has had significant consequences for women in boom-time Alberta.

“Woman are still twice as likely to live in poverty as men, and that’s been consistent across the board,” Morrissey says. “In 2006, 7.3 per cent of families where the major income earner was male were living below the LICO [low income cut-off] and 16.9 per cent of families where females were the major income earner were living below LICO. So there’s still a major difference between those two.”

It seems rather clear to me that men are going after the highest paying options, and women are left to slog it out at university and still earn substantially less than men. Some may say that this is an indication of how men are "disadvantaged", but they will have to defend their choice of vocabulary rather carefully.

Shallum's Daughters and the NET Bible

I am alive and kicking, and feeling very well, as it happens. All fall I moved around the house with a ladder and bucket of paint daubing away at the trim, and now I am putting in a path of paving stones in the back. But I do appreciate those who have emailed to ask if I am okay. I'm okay.

I had a good conversation with the Home Depot salesman today, suggesting that Home Depot should develop a women's line of packaging for such things as base rock. How many women can throw 55 pounds over their shoulders on a whim? In the interests of women's equality, as more women desire to do their own stonework, there really ought to be an effort to develop products for this market - you think?

Fortunately, the Home Depot salesman seemed to find me rather cute and not at all a virulent feminist. That is just a rumour that someone started about me in the interests of perpetuating the myth that women who don't bow and scrape to patriarchy are ugly. Ha ha. Anyway, the pathway is coming along very nicely, but I am a wee bit too tired to to work up an intellectual rant against the usual suspects. Or so I thought.

It turns out, however, that I don't have far to look to unearth more exegetical perfidy. Some exegetes really can be pathetically and contradictorily against women at all costs. Check this out.

The daughters of Shallum are recorded as helping to repair the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah 3:12. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the Hebrew text.

And next unto him repaired Shallum the son of Hallohesh, the ruler of half the district of Jerusalem, he and his daughters.

וְעַל-יָדוֹ הֶחֱזִיק, שַׁלּוּם בֶּן-הַלּוֹחֵשׁ, שַׂר, חֲצִי פֶּלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם; הוּא, וּבְנוֹתָיו

So how is that commentators can claim both that it is very unlikely that women would be doing this work, and therefore we may wonder if this is what the verse meant, AND, that it is so likely that women did this kind of work that it would not even be mentioned?

"Daughter" is a regular term for the hamlets which grow up about the city and which are dependent upon it, 11:24-31. Ryle prefers a literal interpretation that Shallum's daughters aided him in the work. But as women in the East were quite sure to have a large share in such a work as this, their special mention here is unnecessary. (cited in the Women's Bible Commentary, page 128)

This first commentator seems to find it so natural that women should labour that there is no need to mention it. But here is a contrary opinion.

The reference to daughters, while not impossible, is odd in light of the cultural improbability that young women would participate in the strenuous labor of rebuilding city walls. All other such references in the Book of Nehemiah presuppose male laborers. Not surprisingly, some scholars suspect a textual problem. One medieval Hebrew MS and the Syriac Peshitta read וּבָנָיו (uvanayv, “and his sons”) rather than the MT reading וּבְנוֹתָיו (uvÿnotayv, “and his daughters”). Some scholars emend the MT to וּבֹנָיו (uvonayv, “and his builders”). On the other hand, the MT is clearly the more difficult reading, and so it is preferred. NET Bible

Not only is there evidence that some manuscripts were changed to delete these women, but the NET Bible commentator appears reluctant to acknowledge that women would participate in the "strenuous labour of rebuilding the city walls."

I hardly know what to say. Exegesis has not improved since I last checked. Here are two men trained in the interpretation of ancient documents who present completely opposing points of view, all in the interests of explaining away a mention of women in the text. It is no wonder women don't want to blog in the bibliosphere where the NET Bible is still so admired by men.

I will hang out in hardware stores with men who find a woman who enjoys a little strenuous labour (of the productive but not reproductive nature) to be a pleasant diversion and not a sinful creature who is rebelling against God and the cultural norms of Bible commentators. Good grief!

Read an inspirational post about the daughters of Shallum here.

Christians and porn

According to this post, Christian men are more likely to watch porn than the average American male.

From Steve Farrar's Finishing Strong:


A number of years ago a national conference for church youth directors was held at a major hotel in a city in the mid-west. Youth pastors by the hundreds flooded into that hotel and took nearly every room. At the conclusion of the conference, the hotel manager told the conference administrator that the number of guests who tuned into the adult movie channel broke the previous record, far and away outdoing any other convention in the history of the hotel.

I have to ask myself what vice Christian women are more guilty of. Perhaps wearing more makeup, showing more belly, or cleavage? I wonder - do some forms of Christianity provide a more sexualized environment and therefore encourage the use of porn? I would be interested in your thoughts.

What some women bloggers are saying

There are now no blogs authored by women in the top 50 biblioblogs. There are a few that are co-authored by women, but none by a woman alone.

What are women blogging about? Some say children and home. Why not. But other women are blogging about what life was like under patriarchy.

A Wife's Submission

"The burden was so heavy, I could see no way out of it but my death. I wanted to die: my frame of mind was such that I would have embraced cancer or something as an escape hatch from God to bring me relief."

Submission Tyranny

"Even if the husband does not use physical abuse or overt emotional abuse on a daily or weekly basis, the fact that he requires his wife to continually and daily set aside her will, to live like a child without the freedom to choose what she thinks is best, so he can have things his way and feel in charge, is in itself domestic abuse."

No Longer Quivering

"I posit that the well-intentioned “Biblical patriarchy” adherents can’t help but support abuse, because the abuse is intrinsic to the teaching…which means that either God is abusive, or the patriarchy camp has got God figured out all wrong."

Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence

"The false doctrine of female subordination to male authority lies at the very root of domestic abuse and domestic violence among professing Christians. The premise is despotic and abusive in and of itself. Domestic Violence among Christians will never be eradicated until gender equality is acknowledged and practically implemented."


bWe Baptist Women for Equality's Blog

"In the next few posts, I will get to basics and dethrone Male Headship."

Mayday

"One of the things that led to me parting company with the complementarian new church setting I was in was a realisation that I was married to my wife, not the church. " (Okay, this one is a guy.)

Julia O'Brien

Julia O'Brien has an excellent blog about the Hebrew Bible. She provides insightful thoughts on why Christians might not want to celebrate a Seder meal at Easter. Many Christians I know do this, but I shrink from practicing the traditions of others. She has recently written articles on Violence and the Bible and Who cares about the Prophets.

Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer of Internet Monk has died. I know many will remember his posts, his influence, the long threads and the wide-ranging topics.

Woman this is war

Jocelyn Andersen is releasing a new book this year called "Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, & the Evangelical Caste System."

Her blog subtitle says,

The false doctrine of female subordination to male authority lies at the very root of domestic abuse and domestic violence among professing Christians. The premise is despotic and abusive in and of itself. Domestic Violence among Christians will never be eradicated until gender equality is acknowledged and practically implemented.

I have said things like this, and there are so many that argue that this cannot be true. It goes like this.

1. Non-Christian men abuse their wives.
2. Women, both Christian and non-Christian, abuse their husbands.
Therefore, there can be no connection between domestic abuse and Christian teaching.

To #1, I would say that this false Christian doctrine has its origins in the same sexism that drives the domination of women by non-Christian men. The teaching of male dominance within Christianity has its counterpart outside of Christianity.

To #2, I would say that there are many ways that women and men can be abusive to each other. (If this happens, it is better for the couple separate. However, the welfare of the children must be taken into consideration.) I do believe, however, that there are many unique ways that the teaching of male authority causes serious abuse and distress, and there are ways that it intensifies the naturally abusive nature of any relationship gone bad.

The testimony of many other women indicates to me that there is a deep and unique way that the teaching that God created women to be under the authority of their husband damages women. A woman who is being abused by her husband has the usual stress - increased vulnerability to ill health, both physical and mental. She also is taught that God has intended this for her. The church is a powerful community for women in this situation, and an abused woman may feel an increased need to belong, as well as an increased sense of alienation and isolation. By appealing to the authority of God, those who teach male authority, intensify the already miserable condition of someone who is being abused.

The teaching of male authority -

gives the abuser the notion that he is entitled to be obeyed and submitted to
gives the abuser the expectation that he has the right to get his way
gives the abuser justification for abusing someone who will not obey him
gives the abuser the sense that men and women are so different that a feeling of common humanity between them is eradicated and there is no empathy

The teaching of male authority -

gives the abused the sense that it is her fault if she is abused
gives the abused feelings of shame for being in this situation
gives the abused no hope since divorce is denied and separation with a view to reconciliation is dangerous
gives the abused the sense that this is God's best for women

To sum it up, let me quote from A wife's submission,

The burden was so heavy, I could see no way out of it but my death. I wanted to die: my frame of mind was such that I would have embraced cancer or something as an escape hatch from God to bring me relief.

My thoughts exactly. I often used to think of what a relief it would be to die of cancer. How many men sit in church and think of how much more pleasant it would be to die of cancer than be a Christian male? Share my thought of 30 years of church attendance just for a moment.

Thank goodness - tomorrow when I go to church, I will spend more time picking the lint (or white dog hairs) off my Easter jacket than I will wishing I would die of cancer. I will know the delightful freedom of being like a man, free to worry about my finances, my job, my children, etc. etc. but I won't have to sit and think that I would rather die of cancer than continue to live the kind of life God intended for me because I am a woman.

The Illiad

I was stung by a passing comment in the bibliosphere recently. It was this simple, "A girl’s actually interested in the Iliad? Very nice." He was surpised eh, that a female would 'actually' read the Illiad.

I guess I was in my early teens when I read through much of the Illiad in Greek. It doesn't provide strong female characters - but it does contain many female characters.

In my imagination, I was Briseis, torn from the tent of the heroic warrior Achilles, to provide sex for a king who was so callous as to sacrifice his own daughter to the gods. I was Andromache, mourning for both husband and son, dragged off to a end her life in slavery. I was Cassandra, always Cassandra and still Cassandra, doomed to know the future and doomed to never be believed.

It really ticks me off that some random biblioblog commenter would think that a woman would not read the Illiad.

Waltke on Evolution

There has been an expresssion of support for Bruce Waltke and concern that he has felt the need to take down a video which expresses his views on theistic evolution. I am happy to see many strong voices in the bibliosphere support the scientific foundation for beliefs about the origin of our physical world.

But I wonder how many bloggers would express concern about what else Bruce Waltke teaches from Genesis. He teaches that Gen. 3:16 suggests that divorce in our contemporary society is caused by women resisting their role in life, which is to be a helper to the male. He firmly places the blame for divorce on women. When questioned personally about this - that is, I asked him if this applied to divorced couples he knew - he admitted that it didn't. But nonetheless, he taught a lecture hall full of young adults that women are to blame for divorce.

When confronted with a woman who was seeking divorce for violence, his first concern was to establish whether that woman would want to remarry, and whether she know that the Bible would not condone this. She actually had never considered remarriage at that point in time.

Bruce Waltke is a personable and gentle man. However, I honestly believe that certain beliefs about women stunt the normal senses, and create callous disregard for women. I pray that Dr. Waltke will be released from his blindness regarding who is to blame for all the divorce in the world, and perhaps some day admit in public that there is no reason to take all the sin in the world and place it on the shoulders of women. We have enough of our own, thank you very much, without carrying the sins of men also.

Over and over again, I see in much of Christianity, a tendency to put women on the cross.