Thoughtful Believers

Valerie Tarico blogs at ExChristian and recently wrote a post which I think all Christians need to read. She asks where the moderate Christians are, and if they are prepared to offer a middle road between fundamentalist excesses and agnosticism. I know this is a concern to many who are reading more and more of the blogs of those who have left Christianity.

Valerie remarks,

Across the web, in bookstores, and recently the theater, criticism of religion broadly and Christianity specifically seem to be ubiquitous.

She provides some examples and then offers her view,

I think that a huge factor on both sides of this fight is the reluctance of Christians to speak out passionately and publicly against fundamentalist excesses. Where are the moderate Christians who cry out, not only against the social outrages perpetrated by fundamentalists, but also against the ugly, ignorant, self-serving theologies that drive those outrages? These voices are conspicuously absent in the public square—as rare as moderate Muslims who passionately and publicly condemn Wahabism, shariah, burkas, or jihad.

There are exceptions. Anglican John Shelby Spong has been unflinching: Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile & The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love. But in my experience, Spong’s courage and passion on the topic are rare. Modernist Christians have been painted with the same brush as fundamentalists because of their reluctance to say loudly what they know to be true based on a century of inquiry: that the Bible has human handprints all over it, that the sins of scripture are real, that we know the historical lineage of fundamentalist theologies and of the Bible itself, that biblical creationism is ludicrous, and that fundamentalist ideas are not only wrongheaded, they are evil.

The cost of this silence is enormous—not only in the form of “open season on Christians”. Mainline denominations—the ones who understand this battle best, are losing adherents to both sides, in part because even their own members don’t know what they stand for. To stand for something, you have to be willing to stand against something. And if you’re a church, you can’t just stand against social ills like poverty, war, homophobia, or abstinence only education. One job of religion is to nurture (or simply provide) a world view that lets people know why those things matter. Things that matter are worth fighting about.

As the middle falls out of our religious spectrum, fundamentalists and freethinkers are left with nowhere to go but the trenches. The alternative to revolution is evolution. That’s what modernist people of faith have to offer. It is the option that is missing when they go silent. Is it open season on Christians? Only if thoughtful believers let it be.

Literal Bibles: Sarah 3

From The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature we can learn of another snippet of untranslated text which refers to Sarah. The author cites R. Sorotzkin who writes,

Indeed, we find the Bible relating (Gen. 12:8) that Abraham 'piched his tent [oholoh] west of Bet-El.' The word as written could be read oholah, 'her tent.'meaning that he first pitched his wife's tent and then his own. (Rashi ad loc.) According to Tradition, then, Abraham, the first patriarch, set up two types of tents of learning: one for women and the second for men.

Sarah was engaged in proselytizing women, propogating the monotheistic idea to her sex, while Abraham following her example, was teaching similar religious belief to men all along his travels. We can infer from this passage that education of the woman and setting up of 'her' tent of learning take precedence to 'his' tent. page 127

We have been told that as women we must accept the masculine pronouns of the scriptures as revealing the intent of God, to allow man to represent woman. This is supposedly indicative of the literalist approach to the scripture. But how many men have stood in the pulpit and preached on the the pronoun 'her' in Gen. 12, that woman leads men in religious education.

Actually 'her' is only a grammtical ending in Hebrew, although in English it is a pronoun. In fact, many of the pronouns in the English text are a translation of grammatical endings in the original languages. Nonetheless, this is a part of scripture that I have never heard preached.

This reminds me of a piece by William Wilberforce, which I read recently,

This is more especially affecting in the female sex, because that sex seems, by the very constitution of its nature, to be more favourably disposed than ours to the feelings and offices of Religion; being thus fitted by the bounty of Providence, the better to execute the important task which devolves on it, of the education of our earliest youth.

Doubtless, this more favourable disposition to Religion in the female sex, was graciously designed also to make women doubly valuable in the wedded state: and it seems to afford to the married man the means of rendering an active share in the business of life more compatible, than it would otherwise be, with the liveliest devotional feelings; that when the husband should return to his family, worn and harassed by worldly cares or professional labours, the wife, habitually preserving a warmer and more unimpaired spirit of devotion than is perhaps consistent with being immersed in the bustle of life, might revive his languid piety.

Spiritual leadership in the family is like a ping pong ball that has been passed back and forth between the sexes from one generation to the other. It is time for both men and women to both step up to leadership themselves as well as honour the other sex as co-leader.

Wilberforce, William A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious Systems of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in this Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity. Halifax:William Milner, 1843. First published in Britain in 1797.

A translation of a translation

Almost all Bibles are a translation of a translation, or a revision of a translation.

The Wycliff translation was made from the Latin Vulgate.

The Tyndale translation was made from Erasmus' Greek - Latin diglot with reference to Luther's translation and the Latin Vulgate.

The Coverdale translation was Faithfully and Truly Translated out of Douche and Latyn in to Englishe.

While the translations of many individuals have broken out of this tradition, the Bibles which are commonly used in churches are translated with reference to this major tradition of translation. With this in mind, it is worth reading this post Are translations really based on the Greek and Hebrew? (Monday with Mounce 31) by on the Koinonia blog.

As far as English translations are concerned, most tend to be a bit conservative (the NLT and NET being notable exceptions). There is a stream of translation in English, and to move out of that stream requires some strong convictions. People are used to hearing verses a certain way, especially their favorite verses, and to introduce totally new translation can be perceived as dangerous. It is one thing to capitalize many of the occurrences of "spirit" as the TNIV did; it is another thing to break out of the mold and, for example actually translate the imperatives of the Lord’s Prayer as imperatives (e.g., "May your kingdom come" in the NLT).

This is not all bad. I preached yesterday on the fourth Servant passage in Isaiah, relying heavily on the specific words used by the ESV. But most of the people in this church use the NIV and I knew the words were translated differently, which made it harder for them to follow the sermon. When there is some consistency among translations, as long as it is faithful to the Greek and Hebrew and consistent with their translation philosophy, this can be a good thing.

Although the NIV, TNIV, CEV and others vary from the Tyndale to ESV tradition, there is, nonetheless, tremendous pressure on them to not differ too much, to not take risks. Tradition exercizes a strong influence on all major translations.

Literal Bibles: Sarah 2

I am not sure if there is any theological value in what I am writing about now. It is just a few curiosities of translation regarding women in the Bible. I hope you find this of interest. Sometimes one needs to look at these things without theological bias and just see what turns up. It shows, however, the power of the translation, how much is at the discretion of the translator.

Here is Hebrews 11:11 again about Sarah and Abraham. This same event - the conception of Isaac.

KJV

Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

NRSV

By faith he received power of procreation, even though he was too old—and Sarah herself was barren—because he considered him faithful who had promised.

Footnote: By faith Sarah herself, though barren, received power to conceive, even when she was too old, because she considered him faithful who had promised.

ESV

By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.


NIV

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he^a]">[a]considered him faithful who had made the promise.


Footnotes:
1. Hebrews 11:11 Or By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she
   
   
TNIV

And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she ^[a] considered him faithful who had made the promise.


Footnotes:
1. Hebrews 11:11 Or By faith Abraham, even though he was too old to have children—and Sarah herself was not able to conceive—was enabled to become a father because he

You can see how the NIV and the NRSV produced a variant translation, supposing somehow that only a man could bear seed. The word in Greek is sperma but clearly means seed or offspring, that is, a child, or descendants.

So, overall, the ESV and the TNIV are equally literal. Perhaps the TNIV is more so, since it has the word child included, not only conceive.

LIteral Bibles: Sarah 1

Here are the comments on Gen. 18:11 from This Lamp.

Really, it could be said that the ESV in Gen 18:11 is MORE literal than the RSV, KJV, or even Tyndale because here even the original word order has been replicated, something that the translators of the other three did not feel an obligation to do. R. Mansfield | Homepage | 04.10.09 - 11:29 am | #

Gen. 18:11 is an interesting example. The phrase means, of course, that Sarah was menopausal (e.g., by etymology: the moon stops). To be sure, the NASB has a footnote giving a more literal translation. RSV & NRSV: Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. ESV: Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. Now I understand that you don't like either of these alternatives, but for me, the ESV is a step backwards here. The (N)RSV is more clear to me; while the ESV suggests to me that some spirit or ghost had left Sarah; why couldn't the editors write "the way of women had ceased to be for Sarah." I might also add that I would admire a change from the RSV's "advanced in age" to "advanced in days" I don't understand the decision to change the phrase in this verse to "advanced in years." The next verse shows a similar strange move. RSV & NRSV: So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?” ESV: So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” Now I understand the ESV was trying to be more literal here by distinguishing between the two Hebrew words used to describe Sarah and Abraham's age. But to me, it sounds as if Sarah is saying "I'm pooped out today, and have a headache, so no pleasure tonight." Here, both versions change the order of the phrases from the original, so it seems to me that something like the NJPS best captures the meaning: NJPS: And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?” Theophastrus | Homepage | 04.10.09 - 11:59 am | #

Really, it could be said that the ESV in Gen 18:11 is MORE literal than the RSV, KJV, or even Tyndale because here even the original word order has been replicated, something that the translators of the other three did not feel an obligation to do. I don't see this at all. The RSV and NRSV follow the Hebrew word order better than the ESV. Notice that "of women" is the last word in the Hebrew verse. Theophastrus | Homepage | 04.10.09 - 12:02 pm | #

I can't add much to this, but it demonstrates some of the good and the bad in Bible revision. Thanks to Theophrastus for some insight into the Hebrew of this verse.

This Lamp

I mentioned This Lamp in my last post. Rick has recently taken up active blogging again. Not only does Rick produce the most compehensive and the best Bible reviews on the internet but the author of the blog, WILFA, Theophrastus, also contributes reviews to This Lamp. I think you will enjoy the detailed information you can get about Bibles on this site.

Literal Bibles: Junia

I am going to switch topics for a bit and reproduce here some comments from This Lamp, the blog of a friend, Rick. First read the post, HT BBB, and then the comments. Rather than comment there, I have decided to copy a few comments here and then respond. Rick writes,

Well, as they say, "Traduttore, Traditore!"

The reality is all translation is interpretive because translators have to make interpretive decisions in going from one language to another.

I'm not 100% certain that the decisions made in dynamic translations outweigh the fact that more literal translations are often less understandable. As I've said many times, literal does not mean more accurate, especially when the literal is unintelligible.

There are CERTAINLY interpretive decisions in the ESV such as the efforts to go out of the way to make sure Junia isn't considered an apostle in Rom 16:7 (personally, the idea that Junia, someone of whom we know almost nothing about, might be an apostle doesn't threaten this complementarian).

In fact, let's compare three versions on this verse.

Here is the traditional translation of Rom 16:7 among those that recognize the individual was Junia, not Junias.

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me (HCSB).

Now the ESV:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (ESV)

And finally, the NLT:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews, who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did (NLT).

Let's be honest enough to say that the meaning of the Greek is very vague here, although there is historical tradition in the Orthodox Church regarding some kind of Apostolic role by Junia (although they don't know a whole lot about her either).

The HCSB reads as if Junia probably was an apostle (incidentally, the wording has been changed to closer match that of the ESV in the 2009 HCSB).

The ESV phrases the sentence so that Junia was merely well known to the apostles, but there's no hint she might have been an apostle.

Only the NLT keeps the vague aspect of the Greek in this sentence so that a person holding either position (that Junia was or was not an apostle) could support their perspective with this translation. The ESV is clearly being interpretive, backed of course by the fact that there are a handful of recently written articles to back up their position.

The NLT does not go the interpretive route in this passage at all. The reality is that as the NLT has now gone through two and a half editions, much of the overly interpretive aspects have been weeded out. An exception to this may be found in a passage like Gen 6:3, but I only have sour grapes because I take a different interpretation.

R. Mansfield | Homepage | 04.10.09 - 10:39 am | #

I appreciate Rick's suggestion here that the Greek phrase for Junia is ambiguous. She could be an apostle or she might not be. I had expressed this opinion myself at some point. However, subsequently, I have thought this over and I cannot think of any case where the Greek word episemos has been used to indicate that someone is known to a person or group of people, and does not stand out above them.

There is only one case in all of Greek literature which seems to suggest that episemos could mean known to, or highly respected. All others clearly mean that the person stands out above or from the others in the same group.

Here are two examples to illustrate this. I willcite the first from a source which has no bias in terms of the meaning in the Bible. From Euripides and the Poetics of Sorrow.

"Aphrodite has a temple at the city's summit and a statue before the house, in the presence of which she is declared 'conspicuous' (episemos) among mortals," (E. Hipp. 101-3).

This is the only citation which has ever been provided to indicate that episemos means "known to" or "highly respected among." However, the traditional translation indicates that it is better understood as "outstanding" or "conspicuous." Aphrodite "stood out above" mortals, as her statue showed her.

Here is another use of episemos,

3 Macc 6:1 “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”

Clearly he was one of the priests and stood out among them.

There is no example in all of Greek literature for episemos being used to indicate that someone was only well-known to a group and not outstanding in comparison to members of the group. This misunderstanding comes about because most analysis of this issue is done with people reading the English translations for these examples. IMO.

From the Lidell Scott Jones lexicon,

ἐπί-σημος, Dor.ἐπί-σᾱμος, ον, (σῆμἀ serving to distinguish, τοῖς δ' ὄνομ' ἄνθρωποι κατέθεντ' ἐ. ἑκάστῳ Parm.19.3.

II. having a mark, inscription or device on it, esp. of money, stamped, coined, χρυσὸς ἐ., opp. ἄσημος, Hdt.9.41; ἀργύριον Th.2.13; χρυσίον X.Cyr.4.5.40, cf.IG12.301, al.; so ἀναθήματα οὐκ ἐ. offerings with no inscription on them, Hdt.1.51; ἀσπίδες ἐ., opp. λεῖαι, IG12.280, cf. Men.526.

2. of epileptic patients, bearing the marks of the disease, Hp.Morb.Sacr.8; of cattle, spotted or striped, LXX Ge.30.42.

3. notable, remarkable, μνῆμ' ἐ. a speaking remembrance, S.Ant.1258(anap.); ξυμφοραί E.Or.543; εὐνή, λέχος, Id.HF68, Or.21; τύχη Id.Med.544; χαρακτήρ Id.Hec.379; τάφος ἐπισημότατος Th.2.43; τιμωρία Lycurg.129; τόποι IG12(3).326.42 (Thera, Sup.); of garments, fine, SIG695.39 (Magn. Mae., ii B.C.); and of persons, ἐ. σοφίην notable for wisdom, Hdt.2.20; ἐ. ἐν βροτοῖς E.Hipp.103; ἐ. ξένοι Ar.Fr.543: in bad sense, conspicuous, notorious, ἐς τὸν ψόγον E.Or.249; δέσμιος ἐ. Ev.Matt.27.16; διὰ δημοκοπίαν Plu.Fab.14; ἐπὶ τῇ μοχθηρίᾳ Luc.Rh.Pr.25.

4. significant, οὐκ ἐ. Artem.1.59, 3.32.

It literally means "bearing a mark" so it is unlikely that is can be translated as "bearing a mark" to the apostles, but rather "bearing a mark" among the apostles. While some argue that the preposition en indicates "to," it can be easily demonstrated otherwise. This is not the case. En is often translated as "among" in the Greek NT. Here is an example,

ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you

ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
the greatest among you

I will leave it at that. But if you see a Bible which has Junia as only well-known to the apostles, you know it is not a literal Bible, in spite of its introduction.

No Longer Quivering

Among the many "women seeking liberty from religion" blogs that have emerged in the last few months, this one has hit the charts like no other. Read this post for diverse, intelligent and challenging comments.

The first comment mentions a book which I have not heard of but reminds me of my last post. I did not read this review until after writing that. Here is the review of Native Tongue, HT Aimai

Set in the twenty-second century, the novel tells of a world where women are once again property, denied civil rights and banned from public life. Earth's wealth depends on interplanetary commerce with alien races, and linguists --a small, clannish group of families --have become the ruling elite by controlling all interplanetary communication. Their women are used to breed perfect translators for all the galaxies' languages.

Nazareth Chornyak, the most talented linguist of the family, is exhausted by her constant work translating for trade organizations, supervising the children's language education, running the compound, and caring for the elderly men. She longs to retire to the Barren House, where women past childbearing age knit, chat, and wait to die. What Nazareth comes to discover is that a slow revolution is going on in the Barren Houses: there, word by word, women are creating a language of their own to free them from men's control.

I too would like to retire, knit and collect words.

The Sexual Paradox

According to The Sexual Paradox by Susan Pinker, the differences between men and women are endless. Men make up 90% of Scrabble champions. How's that? Although women have higher verbal skills, men win, not only at chess, but also at Scrabble. This is the thing. In Scrabble you don't have to spend time attaching meaning to the words. But women have a thicker corpus callosum, and more connections between one side of the brain and the other. So they always commit some of their energy to attaching meaning to words. This is how women are wired. (Oh wait. I don't attach meaning to all my Scrabble words either.)

Anyway, when the male is busy playing Scrabble, with all those letters lined up, his brain is relatively free from the frantic activity which is going on in the female brain, namely attaching meaning to potntial words. How often have you seen a man play Scrabble and he asks the meaning of a word? Nope. Just the score. Men are good at probability, spatial organization and so on, in any case.

So, this is the truth. Men are, on average, better than women, on average, at Scrabble, chess and games which involve risk-taking of any kind. This means that men also contribute 90% of all Darwin Award winners.

Should men lead in decision-making? That depends on whether he is a Scrabble champion or a Darwin Award contestant. But wait, every man has a little of each in him. Men do not make better decisions, but they take greater risks. Their decisions impact more on those around them, but they tend to consider the concerns of those around them less than women do.

In some areas, the risk-taking of a small percentage of men is a great benefit to the human race. Men are, on average, more isolating, systematizing and context independent than women. On the whole, this provides big gains in a few areas, but big losses in other areas. In the family, this means that the man does not always make decisions based on the good of the entire family given the whole context.

When I say, on average, this means that while men and women have the same IQ, on average, there are more men than women who succeed as mathematicians and musicians (these men are not scrambling to make other people's decisions for them) and more men who have ADHD, Down's, Aspergers, dyslexia, and so on. Men are more fragile than women. Women should thank their lucky stars.

This is a brief introduction to the gender differences from Susan Pinker - in my own words and not a book review but a light summary of some relevant ideas.

Sometimes I see men as carrying basketsful of words that women want to have access to. I want to participate in attaching meanings to those words too. We all want to be part of the meaning making activity of being human. Some women feel like the woman who is like the dog who picks up the crumbs under the table. Some women want to pick up a few words found dropped by the wayside. Excuse me, sir, you didn't really need that word, did you? Can I have it? And then, when it has a meaning attached to it, I will give it back to you.

Biblical schmiblical

What I am trying to say is that if reality, modern science and your five senses, tell you one thing and a major translation of the Bible tells you something else, go with your senses.

First, the geological succession. I have been wowed by lavabeds, fossil deposits and continental drift. I was also taken to see the Paluxy River dinosaur and human footprints at the same time movie. But I believe in the geological succession and not in biblical creationism.

I was raised to view events in the Middle East through the lense of the ancient scriptures. I believe in a peace process. I was raised to believe in the superiority of one race over another, one class above another, of middle class status as a blessing from God for being productive members of society.

Whether it is biblical counseling, biblical creationism, biblical archeology or biblical marriages, faith healing or whatever; if it elevates the ancient text above what we know to be true from evidence in front of our very eyes, God will call us to account for that. God has no reward for the parents that pray and do not take their child to the hospital. God has no reward for the wife who obeys her husband and lives with depression and misery. God has no reward for those who use prophecy to predict present day events in the Middle East..

Close Encounters by Guerrero

I am sure that there will be many of us who will feel sad reading this. This is what Close Encounters says,

Egalitarian marriages are often more intimate than traditional marriages. Most egalitarian marriages are deep and true friendships, as well as romances. Emotionally bonded spouses are likely to achieve equality in their relationships. Research conducted in Scandinavia by Thagaard (1977) showed that "close emotional ties between spouses are linked to the interpretation of the relationship in terms of equality. The perception of equality is based on the ability to influence the relationship beginning with one's values" (p. 373).

Aida and Falbo (1991) found that partners in egalitarian marriages used fewer dominant power strategies than partners in traditional marriages, perhaps because they could influence each other without using power plays. When they want to influence each other, partners in equal, independent relationships use more diverse and egalitarian influence strategies than do traditional couples (Witteman & Fitzpatrick, 1986)

Partners in traditional, unequal couples, in contrast, are more likely to use blatant power strategies such as verbal aggresson and less likely to use compliance-gaining strategies (Witteman & Fitspatrick, 1986). They are also less likely to engage in open communication.

.....

Among couples with troubled marriages, inequality is likely to be associated with depression symptoms in the less powerful partner (Bagarozzi, 1990). Even people in troubled marriages who have an equal power structure are less likely to have severe mental or emotional problems. Halloran (1998) suggested that inequality in close relationships is a cause of both debression and low-quality marriages.

Close Encounters. Laura K. Guerrero, Peter A. Andersen, Walid A. Afifi

Greek and Hebew Reader's Bible

There is a new and very smooth Greek and Hebrew hypertext online Bible thanks to John Dyer. Click on the Bible reference and you can type directly on top of it in an unobtrusive dialogue box. Nifty. Mouseover any word for a definition.

Each word is linked to its Strong's number and a definition from Thayer's lexicon, 1886. Its a beautiful resource for general reading, but it must be noted that the lexicon is dated. Here is a post by Hall Harris at Bible.org which mentions the Thayer's lexicon. The site which used to be available at Zhubert was linked into the Liddell Scott Jones lexicon at Perseus for some time. I love sites like this and I do use them, but I like to know which lexicon I am using and what it represents. Many thanks to John Dyer for a beautiful application for learning Greek!

Anger as a resource

A commenter writes,

Suzanne, you are mischaracterizing Love and Respect! Emerson Eggerichs does not claim that John Gottman argues in favor of a wife’s submission. What Emerson does claim is that the Bible tells a wife to submit to her husband. It then follows that if the husband has final authority, it is contemptuous of the wife (i.e., disrespectful) to fail to submit to that authority.

Its true that Gottman is not arguing in favour of the wife's submission. In fact, Gottman, seems to be saying something rather different.

In one study that Gottman and Krokoff described, the interaction of couples at home, as well as in the laboratory, also was studied. They found that a set of marital interaction patterns related to happiness and positive interaction in the home concurrently, but were predictive of deterioration longtitudinally. In particular, an agreeable and compliant wife was dangerous for improvement in marital happiness. It seemed that it is necessary for disagreements to be aired in a marriage, and that is usually the role of the wife in this society. ...

In fact, we were led to suggest that anger is a resource for the long-term improvement of the marriage, particularly the wife's anger. ...

Gottman and Krokoff (1989) suggested that positive verbal behavior and compliance expressed by wives may be functional in the short run, but problematic in the long run. What Predicts Divorce? page 131

Women in the Biblioblogs

I'd like to share a few biblioblogs which post on women of the Bible. Claude Mariottini often has excellent posts on women of the Hebrew Bible. I think you would enjoy this one on Deborah and Queen Hatshepsut's Perfume.

James Getz of Ketuvim has a post on Women Nazirites. Dave Warnock mentions that Angela Shier-Jones thinks we need more women engaging in theology.

Her.meneutics is a new blog for women at Christianity Today. HT Evangelical Village. Cynthia Nielsen completes a four part series on Paul and Slavery. She concludes,

Each new generation of Christian thinkers and activists must confront the particular moral and ethical issues of their day, which requires wisdom, seeking truth wherever it can be found (whether in divine revelation or elsewhere), and instruction from the Holy Spirit working through his people in the context of the church, “not by appeal to a previous blueprint by Jesus [or the New Testament writers] for the church.”[7] Such an approach requires wisdom, which is, of course, never easy but always worth the struggle.

To the question, should Christians today actively seek to eradicate slavery-the practice of reifying human beings and reducing them to the status of property-I answer with a resounding “yes.” For the Christian today, I see no moral imperatives in Scripture compelling support for the institution of slavery. Just as Paul called the Christian communities of his day to live out its kingdom values, we too must live and act in such a way that challenges the injustices of society. Our historical and cultural situation is of course different from that of Paul and the early church. Nonetheless, the Church would do well to reflect on Paul’s subversive strategies, to recall Scotus’s condemnation of slavery, and to work towards developing a position in the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Pope John Paul II, in which the enslavement of human beings is once and for all condemned as an “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum) act.[8] The faith and eschatological-ly grounded hope of our African American brothers and sisters serve as an exemplar for all Christians of striving for justice and standing for the dignity of all human beings. Will we follow with an appropriate response of (active) love?

Edith Humphrey, a Canadian theologian, has written And I turned to See the Voice. Linda MacCammon has published Liberating the Bible: A guide for the Curious and Perplexed.

Dorothy Peters, of Trinity Western University, has a blog. Here is an excerpt from a recent entry, The Delivering God: Midwife or Labouring Mother,

We might be excused for having overlooked God-as-Mother language in the Bible. Translators frequently make the more “sensible” interpretative choices from the range of possibilities available to them. A most remarkable example of this is found in the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, written right before Moses’ death and taught by Moses to the Israelites. Here, the children of Israel are imagined collectively as a “child” with God as their parent.

In the Song of Moses, the more gender-specific “He suckled him” or “He nursed him” (32:13b) is translated in the NIV as the more generic “He nourished him,” which is something either a father or mother could do. This interpretative translation is certainly a logical one. “He suckled him” strikes the modern ears strangely since males are not physically equipped to nurse babies! Yet all other forms of this Hebrew verb in the Old Testament are expressed and translated appropriately as the nursing of human or animal young. In the Song of Moses, too, the picture is clearly of God who nurses his children from the bounty of his creation.

Carolyn McCulley on Elizabeth Cady Stanton

On Women Boldly Praying, Carolyn McCulley writes,

The earliest feminists largely were also opposed to marriage. As one leading 19th-century feminist wrote: “It is in vain to look for the elevation of woman, so long as she is degraded in marriage. … I feel that this whole question of woman’s rights turns on the point of the marriage relation.” Though she was a mother of seven who was married for nearly 50 years, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was vocal in her low opinion of marriage—a perspective that shaped feminist thinking through the next 150 years.

It is not in my awareness that early feminists largely opposed marriage. Let's look at what Elizabeth Cady Stanton said,

It is vain to look for the elevation of woman so long as she is degraded in marriage. I say, it is a sin, an outrage on our holiest feelings to pretend that anything but deep, fervent love and sympathy constitutes marriage. The right idea of marriage is at the foundation of all reform.

It is not being married which degrades a woman. I am not against marriage. I am against women being degraded in marriage. Can anyone help me out here? Which early feminists were against marriage. I can't post on the site where I found this. I would hope that someone would be alerted to my question.

I am aware that Stanton called marriage "slavery" and "legalized prostitution." However, it seems that the extreme of her position was that a woman ought to be able to escape a violent marriage and take her children with her. She deplored the inequity of the wife's legal position in marriage. She depicts the woman who is dragged by the hair across the floor, kicked and pounded in front of the children. Personally, I find much sympathy in her writing.

I am sad that a published author like McCulley would provide such a misleading charaterization of the early feminists.

Equal Partnership in Marriage

I came across an LDS website which uses Gottman's materials extensively to build equal partnership relationships. This is their summary of an equal partnership marriage,

Benefits of Equal Partnership

An equal partnership benefits marriages as a whole and benefits husbands and wives individually.
Happier marriages. Equal partnership fosters closeness between husband and wife, resulting in a stronger and happier marriage. Spouses feel better about themselves and each other, which makes them more likely to share their thoughts and feelings. This greater emotional intimacy leads to greater physical intimacy, an important element of a happy marriage. Couples with an equal partnership also report more stability in their marriage, less conflict, less dependency, and less resentment. Researcher John Gottman found that husbands who accept their wives’ influence are four times less likely to divorce or have an unhappy marriage.

Benefits to men. Men benefit emotionally from equal partnership because there is greater openness and they feel better about their marriage. They also benefit from the greater physical intimacy that comes with equal partnership. Physical intimacy improves physical health and reduces stress. Men in happy marriages also are more productive at work because they are less distracted by concerns at home.

Benefits to women. The closer communication and emotional intimacy in an equal partnership greatly benefit women. Research shows that having an equal say in decision making is the most important contributor to wives’ perception of their marriages as happy and satisfying. Wives are happier when their husbands appreciate them for the work they do in the home and when their husbands are copartners in home matters. They feel better about themselves, are less angry or depressed, feel their relationship is more fair, and are more happy with their marriage.

I am still puzzled at how Gottman's research has been used by Eggerichs to support hierarchy in marriage. If this is the case, then any advice that the wife does not need equal say is deliberately teaching unhappiness in marriage. The husband needs equal say also, BTW.

A Two Book Christian

I have been concerned that the marriage advice found in Love and Respect incorporates social science into its framework by reshaping the essential message of that science. The highly respected work of Gottman and Murray has been represented as supporting the hierarchical model of marriage. A literal interpretation of the Bible is set down as the standard and any science that is mentioned has a secondary role as supporting evidence. This can be similar to teaching young earth creationism.

The reason for this is explained in the following description of biblical counseling, THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE IN COUNSELING:

A belief in Biblical inerrancy entails an affirmation of Scripture’s sufficiency for understanding and resolving the non-physical problems of man. Counseling that is truly Christian must be Christ-centered, church-centered, and Bible-based. Various contemporary approaches to counseling question the sufficiency of Scripture, namely the two-book, the no-book, and the filtering device approaches. All three join in affirming that the traditional biblical resources for dealing with man’s problems are not enough. They fail to take into account, however, the finiteness of man’s knowledge, the depravity of human nature, and the sufficiency of Scripture. Psalm 19:7-11, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and 2 Peter 1:2-7 affirm clearly the sufficiency of Scripture and Christ in dealing with man’s problems. Secular psychological principles are unnecessary and may even be harmful in trying to understand and help people.

This definition of biblical counseling explains that the "two book" approach is rejected because it does not accord with the sufficiency of scripture.

I was raised in a Victorian style home among the Plymouth Brethren. We lived and breathed scripture. But we were a "two book" Christian family. We believed in a Copernican Cosmology, that the earth revolved around the sun, we believed in modern medecine, we believed in the geological succession. We did not believe in the sufficiency of scripture when antibiotics were needed, when surgery was required, when fossils were examined, and when the night sky was the object of comtemplation. Members of our family studied physics, geology and astronomy.

I am sorry to see that Christian counseling has become a "one book" affair. If you don't deny your family the benefits of modern medecine why would you deny them the benefits of a modern understanding of the psychology?

Two sad things

I have been reading the news and blogposts about how marital rape is supported by the law in Afghanistan. HT Kurk and Jim. I also received an email from a woman leader who told me the story of her experience with marital rape.

I know that in the west women are protected by law against any assault of her partner. We live in a time of unprecedented protection and provision. I am overhwelmingly grateful for this every day, that I live in a western country in this day and age, in a country where the laws have been influenced and shaped by the participation of women. I just want to say that I know how fortunate I am to live in the time and place that I do. I am not an ungrateful wretch. (wench)

But here is a real story. About 15 years ago a woman came to me and told me how she had gone to the elders of our church and told them how she was raped in front of her kids. The elders told her to be more nurturing and bake pies, etc. One of those elders was a provincial court judge. This was in Canada. Fortunately the woman's doctor supported this woman in court and the story has proper ending for her.

I would like to think that the spiritual leaders of the west would want a place beside the legislators in upholding the equal dignity of women. It makes me sad to think that although the laws have given women the opportunity to experience the dignity of being human, many Christian leaders exert their influence in the opposite direction.

This is a disservice to women in other countries, where the spiritual leaders there can point to spiritual leaders in the west and prove that a true Christian woman must also submit. Does the preaching of submission in North America have a detrimental affect on the condition of women in other countries? I wonder.

practical submission

What exactly do people mean by complementarian and hierarchical marriages? This has been hacked to death theoretically. But it is pretty simple to find a practical guide to this lifestyle these days. I have found two recently.

First, on Boundless, in this post, the implication is that the husband decides -

• how many children the wife bears
  
• whether to home school
• whether the wife works
• what church they attend
• where they live
• what house to buy
• how to invest
  
• what kind of medical treatment a dying child should have
• and so on

Mark Driscoll confirms most things on this list in his sermon on marriage and women. Naturally it isn't much of a marriage if the wife makes all these decisions on her own either. That is no better. There has to be mutual responsibility and give and take.

I don't think that the church uses scripture in any way to say that these decisions belong to the wife alone. So, in my view, within the Christian community, there are only two major positions. Either option one, these things need to be decided by mutually respectful agreement; or option two, the husband has the right to override the wife and make the decision by himself. I don't see a third major option.

So, my interest in this is how the Bible is being used to support option two, where the husband has "final say."

If there were a teaching which made the wife supreme over the husband, and if it were supported by the Bible, then I would be concerned about that too. I understand the difficulty for husbands when the reproductive capacity of their wife is simply denied them, that is, if she refuses sexual relations, refuses to have children although this was previously a mutual understanding, or she refuses to live with her husband. In these cases, I believe it is better to divorce. That's just my opinion. But I don't think a lifetime of suffering for either husband or wife is God-honouring.

In this summary, I view the complementarian marriage, the hierarchical marriage and the traditional marriage as variations on a theme. I am not concerned about how many chldren a family have, whether they home school, or whether the wife works. The concern is about who has the right to make these decisions.

There is more and more on the internet on this issue all the time. I'll mention a few who write on this issue.

Waneta Dawn
Kathryn Joyce
Quivering Daughters
No longer quivering
Sovereign Grace Survivors
Because It Matters
Christian Coalition against Domestic Abuse

In addition to this there is the "leaving the fold" phenomenon as Christians simply move from faith to agnosticism. There is some thoughtful writing here that I will link to in future.

The way I see my part is that I wish to show how the arguments for a hierarchical marriage are constructed by fallible humans by misusing both scripture texts and modern scientific research. I do not believe that either one of these should be used to influence or coerce a woman into accepting subordination.

A new theology

In this article by Amy Benfer a new theology is mentioned. It is a "liberation" theology which exists within the literalist framework. Amy writes,

The women Joyce interviews -- all of whom were abused -- reject the idea that it is their wifely duty to stay with an abusive husband, but still believe it is their role to submit to "male authority" in the wider role of the church. And while Saddleback, for example, proffers a sort of "helplessness before Biblical mandates," claiming to be unable to pinpoint an exact quote where God says it's OK to leave the guy who beats you, these women have dug into the Bible and come back with what they claim are divine blessings to DTMFA.

"A Bible-believing Christian woman needs a biblical argument for leaving a dangerous marriage because she loves God and wants to obey the Bible," says Barbara Roberts, author of "Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion." "Her scriptural dilemma can only be solved by applying and properly interpreting more scripture to counterbalance and correct her unbalanced emphases and misunderstandings."

What’s more, this new scholarship may give women an argument when confronted with the condescension of pastors who wish to forgive them for the "sin" of divorcing their abusive husband. There's undoubtedly a perverse kind of rebellion to a woman writer creating new liberation theology within a framework of female submission, an activity that sounds very much like the kind of thing church leaders and intellectuals do. Let's hope that Rick Warren takes some time out to give it a read.

A good example of this kind of theology is found on the blog of a frequent commenter here. She writes liberation theology for women under the title A Wife's Submission.