mother of all living

Google books has just made Julia Smith's Bible available again, to fully search and even to download. The company removed it for some time just after I'd posted it was available.

Here is Smith's translation of Genesis 3:20,

And Adam will call his wife's name Life, for she was the mother of all living.

Smith calls her translating "literal." Would you agree that "Life" is a good and a literal translation for what usually is rendered "Eve"?

***********

This is a post from Kurk who has also written recently on True Women and feminism. Scroll back and read through his recent blogging. Lots of food for thought.

I am in a bit of a slowdown here. As Mollie describes, sometimes life just gets a little hectic. Among the million other things that went wrong this week, my computer crashed so posting will be short.

request re authentein

This is a request post. I too find authentein to be of limited interest. But someone asked me about this. In my opinion the lengthy discussion of the syntax of 1 Tim. 2:12 is of limited interest because it cannot be proven that authentein could have a positive connotation. No one has shown that it could refer to using godly authority as a leader.

I think it is important to point out the careful nuancing on this issue by Kostenberger. First he writes,

That conclusion, in short, is that the expression “or” (oude) in 1 Tim 2:12 joins two expressions that are positive, “teaching” and “having or exercising authority.” This means that Paul, when saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (TNIV), did not merely speak out against women teaching false doctrine or women lording it over men (while saying it was OK for men to do so?!?). No, Paul did not want women even to engage in the kind of teaching or exercise of authority that was appropriate if exercised by qualified men in the church (see, e.g., 1 Tim 3:2; 5:17).

Wayne then comments,

It is true that context determines whether some verbs have a positive or negative connotation. But there are many examples in the lexicon of English, as well as other languages, where some verbs are intrinsically positive or negative. Lexicography is one of my areas of focus as a linguist, and semantic compositional analysis and other lexical tools show that Payne and you are both right.

Here are some English verbs (or predicate adjectives, which function as verbs in English and as full verbs in many languages) which are intrinsically negative:

wretched
reek
disdain
hate
plagiarize
lie
smells (it has become pejorative)
morose
depressed
deceitful
discrimination
ugly
stupid
kicked the bucket (negative idiom)
pig-headed
stiff-necked
carnal

Cognitive experiments have been conducted in a number of cognitive science departments and subjects consistently have negative connotations for some words and positive connotations for others, in context-free environments.

Kostenberger responds,

Thank you, Wayne, for your comment. While what you say is generally true, in the case of the use of didaskein and authentein in 1 Tim 2:12, in conjunction with oude, it does not appear that these verbs are of such a nature that they transparently and unequivocally convey a positive or negative connotation apart from consultation of the context and syntax of the passage. Also, one ought not to underestimate the possibility that an otherwise positive word is given a negative contextual connotation or vice versa.

It is clear that using an appeal to context one can build a case that women were being asked not to do something that men should not do either. After all, women aren't supposed to argue either but only the men were asked not to argue. Ben Witherington makes that case here. My one disagreement with his post is that we now know that there is no evidence that authentein means to have authority in a good way. There is no evidence for that.

If authentein has a negative connotation then no amount of writing about the syntax and context can undo that.

For me 1 Timothy 2 is a passage which appears to apply to a situation for which we do not have the background. We do not know what the men were doing or what the women were doing. There is no injunction against women being involved in godly leadership.

Let's flush that out a little

This is too funny. Here are bits and pieces of a forum thread.

*******************

A - I think we would all agree that women are the weaker vessels wouldn't we?

B - (choke)

C - scripture doesn’t say so.
says we are to treat women as the weaker vessel.
i think.

A - you may be right, C

A - actually "treat them with respect as the weaker partner"...1 Peter 3:7

B - weaker as in our muscles aren't as strong?

C - as being heirs together of the grace of life

D - Husbands are to dwell with their wives according to knowledge (gnosis) giving honor unto the wife AS the weaker (more unfirm) vessel. etc. ....

E - Weaker as in lessor authority.

B - that's weak.

D - It's not about authority. Its about the vessel/instrument. Skeuos = instrument, IOW, the physical body.

A - I think you need to flush that out a little more so it makes sense

*************

Anyway, some people who comment here are in that thread. And I have discovered a truly wonderful blog in the process.

Reactions to True Woman etc.

Dave often posts on gender issues in ways that are highly supportive of women. In this recent post he tracks some of the action on this topic. Follow the links to Henry's web and Aristotle's Feminist Subject.

And yes, I am taking a sabbatical, possibly permanent, from the compegal blog. I see no reason to argue for the equality of women. It must be assumed. I simply wish to point out the obvious, there are many who do not believe in the equality of women. I want their position recognized for what it is.

take care of ...

The books that I use to teach beginner readers include carefully selected words and phrases for the first year. These are common expressions like "come here," "where is .." and "is asleep." But one of the very first more complex expressions is "take care of." This is a concept that is fundamental to human life. We must take care of our children, our parents and each other. We take care of pets, and cars, and houses. It is the basic building block of life.

Taking care of is not a sexually defined activity. It belongs to all of us, to take care of and to be cared for. There is no male way to care for others, and no female way to care for others, at least according to the Bible. It is true that we all have our culturally bound and individually shaped ways of caring for others. We all care for others in ways that we can, according to our strengths. But there is no one specific way to do this depending on gender. Here are two stories from Luke 10.

Thanks to Scott for giving me the idea for this post.

"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"

"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."

will drive people away

Larry wrote,

Conversely, in my culture here in BC people typically would be repulsed by anyone who would link patriarchal teachings with the message of Jesus. It will drive people away from Jesus rather than towards him.

Does he know that Bruce Ware spoke to the pastors of Vancouver last year on authority and submission within marriage? Granted, Bernice Gerard beats out Packer by a long shot in the media.

Spark and tinder

I often wonder what keeps me blogging. Sometimes I think it is sheer hypographia hypergraphia and other times "survivor's guilt." I have survived patriarchy - in a manner of speaking - and I agonize over others. The fact is that the influence still touches me closely in some ways, and not at all in others. But, for the sake of this blog, yes, I still have connections and concerns that I cannot leave behind.

So, it is vital for me to understand the roots of the Ware hypothesis regarding power and authority, or the Wallace hypothesis on Junia. I really like to wrap my brain around it so I can be intellectually responsible in rejecting patriarchy.

I will cite a few blogs and comments made about me in the last few days, just so you can see how up and down it has been.

John said,

Any religious formation that genders particular functions incurs your implacable wrath. Thus you cannot but hate what traditional Judaism does to women, traditional Catholics and Orthodox idem, not to mention traditional and neo-traditional evangelicals (your own background).

I protested that I had never blogged about Catholics, Orthodox or Judaism, at least not in any negative context, and John deleted me and blocked me from posting on his blog forever. Period. He also took the time to say that I should not preach the myth of gender equality.

Jim asked why women aren't attending the biblioblogger dinners, and I suggest that there might be a good reason and he responded,

the onus is completely on them [women]. they aren’t being slighted- they are slighting others with what can only rightly be called childishness.

But he takes up my case here and states,

Women are equal to men in all respects notwithstanding witless and chauvinistic misreadings of the biblical text.

So I hope that Jim tells John that women are equal in all respects!

In the meantime, I have been labeled one of the most fascinating bloggers and one of the most dangerous bloggers. To round it off, I received another comnent of the kind that just blows me away,

what has impressed me the most is that you have done all these things in a non-polemical manner

Ah ha! Little does he know. I am both spark and tinder. Hold your breath.

Okay, I posted this because someone emailed me a while ago to keep him posted about my romps. Infotainment. (PS I don't mean to be disrespectful of anyone. I am just keeping my spirits up.)

Payne and Kostenberger

Peter has sent me the link for the article by Philip Payne, to which Andreas Kostenberger has responded in this post. If you want to keep up with authentein you will want to read the article and Dr. K's post. In the comments Wayne asks him about authentein and he responds,

in the case of the use of didaskein and authentein in 1 Tim 2:12, in conjunction with oude, it does not appear that these verbs are of such a nature that they transparently and unequivocally convey a positive or negative connotation apart from consultation of the context and syntax of the passage.

Let me suggest that the secret is out. These words do not "transparently and unequivocally convey" much of anything. It is all in the context. However, if one can demonstrate that didaskein can be negative, and authentein was only negative, then that does rather tilt the data away from it being used to restrict women from doing something that men can do.

Dr. Kostenberger likes to quote feminist scholars, saying,

My findings regarding the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the first edition of Women in the Church were widely accepted even among feminist scholars (though, of course, they still don’t agree with the book’s overall thrust on other grounds).

Allow me to let you in on a secret. Some feminist scholars, not all, but some, are happy to find fault with the author of 1 Timothy. I do too. Why was he not more clear about what he wanted to say? Dunno. But that doesn't change the facts. One cannot dispose of the facts.

Who is the head here?

Molly is attempting to describe why the submission of a wife to the authority of her husband can be such an intrinsically bad thing. I think this picture says it all. This is how one man sees it. He actually chose this image to demonstrate the following point,

"God created us to complement one another (hence the name of this view). The hammer and nail, mentioned earlier, are both made of metal, but they are designed to do different jobs. Each of these tools are important, essential, and valuable, but distinct; and it’s their complementary differences that make them work best."

This is simply his way of illustrating the relationship between husband and wife. I have to say that this seems pretty realistic to me. Does this image look like a "level playing field" to you?

I know this clouds the issue that anyone can treat someone else like this. Any man, Christian or not, and any woman, Christian or not, can treat another like this.

But, and this is crucial, the church only teaches men to treat women like this, not vice versa. This is what has to stop.

If I admit that this man was just looking for two metal objects that interact, then could I overlook the image he chose? I don't think so. He chose a tool and a passive object. The message is clear. Men have agency and women do not.

But in the secular world the male is a certain shape and the female has her shape, and they go together on more equal terms. I think that is how it goes with plumbing, for example.

Bruce Ware and Augustine

I have to admit that I am cannot put down the permutations of complementarian theology just yet. I have to protect my children, most of all, from thinking that this is historic Christianity. So I write once again on this topic.

Bruce Ware supports his thesis that the Father and Son are in an eternal authority and submission relationship in Father, Son and Holy Spirit (page 80), by citing Augustine,

Augustine affirmed, the distinction of Persons is constituted precisely by the differing relations among them, in part manifested by the inherent authority of the Father and inherent submission of the Son.

And this is the citation from Augustine,

“In the light of this we can now perceive that the Son is not just said to have been sent because the Word became flesh, but that he was sent in order for the Word to become flesh, and by his bodily presence to do all that was written. That is, we should understand that it was not just the man who the Word became that was sent, but that the Word was sent to become man. For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.”*

Ware then comments on this quote,

If the "Son" is sent by the "Father," and if the "Son" comes to do the will of the "Father," does it not stand to reason that God wishes by this language to indicate something of the authority and submission that exists within the relationships of the members of the immanent trinity?

And this is how Ware claims that Christ is equal to the Father in "power" but less than the Father in "authority." I am sure that anyone who knows Latin will be aware that "power" and "authority" were, in fact, the same word in Latin - potestas.

Therefore, what Augustine said was,

For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power (authority) or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.”

Bruce Ware, as president of ETS, must believe that Christ is equal in power to God, but denies that Christ is equal in authority to God. From Jerome until the RSV, "power" and "authority," or their Latin equivalent, were considered either the same word or synonyms. It is, then, impossible for Ware to claim continuity with traditional theology. It appears that Augustine believed that the Son was from the Father, but equal in authority to God.

This citation from Augustine is also found here as,

He was not sent in respect to any inequality of power, or substance, or anything that in Him was not equal to the Father; but in respect to this, that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son; for the Son is the Word of the Father, which is also called His wisdom.

Clearly, Augustine is saying that the Son has no inequality with the Father, not in power nor in authority, nor in substance, nor in anything in him. And so it should be between the sexes, that women are not unequal to men in substance or in authority.

Here is the citation in Latin,

Secundum hoc iam potest intellegi non tantum ideo dici missus filius quia uerbum caro factum est, sed ideo missus ut uerbum caro fieret et per praesentiam corporalem illa quae scripta sunt operaretur, id est ut non tantum homo missus intellegatur quod uerbum factum est, sed et uerbum missum ut homo fieret quia non secundum imparem potestatem uel substantiam uel aliquid quod in eo patri non sit aequale missus est, sed secundum id quod filius a patre est, non pater a filio. Verbum enim patris est filius, quod est sapientia eius dicitur.

I can't link to Lewis and Short directly, but this is the meaning of potestas.

• Political power, dominion, rule, empire, sovereignty
• Magisterial power, authority, office, magistracy
• have lawful authority and jurisdiction

The fact is that Ware's teaching that God is supreme in authority, (Father, Son and Holy Spirit page 131) over Christ cannot be reconciled with traditional theology. There is more to this - tomorrow.

*St. Augustine, The Trinity, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 5 of The Works of St. Augustine (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1991) IV. 27 (italics added).

Bruce Ware vs. Kevin Giles

Could Our Savior Have Been a Woman?

Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son submit to His Father

The Son - equal in power but not in authority?

I have for quite some time, been following an argument in recent complementarian circles regarding the authority of the Son. Bruce Ware, in his book, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (page 152) wrote,

The Father, then, as supreme authority over even his own Son and the Spirit, is the one to whom we gladly, but humbly, address our prayers.

However, the Evangelical Theological Society, of which Ware is president, has a doctrinal basis statement which declares,

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

Denny Burk blogged about this recently, and I asked a series of questions, which went unanswered there. However, I am grateful that John Starke has taken the issue up under Suzanne McCarthy and the Son’s Submission to the Father.

John writes,

So, to express that there is a difference in authority but not in power between the Son and the Father is not unthinkable. McCarthy argues the opposite. She wonders how the Son can be “equal in power and glory, but unequal in authority, and how is this derived from the Scripture?”

It is true, I did ask that question. But the focus of my interest is on the English translations that were prevalent at the time that the doctrinal basis of ETS was formulated, I am guessing in 1949. If we take John 17:2 as one example, previous translations of the Bible do not differentiate between the "power" of the Son, and the "authority" of the Son.

What if those who formulated the doctrinal statement of the ETS actually intended to say that Christ was equal to God in exousia, since exousia, the Greek word most often translated as "authority" is also often translated as "power" in the KJV and RSV.

καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. (KJV)

since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. (RSV)

We can see the same thing in Latin, German or French translations of the Bible. One must face the reality that theologians like Augustine, Luther and Calvin did not argue for a clear difference between "power" and "authority."

selon que tu lui as donné pouvoir sur toute chair, afin qu'il accorde la vie éternelle à tous ceux que tu lui as donnés. (Louis Segond)

Gleichwie du ihm Macht hast gegeben über alles Fleisch, auf daß er das ewige Leben gebe allen, die du ihm gegeben hast. (Luther)

sicut dedisti ei potestatem omnis carnis ut omne quod dedisti ei det eis vitam aeternam" (Vulgate)

However, we can see that since the NIV, 1973, - a translation supposedly of dynamic equivalence - "power" and "authority" have diverged in English in accordance with the underlying Greek.

For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. (NIV)

since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” (ESV)

It seems clear to me that any statement that Christ is less than God in authority, while equal to him in power, can only have taken on common acceptance subsequent to 1973. But the Evangelical Theological Society has been around since 1949. I would be very interested in knowing if their doctrinal basis has shifted since 1949, and if most members realize that Christ is now not equal in authority to God, but only in power.

I always like to know what Bible translation a theological statement is based on. Curiously, many people cite theologians without referencing the Bible version or translation on which they are basing their theology.

I hope John Starke will take on this puzzle and perhaps find a clear article delineating when exactly Christ became less than God in authority, while retaining equality in power.

The Mini Saga

I often don't respond to memes but this one was a challenge I could not resist. Tell a complete saga in 50 words, no more and no less. I composed it while drifting off to sleep. What better to count than words.

Don't drink! Don't smoke! Don't dance! He went to the hospital and kissed his sister and cried. He took a taxi to the airport. Two years later he phoned for his mother's visa card and bought a ticket home. His sister bought a dress. Now they take dance lessons together.

A sombre trio

Here are two articles I read today and another one from October that suggests the same premise. The first is Nujood Ali, 10 years old, and Yemen's most famous divorcée.

Women of the Year Fund Honorees

by Carla Power

The second is Facial acid attacks in Pakistan. And the third is from Wade Burleson's blog in which Wade writes a special post for Miss Tartar of the CBMW gender blog.

****************************

Our Southern Baptist women need to understand that nowhere in Scripture does God order a woman to be subordinate to a man because of gender. Let me repeat: There is not one scrap of evidence - not one jot or tittle of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures - that should ever cause a woman to feel she is subordinate to a man because of her gender. To militate against a woman's subordination to a man is not feminism. It is respecting the equality of the man and the woman.

For my part, I wish Miss Tarter was more like Elizabeth Keckley. Elizabeth, an African-American seamstress for the Lincoln White House, was born into slavery in 1830. Her story is an incredible journey from slavery to the White House. Without comment, I will simply encourage you to read Keckley's own words as she describes her spirit while being beaten by a very poor North Carolina Presybyterian minister in 1850. At the time of this beating, Miss Keckly was the same age as Miss Tarter. She had been given to the minister as a slave gift, the minister and his wife being unable themselves to afford any slaves. Miss Keckley was unsure as to the reason for the beating described below, but believes it was because she fell asleep while rocking the Presbyterian minister's small child.

"My master was a good-hearted man, but was influenced by his wife. It was Saturday evening, and while I was bending over the bed, watching the baby that I had just hushed into slumber, Mr. Bingham came to the door and asked me to go with him to his study. Wondering what he meant by his strange request, I followed him, and when we had entered the study he closed the door, and in his blunt way remarked, "Lizzie, I am going to flog you." I was thunderstruck, and tried to think if I had been remiss in anything. I could not recollect of doing anything to deserve punishment, and with surprise exclaimed: "Whip me, Mr. Bingham! what for?"

"No matter," he replied, "I am going to whip you, so take down your dress this instant."

Recollect, I was eighteen years of age, was a woman fully developed, and yet this man coolly bade me take down my dress. I drew myself up proudly, firmly, and said, "No, Mr. Bingham, I shall not take down my dress before you. Moreover, you shall not whip me unless you prove the stronger."

My words seemed to exasperate him. He seized a rope, caught me roughly, and tried to tie me. I resisted with all my strength, but he was the stronger of the two, and after a hard struggle succeeded in binding my hands and tearing my dress from my back. Then he picked up a rawhide, and began to ply it freely over my shoulders. With steady hand and practised eye, he would raise the instrument of torture, nerve himself for a blow, and with a fearful force the rawhide descended upon the quivering flesh. It cut the skin, raised great welts, and the warm blood trickled down my back. Oh God! I can feel the torture now - the terrible, excruciating agony of those moments. I did not scream; I was too proud to let my tormentor know what I was suffering. I closed my lips firmly, that not even a groan might escape from them, and I stood like a statue while the keen lash cut deep into my flesh. As soon as I was released, stunned with pain, bruised and bleeding . . . I exclaimed "Master, what I done that I should be punished so severely?"

I would not put off thus. "What have I done? I will know why I have been flogged."

I saw his cheeks flush with anger, but I did not move. Without an explanation, he seized a chair, struck me, and felled me to the floor. I rose, bewildered, almost dead with pain, crept to my room, dressed my bruised arms and back as best I could and then lay down, but not to sleep. No, I could not sleep, for I was suffering mental as well as bodily torture. My spirit rebelled against the unjustness that had been inflicted upon me, and though I tried to smother my anger and to forgive those who had been so cruel to me, it was impossible.

The next morning I was more calm, and I believe that I could then have forgiven everything for the sake of one kind word. But the kind word was never proffered, and it may be possible, that I grew somewhat wayward and sullen. Though I had faults, I know now, as I felt then, harshness was the poorest inducement for the correction of them. It seems that (the pastor) had pledged himself to the Mrs. to subdue what he called "my stubborn pride."

On Friday following the Saturday on which I was so savagely beaten, I was again directed to come to the study. On entering the room I found him prepared with a new rope and a new cowhide. I told him that I was ready to die, but that he could not conquer me. In struggling with him I bit his finger severely, when he seized a heavy stick and beat me with it in a shameful manner.

The following Thursday, again he tried to conquer me, but in vain. We struggled, and he struck me many savage blows. As I stood bleeding before him, nearly exhausted with his efforts, he burst into tears, and declared that it would be a sin to beat me any more. My suffering at last subdued his hard heart; he asked my forgiveness, and afterwards was an altered man. He who preached the love of Heaven, who glorified the precepts and examples of Christ, who expounded the Holy Scriptures Sabbath after Sabbath from the pulpit refused to whip me any more."

The question is whether it is better to defy or to submit. Only the one who suffers the consequences can make that decision. Not the pastor or the theologian. Sometimes there is a place for rebellion. But the one who suffers must decide.

a bucket of water
poured out on the ground
an egg broken
for baking
a basket of berries
crushed for jam

i cannot stop the words from filling this space
for you to know that the pain is not something
you should keep inside

hearing laughter
and giggles
in my kitchen
is also part of the day

but what is yours
are you alone in the house
responsible for little ones
responsible for no one

what is your pain
everyone

i will stop being woman and
become a human being

here i tip the contents out
that i hope others share
not some private event
not what has happened

but what is real to all of us
we suffer from being human

Kenneth Bailey on Women Elders

There has been a heated discussion on complegalitarian regarding women elders. It is clear to me that gender-based leadership should go the way of slavery, dictatorships and lack of proper dental work.

However, for those who wish to discuss this more objectively, there is Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View by Kenneth Bailey. He writes,

We will examine 4:12-5:2 as a unit which focuses on Timothy and the presbuteroi. Once again the presbuteroi are of two kinds. Paul first mentions the elders who have ordained Timothy (4:12-16). Granted, these verses focus on Timothy’s duties as a leader of worship; but the context is that of Timothy’s ordination by elders who are not criticized.

He then discusses the difficult elders (5:1-2). These are obviously people whom Timothy is sorely tempted to attack. He is told, ‘Don’t do it’. Treat the presbutero like a father, he is advised, and the presbuteras (plural) like mothers. Thus the two topics of ‘helpful elders’ and ‘difficult elders’ appear in both paragraph 4 (4:17-20) and paragraph 2 (4:12-5:2). In each case the good elders are mentioned first and the difficult elders second. Thus paragraphs 2 and 4 can be seen as parallel discussions of ministry.

If this is true, then the presbuteras in 5:2 are women elders ordained and engaged in ministry in Timothy’s congregation. The NRSV places ‘or an elder, or a presbyter’ as a marginal note to presbutero in 5:1 but curiously not to presbuteras in 5:2.

He summaries his observations with this comment,

In summary, the NT has clear cases of women disciples, teachers, prophets and deacons/ministers. We have near certitude in perceiving Junia to be a female apostle. It is possible to see female elders in 1 Tim. 5:2. Thus women appear on nearly all, if not all, levels of leadership in the NT Church.

He is tentative about viewing women as "elders" in Timothy 5. However, I am entirely with Bailey in agreeing that women in the NT had all the influence of leadership and intiative implied in the word "leader." There is no difference in the design of women which excludes them from the function of leadership. I do not believe that the doctrine that "women are not designed for leadership" is a tenable biblical position.

Contrary to the traditional churches which maintain male leadership based on a tradition of male priesthood, the complementarian potition attempts to place the reason for the exclusion of women from leadership on the complementary design of women, made explicit in the biblical text. This leads to an attitude of disrespect for women in leadership which counters the biblical record. This also leads complementarians to accuse all who do not hold to their position of being unbiblical, while they are biblical.

While one cannot say that equal participation of women in leadership can be proven from the Bible, we can clearly say that the suitability of women for leadership is clear in the Bible. Therefore, a position which excludes women from leadership based on their design is not biblical and should not be accorded the status of a biblical theology.

Here is Bailey's summary of the biblical positions. In my view, complementarians have chosen #5 to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible.

Faced with both the positives and the negatives, at least five alternatives are available to the reader of the NT.

1. Dismiss the biblical witness as contradictory and thus irrelevant.

2. Take the texts that say ‘yes’ to women as normative and ignore the others.

3. Focus on 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 and overlook the women disciples, teachers, deacons/ministers, prophets, and woman apostle.

4. Conclude that the NT is at loggerheads with itself and that the Church can only choose one biblical view against the other.

5. Look once more at the negative texts to see if their historical settings allow for more unity in the outlook of the NT than we have suspected.

While I do not think that the text of the Bible can be used to prove egalitarianism, I strongly believe that the complementarian position, the exclusion of women from leadership by God's design of woman in creation, is counter scriptural and anti-woman. It affects every single woman on earth and damages her status in her own home.

Myers Briggs and gender differences

Yesterday on Gender Blog, Brent Nelson wrote,

Scientifically, empirically, and experientially we know men and women to be different. Women tend to be more nurturing, better at forming closer relationships and are better than men at encountering life with both sides of their brain. Men tend to do better at abstract thinking – men can focus on singular questions well. Women are more intuitive, sensitive, and insightful than men – in general. Women tend to enjoy the process; men drive to conclusions. Men fixt things, women experience things. Women have more white blood cells and more endurance than men. Men have increased brute strength and higher ability for burst energy.

I was impressed by the energy of his opening sentence. "Scientifically, empirically ..." Curious, I decided to follow some of this up. First, there is a consensus that females are verbal earlier than males. Males have higher brute strength, on average. No, let me rephrase this. This is not at all what scholarship says. I am drifting into the rhetoric of the alienation of the male.

What scholarship says is that men have a "stronger musculature" than women. This is scientific. That men on average participate in violent crime statistics at a higher rate is also true, but needs to be interpreted. So, women are more verbal, men have a stronger musculature, these are genetic gender attributes.

Now for the Meyers-Briggs profile. The conclusions here may be surprising.

Extraversion-Introversion
Extraversion-Introversion differences affect how we deal with the outside world. Extraverts (E) are energized by having interactions with others, and may often speak without thinking something through. They are people of action and present their best abilities to the world. Introverts (I) prefer quiet reflection, and may think about something and never get to the point of telling others. They keep their best skills to themselves, and present their secondary skills to others. Studies estimate that 75% of the population is Extraverted, while only 25% is Introverted.

Sensing-Intuition
Sensing-intuition differences affect how we take in and process data. Sensors (S) gather information through experiences and are practical and orderly. Intuitors (N) gather information and process it in innovative ways and are creative and imaginative. It is estimated that 75% of the population prefer Sensing while only 25% prefer intuition.

Thinking-Feeling
Thinking-Feeling differences affect how we make decisions. Thinkers (T) make decisions objectively and impersonally using logic. Feelers (F) make decisions subjectively and personally based on what they feel is "right". This personality grouping is the only one that shows any gender difference, with male Thinking- Feeling preferences being 60%-40% and female Thinking-Feeling preferences being 40%-60%.

Judging-Perceiving
Judging-Perceiving differences affect how we prefer to live. Judgers (J) like being planned and structured and having things settled and decided. Perceivers (P) like being spontaneous, unstructured, open, and flexible. In the general population, Judging-Perceiving preferences are 55%-45%.

The last strong observable difference is that men are more field-independent than women in terms of learning style. Men are more abstract and women are more concrete. However, this is a an attribute which maay vary more from culture to culture, and by age difference, than by gender. Results have been contradictory here, and the cross-cultural psychologist who I studied with claimed that it was cultural. John Berry, 2002, made a convincing case, claiming that

the usually found gender difference (females relatively more field dependent than males) did not appear in a variety of Inuit nd North American Indian samples. This was interpreted as an outcome of the relatively similar socializtion and other ecological and cultural experiences of boys and girls in these hunter-gatherer societies. page 140

Assessments of male vs female leadership styles also suggest that it is more significant to consider what the majority style is and how the institution is able or not able to adapt to a minority style, rather than consider whether male or female styles are better. Studies show that men and women are able to adapt their leadership styles, and that there are a variety of successful styles. I recommend to you this study on women in the military.

Both men and women leaders can and should develop their non-preferences to become more balanced as leaders. This development requires conscious effort and work. Men and women are not locked into one style of leadership and behavior preventing effectiveness in the workplace. The more serious problem appears to be organizational inflexibility in accommodating dissimilar personality types. In the military, the ISTJ preference type is predominant. Since this is the majority type, discrimination towards other preference types (natural preference types of some women) may lead to self-selection and adaptation, limiting benefits of variance or diversity and creativity critical to a flexible growing organization.

On one last point,

Men fix things, women experience things.

Clearly whoever wrote this line is living in some alternate universe. (Actually I do know women with handy husbands - hmm - but then I also know men with handy wives) Anyway, let me simply link to an important narrative on this topic also published by gender blog - Mr. Fixit strikes again! The story is by Dave Barry, so you are prewarned. I for one, think that he is funny - most of the time. Enjoy!

This and that

Recently, on the Parchment and Pen blog, I was interrogated at some length. I have no intention of revisiting these questions but one of the commenters remarked on how I was only interested in the scriptures as it related to gender issues. This would not be an inaccurate assessment of what I have written about in the bibliosphere.

However, as many other bloggers do, it is fun to give others an insight into the rest of one's life. For example, I don't play in band, to my chagrin.

Here are some of my enduring research interests. First and foremost, is the development of writing systems and literacy as a human technology. In particular, I have studied minority group literacy and how this interacts with the participation in leadership of members of minority groups. This has involved years of research into the way the churches have, and have not, facilitated indigenous leadership in Africa and the First Nations groups in North America.

For the past few years I have spent time considering how electronic communication both fosters and inhibits the participation of those from diverse language and script groups, and those with diverse communication needs, in the wider community.

One of the things that has come out of the blue recently is that I have been asked to give some workshops on how different assistive and augmentative technologies both compare and interact with each other, and how they impact on pedagogy for the learning disabled.

I will have to struggle to come up to snuff on some aspects, whereas, I have in depth experience in other areas. It is a steep learning curve since I have to learn several new programmes in a short period of time, for comparison purposes. The issue is always hardware and tech support, since I need to use my classroom equipment most of the time.

What I am saying is that I have so many thoughts on issues that are going around in the blogosphere and so little time to write them down.

Responding to a request

Recently I had a request for a link to the full PowerPoint presentation by Mary Kassian. It is on her website as GirlsGoneWild.pdf. I am always happy to advertise the artistic efforts of a fellow Canadian.

Here is the intro to her presentation,

Girls have gone wild!

Our culture has produced a whole generation of Jungle Janes – breast-baring, butt-kicking, in-your-face, my-way-or-highway female aggressors. Countering this trend is the biblical image of a beautiful godly woman. Here are “21 Points of Contrast” to help you compare and contrast the two. Download and print the powerpoint outline. Read the Scriptures. Download and complete the 21 Questions. Evaluate whether your personal behavior and ideas are in line with what God deems beautiful or more in line with what he deems beastly. (From Mary’s “Girls Gone Wild” Workshop presented at True Woman 08 in Chicago)

I recommend that you view the full presentation. No, this is not tagged as humour or quirky. This is for those who missed the True Woman conference and want to know what they missed. Quite a way to characterize the opposition, isn't it?

Rescue of Jerusalem

I am enjoying reading The Rescue of Jerusalem reviewed here. I hesitate to comment on the veracity of the theories in this book, but am passionate about the notion that some of the other people groups throughout history be given their due. This book is about the possible role of the black Kushite army in rescuing Jerusalem from the Assyrian army. It is a good read about the little known Kushite period in Egypt.

Authentein in Wolters Part 2

I am going to try and summarize the various meanings of the occurrences of authentein found in Al Wolters article.

I will exclude meanings

- derived from lexicons, as that is considered secondary evidence, not primary.
- 4th century or later
- created for the direct purpose of creating citations of "to have authority" for authentein in order to prove that women should not have leadership positions in the church.
- created to prove that women should have leadership positions in the church.

I will include as many other meanings of the word that I can find in these various studies.

Baldwin's study in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth
Baldwin's study in Women in the Church
Wolter's article
Belleville's article

1) Philodemus. - This has no meaning assigned by Wolters. It is a reconstructed fragment and the notion that authentein was associated with the meaning of "those in authority" was accidental. Whether authentein was in this fragment cannot be firmly established nor its meaning.

2) BGU 1208 - Wolters assigns it no meaning. Baldwin and Grudem in his footnotes assign it the meaning of "compel." Baldwin suggests that here "compel" means to "seek to exercise authority" but without corroborating witness from outside the study. This untranslated fragment has been available on my site for some time but no one has offered to show how the author sought to have authority. It is a private letter about a private quarrel. No legal authority is in view. I record "compel" or "prevail on."

3) Aristonicus Alexandrinus - Wolters suggests "doer" and "speaker." Belleville offers "author" and Baldwin to "instigate."

4) 1 Timothy 2:12 - meaning unassigned

5) Ptolemy Tetrabiblos - Wolters and others concur that it means "dominate" or "control."

6) Moeris Atticista Lexicon Atticum - "have independent jurisdiction"

7) Another reconstructed fragment unfamiliar to me - similar to 5).

8) Origin - Commentary on 1 Corinthians. Origin writes that 1 Tim. 2:12 means that women are not to be leaders of men in the ministry of the word. The difficulty is that this meaning is for the purpose of proving that women cannot be leaders in the church. Origin does not use authentein himself in any other context so we cannot see how he would use the word.

9) Hippolytus, On the End of the World - "lord it over"

That about wraps it up for uses of authenteo before the 4th century. The question is why anyone says it means to have leadership in the church. Clearly Origin carries a lot of weight. Odd duck, that one. We aren't too committed to some of his other beliefs.